Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?
- Thread starter The Stonker
- Start date
Furburt said:
I thought the main sympathiser was Pierre Lavel rather than Petain. He got the harsher sentence after the war.
I'm sorry? Russia didn't "pull out" because it was invaded - that's when it actually joined the war.xXCagallixX said:
It's WWI where the Russians pulled out, and that was due to the October Revolution in 1917 in which the Bolsheviks seized power from the Provisional Government, which in turn had taken over from the Tsar.
Hollywood history tends to muddle things up a little. Blatantly untrue actions become truth based on the viewers ignorance of the actual happenings.
Hollywood makes movies for an American audience. They have Americans beating the redcoats, slapping the japs and raising the Stars'n'stripes over the reichstag. People with a shaky grasp of history take this fiction as truth and propagate it further down the line.
That said, there are also many other reasons, and the US is not the only guilty party in belittling their allies efforts.
(edit, yes yes, i know the US won the war of independence, and blasted the Japanese out of the war. That's not my point! What you see is still fiction and in many regards the truth is bent.)
Hollywood makes movies for an American audience. They have Americans beating the redcoats, slapping the japs and raising the Stars'n'stripes over the reichstag. People with a shaky grasp of history take this fiction as truth and propagate it further down the line.
That said, there are also many other reasons, and the US is not the only guilty party in belittling their allies efforts.
(edit, yes yes, i know the US won the war of independence, and blasted the Japanese out of the war. That's not my point! What you see is still fiction and in many regards the truth is bent.)
Your teacher needs to have their qaulifications reviewd. And severely. What exactly did iceland do, actually?the stonker said:
Britain carried the war in Western Europe, the Russians in the East.
Take my advice- get out of that buffoon's class and read up on it yourself.
You ever hear of the Battle of Britain?
The Battle of the Atlantic?
Britain was a major player in the war, and while not as well resourced as the US, Britain had been fighting since 1939, the US since 1943. The American contribution to the war was in the place of material and military support once they actually bothered to join in, but the US has this tiresome grossly exaggerated heroic image of itself in the war.
It was called a World war for a reason- it took place the world over. Also, the British were fighting the japanese empire in Indo-China before the US joined in.
Furthermore; the Australian and New Zealand armies made major contributions.
For the record, I am not British, I'm Irish. I am a history graduate, and doing my Masters in history, so forgive me if I get rather irritated by supposedly qaulified teachers getting it dead wrong.
i come from Denmark... and bloody hell..
we were pathetic, we gave up EVERYTHING! about 1 hour after the Germans passed our border.. I know we lived close to them.. but come on! they barely made it to the bloody capital! ( a bit away from the border. )
and even started helping making them more "war machines" to use on the rest of you lot..
shame on my own country!
we were pathetic, we gave up EVERYTHING! about 1 hour after the Germans passed our border.. I know we lived close to them.. but come on! they barely made it to the bloody capital! ( a bit away from the border. )
and even started helping making them more "war machines" to use on the rest of you lot..
shame on my own country!
I think you're thinking of the Canadians. It's a joke okay. Seriously, whoever told you that is a moron, and I'm an American. Russia was also very important. I believe many people feel though that Germany would have won if not for American intervention.
Not sure of numbers, but I know there were five landing zones.captainfluoxetine said:
America: Omaha (the famous one), Utah.
Britain and Canada: Gold, Juno, Sword (I forget which one the Canadians landed on; possibly Sword).
And yes, Hitler annoyed his generals by doing stuff like that. He hardly let the German army act on its own initiative, as in "Do this, I don't care how you do it, just do it." One occasion was during the Siege of Leningrad, when the Germans were desperate to subdue the city once and for all, and the commander was given leeway to approach it how he wanted - I believe they were going to use one of those absolutely giant railway-mounted mortar guns as part of it, but other conditions in the general Eastern Front meant that they were unable to do it.post="18.190333.5928442" said:
Each side had important contributions to victory. The Russians contributed the most manpower, as they had a huge population that Stalin was willing to sacrifice in defense of the motherland. the Americans contributed the most materiel and technological advancements, as their factories were never successfully bombed during the war. The British contributed the most intelligence, as cracking ENIGMA was a major factor in the war. The British Empire, due to its sheer size, contributed a huge amount of raw materials to the victory effort, while the British Navy was able to protect shipping fairly well.
This is not to downstate the contributions that, for example, the Americans or British made in combat, I'm just saying that the war was a coalition victory and that every Ally had strengths and weaknesses.
This is not to downstate the contributions that, for example, the Americans or British made in combat, I'm just saying that the war was a coalition victory and that every Ally had strengths and weaknesses.
Feh, slating any faction in WW2 is a bit dense.
Yes, I grudgingly include the French in that, and the only reason I have bias against the French is because I'm English and it's in fashion!
Joking aside, if you ever want any good reading, look up what the British soldiers were up to in the PoW camps.
Oh hell yes.
Yes, I grudgingly include the French in that, and the only reason I have bias against the French is because I'm English and it's in fashion!
Joking aside, if you ever want any good reading, look up what the British soldiers were up to in the PoW camps.
Frontlines aside. One word: Commandos.German Prison Officer said:
Oh hell yes.
Wait, you live in Iceland? What the hell did they do in WW2? As far as I'm aware there were no Icelandic troops on either side, or if there were they comprised an extremely tiny proportion (about the same amount as, say, Micronesian troops. And from what I know that collection of islands doesn't even have an army...).the stonker said:
Anyway, the 'British did nothing' line is most commonly spouted by arrogant Americans (note that I refer to arrogant Americans, not all Americans. Many US people are in fact very supportive of UK troops and whatnot, as I found out when I went to Florida...).
The USA in fact did very little themselves on the Western Front. The main US offensive was concentrated on the Pacific front against the Japanese and their allies. In Europe, the war was won almost singlehandedly by a combination of British and Russian troops, and even as a Brit I have to admit that we wouldn't have stood a chance if the Germans had invaded Britain instead of Russia. Hitler made the exact same mistake that led to Napoleon's downfall, in that given a choice between attacking Russia and attacking the UK, he chose to attack the big, cold, deathtrap country instead of an island. Seriously, would it have been that hard to set up a beachhead somewhere like East Anglia or East Yorkshire, where we weren't as expectant of an attack? As for the US European offensive, they basically lent us a few troops who they could spare from the Pacific arena, who were in a few battles including the D-Day offensives, then claimed to have saved us Brits from Hitler. Basically, bullshit.
The USA did great against the Japanese (save for, you know, the atomic bombs, which were completely unjustified). In Europe though, the two main players were Russia and Britain. And Russia did the most work, they were mostly responsible for the Allied victory, with a lot of support from Britain. Britain did loads in WW2. So your Icelandic history teacher can STFU and GTFO...
This is certainly a Euro-centric thread. World War II was more the just Europe, and that is something forgotten by everyone it seems. Lets not forget the losses of the Chinese to Japan both before and after they lost their war. America was fighting a two front war that the British couldn't keep up with. Not that they didn't help out quite a bit on the Pacific front, but they couldn't field a Navy in the Pacific to match Japan or America.
More to the point while America shouldn't get credit for all the fighting they do deserve the credit for supplying the British with the ability to fight.
Also, Patton. Patton is why.
More to the point while America shouldn't get credit for all the fighting they do deserve the credit for supplying the British with the ability to fight.
Also, Patton. Patton is why.
LOL. Well that teacher can go and suck it. Um....That was not what I meant. Umm Canadia lol.....
No experienced soldiers either, just a few hundred Australian milita that no one had any faith in.Funkysandwich said:
Mind you Australia's greatest WW2 hero was a doctor who kept men alive in a Japanese POW camp. It's not all pew pew kill kill you know.
Patton was reckless, and was put on the backfoot by US Command leading up to Operation Overlord, because of all the men he managed to lose in Sicily. Of course, that was because he was racing Field Marshal Montgomery (they were both rivals). I believe his role was to oversee the cover-up operation so the Germans were unaware of Normandy being the target, before he got back into the field.Saverio said:
If I was the Germans I would never have the guts to land in Yorkshire - the citizenry itself would be a greater foe than any defensive military troops. As a fellow resident in the general Leeds area I'm sure you'd understand where I'm getting at.Trivun said:
Chamale" post="18.190333.5928578 said: