Why are britbongs so deluded and self-important?

Why are britbongs so deluded and self-important?

Anglo propaganda

Germany throwing so much at Britain and achieving so little could be perceived as helping save Russia and win the war

Also britbongs know that 60% of the landing forces at d day were brits and australians, it could be argued Hitler's blunder with the battle of britain and lack of navy to defense against the Royal Navy lost them the war

I mean they were bombed by the fucking Germans. The closest thing that happened to us was some commercial ships sunk in the Atlantic and Pearl Harbor.

They had to go to work while they were being bombed, meaning their civilians were taking place in a war. Another thing, if it weren't for their insular position coupled with their Admiralty, we quite may well have not won that war at all, and it would have been a stalemate with Nazi Germany existing. You may have forgotten, we were not going to get involved at ALL, but because of the excellently negotiated Land-Lease deal we gave them our ships in exchange for territory closer to their zones of battle.

t. Brit LARPing as an American
And getting bombed =/= contributing to victory

@1975215
>high quality discourse

Take your sub iq language skills back to your containment board

The most deluded and self-important people are the ones who spout the Russia won meme 2bh. All of them would've died in a few months without the countless food, equipment, weapons, and vehicles they took.

^
>american education

God you're embaressing

>getting bombed=contributing
By that logic Poland was the most important nation.

>@1975215

Yeah, them and their horses.

Thank you so much Poland. We needed Cavalry this late in the twentieth century we really did.

>@1975215

They're in denial over the fact that their country is an irrelevant shithole these days and still see themseleves as the greatest nation in the world.

>embaressing

Top K.

>Any answer other than Soviets
Wrong.

Because perception is more important than the truth, all Western civilizations run on the same principle.It'd be immensely hypocritical to merely point fingers at the British.

>EIGHTY
>PERCENT
>OF CASUALTIES
Yes, we helped them, but they won, dude. And you know it.

>@1975215

>anti-pol positions

How comes that doesn't surprise me at all?

oh god, not this argument again

none of the allies would have been able to war without both of the other two, and that's as much as you can say. It should just be split evenly, a third each, because you can't disentangle the various causes and effects. Perhaps Brits feel the need to overcompensate because their contribution is routinely overlooked by a narrative that is largely defined by Hollywood (i.e. Americans).

this guy makes an important and usually underrated point. America would never have been able to stage combat operations in Europe if they didn't have Britain to use as a base. More importantly though, without the British Navy operating to keep the Atlantic open the Americans would have been confined to their side of the Atlantic.

Which means definitely no landings in Europe, and sending American aid to the Soviet union would have been next to impossible. The Battle of the Atlantic was one of the most important battles of the war, which was mostly fought and won by the British Royal Navy, and it has been largely overlooked because it was a continuous operation that didn't have grand battles like Stalingrad or D-Day.

Not that was the only vital theatre where the British proved decisive. The North African campaign for example, has been largely treated as a sideshow, but had the nazis won they would have gained the middle eastern oilfields, remedying the achilles heel of their military.

Another reason the British don't get a lot of credit is because in easily measurable terms like numbers of troops and raw industrial production the Americans and Soviets contributed more. However, Britain depended a lot more on technology - you can't easily measure the difference things like radar or the breaking of enigma made to the war, but they certainly did make a huge difference. Where the Soviets would throw more men at a problem, and the Americans more materiel, Britain - having neither to spare - resorted to out-researching the Nazis.

It's weird when you look at that image and realise how poor history teaching is in other countries.

It's amazing to think that only 7% of Americans and Germans, 14% of Frenchies and 22% of Swedes are historically literate on WW2.

The Lend-Lease has been accounted for only 7-12% all of the resources that the Russians have used in World War II. They've also inflicted 80% of all the casualties that the Germans have suffered in that conflict, in case you've missed that.

The usage of cavalry was widespread in World War II, especially among the Axis.

>The usage of cavalry was widespread in World War II
Not in battle, no.

Plus the incident I'm referring to is when the Poles actually had cavalry deployed against armored divisions. Lol. They lost way more troops, needless to say.

Well the Russians had more people. I think they must have absorbed at least 100 divisions on the German's eastern front.

>posting ancient memes on Veeky Forums

Go ahead and try to find a primary source for the Poles charging tanks with cavalry.

Winston Churchill in his account of The Second World War did state cavalry were deployed against armored divisions.

Alternatively: who was the worst for their side?

Italy?

With great success!
>September 1 - Battle of Mokra - 19th Volhynian Uhlan Regiment took by surprise the elements of German 4th Panzer Division, which retreated in panic.[5][8]

But we're more so, based on that chart

Worst as in "counterproductive to the war effort" or just as in "insignificant"

I have to say, Germany probably would have been better off with a neutral Italy.

Ah so you've flip-flopped on the issue. First you said that the Poles didn't have Cavalry deployed but then they did and it was successful.

Look the truth is, I don't doubt the veracity of your claim, but the example Churchill cited was the biggest one and a failure across the board as armored divisions faced cavalry.

I am not that guy, just a man bored to see people mocking Poles when they rekt Germs.

I'm stating facts. I'm not mocking anyone. What is it with people on Veeky Forums and 'taking sides'??? How the duck can you even take sides when discussing wars?

Poland, I'm sure is an admirable country, but they deployed cavalry against armored divisions and that is quite hilarious. The truth of the matter is that going into combat (because they were the first to fight on land against Germany) they didn't know exactly what they were in for.

I suppose not so funny when you consider people's lives at stake, but they were the only country to do so.

They still think "Britannia rule the waves" is a thing.

Italy and Romania on German side.

France jobbed but the French resistence was p ok.

It was Denmark that was literally useless to the allies and a failure to its people.

I can't imagine Denmark was ever a country that had an extensive or powerful military. They had an extensive trading system set up and strike me as more of a wealthy merchant state than a militaristic one. That mentality pays off in times of complete peace and solitude like the last 50 years or so, but in times of great turmoil it's nations like Denmark and Holland that just get annexed by whatever powers that be and are used for the actual power struggles.

Italy was of no use though?? There was a reason why the Allies fought battles in northern Africa, and it was partially because Italy's naval and air power was so threatening that it became almost impossible for the Brits to gain hold of anything in the Mediterranean except Malta. And even that little island was a hotly contested defensive war that the Brits eventually lost a hold of.

Holy shit, in fact the only country that had more U-boats than Germany and Britain (the two major naval powers at the time) at the start of the war was Italy by a fair amount.

Interesting that they didn't show results of the same poll in Russia. Each of the big three is going to naturally glorify their own role. OP is just another assravaged Francophile who seem to infest this board, probably because /pol/ won't have them

>making it about France when it isnt the topic in anyway

British butthurt is so hilarous

decadent leftists eternally BTFO

>Brexit
>Trump
>Nationalism


Countries with strong nationalism have greater self-importance

>but they deployed cavalry against armored divisions and that is quite hilarious.
Cavalry fighting as mounted infantry armed with anti-tank guns, supported by their own tankettes and tanks. Given that practically every major nation involved in World War II used organic cavalry to some extent in a similar fashion, it's not really that amazing or outdated.

I'm also not sure hos a less industrialized nation under attack by two industrialized nations used everything it could to maintain its own sovereignty

>but they were the only country to do so.
No.

*I'm also not sure how a less industrialized nation under attack by two industrialized nations used everything it could to maintain its own sovereignty is hilarious as opposed to natural.

They've only used them against infantry and lightly armed vehicles.Besides, by that time, the usage of horses was still widespread, even among Germans.

They've gained a decisive victory against them at Mokra.