How come soldiers from Great Britain made up for less than half of total British Empire forces during WW1?

Considering it was France that was actually invaded, of course the British were going to be jubior on that front.

The British were fighting a global war, in the North Sea, Far East, Africa and in the middle East all at the same time. And it won on all fronts.

>Have a massive empire with millions of expendable third world shitters like the Irish
>Send them to the war instead of your own sons and brothers
Gee I wonder why

Also mobilized does not mean that all of the mobilized men of the british colonies fought during the war. Thats why there are so few casualities in the indian army.

>The British were fighting a global war

Unlike the French?
France was on the Balkand theater, on the Middle Eastern one, in Greece, and all that while carrying most of the Western front
Here's a video that will help you to realize how much more relevant than Britain France was, all front combined

youtube.com/watch?v=irT6JOkSzwk

>lol brits are fags
>lol brits can't fight for themselves
>lol I'm a huge shitposting retard

Good job OP! Congratulations!

Here's a hint for all you idiots who just like to post shit instead of actually thinking and learning.

POPULATION SIZE

Are you trying to imply that France had a bigger population than Britain during WW1?
Because that's wrong

>more relevant
>Middle East
This was a sideshow compared to the British empire in the region

>Greece
Again, sideshow neutral country. And even then, the British were also there.

>western front
Yes, yes France smashed itself against Germany again and again. But without the British blockade, Germany would have roller-ed through France.

Interesting timing too considering the Battlefield 1 shitstorm
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE THEY MADE THE BRITISH SOLDIERS NON-WHITE!!!!!
>Hurrr the average British soldier wasn't even white hurrrr checkmate britcucks

>But without the British blockade, Germany would have roller-ed through France.

The British blockade started to have real effects by 1917 only
France had been resisting Germany almost alone for 3 years

Without it, France would have fallen in 1917. That's all that allowed them to gain a ceasefire agreement from Germany in 1918.

Aussie's did fuckall in WW1, don't let there crocodile 'muh gallipoli' fool you.

I think the overrating of Britain's effort in WW1 by the BF1 campaign made frogs and ruskies butthurt

I can understand them though, including Gallipoli and Lawrence of Arabia while leaving them out was a dick move...

Sissy britbois!!

>How come soldiers from Great Britain made up for less than half of total British Empire forces during WW1?
other colonial forces made up a far higher proportion of britisih forces than french in large part because the british empire contained proportionately more people outside the motherland than frances empire, in frances case France itself had a higher population than the entire rest of the empire, whereas in britains case india alone outnumbered the rest of the empire combined,

>Not enough brave British men could be found in the motherland?
interestingly britain started the war with a volunteer army kept deliberately small by the government, and responded to its need for more troops by raising a new volunteer army which was greeted with some considerable enthusiasm (queues up to a mile long were formed at recruiting stations) Conscription was not introduced until halfway through the war, in contrast both france and germany had compulsory military service before the war even began, so while there may not have been enough men, the bravery of the british is not questionable, they were brave enough to volunteer in large numbers after the horror of first ypres

britain had a lower population than france and a far higher maritime commitment, as well as the royal navy their was also the british merchant fleet to consider which accounted for a not insignificant proportion of british manpower.

NB
its worth noting the the british while occupying a smaller section of the front than the french, occupied a more active section of the front and suffered proportionately higher casualties.

>britain had a lower population than france

That's false though
Britain had a higher population than France since the early 1900s

Here for 1914

>its worth noting the the british while occupying a smaller section of the front than the french, occupied a more active section of the front and suffered proportionately higher casualties.

This one is obvious bullcrap btw
Verdun alone was worse than anything the Britis experienced during the war

As for the higher casualties ratio, it's obviously false as France had more casualties than Britain while having (slightly) less troops in total during the whole war.
Pic related

>tfw Indian
>tfw my country lost proportionately least amount of troops in comparison with other British colonies/dominions

Yet you're still in BF1
This game is truly poo...

mobilized != served in combat in frontline theatres. It could be that only a portion of that 1.7 million saw frontline service.

BRITISH BTFO

So wait? France gets attacked and Britain is meant to send huge amounts of men to defend it?

Are Frenchies really this entitled

Why have a dog and bark yourself?

Also the actual British Army was never that large, so it's no surprise.

It was the professional British Army that stopped the German advance in the first place.

I fucking hate this website.

>Why have a dog and bark yourself?

Holy fucking loly thats great

It was pretty much the same size as France's.

The anti-British nonsense is what happens when you allow ill-educated teenagers to post from countries with what Starkey calls 'small nation syndrome'.

British like you are the scum of the Earth.

That you call 'anti-british' non sense are in fact what we call the Truth.

At first I felt bad for the French because it is outrageous but now they're just being cunts shitposting as if we didn't sacrifice a lot to save them when their country was invaded. Fuck them. Write them out of the popular cultural memory.

You are the reason this board is shit.

You post inane, edgy 'feelings' with no basis in science or history just to massage your /pol/-tier unfounded hatred of another country.

Take your inferiority complex elsewhere.

I am listening to Dan Carlin's WWI podcast and he says by most accounts the British were the bravest and best trained soldiers.

which makes sense because the BIA was firstly a police force.

Id be wary of trusting Dan Carlin. He does hype up history quite a bit. But I believe him on that point, the British were very brave when it came to defending a land that was not theirs

Doesn't this tally count Ireland as part of this statistic?

Ah yes, the proud 6 brittish divisions that stopped the advance during the Battle of the Marne

They did it with help only from the small amount of 37 french divisions.

Truly a victory for the Brits and Brits alone.

>The Indian Army during World War I contributed a large number of divisions and independent brigades to the European, Mediterranean and the Middle East theatres of war in World War I. Over one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom 62,000 died and another 67,000 were wounded. In total at least 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war.

>In World War I the Indian Army fought against the German Empire in German East Africa and on the Western Front. At the First Battle of Ypres, Khudadad Khan became the first Indian to be awarded a Victoria Cross. Indian divisions were also sent to Egypt, Gallipoli and nearly 700,000 served in Mesopotamia against the Ottoman Empire.[1] While some divisions were sent overseas others had to remain in India guarding the North West Frontier and on internal security and training duties.

That shit is pretty fucking frontline to me.

ebin meme

>Sending real people to die when you can send Pakis and Aussies

It was French land not English

Probably.

In the Battle of Mons, before the Battle of the Marne, the British managed to fight off a force double their size. This set up the Battle of the Marne.

This board is shit because people speak about how the British spread propaganda and falsify the historical facts to look them better ?

We have historical and Science basis to say that British lie constantly about WW1, stealing credit from the French.

I love the British version of the First Battle of the Marne and how a non army of 100K British that was fleeing like bitch the Germans stopped them and defended Paris while 1M of French were counter attacking/

It's what happens when you have an empire that covers more than the Sahara desert.

They were dozens of battle in which the French stopped the Germans that prepared the victory of the Battle of the Marne.

The BEF was near the extermination by the Germans during the Marne...

>Battle of Mons
At the same time as mons you have the battle of Troué de charmes where the French defeat a German army.

The Brittish were hardly defeating the Germans on their own

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mons

Wow, 2000 casualties for Germans

British saved the Battle of the Marne.

Thank you.

BLUE UNIFORMS

No. He's implying India alone has twice the population of French Africa and French Indochina combined.

Well yeah but it was France that got invaded. It's without a doubt going to have higher casualties

>ceasefire agreement
What?

how many people do you think live in french africa

how many do you think live in british india

A general ceasefire was enacted in 1918, the peace wasn't official until after the treaty of versailles in 1919

>the BIA was a pretty big standing army
Didn't they have something like 50,000 men? How on earth can you say that was "big" when Austria and Germany were fielding armies of millions in the first month.

it actually were french taximen

That's not the point, cretin
How did recruiting 2 millions Indians stop Britain from taking 7.8 millions troops from their mainland like France did?
Do you think there was a limit set at 8 millions total troops?

And this is why people hate Brits
Revisionism and ignorance

British are more cowardly since they didn't have to fight for a long time, and their island mentality made their cowardice even worse.

>using productive, educated British men as cannon fodder
>not using unproductive, illiterate Africans and Indians instead
wew lad

>productive, educated British men

it's interesting how the Germans and Brits modernized a hell of a lot after witnessing the Boer war

meanwhile the frenchies just sat on their ass and ignored most of the lessons

french rifles were a big meme too

How come the French let the Germans invade their country?

>implying Germans didnt start the war with Napoleonic-tier spike helmets

I really wish this board had flags
This way, butthurt bongs would stop dismissing anyone who criticizes them as French or German

So are you seriously suggest Britain was irrelevant in the war? Do you seriously think without Britain France would have won?

Wut?
That's my first reply in this thread, what are you even up to?
Do my pic implies this in any way?

As for other people, I doubt anyone thinks Britain was irrelevant or that the war could have been won without it.
Just that British contribution is often overrated while France's one (just as important if not more) tends to be underrated
BF1 being a great exemple of that

> British contribution is often overrated while France's one (just as important if not more) tends to be underrated
You need to get off the internet more.

Literally no one with more than half a brain thinks this.

>I really wish this board had flags
fuck off
they had already killed /sp/

because that's retarded strategy

do you take the guys working in farms in bengal

or the guys running your factories in london

>Just that British contribution is often overrated while France's one (just as important if not more) tends to be underrated
BF1 being a great exemple of that

French are with the Russian the two powers that balance the German and Austrian armies for most of the war. France is the main force of the allies and Russian comes just after because of the lack of technology.

British's army is far less little than the French or Russian Armies and just play the role to help the french in the western front and some other irrelevant front where Russian and French were present too.

British contribution can be compared as the Italian contribution but it is not a shame.

>productive, educated British men

Dan Carlin said the British were the best soldiers and finally figured out how to make successful offensives which the French copied. I think I trust him.

it was the other way around at the somme the french showed us how to fight wars properly and then we took those tactics and we also made our arty better

Nah he said Britain invented the tank and the idea of using planes and artillery, sending in the tanks and then the infantry. That is ultimately how defenses would be destroyed and the French copied which lead to the German defeat. Although he said Britain pretty much only had a small army until 1916 but it was the best trained.

>and the idea of using planes and artillery

This has to be a troll

It's a relatively small island that needs a lot of manpower to keep factories and mines going, of course the majority of the fighting force is gonna be mostly subjects from places in which you have no severely important infrastructure.

it's in the Dan Carlin WWI podcast. As I remember Britain was the first to use all the stuff in unison to gain ground. France copied and then they did some big offensives and the Germans started losing

There is a difference between troops mobilized, vs troops deployed in France and Belgium, most colonial troops would never go to Europe

because it was a volunteer army that was trained well and was involved in a number of military and police actions instead of levee en masse styled armies that mainland europe was used to using?

there were other theaters of the war dumbass.

not that guy, but the media and hollywood have a rather large impact on what a lot of people thing about history

...

All of the Empire's factories were in GB.
The U.K. mobilized more men and material than any other constituent part of the Empire, accounted for more than half of the casualties, and provided the guns, bullets, shells, tanks, airplanes, ships, submarines, ambulances, rope, planking, petroleum fuels, lamps, coal, gas masks, E-tools, boots, medicines, and medical personnel that the entire Empire used in the war.
They definitely weren't slacking.

It really is interesting how the UK has always had such a vested interesting keeping Europe from ever becoming overly unified. This pattern emerges again and again, every time someone might really become a unifying superpower,

>mfw the results for this one are the literal contrary of the real contribution order

Those 4 million people represented 80% of all the 18-30 year olds in the UK. They couldn't really mobilize more without destroying an entire generation pf young men. The consequences of this should be fairly obvious.

France and Germany did

Just fucking kill me

Germany was a indebted shithole with people burning money to survive.

Only reason France didn't collapse into civil anarchy was because of war reparations keeping the economy afloat during demobilization.

> People literally burning money
> wah... we are so poor! ;_;
Eternal German, everyone.

Dude... do you even know what hyperinflation is?

Has Britain taken America's place as the world's punching bag on this site?

It's just continentals being angry that a Swedish game published by an American company features Britain.

the eternal anglo had it coming