Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

All things Rugby
User avatar
BlackMac
Posts: 7010
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle of the Lothians

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by BlackMac »

vh5150 wrote:
inactionman wrote:
Jim Lahey wrote:
vh5150 wrote:Japan attacked the USA. USA entered the war and it was over relatively quickly after that. Game over.
There was 3.5 years between Pearl Harbour and VE day, not exactly a game over moment.
Hitler’s big mistake was declaring war on the US. An arrogant move with little to be gained from a German POV given that they already had Western Europe in lockdown and were focused on fighting the Soviets in the East. The US hadn’t much stomach to get involved in Europe. He should have left them and the Japanese to go at it by themseves.
Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia.

The US was worried about Soviet hegemony, although the increasing influence of Japan in the Pacific was also a concern. They didn't really give two shits about western Europe.
Yep ... USA simply didn’t see it as “their war”. Weren’t they building military equip for Germany before Japan got cocky?


No they weren't, that is bollocks.
User avatar
BlackMac
Posts: 7010
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle of the Lothians

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by BlackMac »

Do any of you Irish lads know this cnut Yoyo. Please confirm he is a primary school child.
User avatar
HKCJ
Posts: 7760
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Auld Reekie

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by HKCJ »

Was it Ireland?
User avatar
Jim Lahey
Posts: 9778
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Jim Lahey »

It has occurred to me that I have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the post-WW1 peace talks/political situations in Europe, but know relatively little about what happened say the last six months of 1945 and 1946.
Must have been an absolute clusterf**k!
Can anyone recommend any decent books on Europe immediately after the war?
Cheers
backrow
Posts: 22415
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by backrow »

BlackMac wrote:
vh5150 wrote:
inactionman wrote:
Jim Lahey wrote:
vh5150 wrote:Japan attacked the USA. USA entered the war and it was over relatively quickly after that. Game over.
There was 3.5 years between Pearl Harbour and VE day, not exactly a game over moment.
Hitler’s big mistake was declaring war on the US. An arrogant move with little to be gained from a German POV given that they already had Western Europe in lockdown and were focused on fighting the Soviets in the East. The US hadn’t much stomach to get involved in Europe. He should have left them and the Japanese to go at it by themseves.
Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia.

The US was worried about Soviet hegemony, although the increasing influence of Japan in the Pacific was also a concern. They didn't really give two shits about western Europe.
Yep ... USA simply didn’t see it as “their war”. Weren’t they building military equip for Germany before Japan got cocky?


No they weren't, that is bollocks.
USA was isolationist from late 30’s and were not allowed in theory to ship arms or combatants to anyone fighting wars from I think 1937?
Am sure there would have been some covert purchasing going on especially for materials, probably through front efforts in Brazil or someplace .
Iirc it was UK that was still shipping war material to Germany right up to sept 1939
backrow
Posts: 22415
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by backrow »

Jim Lahey wrote:It has occurred to me that I have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the post-WW1 peace talks/political situations in Europe, but know relatively little about what happened say the last six months of 1945 and 1946.
Must have been an absolute clusterf**k!
Can anyone recommend any decent books on Europe immediately after the war?
Cheers
I forget the book but operation unthinkable is worth reading up on - basically the allies would have taken the war to USSR !
Germany would have switched sides and served operationally under British and American units - luckily this never came to fruition and the Cold War happened instead.

Everyone was knackered by then and had no stomach for any more war - but just imagine American production lines churning out Tiger 2’s at Sherman rates, or German units with full supplies and fuel and british counterbattery artillery cover !
Would have been up against masses of t34’s and yaks and whatever the Russian late tech was - would have been a right old mess.
Nolanator
Posts: 38840
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Nolanator »

BlackMac wrote:Do any of you Irish lads know this cnut Yoyo. Please confirm he is a primary school child.
Just put him on ignore. He loves the attention and is only encourages him.
User avatar
vh5150
Posts: 1246
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by vh5150 »

There was 3.5 years between Pearl Harbour and VE day, not exactly a game over moment.
Hitler’s big mistake was declaring war on the US. An arrogant move with little to be gained from a German POV given that they already had Western Europe in lockdown and were focused on fighting the Soviets in the East. The US hadn’t much stomach to get involved in Europe. He should have left them and the Japanese to go at it by themseves.[/quote]

Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia.

The US was worried about Soviet hegemony, although the increasing influence of Japan in the Pacific was also a concern. They didn't really give two shits about western Europe.[/quote]

Yep ... USA simply didn’t see it as “their war”. Weren’t they building military equip for Germany before Japan got cocky?[/quote]

No they weren't, that is bollocks.[/quote]

USA was isolationist from late 30’s and were not allowed in theory to ship arms or combatants to anyone fighting wars from I think 1937?
Am sure there would have been some covert purchasing going on especially for materials, probably through front efforts in Brazil or someplace .
Iirc it was UK that was still shipping war material to Germany right up to sept 1939[/quote]

Good to know. Both GM and Ford have certainly had to vigorously deny accusations over the years
User avatar
Calculus
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Calculus »

Jim Lahey wrote:It has occurred to me that I have a reasonable amount of knowledge on the post-WW1 peace talks/political situations in Europe, but know relatively little about what happened say the last six months of 1945 and 1946.
Must have been an absolute clusterf**k!
Can anyone recommend any decent books on Europe immediately after the war?
Cheers
'Postwar" by Tony Judt.
backrow
Posts: 22415
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by backrow »

Wasn’t that more for their plants that were in Germany that they lost control over ?

Think IBM has a worse case to answer as their systems helped the holocaust rates of deaths
User avatar
Jeff the Bear
Posts: 19127
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Jeff the Bear »

Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
No one wants to answer my question. :(
C69
Posts: 40101
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:44 pm
Location: For Wales the Welsh and aproppriate pronouns

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by C69 »

backrow wrote:I have a mid way point between the normal jingoistic Britain won the war, and the anti Brit version where it was the US or Russia that won it.
Britain’s contribution shouldn’t really be disparaged:
First to defend successfully against Germany
Had it’s colonies
Had it’s navy
Possibly most of all, it had tech developments with which it could help Russia and USA get a jump start - aerodynamics , glue, engines, materials, jets, reliable guns, artillery to name but few.

So I genuinely think UK was the first to give Germany a bloody nose, yes. But was in no place to ultimately defeat Germany I think, not even close - had USA stayed out of it for good, and had not Barbarossa occurred when it did, then I think peace would eventually have occurred and uk left alone in the short term.

Russian bodies did drain Germany and cause their defeat, as did US material and production methods. US can also claim to have won the war against japan almost on its own. To diminish any countries contribution to defeating Germany is a bit sad really, let’s just be glad the greater reich never happened.
Angela is getting there without a single bullet being fired
User avatar
DragsterDriver
Posts: 25004
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Big Willi Style

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by DragsterDriver »

BlackMac wrote:Do any of you Irish lads know this cnut Yoyo. Please confirm he is a primary school child.
He’s disowned by them.
bimboman
Posts: 67481
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by bimboman »

Bimboc69 wrote:
backrow wrote:I have a mid way point between the normal jingoistic Britain won the war, and the anti Brit version where it was the US or Russia that won it.
Britain’s contribution shouldn’t really be disparaged:
First to defend successfully against Germany
Had it’s colonies
Had it’s navy
Possibly most of all, it had tech developments with which it could help Russia and USA get a jump start - aerodynamics , glue, engines, materials, jets, reliable guns, artillery to name but few.

So I genuinely think UK was the first to give Germany a bloody nose, yes. But was in no place to ultimately defeat Germany I think, not even close - had USA stayed out of it for good, and had not Barbarossa occurred when it did, then I think peace would eventually have occurred and uk left alone in the short term.

Russian bodies did drain Germany and cause their defeat, as did US material and production methods. US can also claim to have won the war against japan almost on its own. To diminish any countries contribution to defeating Germany is a bit sad really, let’s just be glad the greater reich never happened.
Angela is getting there without a single bullet being fired


You’re giving that Bimbo tag a bad name again.
User avatar
Jim Lahey
Posts: 9778
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:29 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Jim Lahey »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
No one wants to answer my question. :(
I’d imagine the Americans would have been quicker to jump in, or at least provide more support if Britain was on the verge of falling, which would have complicated things for the Nazis.

The Germans were never going to win against the Soviet Union. Too big to conquer with supply lines stretched, too cold and too many Russians to fight against.
User avatar
Calculus
Posts: 3830
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Calculus »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
No one wants to answer my question. :(
I hate this hypothetical crap, but what do mean "succumb"? A successful invasion and occupation of the UK would probably have used up enormous resources from Germany which then might not been available for the invasion of the SU.
User avatar
BlackMac
Posts: 7010
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Middle of the Lothians

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by BlackMac »

Jeff the Bear wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
No one wants to answer my question. :(
It's difficult to know. If the Russians hadn't been propped up by Allied supplies early on and the Germans had got to Moscow and the Urals before the winter set in, then possibly yes, but historians believe that the huge resources available to Russia and the vast area that needed to be conquered would have always allowed the Russians to recover and continue the fight.
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 40412
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Anonymous 1 »

vh5150 wrote:There was 3.5 years between Pearl Harbour and VE day, not exactly a game over moment.
Hitler’s big mistake was declaring war on the US. An arrogant move with little to be gained from a German POV given that they already had Western Europe in lockdown and were focused on fighting the Soviets in the East. The US hadn’t much stomach to get involved in Europe. He should have left them and the Japanese to go at it by themseves.
Hitler's big mistake was invading Russia.

The US was worried about Soviet hegemony, although the increasing influence of Japan in the Pacific was also a concern. They didn't really give two shits about western Europe.[/quote]

Yep ... USA simply didn’t see it as “their war”. Weren’t they building military equip for Germany before Japan got cocky?[/quote]

No they weren't, that is bollocks.[/quote]

USA was isolationist from late 30’s and were not allowed in theory to ship arms or combatants to anyone fighting wars from I think 1937?
Am sure there would have been some covert purchasing going on especially for materials, probably through front efforts in Brazil or someplace .
Iirc it was UK that was still shipping war material to Germany right up to sept 1939[/quote]

Good to know. Both GM and Ford have certainly had to vigorously deny accusations over the years[/quote]
Dude, Where's My Car?
User avatar
Glaston
Posts: 3168
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Glaston »

Russia convoys. Aug 1941 till end of war
Delivered to Russia
7000 planes
5000 tanks
4.5 million tonnes of cargo


Should add:
UK delivered in 1941 to Russia via the Arctic convoys
750 tanks
800 planes
2300 other vehicles
100k tonnes of supplies

All before America joined the war
Last edited by Glaston on Sun May 10, 2020 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15639
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by RodneyRegis »

Were the brits even involved like?

I totally understand the desperation of such as the Irish to downplay the British effort, but self-hating cunts from the UK sharing said desperation is really sad. I guess we were still an empire at that stage so worthy of nothing but derision.

Anyone who cannot see the strategic importance of cracking the code, decimating the luftwaffe and simply holding out for years and tying down axis forces on the western front when the rest of western Europe had fallen. Sure we didn't have the money of the US (albeit a lot of their weaponry was improved by British engineering) or the numbers of the SU (although we certainly helped with supplies for op. Barbarossa), but I'm afraid that doesn't mean we were irrelevant to the outcome, however much some would like that to be the case. Without Britain's stand in 1940 the outcome would have been very different. The yanks finished things off no doubt, but a conflict of that length and scale is not decided only by what happens right at the end.

Apply uppercuts to thyselves.
User avatar
redderneck
Posts: 15333
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: We'll Never Forget You Geordan D'Arcy

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by redderneck »

If Germany had taken the UK and Japan had not had their pop off the USA, then I suspect USA would not have come to anyone's aid in the European theatre, including Russia.

Would Germany have been able to defeat a Russia who were not benefiting from US support? Feck knows - about the only thing which can be said is that the task would have been made easier for them.

I fancy they'd have drawn a line at the Urals and 'declared' in cricket terms and not bothered their arse with pushing further East; at lease not until they had time to bed-in European Russia. They'd have unfettered conscription of manpower from all over Western Europe to fight the red devils.

The Japanese really, really didn't do Adolf any favours. He compounded it by declaring war on the US, when there was at least the possibility of the US and Japan just doing their own thing.

Hypothetical piffle.
User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15639
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by RodneyRegis »

Glaston wrote:Russia convoys. Aug 1941 till end of war
Delivered to Russia
7000 planes
5000 tanks
4.5 million tonnes of cargo
Not to mention technology (sonar, radar and expertise for the a bomb)
iarmhiman
Posts: 41420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by iarmhiman »

USA won the war then created the western world the way they wanted ( NATO, European Coal and Steel community etc), then proceeded to win the cold war.
iarmhiman
Posts: 41420
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by iarmhiman »

I think had Germany not committed the blunder of advancing too far east thus stretching themselves, and concentrated first by only going west, the UK probably would have been taken over a very long time.

Despite German efficiency and engineering, when it came down to it they made very stupid decisions when it mattered.
User avatar
OhNo
Posts: 1945
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by OhNo »

BlackMac wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:
Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
No one wants to answer my question. :(
It's difficult to know. If the Russians hadn't been propped up by Allied supplies early on and the Germans had got to Moscow and the Urals before the winter set in, then possibly yes, but historians believe that the huge resources available to Russia and the vast area that needed to be conquered would have always allowed the Russians to recover and continue the fight.
Return

The Americans contribution in supplies and material was crucial at the beginning of the war mainly to the UK. Lend lease starting mid 1941 and other tacit support such as helping out with convoying in the Atlantic all occurred before America entered the war. Lend Lease supplies to the Soviet union in 1941 mainly came from the UK. At the Battle of Moscow in December 19 41 the foreign tanks in the Soviet Army were British and they played a crucial role in helping the Russians stop the German army. American lend lease supplies became more crucial after 1941 but at the beginning it was British supplies that were important because a lot of American supplies were either going to the UK or building up the US Army. When the American economy kicked into war mode though, they dwarfed everything else done by any other ally.

Also to add the US were selling a lot of a military equipment to France and the UK prior to the war And prior to lend lease starting in 1941. The UK and France had purchasing commissions and bought a lot of American military equipment actually helping to kickstart military output in the US.
User avatar
OptimisticJock
Posts: 7398
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: FTFT

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by OptimisticJock »

Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
Its not really a question than can be answered. You can't really ignore (although many try to to score points) the value of Britain and the Commonwealth fighting the Germans on a couple of fronts and the potential for incursions into others keeping trooos tied up.
User avatar
Lemoentjie
Posts: 3013
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Lemoentjie »

A contender for the most tiresome topic ever. It's like asking 'who did the most' in team sports. The contribution of other countries enable the success of others.

Without trying to sound like a smug know-it-all, the answer is that no one won. Except maybe for American weapons manufacturers.
Varsity Way
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 3:50 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Varsity Way »

Tiresome, predictable and transparently dishonest.
User avatar
Uncle Fester
Posts: 19965
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Uncle Fester »

Jeff the Bear wrote:Here's a question for the rank and file Military buff know-it-alls of the bored...had the UK succumb to the Nazi's early on, would Ze Germans have gone on to win the eastern front, or were they always doomed to lose to the Ruskies, and ultimately the war?
Germans would still have lost provided the material kept coming from US.
Would have taken longer and even more millions would have died.
User avatar
AND-y
Posts: 16198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by AND-y »

"Britain was also there"

Got bailed out of two world wars and one fixed home and drawn world cup doesn't sound catchy though.
bimboman
Posts: 67481
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by bimboman »

AND-y wrote:"Britain was also there"

Got bailed out of two world wars and one fixed home and drawn world cup doesn't sound catchy though.

Oh, I’ve never worked out why you haven’t left.
User avatar
Theflier
Posts: 2565
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:35 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Theflier »

as far as I recall, it wasn't the allies vs the germans, it was the allies vs the axis.

Take america out of the allies, and there's still no evidence to suggest the axis could mount a half decent incursion on Britain, and in terms of sheer devastation, the UKs demolition of Germany cities was orders of magnitude greater than the reverse.

There may not have been a france again if America hadn't entered the war, but had the UK gone and done a french or Irish, there wouldn't have been an America for much longer after 1945.

The UKs input was the most decisive factor in determining the outcome of WW2

All with a very nice gas station behind us for those U-boats.
User avatar
Lemoentjie
Posts: 3013
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Lemoentjie »

Theflier wrote:as far as I recall, it wasn't the allies vs the germans, it was the allies vs the axis.

Take america out of the allies, and there's still no evidence to suggest the axis could mount a half decent incursion on Britain, and in terms of sheer devastation, the UKs demolition of Germany cities was orders of magnitude greater than the reverse.

There may not have been a france again if America hadn't entered the war, but had the UK gone and done a french or Irish, there wouldn't have been an America for much longer after 1945.

The UKs input was the most decisive factor in determining the outcome of WW2

All with a very nice gas station behind us for those U-boats.
I'd disagree with the bolded part. The Manhattan project was very far ahead of any competing nations, and any country with nuclear weapons would have been king.
Crazy Ed
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Crazy Ed »

Oil was the key and Germany never had enough. Even with a friendly Russia Germany would have run out of fuel and not be able to fight effectively.
So in many ways the UK won the war either via the blockade or by taking the fight into its third year and the Germans into a position where a lack of supplies prevented freedom of action.
The British experience in the early years also help to develop most of the Americans decisive weapons such as Shermans Mustangs decent artillery and landing craft.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20019
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by CrazyIslander »

Saw a doco once about a British bloke who gave the Japanese Brits navy secrets to build the Japanese fleet. He was arrested in London but Churchill himself came and got him released. Apparently he was a son of some earl/duke.
User avatar
RodneyRegis
Posts: 15639
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by RodneyRegis »

bimboman wrote:
AND-y wrote:"Britain was also there"

Got bailed out of two world wars and one fixed home and drawn world cup doesn't sound catchy though.

Oh, I’ve never worked out why you haven’t left.
It must be horrific hating yourself quite so much.
User avatar
geordie_6
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by geordie_6 »

iarmhiman wrote:I think had Germany not committed the blunder of advancing too far east thus stretching themselves, and concentrated first by only going west, the UK probably would have been taken over a very long time.

Despite German efficiency and engineering, when it came down to it they made very stupid decisions when it mattered.
The likelihood of a successful invasion of the United Kingdom by Germany was very slim. The link in the channel would never have been sustainable, even if parts of the Home Fleet were put out of action, the ships "protecting the Empire" would have been called home and cause serious problems for any supplies being moved by sea. The RAF could also continue to operate away from the immediate south coast and would likely continue to enjoy the advantage they had in the Battle of Britain, operating over home soil.

The same should also be stated for the chances of a successful invasion of Occupied Europe by British and Empire Forces without US troops. Britain may have played a role in extending the war and contributed significantly in Africa as the Yanks were shown to be very green in Operation Torch, but by the time D-Day rolled around Britain was very much the junior partner next to the USA.

Certainly no denying the stupidity of some German decisions mind...
Nolanator
Posts: 38840
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Dublin

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by Nolanator »

RodneyRegis wrote:Were the brits even involved like?

I totally understand the desperation of such as the Irish to downplay the British effort, but self-hating cunts from the UK sharing said desperation is really sad. I guess we were still an empire at that stage so worthy of nothing but derision.

Anyone who cannot see the strategic importance of cracking the code, decimating the luftwaffe and simply holding out for years and tying down axis forces on the western front when the rest of western Europe had fallen. Sure we didn't have the money of the US (albeit a lot of their weaponry was improved by British engineering) or the numbers of the SU (although we certainly helped with supplies for op. Barbarossa), but I'm afraid that doesn't mean we were irrelevant to the outcome, however much some would like that to be the case. Without Britain's stand in 1940 the outcome would have been very different. The yanks finished things off no doubt, but a conflict of that length and scale is not decided only by what happens right at the end.

Apply uppercuts to thyselves.
Who said Britain's contribution was irrelevant?
User avatar
YOYO
Posts: 18237
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 7:44 pm

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by YOYO »

Nolanator wrote:
BlackMac wrote:Do any of you Irish lads know this cnut Yoyo. Please confirm he is a primary school child.
Just put him on ignore. He loves the attention and is only encourages him.
Talk about a couple of bullies with herd mentality. I post about a topic that was in The Times newspaper which is an interesting article and get this shit back in my face.

BlackMac you are just a whiney prick. I recall you reacting similarly when on a point about the Scottish national team which you didn’t like, That’s life. Not everybody posts stuff that everybody agrees with. Get over yourself.

Nolantor you should know better.
User avatar
henry
Posts: 26631
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Who won WWII - How nations view who ultimately won it

Post by henry »

YOYO wrote:
Nolanator wrote:
BlackMac wrote:Do any of you Irish lads know this cnut Yoyo. Please confirm he is a primary school child.
Just put him on ignore. He loves the attention and is only encourages him.
Talk about a couple of bullies with herd mentality. I post about a topic that was in The Times newspaper which is an interesting article and get this shit back in my face.

BlackMac you are just a whiney prick. I recall you reacting similarly when on a point about the Scottish national team which you didn’t like, That’s life. Not everybody posts stuff that everybody agrees with. Get over yourself.

Nolantor you should know better.
It’s an absolute mystery why loads of people find you a tragically embarrassing and unfunny cnut.
Post Reply