What is Veeky Forums's opinion on the British?

What is Veeky Forums's opinion on the British?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GrauBQf7FpI
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon's_planned_invasion_of_the_United_Kingdom
youtube.com/watch?v=66owXqZaexs
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They are arrogant.

I'm still considered new here since I have only been lurking for about 2 months but it seems to me that the vast majority of Brit related posts are from Francaboos or Wehraboos trying to bait responses out of Brit posters.

Brits are arrogant on /int/, I find that most posts on here are just people who are venting because some guy with a British IP on /int/ said his country is shit.

>our greatest military achievement was not having a landbridge to europe

Did they ever win a war on their own?

They talk big about their military prowess, but only conquered primitive spearchuckers. When fighting against real opposition, they hide on their shitty island and let their "allies" do most of the fighting.

Arrogant country that only became so powerful because they had a sea between Britain and Europe, and solely fought countries far weaker than them.

They're superb.
youtube.com/watch?v=GrauBQf7FpI

t.butthurt frogs

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>linybeige

>lions
wtf they're not even native to Britain

When the British encounter a strong enemy and don't have an "ally" to fight for them, they do this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Singapore
And they think they can make fun of the French...

Veeky Forums is full of buttblasted frogs, krauts and taigs so you're not going to get a good response. Success breeds jealousy after all.

nice trips

they have the best nationalism along with the dutch
if i was to be nationalistic about one country id choose dutch or british

>best nationalism
>dutch
Why would you be proud of being from a country that's done literally nothing since the Napoleonic Wars?

What's so bad about conquering spear chuckers?
Isn't that quite a bit smarter than tearing yourself to pieces against equally strong mainlanders?

>t.belgian frog

>What's so bad about conquering spear chuckers?
Being proud of it. It's like beating the crap out of a 5 year old kid and bragging about how strong you are.

The lion being the British animal comes from medieval heraldry and many rulers or knights attaining the title 'the lion'.

They're ok, personally when I went to the UK I had an alright time. The only problem was I cant agree with their food, the way they eat is disgusting.
>beans and eggs in the morning
The spray tans were gross too but only chav whores had spray tans.

>I cant agree with their food, the way they eat is disgusting.
That's a problem with all north european countries. Their food is horrible, maybe with a tiny amount of exceptions.

>Not enjoying a full English breakfast

Wew lad.

Brexit

>Francaboos
who would align themselves with those snail-slurping, frog cookers?

That would certainly make you stronger than a 5 year old though

I think its to do with the cooler climate limiting the pallet of spicier or sweeter foods.

I said "maybe with a tiny amount of exceptions".
English breakfast is nice (except of the beans of course) but you hardly have anything else that's good.

I like their music and their television. But the people can fuck off.

All the stereotypes about jews would fit the british far better

>America would lose to the 5 year old and still brag about how strong they are

A good chunk of this board. There are far more ouiaboos and germaboos than angloboos.

Success breeds jealousy

their entire history is all about trolling people in increasingly hilarious ways

France lost to that same 5 year old

it was kinda funny

Shit at war, art and philosophy.

Not as toxic as the French or as deadly as the Germans or as cucked as the Swedes. Still infected with slave morality.

Frogs on damage control

>kick out all foreign powers and conquer India
>they were weak and couldn't fight us

>BTFO'd China
>s-so

>destroy France's navy in the Napoleonic wars and hold naval hegemony throughout the world for a century
>th-they would never win against us in a land war

>Win both world wars
>b-but they had allies

Also atrocious at economics. We still haven't gotten rid of Keynesian economics, ie socialism-lite.

But France and Britain BTFO'd China together
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Opium_War

But England did it alone in the first one

>BTFO'd China
Who didn't?

>destroy France's navy in the Napoleonic wars and hold naval hegemony throughout the world for a century
If it wasn't for Russia, Napoleon would have built a navy or an air force and eventually conquered you

>Win both world wars
Carried by France in WW1 and by America in WW2

>Being proud of the most immoral war of all of history
This is why Bongs are hated so much

>Keynesian economics
>bad

There is no such thing as a moral war.

>tfw brit who really likes french history

And?
France too BTFO China alone
That's how they got Vietnam

>government expending 50% of the national income
>good

Wanting to force a country's inhabitants to be addicted to a drug so you can profit from selling the drug is the most fucked up justification ever conceived for starting a war

war
>conquers third of the Earth

art
>steals most of it

philosophy
>lays the groundwork for modern democracy

need to pay the bills some how

Chinese were dicks and west would've been fucked over by them if they went the legit route

so they did the non-legit route

Dont forget, beating 4 5 year olds is equal to beating 1 20 year old.

>. Although the Chinese armies performed better than in other nineteenth-century foreign wars and the war ended with French defeat on land,[1] the French gained most of the aims they wanted in the Treaty of Tientsin.[6]
>French defeat on land,[1]

It's a false claim from butthurt chinks, check the "source"
There's a reason why Vietnam (which is a land and not a sea) ended at French hands

the real bad guys of history who got away with everything

>Bruce A. Elleman (2001). Modern Chinese warfare, 1795-1989 (illustrated ed.). Psychology Press. p. 90. ISBN 0-415-21474-2. Retrieved 2012-01-18. "who had been in Tonkin for only three months, took command. He immediately ordered the evacuation of Lang Són. Although Herbinger may have been retiring to the more strongly fortified positions further south, the retreat seemed to many to be the result of panic. Widely interpreted as a Chinese victory, the Qing forces were able to capture the strategic northern city of Lang Són and the surrounding territory by early April 1885. China's forces now dominated the battefield, but fighting ended on 4 April 1885 as a result of peace negotiations. China sued for peace because Britain and Germany had not offered assistance as Beijing had hoped, and Russia and Japan threatened china's northern borders. Meanwhile, China's economy was injured by the French "naval interdiction of the seaborne rich trade."197 Negotiations between Li Hongzhang and the French minister in China were concluded in June 1885. Although Li did not have to admit fault for starting the war, Beijing did recognize all of the French treaties with Annam that turned it into a French protectorate."

Exactly
Basically the Chinese didn't perform better than before (if you look at most battles of the war it's often a few thousands frogs defeating dozens thousands of chinks), but one French fuck up at the end (unjustified retreat by a general for political reasons rather than military nones) is often wrongly interpreted as a Chinese "victory", even though it ultimayely bore no signifiance and failed at kicking the French from Vietnam

>modern democracy

you mean worst democracy?

In a war, if you fail and your enemy succes, is an enemy victory, even more so if your enemy gets the field without needing to fight for it.

Basically what happened is that, while the French were about to enter Chinese mainland (the war was initially in Vietnam), some French general decided to retreat in protest to pilitical stuff occurring in France and the Chinese used the withdrawaol of French forces to occupy one city (not even the most important or biggest one).
There wasn't even a fight for that city.
Claiming that Chinese forces had performed well in that war is pure bullshit, they got BTFO in every engagement (pic related)

The thing with the irrelevant Lang Són retreat is that it happened to be the very last ""action"" of the war because the Chinese, knowing well that the French would retake the place anyway and eventually invade China, decided to sue for surrender just after.
This is why now Chinese nationalist try to use that event to cliam that China "won" (lmao) that war

Well maybe they wouldn't have burnt down the Summer Palace if you hadn't killed British envoys you butt-blasted Chink

>This is why now Chinese nationalist try to use that event to cliam that China "won" (lmao) that war

Don't forget how the Chinese try to claim they won the 1979 war against Vietnam. Chinese will try to spin every defeat into a victory; and if they can't do that, they'll claim that Chinese have never been aggressors.

What's funny is the French always say
>Y-YOU CAN ONLY BEAT SPEAR THROWERS

Yet they conveniently forget that the French """empire""" was ALSO fighting to rule those spear throwers and got BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by the British.

>WE DIDN'T EVEN WANT THAT TERRITORY ANYWAY
>WE DIDN'T EVEN WANT INDIA EVEN THOUGH IT WAS FULL OF RESOURCES
>WE DIDN'T EVEN WANT AFRICA EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A LITERAL FUCKING GOLDMINE
>WE DIDN'T EVEN WANT THE MIDDLE EAST EVEN THOUGH IT HAD ONE OF THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCES AT THE TIME (oil in case you didn't know)

Pathetic.

Britain is literally at the apex of diplomacy. Theyre the only empire where they can turn their fucking enemies against their other enemies and still come out of it smelling like roses.

>Yet they conveniently forget that the French """empire""" was ALSO fighting to rule those spear throwers and got BLOWN THE FUCK OUT by the British.

That's false for the biggest part of the Empire actually
You have to remember that 80% of the British Empire was built after 1815 (pic related, the Empire in 1815) and that after that date, Britain didn't fight other european colonial powers anymore

You're talking about the height of the empire. During the rush for Africa and the "new world" Britain beat France to the line plenty of times for territory and the French frequently ignore it.

The French wanted exactly what the British had. They like to pretend that Britain "only ruled shitholes" yet given the chance, they'd rule those "shitholes" themselves.

>During the rush for Africa and the "new world" Britain beat France to the line plenty of times for territory and the French frequently ignore it.

The rush for Africa was in the late 19th century, retard
And Britain didnt fight any european there

As for North America, Britain outnumbered the French 4 to 1 there to steal their colony while they were busy in Europe (and yet it still took the Brits a decade to win)

Face it, Britain have no impressive record when fighting europeans

Funny that.

I wonder what happened in 1815.

>yet it still took Britain a decade to win
Do you actually understand how guerilla warfare works?

>Face it, Britain have no impressive record when fighting Europeans

Literally never denied this, hence my point that Britain is top tier when it comes to diplomacy. While other Europeans where clashing their heads together fighting over petty territory in Europe the British were making gains WORLDWIDE

Face it. While the French claim "MUH GLORY" the British were building the largest empire in history.

I'll happily admit a war between the British army and the French army would result in a victory for the French but IT LITERALLY DOESNT MATTER. The French failed at building an empire and the British capitalised on their strategic position (an island)

Also the battle of Trafalgar proved that the British were gods of the sea. At the time, that's all that mattered for a global empire.

>Napoleon would have built a navy or an airforce
>airforce


Are you fucking retarded, mate?

>Napoleon also seriously considered using a fleet of troop-carrying balloons as part of his proposed invasion force and appointed Marie Madeline Sophie Blanchard as an air service chief, though she said the proposed aerial invasion would fail because of the winds.[4] (France's first military balloon had been used in 1794 by Jean-Marie Coutelle.[5])
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon's_planned_invasion_of_the_United_Kingdom

Basically he abandoned the idea because he was in a rush and it required to much preparation, but given enough time...

>proposed French inavsion of the United Kingdom

Stopped reading right there. Once the British realised that the Royal Navy was their best asset it was basically an impossiblity without a huge coalition

>but given enough time...

Given enough time he would have experienced a more catastrophic loss than Russia.

I'm no supporter of the eternal Anglo but he would have been blown the fuck out at sea, this is just an objective fact.

France literally just had to build a huge navy
It could easily had been done once France had achieved hegemony on the continent by 1811

Had Napoleon decided to focus the effort on building a navy instead of invading Russia, it' would have been ready for 1815 and Britain would have fell

This isn't /int/ haha

>Face it, Britain have no impressive record when fighting europeans
kek who cares?
Britain amassed the mightiest Empire in history and became the richest nation in the world off the back of it, and much of it through diplomacy and common sense rather than costly warfare. As a result, that shitty little archipelago off Northern Europe is a major world economy even today, and became so at the expense of few lives.

The French get butthurt because they can't stand the idea that the inbred clowns they castigate at every opportunity, who're ugly and stupid and culturally inferior, bested them.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle

>Britain amassed the mightiest Empire in history

Largest, not mightiest (far from it)
The British Empire at its height struggled for 4 years against lone Germany while being carried by France, greatly aided by Russia and eventually bailed out by the US

That's such a 20th century thing to say...
I bet you're a cis-gendered scumbag

Economic might is just as important as military might on the stage of world affairs.

Colonial territories don't help in a european land war. Britain had millions of Indian volunteers, but no way of getting them to Europe.

>Colonial territories don't help in a european land war.

Hence why owning many shitholes around the world doesn't make you the mightiest empire ever

>France literally just had to build a huge navy

Yeah and what do you think the British would have done to counter this?

>Sir, the French are building a large fleet!
>Better just ignore them m8

They would have built a bigger navy. The British could build faster than the French at the time and invested HEAVILY in their navy (see: building a massive fucking navy)

They would have just ramped up their ship production and countered it since they already had the numerical advantage in ships anyway.

Except the plan was to buld the navy directly in Boulogne
Even if the British had a big and good navy, the Channel is so tiny that a couple thousands of French troops (enough to conquer Britain and their joke army) would be able to cross it during the fight

The issue with the initial plan (and the reason why Trafalgar happened) was that the French fleet had to be brought from the Mediterranean to the Channel

>films Frenchmen and women will NEVER understand

Why not women though?

There is this French painter who really liked brit history and even made paintings about it.

Unless they have dedicated a significant amount of effort to learning about something that they as a group were not directly a part of, then they will have a less complete understanding of the culture and ideas being presented.

What culture and what ideas?

youtube.com/watch?v=66owXqZaexs

It's a meme from /tv/ and frequently crops up in "films women will NEVER understand" threads.

It's to do with the fact that the cast is filled with men and shows comradery and bravery.

Speaking of films, can we all at least agree that Lawrence of Arabia is the one of the greatest films ever made?

Why don't other nations have heroes like him? You don't hear anything about Pierre of Asia or Hans of Africa

>Britain only ever beat primitive savages
See, this is what I keep saying, but for some reason the French and Spanish insist on pretending that they're civilised.

It has substantially more to do with how women, in general, aren't interested in maritime culture on an operational level, and will the vast majority of the detailing work that went into the film.
There are plenty of films about comradery and bravery for women.

>and will miss
I accidentally a word.

So exactly like the US then?

SAVAGE
A
V
A
G
E

Bredy good overall, but the glory times are over.

>how come an island nation doesn't have large land army

cucktinentals are funny

>There are plenty of films about comradery and bravery for women.
How about you show us these films?

Depends which British.


Brit A:
>We were one of the big players of history. Yes, at times the Empire did questionable things but nothing contextually horrible or abhorrent by the standards of the time in many cases. The Empire made mistakes, and some of the nations who rebelled were just in doing so, even if it didn't really some help them in the long run. The Empire is gone and will never be back, but the British played a huge role in history. French and Spanish are pretty neat, too.

Brit B:
>MUH EMPIRE! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! ALL OTHER NATIONS ARE SHIT! LMAO EMPIRE REACHED ITS PEAK AFTER AMERICA REBELLED!! DIDN'T EVEN WANT SHITTY COLONIES! BREXIT RULE BRITANNIA, ALL OTHER NATIONS ARE INFERIOR


Brit A is generally ignored or bullied or else assimilated into the people on Veeky Forums with an opinion worth a shit, Brit B is Australian-tier shitposter.

Pretty based up until WW1, after which began the decline.

I now seem that as primarily a welfare dispensary for the third world and a nation busily engaged in its suicide.

The curtain call for Great Britain will likely happen in 50, 60 years or so, by which point it will be nothing resembling its history at all, except for some enclaves in the countryside.