Was Britain really irrelevant in the world wars?

Britain started World War 2

>>1683712
Not not in either. It was far more relevant in the first though

File: Sauron.jpg (23KB, 454x442px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 454x442px

>>1683712
>WW1
>literally saved France from 1870 sequel
>seizes entire German colonial empire
>WW2
>literally get saved by America
>have huge chunks of colonial empire seized by nips

>>1683772
We couldn't have been invaded and btfo Rommel in Africa and we were shipping many supplies to Soviets, btfoing German cities. We were a key part of the war but we couldn't have sucessfully invaded Europe without the US but we certainly weren't in danger of being invaded.

In WWI we were relevant in stopping the Germans in the Marne, literally the worst decision in British history. We should have just stayed out, saved all those lives and treasure. I can't imagine a German victory in WWI producing a worse result for Europe than the German defeat did.

We also were the main ones fighting the Ottomans and got slaughtered in gallipoli but then our lad Lawrence tricked the Arabs into rebelling against the Turks and us drawing the map of the middle east which to this day has worked out so well..
For fucks sake I hate the first world war it ruined everything and we could have so easily just stayed out of it all.

No, they died a lot.

They were the death blows that brought down their """""empire"""""

>>1683810
I quite agree with you about the First World War fucking things up irreversibly for Europe. What i was saying however is that the Japanese talking Hong Kong and ESPECIALLY Singapore was a calamitous blow, that sent the Empire into its death spiral postwar.

>>1683810
>In WWI we were relevant in stopping the Germans in the Marne
>We also were the main ones fighting the Ottomans and got slaughtered in gallipoli

You fought at the Marne AND the Turkish campaign? Wow! Stories? Tell us!

>>1683712
m-mommy...

>>1683712
Helen is such a slag

>>1683712

No, Germany got cucked pretty hard by the blockade.

Not at all. In WW1 its contribution was huge and although in WW2 it ended up being relegated to 3rd place in the allies it still played a large part.

>>1683772
>get saved by America
Fuck off Yank

>>1685807
Butthurt Britboi can't handle the truth.

>>1685807
> enter late
> troops are relatively untrained and incapable
The only thing America provided of worth was the materials. Should have just left the fighting to the British and Russians, just providing the tanks and guns.

>>1683712
WWI, no, WWII, yes.

British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood

>>1685825
> useless in WW2
Sole ally in Western Europe, providing beachhead into Europe.
Still massive Navy.
Won North Africa.
Stopped advances into India.
Empire's resources.
Without Britain WW2 would have been unwinnable.

Haha all you guys are wrong.

I remember it like yesterday, I saved your asses in both wars.

No.

In ww1 their support stopped France falling to Germany, and fought the turks in Arabia.

In ww2 they fought a large bulk of the Japanese in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam, as well as being the only nation in Western Europe to resist Germany.

They then constituted 3/5 of the invasion force on D-day, and charged through the western front. Without England as a base, D-Day never would've happened.

Their support of The Soviet Union also got much needed supplies to them.

This board is full of annoying yanks though who hate the brits so the thread will be full of 'le cucked "empire" anglo XD'

>>1685853
Kek keep believing that.

USSR was gonna steamroll the Germans one way or another. Same for the US and the Japs.

File: sekrit.jpg (51KB, 385x354px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 385x354px

Not at all, we just have to remember that the war was won and lost in the east.

>muh lend-lease

The equipment didn't fight the battles, the men did. And it's a fact that the USSR held out in 1941 without much aid, might have taken them longer but they'd still have won in the end even without it.

Helen Mirren really was a babe.

File: 1473255757918.jpg (356KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1000x707px

>>1685895
in come the 'le epic soviet bear badass in soviet russia chuck norris still kill you XD' people

if the western allies hadn't launched a western front stalin would've puppeted all german occupied territory or even made peace with germany for poland and romania

>>1685904
>if the western allies hadn't launched a western front stalin would've puppeted all german occupied territory or even made peace with germany for poland and romania

Yeah that's more or less implied by saying they'd have won regardless... you say it as though it somehow disproves the point that the majority of German casualties, army and air power, were lost on the Eastern Front.

>>1683712
WW1 was: France did the job on land, Brittain did the job on sea, more or less.

>>1685910
no one ever doubts this faggot

this is common knowledge

but that doesn't make the western allies irrelevant

good luck defeating japan on your own

oh and enjoy losing literal hundreds of millions when you try to invade italy and korea too and then enjoy being declared war on by the usa and britain when they won't let you swallow up europe

>>1685853
>Stopped advances into India.
you mean with american supplies right?

>>1685915
False.
Almost as many British infantry died as French.

And Britain won at sea.

>>1685918
Indeed. That's all America was good for: material supplies.

American troops and tactics were laughable. Still are really.

File: 1396461262092.jpg (13KB, 184x193px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 184x193px

>>1685915
Objectively false, check them casualty rates m8.

>>1685917
>no one ever doubts this

Thanks for agreeing with me.

>but that doesn't make the western allies irrelevant

Who said that they were?

>good luck defeating japan on your own

Check out the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.

>oh and enjoy losing literal hundreds of millions when you try to invade italy and korea too and then enjoy being declared war on by the usa and britain when they won't let you swallow up europe

Uh sure, have fun with that.

>>1685919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914.E2.80.9318_borders
Nope France win the entente corpselympic after Russia.

>>1685933
Note this word
> almost

>>1685936
Almost 600 000 death of difference in total and 500 000 in military death, that not an almost.

>>1683720
How?

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-12 at 18.15.14.png (181KB, 788x1204px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 788x1204px

>>1685948
About 200,000.

>>1685823
>literally took Italy, France, and western Germany

Yeah, okay.

>>1685952
By declaring war on the peaceful german tank who didn't see the "Polish border".

>>1685823
Jesus this is delusional.

>>1685957
I'm using the British one.

>>1685957
you're not good in math aren't you just to close the gap from 750,000 to 1,000,000 you need 250,000 add 150,000 to that you obtain 400,000 and even 200,000 lives aren't almost

>>1686001
1.15 m - 0.95 m = 0.2 m

you dense twat.

>>1686009
>>1686001
Are we using the British one or the full Empire?
In one case it's 400 000 the other give 200 000.
Not small number.

yes of course Britain played a role she held the western front in both wars in ww2 Britain took back Africa Britain also managed to persuade the Americans to help in Europe and also helped keep a crippled Russia supplied through the winter

>>1686032
I'm using the 'Empire' figure, as the 'France' figure will include France's empire too. As the French empire *was* France.

>>1683712
If Britain had made peace in May 1940 then the War would have ended and Germany would have retained possession of the continent. People seem to forget this.

>>1686075
The wiki got the french colonial death, it something like 200 000, it give us more or less 200 000 more death than Brittain(and colonie), that still not an almost.

Do you have to die to contribute to war?