Why do people keep saying that Britain managed to hold on against the biggest land power in WW2?

[Pashahlis]

People keep saying that Britain did very good in WW2 because they managed to hold on against the major landpower at that time. But its not hard holding on against the major european landpower when you are an island nation with superior navy. They did essentially nothing in Europe until 1943 (Italy). The only thing they did prior to Italy was evacuating there forces from Europe in Dunkirk.

 

[Zaku]

People keep saying that Britain did very good in WW2 because they managed to hold on against the major landpower at that time. But its not hard holding on against the major european landpower when you are an island nation with superior navy. They did essentially nothing in Europe until 1943 (Italy). The only thing they did prior to Italy was evacuating there forces from Europe in Dunkirk.

Why do you need a seperate thread to ask this question?
There is an active thread about this topic, post in there.

 

[Axe99]

People keep saying that Britain did very good in WW2 because they managed to hold on against the major landpower at that time. But its not hard holding on against the major european landpower when you are an island nation with superior navy. They did essentially nothing in Europe until 1943 (Italy). The only thing they did prior to Italy was evacuating there forces from Europe in Dunkirk.

Well, assuming Germany is the largest land power in Europe (because, based on sheer size, there's a fair chance it'd actually be the Soviets), on a purely logical basis, they did. As you say, the fact they could rely on their navy and air force was the reason they could, but technically speaking, Britain did hold on against the major aggressive land power at the time. Just because Germany's navy was too small to challenge the RN, thus making it not as difficult or as dramatic as the statement suggests, doesn't make the statement any less true.

 

[jdavis86]

It wasn't exactly peaches and roses for them either.

Without sounding like a complete asshole, go read a book on it

 

[Alexander Suvorov]

They did essentially nothing in Europe until 1943 (Italy). The only thing they did prior to Italy was evacuating there forces from Europe in Dunkirk.

Because the forum rules require disagreements to be respectful I will say only that you are wrong, and that these statements are completely untrue. Good day sir.

 

[TheDerpyBeagle]

Seriously? The British beat the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, and was responsible for keeping hundreds of thousands of German troops guarding the coasts in Western Europe and Norway up until D-Day, troops which otherwise would have been invading the Soviet Union. The British also also broke the Enigma code, which significantly contributed to winning the Battle of the Atlantic and the entire war in general. To put it simply, without the British, the Germans most likely would have won WWII, and even if they still lost to the Soviet Union, it would be a significantly slower defeat, which means so many more millions of lives would die.

 

[Swinds]

Seriously? The British beat the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, and was responsible for keeping hundreds of thousands of German troops guarding the coasts in Western Europe and Norway up until D-Day, troops which otherwise would have been invading the Soviet Union. The British also also broke the Enigma code, which significantly contributed to winning the Battle of the Atlantic and the entire war in general. To put it simply, without the British, the Germans most likely would have won WWII, and even if they still lost to the Soviet Union, it would be a significantly slower defeat, which means so many more millions of lives would die.

to say the British beat the Luftwaffe is little bit wrong.

It was a high score draw battle but a strategic victory. The Luftwaffe did not gain air dominance it was tasked with. However it was not defeated.

 

[Mamluke]

to say the British beat the Luftwaffe is little bit wrong.

It was a high score draw battle but a strategic victory. The Luftwaffe did not gain air dominance it was tasked with. However it was not defeated.

I don't know about that... considering the sheer amount of casualties for the Luftwaffe BOTH in Aircrews AND Planes, I say its a dam Victory for the British.

 

[FieldMedic]

Google 'Battle of Britain' and 'The Blitz' for the answers you seek.

 

[Snow Wolf]

But.. it was their finest hour?

 

[tsk92]

And you know, there is also North Africa. The Americans landed in Op Torch when the Brits were pushing the Afrika Korps back into Tunisia for the final time. Plus fighting in Burma and Malaya, and the whole Atlanti War and Artic convoys.

Not to mention the numerous Commando and Long Range Desert Group raids throughout the war.

 

[FOARP]

The Americans landed in Op Torch when the Brits were pushing the Afrika Korps back into Tunisia for the final time.

Torch was an Anglo-American operation (~1/3rd of the troops were British). British involvement was down-played as it was thought that if the French perceived it as a US-only operation they would be less likely to resist.

 

[Had a dad]

Why do you need a seperate thread to ask this question?
There is an active thread about this topic, post in there.

this