Fire with Fire

[William F. Owen]

Btw, I personally dislike the inflationary use of "victory" in history books.
How could a nation be a "winner" if it took more damage than it had advantages because of its involvement in a war? Most "victories" in war sound rather like "enemy defeated" to me, not like actual "winning".

A bankrupt Britain then had to borrow from the US to keep solvent (the debt having only been paid off in the last 5 years I think) and had to dismantle her empire post haste whatever the consequences and the end of rationing did not happen until 1954 when meat rationing was finally lifted. So yes some victory that was.

"Lost territory" as in British Lost Territory. Remember the British WW2 included fighting Japan.

Victory? I have little opinion as to what you call it. Lets us says "Hamster Moment." In both WW1 and 2, the UK was reacting to German aggression, and an existential threat - in terms of the cost of "not winning." The same was true with Napoleon. "Hamster Moments" in 1815, 1918, and 1945 ensured - as war always should- that French and German Policy were not effectively set forth. Cost? Yes it costs. In neither case was there a choice.