Choice or no choice the eventual winner out of the WW2 bloodbath was... the Soviets.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
Choice or no choice the eventual winner out of the WW2 bloodbath was... the Soviets.
Really? 8-10 million military dead. Probably 10-12 million civilian dead. 10-15% of the population, dead, wounded or starved to death. In comparison, the UK lost less than 1% of its population. The massive expansion in defence commitment meant the USSR was never able to match US prosperity and growth, and it eventually imploded.
The US in comparison, became a global super power, with a huge economy and a prosperous way of life - and at very low casualties comparative to almost everyone else. - less than the UK.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The Soviets (who never gave a damn about their population anyway) were gifted half of Europe on a plate and they too became a global power. Merely the bad ideology (and economics) that led to their implosion 30 years before the USs own implosion started. But as for the Brits they were the real losers (more so than the Germans and the Japanese). But don't feel too bad about it, the US has to listen to what the Chinese boss has to say these days before doing anything.
We're imploding? Again.
Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...
Ken you want to do a little research into the Feb 2010 visit to the US by the Dalai Lama. The concessions made by the White House (no TV coverage, an explanation that they are only meeting him as religious leader etc etc) were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...
What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.
...and a few days ago Washington gave Beijing its cold shoulder when they protested against U.S.-ROK navy manoeuvres in their backyard.
It takes much more to prove your point because you made a quite far-reaching statement, JMA.
Almost all states have major troubles and challenges, and almost all states have to consider the position of other governments in international issues.
That's life. Even Washington woke up and understood it's not really that much "exceptional" as it believed.
Nevertheless, some states are in greater troubles and especially in other forms of troubles than others. The predominant form of troubles are domestic troubles - that's good news, for domestic troubles can be addressed and solved with good policies.
Why would I want to do that?
What happened was quite obvious to all. OTOH, how some happen to wish to take it:is only slightly less obvious....The concessions made by the White House ... were not lost on the rest of the world to be sure.I'm not at all sure that conclusion is correct. The Dalai Lama for example is NOT a world leader, though he may have slightly more moral stature than does the Archbishop of Canterbury -- also not a world leader -- or Jean-Claude Duvalier -- also a former but deposed national leader. The Lama's 'constituency' is larger than that of the latter but is far smaller than that of the former. The Pope OTOH is a world leader and even if the Vatican is tiny, he's still in charge of it for now...What is of course interesting is that China obviously believes it "owns" enough of the US to dictate which world leaders the US should invite to the White House. Should be a source of major concern.
As for the "own," yep, they do own a lot of paper -- and they have a very strong interest in that paper being worth something. They also really like the US import market a bunch. Thus, they'll express their opinions and feelings but they won't push too hard. At the risk of stereotyping, Orientals are quite correctly noted for shrewd bargaining. So, come to think of it are Persians.
The amount of accord those Chinese opinions are given will vary. That's partly dependent on which US domestic lobby is ascendant in Washington at the time (pro or anti China) and partly on the collegiality quotient of the Administration in office. In the case of the Dalai Lama, both those aspects were in congruence for a minor, almost cost free kow-tow in China's favor.
Sort of like the bow to Hu -- or Abdullah. Don't read to much into bowing. Or kow-towing. Or into apparent economic demise; we've been there before. Disappointed all the wishful thinkers before, likely will this time and a few more times. Implosion will certainly eventually occur but not in my lifetime. I strongly doubt it will occur in your lifetime and probably not that of your children if any.
The recipient of the bow below is the Mayor of Tampa, Florida, a mid size city not in China. She also is not a world leader. She does lead a city whose MSA population is about on par with that of all Tibet...
Last edited by Ken White; 10-27-2011 at 01:20 AM.
The Dalai Lama has magnificent moral stature... probably more that the combined total of all national leaders put together. The problem is when coming from a western culture where "everything is negotiable" we tend to elect slime-balls like us as presidents and prime ministers rather than men of moral stature and integrity. Britain has an excuse as the cream of Britain were killed off in the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars. Some countries don't have this excuse.
Well that's a very odd (poorly informed) view of Strategic history. To suggest that Germany and Japan were better off than the UK is palpable rubbish, as is the idea that the US listens to anything China has to say.
By any measure you care to choose, from a strategic stand-point the US benefited greatly more than the Soviets from WW2 - and at vastly less cost.
By 1960, the UK had the world's 2nd/3rd largest Navy, nuclear Weapons, the 2nd/3rd most powerful Army in NATO, a growing population, and was a G5 nation. - not bad of a country facing a solitary existential battle a mere 20 years early.
Yes, the German and Japanese economies did benefit from being rebuilt from scratch. So what? Part of a plan? No! Which of those nations could compete with France, the UK, or the US for strategic relevance, 20-or even 30 years after the end of war?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
What is a "Hamster Moment"?
Wilf, JMA; you both have very odd world views.
Example: A large army is a cost, not an achievement in my opinion.
To me, countries consist of many individuals who have needs and preferences. Security (this includes freedom/liberty), health and material consumption are indicators of a good life.
Being part of a powerful nation or a well-armed nation has yet to be proved to be a positive factor in average quality of life. In fact, both can very well be considered to be detrimental to material consumption and in some examples even to security and health.
Besides, Wilf; the Germans and Japanese did not benefit from rebuilding from scratch at all. That's a myth. It took hard work and privations to catch up and then both simply continued their superior economic development of the earlier decades. Post-1960 Germany was as clearly in a superior industrial development than the UK as it was in 1880-1914.
.
It's a cost if you cannot use it. Large armies are instruments of strategy. If you wish to the strategically relevant, you need a large army - and Navy.
All of which is why I defer to Strategic history and not social history, but Strategic history does encompass cost. Having a big/capable Army and being able to fund it, is a requirement of being strategically relevant.Being part of a powerful nation or a well-armed nation has yet to be proved to be a positive factor in average quality of life. In fact, both can very well be considered to be detrimental to material consumption and in some examples even to security and health.
It's not a myth. Yes both Germany and Japan were industrially capable nations prior to 1939, but there was massive benefits to zeroing the economy and having the vast majority of the infrastructure rebuilt. Yes, it did take a lot of hard work and privation, but at the material level it also had substantial benefits. Just look at the differences in power plants between German and the UK in the 1960's.Besides, Wilf; the Germans and Japanese did not benefit from rebuilding from scratch at all. That's a myth.
Worth the cost in the human life? Not in my opinion. As I said, it wasn't part of a plan.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
a) You misunderstood "cost" and "net cost". A use of a tool cannot delete its costs.
b) Actually, power plant infrastructure did not take much damage in WW2 - the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey Europe clearly understood this mistake in '45. We had a powerplant of 1912 running in Eastern Germany in 1990...it hadn't been modernised once.
Any modernity advantage of the German economy and infrastructure in the 1960's was the result of low consumption (and correspondingly high investment), not of the war itself.
Look at Spain, Eastern Europe, France - those countries took much damage and did not modernise as much as Germany, Italy (even higher growth rates than germany) and Japan did.
The Americans used the still extraordinary situation of 1945 to follow a low consumption path in the late 40's in order to reduce the extremely high New Deal+WW2 debt.
The British never seemed to recognise the necessity of such drastic saving for macroeconomic problem solving - neither when they lost industrial leadership around 1900 nor to pay off WW1 debt, nor to fend off the 29-33 crisis nor to pay back WW2 debt. And I assume they won't do it now even though the present economic and fiscal imbalances call for it.
Out of all that stuff being a G5 nation maybe counts for something.
A solitary battle? Oh, please...!! Solitary except for the support it got from the Dominions...you know...Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, plus India, and all the soldiers, sailors and airmen from Occupied Europe and the support that was already starting to trickle across the Atlantic...poor little England standing alone? Yeah, right...that's gratitude for you...
And if you take samples at every twenty years from 1940 i.e. 1960, 1980 and 2000, all you see is a steady decline to a nation with no (real) carriers, the shadow of an air force and an army that struggles to keep a brigade deployed on operations...
Read what I wrote. "IF". So if Britain had been invaded and surrendered in 1940/41, the dominions would have fought on?
Didn't happen in France. Troops not in the UK would have been operationally irrelevant.
The dominions would have become de-facto independent nations with no interest in liberating the UK, and struggling for their own existence. Canada is the possible exception, but it lacked the means and manpower to do much.
Not arguing with that. Actually, you see a sharp rise and then a sharp decline, after about 1956. Yes the UK became less strategically relevant, relative to those in it's league (US,UK, USSR, France, and China).And if you take samples at every twenty years from 1940 i.e. 1960, 1980 and 2000, all you see is a steady decline to a nation with no (real) carriers, the shadow of an air force and an army that struggles to keep a brigade deployed on operations...
WW2 substantially altered the world strategic map, but I fall of my chair open mouthed, if someone tries to convince me that the main benefactor of WW2 was the Soviet Union.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Yea, out here in the colonies we were taken somewhat for granted.
I see they have given a proper burial to some Brit and Digger bodies found recently in a mass grave in France. RIP brothers. See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10679715
Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-20-2010 at 06:48 AM. Reason: Link added by Moderator
Those figures are only relevant if the government in questioned cared - history before and after WW2 would suggest that the Soviet Government couldn't have given a fat rat's about its people so long as it had enough of them to soak up German momentum.
Further , one might argue that had the Soviet Government not played so fast and loose with its people i.e. not purged out anyone who could think for themselves, then it very much might have kept pace in the Cold War and the Reagan Doctrine would not have had much to get a foothold in...
Think you might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing on this one, Wilf...
So when do the playing the fast and loose stop and start? So how does that make the Soviet Union the main beneficiary of WW2??
So you seriously wish to suggest that:Think you might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing on this one, Wilf...
a.) The Soviet Union was not severely harmed by WW2?
b.) It strategically benefited from having fought it more than the US?
I fully concur the Soviet Union had no choice but to fight - because of its massive strategic errors, but to stop the clock in June 45, and state that the USSR was "better off," than say the US, is very far fetched. - especially as for the US it was a "discretionary war."
The US went from being an almost strategically irrelevant, barely post industrially depressed nation, to a world super power in 5 years. As a "beneficiary" of WW2, the USSR cannot make that claim.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The Soviets picked up half of Europe as a gift from the Roosevelt and Churchill. That was really significant given where they were in 1939. That they made less of the opportunity than the US did through the Marshall Plan is another issue.
The US set about making money and the Soviets set about spreading their ideology. The US made zillions and the Soviets caused millions of deaths. Yalta was a disaster.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks