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

[santacolia]

Why is WWII such a big topic on this site? Aren't there other wars, time periods, "my country is better than your country" fights we could be having? It was a world war, most countries who could help did, with their side of interest. These topics always seem to dissolve into some form of nationalistic dick size complexes.

You are all very special. There, feel better?

 

[Gilhelmi]

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.

In 18 pages I am sure its been said but

The Battle of Britain - Hundreds of German fighters and bombers destroyed thanks to the RAF and a very advanced radar system on the coast.

The Battle of Sicily - Honestly the British were about to win when General Patton stole the glory.

The British Empire also did quite a bit in the middle east and Africa, seeing as how you had quite a few colonies there. (As an American I apologize that we made Britain give up so many colonies, we would not be in the desperate straits we are today if Britain was still an Empire.)

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but i've studied American textbooks, and they don't really belittle the other allies at all. In fact they acknowledge that the Russians got screwed over and that Britain got piss pounded with bombs during the Blitz of London. They may not have done a whole lot until the U.S. joined in, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Britain lost 300,000 men along with some 60,000 civilians. That and the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe. So I really don't see how American textbooks take away from what really happened with the other allies in WWII.

I suppose it depends on which books, where you read them and what level they are meant for. If you read the proper university level books then everything is nice and accurate and has none of the patriotic bias you get in the books meant for people lower down in the education system. (I have no idea how the year system works in america so i don't know what level the books i was shown were meant for. At a guess i would say they were meant for whatever the american equivalent for the english year ten is).

 

[Lt.Snuffles]

Maybe so, but given Germany's stance in 1940, it didn't have the naval resources to ferry troops, and the Luftwaffe could not break the RAF, which would only get stronger and more able to defend Britain. So, when Hitler pushed the plans back to 1941, the RAF, as I said, was only stronger, and Hitler even more unable to break the British.

I hate to go against the RAF, but in the battle of britain, were it not for the Germans being schizophrenic on what they wanted to bomb and concentrated on airfields, the RAF would have almost certainly been defeated. However you are right about the fact that the Germans didn't have the naval transportation to ferry troops effectivly.

 

[eelel]

I am an American WWII history buff and I know that the British did alot to help win WWII in the European front. Any one who says other whise is not thinking strait.

 

[FlameUnquenchable]

Not sure about your teacher, but if it hadn't been for Britain's valiant defense of their homeland, America would have had a much harder time helping. Had we not had Britain as a staging point for the offensive, then I think the war would have been much different.

Plus, if anyone says that Britain didn't do anything, have them look up Jet engines, and the Spitfire. Brits had created a jet engine around the same time as the Germans but it got shelved when the war hit, and the Spitfire...well that was an impressive machine.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Well we drove the Axis out of North Africa, defended ourselves from Invasion when most of our powerful allies were under Nazi control, broke the enigma code, took part in D-Day, fought the Japs in Burma and were training for the Invasion of Japan. Then again we did recieve a lot of help from the Americans such as men and weaponry but when you think about it the Jerry had more allies than we did, they had Italy and Japan and we had the Soviets who were also fighting off an invasion. But all in all our countries fought hard to defeat Fascism and free Europe so really it was a good thing. I just hate it when Americans say "Yeah we won World War II and you Limey British fuckballs did nothing BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

 

[DarkSpectre]

Only a complete retard would think this. The Brits held the line for all the free nations. If they had fallen then all the other free nations would have fallen. The United States could never have launched an invasion based in the mainland United States. Most of that credit goes to the incredible RAF. As Churchill said, "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." The Brits kicked ass in WWII. They fought with so little against overwhelming odds and never backed down. It was the American sectors that failed in the battle of the bulge. The Brits also had the worlds most elite and capable special forces, they still do. Only the Navy SEALs and Delta Force can compare to the SAS. I am a proud citizen of the United States but that doesn't mean I won't recognize other's accomplishments. Especially our friends across the pond. My country has had no greater ally than the Brits.

 

[Lordmarkus]

Well, the British successfully stopped the Germans in North Africa, contributed a vast amount to D-Day and Operation Overlord, and fought tooth and nail in Burma and India. They also cracked the ENIGMA code, which was one of the most significant turning points of the war.

Really, saying that any side didn't do anything is just naive.

Nah, it was a couple of Polish codebreakers that did most of the work, though they were stationed in England.

Saying that England didn't do a thing during the war is ignorant and idiotic.

 

[Brian Mastin]

Dude China and Yugoslavia weren't evenn the war!

 

[gamepopper101]

Say that to someone from China. They will love you for it...

Not to mention that what the Japenese did to the Chinese was pretty much as mad as what Hitler did to the various minority groups he disliked.

Look dude, I said maybe, MAYBE! I did History GCSE and not once was China mentioned in the World War Two subject, they were in the Cold War subject though. You can't expect to know every countries' involvement in a war you were never alive in.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Maybe so, but given Germany's stance in 1940, it didn't have the naval resources to ferry troops, and the Luftwaffe could not break the RAF, which would only get stronger and more able to defend Britain. So, when Hitler pushed the plans back to 1941, the RAF, as I said, was only stronger, and Hitler even more unable to break the British.

I hate to go against the RAF, but in the battle of britain, were it not for the Germans being schizophrenic on what they wanted to bomb and concentrated on airfields, the RAF would have almost certainly been defeated. However you are right about the fact that the Germans didn't have the naval transportation to ferry troops effectivly.

What a coincidence. I was just watching World at War last night, and they said almost that exactly.

 

[picturecreeper]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but i've studied American textbooks, and they don't really belittle the other allies at all. In fact they acknowledge that the Russians got screwed over and that Britain got piss pounded with bombs during the Blitz of London. They may not have done a whole lot until the U.S. joined in, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Britain lost 300,000 men along with some 60,000 civilians. That and the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe. So I really don't see how American textbooks take away from what really happened with the other allies in WWII.

I suppose it depends on which books, where you read them and what level they are meant for. If you read the proper university level books then everything is nice and accurate and has none of the patriotic bias you get in the books meant for people lower down in the education system. (I have no idea how the year system works in america so i don't know what level the books i was shown were meant for. At a guess i would say they were meant for whatever the american equivalent for the english year ten is).

Interesting...you may be right about the where and when things. I remember in my high school world history class that the textbook was pretty accurate with information. Mind you, there may have been stuff not clearly noted, but never denied. Guess I can thank good ole midwest education for me not being ignorant.

 

[Lt.Snuffles]

Say that to someone from China. They will love you for it...

Not to mention that what the Japenese did to the Chinese was pretty much as mad as what Hitler did to the various minority groups he disliked.

Look dude, I said maybe, MAYBE! I did History GCSE and not once was China mentioned in the World War Two subject, they were in the Cold War subject though. You can't expect to know every countries' involvement in a war you were never alive in.

China wasn't directly involved, but was very important in the rise of Japan before the war, in the Manchurian(?) crisis, which was one of the key factors which brought down the league of nations and led to the rise of hitler.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Say that to someone from China. They will love you for it...

Not to mention that what the Japenese did to the Chinese was pretty much as mad as what Hitler did to the various minority groups he disliked.

Look dude, I said maybe, MAYBE! I did History GCSE and not once was China mentioned in the World War Two subject, they were in the Cold War subject though. You can't expect to know every countries' involvement in a war you were never alive in.

China wasn't directly involved, but was very important in the rise of Japan before the war, in the Manchurian(?) crisis, which was one of the key factors which brought down the league of nations and led to the rise of hitler.

Hang on, are you seriously saying China wasn't involved in WWII? 'Cause the bulk of Japans armies in WWII were tied up in a land war with the Chinese. They were pretty damn important.

 

[I Fiend I]

I was originally going to post along the lines of most of the cheery "everyone did a good job" posts, until I read a few pages into the thread and noticed the same two wrong themes appearing repeatedly.

...America took all the glory, of course, since it arrived incredibly late to the party...

American was pretty happy not to do anything until near the end...

And as for Americans they didn't even join WW2 until the very end. So respect to you and sms_117b for knowing your facts.

Ask your history teacher where America was the first 3 years of the war..(at least i think ity was 3)
(Pre pearl harbour)

(Sorry to get offensive but thats how I feel)

America had tried to maintain a strict code of neutrality in matters of foreign policy. Simply stated, we weren't supposed to involve ourselves in any foreign war, unless it directly threatened US soil. Sure, maybe it was wrong, but the entire notion of "America swooped in at the last minute to take credit with the Allies" is just as poisonous as the sentiment expressed in the OT.

Britain and France didn't enter the war until after the invasion of Poland, in September 1939. America was (almost) completely out of the war for over 18 months until the start of the lend-lease plan whereby America began to supply the western allies (the majority of which going to Britain) with military equipment. Pearl Harbor occurred in early December, 1941, a little over 2 years after the invasion of Poland. However, V-E day didn't occur until May 1945. This means America was (officially) in the war for 3.5 years, and unofficially for over 4 years, choosing to abstain for 1.5-2 years.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union, which everyone seems so happy about, actually *signed* a non-agression pact with Germany predating the invasion of Poland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
Effectively, the USSR agreed not to attack Germany and vice-versa, with a secret agreement to split the land-spoils of several European countries. This remained in effect until Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 (less than 6 months before the US entered the war).

Were it not for Hitler's blind hatred of Russian communism, much of Europe (and possibly America) would probably be speaking German today.

Without the British campaign of missinformation the Germans would have been very well fortified. We also cracked the enigma code and were invovled in North Africa with out empire and india etc.

The British contributed the most intelligence, as cracking ENIGMA was a major factor in the war.

Well, the British ...also cracked the ENIGMA code, which was one of the most significant turning points of the war.

What the British call ULTRA was a codename for German intelligence traffic encrypted using the infamous ENIGMA machine. The ENIGMA machine was designed for everyday field-data. It therefore needed a way to create a (then) sophisticated filter, quickly, with minimal effort. The Polish, not the British, reconstructed the machines and cracked the ENIGMA code, presenting their findings to the British and French just before the onset of WWII.

The British can be proud to say they cracked the high-level Lorenz cipher, which was more important but less oft used by the German forces.


If WWII has any lessons beyond "Hitler is bad LOL" it's in the power of a /*combined*/ effort and the strong will of many people to defeat a devious and monstrous foe.

waiting for someone to ask: Hitler was bad? XD

 

[mkg]

Despite your lengthy response, you prove my point in the following statement:

"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."

With Russian cooperation from the outset of the war, there would have been a stiff resistance for Hitler's expansion west if he also had to deal with soviet aggression from the east.

 

[freakonaleash]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but i've studied American textbooks, and they don't really belittle the other allies at all. In fact they acknowledge that the Russians got screwed over and that Britain got piss pounded with bombs during the Blitz of London. They may not have done a whole lot until the U.S. joined in, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Britain lost 300,000 men along with some 60,000 civilians. That and the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe. So I really don't see how American textbooks take away from what really happened with the other allies in WWII.

Awwwww you talk so much nicer when your not on someone elses profile.

I suppose it depends on which books, where you read them and what level they are meant for. If you read the proper university level books then everything is nice and accurate and has none of the patriotic bias you get in the books meant for people lower down in the education system. (I have no idea how the year system works in america so i don't know what level the books i was shown were meant for. At a guess i would say they were meant for whatever the american equivalent for the english year ten is).

Interesting...you may be right about the where and when things. I remember in my high school world history class that the textbook was pretty accurate with information. Mind you, there may have been stuff not clearly noted, but never denied. Guess I can thank good ole midwest education for me not being ignorant.

 

[freakonaleash]

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but i've studied American textbooks, and they don't really belittle the other allies at all. In fact they acknowledge that the Russians got screwed over and that Britain got piss pounded with bombs during the Blitz of London. They may not have done a whole lot until the U.S. joined in, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Britain lost 300,000 men along with some 60,000 civilians. That and the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe. So I really don't see how American textbooks take away from what really happened with the other allies in WWII.

I suppose it depends on which books, where you read them and what level they are meant for. If you read the proper university level books then everything is nice and accurate and has none of the patriotic bias you get in the books meant for people lower down in the education system. (I have no idea how the year system works in america so i don't know what level the books i was shown were meant for. At a guess i would say they were meant for whatever the american equivalent for the english year ten is).

Interesting...you may be right about the where and when things. I remember in my high school world history class that the textbook was pretty accurate with information. Mind you, there may have been stuff not clearly noted, but never denied. Guess I can thank good ole midwest education for me not being ignorant.

Awwww you talk so much nicer when your not on someone elses profile