Why did the British empire seem so weak in WW2?
I mean it had the largest GDP, largest navy, largest land mass, and quite possibly the largest population on earth.
UK + Canada + Australia + India + African colonies + smaller holdings
Yet the British didn't seem to be able to take down tiny little Germany which was coming out of recession and devastation of WW1 (Britain was barely able to manage a defensive).
Also Australia kept getting wrecked by Japan. And Canada/India didn't seem to do much.
I'm not sure about Britain, but the reason Australia was getting wrecked by Japan was because most of their troops were in Africa.
The Brittish Empire never had a strong presence in Europe militarly, like the French or the Spanish did.
>>56098933
>largest population
They were and are pussies that's the reason why the Brits could conquer them in first place
>>56098933
The British Empire was never that strong to begin with. Maintaining a large oppressive empire that has a huge technology advantage over her subjects was one thing. Actually going toe to toe with another modern nation that had a more advanced navy is another
India stopped Japanese expansion Westward at the battles of Kohima and Imphal. Australia was fighting two fronts: Africa and Asia. Canada was fighting in Europe, and had the third largest navy of the allies and the fourth largest air force of the allies at the end of the war.
Britain's East Asian holdings in Singapore/etc had no proper defenses and were maned by conscripts/reservists.
>>56099145
>The British Empire was never that strong to begin with
I was thinking this. Maybe the British military only seemed strong because they were used to fighting zulus armed with sticks, indians armed with bows, and asian indians armed with bows when they themselves have gatling guns and canons.
Brit Navy however was legit.
Which is why I thought it was weird that Australia did so poorly against Japan.
Maybe Brit navy =/= Australian navy?
Or maybe they pulled back ships to defend their little island instead of the empire at large?
>>56098933
Combination of economy downturn and the fact we've never had a large army. In peacetime it rarely reached more than a few hundred thousand, while France had well over a million.
>>56098933
My grandfather was Indian and he fought in WW2 under the British. He fought in North Africa against the Italians but then was transferred to Burma when the British were losing to Japanese there. He died before I was born unfortunately and he never liked to talk about the war so I don't have many stories of him.
>>56099263
At the start of the war our Far East navy had far fewer ships than the admiralty thought it needed.
The plan was to use the Mediterranean navy to bolster the far east in case of war and let France defend the Med, but obviously that didn't quite work out in WW2.
>>56099189
>Canada was fighting in Europe
Really? Do inform me of those battles. It didn't seem like you guys made much leeway against Germany on the mainland.
>India stopped Japanese expansion Westward
Naval right? Japan never made it past the coastal provinces of China. I think that's due to them being navy oriented military/empire.
>>56099369
>that didn't quite work out in WW2
You guys also sank the French navy.
I think another reason why is because Japan pre-ww2 was a Brit ally of sorts. Brits actually colluded with the Japanese against the Russians to weaken the Russian eastern navy thereby weakening Russia a few years before the WWs broke out.
>>56099372
In Burma actually. They made it quite a ways inland before being stopped.
>>56099263
Even then, Japan had a powerful navy. 3rd largest after the US and UK
>>56099372
Burma. Land war. Called the Stalingrad of the East.
Canada fought on D-Day, Marketgarden, and most American offenses.
>>56099448
I'm not sure what state the Anglo Japanese treaty was in by WW2, or whether we expected to fight against them really
Sinking the French navy was fucked up, but if the Germans or Italians got hold of it then Operation Sealion would become much more feasible
>>56099537
>Sinking the French navy was fucked up, but if the Germans or Italians got hold of it then Operation Sealion would become much more feasible
I think it was recorded that it's also because the Brits didn't trust the French allies they were taking into Britain.
They suspected that they would ally with France under Germany and betray Britain. Thus better left under the sea.
Perfidious? Yes.
Smart? Probably.
>>56099525
>Canada fought on D-Day
Americans know that. We were there with you.
I was thinking more along the lines of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieppe_Raid
Also I'm not saying Canadians didn't fight. I'm more of asking why it didn't seem as effective as when USA joined it.
Maybe your population is just smaller? Military less developed due to reliance on Britain? Or maybe the queens orders spread you too thin (east asia, atlantic, europe, etc)?
>>56099799
Because your population and GDP was ten times our size you fucking idiot.
>>56098933
India was honorary aryans and allying with nazis, anon. Canada is a shit. Aussies didn't really have an army, and were fighting off a zergrush of nips with only volunteers.
But who cares, Britbongs eventually beat germans at air superiority. And they won the african campaign? That's a big deal. They did it without your burgers. All you guys did and nuke some poor asian midgets and rape okinawa. For shame!
>>56099799
>anglos not trusting the french that hold their positions until the last moments while the brits had fled early in Dunkirk.
>to this day, english """""""""veterans""""""""""" still come in Dunkirk every year to celebrate. Where they are boo-ed by French veterans.
kek
(the brits opened fire on frenchies trying to get on the boats. In mers el kébir its even worse. they had trapped the bay before starting the negociations.)
>>56100347
Old habits die hard
>>56098933
>https://www.quora.com/Could-World-War-II-have-been-won-without-the-United-States
Ruskbros won WWII. Ameriburger are weeaboo raping cuckolds.
>>56100347
>the brits opened fire on frenchies trying to get on the boats
Source?
Also Dunkirk was the old good thing that happened during the battle of france
>>56100480
>>56100347
Surrender monkeys like syrians deserve deathsu.
>>56098933
the british empire was a merchant empire anon.
It was too outstreched and the military wasn't very big(4me)
>>56099189
>Australia was fighting two fronts: Africa and Asia
The fuck were they fighting in Africa?
>>56100004
>MUH GDP
>MUH POP
So salt.
Why is Canada so much smaller in GDP and population?
WEAK
E
A
K
>>56101703
They were busy bantering the Italians
