Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Japan was at war in 1914 same as everyone else, I know this. What I'm saying is, why couldn't we take this example and use it as a feasible piece of evidence in joining the war before it came down to killing U.S. citizens.Warforger said:
I'm also saying that there where many British and French sympathizers among Americans who wanted to actually go to war. We saw their numbers and knew we could crush the Germans easily, why not save the people we liked in the first place? Also, the US never even thought about joining the central powers. Sure we were anti-colonialist, but we would never join a war against France.
As for the Russains, they had two revolutions that threw them out of the war. Communism, you know, that thing your Parents and Grandparents are afraid of? The enemy of all mankind?
And no. The Germans were not at all exited about continuing the war. Especially in 1916 when the German people learned how many troops were actually dieing. They were tired, just as anyone else would be. The only thing that kept the war from going any further was the famous Zimmermann Telegram. Then we showed up and kicked there arses.
they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...dragonslayer32 said:
p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...
(British casualties-382,700)
Well, at one point, Britian standed alone in the war, Russia had a temporary treaty with Hitler (I think, according to Social Studies teacher.) and france was invaded. So they really don't get all the credit they deserved. While the U.S. did basicly save Britian, They do deserve a lot of credit. Russia did a lot, and France did all it could. All we can really say for sure is hitler is dead, and the allies won. End of story.
The Americans had a huge role to play in WW2, no one can discount that, but this was not altruistic. Like Britain they we're afraid to commit to another great war. So they played both sides. helping the allies and trying their best to stay off germanise radar. Until they we?re pulled into the war by the Japanese,
As for the downfall of Britain. I'll grant that eventually it probably would have happened, by shear force of attrition if nothing else. But by the time the Germans managed to slog there way to London. It would have hardly been worth it. At the time the German navy was a floating joke. The Norwegian campaign has exhausted there naval war machine, and they just didn't have the strength to go toe to toe with the Royal Navy. (a tough thing to do at the best of times)
If it had gotten to the point where Britain was invaded. They would be aware of it very quickly and not only would the Germans find a well entrenched British army waiting for them, but also Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians. People often forget that Britain had a big family. A lot of countries still had strong ties. Hell the RAF could probably qualify as an international force by the end of the battle of Britain.
As for the downfall of Britain. I'll grant that eventually it probably would have happened, by shear force of attrition if nothing else. But by the time the Germans managed to slog there way to London. It would have hardly been worth it. At the time the German navy was a floating joke. The Norwegian campaign has exhausted there naval war machine, and they just didn't have the strength to go toe to toe with the Royal Navy. (a tough thing to do at the best of times)
If it had gotten to the point where Britain was invaded. They would be aware of it very quickly and not only would the Germans find a well entrenched British army waiting for them, but also Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians. People often forget that Britain had a big family. A lot of countries still had strong ties. Hell the RAF could probably qualify as an international force by the end of the battle of Britain.
Actually for the most part German tanks were not the superweapons everyone thinks they are. Everyone goes on and on about the Panthers and the Tigers and the King Tigers but they all forget that the real workhorse of the German Army were the Panzer III's and Panzer IV's, which only had 75mm guns (as low as 37mm on the PIII), 70 or 80mm of front armour. By comparison the Sherman had a 75mm gun and 63mm of front armour.
The Panther didn't show up until mid 43 still only had a 75mm main gun, though it was a long barrel, and it had something around 110mm of front armour. The beauty of the panther was it's operational range and it's power to weight ratio that let it perform exceptionally well on a mobile battlefield. It didn't show up until the war was half over though, it was hardly a member of the starting lineup.
And? You lose people in a war, I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't want to go as well, in 1914 I would probably be right, but in 1916 after Lusitania sure, again war has a cost, no point in going into it so that future generations can show off that their ancestors fought a war the future didn't and liberated people the future didn't.RooftopAssassin said:
Oh I wouldn't be so sure about that.RooftopAssassin said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYZ_Affair
As for the sympathizers, there were also people who didn't want to go in, if the sympathizers wanted to go in then they could go ship themselves to France and join a foreign legion.
No the first one kept the war going on, the second one started peace negotiations. Even then the Germans started going in anyway.RooftopAssassin said:
No, they were rejuvenated once they found out they were close to winning the war finally, they had Britain near to starvation, and allied forces were retreating.RooftopAssassin said:
And CanadaHail Fire 998 said:
And New Zealand
And Australia
And South Africa
And every single colonial holding Britain retained... including India who ponied up several divisions for North Africa.
I'm always slightly amused when I remember that the US's first combat in World War One was 10 platoons attached to companies in Australian units when they were sent off to spearhead an offensive.
I don't know why it amuses me.
I don't know why it amuses me.
I don't like the sound of your teacher. They sound highly uninformed. And I mean that deeply. No teacher should spout such nonsense to their students, it has huge ramifications for politics when war history is destroyed in such a way.
The British suffered incredible losses in WW2, and were under a direct threat to their home nation, unlike America. Yes, American help was essential to their victories, but let's not pretend America could win without the British either.
Both nations would be paralysed against the Axis if it weren't for each other, and of course for Russia, a nation which did indeed sacrifice the most people by raw numbers, or France, which lost its capital during these events.
I'm amused by posts that say that this is a result of American education. Re-read the OP - he said he's from Iceland. How exactly could he receive an "American" education in Iceland? The only reason for pro-American bias I see in my reading is that America took over Iceland's defence at 1951 when it joined NATO, and throughout the Cold War until 2006. Maybe some pro-American attitudes towards war history seeped into the public as a result, but it looks pretty unlikely.
No, I'd say that this is just a question of a teacher that decided to fictionalise World War II to make it seem more heroic and centrally American than it was.
I love peace, truly I do, but from a simple war history perspective, that guy wasn't going to stop and someone had to do something about it. So rather than saying that there's a problem with the way the British or the Americans conducted themselves, I'd say they both made stupid mistakes and let that be the end of it.
The British suffered incredible losses in WW2, and were under a direct threat to their home nation, unlike America. Yes, American help was essential to their victories, but let's not pretend America could win without the British either.
Both nations would be paralysed against the Axis if it weren't for each other, and of course for Russia, a nation which did indeed sacrifice the most people by raw numbers, or France, which lost its capital during these events.
I'm amused by posts that say that this is a result of American education. Re-read the OP - he said he's from Iceland. How exactly could he receive an "American" education in Iceland? The only reason for pro-American bias I see in my reading is that America took over Iceland's defence at 1951 when it joined NATO, and throughout the Cold War until 2006. Maybe some pro-American attitudes towards war history seeped into the public as a result, but it looks pretty unlikely.
No, I'd say that this is just a question of a teacher that decided to fictionalise World War II to make it seem more heroic and centrally American than it was.
Wanting to avoid war when it was inevitable seems like a foolish move on the point of both parties in retrospect and therefore equally damning from an efficiency point of view. The decision to wait and see if it was necessary seems to betray a kind of ignorance of Hitler's solid ideological determination to conquer other nations for the Reich at the time.TheBritish said:
I love peace, truly I do, but from a simple war history perspective, that guy wasn't going to stop and someone had to do something about it. So rather than saying that there's a problem with the way the British or the Americans conducted themselves, I'd say they both made stupid mistakes and let that be the end of it.
I've heard it argued by my granddad that the Sherman tanks were also largely designed for warfare in the Pacific and that's partially why they stank. Japanese tanks in WW2 were...bad. Very, very bad. Again, though, two different theaters and two different accounts. In Europe, Shermans were shit. In Asia, Shermans were the shit.AccursedTheory said:
Vichy French. They weren't exactly as tough as the Germans. And Rommel still did mock the Americans.JWAN said:
Harold Alexander wasn't even in West Africa at that time. He was made Commander-in-Chief of Middle East Command. There was the American II Corps commander Fredendall, who got transferred State-side for basically being rubbish and replaced with Patton, and a British one called Anderson, who was in overall command of the First Army.
with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.NEVRINx54 said:
Like what the hell did Iceland do during WWII? Yeah just tell your teacher about D-Day. It'll make you look smart to argue your superiors as long as you aren't being a pissant.
Excellent Doctor Who quoting there and it's a good quotation regarding WWII.DragonsAteMyMarbles said:
Anyway, to say that the British did nothing is rather miss-informed. I mean, appart from the fact that we (speaking as a British citizen here) kind of kicked off the whole thing from the Allies point of view, see the famous Churchill quotation regarding 11 O'clock for more info, as people above have already stated we definately pulled our weight against resisting the power of the Nazi's. Obviously no-one can be truely unbiased about the situation but definately everyone involved did there part for better or worse in WWII.
P.S. I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't for the Nazi's sinking an American civilian ship America wouldn't have joined the war at all, they did wanna stay out of it. But we're grateful they didn't of course, and the bit they did for the Allies, but they weren't there from the start.
Worked in Crimea, worked in WW1, and worked for Napoleon! Why not! My granduncles use to tell me how the officers use to encourage them to get drunk on the night before an attack. They'd work in pairs in battle, one guy would get a gun, and the other would follow. When guy #1 got shot, guy #2 would pick up his gun and continue. Ah, stories from the old country.Da snakeman said: