What do people think of Britains involvement or activity in World War 2? do people really believe we did nothing and if so what is the case for that belief?
Basically what do you know or think of Britain in WW2?
>>847552
Is it true that it was meant as a thank you for all pilots from many different countries who helped Britain before it was hijacked by the le lonely island myth?
I don't think people "believe" it as much as they don't think about it. Because the popular perception goes like this - Germany invades everyone, France surrenders, (maybe Battle of Britain), Barbarossa happens, Soviets get bloodied but then stop the Germans, then turn Back the Germans, then Americans land in Normandy (what do you mean half the troops were British/Commonwealth huh???), war ends.
Maybe add Pearl Harbor, Americans wrecking Japan, the bombs (what do you mean there was stuff in China and India etc. whoaaaa???).
Things like the North African campaign (oh yeah there was Rommel right he was a cool guy and the best general ever!!!), the air campaign, the war in the Atlantic, the Commonwealth contributions in the Pacific and like half the fighting on the western front/Italy don't really register.
>>847564
No idea but Britain hasn't forgotten any foreign soldier that died for Britain we have war memorials for them everywhere. Pic related is the Polish air memorial in London and it see's big services
Nope I don't, Germany got BTFO by Britain
>>847570
True I guess it's a mix of the casual image and the Hollywood image of WW2 just portraying I guess the parts talked about most not exactly the most important not that they weren't but you get the point I guess.
no war on your own soil
see some statistics
>>847572
>Britain
>Atlantic
>Dieppe
>Sahara
>Italy
>France
>Belgium
>Holland
>Germany
>they forgot China
Also funny thing about OP pic and "The Few" is that ultimately, the Germans were even fewer. The myth of RAF being on its knees & totally defeated if only that silly old Adolf didn't meddle in Luftwaffe targets gets me slightly annoyed every time I see it.
>>847582
It was a pretty close call. At least for a moment though. I don't know if Britain would've been saved without reinforecments even with Goering as the commander of the Luftwaffe.
>>847581
>China
What?
>>847587
One pilot was so eager to fight that he went to China with the Americans.
Some other became a mercenary in Africa after the war since his country was gone.
>>847588
So why would he even be on that War memorial?
>>847572
>Polish air memorial in London and it see's big services
GEE I WONDER WHY
>>847592
Because it would be funny to celebrate a one-man army like that because one guy wanted to fight.
Actually I don't know if there was only one but he happened to be one of the top fliers of the Battle of Britain so it's the only widely known example.
>>847596
Nah mate everyone who isn't Polish goes as well.
>>847597
Most memorials are for soldiers who died for Britain really, though I think we are a contender for more war memorials than any other country it's kinda ridiculous the smallest village of 4 houses will have a memorial
>>847605
Even dedicated part of St Pauls as a chapel to the Americans that died
>>847586
Britain built more planes, trained more pilots, lost fewer pilots than the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. It was never close, nor were the British somehow magically saved by anything. They won the war of attrition, the numbers were on their side. The RAF strength ***grew*** throughout the Battle of Britain.
>>847582
It means the Few as in all the Britons owe their thanks to a (comparatively) Few men.
>>847582
>the Germans were even fewer
The Germans were even fewer because they died. The RAF was definitely the smaller force fighting against the larger. And Churchill's point is the RAF held off Germany, not just the LW.
>>847940
People seem to forget the loses of the Luftwaffe to the Raf even before the Battle of Britain as they lost a lot at dunkirk and over France
>>847552
>do people really believe we did nothing and if so what is the case for that belief?
You did nothing relevant
You fled the continent in 1940, and didnt dare coming back until the Americans did in 1944
But it's okay, you're just a tiny island nation after all.
It's not up to you to save the world
We're fine with this as long as you dont pretend you were relevant
>>847572
it looks like a fucking dick and testicles with sperm coming out
lmao
>>847940
>The RAF was definitely the smaller force fighting against the larger
at literally no point of the battle of britain did the luftwaffe have more fighter pilots available than the raf
in fact, the raf gained fighter pilots over the course of the battle (as opposed to the lw)
admittedly a noticeable gap in fighter aircraft existed at first, but already by the end of july it was gone - with the british producing some thousand planes vs. the germans 350, for a net gain of some 650 planes for the british
the trend of the raf producing more fighters (and pilots) than the luftwaffe continued in literally every single month of the BoB
>>848086
>You fled the continent in 1940, and didnt dare coming back until the Americans did in 1944
why do you lie on the internet?
the british and commonwealth forces fought in greece until 1941
and both the americans and the british were involved in the invasion of italy in 1943
and incidentally the british and commonwealth troops comprised roughly a half of the allied forces in the d-day invasions
>>848086
>You did nothing relevant
Other than defeat Germany, alone, in the Battle of Britain,
>You fled the continent in 1940, and didnt dare coming back until the Americans did in 1944
You realise that the entire naval force and half the land forces on D-Day were British? You could say it was the Yanks along for the ride with us.
>>847552
Britain certainly didn't do "nothing" but a lot of what they were doing was ineffective, and most of their successes only came as part of joint actions with the Americans, often with the British as a junior partner, especially of offensive actions.
I'm especially looking at the bomber war over Germany. They spent roughly a third of their industrial capacity to kit out an enormous fleet of heavy bombers, and then proceeded to use it in a manner that was almost, but not quite completely ineffective, due to bad planning, bad intelligence, and bad strategy. It didn't break the German morale like Trenchard wanted. It didn't destroy the Luftwaffe like the Americans wanted. It didn't cause a destruction of the German economy like Speer was afraid of. It scored some hits, but probably not enough to justify the expense spent on it.
>>848188
Not him, but the Battle of Britain wasn't really as big of a deal as it's made out to be.
Even if everything goes the Germans way, and the RAF gets battered, and the Germans force the British to pull the fighter bases back to the midlands, so what? They don't have the sealift to seriously contemplate a Sealion. They don't have anything approaching the level of industrial mass or doctrine to bomb England into submission by airpower alone. They are being outproduced pretty badly, so any gains are temporary.
The Battle of Britain had little strategic impact on the war overall, unless you're of the opinion that British morale would have folded at that point, which I personally do not agree with.
>>848086
always one retard like this who feels the need to post and make his ignorance known
>>848206
Amerilard detected.
>>848345
Frenchfag here
The American is right
Americans are overwhelmingly ignorant of WWII. Certainly ignorant of the involvement other nations, and largely ignorant of the U.S.'s involvement in everything but the most high profile battles shown in movies and History Channel documentaries. If it's not the Battle of Pearl Harbor, the Landing on Normandy, or the Battle of Fury, most Americans just don't care.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_KrrI-rgns
So thanks, Brits, for fending off the Germans in the BoB, and then doing all the real hard fighting in Normandy.
>>848385
>french
>>848419
You know, the people who covered the British escape at Dunkirk so they could hide on their island and wait for the Americans and Russians to beat the Germans
>>848206
It was all worth it just to firebomb Dresden.
>>848559
Why? It killed about 3% of the city's population, and destroyed little in the way of wartime industry or the communication network. And it happened when the German war machine was irretrievably broken and the war was going to be won in 3 months time.
What good was it?
>>848686
It still gets Nazis butthurt on 4chan. So well worth it.
Bonglanders took it up the ass for a while, went all in n spitfires hilariusly. Im glad we bailed out those anglo jews so that we could fuck the world together for 70 years.
>>847552
> Basically what do you think of Britain in WW2?
I think the Brits were down right pro-Nazi in the run-up to the war (turning a blind eye to Germany’s rearmament, to the point of leaving France in the dark) and didn’t bother preparing for war, figuring that as they live on an island they’d be safe, then they callously offered an alliance with Poland while knowing full-well they’d leave them swinging in the wind.
Though after the war came to their shores, the Brits did put up a stiff fight and stuck thru to the end and while they couldn’t do much about Stalin taking over half of Europe, at least Churchill didn’t out right hand it over to the Soviets, like crippled fuck FDR.
>>848686
On the contrary, there were quite a few war materiel factories hit during the bombing of dresden, not to mention railway facilities that were a major transportation hub for the Wehrmacht.
>>849044
I'd have to re-check my notes, but I thought that the infamous strike, the one on the night of 13/14th of February, struck at the city center which had little in the way of war-production.
It was later raids, mostly carried out by the Americans, that hit the railroad yards and the ammo factories.
>>847552
>60 million people died all because Churchill would rather Poland be dominated by communists for the next 50 years than by Germans.
disgusting eternal anglo
British was the reason WW2 happened.
1. Declaring war on Germany
2. Cutting oil supplies to Japan which made Japan attack Pearl Harbor
Fucking tea drinking crumpet eating faggots. The US should never be involved in British affairs. There is a reason why independence was declared.
>>848094
> So patriotic I literally cum eagles
>>849094
>pol understanding of politics
mlp or v would be boards more compatible with your intellectual capacity
>>849101
Are you retarded?
Especially cutting off oil supplies. It was America that embargoed Japan, not the Brits.
>>849101
The reason independence was declared was about money and power, it had nothing to do with liberty
>>849101
>Declaring war on Germany
British declared the war on Germany 2 days after German attack of Poland which was something they were bound to do by independence guarantee.
I know that it's hard to comprehend that some nations honour international treaties and that "perfidious albion" is pretty much the most "honourable" nation when it comes to it but you have to live with it.
>Cutting oil supplies to Japan which made Japan attack Pearl Harbor
And fail miserably at it.
>>847552
Eternal Anglo started a war because they didn't want to face the Reich in football.
>mfw nazifags forget that the British empire btfo Germans and Italians in Africa
>mfw everybody forgets that the British empire was the main "liberator" of Italy
>>847564
If anything it's gone entirely the opposite way recently. You'd be forgiveness for thinking there weren't any actual British people in the British military at all and that the entire RAF were Polish.
>>849094
>he thinks Churchill was the British prime minister at the start of the Second World War
Kek
>>847552
Wow lots of part time history professors here.
No we weren't a big part of the european conflict until the americans came in. Without the UK invading europe would be up to the russians and britain had other shit to deal with unlike other countries, like trying to fight the japanese and separatists. Also saing that we didnt prepair for war is a falicy as without the ramping up in the 30s we would have been totally un ready for a war in europe. As for the letting it slide, no one gave a shit about poland and austria, and the west of europe really really didn't want another ww1.
>>848967
Just like the USA being pretty in touch with their German roots up until WW2 and the media villainized the German culture causing the american to cut it out with a hot knife.
>>850025
Pure fantasy. Tell me what point in history German was ever a major language in the US, let alone significant Germanic cultural influence.
That's not to say there haven't been plenty of German immigrants to the US, but the roots of US culture and heritage are English and French. Describing the US as having 'German roots' is laughable.
>>850165
Germans seem to have formed cloistered communities, if anything.
They gave us some pretty rad food culture though. Texan food wouldn't be the same without German settlers.
>>849144
British did, and then American immediately followed suit.
Stay mad brit fag.
>>848138
>at literally no point of the battle of britain did the luftwaffe have more fighter pilots available than the raf
What is your point? The Luftwaffe was the larger air force than the RAF. If you have anything substantial to contribute to that point, go ahead and say it. If all you have is to spout some pointless verbiage to make yourself feel good, you could have done that without replying to my post or in fact even posting at all.
>>848444
>his algerian nation surrendered after 5 weeks
>>850236
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets
No, the Americans went first. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, Britain's trade with Japan did not include the sale of oil, rubber was the big item that was going from the British (mostly in Malaya) to Japan.
proportionally, we were the best out of the allies.
we had less resources and less bodies, but we made up for this by being the smartest and most tenacious.
>>849101
>be Germany
>Britain declares this little country should remain independent and says they will guarantee said independence with war
>Germany attacks anyway
>WW1
>repeat
>WWII
>>848151
Ignore his shit. Anyone who isn't a retard knows Britain more than held their own.
>>847552
Britain was the only country to truely mobilize for total war. She waged a war more brutal, more grinding and more horrific than any the rest of us could dream up. At one point, Britain's state goal was the destruction of the German people. Not taking the land but instead to destroy the people that inhabited it. Thats a level of brutality not seen since Rome and Carthage.
Britain won because it was the most ruthless and cunning. She mobilized her industries best and used her resources accordingly. Britain probably contributed more to the final victory in World War 2 than the Soviets did.
It was Stalin who begged Churchill for the Matilda tanks that saved Moscow, not Churchill begging Stalin.
Ultimately it was through Britain that what we know as Western Civilization survived. GG no re.
>>852493
>Britain was the only country to truely mobilize for total war.
What about Germany?
>She waged a war more brutal, more grinding and more horrific than any the rest of us could dream up. At one point, Britain's state goal was the destruction of the German people. Not taking the land but instead to destroy the people that inhabited it. Thats a level of brutality not seen since Rome and Carthage.
Wow, you have anything to read on it? Preferably papers, so I can access them.
>>852493
>Britain was the only country to truely mobilize for total war.
There was also USSR, you know.
>>847552
>do people really believe we did nothing and if so what is the case for that belief?
Not that we believe you did nothing... just that you didn't do as much as we did.
https://youtu.be/7Qn0GnkFpwY?t=21m45s
>>852575
>Too decentralised, but tried harder than Germoney.
Anon, we're talking about the biggest mobilisation in history.
>>850165
There are still communities in the US (Texas especially) that speak German primarily, and the majority of white Americans claim German descent.
>>852589
Majority of Americans claim Saxon descent.
For no reason other than that they've heard that there's a thing like anglo-saxons and they're still butthurt about brits when it comes to their identity, so they forget the anglo part.
And even then in the "muh ancestry" Olympics you have clear bias since if you'd treat it seriously then like 70% of white americans are nobles by blood as well. I'll remind you that typically nobles formed like 1% of European population and at best was at 15%(single exception).
>>852517
He didn't offer reading material, so I found some myself: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40264177?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=britain&searchText=total&searchText=war&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicResults%3FQuery%3Dbritain%2Btotal%2Bwar%26amp%3Bacc%3Doff%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bvf%3Djo&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>Strategic Bombing and Restraint in 'Total War', 1915-1918
>Abstract
>Recent studies of 'total war' depict a process of inexorable expansion leading to an often nebulous linkage of everything to war. This article takes the study of 'total war' in the opposite direction by studying a specific example of strategic restraint. It examines how the French bombing strategy that was developed over the course of the First World War went to considerable lengths to maintain a distinction between the civilian and the military. The article studies France's restraint by highlighting the strategic, geographical, institutional, and economic factors upon which it was built. It then goes on to examine the political pressures for an expansion of bombing which proved incapable of overturning this policy. Finally, it contrasts French restraint with that of its key ally, Great Britain. There, bombing developed into a strategic weapon designed to destroy the 'homefront'. This study of restraint underscores the importance of limits, and the attendant choices government has to make, in understanding the course and intensity of a country's mobilization for modern war.
>>852580
Yes, but the USSR had about 175'000'000 people to the UK's 45'000'000 people in 1940.
>>849094
Hitler was going to keep invading countries until he got his war. He had a plan, though he was surprised by the french and britain declaring war after he invaded poland, it really is what he wanted.
>>848138
This.
Not to mention that the Battle of Britain was severely biased. A German fighter after having crossed the channel could fight between 10 - 15 minutes before he had to return assuming he didn't want to swim home. Yet the Luftwaffe still managed to shoot down roughly the same number of fighters as the RAF did.
