Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?

[Trebort]

I like how Hitler considered Queen Elizabeth to be the most dangerous woman in Europe

 

[kurupt87]

Wow, this thread has legs.

People saying that the British did nothing in the war are misinformed or just don't know enough about it, or are purposefully being rude.

I'm not that great on my WWII history, but it seemed to me that the single biggest mistake Hitler made, and the single biggest influence to the entire course of the war, was for Germany to invade Russia. This was only made worse by the fact that Hitler wouldn't allow his troops to hunker down during the insane Russian winter or provide the vast majority of those on the Russian (Western I guess but I'm not sure?) Front with any winter gear.

 

[Frankster]

I wasnt aware the brits had a land border with germany to hold.

Coastal borders are lines, too.

Aye, but are you seriously going to compare the task of holding the entire french border versus a fully focused german army complete with all sorts of innovative tactics and technology with the task of holding them at sea with one of the mightiest navies in the world?

Pff silly french, couldnt even hold off the blitz!

Edit: For the record, highly reccomend Hearts of Iron series to armchair generals here.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Russian (Western I guess but I'm not sure?) Front

Eastern. The USSR was East of Germany. The constituent states of the former USSR are still east of Germany (just in case anyone was wondering).

 

[Carlston]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

Who said this? The British? I'm a American...no American says this... yeah sounds like a I hate American thing with no fact or truth behind it at all. Think the British held out against some nasty odds and ChurchHill had some of the Biggest balls in history...

I'd say whoever fills your head with that crap, needs to get off the hating the yanks crap for no reason and read a real history book.

 

[FungTheDestroy]

Like you said, Russia did the most during the war, and Britain also suffered a good ammount.


Heck, Japan didn't actually surrender until Russia started to advance on them. They sure as hell didn't surrender when the bombs were dropped.

 

[kurupt87]

Russian (Western I guess but I'm not sure?) Front

Eastern. The USSR was East of Germany. The constituent states of the former USSR are still east of Germany (just in case anyone was wondering).

Thank you, you are a gentleman and a scholar good sir.

In reference to my last post, what I failed to add (which makes it more important) is that I'm fairly certain Russia would have sat the war out and not got involved, much like the U.S.A. tried to do.

 

[Cody211282]

SNIP

Patton was stuck with a dummy army because of bad PR(he slapped a soldier for being a coward and bad mouthed the Russians) hell even the Nazi high command thought he would be the one in charge of the invasion, not to mention when he actually got to fight they started taking much more land then they had before hand. the only thing that slowed him down is they couldn't get him fuel fast enough. Patton was probably the best general in WW2, and the only leader from the war that is nearly as awesome is Churchill.

Patton was certainly the most aggressive General of WWII, but the best? Who knows. his time in combat was minimal, with his crowning achievement probably being the Battle of the Bulge. Patton proved himself to be to be quite competent, and he certainly might have been one of the best if given the chance.

SNIP

SNIP

That it did. good old fashioned british ingenuity. Of course, the only reason they needed Patton there was to make the germans think it was important XD
Still, neither Monty or Patton were as good as Rommel. Its a shame what happened to Rommel though. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

I think it would have been interesting to give Patton and Rommel both fully supplied, fully trained soldiers and see what happened. Alas, in war, that hardly happens (If it does, someones made a mistake).

From what I've read, Patton never got a chance to really open up and go on the Crusade he wanted. He spent most of his European career chasing a mauled foe.

He did go up against Rommels forces in Africa I think. Problem with setting them against each other like that is the Germans had much better tanks at the time, only advantage the allies had was speed and numbers. But Patton read Rommels book so it might be rather even.

 

[laol1999]

i think its just people saying they saved the british in the war
in reallity i think that they were one of teh europeen countrys that did the most in the war

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Aye, but are you seriously going to compare the task of holding the entire french border versus a fully focused german army complete with all sorts of innovative tactics and technology with the task of holding them at sea with one of the mightiest navy in the world?

You do realise that much of the French border is also coastal, yes?

Not useful in helping defend against another nation with a common land border but true none the less.

Yes, I'm being deliberately obtuse.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Didn't Britain start the war?

Well, if you ignore all the German invasions and annexations prior to the British declaration of war, then yes.

 

[HerrBobo]

SNIP

Patton was stuck with a dummy army because of bad PR(he slapped a soldier for being a coward and bad mouthed the Russians) hell even the Nazi high command thought he would be the one in charge of the invasion, not to mention when he actually got to fight they started taking much more land then they had before hand. the only thing that slowed him down is they couldn't get him fuel fast enough. Patton was probably the best general in WW2, and the only leader from the war that is nearly as awesome is Churchill.

Patton was certainly the most aggressive General of WWII, but the best? Who knows. his time in combat was minimal, with his crowning achievement probably being the Battle of the Bulge. Patton proved himself to be to be quite competent, and he certainly might have been one of the best if given the chance.

SNIP

SNIP

That it did. good old fashioned british ingenuity. Of course, the only reason they needed Patton there was to make the germans think it was important XD
Still, neither Monty or Patton were as good as Rommel. Its a shame what happened to Rommel though. He didn't deserve what happened to him.

I think it would have been interesting to give Patton and Rommel both fully supplied, fully trained soldiers and see what happened. Alas, in war, that hardly happens (If it does, someones made a mistake).

From what I've read, Patton never got a chance to really open up and go on the Crusade he wanted. He spent most of his European career chasing a mauled foe.

He did go up against Rommels forces in Africa I think. Problem with setting them against each other like that is the Germans had much better tanks at the time, only advantage the allies had was speed and numbers. But Patton read Rommels book so it might be rather even.

Yeah but even from late '42 Patton had the advantage of constant air cover. The Germans have been of a par in tanks, but they were lacking one of the major forces, the airforce!

 

[Guvnorium]

Didn't Britain start the war?

Well, if you ignore all the German invasions and annexations prior to the British declaration of war, then yes.

Yeah, and most historians tend to ignore those. Not importat at all! You see, Poland wanted to be split in half like a ripe coconut. And after annexing the Sudetntland the rest of Czechoslovakia, one of the only truly democratic states in Europe, really wanted to be invaded.

 

[TheodoreLuke]

American here, most Americans have a very America-centric view. It's stupid really.

 

[blankedboy]

Patriotism is for fucktards, your country is never the best.
(speaking to everyone there, by the way)

Also, lots of people contributed to WW2, it's just that Americans are attention-obsessed [expletive]s and don't care about what anyone else thinks. Since they also make up about 40% of the Internet's users, they're the ones who spread [expletive]y patriotism everywhere.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Didn't Britain start the war?

Well, if you ignore all the German invasions and annexations prior to the British declaration of war, then yes.

Yeah, and most historians tend to ignore those. Not importat at all! You, Poland wanted to be split in half like a ripe coconut. And after annexing the Sudetntland the rest of Czechoslovakia, one of the only truly democratic states in Europe, really wanted to be invaded.

Another graduate of the David Irving School of History, I see.

 

[Guvnorium]

Didn't Britain start the war?

Well, if you ignore all the German invasions and annexations prior to the British declaration of war, then yes.

Yeah, and most historians tend to ignore those. Not importat at all! You, Poland wanted to be split in half like a ripe coconut. And after annexing the Sudetntland the rest of Czechoslovakia, one of the only truly democratic states in Europe, really wanted to be invaded.

Another graduate of the David Irving School of History, I see.

Hmmm, just looked up who that was. Nah, I just happen to have a mild obsession with Czechoslovakia, due to the awesome name. If that's not a stupid reason to know somthing, I don't know what is...

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Another graduate of the David Irving School of History, I see.

Hmmm, just looked up who that was. Nah, I just happen to have a mild obsession with Czechoslovakia, due to the awesome name. If that's not a stupid reason to know somthing, I don't know what is...

Just as long as you realise I wasn't seriously calling you a batshit revisionist twat all is good.

 

[Frankster]

Aye, but are you seriously going to compare the task of holding the entire french border versus a fully focused german army complete with all sorts of innovative tactics and technology with the task of holding them at sea with one of the mightiest navy in the world?

You do realise that much of the French border is also coastal, yes?

Not useful in helping defend against another nation with a common land border but true none the less.

Yes, I'm being deliberately obtuse.

Well I didnt know the exact term for the french border covering between and including Belgium to Germany so used a loose term praying you would understand the general message but instead get what I kinda see as mild patronisation.
Anyways point being: french situation wasn't at all the same as brits.

Edit: nvm, "entire" french border, i was setting myself up on that one T_T