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

[Guvnorium]

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.

Nah, the winky face gave away your true feelings on the matter. Sarcasm being taken seriosuly: the true mark of an internet conversation.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Well THERE is your problem.

Didn't you get the memo? Iceland hates the UK from the "Cod(fish) wars" and all the bullshit over it being a key Cold War installation the Royal navy was being a right Royal pain in their arse. There is also historical ambivalence considering the much longer history of Icelandic relations with Britain, particularly as far as Viking piracy and economic isolation in return.

Britain pulled her weight, from 1940 to late 1941 we were pretty much the only ones fighting the Germans. We had 2 of the 5 beaches on D-day (Canada had a beach, America had the other two) and some of the largest tank regiments in the European campaign.

While USA dominated most of the fighting in the Pacific, British and forces loyal to the British empire fought a pivotal rear-guard action in Burma preventing Japan's push into India. America were fortunate enough to be able to chose when and where to fight the Japanese in their Island hopping campaign (smart move) we were unfortunate enough to have to break the 2nd rule of war:

"Don't fight a land war in Asia"

Japan were able to just throw so many men and materiel into the Burmese jungles, it was an incredibly costly campaign.

All through out the war we lost so many soldiers, bankrupted our nation, killed a lot of people and had really significant impact on the outcome and stakes of the war.

To be honest, I'd take almost EVERYTHING you learn at GCSE with a pinch of salt, by the time you get to A-level or Higher Eduction for about 50% of the stuff they will say "oh, forget about that, it's bullshit, here's how it REALLY happened/is"

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

the winky face

That's harsh, that is.

 

[Guvnorium]

the winky face

That's harsh, that is.

Take it how you will.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Anyways point being: french situation wasn't at all the same as brits.

No, it wasn't the same because as you were alluding to it's very hard to prosecute a military doctrine of mobile armoured warfare across any sizeable stretch of water especially when the other side has naval superiority.

 

[Audioave10]

Do teachers no longer know world history?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Odd piece of trivia: Australia came out of both world wars as a creditor nation.

 

[skywalkerlion]

Every nation in WW2 had something to contribute:

Russia: Absolutely screwed over the Nazis and even helped with the Japanese a bit, one of the most helpful in the war in my opinion.
Britain: Large factor in the D-Day invasion and helped in other areas as well
America: Nearly(notice I didn't say completely[sub]I'll probably still get flamed for this[/sub]) won the war in the east all by themselves. Large factor in D-Day.
France: Did resistance fighting and fought a good fight by the time they got invaded

 

[Tdc2182]

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.

Your teacher is an idiot. Did he perhaps forget that they had the enemy right up their ass and had no weapons. You cant say the team didnt contribute when there goally has no limbs.

I am American, and every country on Team GO ALLIES contriibuted heavily. You wanna put the blame on any country, blame the French.

And the Russians... basically what the french were without the surrendering. God damn, that country is crazy...in the good way.

 

[Treblaine]

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.

Well in a way you could say Britain is partially responsible for starting the war by appeasing Hitler in permitting his annexations... that left CZ completely unable to protect itself.

If I remember correctly Hitler quite admired the British Empire and thought he could emulate it and get on with the British. Though if that is true he clearly had a lot of out-dated and out of touch ideas though one thing is for certain... he was quite mad. Not in the sense of diminished responsibility, simply power crazy and deluded.

 

[Guvnorium]

Odd piece of trivia: Australia came out of both world wars as a creditor nation.

Financially, the US was still recovering from FDR's "New Deal" coming out of World War Two. Of course, the war gave a nice boost to our economy and pulled us out of the Depression, so I shouldn't really complain. Right after that we gave a lot of our new money to Europe to help them rebuild and stave off communism, so I guess all that money went to a good cause... The US likes to give away money, both to individuals and to other countries. Not going to argue if that's a good thing or a bad thing though.

 

[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.

Well in a way you could say Britain is partially responsible for starting the war by appeasing Hitler in permitting his annexations... that left CZ completely unable to protect itself.

Maybe partially... But I still assign most of the responsibility to german military aggression. Take that out and there's no European theatre to the war.

If I remember correctly Hitler quite admired the British Empire and thought he could emulate it and get on with the British.

Well, if you want a massive Empire there are only really 2 role models - the British or the Mongols... thing is, massive Empires tend not to like people trying to make their own massive empires.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

People say Britain contributed nothing to the war? How about containing the German fleet in the Baltic, defeating Rommel (Yay Montgomery!), destroying a huge portion of the Luftwaffe over the United Kingdom, contributing to the D-Day landings and mastering the art of Night bombing over enemy territory? The British, along with the Americans, sent considerable supplies to the USSR, giving the Soviets much needed material aid. The British introduced a number of (then) revolutionary weapons like the Spitfire and Mosquito fighter/bombers, the Lancaster (arguably the best bomber of the war). The Spitfire was the inspiration for the P51 Mustang, the best Allied Fighter plane of the war. The British also retook Burma from the Japanese, beating them in their own environment.

Consider this; without Britain, North American (yes, both Canadian and American) would have had a very tough time opening the second front. Britain provided the allies a small but sure foothold and base in Europe, despite the attempts of the German U-boat naval arm to cut it off. Without the UK remaining free of German occupation, D-day would likely have never happened. Sure, the British had their asses handed to them in France in 1940 and in the Pacific for a while but they bounced back.

Prior to Operation Barbarossa, Britain and it's colonies (or commonwealths) were the only nations fighting Nazi Germany. The United States were not at war with Germany until December 11, 1941 and France had been formally surrendered on the 25th of June, 1940. Think about it. D-Day was in 1944. An effective liberation effort in Europe was not attempted before that (Italy doesn't count, that was invading an aggressor.) Without the British prescense in North Africa (and the Mediterranean), the German invasion of Africa would have been a matter of marching instead of an important campaign. For 4 years Britain resisted all invasion schemes or terror bombing attacks launched against it. It was because the British people continued to have a marvelous fighting spirit, even at the height of the Blitz.

Although, if it wasn't for simply Geography, we'd probably all be speaking German right now. The German army was the best in the world in 1940 and if it wasn't for the English channel (say Britain was connected to France via land) the invasion of Briton could have been a reality. Nevertheless, without the British in WWII, the fighting may have been much closer to home for us in North America and you in Iceland.

Man, this is the longest post I've ever written. I'm Canadian and I've been fortunate to never have been thrown into a war scenario but I find the world wars fascinating.

 

[p3t3r]

well the british didn't get taken over, which probably helped. but then again they probably wouldn't have won with the american. they both had important parts.

 

[acosn]

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.

No. The British did a great deal. They basically ripped the Luftwaffe a new one, which set up the precedent of air superiority that the US took great advantage of.

What the Russians had were numbers. That's it. Shit tanks, shit tactics, non-existent air force.

The Russians were just plain damn lucky. The US supplied a great deal of their war effort even if they won't admit it. They were insanely lucky that Hitler's offensive was held up until the Winter because the Italians got stuck in the piss middle of no where and needed bailing out. The Germans at that point HAD no air force either.

 

[Mucinex-D]

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.

Well in a way you could say Britain is partially responsible for starting the war by appeasing Hitler in permitting his annexations... that left CZ completely unable to protect itself.

Maybe partially... But I still assign most of the responsibility to german military aggression. Take that out and there's no European theatre to the war.

If I remember correctly Hitler quite admired the British Empire and thought he could emulate it and get on with the British.

Well, if you want a massive Empire there are only really 2 role models - the British or the Mongols... thing is, massive Empires tend not to like people trying to make their own massive empires.

Rome, Alexander the greats empire, japan prior to WW2, Persian, Aztec, Mayan, Etc... to name a few others you missed.... also Napoleons empire, Because everyone should remember France didn't always suck... only since 1815....

 

[Warforger]

I've never heard anyone say that. Maybe your teacher is a little prejudice? Anyone who has read anything about WWII knows the Brits were a major factor in that war.

No. The British and French were horrible tacticians, if we were to put them in RTS terms they'd be turtler's. If you read what the Americans did, Patton in particular, you read the British generals lagging behind asking for the Americans equipment while the American general runs forward and conquers the actual objective. The only reason the British mainland wasn't conquered was the fact that the British were good in the sea and the Germans weren't so the Germans couldn't reach Britain and just relied on bombing the place into submission.

For example, Montgomery asks for additional troops and Patton's artillery to cross the Rhine, Patton crosses first, the British were lagging behind in North Africa, asking the Americans to stay back so they can both take equal credit, Patton says fuck it and moves forward without the British.

Now Britain did a good job in terms of information, it had some of the best spies and they are responsible for helping win the war, but in terms of military no. Now some Brits may go "well we helped in D-Day alot!" Because of your information, you had many other landings with Canadian troops and they all failed, of course Canada only supplied volunteers in the war.

As for Russia, please the northern General (Stalin picked his two best generals and made them compete towards Berlin, one in the south and one in the North) whose name I forget due to Russian names being so different from the English language, had complete disregard for life while the one in the south tried to preserve it, guess who took all the glory? The northern one. Again, its not that all the Russian losses were necessary, many were pointless. Thats not to mention, the Germans could've held back the Russians for a long while more time, Stalin himself begged America to join in and actually fight the war.

Its like WWI except in this war Britain has a sea to keep it alive, unlike in the first one where they nearly surrendered until the Americans came in.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Rome, Alexander the greats empire, japan prior to WW2, Persian, Aztec, Mayan, Etc... to name a few others you missed.... also Napoleons empire, Because everyone should remember France didn't always suck... only since 1815....

I missed them intentionally.

 

[Commissar Sae]

What the Russians had were numbers. That's it. Shit tanks, shit tactics, non-existent air force.

The Russians were just plain damn lucky. The US supplied a great deal of their war effort even if they won't admit it. They were insanely lucky that Hitler's offensive was held up until the Winter because the Italians got stuck in the piss middle of no where and needed bailing out. The Germans at that point HAD no air force either.

Actually the Russian tanks were unholy monsters of pain compared to the American Sherman tanks. The problem was the Russians barely had any of them since, it wasn't a main target of production, (Stalin still wanted to use cavalry and kinda shot the guy who wanted to make tanks). The war could have gone really badly, since there was literally no plan to defend the country after Poland fell to the Germans.

The Russians won because, in the end, they could outproduce the Germans a hundred times over. While German industiral sectors were within bomber range, Russia had shifted its industry beyond the Urals. The Germans also had a major problem with logistics, since the rail gage changes at the Polish-Russian border, forcing them to literally unload an entire train and reload all that stuff onto another just to feed and arm their troops on the front.

Saying it was only a numbers game cheapens the Russian war effort.

Also Operation Barbarossa began in June, hardly the start of winter.