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

[Jamieson 90]

Fact Being Im British and its a fact that america didnt even join the war intill russia had to pull out since they where being invaded and america only joined because peral harbour was boomed by The Japanese and if the japanese had not boomed it then america probley wouldnt have joined but the british and Russians did alot of the work but if france had not surrended then they might have been destoryed in full the british did many many things in the war

You are confusing world war I with World War II, Russia did indeed withdraw in World War I but not in Worldd War II. The USA didn't just join because Pearl Harbour was attacked, although that was a reason, they also joined because they knew the war was comming to and end and to stop Russia getting as much control as possible. The reason the cold war erupted is because the alliance between Britain, Russia and the US was already falling apart way before the end of the second world war. Incidently the US never declared war on Germany in Europe only Japan in the pacific, America was out to protect their economy and their own interests.

Britain did do a lot, We were involved early in the war at Dunkirk, which was a disaster, We then stopped Germany at the Battle of Britain and was able to blockage certain supply routes with our navy. We also did a lot at D-day and operation overlord, 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. Admittedly we did have alot of help off the US but lets get this clear, The US greatly benfitted from this, they didn't do it out of genirousty but business, They gained land leases and we only just payed off the loans a couple of years ago, So yeah i woud not want Americans to go away with the wrong impression, don't think America was all mighty and righteous doing it to help her allies she benefited from it greatly and thats why FDR was able to convince congress to help Britain in the first place.

 

[octafish]

I imagene this will get up a few noses, but the only reason the allies won the war was that Hitler was a douche. He opened up the Russian front too soon. Had her persued the brits over the channel with the momentem he conquered the rest of europe he could have crushed british resistance then focused on the USSR. It was only his poor judgement to open up a second front which allowed a chance to resist.

Not downplaying the sacrifices of ANY of the naitons involved. But as mistakes go THAT was a biggie.

Hey he's not the only Bloodthirsty Nationalistic Psychopath Wannabe Ruler of Everything who under estimated Russia.

 

[UberNoodle]

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...

You're gonna cop it for that 'unjustified' comment from some of the history-buff pragmatists out there, but I agree, that is if ANYTHING can be justified in war. Honestly, if the bombs had dropped on an allied country, there would be war tribunals stringing people up to this day. I love Hiroshima as a city today. I have been there many times. It is wonderful and the peace memorial park and museum is a real eye opener past all the guilt-saving euphamisms used by history teachers back home about those bombs.

I don't presume to demonise the allies for the development and deployment of the bombs, but at that point Japan was already broken. Their part in the war wouldn't have lasted much longer. Japan attacked the USA because of restrictions placed upon Japanese supply lines. It is amazing that a country that provides less than 5% of the resources it uses, went so far. But, It's Total War effort had crippled the country and the government and upper ranks had splintered.

Attesting to this is the fact that the huge battleship, Yamato, was sent out without enough fuel to return and with the last ditch order to beach itself and use its guns to defend against invasion.

Whether the bombs were justified is something that none of us here can really decide on. One of my students was a girl during the war and she described to me the airraids and how her family lost their wealth to the war effort and had to flee from bombed city to bombed city. Those two A bombs were perhaps overkill to a nation poverty stricken, and living in cities largely made of wood.

But I am rambling. I read somewhere that Japan was trying to surrender but the terms would have made the current situation enjoyed by the USA impossible. Tactics-wise, destroying those two cities and gaining political control over Japan was exactly what the USA wanted and has heavily banked on since that day.

 

[Me55enger]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing...

...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?

Yes, the Americans provided the British with equipment and weaponry (primarily planes) through what was called the Lend Lease system. Apart from that the yanks did sod bloody all but fist wave until Pearl Harbor.

The first year of the war, nothing happened, which is why its called the "phony war"

The only thing the British did (until the plans for D Day were created) was use planes and Ariel attacks.

And so, until the re-invasion of France, aided greatly by the Yanks, the British dropped thousands upon thousands of tonnes of bombs on targets in mainland Europe.

And yes, the Ruskies did all the killing...

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

You must be real popular over there in Iceland right now...

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

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.

And fighting off Operation Sealion too.

 

[BluenetteDiviner]

The only reason the Americans even got involved was because the Germans sunk a ship that had mainly American passengers on. If that hadn't happened, they wouldn't have even joined the war :/

And i'm British, so if people have been saying that then I am slightly offended. We did a lot during the Second World War and anybody who says we didn't is very ungrateful.

 

[Spygon]

which country was fighting the nazis for every part of the war end of.
Americans join the war in 1941 and the soviets had a helped the nazis through till 1940

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Maybe the teacher was an American in Iceland?

Anyway if the British hadn't held out during The Battle of Britain, there would have been no staging area to retake continental Europe. Without Britain there wouldn't have been much of an "allied war effort".

 

[creatiwe]

Well, the British successfully stopped the Germans in North Africa, contributed a vast amount to D-Day and Operation Overlord,

operation overlord WAS the codename of D-day

 

[Soushi]

Well, at least in part becasue of teh Americans, who love writing thier own version of histroy, I have read some americina textbooks, they do not even mention the battle of Britain, or teh fact that they only had a part in D-Day ect. I mean, look at how many more 'glorious war movies' there are that have been made by teh states depicting htier own version of history. the states have literally smothered histroy, to make it look like it was the brave forces of uncle sam taking on mean old Hitler, with the rest of the world sitting aorund with a stick up thier buts.
the other thing is that, other than the RAF Britain did kind of take a bit of a back seat. Thier fleet was out htere sinking Germna ships and subs, don;t get me wrong, and without them we, the germans, my ancestors, would have had a much easier time during the war (good thing we didn't though), but that isn't exactly 'glorious battle' for texts. Sure you guys sank sa lot of cargo and a lot of U-boats, but it is difficult to encapsulate the excitement of that kind of battle in a book, thus making those battle seem like a stream of dry and boring number counts to many readers (i personally find it heart wrenching).
The primary reaseon is that at Dunkirk, Britain's army was decimated. Soldiers were slaughtered by a joint, air, sea and artillery attack, while those that escaped had to leave all of htier equiptment behind as they paddled for htier lives across the channel in any boat they could find. After that, the British Diverted most of htie remaining hardware to defending cities, and all production went to aricraft so as to stop Germany's preliminary to the invasion, the air attacks.
Bascially, Britain did do a lot,but as a result of insufferable americain flag waving, and the fact that they were still recovering from the ass kicking they got during the german blitz across Europe, their role has somewhat been forgotten. It is sad, but true.
Besides, Britian being underplayed, what about Canada! When we landed at D-Day, we already had a knickname for Germans, Stormtroopers. When we landed and kicked some serious German ass, as tehy were running away, they gave Canadain sodleirs a knickname, Stormtroopers. The irony is delicious and it tastes like cake.

 

[Volstag9]

never heard anyone say that... Thats strange, also your history teacher seems very ignorant.

 

[Jamieson 90]

The only reason the Americans even got involved was because the Germans sunk a ship that had mainly American passengers on. If that hadn't happened, they wouldn't have even joined the war :/

That was World War I not II.

Although you can see my views on America here,

Britain did do a lot, We were involved early in the war at Dunkirk, which was a disaster, We then stopped Germany at the Battle of Britain and was able to blockade certain supply routes with our navy. We also did a lot at D-day and operation overlord, Without the British campaign of missinformation the Germans would have been very well fortified. We also cracked the enigma code and were involved in North Africa with our empire and India etc. Admittedly we did have alot of help off the US but lets get this clear, The US greatly benfitted from this, they didn't do it out of genirousty but business, They gained land lease and we only just payed off the loans a couple of years ago, So yeah i woud not want Americans to go away with the wrong impression, don't think America was all mighty and righteous doing it to help her allies she benefited from it greatly and thats why FDR was able to convince congress to help Britain in the first place, otherwise they didn't care or want to know

 

[Jaythulhu]

Why, exactly, aren't the sacrifices of the Australian or New Zealand troops sent to die by ignorant british leaders mentioned anywhere in this thread? We bled to the point of annihilation in WW2 at the hands of british foolhardiness, but we don't rate a mention? For shame, escapists. Go do your homework, and those of you who aren't american but are part of the commonwealth, the shame is doubly piled upon ye, especially with ANZAC day in less than 48 hours.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

1 nation sais such things... Americans... that is all, lol.

 

[Soushi]

Maybe the teacher was an American in Iceland?

Anyway if the British hadn't held out during The Battle of Britain, there would have been no staging area to retake continental Europe. Without Britain there wouldn't have been much of an "allied war effort".

It wouldn't have been easy anyway. But, there was still the fighting going on down in northern Africa. that, and teh allies may have been able to use Iceland or Greenland or Ireland as a defensible position (maybe not ireland, casue from what iunderstand they were talking with teh Nazi's about a coalition agaisnt teh Brits, same with the Scotish). Still, it would have been uncomfortable, that;s for sure. Thank goodness they held out.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

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.

And fighting off Operation Sealion too.

We fought off the prelude to Operation Sealion, with the Battle of Britain, designed to weaken us for it. Operation Sealion itself was cancelled because of the results of the Battle of Britain, and the attack on Russia.

which country was fighting the nazis for every part of the war end of.
Americans join the war in 1941 and the soviets had a helped the nazis through till 1940

Russia was invaded in June 1941, not 1940. They were still supplying the Germans up until then with certain resources, and troops were ordered not to return fire, though the AA capabilities of the navy, under Admiral Kuznetsov, largely ignored this.

I love Hiroshima as a city today. I have been there many times. It is wonderful and the peace memorial park and museum is a real eye opener past all the guilt-saving euphamisms used by history teachers back home about those bombs.

I hear Hiroshima citizens have a longer predicted lifespan than most.

 

[octafish]

I did a little research. In WW2 the British invaded Iceland (a neutral country throughout the war) to stop them playing nice with the Germans. This was on May 10 1940, so it'll be the 70th anniversary soon. Then on 7th of July they handed the defense of Iceland over to the U.S. who sent more troops there than there were adult male Icelanders.

 

[Trivun]

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

Yup, we supplied diamonds (woo, sparkly diamonds - I assume this was for industrial reasons) to Russia at one point - we shouldered the bulk of the lend-lease act for Russia until America's war economy kicked into gear - then the roles reversed.

You make a good point there. Though fortunately as a student I don't have to deal with many of the locals. But yeah, maybe landing in Yorkshire would be a pretty bad idea. Perhaps if the Nazis had headed on up to Northumbria?

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...

You're gonna cop it for that 'unjustified' comment from some of the history-buff pragmatists out there, but I agree, that is if ANYTHING can be justified in war. Honestly, if the bombs had dropped on an allied country, there would be war tribunals stringing people up to this day. I love Hiroshima as a city today. I have been there many times. It is wonderful and the peace memorial park and museum is a real eye opener past all the guilt-saving euphamisms used by history teachers back home about those bombs.

I don't presume to demonise the allies for the development and deployment of the bombs, but at that point Japan was already broken. Their part in the war wouldn't have lasted much longer. Japan attacked the USA because of restrictions placed upon Japanese supply lines. It is amazing that a country that provides less than 5% of the resources it uses, went so far. But, It's Total War effort had crippled the country and the government and upper ranks had splintered.

Attesting to this is the fact that the huge battleship, Yamato, was sent out without enough fuel to return and with the last ditch order to beach itself and use its guns to defend against invasion.

Whether the bombs were justified is something that none of us here can really decide on. One of my students was a girl during the war and she described to me the airraids and how her family lost their wealth to the war effort and had to flee from bombed city to bombed city. Those two A bombs were perhaps overkill to a nation poverty stricken, and living in cities largely made of wood.

But I am rambling. I read somewhere that Japan was trying to surrender but the terms would have made the current situation enjoyed by the USA impossible. Tactics-wise, destroying those two cities and gaining political control over Japan was exactly what the USA wanted and has heavily banked on since that day.

You also make a very good point there. I think that nowadays though, if the US tried to drop nuclear bombs on, say, Afghanistan or Iraq (back in the days when they were controlled by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein respectively) then Bush would have been hauled up in front of a war crimes tribunal and he'd be spending the rest of his life in a prison cell in The Hague. The US government should never have allowed Project Manhattan to go ahead and the only reason the US military chiefs and the President at the time weren't put on trial is because, after all, history favours the victors. And the other Allied countries, Britain included, were just as much to blame for the aftermath for not trying to force a war crimes trial.

 

[Riobux]

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.

People actually say the British didn't do a thing?

What the living hell? They did all sorts like help with the French resistance.