Was Britain really irrelevant in wwii?
>>940721
No.
Who do you think managed the sea blockade?
>>940721
other than being a stagging point for operation overlord, yes
>>940721
>that face at the starting
Absolutely no, Brit's will to not surrender forced Hitler to attack Soviet, to make Britain sign the peace treaty, which changed the course of war.
>>940721
Why do ww2 questions somehow manage to be so profoundly stupid on this board? You never hear a GOOD question, like how come the interservice rivalries between air force and army manifested in Germany by Goering trying to take over real army functiosn in the name of "airbase security", but in places like the CW and U.S., it involved the air chiefs trying to win the war on their own with no participation from the army, and disdaining being "flying artillery"?
No, instead you get retarded shit after retarded shit
>Was Rommel a good general?
>Was Patton a good general?
>Why does MacArthur suck?
>Why did Hitler attack the USSR?
>Why did Mexico join the war?
>Endless stupidity about the nukes
etc.
>>941075
Maybe there should be WWII general?
Britain has never been relevant
>>941075
Yup, WW2 is the worst thing to talk about because it's the event people who know nothing love to talk about.
>>941085
It wouldn't really make the questions any better, but I suppose it would concentrate them in one place.
>>940721
Not really. I'm not quite sure where this myth stems from. The war would have been over if Britain had surrendered in June 1940. It was only through the UK that the Soviet Union, China and U.S partnered up in a grand alliance.
>>940721
does anyone else smile involuntarily at gifs like this?
>>942882
>The war would have been over if Britain had surrendered in June 1940
>This is what the Anglos believe
Protip, Britain is never irrelevant.
UK was irrelevant in WW1 & WW2. They aren't able to fight an Europeans country if they don't have powerful ally.
>be a staging ground for Overlord
>win the battle of Atlantic thus ensuring that convoys which went to USSR survived
>stop Germans from getting in Middle East
>strategic bombing campaign, crippling German Industry
>fighting Japs in Burma
They did fine, with what they had, imo
>>943010
Atlantic and Middle-east/Greece campaigns though not completely crucial to win the war, were pretty significant.
I don't think Soviet Navy ever challenged German submarines in open seas.
>>943020
>Soviet
>Navy
>>940915
The sea
>>941065
No Hitlers obsession with WW1 did that.
>>943010
>stop Germans from getting in Middle East
You're thinking of Australians senpai.
>>941075
>Goering trying to take over real army functions in the name of "airbase security", but in places like the CW and U.S., it involved the air chiefs trying to win the war on their own with no participation from the army, and disdaining being "flying artillery"?
that's because the other countries had established power structures. From the beginning Germany was riddled with 'states within states' such as having a Cheif of Police, and a Bavarian Chief of Police; OKW over a OKH, OKL, and OKK;
The Nazi's just doubled down on the pre-existing chaos. Ironically the State built around the Fuehrer Prinzip was led by a man who encouraged underlings to build little empires and squabble with each other so that no individual could gain enough power to challenge him.
>>942906
What? If Britain had surrendered, then the Second World War would have been finished. There would be no United Nations, the U.S and Germany wouldn't have gone to war, the Soviets and Germany would inevitably have had their own conflict with no ties to any wider struggle alongside allies etc. What is so confusing about that?
The only great thing Britain did in the war was not coming to terms with Hitler at the time when any sane nation would have done so.
>>942998
Always
>>943287
WHAT WAS THE NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN.
WHAT WAS ARCHIBALD WAVELL DOING IN NORTH AFRICA WHEN THE ITALIANS ATTACKED.
WHAT WAS THE FORMATION 9F THE BRITISH SEVENTH ARMY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DESERT RATS, WHOSE SYMBOL WAS AN ADORABLE TINY DESERT RAT KNOWN AS A JERBOA.
WHAT WAS CLAUDE AUNCHINLECK AND HIS APPROVAL OF FAST TRACKING THE BRITISH SAS IN FUCKING JEEPS DOING DRIVEBYS AT NAZI PLANE.
WHO THE FUCK WAS HANS JOACHIM MARSEILLE, THE AFRICAN ACE
WHAT THE FUCK WERE THE BATTLES OF SIDI BARRANI, THE TWO BATTLES OF EL ALAMEIN, AND THE TORCH LANDINGS
WHAT THE FUCK WAS BERNARD MONTGOMERY FAMOUS FOR
AND FINALLY, WHAT THE FUCK WAS ROMMEL AND THE AFRIKACORPS, THE ONLY KNOWN SUCCESS OF THE REGIA MARINA AND THE ITALIAN CAMPAIGN.
>>944685
>WHAT WAS THE NORTH AFRICAN CAMPAIGN.
A bunch of Britbongs sitting around while Australians do the heavy lifting.
>WHAT WAS ARCHIBALD WAVELL DOING IN NORTH AFRICA WHEN THE ITALIANS ATTACKED.
Any one could succeed if you they had super soldiers under their command.
>WHAT WAS THE FORMATION 9F THE BRITISH SEVENTH ARMY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DESERT RATS, WHOSE SYMBOL WAS AN ADORABLE TINY DESERT RAT KNOWN AS A JERBOA.
A name they, in their vanity and hubris, chose for themselves. The real desert rats were the rats of Tobruk.
>WHAT WAS CLAUDE AUNCHINLECK AND HIS APPROVAL OF FAST TRACKING THE BRITISH SAS IN FUCKING JEEPS DOING DRIVEBYS AT NAZI PLANE.
The Australian's didn't need the SAS when their ordinary soldiers could crawl prone for miles right up to the enemy camp and capture the entire place with a bayonet charge because the Britbongs are hording all the ammo.
>WHO THE FUCK WAS HANS JOACHIM MARSEILLE, THE AFRICAN ACE
A German.
>WHAT THE FUCK WERE THE BATTLES OF SIDI BARRANI, THE TWO BATTLES OF EL ALAMEIN, AND THE TORCH LANDINGS
Australian's played a massive part in all of these battles.
>WHAT THE FUCK WAS BERNARD MONTGOMERY FAMOUS FOR
Famous only in the British isles who relied on Australian commanders.
>AND FINALLY, WHAT THE FUCK WAS ROMMEL AND THE AFRIKACORPS, THE ONLY KNOWN SUCCESS OF THE REGIA MARINA AND THE ITALIAN CAMPAIGN.
"Give me 1 Australian Division and I will conquer the world." -Erwin Rommel
>>940721
The Soviet Union was the major players in the war and played the key role of defeating the German invasion.
The British got pushed out of mainland Europe and got destroyed at sea by the U-boat. The Brits just like to think of themselves as more important than they actually are.
They won North Africa, but in reality that was only of minor importance.
>>944862
Britain was winning the war while ze USSR was still on the side of the Germans and the USA were faggoting about.
>>943010
Don't forget the constant Commando operations that forced Germany to keep redistributing their forces all over the western front.
I think that UK is joint 3rd with the USA in being instrumental to winning WW2 (Russia being #1 of course).
UK (and thus the Commonwealth) was the only power at war with Germany for about a year IIRC. If Churchill had capitulated at any point (and there was good reason to), the rest of the world would've probably backed off. Except for Russia of course, who would've had a much harder time fighting a Germany that was only fighting on one front.
I still think Russia would've won that 1v1, but it would be a very different world today. No invasion on the western front means no liberation of France etc, no Allies in post-war Berlin...
Actually, what would've happened to France if the Allies hadn't liberated them but Russia had taken Berlin (and the rest of Germany)? Would France have been liberated by Russia or would Russia have tried to keep going and take a piece of western Europe?
I think Germany would've taken a much bigger bite out of Russia without the western front (and N. Africa, the Atlantic etc) holding them back. Maybe a bite big enough to keep them out of Germany and force a stalemate at Poland.
I know I'm talking out of my arse here, I don't know shit about WW2 but I'd like to know exactly where I'm being retarded here.
>>942906
I don't think you really understand what would have happened if Britain had bowed out of the fight, bro.
American here, so don't go pulling that britbong shit on me.
Britain surrenders to both Germany and Japan where relevant. As a result:
1. By the time we get into the war with germany, if we do at all, her navy completely wrecks us in the atlantic
2. Germany/Italy owns Africa and its resources; is able to link up with Japan via Suez
3. Germany is able to put that much more effort into a war against Russia, likely has a more intact airforce as well.
4. Japan owns India and all its resources + Burma and possibly also Australia, without much of a fight.
5. Japan can focus completely on US and chinese; make our island hopping that much shittier.
6. US can't support USSR because we can't lend-lease across an ocean controlled by germans.
To be honest if Britain had completely surrendered as late as 1942, the Axis front would have stabilized on the Atlantic, the west coast of Africa, and all but the most central parts of Asia. It would have basically then been up to the Japs and Germans whether they wanted to have it out with each other.
It would have been an easy Axis victory no matter how well Russia performed on its own, so long as the core parts of Germany and everything to its west remained in Axis hands by the end.
>>944966
Fuck off you dumbass
ETERNAL ANGLO PLEASE GO
FUCK OFF AHMED
>>945000
yeah but every single thing I said is true and you won't even try to prove otherwise because you know it.
>>944966
>By the time we get into the war with germany, if we do at all, her navy completely wrecks us in the atlantic
why?
>>944862
>got destroyed at sea by uboat
>north africa of only minor importance
>no mention of battle of britain, german sea wall defense expenditures, V2 bombing campaign, italian containment, staging area for overlord, lend-lease contributions to USSR, strategic bombing campaign, naval dominance in the atlantic and med strangling German shipping to the point where they designed and built cargo-hauling subs
yeah, Britain was basically THE world power at the start of WWII. It got wrecked during the war, but without Britain and her holdings basically being a giant naziboo containment field surrounding the west and south of europe, as well as the south-west of asia, shit would have been real bad for the allies.
>>945034
because they had enough of a fleet to keep us from gaining any beachhead.
http://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/
http://ww2-weapons.com/fleets-1939/ (not counting subs)
and none of this is taking into account the drubbing we could have received from a non-wrecked luftwaffe as we attempted to gain a foothold in britain or north africa.
>>945069
to add on to that, the submarines fucking ruined our shit even just on their own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic
>>940721
>irrelevant
>fought almost alone with some help from foreign volunteers between approx. 1940-1941
If Britain had fell, the rest of non-Nazi Europe would have been in hot water and you know it.
Ofourse not if it wasn't for Britain it would have ended in 1940.
>>944966
>4. Japan owns India and all its resources + Burma and possibly also Australia, without much of a fight.
The Japanese Army that was heading for India literally starved to death and got stomped due to a lack of Supply
They were already streched too thin in their war to Conquer China, There is no way ANYONE, Not even the British Or Mongols or Soviets could conquer both India AND China at the same time
>>945161
If Britain surrenders to Japan, then they have a very different kind of job awaiting them in India; they can actually get supplies from the locals and march along main routes without fear of reprisal; they would have owned India.
Even if for some reason the simple act of walking in and setting up business had proved too much, you'd still have had Japanese resources redirected to India and the Pacific.
