UK in the World Wars

[Shade205]

Again I agree that Churchill was racist, I just don't think that had much effect on his leadership (aside from his increased ignorance of Indians in famine since he didn't really care). But I'm not Churchill so obviously we cant be sure if it did not.

I'm afraid I very much disagree with this line of thought and find it rather dangerous to think like that. To think that a man can rule a large empire composed of numerous races and think that some of them are lesser human beings and this doesn't affect his judgement or leadership decisions is foolish to say the least. Here is an administrative decision of his that negatively affected the race because most likely of his views.



"Madhusree Mukerjee, author of Churchill's Secret War, has said that despite refusing to meet India's need for wheat, he continued to insist that it exported rice to fuel the war effort.

"[The War Cabinet] ordered the build-up of a stockpile of wheat for feeding European civilians after they had been liberated. So 170,000 tons of Australian wheat bypassed starving India - destined not for consumption but for storage," she said upon release of the book in 2010." - article I just linked

 

[Vanguard44]

Comparisons of allied contributions to defeating Germany are usually fatuous.

 

[Shade205]

Also an explanation on my previous post for Had a Dad, or Secret master who tends to be a little trigger happy in locking threads or any admin I know war crimes and covering and discussing them are against forum rules.

As far as I know the Bengal Famine Is not considered a war crime.

And while I disagree very much with censorship and the rules I do try to follow them. So if it is against forum rules to cover the Bengal Famine I do apologize.

 

[Denkt]

UK did sink most of the German navy and did the most at winning the battle of the atlantic. UK did defeat the axis in Africa without that much effort.

UK did dominate Germany at the air war even before USA entered the war, building aircrafts was a top priority in UK.

 

[Shade205]

UK did sink most of the German navy and did the most at winning the battle of the atlantic. UK did defeat the axis in Africa without that much effort.

UK did dominate Germany at the air war even before USA entered the war, building aircrafts was a top priority in UK.

Defeat the Axis in Africa without much effort? That's not true.

Second battle of El Alamein happened during Case Blue when it was failing, and Stalingrad had already been going on for a month or two as far as I know.

You can bet the Germans were distracted by the larger enemy in the east and that helped the brits win.


I do think that the UK and Western Allies deserve even half the credit for the victory over germany. While they certainly and obviously deserve some I am a firm believer that the Russians deserve at least 80% of the credit for the defeat of Germany.

 

[henzington]

If I remember the numbers correctly 2/3 of the German army was on the eastern front even after the D-day landings. I will say history as taught in the USA reduces the USSR role much more then it should because of the cold war.

 

[77Hawk77]

It's also incredibly hard to calculate merit, even if we had all the data we would need to make accurate calculations of everybody's contribution.

 

[Shade205]

It's also incredibly hard to calculate merit, even if we had all the data we would need to make accurate calculations of everybody's contribution.

Although not flawless a good indicator is actual loss of military of lives which takes into account naval, ground, and air force's. And pie graphs make it even better!

*please note these are purely military deaths and do not include civilian deaths in the attroceties committed during the war.

 

[77Hawk77]

It is a mockery of history that so many chinese people are left unmentioned. But also other than the manpower contribution there is the question of technology, intelligence and holding strategic positions.

Personally i think the western allies' biggest contribution to the victory in ww2 was code breaking and radio (including radar) technology and production.

 

[Gethsemani]

I know a lot of Brits find it controversial to suggest that the British Army under performed in WW2, but is it really? The only times they scored significant victories were when they faced enemies that were either surrounded or at the end of an extremely stretched supply line (such as El Alamein). As their track record during and after Overlord shows, when they faced a determined opponent on somewhat even conditions they usually didn't perform very well (Caen, Goodwood, Market Garden etc.), but the Western Allies were able to push their advantage anyway, often due to US successes in other areas.

This is not to say that the average British soldier wasn't a good soldier, the Germans certainly feared British Tommies more then US GI's, but there seems to have been several problems with the British leadership and strategy that made the British Army perform far worse then it should have considering the fine reputation its' basic soldiers enjoyed.

 

[Denkt]

I think the british leadership did very well. Sure they may not have had the flashy victories German leadership had but it slowly defeated Germany and its allies at the air, at the sea and at the land. As the chart say the british suffered very few casualties even tought it was in the war from 1939 to 1945.

 

[Porkman]

I know a lot of Brits find it controversial to suggest that the British Army under performed in WW2, but is it really? The only times they scored significant victories were when they faced enemies that were either surrounded or at the end of an extremely stretched supply line (such as El Alamein). As their track record during and after Overlord shows, when they faced a determined opponent on somewhat even conditions they usually didn't perform very well (Caen, Goodwood, Market Garden etc.), but the Western Allies were able to push their advantage anyway, often due to US successes in other areas.

This is not to say that the average British soldier wasn't a good soldier, the Germans certainly feared British Tommies more then US GI's, but there seems to have been several problems with the British leadership and strategy that made the British Army perform far worse then it should have considering the fine reputation its' basic soldiers enjoyed.

Putting yourself in a position where your troops are fighting an already beaten enemy is generally a mark of fighting well.... There are no points in war for making sure that you fight a well rested, well supplied enemy on ground of their choosing.

Props if you can do that and still win, but good generalship means making sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Shade205]

I think the british leadership did very well. Sure they may not have had the flashy victories German leadership had but it slowly defeated Germany and its allies at the air, at the sea and at the land. As the chart say the british suffered very few casualties even tought it was in the war from 1939 to 1945.

England would not of been able to hold out if it was Germany's sole enemy after France fell up until 1945. England while not conquered would of been forced to come to the table with un-favourable terms.

 

[Victor Cortez]

Let's be clear on this one, USA doesn't need an excuse. USA hardly had a reason to care about ww1, what business was it of theirs?

The money the UK had been borrowing.

Europeans have been killing eachother for a long time let them keep doing it. I would argue the outcome of ww1 no matter who won would have little effect on the USA just territorial changes for the powers that fought.

For the reason you wrote:

Unless fully united under one nation it will never threaten the United States.

Even now California ALONE has a bigger GDP than any European country besides Germany, UK, and France.

But California has the biggest GDP of any states of the US.
According to wiki, the EU has a bigger GDP than the US, but that's not really the point. The EU lacks a real central government anyway.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Comparisons of allied contributions to defeating Germany are usually fatuous.

Agreed, at the end of the day almost every nation did everything in their capacity to defeat the Axis, no matter how big or small.

Defeat the Axis in Africa without much effort? That's not true.

Second battle of El Alamein happened during Case Blue when it was failing, and Stalingrad had already been going on for a month or two as far as I know.

You can bet the Germans were distracted by the larger enemy in the east and that helped the brits win.


I do think that the UK and Western Allies deserve even half the credit for the victory over germany. While they certainly and obviously deserve some I am a firm believer that the Russians deserve at least 80% of the credit for the defeat of Germany.

I actually disagree with this. I know people like to circlejerk that the glorious Soviet empire were this unstopable force, but there is not a chance in hell they could of won without support from the other allies such as the US, UK, China etc.

There's no questioning they were the most important contributor, but I don't think they deserve something silly like 80% of the credit. As I said, every nation did everything in their power to stop the Axis, the Soviets just happened to be one of the most powerful.

And uh, well that's aside from the teeny tiny fact that the Soviets indirectly and directly supported the Germans conquer so much in the first place.

 

[Opanashc]

And uh, well that's aside from the teeny tiny fact that the Soviets indirectly and directly supported the Germans conquer so much in the first place.

And the Western Democracies did not? Who gave Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia?
Everybody acted in their own self-interest, yet for some reason that's ok for the west, but not the east. Hypocritical, isn't it?

 

[GeneralPetrov]

And the Western Democracies did not? Who gave Hitler Austria and Czechoslovakia?
Everybody acted in their own self-interest, yet for some reason that's ok for the west, but not the east. Hypocritical, isn't it?

Well first of all my name is not Director, that's someone else. And I kind of disagree with that, it's not like the allies just went "here ya go Hitler have some tasty Czechoslovakia and Austria". They didn't exactly have a choice and instead of going for the costly war route, they decided to be diplomatic in order to stop further German expansion. Of course that didn't work but how an earth were they supposed to know?

The Soviets on the other hand didn't just allow the Germans to take territory, they actually very actively helped them with economic, diplomatic, and military co-operation, I.E Poland.

I'm not saying the Allies were innocent, but they certainly didn't help the Germans nearly as much as the Soviets, which then ironically went onto be the Germans worst enemy.

 

[Opanashc]

Well first of all my name is not Director, that's someone else. And I kind of disagree with that, it's not like the allies just went "here ya go Hitler have some Czechoslovakia". They didn't exactly have a choice and instead of going for the costly war route, they decided to be diplomatic in order to stop further German expansion. Of course that didn't work but how were they supposed to know?

The Soviets on the other hand didn't just allow the Germans to take territory, they actually very actively helped them with economic and military co-operation, I.E Poland.

Blame the forum, it screwed up my quote of you.
France had an ALLIANCE with Czechoslovakia, and they basically forced Prague to surrender. If that is not "actively helping" then what do you call it?
Poland basically said "go to hell, Moscow, we got this". So SU said "ok, then we will be taking what you took from us 20 years ago". Self-interest and all that. Is it ok to invade a country in middle of civil war and take its territory? That's what Poland did in 1920, after all. If that is ok, then its just as ok for SU to take back its territory from Poland in 1939. Didn't France take Germany's territory after WW1? Sure, Germany took it in 1871, but France took it in late 1600s, etc etc.
If you wish to claim economic help - then you should condemn USA for helping Japan invade China. If I recall, someone said something to the effect of "it was hard to distinguish, if it was Japan or US invading, so much US equipment was involved" about the war in China.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Blame the forum, it screwed up my quote of you.
France had an ALLIANCE with Czechoslovakia, and they basically forced Prague to surrender. If that is not "actively helping" then what do you call it?
Poland basically said "go to hell, Moscow, we got this". So SU said "ok, then we will be taking what you took from us 20 years ago". Self-interest and all that. Is it ok to invade a country in middle of civil war and take its territory? That's what Poland did in 1920, after all. If that is ok, then its just as ok for SU to take back its territory from Poland in 1939. Didn't France take Germany's territory after WW1? Sure, Germany took it in 1871, but France took it in late 1600s, etc etc.
If you wish to claim economic help - then you should condemn USA for helping Japan invade China. If I recall, someone said something to the effect of "it was hard to distinguish, if it was Japan or US invading, so much US equipment was involved" about the war in China.

Are you seriously defending the Soviet invasion of Poland?

 

[Opanashc]

Are you seriously defending the Soviet invasion of Poland?

Are you seriously defending Polish invasion of Soviet Russia in 1920?