Was their 1700-1945 Foreign Policy the smartest in human history?

>>3221805
Yes

>join the most numerous side
>contribute little to nothing
>claim victory and take credit

Worked in the Seven Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Crimean War, WW1 and WW2

fuck churchill

>>3221830
Raaj

>>3221805
No 1700-1914

>>3221814
This.

The UK just walked around going "muh nahvee" until it got wrecked and then they sat in basements picking their nose saying "we gots intelugences"

The US, Russia and Germany have been the only relevant nations in the past 100 years. The UK's relevance is on par with Mongolia at best.

>>3221805

1688

No, it's just that the others were incredibly stupid. Particularly Austria.

Good thing it only exists now as a minicuckold irrelevant country sandwiched between Germany and Italy.

>>3221862
Hey UK makes a nice yet stuck up sidekick to the US. It's the best they could hope for after WW2

I would say yes desu

>>3221862
Hey fuck you
They made a good place to hold up American troops for Overlord and dock the boats and plane

>>3221871
>Italy
You spelled France wrong buddy

>>3222065
Pretty much every country between Germany and anywhere else is irrelevant except to exist as a historic buffer state between civilized people and the eternal hun.

File: 1476745965620.jpg (31KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 615x409px

>>3221862
>Germany
dont make me kek france is more relevent than germany

File: oliver reed.png (1MB, 1109x795px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1109x795px

By Jove! Yet another thread filled to the brim with jealous frogs.

>>3221805
>Was the Great Britain Hegemony too smart to win
-tier

>>3222091
France and Germany are much more relevant than Britain in the past 100 years.
Last 100 years of Britain has been doing badly in two world wards and losing their Empire.

>>3221805
The period you're citing includes the loss of the 13 Colonies, the Napoleonic Wars and the Irish Revolt.

Doesn't particularly seen like a brilliant foreign policy approach.

File: Starkey_Goose.gif (4MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 640x360px

>>3222679
>being the winner in both world wars
>not getting our territory devastated and/or populace enslaved
>spending the entirety of both wars firmly camped on the moral high ground
>doing badly

>>3221805
present day australia foreign policy is probably the best you can get

File: British_Empire_1921.png (35KB, 1425x625px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1425x625px

>>3222694
Yet Britain won the Napoleonic Wars decisively, leaving them with no serious rivals for about 100 years. This period also saw India incorporated into the British Empire along with South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the numerous African colonies.

Also, the Irish Revolt was more of a domestic policy issue rather than a foreign policy one.

>>3221805
I wouldn't call British foreign policy at this time the smartest in human history, but given the various geopolitical situations Britain found itself in throughout this period, it was a very responsible and effective one.

>>3222796
>winner of both World Wars
There is a difference to being on the winning side and "winning" a world war.
When it comes to the British, their best in WW1 were often Scottish or Irish troops.

In WW2, Britain really didn't do anything commendable beyond defend themselves against Germany until the Soviets and American Logistics Cock showed up to save the day.

>moral high ground
Again, not really. Britain did a lot of shitty things to a lot of people all over the world. Many of these shitty things were perhaps part in parcel with great and incredible impressive things (British Raj for example) but to imply that Britain are anywhere near to being "the good guys" in the grand scheme of things is a bit retarded.

In the past 100 years? They've been arguably "nice" since I'd say about 1935 or so.

I think you're letting famous British revisionism convince you that Britain was a major player in beating Germany in WW2 again.

>>3222679

Britain has a lot of soft power even today.

France and Germany do too but only through being a trade empire in the form of the EU.

>>3221814
>WW1

Might want to rethink that.

>>3221814
>contribute little to nothing?
This is the most true of the Napoleonic wars and even then they subsidised more than 2 dozen nations and were the force that Napoleon finally surrendered to.

>>3221805
It lost them an empire in 1945, so I'd have to say no, I'd cut it off around the Congress of Berlin

>>3223238
>When it comes to the British, their best in WW1 were often Scottish or Irish troops.

So... British troops?

>>3222679
Are you seriously suggesting Britain did worse in the world wars than France and Germany?

>>3224353
I wouldn't say Britain were more relevant than France/Germany in WW1, but it is funny that the best they had to offer weren't even English.

>>3224360
The thread is asking whether or not Britain are more relevant in the past century. They are not.

They did much better in WW1 than they did in WW2 but they weren't more relevant than both france and germany in either.

>>3224388
Britain isn't England your incredibly subjective point doesn't even make sense.

>>3224399
Are you seriously suggesting France was more relevant than Britain in WW2?

Do you even know anything about WW2?

>>3223238
>When it comes to the British, their best in WW1 were often Scottish or Irish troops.

just delete /his/ it's worthless

>>3223238
>part in parcel
Stop reading there. I thought summer was over until I started reading this thread.

>>3222091
Can't wait to see bongs get BTFO in their little island when the EU forms the 4th reich in 2030

File: 1501448130809.jpg (154KB, 968x626px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 968x626px

>>3223238
>There is a difference between 'winning' and 'winning'
>When it comes to the British, their best in WW1 were British

>>3225610
But there actually is a difference between winning and being on the winning side
Otherwise France won WW2

>>3224407
He's talking about WW1
Read better

Guys, this is a little off-topic, but I don't want to hog a spot by making thread myself and I figure people here would know about this. Can you recommend me any books on English history? Not only foreign policy, but their history in general. Thank you in advance.

>>3221805
>side with the Qing despite their barbarous torture and execution of British diplomats during parley
>instead of with the heavenly kingdom who were more willing to play ball with westerners
>because they were worried about textile industries back home due to simultaneous war in America and China, even though the Taiping would have been more than willing to trade cotton with them

File: 1452200656464.jpg (48KB, 258x347px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 258x347px

>>3221805
>including 1933-1939

>>3221805
I'd limit that to 1783-1914 tbqh famalam.