British brains, American brawn, and Russian blood won the Second World War

...

Massively subsidized and aided by the UK and USA

They probably supplied enough that without it, the USSR wouldn't have been able to get to Berlin when they did.

I'm British and while is pains me to say, they're probably the most relevant.
While the Nazis would have probably lost regardless, they were the only adversary for which an axis victory was absolutely inconceivable.

I don't know but it's a very annoying statement. Soviets help to start the war, switch sides and then boom they're "heroes" because Anglos and Americans feel awkward about allying with someone equal to Hitler.

>british
>brains

>Your nation represented in a propaganda poster even though it did fuckall

Pretty much. Hitler lost with his declaration of war against the United States. He could've won against Stalin if he wasn't a slave to his own ideology and wasted the potential of anti-communist sentiment in the country. One of the greatest tragedies of the war to be honest.

in the words of winston churchill

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

>Anything bad happening to Hitler
>A tragedy

Yes a tragedy because he would've deposed Stalin but still lose the war later. If that happened then Anglos could be claiming that WWII had a happy ending.

>Cuts to German spy's getting btfo by XX, operation fortitude, and v 1/2 rockets landing in the middle of nowhere

>>he would've deposed Stalin

So you don't know what even was the situation in the first months of Barbarossa? And you've decided to post in thsi thread and reply to that post?

The bongs mattered only in consenting to US occupation so that the US could prosecute the war from a forward base, and to provide women for the sexual gratification of their occupiers.

But muh lonely island (that wouldn't have survived without immigrants deciding to join the fight for it).

yeah the blockade had absolutely zero effect on germany

You post this every single thread. It’s just sad now.

only history channel tier brainlets believe that shitty quote
french did half the fighting in world war 2
their resistance movement was more effective then the british army

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

do you actually delude yourself into thinking this

>America wasnt relevent
>literally builds the largest, most technologically advanced military in the world, nukes two cities, saves Western Europe
Tankies should be shot.

The Nazis would lose but the communist menace would've annexed France and Italy and then have been an even more retarded threat in the cold war.
French and Italians would've loved those oppressive puppet governments that have a nack for genociding their problems away.

>British brains
You already have false flag right after beginning.
Also the blood China had shed is no lesser than Rssia, enough to make them win as one of founders of UN and permanent members of UNSC.

*Russia

t. assblasted bong

> muh first few months of barbarossa

How about you actually learn something instead of being a fucking wehraboo?

Why do no other Brits accept the "hiding on the island" meme being based on truth?
We didn't "beat" Germany, we survived Germany. We were technically on the winning side but I wouldn't really put us anywhere near the top in regards to actually fighting the Nazis.
We kept them off our Island which is absolutely incredible and commendable and a testament to our Navy and Airforce, but people seem to think that just because they didn't reach our island that we were the ones breaking apart their army and occupying their territory.

There's nothing wrong with accepting that we didn't do quite so well in WW2. It's like Americans who watched Saving Private Ryan thinking that they came in and saved the British from being invaded while fighting Hitler with the other hand when in reality Hitler was never getting anywhere fucking near our shores and the Americans performed better in the war before they even set foot in Europe.

>Partly because the British did a lot of stupid shit
I think british intelligence means more like "military intelligence" as in Bletchley Park, Magic/Ultra, james bond style shit.

T. Definitely a brit

Ulsterman actually.

Mhmm. Sure you are. You’re awfully interested in talking about how America won the war, aren’t you?

The number of actual encounters was incredibly small, if you look at statistics.

Meanwhile, your country still struggled to take (2) beaches on D-Day. Pretty pathetic.

cracking the enigma code, ruses like that fake dead officer with fake dox and that double agent full of tall tales, covert support of partisans, rallying allies and support, definitely the brains of the operation

>talking about how america won the war

Where did I say anything of the sort? If you re-read my post without the added retardation you'll see that I point out that only retards think that Americans battled Germany down to victory instead of being at the height of their use when they were just sending competent combatants supplies and whatnot with their massive industry.

Did you even read my post or are you the sort of person I'm referring to in my post who simply cannot accept the fact that "we held Hitler back" is perfectly commendable without LARPing that we were the ones that beat him?

Yes but WW2 was a war won by industrial/economic might more than anything so the US is probably the greatest among equals in that regard.

>Saves western europe
>>"We saved you guys! we really did!!! we have culture!!!"

Guys the hero complex shit is really getting boring.

дa, тoвapищ!

Good post

All of Western Europe apart from the UK fell to the Nazis, due to the Royal Navy and RAF. The UK also continued to fight the war in North Africa and Burma. That's a legacy to be proud of.

The USSR did most of the actual fighting though, D-Day wouldn't have been possible if 8 out of 10 German deaths hadn't occured on the Eastern Front.

...

That pollack

Because your post is full of blatant inaccuracy

>but people seem to think that just because they didn't reach our island that we were the ones breaking apart their army and occupying their territory.

Except for in Italy, North Africa, Burma and the Western Front.

>the Americans performed better in the war before they even set foot in Europe.

What is the American achievement in struggling to capture small pacific garrisons for 4 years?

The North Africa campaigns did their part, every soldier they tied up was one less for the eastern front. Britain didn't have soviet levels of manpower to throw at the problem.

Can you imagine the Britain of today fighting on?

You missed my point about the Americans entirely-my point was that their contributions to the war had barely anything to do with their actual military or fighting but more to do with their industry; they did "better" before they set foot in Europe because their army didn't really play a big part in the downfall.

As for Britain fighting, we did well in many areas but again I simply cannot say that our military contributions were large enough to say "well yes, we beat Hitler."
When we were chased out of France by the krauts we did "hide on our island" in many ways but still contributed in an utterly massive way to the war effort.
I just hate this meme that the British army wasn't the army that knocked the germans on the head-hardly a surprise and definitely not something to be ashamed of.

Britain doesn't have anything to be "ashamed of" in WW2 and should in fact be very proud, but shouldn't swell up our achievements because that attitude is retarded and is the reason we get shit on all over Veeky Forums so much.

Never encountered British who claim to have won the war for everyone. That's an Americanism.

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post as something to big up the US' contributions to the war. We actually have nearly identical viewpoints.

Then where have you been hiding? Every WW2 thread is dominated by retards who think that we kept Hitler off Britain with one hand and them chased him back into Berlin when the reality is when it comes to "who beat hitler more" it isn't even us verses Americans or us vs Russia but probably one chunk of Russia vs another chunk.

Our defence against Hitler was utterly incredible and will forever be remembered as a testament to our bravery but LARPers who whittle away at our achievements for sake of swelling up non-happenings are faggots.

I got the feeling that was the case.

The Western Front was basically just to prevent the USSR occupying Western Europe. That's it. There were like, 70 poorly equipped German Divisions there. It was a joke of a front.

The US was ultimately only good for it's massive industry allowing the USSR to fight back, and send food to the UK.

The UK's best achievement was strangling Germany of resources and constantly assaulting them at the sides in Africa.

The USSR has the legitimate claim to beating Germany. Everyone else was basically just pushing them on with equipment and cutting equipment from Germany.

this

Credit where it's due, out of the three major allied powers, the UK was the only one who was fighting Nazi Germany from the start and didn't suck Adolf's cock until he invaded, or wait for him to inexplicably declare war to cement an alliance with Japan.

Wait, you're saying that running away from the enemy, and being defeated at every turn, qualifies as "fighting"? Who knew?

Absent the US, the bongs would have had a swastika flying over their heads. They would have been cucked at home same as they were cucked in Asia.

Merry Christmas, bongfriends.

Do you legit believe Sealion could have ever happened? Christ, you must have legit brain damage.

>running away from the enemy

Considering the UK lost 80,000 men in the defense of France, that's hardly 'Running away', as well as rejecting Hitler's offer of peace.

>being defeated at every turn
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Compass
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

Fact is, it was British principles, American Brawn and Russian blood.

If we'd relied on American principles, you'd have been surrounded on either side by two super powers before you could mobilise, getting your asses kicked in the air with allison engined mustangs and trying to fight Panthers with this rattley shitbox.

Merry christmas friend :)

>Meanwhile, your country still struggled to take (2) beaches on D-Day. Pretty pathetic.
Everybody struggled on D-Day. That's why D-Day is such a big deal.

Really? Because the UK & Canada took their beaches with far, far less difficulty.

>What is the American achievement in struggling to capture small pacific garrisons for 4 years?
Three years, and the difficulties of the Pacific Theater were mostly logistic, rather than military.

...

The sheer number of unfulfilled objectives at the end of D-Day should speak to how tough the entire operation was. Everybody struggled, the UK, Canada, and the French Resistance included.

this it is just British brains and Russian blood

2/3's of lend lease program went to UK

UK itself was the welfare queen of the war.

>the UK was the only one who was fighting Nazi Germany from the start

Yeah about that....

You fucking retard. Are your from that reddit website that accuse everybody of being a wehraboo if they tell something they don't like about German chances in Barbarossa?

In 1941 Stalin stayed in Moscow the same Moscow that was almost captured by Germany. The fact that Hitler could've won against him right there is not the same as to say that Germany could've conquered the entire country ending with a climactic battle of Vladivostok.
Many people in Soviet republics were greeting Germans as liberators including Russians. The Red Army was surrendering in unprecedented numbers and officers like Vlasov were ready to fight against communist government. Basically Hitler failed to capitalize on anti-communist sentiments in the USSR and that's why he lost. He started killing people, making this war all about nations. He only allow Russians to fight for Germany in 1944 when it was too late. Almost everybody today is discussing Barbarossa in anachronistic terms of a war between two nations fighting for survival but it didn't have to be this way if Hitler wasn't a slave of his ideology.

Of course Sealion would have happened, bong. Absent US support, it was inevitable.

80000 dead and running away is just an example of the historical bong military incompetence.

And pillow fighting with the Italians doesn't qualify as "fighting". Hitler pulled out of the attack against the bongs because he had business to the East, and he realized the bongs were suitably cucked, even with US support.

youtube.com/watch?v=YnPo7V03nbY

>80000 dead and running away is just an example of the historical bong military incompetence.

If we actually ran away, that many wouldn't have died.

>And pillow fighting with the Italians doesn't qualify as "fighting". Hitler pulled out of the attack against the bongs because he had business to the East, and he realized the bongs were suitably cucked, even with US support.

So why did he admit in his last days that Britain was integral to his defeat?

If you'd relied on bong principles, you would have had a swastika flying over your head, bong. Fact is, you relied on the US, the only reason that didn't happen.

>Americans did a lot of smart shit

well done

>literally builds the largest, most technologically advanced military in the world
>then sacrifices it to the rice niggers a few years later

If you hadn't been militarily incompetent bongs, they might not have died. In any case, you decided to integrate the best of both worlds, massive defeat and death, as well as running away.

Who knows why the idiot twins Churchill and Hitler said whatever nonsense they said. They were both incompetent idiots.

So how the fuck am I supposed to prove Britain didn’t run away? If there were no casualties, you’d use that as evidence.

They were actually fuckinn warriors. Dunkirk, Bir Hakeim, Monte Cassino, Provence, from memory, were critical battles. Not to mention the Alps where they blasted Italians, even if it's not an achievement.

Great post user, sad to see the other Brits in this thread are either Shitposting or retarded nationalists

>Burma
>using land casualties to measure effectiveness in a naval-based theater

Assuming that the Commonweath and the USSR could have defeated Germany by themselves, there still would have been the matter of Japan and the 1 million or so estimated Allied casualties involved in invading and pacifying it. So even if the US was replaceable in Europe, it was essential in the Pacific.

The capture of those small Pacific garrisons prevented a Japanese invasion of Australia and New Zealand, and prevented the permanent Japanese occupation of much of Asia.

...

A historically illiterate bait meme regarding Vietnam. In fact, you probably know that it is.

>probably
more like probably not

>British brains

One of their crowning strategic achievements of the war was committing troops to the soft underbelly that was Italy and knocking it out of the war...unfortunately the soft underbelly was actually mountainous, hard to supply and a defenders wet dream causing a great many allied casualties with a minimum of German defenders being committed to the front.