I've seen people say that the Big Three of WWII was really the Big Two, and Britain's contributions weren't as important as America's or Russia's. Is that true?
It obviously depends on during what stage of the war. Your pic is from Yalta 1945, and around that time Britain was more of a junior partner to the US, but had it been early 1942 then Britain would obviously have a more leading role.
Britain's role in the mythos is mostly symbolic as they were the dying world hegemon handing the crown to America and Russia
>>18221710>Britain's role in the mythos is mostly symbolicThe only myth is "Britain did nothing".Literally half of Overlord forces were Commonwealth, and the majority of naval vessels used were British.Bombing campaign likewise was 50/50 British-American. The main difference was that America bombed during the day which had an overwhelming strategic advantage.Britains main "contribution" to allied victory was to not sue for peace. In fact many historians argue that Germany essentially lost the war when Britain opted to continue, and that Germany was largely defeated by late-1941-early-1942. Of course one could argue that USA decided the war as well long before they officially joined it by picking sides even when neutral.
>>18221699the british empire kept the ussr in the war in 1941-1942 iirc something like 40% of the soviet's medium and heavy tanks were british at the battle of moscow, and that's just tanks the british had safe trade routes to send stuff over by way of canada, and later the us
>>18221699You get an Englishman, a Russian, and a Yank, and you ask them "Which country did the most to defeat the 3rd Reich?" and all 3 will give you the exact same answer
>>18221699The Allies should have just arrested Uncle Joe whilst they had him there lmao. What's Ivan gon' do about it?
>>18222124>arresting a guy in a land where he is the supreme leaderDamn nigger
>>18222124>What's Ivan gon' do about it?Occupy the rest of Europe, probably.
>>18221699It's an overly simplistic reading at best. Considering your pic though Yalta was absolutely the point where Britain was undeniably on the back foot as the two communist leaders at the conference conspired to cut them out.>>18221748>Literally half of Overlord forces were CommonwealthDon't forget that, when you look at the disposition of German forces during the breakout from the Cotentin Peninsula, and the push across France, that 'somehow' the British and Commonwealth forces always seemed to be assigned to the areas with the strongest/best supplied/most elite German defenders - and that the American generals under Eisenhower were doing their best to deny the British/Commonwealth forces of supplies (with Patton literally demanding that they be given no fuel at all) in order to ensure that America looked like the 'conquering heroes' and got to Berlin first, and that despite that the British/Commonwealth forces still advanced at least as quickly as the Americans who were given more support and the easiest jobs. There's a serious question about whether the American generals/politicians responsible for the above ensured that the Soviets made it to Moscow first and are therefore responsible for the suffering of everybody trapped behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War.
>>18221699Britain did the most during WW2. Did America or Russia declare war on the Nazis in 1939? No. Only Britain stood alone and sacrificed it's empire to save the world from Hitlerism
>>18221699Its just because there are more Americans and Commies in the world than there are British. For people who know anything they about the war they understand the British blockade was one of the main things that defeated HItler, since its what forced him into Russia. Its the exact same way we defeated the Kaiser and Napoleon. Not to mention the British empires role in D day
>>18221699Britain carried early game, Soviets mid game and Amerians late game.
It wouldn’t be WW2 without Britain. Because if britain had just negotiated a truce after Dunkirk then Germany would have effectively won. America wouldn’t have ever entered the war. The Soviets would have been smashed with the full force of the german military. Including the countless bombers that were no longer wasted blitzing Britain
>>18222756Nothing I hate more than people like you who when discussing history what-ifs, always say things WILL happen this way.You literally have no grounds to say this is how everything will play out. I can point out a great number of potential scenarios.For example America may still supply the USSR even without Britain since the majority of US support came through the Pacific route and L-L to the USSR begun before USA officially entered the war.Also even without Britain, you cant say for certain Germany would still have won in the east. The Wehrmacht lines collapsed in December 1941 and the Germans were driven back hundreds of kilometers by an overwhelming Soviet counteroffensive which was largely independent of any western support, only 2% of allied aid had arrived in USSR by the end of 1941. Even in 1942 the USSR was standing largely on their own legs when they again checked the German advance against the Volga and Grozny.Finally, why do you assume Britain is going to become a non-factor for the remainder of the war?If the fields of Poland was a red line of too much German expansionism, do you really think Britain is going to settle for a Germany to the Caucasus? What exactly prevents Britain from declaring war on Germany again if they invade the USSR? Britain was perfectly happy to declare war on Napoleon again after a peace had been signed, when Napoleon kept expanding.Be more pragmatic next time, it will make you look more serious and less of a prick. There are way too many variables to consider to sit there and say "this will happen and then this will happen".
>>18222856>What exactly prevents Britain from declaring war on Germany again if they invade the USSR? Britain was perfectly happy to declare war on Napoleon again after a peace had been signed, when Napoleon kept expanding.Even if they never declared war on Germany again the UK would probably still have maintained an outsize role in the progress of the war while maintaining that 'peace'. When you look at the intelligence side of the war, where the Abwehr was basically being run from London (because German intelligence was literally that hilariously incompetent), Britain would still be able to pass almost perfect information about Wehrmacht operations to Germany's enemies through deniable channels within a few hours of the message being intercepted. That might not be as dramatic as the Kursk offensive/Normandy Landings - but it would almost certainly have been a huge (if not decisive) part of the war. That's before you get to the point where small groups of very scary men from the Royal Marines, newly formed SAS, and SOE were being paradropped into occupied territory to create, train, arm, and run insurgencies behind German lines.
>>18222856In my opinion Germany would have done better against the Soviets since without Britains blockade the Germans could have got resources imported from the east, for example oil from Venezuala meaning they could have supplied their troops better using trucks rather than horse and cart and their airforce and tanks also would have done better
>>18221699Britain's contributions were so high that by the end of it they had nothing left. Complete national murder-suicide to destroy Germany.
>>18222941Don't forget that the Luftwaffe was absolutely eviscerated by the Brits just before the start of Barbarossa - and that the Wehrmacht's entire tactical doctrine assumed air superiority and constant support from dive-bombers.
>>18222122England because ultimately it was England turning down peace offers.
>>18222155How tf is he going to do that when he his vaunted Red Army has zero reserves and Mutts just deleted 11m Mobiks at the Muttcow parade?
>>18223429>The Nazi squeals in pain as he strikes himself
>>18223430Can you try again in proper English? I'm not a teenager.
>>18221699Why'd they look so different just a few months later?
>>18224126By swapping Churchill for Attlee you change that group from 'one Imperialist, and two commies' to 'three commies'. Of course they're happier.
>>18224353Ah yes Harry Truman the infamous marxist lenninst
>>18222755japan gave up because the soviets invaded china
>>18224126>Why'd they look so different just a few months later?At least one of the actors died and was recast for the next season
>>18222592And look at how it turned out for them
>>18221699The big 2 were the USSR (the Russian Federation did not exist at the time) and the various Chinese states. They fought pretty much the whole war, lost the most men, and made the most progress. The United State's supportive role as a late entry in WWII is overblown.
>>18222124>trying arrest Stalin in the USSR>what Ivan going to doUnironically conquer the entire world. The west would have lost their one chance at holding onto ANY of Europe or asia.
>>18221699Britain was basically a minor of the U.S
>>18222124Yalta is in crimea you fucking retard
>>18224353>everyone, even a staunch anti communist, is a communist Mutts are truly mentally deficient
