And yet the army was built up and arms manufacturing was built up, at the expense of food production. Troops and tanks were being sent to Africa, even as Germany looked poised to in invade Britian. Yes, it was tight, but Britain was in it to win, not defend. British production outstripped Germany and when the Empire was included, it was vastly superior. It took time to ramp up, but Britain wasn't facing defeat. The tonnage of ships controlled and owned by Britain actually increased (though numbers fell), and additionally those controlled by not owned by Britain also helped. The actual loses weren't that big. In a bad patch, Nov 1940 to June 1941 it was 3.4%. There were later times when it reached similar rates. The British diet was vastly better than those on the continent by and large. Britain wasn't starving.
You're promoting a false dichotomy: "If you're fighting for victory, you can't be fighting for survival".
In WWII if you weren't victorious, you didn't survive. The governments of Hitler? Mussolini? Antonescu? Even Tiso? Japan did keep it's emperor, but he was always a figurehead and Japan's governance was heavily reformed.
