I suspect that your teacher has something against the british or he has no idea what he is talking about.the stonker said:
Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
necause in the end the Americans won on the main front and the British where pretty mutch pushed from the books
the British took more beaches on D-Day(but the least heavily defended), halted the goddamn Desert Fox(Rommel) in his tracks using his own tactic in North Africa, Bombed the way for the rest of the army, helped stall the Japanese in mainland Asia until America and Russia could lend a hand, and even then they still supplied half the navy for the sea battles. and don't forget Russia, who could have either won the war for Hitler or for the Allies, as it was on both sides of the war(helped Germany invade Poland), but decided "gassing Jews is wrong, man" the proceeded to beat the ever loving crap out of Germany once the winter hit, capturing one of Hitlers generals during the battle of Stalingrad, who decided to help Russia and the allies when Hitler basically said "come back victorious, in a body bag, or not at all". America did do some things, like providing much of the island invading force in the Pacific and basically ending the battle of Britain, then again, they did kill thousands of civilians indiscriminately for no reason other then "Ther som ov dem dam tojos lol!". so yes, Europe could, in fact, protect itself, just Japan was stupid and attacked us.
I thought it was that he was part of it, but because he was so beloved of the German people that hitler let him kill himself rather than execute him.Totenkopf said:
Ireland doesn't to a huge extent.Totenkopf said:
Imean our President at the time, Dev, he went to the German embassy in Dublin and gave his condolences to them for the death of hitler. And after the war, Ireland was the first country who would play international football with Germany.Which is why, I believe, that the German away colours are green.
Edit: Ooops double post.
I kindly disagree with you on this point: the Soviet Army was completely inadequate to halt the German advance through Poland; for example, during the Polish campaign the Soviet Army lost more than 1000 tanks against a token opponent, mostly thanks to mechanical failures.mkg said:
The Finnish Winter War further proved that the Soviet Army was in a terrible state: the Finnish managed to hold off an opponent 10x bigger in numbers for the entire winter. The Soviet Army lost over 100,000 men in these fights, again against an almost token opponent. Imagine what would've happened If this Soviet Army had to fight the vastly superior German Army.
Both Hitler and Stalin knew the Molotov-Ribbentop treaty wouldn't last the stipulated 10 years (it hardly lasted for 2 years), and both were preparing (to defend against) a German invasion of the Soviet Union. In 1939, neither the German Army or the Soviet Army would've had the strength to win the war: the German Army would've been too small to fight a two-front war, and the Soviet Army would've been slaughtered. One of the main reasons Stalin appointed Molotov as his foreign minister and allowed him to sign the treaty, was because he realised the Soviet Army needed more time to reorganise and re-equip to face the technologically and strategically superior German Army.
And lets not forget that it are the Western Allies fault the Soviets abandoned them: before the Treaty of Munich in 1938, the Soviet Union's policy was, in the event of war, to support the Western Allies and halt those "Fascist Bastards". After 1938, Stalin believed that the Western Allies wouldn't help him If war broke out, so he fired his pro-Western foreign minister Litvinov (which was a Jew as well), and appointed the more pro-German Molotov.
He had had contacts with the German Army Resistance, but he wasn't involved himself in the complot. Rommel believed that the war was lost and should be brought to an end, but not by the assassination of Hitler. He believed that Hitler should've been persuaded to step down and face the consequences of his policies.Death_Korps_Kommissar said:
German tanks were built for war, not snow. Beyond that you're not really making any significant claims- the T-34 was effectively on paper about as effective as a Sherman, and the PIV was a bloody joke. It was an infantry support tank that was mostly built with fighting light armor, at best. It didn't even have a machine operated turret- it was still using an outdated manual crank system.TheRealGoochman said:
Really what the T-34 was supposed to be fighting was something more akin to a Panther or a Tiger. Hamstrung production and shoddy steel quality by the end of the war made that not feasible. The Germans had the best tanks of the war, everyone else really fought more or less with tanks that were on par with each other.
The PPSH was a fine gun, but it stressed durability over, say, accuracy. No one cares how many bullets your gun can spray out when it can't even hit for shit. Meanwhile in the US Thompsons that are technically a generation old at that point still showed people what's what. The Germans had an odd affair with automatic weapons in WW2. Hitler honestly thought that infantry really only needed machine guns, rifles and grenades to win the war. So what you got were cheap guns like the MP40 that, while effective in the loose sense that so long as they could shoot they were good, they were also prone to being shoddy busted POS and other weapons that were just astounding- the KAR was a great bolt action rifle but it was about 30 years too late to be used in such quantities. Just the same the Germans came up with the MP44 which ended up being the precursor to the modern Assault Rifle. Through out the war the Germans came up with a great deal of technology that was superior but either didn't realize what they were sitting on, or ended up being a case of too little too late (The jet engine, for example.)
Its not even that he decided to attack Russia. That's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's the parts where he basically rendered the German army ineffective by making it a massive game of in-fighting that hampered progress and left himself, whom had simply no military expertise, in charge. Some of the absolute worst military decisions of the war fall squarely on Hitler's moronic shoulders.
I mentioned it earlier, but really for the most part at the onset of the war the Germans had the best tanks- Tigers, panthers, and other kittens- but simply didn't have the means to keep up with everyone else as the war dragged on. For the most part the rest of the world fought with tanks that were more or less comparable to one another.
Sub par? No. But then, I don't think it's appropriate to compare anything the Japanese had to anything else, at all. They spent most of the war pressing advantage of numbers against badly equipped, geographically isolated units.
And, again, the Germans used the PPSH over what they had because it was designed for cold weather warfare rather than the European country side as a novelty.
Just as annoying when I hear American's say "Oh the Australian's didn't do anything"
Yeah get fucked, 4SQN of the RAAF, the Ace Pilot here has the highest Plane Kills in World War 1, We hauled arse in New Guenna against the Japanese, Hauled more arse in WW2, Hauled arse in East Timor.
...Oh and we're currently still hauling arse in the Iraq War against the Taliban.
(Not saying we're doing all the work, but we are keeping up with our workload in them)
Yeah get fucked, 4SQN of the RAAF, the Ace Pilot here has the highest Plane Kills in World War 1, We hauled arse in New Guenna against the Japanese, Hauled more arse in WW2, Hauled arse in East Timor.
...Oh and we're currently still hauling arse in the Iraq War against the Taliban.
(Not saying we're doing all the work, but we are keeping up with our workload in them)
Well if you really want to know, read a book called Churchill's Wizards. Its the stuff that isn't common knowledge (or featured in MoH/CoD). The fact is we set the Allies up for the big W, and America pushed it home. Hence they get the glory. Apart from that they did defeat the Japanese, and supply the Allies for a while, but the actual offensive operations were mostly genius and mostly of british design.the stonker said:
LOL.the stonker said:
The British were involved in world war two long before the US, and made an (rather feeble) effort to save what was left of western Europe on their own. They fought until the very end of Nazi Germany, although Russia probably got more kills because they simply had more dudes to throw at Hitler.
Meanwhile, the US was happy with it's policy of isolation and for all we know the government may have been perfectly happy letting the rest of the world crumble around them (as was happening in Europe)..
Then a little event at pearl harbour occurred.
Leader 1: Looks like the Japs tried to kill off our pacific fleet.
Leader 2: Well that wasn't very nice!
Leader 1: Want to kick their asses?
Leader 2: Good idea!
Leader 1: Oh yeah, they're allied to Nazi Germany.
Leader 2: Then lets kick their asses too!
Leader 1: It's a plan!
Whilst there is no doubt that the US made a considerable contribution too the war effort, it was not entirely selfless. Not quite the same as the extreme case at the end of WW1 when they jumped in, didn't do a lot and claimed to save the day, but I thought that those events would have nudged the US to be a bit more active instead of cocooning in the corner and saying "oh it won't affect us again!".
