Britain's completely underrated role in WWII

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Anyway the Americans captured Mesopotamia and Babylon though not before Alexander the Great but after him.
You are obviously not the brightest of young people.

The campaign in Mesopotamia was fought between British-led troops dominated by the Indian Army and the forces of the Ottoman Empire. In terms of the numbers engaged, it was the largest theatre of operations outside of Europe for the British Empire during the First World War.
 
You are obviously not the brightest of young people.

The campaign in Mesopotamia was fought between British-led troops dominated by the Indian Army and the forces of the Ottoman Empire. In terms of the numbers engaged, it was the largest theatre of operations outside of Europe for the British Empire during the First World War.
I think 'he' was actually using a bit of humour there ;)
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
You could just imagine the talk in the beer halls after WW2 finished. "If only that baldy schwine Mussolini didn't try and get above himself and invade Greece. It cud 'ave been different I tell ya."
Well of course they could, the great IF debate continues. Fortunately Grandad wasn't part of that set and only ( unfortunately) predeceased Adolph by a few weeks. Same day as Roosevelt as it happened. He wouldn't have had any of that either. I'd say he detested Hitler the same way I detest Blair. I would dearly have liked to meet him, -Grandad that is
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
Wtf has this got to do with Britain's completely underrated role in WWII? You know, the subject of this thread?
I'm very sorry. In my post #179 I commented the message not directly related to the theme of the thread and apparently being understood in the wrong way, I just clarified my initial comment.
 
Wtf has this got to do with Britain's completely underrated role in WWII? You know, the subject of this thread?
we were as insinuating that Russia didn't win the war on its own so this requires a deflection or "look squirrels" from the Russian clique.
 
It was far more than the Marshall Plan that allowed West Germany to enjoy it's "Wirtschaftwunder" (economic miracle). The amount awarded to the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference as war reparations was 10 billion dollars (at 1936 prices). In the event, East Germany paid 97 percent of that with the West Germans charitably contributing the other three percent. In fact, the total sum received by the Soviet Union was 15 billion dollars (again at 1936 prices), practically all of which was paid by East Germany.

Along with the funds from the Marshall Plan, that was a pretty handy amount to rebuild West Germany's society.

MsG
I think you are confusing war reparations with the Marshal plan. East Germany came into existence in 1949 and was regarded as the Soviet zone of occupation, as agreed at the Yalta conference. As such it recieved nothing from the marshal plan. Likewise what the Soviets took from their zone of occupation had nothing to do with the western allies.
By far the biggest chunk of money from the Marshal plan was given to the UK.

https://www.marshallfoundation.org/.../05/Marshall_Plan_1947-1997_A_German_View.pdf

So the Marshall Plan aid to Germany, which amounted to about $1.4 billion in the first four years, was not that dramatic in itself. Britain, France and Italy all received a larger slice of the cake (see listing below for the distribution of help to the ERP countries). And yet Germany put the aid to better use than any other country, and today, 50 years later, still continues to benefit directly from the ERP counterpart fund, known after 1953 as the ERP Special Fund.

U.S. Economic Assistance Under the European Recovery ProgramApril 3, 1948 -June 30, 1952 (Total Amount in Millions of U.S. Dollars, Source: USIA) United Kingdom3,189.8France2,713.6 Italy1,508.8 Germany (West)1,390.6The Netherlands1,083.5Greece706.7Austria677.8Belgium/Luxembourg559.3Denmark273.0Norway255.3Turkey225.1Ireland147.5Sweden107.3 Portugal51.2Iceland29.3
 
Last edited:
we were as insinuating that Russia didn't win the war on its own so this requires a deflection or "look squirrels" from the Russian clique.
France is wrong about who defeated the Nazis
Assessing the "biggest contributor to victory" in a rigorous way is exceptionally difficult. They tend to devolve into comparisons of counterfactuals, and the truth is that nobody has any strong idea how the war would have turned out absent US involvement, or if the German-Soviet non-aggression pact had held, etc. But the case is pretty strong that the Soviet Union's successful resistance of Nazi invasion and subsequent reclamation of Eastern Europe was the most important of many crucial factors in defeating Germany.
Couldn't agree more.
As historian Richard Overy explains in his book Why the Allies Won:
If the defeat of the German army was the central strategic task, the main theatre for it was the conflict on the eastern front. The German army was first weakened there, and then driven back, before the main weight of Allied ground and air forces was brought to bear in 1944. Over four hundred German and Soviet divisions fought along a front of more than 1,000 miles. Soviet forces destroyed or disabled an estimated 607 Axis divisions between 1941 and 1945.
The scale and geographical extent of the eastern front dwarfed all earlier warfare. Losses on both sides far exceeded losses anywhere else in the military contest. The war in the east was fought with a ferocity almost unknown on the western fronts. The battles at Stalingrad and Kursk, which broke the back of the German army, drew from the soldiers of both sides the last ounces of physical and moral energy.
Richard Overy - Wikipedia
Richard James Overy (born 23 December 1947) is a British historian who has published extensively on the history of World War II and Nazi Germany. In 2007 as The Times editor of Complete History of the World, he chose the 50 key dates of world history
1553023005615.png

Overy lecturing at King's College London in 2015
 
Again you have pointed out that without America and Britain's help the Soviet meat grinder that Stalin thrust his troops into, that killed millions couldn't have happened without the other powers.

Question, who designed the defence at kursk?
 
Well of course they could, the great IF debate continues. Fortunately Grandad wasn't part of that set and only ( unfortunately) predeceased Adolph by a few weeks. Same day as Roosevelt as it happened. He wouldn't have had any of that either. I'd say he detested Hitler the same way I detest Blair. I would dearly have liked to meet him, -Grandad that is
On a similar vein, I would have like to have met my great grandfather who was in the AusroHungarian army and apparently, according to my mother, fought inthe Balkans against the Turks and had tales tell.
 
Again you have pointed out that without America and Britain's help the Soviet meat grinder that Stalin thrust his troops into, that killed millions couldn't have happened without the other powers.
May I point out my views myself?
1.Defeat of Nazi Germany was the key point to reach victory in the WW2. As I understand most of historians agree with it.
2.The main front where most of German troops were positioned was the eastern front. The outcome of the WW2 was decided namely here. Again most of historians agree with it.
3.On the eastern front Hitler was backed by Italians, Finns, Hungarians, Romanians, Croatians, Slovaks and even Spanish Blue division. Millions of Soviet troops were backed by small Polish army and by dozens of French pilots (squadron Normandia).
4.Lend lease supplies were extremely important for the Soviet union. And operation of the allies on other theatres forced Hitler to send there troops, planes, military harware much needed on the eastern front.
5.Was the Soviet union able to defeat Germany alone? It is an open question. Probably yes. But it is purely theoretical question.
6.It is possible to speculate that contribution of the Soviet union to the victory over Nazi Germany was much lesser that contributions of the UK and the USA. From my point of view respective considerations are purely theoretical.
7.The very question about the country that contributed the most is rather a matter of opinion.
Question, who designed the defence at kursk?
Soviet generals - Zhukov, Vatutin, Konev, Rokosowski.

As for the views of general public then in the USA a lot of people are not aware about basic facts in respect to WW2.
Do You Know The U.S.A.? - Alabama News
Some Americans were asked
Who did the United States fight in World War II?
Japan, China, and Vietnam 17%
The Soviet Union, Germany, and Italy 13%
Japan, Germany, and Italy 47%
Austria-Hungary, Japan, and Germany 13%
Unsure 10%
Almost half of Americans are unaware about who did the USA fight in WW2. So hardly anyone could be surprised that UK contribution to the victory is underestimated in the USA.
 
Last edited:
You can’t fault the voters. Your government managed to screw up a pretty straightforward mandate.
Interesting that Jonesy got a bullshit icon rating for this post.As only mods can use this icon now, I wonder which one of them it was that gave it? :?

Bullshit icon.JPG
 
One thing the mainland UK was, for sure, was an unsinkable aircraft carrier moored just off the Northern French coast. It was a huge strategic blunder for Hitler not to take Britain, because especially once the US got into the war, the round the clock bombing of Germany and her allies, no matter what some claim, marked the inevitable destruction of German industry, and with that, the end of the war in Europe. Just the land based anti aircraft defense cost Germany the use of thousands of cannon and men it could have better used elsewhere.
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top