Because Britain was a naval empire, not a land one.

>>1408394
This. And they were financially ruined since 1929.

They didn't wanted to get under the american's economic trade and decided to start their own shit with their colonies which didn't really worked as they found themselves more isolated than anything. The brits thought they didn't needed anyone else and that they could be self-sufficient with their colonies, like in the good ol' days. The war took a toll on them considering they didn't had any funds to update or even have a sufficient army. Add that to the fact that the majority of their colonies knew what the hell was going on and were in a better positions to make demands. The empire was weak and needed to make as many concessions as possible in order to gather sufficient supports for the war.

If it wasn't for the helps of the states (and indirectly the soviets and Hitler being a retard), britains would have gotten rekt by germany. It was only a question of time before they would have yielded. And they didn't much against Germany besides stalling them.

>>1408475
So you think that if Hitler laucnhed operation barbarossa towards the UK instead, they would've won?

>>1408505
I'm sure of it. They probably wouldn't have won the war in the long run, but England would have been out of the game for the rest of it.

>>1407897
Which war?

>>1408586

Dont be retarded. Hitler never had the means to successfully invade the UK mainland.

>>1408505
Simply impossible. Germany could never, ever, under any circumstances, have successfully invaded Britain.

>>1408637
>>1408684
You can win a war without fully invading the opponent's country. See Germany in WW1. London and any other major british cities were in ruins and were constantly bombarded by artillery and planes. The brits didn't had any real means to fully retaliate or counter-attack Germany and there was no way they could have turn the tide by themselves (so without the opening of a second front in Russia or the helps of the Americans). They were fucked and following an hypothetical operation Barbarossa on Britain's soil, they wouldn't have lasted longer than what they did back then.

>>1407897
The British empire was massively overextended by the outbreak of the first world war. Due to their enphesises on Anglo soldiers their armies where too diluted and could not be mobilised quickly. Despite having the only real professional army at the wars outbreak, it was small and I'll equipped to fight a modern war.

The British Navy was the most revered force in the armed forces at the time and thus well reinforced at the massive cost to the empire. This navy ultimately won the war on the side of the entente but it was a grueling and long process of attrition.

The armies of Britain as mentioned earlier where small but probably the best trained on the wars outbreak. Despite this few lessons had really been learned from the russo-japanese war or American civil war leading to said professional armies ultimate destruction in the following few years and replacement with conscripts.

Germany had a large concentrated force with a good command structure and a high amount of national unity. The British being a multi-ethnic empire did not have this. It's people where not united and constant military forces where required to prevent rebellion thus not all of the empires forces could be called up to Europe. Rebellions in Singapore and India throughout the war demonstrated the fractured state of the empire during the rise of nationalism globally.

Also you cannot forget the poor economic situation britain was in due to the early stages of globalism and it's fall from top of the industrialised chain.

>>1408718
>London and any other major british cities were in ruins and were constantly bombarded by artillery and planes. The brits didn't had any real means to fully retaliate or counter-attack Germany

>>1408475

>f it wasn't for the helps of the states (and indirectly the soviets and Hitler being a retard), britains would have gotten rekt by germany.

What makes you think that?

> It was only a question of time before they would have yielded.

Why? Germany couldn't really do much to hurt Britain?

> And they didn't much against Germany besides stalling them.

And you know, strategic bombardment, north Africa, providing about 1/3 of the troops on the post 1943 Western European fronts.

>>1408586

You're retarded. Sealion would never have worked. They have no sealift, aerial inferioirty, and HUGE naval inferiority.

>>1408718

> London and any other major british cities were in ruins

No they weren't.

>London and any other major british cities were in ruins and were constantly bombarded by artillery

No they fucking weren't.

>and planes.

They were struck with pinpricks that did little damage to the economy, showed no signs of breaking British morale, and were hugely wasteful in terms of airplanes.

>The brits didn't had any real means to fully retaliate or counter-attack Germany

Except their own aerial bombardment programs which were hitting WAY harder than what the Germans were dishing out.

> They were fucked and following an hypothetical operation Barbarossa on Britain's soil, they wouldn't have lasted longer than what they did back then.

No, they were not fucked. And if Germ,any was stupid enough to try a Sealion, the only reason the inevitable failure wouldn't be decisive would be that they were simply unable to transfer a sizeable portion of their army across the Channel.

But it would be a failure and would not do much more than annoy the British. The morale/propaganda effect of blocking a second body blow would probably help them, if anything.

>>1407897
Britain never defeated Germany
In WW1 France did, in WW2 America and the USSR did
Britain was a large empire, but not a powerful one

>>1408881
Came here to post this

UK only played an important role in WW1 in which it didn't win, but helped force Germany into a situation it would lose

>>1408881
Britain commited more soldiers than france in ww1

>>1408914

Not him, but a lot of them were to secondary or tertiary fronts, like the Middle East.

>>1408914
yeah yeah but i have the intuition that you re counting solider deployed in easier theaters like the middle east (meggido, dardanelles, etc.)

the sacrifices france made to win this war are ridiculous. they stalled their demographic growth for decades to find some manpower to fight, and lost the major industrial zone of the country as it was in the middle of the no man s land. For all of this, in the end, they only got the alsace et la lorraine, when in fact they would deserved to get rhineland and at least saarland too, but the british are too attached to their continental balance to allow the deserved rise of france

>>1408914
Not on the Western front
France was still the leader country in the Entente, a French general was the commander in chief of allied forces, and Germany gave its surrender to France