Why did Britain choose the easy way out?

Why did Britain choose the easy way out?

Attached: 1521274990048.png (897x2365, 539K)

to be fair, the Pajeets actually had muskets and cannon and did put up quite a fight. it took the British about 150 years to finish the conquest of India.

Because the French took all their Euro territory. And they got used to ruling over Potato niggers.

>Why did Britain choose the *most efficient way out?
Because it's what worked.

The same is happening in the rest of Western Europe. So what exactly are you trying to get at here?

This desu. Rome was much more advanced then most of the people they defeated as well.

shut the fuck up Bong
do you want to be put back in your cuckshed?

...

Oh dear

>it's a "Euros eternally butthurt they spend all their time ripping each other's faces off like chimps, rather than finding useful resources and territory" episode.

Also

>Euros pretend they didn't have American, Asian and African empires full of natives, chinks and niggers as well.

>chinks
China was never part of a European empire (apart from Taiwan) despite White dogs panting for Han lands for thousands of years.

>China is all of Asian

>SEA
>worth considering
Pick one

basically this
Any literature focusing on comparing Europe with the East solely focus on China or the Middle-East, even then West is mostly argued to be Europe + Middle-East (or fertile crescent) while East is solely based around China.
In short China was the only civilization and empire to actually carry that part of the world to actually compete with the west, rest is literally shit-tier, the old chinks were right when they invested the Sinocentric world view because it is fucking accurate.

England won its empire by defeating other European empires, like the French in the Seven Years' War.

Honestly, these /pol/sters spilling over need to understand that /pol/ isn't all of Veeky Forums.

>even then West is mostly argued to be Europe + Middle-East (or fertile crescent) while East is solely based around China.
But that's wrong. The Eastern world is the Middle East + India + China.
>old chinks were right when they invested the Sinocentric world view because it is fucking accurate.
But China did acknowledge there was four great civilizations in the world, just not immediately around them. There arrogance got to them eventually.

>Roman Empire
Technologically and socially superior
>Spanish "Empire"
Fucked their way into power, but not real power
>French "Empire"
Temporary military control, collapsed
>Nazi "Empire"
Lol, worse than the French
>British Empire
Extremely logistical challenges while outnumbered against determined foes who are often backed by rival European powers, holds it together for two centuries and enlightens the world

Attached: the british empire.jpg (721x371, 80K)

what's funny with england is that everytime they got cucked they gained power from it. from the normans to the dutch they gained power from it.

Bad day?

The Glorious Revolution cannot be compared to the Norman Conquest. The Brits invited William of Orange over.

>The Brits

An elite clique. A very powerful elite clique, powerful enough to convincingly portray it as a popular movement due to their control over the London presses and publishing industry, but a clique nonetheless.

>the Dutch
An elite clique. A very powerful elite clique.
It's irrelevant, William was invited over to stabilise the country.

Of course it's relevant, don't be so fucking stupid.
He was 'invited' by a tiny minority with no right to speak on behalf of the country to advance their own interests.
Considering that there would be multiple Jacobite revolts after the fact, to claim that the coup was executed to 'stabilise' anything is pretty far fetched.
Everything looks stable when things are going your way.

Most of history is just a "tiny minority with no right to speak on behalf of the country to advance their own interests".

Really made me think, maaaaaaan.
I never studied 'most of history', read any interesting general summaries?
Pop history please, I'm not a big brain like you.

>yeah but what about

Which entitles a clique to be called 'the Brits' for what reason?
Are you English?

>are you English
No.
What entitles you to call a clique the "Dutch" when 99% of Dutch society had no say in the invasion?
This is all irrelevant, the Brits weren't "cucked" (fucking advanced terminology there, BTW) by the Dutch.
Also, quit with the condescending attitude, I have never insulted you on this thread. There is no reason to be insulted and get laughably defensive by me questioning your viewpoint.

>What entitles you to call a clique the "Dutch" when 99% of Dutch society had no say in the invasion?

Not the guy you were responding to.

>This is all irrelevant, the Brits weren't "cucked" (fucking advanced terminology there, BTW) by the Dutch.

You're right, the Brits weren't. The pig English certainly were though. They got gin from Dutch sailors fucking their greasy London slegs, I don't know what you'd call it if not cucking, jej.
Or do you think Willem came on his own? No, there were Dutch warships anchored on the Thames and each ship contained hundreds of sky blue Dutch balls.

>Also, quit with the condescending attitude
>I have never insulted you
>There is no reason to be insulted and get laughably defensive

1. Condescension is implicit. The insults are veiled. If I were condescending, I'd be couching malicious phrases in nice milky language, but you aren't a native speaker so I doubt there'd be any sting to it, about as petty and disgusting as trolling Turks on YT.
They barely understand what the hell you are saying explicitly and you expect them to read tone in typed sentences?
2. It doesn't matter that you didn't insult me, I will fight to the death anyone who tries to defend England's honour, them having expended so much effort in turning this shameful act of treachery into a 'Glorious Revolution'.
3. I'm being offensive, not defensive. Defensive would be equivocating like you did here . I'm insulting you for flimsy reasons and you are induced to defend yourself - there's nothing wrong with being defensive, it's a position we all occupy in an argument from time to time. Using defensive as an insult is like calling someone insecure.

>I will fight to the death anyone who tries to defend England's honour
>pig English
>greasy London slegs
Piece of work, aren't you? Let's not talk about the ladies of Amsterdam.

>why did Britain now with near exclusive rights to the worlds Oceans pick the areas with the greatest untapped material wealth and low resistance populations
>while continental Europeans trapped on together in regional struggle with costly and damaging wars of attrition

Who knows user

a small group of brits invited the dutch to cuck them, the royal navy was sent to intercept william, they failed. then william gave most of the dutch navy to britain.

better logistics for tech at the time navy>land

same again in current day if not a reiteration/continuence/americanised english speaking english background control of the skys/airwaves

the carribean islands were what they gave the most money to the european powers, those colonies weren't very profitable, the jewel of the british empire was india and only india.

Why are you so assblasted?

I'm not Dutch, and if I was I'd say 'oechter boechter keeenker emsterdemme ess a maghghkjghrebi kolonie moechter oech also dee weet end fokkin indos kenkermongool'.

Mostly bullshit
Pic related, is the extend of the British "empire" after the last time it had fought another European nation over colonies

90% of the empire was built by fighting subhumans in Africa and Asia between 1840 and 1890

Attached: 5d08832e8bedf0e9cf28cc9a35ecb2e019edefe5.gif (350x269, 60K)

You must be a monotone buzzy bugman if that post reads angry to you m80.

By 1815 most of other European powers in the British Empire territory had been defeated.

>You must be a monotone buzzy bugman if that post reads angry to you m80.

Attached: IMG_0077.jpg (601x508, 38K)

And the empire was still tiny as fuck, compared to 1900
Which means that the bulk of it wasn't taken by fighting other europeans but by fighting subhumans in the 19th century

Nice "blatant racism" there.
Britain wouldn't have achieved dominance in North America and India if not for the Seven Years' War. Its ability to retain Gibraltar from the Spaniards (I think one or two sieges took place there) aided its colonial endeavours immensely.
By the time colonialism became the cool thing for European powers to do, there would be few other vast land empires like the Roman or French empires.
I don't understand how this "dur Britain never had a giant land empire in Europe" thing is so popular when the vast majority of European countries haven't either.

>And the empire was still as fuck

not a creature was stirring, not even a duck

youre a fucking rat cunt is what you are mate

>And the empire was still tiny as fuck, compared to 1900
It was literally the fucking same barring Africa
>Which means that the bulk of it wasn't taken by fighting other europeans but by fighting subhumans in the 19th century
That's because the fighting was already over

>It was literally the fucking same barring Africa

And the Middle East
And the huges chunks of Canada that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping defenseless natives)
And the huges chunks of Australia that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping defenseless abos)
And the huges chunks of India that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping retarded pajeets)

Look at the two maps again, will ye?

>And the Middle East
A tiny meme strip
>And the huges chunks of Canada that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping defenseless natives)
Canada was pretty much taken. All that was left to do was expand.
>And the huges chunks of Australia that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping defenseless abos)
Same for Australia.
>And the huges chunks of India that still hadn't been taken (and would be taken by assraping retarded pajeets)
That's because it was in the middle of expanding.

Meanwhile
>spaniards
>lost their american territories centuries ago and despite trying they couldn't reclaim it

>portugal
>only had brazil

>france
>couldn't even keep algeria despite being right next to it

>Being the of the hegemon of the entire world
>easy way out

t. butthurt kraut/frog

More like the hegemon of the third world
Britain was powerless when something happened in Europe

Their desperate struggle against lone Germany in both WWs show that

Reminder not to respond to this yank.

He's also the same shitposter who's proud that the US won the war of 1812 (which it itself was just a minor theatre of the Napoleonic wars and not a war in itself) even though they lost more men despite having a 7:1 advantage.

You can always notice this faggot by the use of
>90% of
see:
He hates white people, can't be corrected and is an absolute muttlet.

>they lost more men despite having a 7:1 advantage.
t. assblasted bong
The US Army was all of 3,000 strong in 1812, bongfag.

>Britain was powerless when something happened in Europe

Attached: Laughing Harris.jpg (634x477, 68K)

>I will fight to the death anyone who tries to defend England's honour, them having expended so much effort in turning this shameful act of treachery into a 'Glorious Revolution'.
Fucking this. This was Perfidious Albion in shameless full, and never will they live down this abomination.

If burning women and children to death is what you call "power", then carry on, lad.

Being able to burn enemy civilians to death in their own homes with impunity kinda is powerful

Attached: 1512667718425.png (747x563, 77K)

Hold it
*ships grain from famine struck regions*
so you're saying
*shoots spear chucking tribals*
we were
*maintains slavery in Africa despite having abolished it previously*
spreaders
*starves boer children*
of civilisation
*lets France do all the work in the Crimean war*
and
*has generally limited success in colonial rivalries like the Great Game*
a super power
*is surpassed by Germany and the USA in terms of industrial output before WW1*

Attached: 1508570009253.jpg (800x545, 78K)

O B S E S S E D

france actually still owns alot of african countries. meanwhile britain doesnt own any, only the queen owns land. but that isnt britain is it?

Attached: 1520944344472.jpg (1024x578, 44K)

So does the UK

>Reducing half of Germany to rubble
>Not power

What did he mean by this?

>What are the Carthagenians
>What are the Hellenic Kingdoms
>What are the Parthian/Sassanid Empires

It seems England sure has a long history in contributing to the downfall of every major European power

Attached: snrtiwf4zytz.jpg (1006x1220, 207K)

It wasn't with impunity, the retarded bongs managed to take tens of thousands of casualties while incinerating those women and children, to no military purpose.

>>Reducing half of Germany to rubble
When did this happen, user? Heck, bomber command had trouble hitting the right country early on.

It caused dead g*rms so it was worth it.
Kr*ut sissyboys weren't able to stop them to

>be Britain, self-proclaimed superpower
>army gets BTFO by line Germany in 1940 and has to run away from the continent
>entire country is ravahed by German air force, hundreds thousands die until Daddy America finally come to save the day

>Daddy America
Think you mean USSR
take that dick out your ass and stop replying to my old comment

>When did this happen, user?

Attached: dresden-4.jpg (564x423, 58K)

lmao threads like this make me love being an anglo

>britain was never a superpower
>dresden was half of germany
>dresden was undeserved

If Britain was a superpower, then Germany was a hyper mega fucking power
And don't even get me started on America and the USSR

>a square kilometer is "half of Germany"
user, we need to discuss your understanding of areas and measures

Attached: 1519064652880.png (886x2410, 436K)

EMBRACE THE POWERS OF KEKOLDRY LET IT FLOW THROUGH YOU

Attached: FB_IMG_1506495292627.jpg (552x375, 43K)

But Germany never had anywhere near as much dominance as 19th century Britain did

I'll be damned, my own country was part of Rome. dose this make me a descended of Romans ?

Because they didn’t like killing white people whilst G*rms get turned on by it

>it's okay to kill people if they're not white

Sorry I’ll amend that NIGGERS AND POOS ARENT PEOPLE
Also the mongols could conquer Hungary but not India so Czech m8

>Arabs in Spain in 116

>not knowing Mohammed’s greatest achievement was creating a time machine
Wew lad

Well then I'm glad Europeans are getting slaughtered like animals in the streets.

Here's to hoping the next attack is someone you know.

Attached: 01_15191124_40ef8_2563605al.jpg (938x623, 89K)

>sacre bleu

Attached: 1501991912149.png (303x290, 131K)

Internet maymays aren't real life you know.

British always had a mediocre army and never been able to compete with a continental power, therefor, they go in retarded land to fight tribesmen to compensate their complex of inferiority, just like men with big weapon compensate their tiny dick.

>france actually still owns alot of african countries
Awrghh what? Never felt so jealous in all my life.
Can we trade you for the civilized world which we singlehandedly created?

Attached: anglosphere.jpg (600x497, 72K)

high quality posting that's expected from Veeky Forums i suppose

>we
cringe

Mate you didn't even bother with capital letters. Pot calling the kettle black right fucking here.

They were joking lmao
Why are brits so insecure?

>we
wiː/
pronoun
pronoun: we

1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together.
"shall we have a drink?"
used to refer to the speaker together with other people regarded in the same category.
"nobody knows kids better than we teachers do"
people in general.
"we should eat as varied and well-balanced a diet as possible"

What's wrong with we?

Attached: Thinking_Face_Emoji_large.png (480x480, 101K)

>waah why didn't I get the GOOD colonies

t. kraut