Why was Britain so irrelevant in wwii despite having all the

Britain itself is a small bunch of islands.
During WWII these islands were blockaded by the Germans making it hard to get all of these resources and men to and from these islands.
Also a large chunk of British overseas territory was attacked and/or taken by opposing forces.

Germany on the other hand was landlocked, and once it had conquered western Europe it was free to move manpower and materials around the continent as it liked.

>>863669
I think you might have over simplified your view on Britain during ww2

File: advancedgermanwunderweapon.jpg (75KB, 800x581px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x581px

>>863669

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Britain and it's empire outproduced Germany by close to 2:1 margin.

They weren't irrelevant, they were just getting royally BTFOd literally everywhere aside from the British isles themselves.

>Norway
>Burma
>Singapore
>Malaysia
>France

The one exception is North Africa which took cyclopean Rommel's retardation with supply lines.

>>863690
>germany
>landlocked

u wot m8

>>863669
Before America entered the war they were doing stuff in the pacific too.

>>863860
They were btfo in africa too until the US showed up.

>Irrelevant

I'm not trying to downplay the American or Soviet contribution, because Britain couldn't have won on their own, but don't act like the British were irrelevant.
In Normandy British were basically trying to hold as many German units as possible around Caen so the Americans could break through and outflank the German army. If you read German accounts, most were positive that Caen was where the decision for Normandy would be made and that's where they put mostly all their best soldiers on that front. The thing is, it's a lot less impressive sounding when the Americans are rolling through France taking a ton of land while the British and commonwealth forces are stuck in a deadlock against more dogged resistance.

Don't forget the RCAF, either.

>>864001
blockaded

>>863669
#1 they've had to fight the war overseas and keep their colonies peaceful, on top of intervening in their sphere of influence(Persia).
#2 their military was enormously under-budgeted during interwar period
#3 they've relied on French to fight the land war in Europe, that the French fucked up(not by far, but they've ignored ardennes even when they saw German armies moving there and not giving a fuck)
#4 RAF bombing doctrine(interdiction done by unescorted bombers...) was completely retarded and rendered it useless offensively for years
#5 they've didn't fared THAT bad all things considered, they've landlocked Germany, were able to defend Malta(although it's more of Italians screwing up) and essentially cripple Regia Marina, destroy several big German raiders including Bismarck and by 1941, make submarines basically ineffective due to convoy systems
#6 they've lost too much heavy equipment in Dunkerque which slowed down army modernisation they were going through

>>864001

He probably just meant it was a continental power without huge concerns about overseas territories and naval shipping.

File: Join_the_Team_RCAF.jpg (107KB, 562x775px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 562x775px

>>864034

I meant to just say RAF but I do love muh RCAF.

>>863669
I think you should read a history book and come back

>>863860
The British won easily in Ethiopia

Muh empire

>>863669
>All those resources and population yet they still couldn't keep up with German production and man power

you are aware that britain outproduced germany till 1944 and speers reorganisation of german industry right?

manpower was a issue for sure, germany had a larger population, and didnt have as much of its available manpower spread over the globe and the seas.

essentially to effectively deploy land forces against the germans in continental europe the british needed safe ports to land and ship troops and supplies through, that in practise meant that france had to hold while the british built up forces in france for the fight.

france collapsed, the british were forced to withdraw.

then the british and germans are both faced with the same problem, neither can invade the others homeland, they can only nibble at the periphery, hence north africa and the Mediterranean theatre. all they could do to hit each others homeland was bomb which the british did far more successfully than the germans.

this stalemate continued until the americans entered the war and finally combined the brits and yanks had a big enough hammer to break the defenses and land a invasion in northern france.

all this while also fighting the japanese in burma, and crushing the italian and german navies, beating the submarine threat of the germans and crushing the italian fleet

as for the irrelevance of britain, it was britain who broke the codes and whose deception schemes screwed the germans, it was britain who provided the cavity magnetron and the jet engine to the US and gave the US the information that formed the core of the manhattan project, the VT fuse was another british idea,

Their colonial slaves wanted freedom

>>863669
It was a democracy which inherently makes countries underpowered compared to their potantial.

File: war 1812.png (567KB, 841x1920px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 841x1920px

>>863669
>they still couldn't keep up with German production and man power, it's shocking stuff

why does this surprise you? Look back to the Napoleonic wars. The French have the best army, the British the best Navy. Everywhere Napoleon can march, he wins. As soon as he hits water, he can just shake his fist. This is the exact same situation in 1941, except for the air element.

File: 1456882861258.jpg (23KB, 519x521px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 519x521px

>It was a democracy which inherently makes countries underpowered compared to their potantial.

Threads like these are why /his/ was a bad idea.

WW1's aftermath was still being felt in Britain.
Misadministration/under exploitation of colonial resources
Britain had a huge navy but it's army was a joke, therefore they could prevent the Germans from invading, but would never attack them on soil.

File: mw179167.jpg (99KB, 586x800px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 586x800px

A large part of the problem lies with Ramsay MacDonald as Prime Minister, not MacDonald himself but his chancellor in Philip Snowden. Snowden refused to comit to any further public spending at all, arguing for business as usual alone, explaining that he believed the export trade would recover and expand naturally (it never did due to the failure to modernise British industry even before WWI, and India having taken over most of the Empire's cotton producing taking it away from the home isles), Snowden tried to outline his argument by saying:

"when I was a boy, negroes did not ride bicycles; now they do ride bicycles, and workers in Coventry make those bicycles"

Snowden's failure to act led to rising unemployment figures throughout the British Isles, at a time where other countries were recovering through some level of public works. In fact the only member of MacDonald's govemrent (surprisingly they were meant to be Socialists) arguing for Public works and increased spending was the youngest of his ministers; Sir Oswald Mosley, who would later resign and leave the Labour party entirely due to Snowden's rejection of his plans.

Even when the National Govemrent was formed in 1931, with MacDonald as Prime Minister, in a movement dominated by Conservatives, Liberals, but next to no Labour MPs (the party rejected MacDonald's coalition talks with the Conservatives and expelled him) failed to make progress despite the retirement of Philip Snowden as Chancellor, his replacement in future prime minister Neville Chamberlain refused to spend further this time for ideological reasons, though the National Govemrent under its three successive peacetime Prime Ministers (MacDonald, Baldwin, and Chamberlain) allowed Britain to recover somewhat from the economic repercussions of the depression it had a negative long term impact due to the Austerity programme shrinking the economy overall, and leading to no major military buildup prior to the war even by 1939, oh and WWI.

Britain and the Soviets won WWII, what the fuck are you on?

The British Empire not strenghened but undermined the UK military power. After aquiring some areas in the middle east as mandates, it achieved the biggest territory. But that meant British armies and navies had to be scattered over the world. This conjuncture had british policy makers embark on the appeasemnt. It was hardly surprising they failed to mobilise enough resources to combat with the Axis powers.

>>863669

>Why was Britain so irrelevant in wwii despite having all the resources of the largest empire in the world?


False question : UK always been shit in war. Always need big ally to win. UK is a Capitalism country, a country of merchant. Not a strong state like French's monarchy or German's empire with a permanent army.

>>868290
This is the history board. Some cursory knowledge of history might be useful to post here.

>Victors of El Alamein
>Irrelevant

Great bait. I'd hazard a guess and say you're American.

>>863860
>Burma
The Brits weren't BTFO in Burma. Had they been, China wouldve fallen and all those IJA soldiers will be USA's problem.

>>868698

Ok big guy, what exactly was the relevance of El Alamein? It didn't eliminate DAK. Torch would come a month later and would pull Rommel back to Tunis regardless of what happened in Egypt. Exactly what did El Alamein accomplish beside soothe British nationalism?

It's because they didn't want to, what's the big deal with germans and french and russians dying en masse on the continent. More power to britain.

>>863669
>All those resources and population yet they still couldn't keep up with German production
but they literally could, in fact, they did, and by a large margin

>Why was Britain so irrelevant in wwii despite having all the resources of the largest empire in the world?
they fought in europe, in africa, in asia, then in europe again (the commonwealth provided a half of the troops on d-day, for example)

then again this is a bait and i am a retard for responding to it

>>864008
I'm pretty sure the Afrika Korps was in full retreat before the the US showed up.

>>868809
shatter most of rommels armor, cripple his army and remove his last reserves.

as for the torch landing they eventually required british reinforcement to break through on their front

>>870846

El Alamein reduced DAK no more than Crusader a did a year before. Why was the 1942 victory somehow decisive if the 1941 one wasn't?

>>871081
The British force was much larger than the one in Operation Crusader and arguably better organised. This meant that once they were on top they could keep pushing forwards without over stretching themselves, which is why Crusader wasn't as decisive - Rommel launched a counter attack against the disorganised 8th army and drove them back.

After El Alamein Rommel had no other option than to keep withdrawing across the desert as fast as he could because if he stopped he would have been completely crushed by the massive army chasing him.

>>871081
because alemain had a effective follow up and prevented rommel regrouping and counter attacking