For what it's worth, Britain probably didn't suffer as much as Ukraine has. The actual island of Great Britain was more or less secured after the aerial battle of Britain was won, and that took less than a year. Military casualties would go on to be comparable to the war in Ukraine, of course, and there was the ongoing difficulty of feeding everyone, but Britain at least had the sea and a massive navy standing between it and the enemy and civilian casualties were "only" about 70,000

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

ongoing difficulty of feeding everyone,

That’s true as the British government encouraged the people to eat plant-based meals to have enough foods for everyone to get through the ordeal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Look at these.

[–] ChairmanMeow 6 points 1 day ago

Look at the dates. Most of those are from 1940. The most intense of the attacks happened in a span of 6-9 months.

The war in Ukraine has been going on for 3 years now. Russia drops significantly larger bombs on Ukraine. Even important historical buildings are being levelled.

(Not to minimize what the British had to endure btw, war does a horrible number on you regardless)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

With all due respect mate, I am British, I do understand the toll of the Blitz. I'm just conscious of the fact that Ukraine has basically been suffering the same conditions for far longer, as pointed out by the other reply. That isn't an attempt to downplay what Britain suffered, but rather to properly recognise the severity of what Ukraine is suffering. I'm sure I don't need to send photos of the damage done by Russia.