How much did Britain really win WW2?

[Rita_Poon]

History is rarely that simple.

Tell that to the machine gun.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Tell that to the machine gun.

It's a .22 long rifle...honest.

 

[Rita_Poon]

It's a .22 long rifle...honest.

.22 lens?

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

.22 lens?

Hmm? (in multi-quote hell all of a sudden)

 

[blulouie]

I hear it used often about “we won the war” but how significant was Britain in defeating rather than resisting the Nazis during WW2?

There’s no doubt the island resisted gallantly and were a part of the drive in storming France and pushing to Berlin but was Britain as significant as Russia in winning the war? Or even as effective as the Johnny-come-lately US in turning the tide of the war. Was it Hitler’s own folly in opening up a second front more decisive in ending the war than Britain’s toil?

It should be a great source of pride to anyone who took part in the war that they overcame an oppressive far right government of course.

Both my Grandads fought the Nazi's all over Europe & North Africa.
I think that would be very significant, did Russia fight them on such fields or on their own territory with a land grab at the very end of the war.

Both sides were memorable in defeating the Nazi regime.

 

[Shevin Keedy]

Cough up another.... Pasteur is the next I can think of, but he didn't have Junker's raining down on him...

Printing press
Combustion engine
Internet
Sliced bread
Flea collars for cats

 

[Walken]

The last good thing Russia ever did was win World War 2

Can you be bad winners against the nazi's, their actions post victory are pretty unthinkable.

There is a reason the Germans (Von Luck i think) fought to the last bullet in an attempt to surrender to the Americans.

 

[chicoazul]

It would be nice if people appreciated what our fathers and grandparents did for us tbh…..

Absolutely pal. They fought the far right so authoritarian tyranny wouldn’t oppress us all.

 

[Kurt.]

Rich men’s cannon fodder

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

Absolutely pal. They fought the far right so authoritarian tyranny wouldn’t oppress us all.

I see what you've done there.

 

[GrimbolandBlue]

They didn't, and one of the most embarrassing things I find about living in the UK is this weird hard-on that patriotic and old people have about our role in the war. We used our colonial influence to punch above our weight in Africa and Italy, the RAF did a good job and we used our heritage in naval travel to save a lot of soldiers at Dunkirk. That's it. We didn't 'win the war'

 

[PhilM]

History is rarely that simple.

I think in this case, it pretty much is. Without Chain Home and The Dowding system et al., it's highly unlikely we'd have beaten the Luftwaffe in 1940.

On a serious note: in terms of whether Britain won WW2, the more important question is could Germany and its ambitions have be halted without Britain?

If Britain hadn't stood in '40 and '41, Africa and the Suez Canal would have likely fallen. Germany could have contributed larger forces eastward for Barbarossa.

Likewise, Russia wouldn't have received key supplies as part of the Arctic Convoys, and the US wouldn't have had a large supply depot called the UK to jump from.

Russia and the US were those who would go on and win the war, one bought with blood and the other with dollars, and this is seen with their Cold War dominance.

 

[Walken]

I think in this case, it pretty much is. Without Chain Home and The Dowding system et al., it's highly unlikely we'd have beaten the Luftwaffe in 1940.

On a serious note: in terms of whether Britain won WW2, the more important question is could Germany and its ambitions have be halted without Britain?

If Britain hadn't stood in '40 and '41, Africa and the Suez Canal would have likely fallen. Germany could have contributed larger forces eastward for Barbarossa.

Likewise, Russia wouldn't have received key supplies as part of the Arctic Convoys, and the US wouldn't have had a large supply depot called the UK to jump from.

Russia and the US were those who would go on and win the war, one bought with blood and the other with dollars, and this is seen with their Cold War dominance.

I'd say the US might be the only nation that came close to the Russians with its willingness to lose lives to secure victory.

 

[PhilM]

I'd say the US might be the only nation that came close to the Russians with its willingness to lose lives to secure victory.

In terms of % of deaths of their population, the UK far out succeeded the US, but in a military sense yes we were far more cautious throughout the war.

There were/are fairly justifiable reasons for that, however. Russia, however, was way ahead in terms of percentages, actual numbers and their willingness.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Not a winnable one.

So explain how we had more fighter aircraft on 31st October 1940 than we had at the start of the Battle of Britain in July 1940. And also more fighter pilots on 31st October 1940 than we had at the start of the Battle of Britain in July 1940.

Winning the Battle of Britain was not solely based on RDF. On many occasions RDF was found wanting. We can develop this further if you wish, but I will not divulge who I am, with 42+ years of research into the Battle of Britain. Actual research, not just reading books...