How did the UK contrbute to the allied victory in WW2 ? They

>>1850096
Nice b8 Kamerad.

>>1850096
They've once said "rule Britannia", and the waves washed away the German fleet.

>>1850096

The Brits were the main force in driving the Italians and Germans out of Africa and were the largest contributors for securing dominance over the Mediteranean. They ejected Vichy France from Syria and Madagascar. They pushed the Japanese out of India and Burma.

>>1850132
But all of those are really secondary fronts. The royal Navy didn't defeated the Japanese one. The British army didn't defeated the whermacht. Even economically the British contribution wasn't that strong. Si basically, was the UK essential in the axis defeated ? It really seems they weren't. While they were perhraps the leading force against Napoleon, and one of the main contributor in WW1, they were a secondary one in WW2

>>1850096
Francophone scum.

How did the French """Resistance""" or the """"Free"""" French """"""Army"""""" contribute to victory.

>>1850145

The Axis lost roughly 500,000 soldiers in North Africa, of whom about 140,000 were germans. I don't know by what criteria you're judging the Mediteranean to be a secondary front, but I don't think you'll find many who will agree. It was the campaign that defeated the Italians, who were the third largest contributors to the Axis.

>>1850096
If they had lost the battle of Britain, Germany would've won the war
If they had not been present, D-Day would have failed
So they we're pretty important

>>1850145
It doesn't matter whether they were secondary fronts or not, it's still a big contribution and not something to scoff at.

>>1850150
I'm sorry but 140 000 germans out of the conflict is à very small number compares to the 4 millions causalities inflicted by the USSR. That's basically the losses of the germans in thr battle of France. I guess the British did defeated Italy to their credits, but let's face it, Italy had perhraps the worst army and morale compared to other axis members. The UK was also completly incapable of defending its own empire. I guess they did defend India that Japan never could have conquered anyways

>>1850145
M8. Britain's work in Burma was fucking important. It was the last lifeline to the Chinese allies (well there's the Hump but you can only bring so few via plane). If Brits failed in Burma, China wouldve been knocked out of the war and Japan would have free reign to send their considerable land army in other fronts.

>>1850096
African campaigns, Italian campaign, Burma, D-Day, Invasion of Germany, middle-eastern campaigns, battle for the Mediterranean and of course battle of Britain.

>>1850145
We still contributed, in a world war it doesn't matter if a theater is secondary or not, each victory even one half way round the world is still a defeat for the enemy. If we hadn't kicked the japs out of india or burma then the japs might have had more resources and men to divert to the pacific campaign, if the italians and germans werent pushed out of africa then the Mediterranean might now have been taken and the Italians would be able to allocate more support for Germany.

>>1850172
Exactly. If the Brits hadn't helped the Chinese then they might have surrendered to the Japanese, which would have dragged out the pacific campaign with what, an extra 2 million Japs diverted from china?

> They were defeated in France

have you ever heard the phrase "lost the battle, won the war"?

The US was also defeated at Bataan, pushed back through Philippines by the Japanese, before complete rout on the Bataan penninsula. Out of the 130,000 U.S. and Filipino troops, around 10,000 were killed, 20,000 wounded, and 75,000 taken prisoner, including the capture of 13,000 US soldiers - a far higher percentage captured than british left behind in Dunkirk. Does that mean the US lost the war? of course not.

Britain was instrumental in the victory over europe, firstly in stalling the German advance after the Battle of France, in North Africa, where the US was only a supporting force, as well as the defence of Malta which prevented a stranglehold on the Mediterranean and Suez which would've provided safe supply of fuel to germany. While impact in the pacific was less pronounced, their forces there were not insignificant.

File: 1446753501768.jpg (931KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 1920x1080px

>>1850171

While the number of Germans lost compared to other theaters is a relatively small number - that is true - you also have to take into consideration what I mentioned in my earlier posts;

The Mediteranean theater is what knocked Italy out of the war. Had the british not defeated the Italians, the Axis would have advanced into the middle east and taken precious oil fields. It's not unlikely that a second front against Russia could have been opened up in the Caucasus, which would mean more oil for the Axis.

What I'm saying is that it's more about potential win and loss than just mere numbers. I'm sure the 130,000 german veterans of North Africa were worth more to Germany than twice that number of freshly trained recruits in late 1944.

File: 1414493942195.png (98KB, 255x252px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 255x252px

>>1850096
>get bombed a bit
>don't surrender
>yay britain is so tough

lmao

File: 1360087824119.jpg (183KB, 512x497px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 512x497px

>>1850096
There was a brief period where they were the only country still standing against Germany. If Britain had any sense they would have accepted Hitlers Armistice and World War 2 would never have happened. It would have been a comparatively small European war.

Britain held out and got America involved.

This aside there three unquestionably important factors the UK brought to the table.

1.Great Britain itself being a safe mustering zone for an attack on Western Europe. Invasion of France would have been impossible otherwise and so to the any Allied aerial operations.
2. Cracking the Enigma code. Shaved years off the war.
3. The Royal Navy. Should speak for itself.

File: 1476541661196.png (951KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 1024x768px

>>1850225
God that image gets my Britannia boner raging.

>>1850222
It comes more from that the people went on with their daily lives and tried to ignore the bombings

File: 1414610920512.jpg (110KB, 1000x1000px)

110KB, 1000x1000px

>>1850233
>everyone flee
>daily life

>>1850225
If Britain hadn't be so compliant with nazi Germany, there would have been no WW2. It's toi easy to play the "alone against Germany" card when this happened because the UK sacrifices all of its allies

>>1850245
It's so easy to play that card because it's genuinely true.

Chamberlain made himself unpopular by appeasing Germany that might be what you're referring to. Other than that what do you expect Britain (a country with no land borders with Germany and even a fairly limited Naval access to the Baltic) should have done?

>>1850250
Preventing Germany from reinforcing itself, not letting Germany annex Austria, or the sudetenland. The UK fucked France completly sincères they were the ones ready to go to war against Germany. Instead, the UK concluded a naval treaty with Germany, alone, that was against the Versailles treaty, all of this the anniversary day of the battle of Waterloo (a Victory of the anglo-german forces against Napoleon)
The UK Bear a huge part of the guilt for WW2

>>1850263
Absolutely that was the point of my post. Britain was absolutely instrumental to WW2. Now with your post even before it started.

>>1850263
I'm sorry France was so neutered they were too scared to fight puny Aryans without big brother Britain propping them up.

>>1850278
Or maybe it was because Germany had twice the population of France, so fighting them alone would be suicidal.

>>1850250
>Chamberlain made himself unpopular by appeasing Germany
He didn't make himself unpopular. Appeasement was very popular with the British public and was basically supported by all parties until 1939.

File: CH741LG.jpg (86KB, 800x543px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 800x543px

>>1850282
We did it lol. France is so low teste.

>>1850273
Britain and France could have stopped and even defeated Germany. When France was out of the game, there was nothing the UK could really do. The UK did fight, thanks to Churchill, for the test of the war. But, unlike during the napoleonic Wars, it clearly wasn't the leading force of the allies.

>>1850290
>it clearly wasn't the leading force of the allies.
Never implied in the thread.

>>1850278
It's not just that. French leaders were worried against speculative attacks against the French. The UK was ready to take mesures against France if needed. Not only that, but France needed the UK since they imported their oil from the British

>>1850289
When did the UK go to war alone against Germany (or against any European power for that matter)?

File: lb44-07.jpg (59KB, 646x873px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 646x873px

>>1850096

They played a major role, were integral in the longest battle of the war in the Atlantic, provided tons of materiel and supplies through reverse lend lease to America, radio, radar, and signals equipment to the Soviets, and arguably had the best intelligence system in the war that fed information to the Soviets during the most important battles in the East.

File: battle-of-britain-welcome-to-england.jpg (153KB, 800x592px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 800x592px

>>1850313
>his country can't even stand against the might of nazi germany on it's own
>he gets pissy about this
top kek

>>1850324
>he doesn't answer the question

>>1850243
Only kids with rich parents fled to the countryside

>>1850328
Not him but read the filename.

File: 6-the-battle-of-britain.jpg (50KB, 610x458px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 610x458px

>>1850328
>he expects to respond to someone from a pleb tier country that can't stand on it's own two feet

>>1850096
>broke the Enigma code and relayed German intelligence to the allies to coordinate attacks/operations
>Kept the seas open for the allies at the Battle of the Atlantic
>Victory at El Alamein, and all of North Africa
>Denied German air superiority at the Battle of Britain
>Defeated Japan at the Burma Campaign
>Stormed the shores of Normandy alongside the US, Canada, and Free French.

>"OH BUT THEY DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT 100% BY THEMSELVES SO THEY GET 0 CREDIT"
then no one gets credit for anything in WWII, hence the name "Allies".

File: North_Irish_Horse_Italy.jpg (132KB, 797x800px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 797x800px

>>1850344
>44
kek
Also invaded Italy and Sicily

>>1850338
That's not an answer to the question asked. When did the UK go to war with Germany on its own?

>>1850340
I'm not even French

>>1850344
Sure...but some did more than others. No one would deny it was the USSR that really defeated Germany, and they paid a high price for this. Just like the royal Navy didn't defeat the Japanese navy.

>>1850350
During the Battle of Britain they were effectively the only ones fighting Germany. France had fallen, USSR and USA were not yet in the war.

>>1850358
George V did 100% of the work at Okinawa

File: speeches_churchill.jpg (21KB, 360x235px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 360x235px

>>1850362
The Frog is being anal to repair his wounded pride, leave him be.

>>1850367
When the japanese Navy had been defeated three years ago ?

>>1850392
Only because they wasted all their ammunition and fuel taking down the martyr Prince of Wales.

>>1850290
It's arguable it was the leading force of the allies in the Napoleonic wars either.

>>1850145
>While they were perhraps the leading force against Napoleon

Hmmm no, there too they focused on a secondary theater (Peninsular War)

>>1850148
No one claims that
Unlike deluded Brits, us French accept we were irrelevant in WW2

>>1850338
>>1850362
That's one battle, not a war
Britain never fought any european war alone
Britain wasn't alone when it started WW2, nor when WW2 ended

>>1850470
Frogs are so bitter.

>>1850477
>being this obtuse

>>1850096

They held their ground in Britain, turned the tide in Africa, and stayed in the war. Without Britain as a base and ally, the US could never have managed to accomplish what it did.

Britain's resolve ensured that WWII was an Allied victory, not a Soviet victory. The world would be a very, very different place if the Communists had liberated Western Europe.

File: 0efdxxq.jpg (342KB, 1104x702px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1104x702px

>>1850499
>They held their ground in Britain
Wow, their island resisted invasion from a country well known for only being good on land

>turned the tide in Africa
Big fucking deal

>Without Britain as a base and ally, the US could never have managed to accomplish what it did.
Gotta give them that
They were a good US base and their women serviced our troops pretty well

File: 5c7441123ebe8e79284209739d2b8ee2.jpg (65KB, 564x565px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 564x565px

>>1850555
Why are they all so mad?

>>1850178
>china doesn't need to be garrisoned.

>>1850340
>britain
>standing on it's own 2 feet.

File: jack_churchill.jpg (72KB, 600x698px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x698px

>>1850633
We only stood on one foot, the other was shoved up the rectum of the aryan race.

File: Greatest Brit of all time.jpg (12KB, 320x320px)

12KB, 320x320px

>>1850673
Wew lad, calm it down, you aren't making much sense.

Yes, America won the war on its own.
Sometimes I wonder if anybody but America even took part, on either side, or whether it's all just Jew propaganda. Did Adolf Hitler, genocidal maniac even exist? Or was he really Chuck Hildebrand, Son of God and Saviour of the Aryan people from Austria, Mississippi?

One does wonder.