[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Which country in the world has historically the worst military leadership, while also being the most arrogant and losing the most wars and being irrelevant for 500 years and why is it the bongistanis?
>>
>>53561525
It's definitely Austrians, they are literal retards who were dragged through the thick off it by Hungarians and Croats against Turks and then then Napoleon came around, destroyed 3 of their armies consisting of 50 000 men as a general in Italy and then proceeded to humiliate them for next 2 decades.
>>
>>53561525
France without a doubt
>Surrenders entire nation
>Leader builds miniature maggot line in a basement in London
>US and UK leaders pretend to pay attention to him
>Cries when RN destroy his fleet
>Is given a sympathy parade into Paris even tho French soldiers played 0 role in anything
>Is a refugee

2022
>Russia guna invade
>France says non and proceeds to Felate Putin under a long desk
>Russia invades
>France sends 10 surrender flags to Ukraine and asks it to give land to Russia

Only France would suggest the best thing to do would be to surrender
>>
>>53561626
>Surrenders entire nation
After winning WW1, yes.
>Leader builds miniature maggot line in a basement in London
>US and UK leaders pretend to pay attention to him
>Cries when RN destroy his fleet
>Is given a sympathy parade into Paris even tho French soldiers played 0 role in anything
>Is a refugee
What does this have to do with anything?

>French soldiers played 0 role in anything
What a fucking subhuman
>>
>>53561662
>ENTIRE NATION
lol
Lmao
>>
>>53561696
interesting, last time I checked they are the most successful nation in history when it comes to wars, oh well
>>
>>53561525
Seething Argie

Post Belgrano
>>
>can uk 1v1 ukraine
>can germany 1v1 ukraine
>lol why does uk suck so much
I see the Kremlin has issued new instructions.
>>
>>53561717
You remind me of that pajeet on /his/ who posts the "Indians in 1000 AD vs Europeans in 1000 AD" picture
You can take credit for your ancestors' achievements all you want, but your country is a laughingstock and has been for 100 years. You're Italy-tier when it comes to war.
>>
>>53561717
E N T I R E
N A T I O N
L O L
imagine having some clown with a tash mocking your glorious scaffolding pole
>>
China or Austria.
I am probably ignorant but of all the major European powers I know the least about Austrian military successes.
All I know is they blew up 10 thousand of their own soldiers and almost lost their capital to ottomans, yet at the same time somehow managed to politically dominate European landscape for centuries
>>
The Brits won almost all their wars. Hence the empire. I would agree that the armies leadership was in many periods average or lackluster. But they also had some pretty great leader too. Such as Wellington, Marlborough, Charles Gordon, Bill Slim and others. The UK certainly suffered defeats on occasion but also took part in far far more wars than any comparitive power. Thing is even when the UK had bad generals it still had great NCOs.

Considering you said 'military' and not 'army' though we cant give the bongs a mixed or average mark for leadership abilities. As the RN was just in a different league qualitatively than any of it competitors for most it's existence. In the 18th-19th centuries this was largely due to its officer corp being a highly technical meritocracy where advancement came initially from passing rigorous exams filled with mathematics, and then through merit. Its officer corp was almost entirely made up of the middle class because if this, as opposed to the army which did not have standardised training for officers, had heavy representation of the aristocracy and where ranks up to Col could be bought.
>>
>>53561785
>The Brits won almost all their wars. Hence the empire
Brits always rode someone else's coattails.
>>
>>53561626
>historically
A few modern wars does not wipe out entire centuries of dominating warfare in Europe, anon.

>>53561525
Wrong, it's the Chinese. The only wars they can win are either against themselves or against unwashed poojeets. Even then, they came close to getting put in a position where they'd have lost to the poojeets in their border war.
>>
>>53561525
France, the sheer idiocy of losing your prestiged country in 6 weeks can only be describe as a monumental fuck up.
>>
>>53561785
To finish I would probably give the bongs a leadership score of 8-8.5/10. Maybe a 7 for the army and 9/10 for the Navy.

Which is really a great score for 300+ years of warfare.
>>
I noticed, a few years ago, a huge surge in anti-Bong posts on top of over the top arrogant Bong posts (usually with American spellings of words) I thought nothing of it, just banter. Then I realised, after the Bucha war crimes... that it could be Russians. Why? Well, Bucha is blamed on the Bongs, even their politicians say this by going
>We found a UK license plate so the Bongs did it
Now we are seeing more and more anti-Bong threads, from Ajax to 'lol Warrior has no autoloader' and L85A1 and now this. What the fuck is happening? Is it still Russians seething? The USA is doing more than UK is yet the Russians think the UK is responsible for fucking everything, including say they had generals leading troops on Snake Island when the Russians valiantly retook it.
>>
>>53561782
>yet at the same time somehow managed to politically dominate European landscape for centuries
The Austrians get through marriage what other countries get through war.
>>
>>53561796
Ok. Expand your argument then.
>>
>>53561803
Retard
>>
>>53561796
Which coattail did they ride in the Anglo-Zanzibar War then? A war that took 38 mins for the Brits to win? There was nobody else there.

>>53561803
While you're right about the French, if we use >>53561796 as an example, the French won nothing because they nearly always had allies.
>>
>>53561525
Mongomery was a retard but in comparison with some of the post-purge soviet generals or pokemons like Luigi Cadorna he looks like a military genius
>>
>>53561815
Nah. The French have been the most militarily active nation in modern history after the bongs, but without the same geographical advantages. Sure the French have had defeats, including some quite embarrassing ones. But they also had Napoleon.
>>
>>53561826
Now tbf the L85A1 is a huge L for our country so I think its fair to be brought up and take it on the chin, but I also think the reason why something like there being a surge of Kremlin shitposters riling up bad sentiment against the UK is because the UK has been fairly vocal with its support, from our MoD tweeting daily updates to us constantly talking about what kind of advanced weaponry we are giving to Ukraine and the posturing with the Sweden+Finland defence agreements. It's clearly getting on the nerves of the right people and causing a backlash.
>>
>>53561815
France did not lose to Germany in WWII because of their bad military, but because of their bad civilian leadership during the 20s and 30s. Same goes for their failure in Algeria.
>>
>>53561826
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/why-second-hand-british-cars-end-up-on-ukraines-frontline
>>
File: tangvictory.jpg (123 KB, 1280x720)
123 KB
123 KB JPG
>>53561843
Uh huh, definitely not the bugbois.
>>
>>53561850
Are you really flexing about the
Anglo
Zanzibar
War
?????
This has to be a falseflag post.
>>
>>53561771
Je ne suis pas français.
I'm sure Anglos with their long lasting empires are more fitting to rule, no?

>>53561775
k
>>
>>53561815
More likea lot of the high ranking staff were more sympathetic towards fascism and hitler than the elected leftist gubmint.

Petain was ambassador in Francoist Spain before the war happened, no wonder the french "folded"
>>
>>53561861
He sorted out the desert, worked out what needed to be done and did a good job to do it.

I assume from claims we were "hiding on our island" at the time nobody has heard about it.
>>
>>53561826
Russia (or the state anyway) has a particularly spiteful dislike for the UK. It has been trying to drum up hate against it for a long time. There was loads of threads like this before the Ukraine invasion both here and on Pol. Funny thing for me is how they seemed to stop immediately upon the invasion and are just picking up again now.
>>
>>53561876
>France did not lose to Germany in WWII because of their bad military
Stop spouting Vichyist cope. France's military was directly responsible for letting the Germans win because as an organization they were inflexible and stuck twenty years in the past, which more than anything else allowed the Germans to sneak past through the Ardennes. Had they given their junior officers more credit they might have put up a better fight or outright routed the Germans.
>>
>>53561850
Both the bongs and the French have had really great track records for their militaries throughout history, remember that France went toe to toe with basically all of Europe for over a decade and almost won. Neither of them deserves the title of worst+most arrogant military leadership.
>>
>>53561921
They didn't want another war you retard and they were much better off surrendering.
>>
>>53561867
Not really they've moved a few thousand troops here and there and done nothing significant.
>>53561876
Cope
>>53561905
Cope
>>
File: horizontal-collaboration.jpg (1.77 MB, 1285x1676)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>53561905
>that feel when you will never have a cute French horizontal collaborator gf as a member of the Waffen SS in occupied Paris
>>
>>53561970
wtf is this
>>
>>53561954
How do you shit on your own?
>>
Imagine this happening in your country
>>
File: hnhm8yn6ua2uihsrskmi.jpg (197 KB, 1120x1493)
197 KB
197 KB JPG
>>53561988
On a toilet, not squatting over a hole next to a water gun like you.
>>
>>53561796
>ride someone else's coattails
>end up with the largest empire in history
wew
>>
>>53561983
it's the pejorative term for women in occupied France who fucked Germans. Ranges from just sleeping with soldiers to actively becoming the mistress of local German occupation officials for status and perks. If you've seen the accurate historical film Inglourious Basterds, the French woman in the restaurant scene who gets railed by Himmler is an example
>>
>>53561970
>your gf will never have her head shaved and be publicly humiliated for being a collaborator
>>
I like how A*glos always fall back on "we were the biggest empire once you know" just like how when someone calls them out on their cuisine, they post the same two palatable dishes
>>
>>53561912
>He sorted out the desert, worked out what needed to be done and did a good job to do it.
He just held against Rommel and his Italians using his huge manpower and resources advantage until Germans got into trouble and had to retreat.
When he was given some more complicated tasks (like Market-Garden) it didn't go so smooth.
>>
>>53561944
They lost the war because they didn't respond fast enough to the German breakthrough at Meuse, leaving the bulk of their armed forces isolated in Belgium and leaving only scattered, uncoordinated reserve units which were crushed piecemeal. The French high command overcommitted their forces to a decisive confrontation in Belgium without considering the possibility of a breakthrough elsewhere, even though the possibility of German offensive through the Ardennes existed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Amn_pandW3MC&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>
>>53562080
I love how you avoid to post your home country before sniping another, I imagine it's a shit one.
>>
>>53561861

Montgomery was a decent set piece/ large assault general, and a good leader. He caused a major morale boost when he took over in Africa, and didn't let officers below him slack. He knew how to play the politics required at that level in managing expectations and morale. Was he as good as Patton or Rommel in maneuver warfare? No. But he had his skills.
>>
>>53562094
>Got into trouble
You mean
>Got supply routes rekt by the Royal Navy

Market Garden was a fuck up, but a majority American fuck up.
Nice try faggot
>>
>>53562025
That is Rome, you ruled empty lands.
>>
>>53561525
The French lost hard in ww1 and ww2 and caused Vietnam while also fucking up Africa. I don't know how they keep getting away with it but even Paris sucks ass
>>
>>53562153
>lost hard in ww1
lmao they literally won WW1
>>
>>53561867
Back in 1770 lol
>>
>>53562181
>Won WW1
By not losing France? Is that the metric France uses to gauge how they did in a war, not losing the entire nation lmao.
>>
>>53562122
>majority American fuck up
Nigger, say what? Explain yourself you fucking retard.
>>
>>53562110
His thing with the 8th army was that prior they'd been trying stuff they couldn't really pull off and then having to fall back (i.e., like we've seen from Russia).

Three rules.
1. I won't ask you to do anything you can't easily accomplish
2. We don't got forward until I'm satisfied the moment is right and I give the order and nobody else.
3. No more retreats.

I would look at his command of the desert campaign as largely a matter of working with what he had. There is something to be said for that, actually a great deal more than history wants to give anyone.
>>
>>53562099
His country is currently getting btfo'd by third-world wheat farmers next door.
>>
>>53562122
>>Got supply routes rekt by the Royal Navy
That too, but Germany generally lacked resources to help him, also Operation Torch happened
>Market Garden was a fuck up, but a majority American fuck up.
So you're saying that
>total failure of British intelligence to provide a decent intel, not being able to spot SS armoured divisions hanging around
>flawed plan by Montgomery
>bad execution of said plan because of Montgomery
is mostly American fault?
>>
>>53561525
The Russians. They have nothing to their name, no great victories or history, just getting conquered and raped by mongols way back when and then embarrassment and being propped up by allies ever since until they have none and now this debacle.
>Frogs
Even ignoring everything else, you can't call any country that had Napoleon Bonaparte bad militarily.
>Bongs
Centuries of incredible victories in the Hundred Years War etc, established a massive worldwide empire and ruled the oceans near completely, held well repeatedly in modern war, even Falkands was fine.
>>
>>53562080
That isn't a fall back when keeping to this threads topic. Which is the quality of military leadership and whether it's reputation is deserved. The empire was the product of wars. It would not be possible to get so big without competence.

Too go off topic most British food is palatable, if often a bit uninspired. The same could be said for the Irish, Dutch, Latvians, Lithuanians, Russians, Swedes, Estonians, Australians, Kiwis and Portuguese in my experience. All of these countries have some good dishes which are great. But most of it is average. Just like the UK. The most over rated cuisine in my view is the French and the most underrated Vietnamese & Georgian.
>>
>>53562128
>Rome
>largest empire in history
Bruh. The Romans did amazing things, but they are far, far from the largest empire in history. I don't think that they're even top ten.
>>
>>53562278
Romans would be 26th largest empire in history.
>>
>>53562260
Russians still managed to win their two great patriotic wars though. Maybe because of the weather, but they did. Also they owned the Turks many times.
>>
>>53562110
Best bong WW2 General was Bill Slim and his forgotten army. His modesty meant he never tried to showboat like Monty and other allied Generals. Rumours of bad behaviour post war also prevented a myth being built up around him.
>>
>>53562128
>Rome: 46 mil
>Bongolians: 530 mil
>>
>>53562181
Nah. There wasn't the huge differences in importance you see amongst WW2 Allies. But the country that ensured success against Germany in WW1 was definitely the bongs. France would not have been able to keep the Germans back without British help, would not have been able to blockade Germany, contributed almost nothing to defeating the Ottomans. Bongs also defeated a larger amount of the German army than French and US forces combined in the hundred day offensive as well.
>>
>>53562278
By number of people who lived in the Empire, every 4th person on the planet at its peak lived in Rome, Britain ruled Australia and Canada that had no intelligent life.
>>
>>53562315
What was the first great patriotic war? Against Napoleon?
>>
>>53562201
That's the metric we are using today to describe Ukraine as winning.
>>
>>53562401
I'd wager there was some intelligent population in Canada at that time
>>
It's italy

they always had terrible leadership
>>
>>53562395
Bongs were second rank in the western front, especially before 1916 when they finally decided to beef up the BEF, and the war was won in the Balkans by the franco-serbian army led by Franchet d'Espèrey, not in the very minor Orient front.
>>
>>53561782
tu felix austria nube
>>
File: crusader.png (948 KB, 2120x614)
948 KB
948 KB PNG
The early desert campaign had some big brain moves and it can be argued how much Monty actually was decisive or if he was just benefiting by things put in place by those he stepped over like Auchinleck, Gott and Campbell but this is hardly exclusive to just Britain. For example if you think Montgomery had an ego that massively outsized his actual accomplishments just look at MacArthur.

Rommel wasn't immune to terrible choices either. For example he kept falling for obvious allied ruses like during operation crusader he refused to believe the British were launching an attack even as their tanks captured his airfields because of an obviously planted document found in a captured regimental HQ that said they wouldn't attack until 1942. He only changed his mind when the BBC ruined opsec and announced the attack as being successful as it was happening.

>>53561785

reminds me of that quote about "if an royal navy admiral lost an important campaign he would be executed by firing squad while if an british army general lost a major campaign he would be promoted to horse guards so someone else could take over"
>>
>>53562408
Yes, that's the Patriotic War. In 1941 they wanted to remind everyone of the 1812 campaign and started using the term Great Patriotic War in Soviet propaganda
>>
>>53562401
Love this argument. The UK got its Caribbean & North American colonies through war with European powers. Particularly the French. Likewise the conquest of India involved heavy competition with the French. Although even without them the Indians were not that backward a place. Most of the battles the UK fought against various Indian kingdoms it was the Indians who had superiority in artillery as well as large numerical advantages, near universal use of firearms and often Europeans as officers & Generals.
>>
>>53561525
It's not, not even close. You're just a salty brown Argie as with everyone who spams threads about bongs
>>
>>53562471
You love it because it comes up a lot and there is a reason for it, it is true.
>>
>>53562367
Just buy a rope
>>
>>53562420
>Bongs were second rank in the western front, especially before 1916 when they finally decided to beef up the BEF

Oh I agree. But without that assistance France would not have been able to hold back the German army. Without a British contribution in the middle years France would of lost.

>war was won in the Balkans by the franco-serbian army led by Franchet d'Espèrey, not in the very minor Orient front.

Won against the Ottomans or the whole war? Either way you would be wrong. Almost all the fighting the Ottomans did was against Commenwealth forces or Arab rebels supported by the Brits.
>>
>>53561826

I'm sure the scales will tip but rn NLAWs are cooking vatniks left and right for weeks while US aid is only new starting to ramp off into the stratosphere. Also the UK is making very bold moves like tripartate defense moves with Sweden and Finland to soil any possible Russian fuckery that draws a bigger target.
>>
>>53562439
Why did British staff decide to just call back those generals who succesfully defeated Italians outnumbered 1 :10 but then couldn't defeat Rommel? Montgomery was able to win mostly due to his material superiority after receiving massive reinforcements, why wouldn't others be able to succeed with the same resources?
Montgomery showed less initiave, which maybe helped him at el-Alamein, but generally speaking was a bad thing.
>>
>>53562496
I love it as it is so easily disproved, shows an extremely shallow jingoistic knowledge of history and just screams cope.
>>
>>53562518
which of those numbers is bigger nigger
>>
>>53562439
>>53562318
>>53562241

I place Slim in the same category as Auchinleck and George H. Thomas; good generals, capable and reliable, but lacking the political skills to manage their bosses.

Monty was able in Africa to manage expectations of London - and Churchill in particular - a lot better than his predecessors did and that gave the ability to win in his own chosen time and space. Auchinleck maybe did lay the groundwork to a degree but he didn't give confidence to those below or above him in the chain of command at that point; and so it makes sense he was replaced by a new face who wasn't tainted by involvement in the past failures.
>>
>>53562544
>Oh I agree. But without that assistance France would not have been able to hold back the German army. Without a British contribution in the middle years France would of lost.
Without the French, or Russian contribution Britain would have been crushed as well and even worse. Britain was never able to take on her own the great powers of the continent, that's why she always resorted to coalition building.
>Won against the Ottomans or the whole war? Either way you would be wrong. Almost all the fighting the Ottomans did was against Commenwealth forces or Arab rebels supported by the Brits.
Won the whole war, mechanically. What triggered the surrendering of the Central powers was the franco-serbian victory in Dobro Polje, opening the way to Vienna and Constantinople, which triggered bulgarian, then ottoman, then austrian, the german surrender.
The ME front was very secondary again and mobilized little men and resources.
>>
>>53562566
>Why did British staff decide to just call back those generals who succesfully defeated Italians outnumbered 1 :10 but then couldn't defeat Rommel?

because Churchill was breathing down their necks and Monty was the first who could appease Churchill. Although secretly even he disliked his interference since as Montgomery put it the last time Churchill fought in north africa the enemy was armed with swords.
>>
>>53562563
The UK has a very competent military/security/intelligence/diplomatic system. Can act quickly and decisively, isn't afraid to stick it's nose in and can't be easily manipulated by Russia. It has close to zero economic links, buys fuck all Russian energy, has no easily manipulated Russian ethnic minority and it's institutions see Russia as being full of shit by default.

It also represents one of the truly core nations to how the world is currently run. Has a smaller population, looks small on the map, has various beefs with its European neighbours (typically quite shallow ones though).

Russia feels like it should be able to manipulate/dominate such a country but us unable to do so. Each failed attempt making the UK more and more aggressive towards it. Which it still can't do anything about.

Trying to inspire hatred of the Brits is all the have left
>>
Everyone knows it's France, you could go to Thailand and ask what they think about French people and they would laugh about ww2 surrender.
>>
>>53562318
>Bill Slim
Thanks OP, just looked him up. Probably snatch his memoir for a summer read.
>>
>>53562315
>Russians still managed to win their two great patriotic wars though
Only with massive Western support, hence my "being propped up by allies". That they were retarded dicks about. Bongs at least could maintain a stalemate with Napolean, they didn't have any good way alone to go after him on the mainland, but with their navy he didn't have any great way to try to invade them either, and their massive trade and overseas empire kept them well stocked.

Russians throwing away stupendous amounts of blood and treasure and supplying some distraction and muscle certainly was helpful in causing him to overextend in the end, but I can't call that an incredible display of military leadership after how badly they got fucked leading into it.
>>
>>53561775
I recently went to the Churchill War Museum thing in Westminster and oh boy did they oversell the entire thing.
Hitler was basically in London already but the awesome Churchill fought till the last minute!
>>
>>53562245
Don't forget that he was kicked out from Italy because people were tired of his shit there.
>>
>>53562754
>Only with massive Western support
In 1812 they were on their own, unless you count Peninsular War as a form of allied support but that'd be weird. I guess that Austria and Prussia turned out to be helpful for Russians throughout the campaign and switched sides in late 1812, but that's not that *massive*
>>
>>53562781
No you didn't, you haven't left your village in years
>>
>>53562833
In 1812 the winter won for them. They refused to face off the French and when they did at Bordino, they lost. Even when the French decided to leave Moscow, they would have gone back to their lands with little harm if it wasn't for that particular harsh winter.
Probably the only war won by losing and avoiding all the battles.
>>
File: IMG_3153.jpg (598 KB, 1539x2052)
598 KB
598 KB JPG
>>53562847
I also went to the Sheffield which was pretty sweet. A lot of stuff free to see and nice and competent staff.

Doesn't change that the Churchill War Rooms thing was kinda trash.
>>
>>53562649
>Without the French, or Russian contribution Britain would have been crushed as well and even worse. Britain was never able to take on her own the great powers of the continent, that's why she always resorted to coalition building.

Your kind of missing the point here mate. If France wasn't in the war the UK wouldn't either. You know, because of alliances. Germany never showed a realistic ability to defeat the RN, without which it wouldn't have been able to invade the UK. So it also isn't the case that the UK would do worse even if it did somehow declare war just on the UK.

>Won the whole war, mechanically. What triggered the surrendering of the Central powers was the franco-serbian victory in Dobro Polje, opening the way to Vienna and Constantinople, which triggered bulgarian, then ottoman, then austrian, the german surrender.

Why couldn't they defend against that thrust? As the majority of their army was deployed in the ME where they took heavy casualties.

>The ME front was very secondary again and mobilized little men and resources

The ottomans deployed 3 Million men in total to the ME and took casualties of 1.5 million. The Brits deployed something like 2 million to the ME. This isn't a campaign which involved 'little men and resources'
>>
>>53562893
>Probably the only war won by losing and avoiding all the battles.
No, that's a legit way to fight if it's actually planned and used properly. A bunch of the most famous acts of war in history came during the Second Punic War, which is when we saw Hannibal face off in his prime against Rome. And before Scipio came up, Fabius did extremely well with what might have been the first organized use of true distributed gorilla warfare and scorched earth, the "Fabian strategy". He was derided as the Cunctator (delayer) at first, but following Cannae they went back and it worked damn well while they rebuilt their military and Cunctator became a title of honor instead.

But the logistics situation was different. Fabius was doing a very deliberate, painful strategy, it still required a lot of maneuvering, intelligence usage etc, and he didn't depend on pure luck like unusually bad weather. He was constantly staying close, targeting supply lines and engaging on favorable territory in small scale battles, limiting damage, all cutting edge concepts. He preserved manpower. He played politics extremely well too, and this was in a democracy. And it was all in prep for a counterstrike, which Scipio ultimately executed on and is part of why it's all remembered well.

Russia in 1812 was essentially medieval tier (actually they still kind of are really), serfs thrown away as needed. Not at all the same.
>>
>>53563031
>Your kind of missing the point here mate. If France wasn't in the war the UK wouldn't either. You know, because of alliances. Germany never showed a realistic ability to defeat the RN, without which it wouldn't have been able to invade the UK. So it also isn't the case that the UK would do worse even if it did somehow declare war just on the UK.
Britain's alliance were made with one objective in mind, preventing a continental power from dominating the whole continent, severing it from its markets and threatening ultimately naval supremacy and invasion. Even if at the moment the RN was still able to fence off that challenger, it was in the long run too dangerous to be in the position of one island vs a continent. It couldn't afford to have a German empire ruling over Europe for the same reason it couldn't afford to have a French empire one hundred years earlier. The alliance was a necessity for Britain as much as for France.
>The ottomans deployed 3 Million men in total to the ME and took casualties of 1.5 million. The Brits deployed something like 2 million to the ME. This isn't a campaign which involved 'little men and resources'
I was thinking it was less tbqf.
>>
>>53563501
>Britain's alliance were made with one objective in mind, preventing a continental power from dominating the whole continent, severing it from its markets and threatening ultimately naval supremacy and invasion. Even if at the moment the RN was still able to fence off that challenger, it was in the long run too dangerous to be in the position of one island vs a continent. It couldn't afford to have a German empire ruling over Europe for the same reason it couldn't afford to have a French empire one hundred years earlier. The alliance was a necessity for Britain as much as for France.

I agree with all that. But my answer was in retort to the suggestion that the UK would suffer a worse defeat without France. My argument was that without France the UK would not have deployed much forces on land anyway and would have focused on degrading the German Navy (if it chose to intervene when the Germans invaded the Russian Empire at all). In that hypothetical universe it would not have been possible for Germany to overcome the RN. Although going further down that track would also entail a quicker defeat of Russia and a very different stand off.

>I was thinking it was less tbqf.

That's fair. In the UK memories of the first world war are wrapped up in the western front. I wouldn't have imagined the French laid much attention to what was going on elsewhere.
>>
>>53562988
>To see Sheffield
HMS Belfast?
You've never left your house m8.
>>
>>53562412
>intelligent population in Canada
Son, at no point through time and history has there been intelligent population in Canada
>>
>>53561785
>The Brits won almost all their wars. Hence the empire.
They won almost all against darkies.
There's a reason they never managed to expand in white lands.
>>
>>53564377
chinks and bores,indians,mayan spanish,germans,french
>>
>>53562988
But really you came to see the spire of Salisbury cathedral I'm guessing.
>>
>>53562110
>Was he as good as Patton or Rommel in maneuver warfare? No. But he had his skills.
lol a self aggrandizing prima donna rivaled only by MacArthur and a propaganda tool for post war-anti commie efforts
>>
>>53561717
That's like an Italian saying Italy is good at war because Caesar beat the Gauls.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.