OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.
Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that
you are ignoring or not grasping.
- GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
- GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.
- GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
- Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.
- GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.
- GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.
Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth, on its own, could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance,
even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.
Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region? You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning?