Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 21st, 2017, 01:23 PM   #11

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,416
Blog Entries: 19
Wait a minute ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by davor View Post
I'm inclined to think that Grest Britain was in fact the biggest loser in the WWII. Not only that the country suffered tremendous loses, but also, they had to give up colonies and dismantle the British Empire. Its influence has diminished as USA took its place as the most powerful country in the world, and Brits had to forge a good relation with USA and depended heavily on being allies with USA. What are your thoughts on this?
May be ... wait a hour ...

Great Britain didn't become "Little Britain" and the country recovered.

If you want to indicate the great loser of WWII ... there was a great and powerful country which had divided under the administration of different powers ... you know ... a country called "Germany".
AlpinLuke is online now  
Remove Ads
Old September 21st, 2017, 01:25 PM   #12

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Romānia
Posts: 6,192
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Better to lose the war and win the peace than to win the war and lose the peace, I reckon.
Would you preferred it if the UK was the one who got nuked twice?
Offspring is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 01:25 PM   #13
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,168

Legit arguments for being biggest loser. Are you referring to just the winners though, cause I do think it's hard to put them above the Germans?


USA(none)
USSR(look how many people they lost)
France(Hitler got to take a selfie in front of the Eiffel tower/were partially annexed)
UK(really only survived the Nazi's because of the USA and geography. Had to give up most of their colonies and superpowerdom within a decade of the end of WWII)

The German and Japanese arguments really speak for the themselves.

Also the UK's "tremendous losses" IMO isn't really accurate. UK didn't even lose half a million people which isn't that bad seeing the circumstances they were in(and the USSR, German and Japanese losses). Only major belligerent who lost less than the UK was the US.

UK didn't even lose 1% of their population in the war, compared to 2%+ in WWI. Blitz might have made the war more terrible for civilians but as a matter of math/UK as an entity, the Brits suffered far less loss of life than in the First World War.

Would also agree with redcoat's case that successfully recovering from a conflict doesn't mean you won, it means you did positive stuff in peacetime. For example look at the Thirty Years War, did Germany rebound, sure they did but it'd be difficult to make an argument that they'd be worse off with that third plus of their population they lost.

The whole "what didn't kill me makes me stronger" argument honestly is really flawed IMO.

If you replace WWII in the title of this thread with "20th century", then you've got a much better case.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 01:51 PM   #14
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: Netherlands
Posts: 852

I would say the biggest loser of WW2 was Poland. I am rather surprised Poland hasn't even been mentioned in this thread.

The country was devastated by two totalitarian regimes with losses per capita like no other country.

And when the war was finally over it was turned into a satellite state for another 45 years.
CPTANT is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 01:52 PM   #15

notgivenaway's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2015
From: UK
Posts: 5,056

Germany, the US, France, USSR, Japan all had more to gain and more room to make gains in the peace. The USA had its infrastructure intact, but then pre-war was already the biggest economy and trading country. It knew that after the war ended it would be the top dog. Churchill and Attlee knew this, but both Attlee and Truman knew they needed each other to fight the USSR and communism.

The UK's mistake post-war was not to modernise its standards and industry. France and Germany, and Italy to a big extent, had no choice since they all suffered major war damage. There is a big reason why byy 1970, France and Germany had become bigger economies than the UK in GDP terms. As a tangent, people today even after she died moan about Thatcher, but somebody like her was needed in the UK at the time.
notgivenaway is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 02:23 PM   #16

davor's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Europe
Posts: 80

Nice inputs there. Just to make it clear, when I said the biggest loser, I meant geopolitically.
davor is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 02:24 PM   #17

Wolfpaw's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: Second City
Posts: 1,250

No, that would be France, which lost WWII twice.
Wolfpaw is offline  
Old September 21st, 2017, 02:29 PM   #18
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,168

Quote:
Originally Posted by davor View Post
Nice inputs there. Just to make it clear, when I said the biggest loser, I meant geopolitically.
Hmm. Still I'd think this would be a 20th century discussion.

In that case it'd be the following.
1)Germany
1)Japan
3)Italy
4)France(they and UK got a UN security council vote)
5)UK(I'd say they were bigger losers after Suez)

With the US and USSR of course being winners who left the war in better shape than when they started(geopolitical like you said).

If Poland is indeed part of this discussion(rather than just major powers), Poland soars to number 1. I think being stuck between the Germans and Soviets(and losing a larger population share than any other country involved) is the worst WWII outcome a country involved faced, by a pretty wide margin, especially seeing that they ended up in worse shape(Serbia suffered horrible losses in terms of share of population but at least they got their pan slavic dreams fulfilled, rather than a half century of Soviet domination). Yep Poland by a landslide.

Last edited by EmperoroftheBavarians43; September 21st, 2017 at 02:35 PM.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is offline  
Old September 22nd, 2017, 05:50 AM   #19
Baldgustus of Baldistan
 
Joined: Aug 2009
From: Londinium
Posts: 4,612

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPTANT View Post
I would say the biggest loser of WW2 was Poland. I am rather surprised Poland hasn't even been mentioned in this thread.

The country was devastated by two totalitarian regimes with losses per capita like no other country.

And when the war was finally over it was turned into a satellite state for another 45 years.
Total agreement. Many nations were part of the USSR after '45 but many of these had an active role in the fighting, either with the allies or axis. Poland, on the other hand, was occupied from 1939-c.1990.

Or to put it crudely, everyone got screwed during WW2, at least some got the chance to fight for one or another (and not as partisans or Free Poles).
Baldtastic is online now  
Old September 22nd, 2017, 06:22 AM   #20

funakison's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 5,305
Blog Entries: 1

The winding up of the British empire had nothing to do with WWII, but began as early as 1931.

From wiki

The Statute of Westminster 1931 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and modified versions of it are now domestic law within Australia and Canada; it has been repealed in New Zealand and implicitly in former Dominions that are no longer Commonwealth realms. Passed on 11 December 1931, the act,[2] either immediately or upon ratification, effectively both established the legislative independence of the self-governing Dominions of the British Empire from the United Kingdom and bound them all to seek each other's approval for changes to monarchical titles and the common line of succession. It thus became a statutory embodiment of the principles of equality and common allegiance to the Crown set out in the Balfour Declaration of 1926. It was a crucial step in the development of the Dominions as separate states.
The Statute of Westminster's relevance today is that it sets the basis for the continuing relationship between the Commonwealth realms and the Crown.[3]
funakison is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
biggest, britain, loser, wwii



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Osvobozhdenie/Liberation - Biggest WWII Film Ever Earl_of_Rochester History in Films and on Television 13 August 25th, 2017 01:19 PM
Biggest weapons and equipment mistakes in WWII Number24 War and Military History 339 July 17th, 2016 03:47 AM
What was the bigger loss for Britain? WWI or WWII? thesaintoftheinternet European History 81 July 30th, 2015 02:41 PM
Biggest Egos in WWII FailWhale War and Military History 18 January 18th, 2015 01:26 PM
Italy Versus Britain Without Commonwealth or US Help in WWII, Who Would Win? Italian Commando Speculative History 421 June 22nd, 2013 03:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.