How was Britain so weak in WW1 and WW2 compared to Germany and America...

How was Britain so weak in WW1 and WW2 compared to Germany and America? Like it's said they had major population shortages for the army and for industrial workers, but they controlled over 400 million people, as well as having the ability to tap into the natural resources of all of their colonies. How could they not just decimate Germany in the World Wars?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

hey atleast we didn't fall in 6 weeks like a certain other country

They did the heavy lifting.

Reminder that the US joined both wars late.

well you refused to support them and just ran to dunkirk, where the mercy of hitler indirectly prevented the early fall of the UK

Map Correction*

Well there was no public support for a war, and the US was going through a depression, so they had a reason to join lately

UK is the driving force in the war, they were involved with nearly every battle they could get involved in. and owning some shitty african land doesnt make it better, the only useful african countries that england owned were egypt and a few other militia from other countries. dont forget the ANZACs either cunt

Britain had to bear the cost of empire. It had soldiers and ships all over the world, to protect its empire. This empire was comprised of tens of millions of shitskins, who were easily defeated by far smaller numbers of British soldiers. These colonials were obviously not worth a damn as soldiers, which is why they were colonized. Germany also had some colonies, but nowhere near what England had. Trying to maintain a worldwide empire and fight Germany at the same time was a pretty tall order.

>How was Britain so weak in WW1 and WW2 compared to Germany and America?

It depends on ho w you look at strength, for example upto and around WW1 90% of the worlds trade was coming through Britains ports, even right into WW2 over 2/3rds of the entire worlds shipping was British, that is a hell of a lot of tonnage.

Britians combined naval Power Military and Merchant was unmatched, without it there would have been no victory in WW2, no lend-lease being delivered globally, no Arctic convoys, no Atlantic convoys, little to no gobal shipping of arms and men that guaranteed victory to Africa, Russian, Asia, the Pacific, India, atlantic, Pacific, Mediterranean campaigns etc etc etc

Doesn't sound so weak now does it

should've extended the maginot line the stupid pricks

you are an island dude

and you are a former colony that was owned by this island

get stuffed

They had small forces, that were usually extremely mobile. They didn't simply have the wall of soldiers Germany, France or America had.
Fun fact, part of the British military structure pre 1914 was inspired by German military structure.

yes, but being on an island is a huge advantage compared to the country who fell in 'mere' 6 weeks.

Reminder that the USA's entry into WWII sealed their victory.

Also, reminder that Netherlands did nothing in WWI, and surrendered to the Krauts without a fight in WWII.

hitler should have done Operation Sea Lion, then again the Soviets would have dicked him from behind if he done it, even then he'd have to get past the British Navy, which today is no where near as powerful as it was back then

I'd also like to point out, that's "the Commonwealth" naval power, many of the crew were not British English, but Canadian, Australian, NZ, SA, Indian etc, of the merchant navy, the true unsung heroes of WW1 and 2, without them there would have been no victory, purely voluntary, undecorated and there since day 1, I salute them.

1 thing: U-boats.

Our empire was optimised for commerce and control of the seas. Not for winning major land wars against continental powers.

In both Wars we got stronger as the war progressed. By 1918 the British Army was the most military effective force in Europe.

Before WWI you begged for our help to stop an insurgency in your African colonies.

lol....

Did Britain actually have absolute control over the colonies? Because if they controlled that much of the world back then that's pretty impressive.

Yes, their governance, military outposts, colonists sent, merchants/traders etc.

You didn't know this?

I thought it was more an informal empire, with the colonies being almost self-governing.

Of the main colonies during WW2 Can, Aus, NZ and SA were fully independent and had no, India was under full control of the British at that time, as for the smaller colonies many were under full control

That's recent, independent autonomy and self rule was granted to those after the war.

*and had no obligation join the war

Not true, that's a common myth. While it's true Hitler did want peace with England, the reason why Germany did not make the final push at Dunkirk right away is because their army needed a break and they were worried the Brits had a trap set for them. Google it.

And there was me thinking your Panzer divisions over extended, got lost and couldn't communicate with each other?

But let's let history turn it into some romanticised thing where the Germans were all like "omg we should totally let them go free because we're good like that" as some on Sup Forums would have you believe!

>Ask a seasoned colonial force to help in colonial matters
How is this even surprising for you?

That too.

But yes the Germans certainly did not let the British forces retreat out of kindness, it was a tactical fuck up.

We all make mistakes.

I'd also like to point out that you're a faggot.

Back to back world war champs.

Back to back beating the fuck out of Britain to secure and then guarantee our independence.

Back to back not having the world's worst teeth.

SHART

On the bright side, and all trolling aside, though, British food is pretty based. I don't care what people say about it. Any island that has both fish and chips and Scotch eggs is based desu.

IN

HE FUCKING STOOD IN IT

...

POO

My understanding is that the Luftwaffe wanted to bomb Dunkirk to take out the Brits, but the Wehrmacht begged, and Hitler allowed, their Panzers to get the first shot at them. Then the Panzers didn't get there in time.

Aww did I hurt your feeling because I mentioned the Commonwealth forces OZ, NZ, CAN, SA, IND, NP etc and not the USA awww diddums

...

Near bankrupt itself after WW1 (guess who profited the most from this war)

And then again in WW2 - except the complete transfer of wealth was complete.

Still had a damn near impressive Navy until 1944 though.

I fought at Dunkirk (paperclip fag) and you are right... idiot

lolwat

The Soviets won WW2, you lot just showed up for the glory.

The amount of burgers mistaking alternate history maps for real world maps is too damn high.

Depends how you look at it;

> the empire was primarily a naval force, and very good at it. It took on Italy, vichy france, germany and Japan combined, even alone for a few years. The british army has always been secondary to the navy.

>such a huge empire needs lots of troops to garrison borders and keep order, making it difficult to concentrate forces like Germany could

And by far the biggest single factor, the reason why germany steamrolled anyone att all really...

>Germany mobilised years before any other country, giving them an unbelievable advantage in a short war, hence blitzekrieg. Kind of like hitting someone when they're not looking


When britain, canada, anzacs and india faced off against germany on a level playing field they tended pull more than their own weight

>he counts the war of 1812 as a victory

Also, the fall of france only happened because french generals and politicians were too busy trying to undermine and betray each other while the krauts had good co-operation.

Read some of the memoirs of the BEF commanders on the fall of france, their frustration with the french generals is depressing reading

China wasn't doing shit. Sad, they had the highest population so they could've had intimidating battalions.

UK had the weakest army (with US) out of any great powers, with only 60 000 regulars and no conscription. Furthermore, it had the most ground to cover: Belgian front, Mediterraen Front, Macedonian font, Mesopotamian front, Galliopoli front.

Britain also had the least shortages out of all participants.

Also, taking captives did not really give any advantage to Germany, and the evacuation had to leave behind a large amount of equipment that could be retooled for German army.

I'd read Piers Brendon on that, but essentially the empire was always pretty weak. It was strong so long as the continent was divided, but with railways the and the erosion of the Royal Navy from 'literally unchallenged' to 'beatable' meant a significant drop in Britain's one untouchable advantage.

Actually one of the most significant things Britain did in world war two was just to hold the empire it did have, which denied those resources to the Axis.

>> the empire was primarily a naval force, and very good at it. It took on Italy, vichy france, germany and Japan combined
Is this a joke ? The Royal Navy got absolutly destroyed by the imperial japanese navy.

In the early days yes, then 43-45 the RN ran rings around the IJN.

>then 43-45 the RN ran rings around the IJN.
Oh, you mean when it was destroyed by the american navy ? Sure, if you like to believe that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Fleet

Educate yourself, it was one of the largest formations the RN ever put together, and it menaced the IJN south of Vietnam and in the Indian ocean.

In WW1 Britain started off at a disadvantage because its entire military strategy was devoted to controlling the sea. Britain regarded itself (for good reason) as a primarily maritime power. Then some idiot decided to get involved in a land war in Eurasia.

If Germany, or for that matter France or any other European power, had decided to attack Britain then Britain could have just sat across the channel and laughed at the pathetic attempts of the continentals to break through the mighty Home Fleet. Germany would have been blockaded, its colonies seized, and there would have been very little they could have done to Britain since even in the event of a German victory or two the superiority of the Royal Navy was so overwhelming that a few losses wouldn't make much of a dent in its power.

Submarine warfare would have given Britain a nasty surprise, but as we saw in both world wars Germany's submarine corps wasn't up to the task of fully closing down Britain's shipping, and there were ever diminishing returns since the more the new weapon was used the more the Royal Navy learned and the more countermeasures they developed.

So on their chosen ground, in WW1 Britain was actually extremely strong. However, having invested nearly everything in the navy Britain than decided to get involved in a war that would be fought by its comparatively weak land forces.

As for WW2, the first world war drained Britain's finances so much that it was barely able to maintain the empire, let alone go to war with another major power. Read the Great Gatsby sometime - it describes a 1920s America that is rich and prosperous, haunted by the once wealthy British expats who now exist in more straightened circumstances. It's a good metaphor. Britain mortgaged its empire to pay for WW1, and America was the prime beneficiary. As one author put it, there was an audible sucking sound as the wealth and power of Britain was drained across the Atlantic.

Yeah sure, where was this great fleet at Midway, Leyte ? You know, battles won by the americans that actually accomplished something. Your shit navy joined the fight in 1944, you do realize at that time the Japanese had already lost ?

>controlled over 400 million people
key word control, they didn't want to be pacified and civilised, if only we could have eliminated them all

*squish*
*squish*
*squish*
>BRRRFFAAAAPT

are we late?

das rite

At this point, having to defend a disparate empire of hundreds of millions of people - many of whom would rather not be part of that empire - was more a burden than an asset. If Britain had been able to concentrate its forces then nations like Italy or Japan would never have stood a chance against it, and even Germany would probably have lost. However, it was forced to spread them out all across the globe to defend its colonial possessions.

Also, it's extremely important to note that Britain itself had a much smaller population than the USA or Germany. 45 million in 1914, compared to 68 and 100 million respectively. Even including the white nations of the empire - canada, australia, new zealand and south africa - it couldn't match Germany's population, and although some non-white labourers and soldiers were used there were political and logistical problems with relying on them to fight the war. Imperial overlords who rely on their subject nations to fight their wars - and arm and train them with that in mind - don't tend to remain imperial overlords for long.

>How was Britain so weak
They were absolutely btfo by badly equipped Irish farmers who won due to superior tactics and better men. They never quite got over it and are still triggered by every Irish flag they see until this day.

noice I made that