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

[PhiMed]

That's just the American education system being overtly patriotic. Which unfortunately led to some Americans assuming that their country's soldiers were wholly responsible for the Allies' victory, and things just snowballed from there. At least, that's what I was told by the Americans I've met.

Relatedly, here's my favourite quotation regarding the British performance in WWII;
The German war machine is rolling up the map of Europe. Country after country, falling like dominoes. Nothing can stop it, nothing. Until one tiny, damp little island says "No. No, not here." A mouse in front of a lion. Amazing.
May not be completely accurate, but I like it.

He's already stated his teacher isn't in America, so...

But on a positive note, awesome quotation. Who's it from?

OT: I'm a little skeptical about this thread. It seems like someone's trying to get Americans and Brits to fight by making inflammatory statements. I'm not accusing the OP of living under a bridge, but it certainly looks as though they could be the case.

 

[AndyVale]

I basically view it as a trinity. Without Britain, America or Russia then Hitler probably would've won. Each side helped out the other in some way.

As for why some people say that, I don't know. Either ignorance or ridiculously high expectations of what we should've done.

 

[sms_117b]

Did your teacher learn about WWII watching war films made by Hollywood?

American was pretty happy not to do anything until near the end, even then the Russains did more for the Allies than anyone, I think half the losses (troops, either MIA or KIA) in WWII were Russain!

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

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

The French held the Germans up whilst we ran bravely away, abandoning most of our equipment. Tally ho I say!

And around 90% of German casualties originated from the Russian fronts, so Russia gets a lot of praise.

In fact, the first real fight the Americans had with the Germans, in North Africa, was at the Kasserine Pass. I believe Rommel mocked them.

 

[DragonsAteMyMarbles]

That's just the American education system being overtly patriotic. Which unfortunately led to some Americans assuming that their country's soldiers were wholly responsible for the Allies' victory, and things just snowballed from there. At least, that's what I was told by the Americans I've met.

Relatedly, here's my favourite quotation regarding the British performance in WWII;
The German war machine is rolling up the map of Europe. Country after country, falling like dominoes. Nothing can stop it, nothing. Until one tiny, damp little island says "No. No, not here." A mouse in front of a lion. Amazing.
May not be completely accurate, but I like it.

He's already stated his teacher isn't in America, so...

But on a positive note, awesome quotation. Who's it from?

OT: I'm a little skeptical about this thread. It seems like someone's trying to get Americans and Brits to fight by making inflammatory statements. I'm not accusing the OP of living under a bridge, but it certainly looks as though they could be the case.

Yeah, but it seems the teacher's relying upon an American textbook. Or at least that's what I inferred from the OP.

The quotation is from Doctor Who, one of the episodes with the gas-mask zombies.

 

[I Fiend I]

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.

Did your teacher learn about WWII watching war films made by Hollywood?

American was pretty happy not to do anything until near the end, even then the Russains did more for the Allies than anyone, I think half the losses (troops, either MIA or KIA) in WWII were Russain!

Holy shit. Props to you my man. I went to a British school and they didnt even mention Russians in WW2 history, my dad knowing a lot on the subject (his father was also a heavy artillerist in the army) went to complain and the British teacher had nothing to say. He said there was nothing about it in the history books and that it was not true. 6 million Jews died in WW2 and even though that was a tragedy, 12 million Slavic people died and no one even knows that they were in the war. I am studying in a British Uni in UK now and one of my room-mates (who is British) asked me if the Russians fought on the same side as the Germans. So many people of my country died and my Grandfather lost a leg just so people could ignorantly forget about it 60 years later?!

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.

 

[Gabanuka]

We did more then the French!

 

[TheBritish]

Every country played their part as they say. Truly the war was a jumbo jet balanced on a pinhead. If any side wasn't involved it would've gone badly for us all.

The Russians managed the Eastern Front and lost much in the vanguard. The Polish were invaded early, but fought for their independence. The French were occupied and yet they still fought with the Resistance knowing that they would suffer incredible punishments if caught. And, I truly don't believe Britain would've remained unoccupied if America hadn't joined the war, but don't let an American ever claim arrogantly that they "bailed us out in Europe" to my face, because that is disrespectful and ridiculous in other ways.

A bit of anti-Britishness here. We always like to claim that the Americans joined the war late and take the credit, but let's remember that by the time the Brits joined the war, Hitler's army had already invaded various countries and broken several terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Perhaps Britain should've stepped in before Poland was invaded, but we too didn't want to be dragged into another World War.

And of course, let's remember that many Germans are still suffering the prejudice of what happened over 50 years ago to ancestors, in many case forgotten.

No, we didn't do anything apart from pretty much holding back everyone in North Africa, being the only nation in Europe who remained standing and fighting while the Americans remained isolationist and we had to withstand the might of the Nazi war machine alone, cracking the ENIGMA code, contributing heavily to D-Day, Overlord, and in fact every operation apart from the Americans offensive on Japan.

Nope, Britain was useless in World War II

To be fair, the British only had to deal with the Luftwaffe- had the Third Reich actually invaded Britain like they had the rest of mainland Europe, I think you guys would have been in some serious trouble. You probably also wouldn't have done too well if the Americans hadn't been sending you weapons, ammo and equipment secretly.

But to say the British were a 'non-factor' in World War II is just silly. Field Marshal Montgomery pushed Rommel and the Wermacht out of North Africa almost single-handedly. They were also major factors in Operation Overlord, battling up through Sicily and Italy, the (failed) invasion of Holland and, as someone said, cracking the ENIGMA code.

The Americans were also supplying fuel and other such resources to the Japanese up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. HOWEVER, the efforts of the Americans pre-1942 should not be discounted. The Americans sent a fair amount of resources to Europe to help with the situation, but what you said, as someone else has said, does emit a feeling of American superiority that is saddening. America only joined the war directly when their Pacific fleet was almost knocked out in one swoop. To assume that America would've survived the Nazi War Machine after it had overcome Europe is...

 

[Daemascus]

Because the British were busy in Africa and fighting the Battle of Britain. After that they were sorta playing catch up to the Americans and Russains.

 

[Cru31ty]

Britain kinda spammed Germany early on with tier 1 inf while Russia turtled up because they got rushed. This gave America time to tech up to better troops, so when they eventually baserushed, they just steamrollered.

 

[Joshimodo]

Stupidity. The UK had a huge part in WWII, moreso than many other countries. America took all the glory, of course, since it arrived incredibly late to the party and was fresh-faced, since they had been attacked a handful of times in comparison to the Blitzkrieg and constant stalemates.

Most people don't realise that Russia was the main folly of the Germans. One thing you do not do in a war is piss off a very large, virtually un-assaultable country with millions of conscript soldiers.

 

[dmase]

....You mean the French right?

Of course Britain helped a huge deal in WW2 and no not every American history teacher treats it they way the OP's teacher did.

Edit: wait he is from Iceland so why is everyone blaming American teachers? America however is always the first to get blamed.

 

[Ninjamedic]

....You mean the French right?

Your forgetting the french resistance.

 

[Hookman]

Well the first thing that springs to mind is that we succesfully defended Britain against the Nazi bombers as well as broke Germanys 'Winning Streak' as the Blitzkrieg strategy just couldnt work against an island. Although,it is partially the British Governments fault that the war was started in the first place.

 

[TheBritish]

Stupidity. The UK had a huge part in WWII, moreso than many other countries. America took all the glory, of course, since it arrived incredibly late to the party and was fresh-faced, since they had been attacked a handful of times in comparison to the Blitzkrieg and constant stalemates.

Most people don't realise that Russia was the main folly of the Germans. One thing you do not do in a war is piss off a very large, virtually un-assaultable country with millions of conscript soldiers.

"One of the great laws of war is Never invade Russia" - Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery
"History knows no greater display of courage than that shown by the people of the Soviet Union" - Secretary of War Henry Stimson

 

[PhiMed]

...except the French. But to be fair, they were pretty much overrun before they even realized a war was on. The Germans pulled off the governmental equivalent of a suckerpunch to the scrot.

Really, saying that any side, other than the French, didn't do anything is just naive.

Went on and fixed that for ya.

The French took 350,000 casualties in a couple of weeks of the Battle of France, in a country that was tearing itself apart, on the verge of civil war, still struggling to rebuild itself from the last war, which had almost destroyed it and killed 3,500,000 of its soldiers.

Sociopolitical strife and lingering effects of the first Great War didn't stop the Germans from becoming the most efficient war machine of the 20th century. As for the massive casualties suffered in the Battle of France, a huge portion of those can be attributed to lack of preparation. Please see my suckerpunch statement from earlier (which was meant to exonerate, not ridicule).

They then conducted one of the most heroic resistance campaigns of any war, dealing decisive blows to the Germans ability to bring more soldiers to the Eastern front, wrecking German infrastructure, and arguably allowing D-day to succeed as well as it did.

Yes, the French resistance was key, but it's still not an organized military campaign, and if you're arguing that their contributions were as vital as the British, Russians, or Americans, I think you've got a difficult road ahead of you. Also, I don't really understand your statement about them affecting the Germans' ability to bring soldiers to the Eastern front. Do you mean that their efforts diverted soldiers from the Eastern front? Because it's my understanding that their operations didn't venture all that far into Germany.

That myth about the French surrendering to save Paris from having its nice buildings destroyed is a total lie. In fact, the only reason the French surrendered was because Marshal Phillipe Petain, a know fascist sympathizer and later head of Vichy France, usurped the actual commander and the actual Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, neither of which wanted to surrender, in what was basically a coup d'etat.

Fair enough. Who mentioned that myth?

 

[I Fiend I]

A shame indeed, I am Russian and have many polish friends, which is an accomplishment as many Poles do not like Russians, I always thought that they should be grateful of us liberating it and even giving it independence later on. It is then that I learnt of the massacre that happened in Poland, truly a wrong deed by the Russians, yet war in the first place is wrong, and we have no idea the reasons for this massacre happening.

 

[dmase]

....You mean the French right?

Your forgetting the french resistance.

It was a joke, but when civilians contribute more to a war effort then the French armed forces its sad. Of course its because Germany was occupying them but didn't they also surrender when there was a power struggle? Not that they stood a real chance against the Nazi war machine.