Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cetun t1_j7m5zzk wrote

Reply to comment by MrMoogyMan in Would the Allies have kept fighting if the axis powers stopped? by Techno-87

Great Britain itself probably could have eventually defeated the Nazis regardless of how much territory they gained in Russia. Given their colonial Empire and the support of the Commonwealth and the industrial backing of the United States, they just had too many men and resources that Germany couldn't have matched. In a war of attrition Britain would have won no matter what, at tremendous costs of course.

What Great Britain ended up doing was going into debt to the United States and giving up half of Europe to the Soviet Union so they could mostly sit the war out. At the end of 1941 the Polish government in exile was still in London and the Soviets had installed their own government. Britain's guarantee of Independence of Poland had little to do with Britain's concern over Polish sovereignty and had more to do with a grudge between them and Germany. In the end they didn't care who defeated Germany as long as Germany was defeated. So in 1939 they had this enormous Empire and strategic allies in Eastern Europe, and 20 years after World War II they were still in debt to the United States, had lost most of their empire because of promises made to the United States to decolonize, and the The entire Eastern Europe was now occupied by Soviet forces with various public governments.

−6

the_better_twin t1_j7miv4f wrote

The claim that Britain "mostly sat out the war" is possibly one of the most egregious claims I've read on Reddit. Well done.

18

ErrolFuckingFlynn t1_j7mkwkp wrote

Indeed. The Commonwealth nations were killing fascists at just about every latitude on the planet. Not sure what the hell this argument is supposed to be.

I'm not a Churchill fan but he sure did throw everything but the kitchen sink at Hitler and Mussolini to be fair.

3

Cetun t1_j7mkbvn wrote

Yea? Besides retreating from Europe what major invasion of continental Europe did they attempt without the additional support of US troops?

−4

dplafoll t1_j7mmwty wrote

How many US troops were at Sword, Gold, and Juno beaches at Normandy? How many RAF personnel were lost over Europe during the bombing campaigns? How many RN personnel were lost in the Battle of the Atlantic?
That's just three examples. Yes, the US participated in all of them, but so did the British. To only give them credit where they did something alone is just... willfully ignorant and asinine.

The British most certainly did not "[sit] out the war", and saying as much is a grave disservice to the millions of British and Commonwealth citizens who fought and died against the Nazis, military or civilian.

7

Cetun t1_j7mszek wrote

They were in the war from 1939 to 1945 and had less casualties than the United States who was in the war, effectively from 1942 to 1945. The British took part in no major offensive operations or invasions outside of North Africa before the US entered the war, and then every major operation was in conjunction with the US and allied divisions.

It's not a disservice to say they sat it out, it's facts, they were playing a defensive war of attrition against Germany. Does that mean they wouldn't get bombed? No. Does that mean their ships wouldn't get attacked? No. Does that mean no British person died, just that they weren't really interested in fighting Germany on mainland Europe unless they had other people to do the majority of the work.

Over half their army consisted of colonial or Commonwealth troops. Over third of all their casualties were from either the commonwealth or colonies.

More Soviets soldiers died in Operation Bagration from combat than British from all causes including British civilian and commonwealth combat personal combined. 2,000,000 Bengali died of starvation because of British war policies that prioritized denial of food to the impending Japanese invasion over the people living in the area.

They were as passive as they could be, you act like responding attack = offensive action. They minimized their casualties until someone else came along and held their hand or just did the work themselves. The Soviets would be marching into Paris if the US hadn't come along and held the British hands in Italy and France.

0

michael_harari t1_j7mn232 wrote

You get your entire knowledge of history from call of duty, don't you

7

Cetun t1_j7mtev4 wrote

Oh yea, educate me on their planned retaking of Europe by themselves. I'll wait.

0

michael_harari t1_j7mtym9 wrote

I'm fairly certain there's a wide range of options between "sat out the war like the US" and "single handedly planned to retake Europe"

3

Cetun t1_j7mwcqi wrote

I'm looking at WWI and the British seemed to unilaterally attempt to take on the Ottoman empire in the middle east and Gallipoli. At Passchendaele the British proffered 50 divisions to an offensive compared to the 6 French divisions. In WWI we see the British taking the initiative and taking the fight to the enemy well before the US entered the war.

We do not see that in WWII. We see mostly defensive holding actions and retreats until the US enters the war.

−1

the_better_twin t1_j7mqdmp wrote

Well before the US joined the war, Britains army was focused on the Mediterranean, mostly north Africa (because of the oil) and Greece/ Malta to secure the passage of their fleet. They were also involved in campaigns in east Africa against Italy though. The air force was obviously preoccupied by the Battle of Britain so a full scale assault on Europe at this time would have been a ridiculous undertaking, nevertheless, the defeat of the Luftwaffe, meant that the invasion of a German occupied Europe was now a possibility.

Now we get onto when the US joined the war. When pearl harbor happened, you might also be unaware, that Japan simultaneously attacked the British in East Asia, for example in Burma. It was British troops who eventually repelled these gains the Japanese had made.

Meanwhile in Europe, Britain and the Commonwealth were landing troops on three beaches alongside their American allies, defeating Germany's best General in the deserts of North Africa, landing almost as many troops in Italy as the US did, and more.

British scientists were contributing to the Manhattan project (and were subsequently stabbed in the back when the US refused to share the outcomes with their ally but anyway...) and British intelligence was shared from bletchley park to the US and the soviets which undoubtedly helped win the war.

We could get into little things like British engines in American planes but now I feel like I'm being petty. The point is the war truly was an allied effort and to dismiss the contributions of anyone is just naive.

Also for the record when I say British I mean British and Commonwealth. It truly was a world war, soldiers from India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Nepal and many many other countries fought and died to stop the biggest maniac the world has seen. It certainly was not a team America film.

2