[Magnum PEI]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Amazing really seeing as it was a war to defend France, they had by far the largest land army and precipitated both wars as well as the franco prussian war that started it all.

Please, it takes two to tango. All three of these conflicts had a long build up towards the declaration of war. France had a treaty obligation to Russia in WW1, and in WW2 Britain decided when to declare war.
When did France have the largest land army? Maybe in 1870. Seems unlikely afterwards considering Germany had a much larger population, esp. in WW2.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Yes I can easily see why the UK should have stepped up more to a war it didn't want or start to keep another country safe, a country that repeatedly showed an inibility to defend itself.

Good on Britain for duping France into doing its dirty work, but it still comes across as cowardly to form an alliance and expect France to do all the heavy lifting.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The reality was in both '14 and '40 that the british had a very small army and relied on its navy, what it sent was what it had and to be frank in 1914 the British should not have been involved at all, it was a French war diplomatically precipitated by the French in order to regain the Alsace Lorraine, there was nothing at stake for the British and we should have left the French to win or lose their war alone.

Britain had an alliance with France dating back to 1904 and were honour bound to declare war on Germany. While France wanted its historical provinces returned, Britain wanted Germany’s overseas colonies, and they also were concerned about the growing threat of The High Seas Fleet, which was nearly a match for the Grand Fleet (and had better gunnery). There was a lot at stake for Britain.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

They got their arses kicked 3/3 times, the French were a spent and meaningless force after Verdun and were it not for the Allies the Germans would have defeated them in both 1914, 1917 or 1918.

they got their arses kicked 2/3 times by a militarily, financially, demographically, commercially, and industrially superior nation. 1914 was a French victory. The BEF had 6 divisions in the Battle of the Marne, compared to 65 French and 51 German. Were they the difference? Unlikely. Germany and France had armies of millions fighting, the BEF had 50 000. (BTW, I’ve seen the Marne referred to as ‘The Third Republic’s finest hour’ numerous times.)

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The French were thrown back reeling by the Germans, the only thing that slowed them was that the BEF and Belgiums in the North didn't fall back as fast, thus the front turned as a huge gate with the Germans deep into France in the South while the British barely left Belgium frontier, the attack in '40 was a text book copy except in 40 the Germans ignored the threat to their flanks and hooked around isolating the BEF.

Yep, the 50 000 strong BEF was slowing down the German attack all by itself, right. Fact is they were retreating faster than the French, and would have been in Bighty were it not for an impassioned plea from a French General.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And yes it was a luxury to have an island, we had no reason to be involved in either war and had we stayed out of the first one the French would never have started it and we would have been spared WW2 as well.

Too bad Britain had to sign that secret alliance with the French, they would have avoided WW1. But Germany would likely have replaced them as the preeminent world power. Briatin was just as eager for a fight as France(or any other of the major powers) anyways.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Empires arn't just land, Britian lost almost its whole population of men between 16 and 30, fully 3 percent of the total population of the country died…

This is completely wrong. You keep making things up. There is no way Britain almost lost its whole population of men of military age.
I know Britain had less than 1 000 000 deaths, and with a population of around 50 million, that equals less than 2%.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

…as well as virtually bankrupting itself, by the end of WW1 the end of the empire was just a matter of time.

You could argue that from its inception the demise of the empire was a matter of time. The fact is the empire kept expanding in the interwar years and Britain still led the world in overseas investments. If they hadn’t of turned their backs on Japan in 1921 there might still be British territories in Asia.