Can someone explain this to me

British Empire was supposed to be a superpower with over 400 millions people and yet it couldn't even defeat Germany which was a lot smaller nation with about 80 million people and nowhere near resources as British Empire.

the continentals have always been better at land warfare while the islanders were better at naval warfare

/thread

Not a great deal of the colonial empire was a worth a shit in the two wars. Africa had lots of resources to be extracted but few Africans capable of doing it -- that's British resources and men being pulled away from the home front. India was basically in a state of revolt since 1914 all the way to 1947.

Vast majority of those people were in the over seas colonies.
Britain couldn't conscript them because it would of lead to them being hated and even revolt in their territories.
Most of them were probably more use working than fighting anyway.
Also because I'm pretty the UK had some prejudice about bringing coloured troops into Europe.

FPBP

I think French did take people from their colonies to fight in Europe.

Britain won WW1 user, what are you even on about?

>Africa had lots of resources to be extracted but few Africans capable of doing it

What? The people who extracted the minerals and did the farming were Africans you idiot.

and look what good that did since many Africans liked being treated as equals when they were fighting for France and that opened the Pandora's box so to speak.

The vast majority of the British empire was made up of assbackward spear chucking peasants. The only “civilized” British colonies were Canada and Australia and there were only a handful of Whites there.

1. There was no such thing as the British Empire.

2. Not all colonies were created equal

Yeah with a help from France, Russia and USA it should be able to beat Germany on it's own if it was such a strong superpower. Not to mention in WW2 they were on defensive until again Americans step in. Even Churchill in his famous speech begged america for help. So much for the glory empire.

Germany itself was also an empire, it's not like they were pushovers. By WW1, Germany was by far the dominant European continental power

>best Germany on its own
*germany, Finland, Italy, Romania, Hungarian, Bulgaria and japan
They were a tiny bit busy dealing with other countries

>implying the British Empire couldn't have won WW1 alone
>implying that Germany was the only enemy
>implying Britain hadn't undergone major disarmament in the years following WW1 and didn't build back up again until too late

It could be phrased better, but the British colonies (not wealthy dominions like Canada and Australia) were indeed very poor on the eve of World War 2. Britain, a country of 47.5 million in 1938, had nearly the same total GDP of all the Empire's colonies combined, which had a population of 453.8 million. Only the Italian colonies were poorer in terms GDP per capita.

A lot more countries fought on allies side in both world wars that on Germany and her allies side.

...

Your question was why Britain needed help to defeat Germany, I corrected you by saying that britain needed help defeating Germany and all her allies.

Unironically this. Germany was blockaded in WW1 and would've starved to death given time

Embarrassing meme, demonstrably untrue. British armies were typically smaller for a few obvious reasons but to say continentals are better at land warfare is to ignore the results of history.

>It seems to me as good as certain that we cannot get the upper hand against England. The English — the best race in the world — cannot lose! We, however, can lose and shall lose, if not this year then next year. The thought that our race is going to be beaten depresses me terribly, because I am completely German.

There are literally millions of quotes with the same sentiment, this one just so happens to be written by one of the highest minds of that generation, then a soldier in 1914.

The British Empire did beat Germany,
Britain's population was considerably smaller, it's dominions were far away and those subjects were of varying allegiance/use.

Germany was by the early 20th century a greater industrial power, though the gulf wasn't sufficient to render the UK uncompetitive, the same is true but reversed for Britain when it comes to finance.

>but to say continentals are better at land warfare is to ignore the results of history.

Deluded bong
There's a reason why Britain couldn't take on Napoleonic France or WWs Germany alone

>Germany was by the early 20th century a greater industrial power,
I haven't done much reading for WW1, but I know that by WW2, this had again reversed, and Britain very clearly outproduces Germany during that war. Do you have any idea what led to the reverse one way in the late 19th/early 20th century, and what led it to reversing again after WW1?

They could take on ww’s Germany alone, just not all her allies alone.

That quote is definitely bullshit or the person making it is the most cucked man in history.
Also Britain was still more industrialised than Germany

>comparing two points in history that are separated by 100s of years and acting like they're congruent with each other

I hate Wiki-warriors like you desu. It's basically just pseudointellectual trite. I mean, by your logic, France should have steamrolled Germany in WW1, cuz Napoleon 100 years earlier

If per capita doesn't cut it then here's another chart. This also neglects Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Singapore

Ok turns out Wittgenstein made the quote. Holy shit, why is he such a massive cuck?

WW2 saw Britain against Italy, Germany and Japan alone until the US stepped in

There was no point in the war where Britain faced all three of those countries together without another major power ally in the mix. Even against just Germany and Italy, it's only for about a year, in between the fall of France in 1940 and the entry of the USSR in June '41.

Britain fought against Germany while Japan attacked it's pacific colonies. Also both Germany and Japan had been mobilising like crazy whereas Britain under Chamberlain believed that war would be averted

America makes sense with expansion and everything, but what makes the UK and Germany expand while everyone else nearly stagnates?

Is there one that goes to 1913?

And by the time Japan attacked their pacific colonies, the Soviets had been attacked by the Germans and were occupying the bulk of their attention.

Lmao the British delusion ITT

...

>country knows more about its history than a foreign country knows about it
Britain basically supplied the war until the USA began funding it, but this fact might not be widely known outside of the UK

>hide on your island until America and the Russians win the war for you

Yeah let's just forget France, Poland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, USSSR.

No country just russian shitholness and winter.

>and yet it couldn't even defeat Germany

Except it did. Twice. and then occupied a quarter of their country.

France and Poland lasted a month, Belgium half that.

>those 4% of Germans who YOU JUST KNOW picked Italy

France was still considered great power and they still inflicted some losses on Germans.

Why are anglos so good at industry? Do beady eyes correlate to innovation?

a) The Germans weren't fighting alone in either of the two great wars.
b) The Germans did in fact lose.

The UK had really good geography for industrialising, a colonial empire from which to draw raw resources, and the worlds greatest financial secture with which to finance its industrial growth. Prussiaboos and Ouoiboos trying to shit over 19th and early 20th century UK because “muh continental army” are really missing the big picture

As for Germany, they had an excellent resource rich and industrial base in western Germany from which to build from and a huge population boom that helped finance shit. But I’m sure other anons can discuss Germany better, since I’m not particularly familiar with her history of industrialization.

The truth is that colonialism is a product of feudalism and of mercantilism not of capitalism. It was doomed after the start of industrialization to eventually be phased out. The real economic wealth comes from industrialization not from colonialism. That is why Germany could still be such a threat in the second world war, despite having no colonies whatsoever.

Your real question is, "Why couldn't Britain defeat Germany on its own, without allies on either side", right? Well, that never happened, so who's to say they couldn't? In the first war, the British weren't even on a total war footing until 1916, and it's doubtful that Germany could have done something else to alter the naval balance, especially since in this scenario Britain's entire fleet is freed from all other commitments. The Germans can only project power against Britain through a thin strip of the North Sea. Without that control, there is nothing really that they can do to force and engagement, and we've seen this played out before because it's what actually happened in both wars.
Also, I don't know why people try to downplay Germany and make out like it was this tiny, plucky nation of a handful of people. Germany on the eve of 1914 was as populated if not moreso than both Britain and France put together. The smart money was on the Germans, as they were younger, had larger families and there were a hell of a lot more of them. Even by the start of the second war this was a common theme in German papers.

>Germany on the eve of 1914 was as populated if not moreso than both Britain and France put together
It wasn't; Germany had a population of 67 million in 1914 compared to Britain's 46 million and France's 40 million. The ratio was much more even at the start of World War 2 though with French and British populations being at 42 and 47 million people respectively, while Germany had 80 million.

Well, they were the only European army to achieve losing against primitives, so here is that for them.

Why was it so much harder to dominate Germans than niggers and gooks

Probably something to do with the fact the Germans shared the same technology while the third-worlders Britain raped to build its empire fought with sticks

>the islanders were better at naval warfare
Nippon would disagree with you, as would the German U-boats in two wars.

>Germany was blockaded in WW1 and would've starved to death given time
Absent the US, the same could be said of the UK.

That legendary bong "education".

>this fact might not be widely known outside of the UK
This fact does not exist outside the UK.

FIFY

This. The meme empire was already finished, it just needed a couple more decades to administer the last rites.

Yeah the Ruhr Valley and Saarland had huge endowments of coal - a key component for the development of heavy industries like iron and steel. This is why Belgium was able to industrialise so precociously.

>having no colonies whatsoever.

The fact they had a good amount of colonies previously shows that they still had the resources to own one.

>'t? In the first war, the British weren't even on a total war footing until 1916

neither was germany

what a surprise Britain and America both think they were more responsible for winning the war

Britain did the most in WW1 and they came second behind the Soviet Union in WW2 so the right bar is more or less correct

>t. bong brainlet

>what a surprise Britain and America both think they were more responsible for winning the war
Yeah but at least America is kinda justified in that

>Britain did the most in WW1
That would be France

>and they came second behind the Soviet Union in WW2
Lmao, are you joking?
Britain dunkirked out of Continental Europe in 1940 and then hid until America arrived in 1944
Meanwhile, America single-handedly defeated Japan and was decisive on the Western Front

1 aryan = 2 medshit
2 medshit = 20 african

This is why your empires should be connected directly by land it makes it easier to move resources around, when its spread out like this you are begging for colonies to to become independent.

No Britain, no D-Day.

DESU why cant we accept that every allied country in a way played a major role to winning the war?

it is easy to gain an empire by floating around on boats and exploiting weaknesses all over, it is also very difficult to hold on to those empires. long lag times, dispardent peoples, nothing in common, they are expensive af.

Because you're on /int/ory and /pol/manities.

>they are expensive af.

Many places were ruled with shoestring budgets though. India was costly but made up it's cost of immanence and rule with it's massive profits and captive market.

Strip mining your colonies of all valuable resources and making sure they have no industry to compete with you does wonders. And Britain had a lot of colonies to take wealth from.

Yes, the USA occupied Bongistan, as a vassal state, to enable their invasion of Europe.

U wut m8
The BEF was the most well trained and drilled force
They were small yes but that doesn’t mean they weren’t good

>the mutt mind set

Now tell me how America beat the Islam out of Nazi Germany MAGA!!!!

b-but Veeky Forums told me IQ is the only reason for why third world countries haven't developed

>t. retarded faggot

>The BEF was the most well trained and drilled force
...yes, they were so well drilled the Nazis ran them out of Europe in about a week.

This really has no context though user.