Why do people say that the British didn't do a thing in WW2?

[NEVRINx54]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...

(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

 

[acosn]

I've heard it argued by my granddad that the Sherman tanks were also largely designed for warfare in the Pacific and that's partially why they stank. Japanese tanks in WW2 were...bad. Very, very bad. Again, though, two different theaters and two different accounts. In Europe, Shermans were shit. In Asia, Shermans were the shit.

Actually, on paper the American tanks stayed in step with what most of the world was producing excluding Germany, and even then a Sherman was roughly on par with the Panzer 4. What was rendered a problem was that the Germans had heavier tanks like Tigers and panthers. Effective in combat, but not on the logistical side of things.

The Japanese didn't have a stronger tank because there was almost no point to it- most of their combat was done against factions that either were absolute shit (China) or in heavy jungle areas where they weren't feasible, so what you got were flimsy light tanks.

I won't argue that shermans weren't shit, but the US did a damn good job keeping them in step with what the rest of the world was doing.

 

[dragonslayer32]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...

(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

 

[NEVRINx54]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...

(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

i say "WORLD" b/c everyone was involved, even Brazil provited aid, not the time it took for them to do so... and i think ur mistaken on them jumping in, just sayin, not trying to start ww3 here lol. but why shld the US have declared war when Britain declared war against Germany? think in the view of the US, the conflict was just a European "border war"

 

[dragonslayer32]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...


(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

i say "WORLD" b/c everyone was involved, even Brazil provited aid, not the time it took for them to do so... and i think ur mistaken on them jumping in, just sayin, not trying to start ww3 here lol. but why shld the US have declared war when Britain declared war against Germany? think in the view of the US, the conflict was just a European "border war"

good point, i see where your coming from. all im saying is that we were clearly in trouble and america waited until they were bombed to join in. no offence, but these days, if there is trouble, america is the first to get involved.

 

[NEVRINx54]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...


(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

i say "WORLD" b/c everyone was involved, even Brazil provited aid, not the time it took for them to do so... and i think ur mistaken on them jumping in, just sayin, not trying to start ww3 here lol. but why shld the US have declared war when Britain declared war against Germany? think in the view of the US, the conflict was just a European "border war"

good point, i see where your coming from. all im saying is that we were clearly in trouble and america waited until they were bombed to join in. no offence, but these days, if there is trouble, america is the first to get involved.

very true and i agree with you for the most part, but the US had no military to speak of at that time and had just began to peak out of the The Great Depression. so its understandable that they wld be pretty timid to come out swinging lol. i definitly think the US came late though, they shld have come as soon as Germany hit France... and def when the Brits needed help at Dunkirk...

 

[dragonslayer32]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...


(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

i say "WORLD" b/c everyone was involved, even Brazil provited aid, not the time it took for them to do so... and i think ur mistaken on them jumping in, just sayin, not trying to start ww3 here lol. but why shld the US have declared war when Britain declared war against Germany? think in the view of the US, the conflict was just a European "border war"

good point, i see where your coming from. all im saying is that we were clearly in trouble and america waited until they were bombed to join in. no offence, but these days, if there is trouble, america is the first to get involved.

very true and i agree with you for the most part, but the US had no military to speak of at that time and had just began to peak out of the The Great Depression. so its understandable that they wld be pretty timid to come out swinging lol. i definitly think the US came late though, they shld have come as soon as Germany hit France... and def when the Brits needed help at Dunkirk...

true. im glad we could come to an agreement lol

 

[NEVRINx54]

the Brits where out gunned and out manned...

300 spartans ring any bells?

where all thrown of a cliff.

somehow, i doubt that. the british lasted the first three years without the americans. besides, the americans fought the japanese mainly, we took on the third reich

they lasted for three yrs b/c in order for Germany to take a tactical nightmare such as Britain they needed to bulk up...

p.s. my grandfather and the 416,800 others who died fighting along side the British wld disagree on ur last statement, everyone did their part, it was a "WORLD" war...


(British casualties-382,700)

with what part of the statememnt would the disaree upon? you cant deny the fact that america was 3 years late. i said they MAINLY fought the japanese, not completely. the obvious exception being D day, yes everyone played their part, im not desputing that fact, if it wasnt for the americans, we probably wouldnt have won the war. all what im saying is that the americans waited until THEY were attacked to join in. also, the casulty stats can go both ways, they can suggest that the americans gave a bigger sacrifice (although when taking into account population density of both countries, the british gave a bigger sacrifice) OR they can suggest that the british are better fighters. im not agreeing with any of these statements, but you cant argue with statistics.

so lets say that the Japanese had the Americans in the same position as the Germans had with the Brits, do you think they wld have so readily jumped in to help? do you spill your own peoples blood? thats not a question a leader can make easily

p.s. by 3 yrs late do you mean when Poland was invaded and the Brits declared war in retaliation?

yes i do, septenber 1 1939 was the date war was declaired. america declaired war on the axis powers on december 8 1941, with hitler declairing war on the US on december 11 1941. by the time america ws fully prepared, it was almost 3 years. also, yes i think the rest of the world would have so readily jumped in to help as you put it before, 'it was a "WORLD" war',you cant argue with yourself.

i say "WORLD" b/c everyone was involved, even Brazil provited aid, not the time it took for them to do so... and i think ur mistaken on them jumping in, just sayin, not trying to start ww3 here lol. but why shld the US have declared war when Britain declared war against Germany? think in the view of the US, the conflict was just a European "border war"

good point, i see where your coming from. all im saying is that we were clearly in trouble and america waited until they were bombed to join in. no offence, but these days, if there is trouble, america is the first to get involved.

very true and i agree with you for the most part, but the US had no military to speak of at that time and had just began to peak out of the The Great Depression. so its understandable that they wld be pretty timid to come out swinging lol. i definitly think the US came late though, they shld have come as soon as Germany hit France... and def when the Brits needed help at Dunkirk...

true. im glad we could come to an agreement lol

haha me to man, nice debating with u

 

[Ubermetalhed]

I'm sorry but your teacher is a complete and utter idiot for saying that.

 

[robakerson]

I was originally going to post along the lines of most of the cheery "everyone did a good job" posts, until I read a few pages into the thread and noticed the same two wrong themes appearing repeatedly.

...America took all the glory, of course, since it arrived incredibly late to the party...

American was pretty happy not to do anything until near the end...

And as for Americans they didn't even join WW2 until the very end. So respect to you and sms_117b for knowing your facts.

Ask your history teacher where America was the first 3 years of the war..(at least i think ity was 3)
(Pre pearl harbour)

(Sorry to get offensive but thats how I feel)

America had tried to maintain a strict code of neutrality in matters of foreign policy. Simply stated, we weren't supposed to involve ourselves in any foreign war, unless it directly threatened US soil. Sure, maybe it was wrong, but the entire notion of "America swooped in at the last minute to take credit with the Allies" is just as poisonous as the sentiment expressed in the OT.

Britain and France didn't enter the war until after the invasion of Poland, in September 1939. America was (almost) completely out of the war for over 18 months until the start of the lend-lease plan whereby America began to supply the western allies (the majority of which going to Britain) with military equipment. Pearl Harbor occurred in early December, 1941, a little over 2 years after the invasion of Poland. However, V-E day didn't occur until May 1945. This means America was (officially) in the war for 3.5 years, and unofficially for over 4 years, choosing to abstain for 1.5-2 years.

Incidentally, the Soviet Union, which everyone seems so happy about, actually *signed* a non-agression pact with Germany predating the invasion of Poland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact
Effectively, the USSR agreed not to attack Germany and vice-versa, with a secret agreement to split the land-spoils of several European countries. This remained in effect until Germany invaded Russia in June 1941 (less than 6 months before the US entered the war).

Were it not for Hitler's blind hatred of Russian communism, much of Europe (and possibly America) would probably be speaking German today.

Without the British campaign of missinformation the Germans would have been very well fortified. We also cracked the enigma code and were invovled in North Africa with out empire and india etc.

The British contributed the most intelligence, as cracking ENIGMA was a major factor in the war.

Well, the British ...also cracked the ENIGMA code, which was one of the most significant turning points of the war.

What the British call ULTRA was a codename for German intelligence traffic encrypted using the infamous ENIGMA machine. The ENIGMA machine was designed for everyday field-data. It therefore needed a way to create a (then) sophisticated filter, quickly, with minimal effort. The Polish, not the British, reconstructed the machines and cracked the ENIGMA code, presenting their findings to the British and French just before the onset of WWII.

The British can be proud to say they cracked the high-level Lorenz cipher, which was more important but less oft used by the German forces.


If WWII has any lessons beyond "Hitler is bad LOL" it's in the power of a /*combined*/ effort and the strong will of many people to defeat a devious and monstrous foe.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

Umm... i don't remember ever hearing that. Man, I think they did a good deal actually

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Hmmm...OP is in Iceland? Maybe the teacher is just butthurt that the UK froze Icelands bank accounts* and has decided to act like a whiny little ***** about it. I do remember a bit of anti British feeling a while back due to that. If that is the case then that's one really poor teacher...'I don't like the British anymore so I'm going to say they did nothing in WWII, so there, nyah, nyah, nyah'.

*or something along those lines, some sort of crap to do with recession, loans, banking etc.

 

[ResiEvalJohn]

I heard an interesting thing from my college history professor. To summarize, apparently the British never invaded the rest of Europe because they didn't want to lose a lot of casualties, being a small country. Instead, they invented lethal gas bombs and Winston Churchil's back-up plan was that if Germany invaded, the British government would drop the gas bombs in the area of invasion, killing everyone, including civilians!

Of course this plan was kept top secret from the British public until it leaked after the war, but fortunately it was never needed because the Germans never invaded. If so, it's estimated that a few million British civilians would have been killed by their own government, just to halt the invasion!

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

Britain was a damned good part of the Allied war effort, specifically Churchill, who refused to let Britain surrender to Hitler. The Isles served as the necessary staging point for Operation Overlord, without which the Americans would never have been able to make a strong assault against the Wehrmacht. Industrially, America was a major force in keeping Britain going, and it kept the Soviets afloat by giving raw materials.

As far as the actual fighting over most of the war, the winner and hero for the Allies was the USSR, without a doubt. Their ferocity and numbers combined with their incredible industrial capacity made Hitler's war effort mid 1943 and onward essentially hopeless. Without the USSR, nothing the US or Britain could have done would have stopped Germany.

Also, Britain helped prevent failures in Operation Torch and Operation Overlord as it would have been when we (America) wanted to launch it back in '42. The British troops were much more experienced than our 'Yank' greenhorns, giving the Allied army in North Africa against the Italians and Afrika Korps a decent backbone. They were also a contributor to Operation Husky in 1943, but more importantly, when the Americans were pushing for an invasion in 1942, the British knew better. They knew, from their experience in France in 1940, that the Germans were far more powerful than we estimated, and so, while I forget how, slyly pushed it back to 1944, when we just barely got through Normandy anyway.

My point: without Britain, well actually without Churchill (he was the one with the influence to keep Britain, whose Parliament wanted to surrender in 1940), we'd all be hailing Hitler. Maybe not, given the USSR, but the war effort for the whole of the Allies would be a very shaky situation.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

I heard an interesting thing from my college history professor. To summarize, apparently the British never invaded the rest of Europe because they didn't want to lose a lot of casualties, being a small country. Instead, they invented lethal gas bombs and Winston Churchil's back-up plan was that if Germany invaded, the British government would drop the gas bombs in the area of invasion, killing everyone, including civilians!

Of course this plan was kept top secret from the British public until it leaked after the war, but fortunately it was never needed because the Germans never invaded. If so, it's estimated that a few million British civilians would have been killed by their own government, just to halt the invasion!

The Germans couldn't have invaded anyway. Operation Sealion, which was originally intended for 1940 but was then pushed back to 1941, was a failure regardless of the fact that it never took off. From the Battle of Britain, we knew that the Luftwaffe could not penetrate the RAF, which was only going to get stronger, and the German navy was weak throughout the war.


To the mods: Yes, I know I double posted. I'd edit my last post, but I can't see the other posts to quote them. Sorry.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

The Germans couldn't have invaded anyway. Operation Sealion, which was originally intended for 1940 but was then pushed back to 1941, was a failure regardless of the fact that it never took off. From the Battle of Britain, we knew that the Luftwaffe could not penetrate the RAF, which was only going to get stronger, and the German navy was weak throughout the war.

Just out of interest, in the 1970's the British and Germans held some war games using the German plans for Operation Sealion with a lot of the original German officers involved. It by no means proves what would have happened but it's about the best 'what if' we are going to get:
They worked on the premise of the luftwaffe pressing it's attack on the airfields/RAF instead of switching to civilian bombing. The British plan at the time was to pull airfields back out of bomber range to spare the RAF for the invasion. They found that the Luftwaffe would have tied up the RAF in the skies, allowing the first waves of german troops to arrive relatively unmolested. However, unlike the invasion of France that had been very well planned for some time, OS was pretty much thrown together overnight and the British command & comms network was far superior to the French so the germans were unable to replicate their lightening victory.
Unlike the Japanese later on the Luftwaffe didn't really have much in the way of dedicated anti shipping weaponry, it was primarily geared for a land war. That combined with the failure to destroy the RAF and the weak navy meant they couldn't hold off the home fleet. I can't quite remember how long it took, but within 24-48 hours the British home fleet had sailed down from Scapa Flow and ripped the German reserves, supplies etc to pieces, effectively cutting off the main invasion force.
They eventually decided that the Germans would have given the UK a really bloody nose but would have incurred huge losses of men and equipment to do so.

 

[TheMatt]

Way too late to the thread to get involved just wanted to make sure someone had brought up 2 pertinent points.

1) The British and Americans did but fuck nothing when compared to Russia. Russia killed about 6mil germans, all the rest of the allies combined killed about 1 mil.

2) YAHHH CANADA!!! Dieppe ain't shit! sup now!!!???

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

The Germans couldn't have invaded anyway. Operation Sealion, which was originally intended for 1940 but was then pushed back to 1941, was a failure regardless of the fact that it never took off. From the Battle of Britain, we knew that the Luftwaffe could not penetrate the RAF, which was only going to get stronger, and the German navy was weak throughout the war.

Just out of interest, in the 1970's the British and Germans held some war games using the German plans for Operation Sealion with a lot of the original German officers involved. It by no means proves what would have happened but it's about the best 'what if' we are going to get:
They worked on the premise of the luftwaffe pressing it's attack on the airfields/RAF instead of switching to civilian bombing. The British plan at the time was to pull airfields back out of bomber range to spare the RAF for the invasion. They found that the Luftwaffe would have tied up the RAF in the skies, allowing the first waves of german troops to arrive relatively unmolested. However, unlike the invasion of France that had been very well planned for some time, OS was pretty much thrown together overnight and the British command & comms network was far superior to the French so the germans were unable to replicate their lightening victory.
Unlike the Japanese later on the Luftwaffe didn't really have much in the way of dedicated anti shipping weaponry, it was primarily geared for a land war. That combined with the failure to destroy the RAF and the weak navy meant they couldn't hold off the home fleet. I can't quite remember how long it took, but within 24-48 hours the British home fleet had sailed down from Scapa Flow and ripped the German reserves, supplies etc to pieces, effectively cutting off the main invasion force.
They eventually decided that the Germans would have given the UK a really bloody nose but would have incurred huge losses of men and equipment to do so.

Maybe so, but given Germany's stance in 1940, it didn't have the naval resources to ferry troops, and the Luftwaffe could not break the RAF, which would only get stronger and more able to defend Britain. So, when Hitler pushed the plans back to 1941, the RAF, as I said, was only stronger, and Hitler even more unable to break the British.

Also, I forgot to mention that the British played a major role in the bombings as well. Since they had fewer planes to work with than the United States and since they could not afford to lose them quickly, the British operated night time air raids on German targets, where the RAF eventually excelled. During the massive bombing campaigns, the Americans flew massive day assaults, while the British flew night raids, meaning that the Germans were hit, or could have been hit, nearly 24/7.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Maybe so, but given Germany's stance in 1940, it didn't have the naval resources to ferry troops, and the Luftwaffe could not break the RAF, which would only get stronger and more able to defend Britain.

Well yes, I mentioned that it was a hypothetical situation.

Could not is entirely debateable. If the Germans had pressed their attacks on the RAF rather than switching tactics to attack British cities the general consensus on all sides is that the RAF would have been forced to pull back from airfields in the SE. That was the plan at the time.
In the end the Germans didn't didn't do that so we'll never know for sure but the assumtion is that that is what would have happened, even from the staunchest pro British stance. The RAF were on the ropes and we know it.
That was the premise of the wargames, could it have been succesful if the Germans had continued to attack the RAF. Wargames say probably not.

The Polish, not the British, reconstructed the machines and cracked the ENIGMA code, presenting their findings to the British and French just before the onset of WWII.

IIRC it was a joint effort. The Poles got their hands on a 3 ring enigma and reconstructed it and got on with cracking the code. The French managed to get their hands on a manual somehow.
The Germans switched to a beefed up version just before the outbreak of the war, hence the lack of intelligence on the invasion of Poland. I think the British managed to break it a little while later, then captured a 5 ring enigma machine of the Germans. Finally the British built the umm...green giant I think it was called, a vast computer that decoded the german codes almost in realtime. Once that thing was going it was game over for the Germans.

 

[picturecreeper]

Simple question in fact I was in history today learning about WW2 and my teacher said that the british didn't do a thing and that the americans oh the bloody americans held up everything defending the land.
For when I read the book then it was mostly in Russia and the russians did most of the killing and the biggest sacrifices.
So guys I'm thinking what did the british do?

P.s.I'm a british patriot (16) who lives in Iceland so the education here for history isn't exactly great.

You must be singlehandedly the most retarde fuck on earth! SEriously, how many people actually believe this, and give me a break, you're in ICELAND, not AMERICA, so quit with the anti-american shit folks, it gets old...

Methinks you need to calm down a little. If his teacher learned what he knows from American textbooks (i've seen what some of them say about ww2 and the rest of the allies barely get a mention) then it doesn't matter that he is in Iceland, but that his teacher has this obviously wrong opinion.
And when American history textbooks belittle the rest of the allies contributions to one of the most pivotal periods in history the anti-americanism is to some extent justified.

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but i've studied American textbooks, and they don't really belittle the other allies at all. In fact they acknowledge that the Russians got screwed over and that Britain got piss pounded with bombs during the Blitz of London. They may not have done a whole lot until the U.S. joined in, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Britain lost 300,000 men along with some 60,000 civilians. That and the RAF fought off the Luftwaffe. So I really don't see how American textbooks take away from what really happened with the other allies in WWII.