Fire with Fire

[Fuchs]

Hmm, considering the war goals of September 1939, the UK lost the European WW2 in Jalta 1943 - and that can be attributed to Dunkirk.

With the same forgiving criteria that count WW2 as a UK win, you could also say that Irak was a UK win despite Basra - and the who knows how much the goals in AFG will be redefined...

[William F. Owen]

With the same forgiving criteria that count WW2 as a UK win, you could also say that Irak was a UK win despite Basra - and the who knows how much the goals in AFG will be redefined...

WW2 was a "UK Win," albeit part of a coalition. All lost territory recovered. Unconditional surrender of the enemy. Yes, the strategic environment changed, but the UK was on the militarily successful side, and in the vast majority of cases UK formations destroyed the enemy formations it faced, both in Europe. Africa and Asia.

[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.