Many things in America are based upon British customs and values. Without the British Empire america wouldn't be america, and when you look at former colonies of Spain and France vs Britain you should be able to see that it was better to be ruled by the British. They set up local governments, infrastructures, industry. America would most likely never even be a major power if it wasn't for the empire. France never would of won ww1 without the British empire, their land borders meant they couldn't conquer the world on the same scale as the British, so when ww1 happened they wouldn't of been able to commit enough manpower to make up for the British and American soldiers who actually fought in ww1. Even if by some miracle France did win the first war, in ww2 France was conquered almost instantly by Germany and with no Britain they could of turned their full might against Russia, and of course america wouldn't have the industry like they did being a former British colony so can't supply Russia like they actually did. So russia falls and the Nazis take over the world. The British empire was a necessary evil during its time.
All this talk if Britain didn't exist bla would have happened. Same could be said for Britain if France didn't exist its a pointless argument. Trying to justify the monstrous actions of the empire with hypothetical scenarios against another evil army means nothing. And let's not kid ourselves about ww2. If Germany wanted to have taken Britain it could. Hit ler let the fleeing brits leave unhindered from Dunkirk in france. He saw them as equals and hoped they'd change their mind and join him. Plus him and Royal family were buddies. He bombed britain but all of his resources went in to Russia. Island or not britain was doomed if Hitler went russia on them instead of russia. Without russia britain was doomed. They might be hard to digest if youre bias British but its a fact
I was reading about some scientists who decided to build a working version of Hitlers Bomber Plane, using half finished prototypes and blueprints captured after the war. The results were not good. As in, reach the coast before the British even knew they were coming. But, the being system was so bad they would have had trouble hitting the right country.
He viewed them as equals and offered a hand in friendship, but of course the evil monstrous British Empire rejected it and stood alone against one of the most effective and tyrannical war machines ever seen. Sounds like a very evil empire
Gotcha, they have done hundreds of tests, using actual military officers, operation sea lion couldn't of worked, in the tests it NEVER worked. Hitler wasn't friends with the royal family, the british royal family is part german. Yes he saw britain as equals, our countries share a lot of stuff so you know, that makes a lot of sense, but that's besides the point, they have done lots of test and discovered that operation sea lion wouldn't of worked in the scenario it was presented in.
Stood alone? No that was Russia not Britain. Yes Hit ler was impressed by scale of the murderous empire britain had. Funny thing is when britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland, Britain had its troops in a lot more countries as foreign invaders than Germany did. Hypocrites lol . Plus Germany and Britain have a history of concentration camps perhaps another reason hit ler wanted the pact
There is not one point in the war that russia stood alone, they stood alone on their front as Britain stood alone on the western front for a long time. But before the Non aggression pact what broke between Russia and Germany who was the only country still standing against the Nazis?
No russia is the only country that stood alone. Britain was getting arms and supplies from America before American even joined the war. And coincidentally the largest ethnic group within in the U.S. is German
Russia was being supplied by the allies too. You're making a fool out of yourself. "Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer. In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead." Source: http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-re ... ermans.htm Also, France fell June 1940, germany attacked Soviet Union June 1941, that's a year, alone.
Stood alone how ? Britain and America sent millions of tonnes of supplies to Russia starting almost as soon as the axis invaded. Britain tried to warn russia of German intentions and was rebuffed and rebuked by Stalin. Operation sea Lion wasn't ever a realistic military operation just a flight of fancy by a crazed egomaniac. Yes America had agreed to the lend/lease program before official involvement, the open seas policy also ensured close support of convoys in American waters helping to deal with the U-boat threat. Operation Torch and the whole Mediterranean front was the British and Americans trying to support the Russians prior to the massing of forces required for Overlord and the battle for France. Finally lets consider the RAF and 8th Air Force their costly campaigns against the Reich swallowed two million men thousands of pilots and planes tens of thousands of flak guns and caused considerable difficulties to German production and supply efforts. So Russian troops may have fought on one front with few allied forces alongside them, but they were fed equipped clothed and supported by both the USA and UK at costs to themselves and with a shared purpose and goal. Simple to grasp this fact really but often ignored, none of the allies won the war alone, they fought amidst a fractious sometimes contentious alliance with partners they didn't always like, but all needed each other's help to get the job done. Britain needed American materiel and manpower Russia needed support to rebuild their shattered economic base, and both Russia and America needed the one thing Britain was able to give. Time they needed time to prepare to build armies to find technology and tactics that allowed them to defeat the third Reich. Britain lead the war in the dark days fighting alone in 1939-1941, its refusal to take the easy option of surrender forced the Reich to fight a long war of attrition which is wasn't able to do ensuring its eventual defeat.
They didn't receive as much help as the British . Britain was running out of money by 1941 and without lend lease from America they would have fallen. Total Soviet deaths estimated at 24million they paid the greatest price and were more pivotal in defeating the Germans than the British were Anyway like I already said hit ler wanted to be with Britain because he admired their murderous empire and Britain used concentration camps before Germany did. Britain was in more foreign countries as invaders than Germany was . Both evil pasts none of them are good . Sorry you two bias brits fail to accept that and Rik you've already idolized the murderous past of the empire and glorified it you're sick
Comparing nazi concentration camps to British camps is similar to comparing the nazi camps to guantanamo bay.
Tell that to over 26,000 women and children who perished in these British concentration camps in south Africa See you even refuse to acknowledge it was a concentration camp. Shows how deluded and bias u are
All I got out of this was that the Brits had genocidal intents but have since had good track records with the help of a little something called plausible deniability.
I didn't refuse to acknowledge anything, I admired the Empire made mistakes but comparing 29.7K people to 20K Nazi camps is a little ridiculous. But also go tell that to the prisoners and their in Guantanamo who spend years being tortured, many who have been proven innocent many times.
You continually down play and make little of Britain atrocities . Just now you made it seem as if 26k women and children dying in a British concentration camp is nothing and bring Guantanamo bay in to this. Utterly bizarre and bewildering but fitting of a deluded bigot who glorifies land grabs and murdering I apologise you thought 26k women and children being compared to something ridiculous. There deaths had an obvious effect on u
Guantanamo was more of an example that every major power does acts similar to that at some point, and I never said 29.7K who died in camps during the Second Boer War wasn't an atrocity. I just said it is nowhere near the same league as millions who died in nazi camps who had almost as many camps and Britain had Victims. Like I said the Empire was a Necessary evil.
How is G.B similar to imprisoning women and children for no reason and were 26k of them died. It's utterly astounding how you can compare a British concentration camp of women and children to that of G.B