How did Britain stand against blitzkrieg?

How did Britain stand against blitzkrieg?

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/11866425/Its-time-to-shatter-the-myths-of-the-Battle-of-Britain.html
loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000003-0785.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

In reality it was about 80% Soviet, 5% UK, 10% US and 5% others(not including France).

Alternatively we could say Hitler did the most with his bad leadership but that would be a trigger for some retards here.

>How did Britain stand against blitzkrieg?

germans fucked up and did not take out the radar facilities. also hitler threw a hissy fit when some brits accidentally bombed residential area so instead of waging war he focussed on killing londoners which accomplished nothing of value.

in other words, brave brits fought hard but a retard named adolf lost that battle and the war because he could not think straight when things went a tad wrong.

ur fucking dumb
60% ussr, 30% britain and 10% for all the other nations

>a tad wrong
>Every major white western superpower teams up and dog piles you, with the Red Menace at the height of its power collapsing itself on the Nazi by the millions.
>a tad wrong

Britain didn't do anything

>all these people saying anybody but the ussr was the most responsible

America was nowhere near as useful as americans tend to think.

This. Luftwafe stopped bombing airfields and factories and started bombing London after the Brits dropped some bombs on Berlin and Hitler got mad.

If they had kept up bombing airfields and whatnot they probably would have won the airwar. The relief the Brits got from this tipped the balance in their favour.

when he fucked up the battle of britain it was because of one bomging error by british pilots, and hitler went fucking crazy and ignored military strategy to pay churchill back. and at that point in time the whole world thought russia was going to lose, and america was not in the war yet.

read a book.

BS. We kicked the Germans out of North Africa, made the Italians surrender, kicked the Japanese out of the rest of Asia/Pacific, and opened a new front through Normandy where we kicked ass through Western Europe. You are delusional. You would all be speaking German if it wasn't for the U.S. Germany might have defeated Russia if we didn't open new fronts in the west.

The brits ran away first chance they got. Then they did fuck all while the Soviets turned the tides of the war.

>80%

lol no that is too high.

>read a book.

Sure thing, one your great granddaddy wrote no doubt after surviving the ovens of the Holocaust six times.

They were the last remaining country left to oppose germany before attack on ussr, they consisted 50% of normandy invasion, they fought in egypt and in asia. Against germany they were for sure contributing more than US

Did you take high school history because that seems to be the extent of your historical knowledge.

>Soviets turned the tides of the war.

By actively genociding their own people on purpose?
They lost more men than the rest of the allies combined
USSR was not against germany, they were against themselves

>80% soviet
What

It's more like 40%usa 40% ussr and the rest others because France and uk were severely weakened from blitzkrieg

Ussr already pushed germany far away before you even landed in normandy, retard

Normandy is all the USA did? Are you dense? Do you know anything about the USA involvement in the war?

It took the frankly virtually impossible combination of all three.
Britain, as a base for bombing and attacks on Germany, also a threat to Japan. That prevented a second front against Russia.
USA for supplies and man power. For the uk and Russia.
Russia for manpower, and as an impossible task from a single front.

Soviets caused more than 75% of german casualties. Usa 40% my ass, ussr won the war

>40% usa
you did jackshit

They specifically asked for German defeat. Pacific theater isn't relevant.

Besdies, UK & France was in the war 3 years before the USA.

not to mention straight off the back of WW1

BULLDOG SPIRIT MATE

You mentioned opening a 2nd front and said it saved russia but usa opened the western front during the invasion of normandy, but its impossible to discuss history with someone with NA education

Why is Germany or Italy not an option?

>that prevented a second front

No, the USSR kicking the shit out of japan in two border skirmishes is what made Japan not go to war with the Soviets.

>40% usa

topkek no, russians lost 12 million soldiers, even accounting for human wave tactics that's all the heavy lifting

more like 35% usa, UK and canada combined

Not me buddy. But since you don't know history, you forgot that the western front was already open before Normandy. Good job making yourself look like an idiot twice.

>666

This graph really shows how ignorant most people are of ww2. If this was polled in Russia it wouls be 100% Soviet Union, and they'd be 100% correct.

>UK
>50%
>JUST

That would be 100% wrong too.

Lets just say this, if the UK fell, then the USA couldn`t have possibly joined the war to good effect as they would not have had an entire country to use an an aircraft carrier, not to mention training thier soldiers on british soil for years.

so i think the UK did pretty well holding it`s own for so long while the rest of Europe just gave up.

i mean.....just look at the size of our country

No its mostly about the directives that the japs gave to germans if which were to be fullfilled japs would join the war, the biggest one was fall of moscow. Its what Sorge reported to stalin then stalin pulled most of the divisions in russian far east to save moscow

In a nutshell, the RAF was able to fall back on airfields located outside of the reach of the Luftwaffe, making sure that Germany could never achieve air superiority, which was a necessary condition of even attempting a landing, which would anyway have been a long shot because of the massive superiority of the Royal Navy.

"ignorant"
why would you expect people to be experts on ww2 ?

>40% usa

Are u high? usa did jackshit, the little d-day beach fun day you guys had was an average day on the eastern front

No it wasnt are you retarded please look up the definition of a front it doesnt include overseas warfare and air combat with britain i mean the invasion of normandy was to OPEN the western front.

Croatia is right tho buddy.

North Africa, Italy and Normandy combine doesnt really compare to how much manpower, resources and effort Germany to drown in the eastern front.

Maybe stop watching the history channel so much and open a book once in a while.

Which was because of those two battles. They refused to engage in anymore battles against the USSR until they were positive that they were going to win. Since that wasn't a guarantee with Leningrad and Moscow still in Stalin's hands. The treaty was signed two months before Barbarossa.

More American soldiers died fighting in Europe than brits.

Not that it's saying much, for each body one of us threw against the Nazi's the soviets threw twenty goddamn four.

telegraph.co.uk/history/battle-of-britain/11866425/Its-time-to-shatter-the-myths-of-the-Battle-of-Britain.html

Had britain fell, and Germany could focus on the russians, as was the original plan, the ruskies may have fell...
They were woefully unprepared when barbarosa kicked off, but eventually got their shit together.
I'm kinda of the mindset that the red army wasn't going to be defeated no matter what...stalin would have sacrificed it all...but a lot of the blame has to fall to Hitler again for constantly changing his battle plans and objectives.
He needed to understand the value of a tactical retreat as apposed to losing a couple hundred thousand soldiers and equipment.

Thats not true the commonwealth lost more soldiers

Britain only survived because of Hitlers love for England.

Emotion has no place in war.

The Italian front wasn't a part of the western front? Damn I thought italy was in europe, could have fooled me.

Again, like I told him, that wasnt me who said that. Regardless, if you think manpower won that war alone you are woefully mistaken.

Do you know how much money, weapons, supplies and equipment the USA sent to the Soviets? Without their aid, the Russians could have just given up in August. For the economic contribution alone, US and USSR can share 40%, even though Russian soldiers' lives meant nothing (infinite manpower kek)

You're right the sizes of allied casualties are relative to the size of the countries and armies that fought.

So a fair comparison would be with how many casualties each allied side caused to the Germans. Which is massively skewed towards the Eastern front and the USSR.

Manpower including resources, tech etc etc etc... again everything is pointing to the USSR being responsible for 80% of the victory

They lost more people, not more soldiers.

Civilian deaths from the fighting taking place over there.

Smart money is on USSR. The wave of fascism broke and rolled back at Kursk, Stalingrad and Leningrad.

In the UK and the US, people are rightly very proud and sentimental about our deeds on the Western front, but most people don't have any idea about how much was done by the millions of Russian peasants and serfs.

Definitely part of it.
Modern history likes to paint him as some crazy man bent on world domination, but he had great respect for the English as well as the French and didn't really have any desire to go to war with them.

>including resources, tech

Oh man and here I was being told to stop watching tv.

I dont think you quite understand the magnitude of the amount of help given to the UK and USSR. Here, why dont you sit down and take a read. Luckily the library of congress has it all on pdf.

There are more reasons why they failed. In many occasions german tanks rushed without the support of the infantry and got cut off. Also germany lost a looot of valuable time by attacking greece. Barbarossa was scheduled before. Russians had superior tanks in late 1941 and 1942 kv-1 and t34. Kv-1 was literaly described as a monster by the germans and thata why hitler did a tactical blunder by pulling a panzer group to capture leningrad where they were produced but they failed so they again lost time. A little known fact is the effort of richard sorge. He literaly saved moscow. A big reason aswell is the terrain And the pocket defenses and partisans left behind the german lines after encirclements in kiev, rzhev... sevastapol played a big role as well. It delayed the army group south by a lot

Germans at first didnt fight in italian front. And its not western front its southern front mate. In the discussion about invasion of normandy it was stated normandy was to open the western front to help russian. If they said open = there was no western front before

The Russians would have never fell. Operation Barbarossa went better than anyone could have planned. But, blitzkrieg is meant for quick and decisive victories in a relative sized country. That's how it worked so well in literally every country they invaded before. But since the USSR is so fucking big, had shit infrastructure every year from around November to April and lack of proper equipment for a longer invasion.

Because of those three reasons, I cannot think of a way they would havr ever beat the USSR.

It's like the USSR only existed in that moment in history to stop the Nazi. Dat post war collapse.

>south front
>no germans immediately

Moving the goal posts. It WAS a part of the western front and there WAS germans for the entirety of the campaign.

You are moving the goal posts.

80% Russian, 10% British /commonwealth. 5% US and 5% German stupidity.

absolutely, there were many factors involved, any one change could have had effects on the outcome but it was likely a fools errand from the start.

They could've but i dont think they could maintain all the territory

90% of Axis soldiers were killed by ussr. Same is with tanks.

I am throwing this dumb percentage bullahit out the window.

There are three things that won WWII.

Saying one did more than the other is insulting to ever veteran who fought in that war.

THREE THINGS.

Russian men. British bases. American supplies.

yes...instead of following blitzkrieg doctorine hitler turned away from moscow to pursue other objectives. I believe even if they could have taken moscow and most russian clay, they'd never be able to hold it. The russians were, and still are some of the toughest sob's on the planet and they had already proven they were willing to die and destroy their country with it.

Poor planning, hubris, and the russian fighting spirit lost the russian campaign for hitler

It was 100% canada

opps meant for

Go read about the russian-allied agreement of opening the western front and russia attacking japan smartass. You know shit about history

I would up the stupidity a bit

>muh help gibs

If its so big why is it hard for you to quantify and write it down here?

This pretty much.

See pic related.

Truth is: Most Nazis died by Sovjet hands. US had not much impact in WW2 just by supplies for allies but thats all, militarely they were not needed to conquer Germany.

How much then slovenia?

>supplies do not have a huge impact

I did. I have. I don't know what this has to do with Germany fighting in Italy during the allied invasion of Sicily on the western front.

That agreement was to take more pressure off of the USSR because Stalin did not feel like Italy was diverting enough resources away from the East.

You are moving the goal posts by claiming Italy was anything but the western front. You are proving nothing with this argument.

You're lucky you lost when you did klaus...the US would have dropped the bomb on you had you held on longer.
Truthfully we should have just dropped a few shitskins in..their doing a good job of taking over your country with minimal blood.

loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000003-0785.pdf

>not much impact

Germany needs to teach more than just the holocaust in schools.

They do. It depends on what type etc.

But they only get you so far. USSR received like 20% of overal US aid in some instances it was shitty old equipment (out of one delivery of 711 planes only 11 were useful to fight the Germans with)

Italy is Southern front or Italian Campaign. The first western front after France was the invasion of Normandy. Get yourself informed. Damn your US education is trash. And also not only US invaded Italy but countless other nations primarily Commonwealth

>loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000003-0785.pdf

The US gave the USSR a third of what it gave to the UK, so yea not as big an impact as you think it had.

It was actually a part of the Mediterranean theater, there now we are both wrong are you fucking happy pseudo-hungary can we both shut up about the name of a front.

>not as big of an impact even after I gave sources

ok I cannot handle this thread anymore

No it's Southern Front or Italian Campaign, im right you're wrong

What's the matter?

Your image of a hurr durr america the saviour of all has been shattered?

>ok I cannot handle this thread anymore
Why is it a bad thing that he is saying that america didn't had much impact?

Don't forget that you helped the bad guys in ww2, and you helped to ruin a continent. So instead of saying you were the major reason why europe is shit today, just say it's russias and britains fault.

Anyone who thinks it wasn't the USSR that did the most is deluded.

Even Churchill admitted it.

>"I have left the obvious, essential fact to this point, namely, that it is the Russian Armies who have done the main work in tearing the guts out of the German army. In the air and on the oceans we could maintain our place, but there was no force in the world which could have been called into being, except after several more years, that would have been able to maul and break the German army unless it had been subjected to the terrible slaughter and manhandling that has fallen to it through the strength of the Russian Soviet Armies."