Fire with Fire

[Fuchs]

All lost territory recovered.

The Poles beg to differ.
The UK declared war because it had guaranteed Polish sovereignty - a promise broken two weeks later when it didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for its invasion of Eastern Poland. Churchill traded away Polish sovereignty completely to Stalin in iirc Jalta 1943.
The UK had a mission creep away from the original goal and reason of WW2 - and there's a good reason to expect the same kind of "win" in AFG and Iraq. The Crimean War had a similar kind of "win" for the British.


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".

[JMA]

The Poles beg to differ.
The UK declared war because it had guaranteed Polish sovereignty - a promise broken two weeks later when it didn't declare war on the Soviet Union for its invasion of Eastern Poland. Churchill traded away Polish sovereignty completely to Stalin in iirc Jalta 1943.
The UK had a mission creep away from the original goal and reason of WW2 - and there's a good reason to expect the same kind of "win" in AFG and Iraq. The Crimean War had a similar kind of "win" for the British.


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".

Fuchs, its called a Pyrrhic victory

Origin:
A Pyrrhic victory is so called after the Greek king Pyrrhus , who, after suffering heavy losses in defeating the Romans in 279 B.C., said to those sent to congratulate him, "Another such victory over the Romans and we are undone."

Yes and WW1 was such a Pyrrhic victory as well as the Germans and British had ripped the guts out of each other and as if that were not enough they had another go at it in WW2 which totally ripped out what was left out of each other.

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.

[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.

[JMA]

"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.

Choice or no choice the eventual winner out of the WW2 bloodbath was... the Soviets.

[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.

[JMA]

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.

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.

[Ken White]

Darn. That's at least the fourth occasion in my lifetime...

[William F. Owen]

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.

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?

[SJPONeill]

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.

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...

[William F. Owen]

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...

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??

Think you might be on a bit of a hiding to nothing on this one, Wilf...

So you seriously wish to suggest that:
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.