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

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 22nd, 2017, 06:09 AM   #21

Willempie's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Netherlands
Posts: 4,042

Originally Posted by Baldtastic View Post
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).
The Baltics may have had it one step worse.
Willempie is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 22nd, 2017, 08:35 PM   #22
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,163

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.
Worst is the lose the war and lose the peace; better is to win the war and lose the peace, better is to lose the war and win the peace, better is to win the war and win the peace, and best of all is to totally avoid the war.

As for winning and losing during World war II, with no consideration of the peace afterwards:

Poland lost 16.93 to 17.22 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Lithuania lost 14.36 percent of its total prewar population killed.
The USSR lost 13.7 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Latvia lost 12.5 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Germany lost 8.26 to 8.86 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Estonia lost 7.3 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Greece lost 7.02 to 11.17 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Yugoslavia lost 6.63 to 10.97 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Hungary lost 6.18 percent of its total prewar population killed.
Japan lost 3.50 to 4.34 of its total prewar population killed.
Romania lost 3.13 percent of its total prewar population killed.
China lost 2.90 to 3.86 of its total prewar population killed.
Albania lost 2.80 percent of its total prewar population killed.

And so on and so on until we come to the UK that lost "merely" 0.94 percent of its prewar population killed.


So according to this measure the UK was not one of the biggest losers of World War Two.
MAGolding is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 02:22 AM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 757

Originally Posted by funakison View Post
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]
Yes, well everybody seems to have forgotten this. One could perhaps argue for WW1 being the death knell for British power more than any other major event.
I recall a claim that the British Establishment had accepted the independence of its greatest possession, India. Was inevitable, by the early 1930's. With only the 'nutter' Churchill being vehemently opposed to the notion.
Britain lauded power in the 19th century upon the basis of being the world's center for finance and trade. It had been the "workshop of the world" until the end of the 19th century.
Imperialistic Britain only existed because these powers made it a 'fact' in the 19th century. Rather than it ever being the ideal of a nation supposedly devoted to democratic principles.
You wanted 'stuff' in the 19th century? You wanted expertise in the 19th century? You knocked on London's door! This gave the leverage. Things did not bode well for you then, if you have a bone to pick with Britain.
In the latter 19th century the American's were laying rails produced in the British workshop and financed by the same.
Empires and nations only exist because there is an economic benefit in the trade and production within the realm. The Western Roman Empire fell because the reason for its existence. Production and Trade had already vanished.
Things were still looking good for the continence of the Empire in the late 19th century. Then gold was the essential in financial power. And Britain had made a good stab at having a good set of the world's gold producing regions within its realm.
Then the new baby appeared....Oil! Black gold! America became the world's major producer and hence the nation with the all important leverage. The British had missed out on control of oil productive areas. Post WW1 the attempted dominance of Iraq was the last major British grab for any sort of world power. In the 1920's British finance had become dependent on largeness from the American federal reserve. The British pound was half backed by the largeness of the Federal Reserve. When dominance of Iraq failed, everything failed with it. Look here for the basis of the financial crisis of 1929. Poor Iraq of course suffered not one, but two periods of Western grabs for its oil provenance. Most people forget the first one!
Britain as the leading world power between the wars was a fiction that everybody still believed in, even the Americans! WW2 finally dismissed the fiction!
You only have power while you control the sources of power! As Cersei Lannister explained to Little Finger, "power is power!"
Now if we only had a more fascist Britain, then things might have been different!
Unfortunately the glories and pomp and circumstance of a more fascist Britain only remain in fiction land....but one can still dream!
I Mr. Higson remain a last believer in the glories of a fascist Britain! With Cersei Lannister as my Queen! Can anyone organize a date with her? Oddly enough I am 'straight' you know!
But power alone is not enough! It also requires imagination. And this why the American Empire is all balls up at each every moment. They lack imagination, and that is why they fail and each and every turn! And imagination requires passion and the Americans aren't noted for that either.
And this my friends, is why the world is doomed!
The will to survive, the will to power! Cannot be found in the naive maid of political correctness!

Mr Higson is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 03:13 AM   #24

Corvidius's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2017
From: Crows nest
Posts: 1,703

Originally Posted by Willempie View Post
DDR and leveled cities?
DDR was a paradise on which the Sun shined everyday.
Corvidius is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 03:49 AM   #25
Joined: Sep 2017
From: Angevin Empire
Posts: 3

I think to a greater extent Britain was not the biggest loser of the war. We must clear that in fact the biggest losers after Germany, were the Eastern European nations were then subjected, not only to recovering from them mass destruction that the invading Nazis had brought but also the complete control over them by the USSR after the war. The USSR prevented their economic and political development, with free elections hindered and much of their culture prohibited in favour of apparent superior Soviet culture.

Britain did come out of the war in less than a great shape, with its empire gradually decreasing and it require much American financial assistance to keep its economy afloat, it was still able to advance the ideas of the welfare state and establish a brilliant National Health Service.
Castlereagh is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 04:40 AM   #26

Willempie's Avatar
Joined: Jul 2015
From: Netherlands
Posts: 4,042

Originally Posted by Corvidius View Post
DDR was a paradise on which the Sun shined everyday.
If you havent seen it already this one is a must see in this regard.
Goodbye Lenin
Good Bye Lenin! (2003) - IMDb
Willempie is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 04:46 AM   #27

Naomasa298's Avatar
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 30,722

Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
better is to win the war and lose the peace
Is it really? How'd that work out in Iraq?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 04:52 AM   #28
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Durham
Posts: 1,061

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?
My thoughts are that whether or not you have a few colonies here and there, does not determine win or lose status.

We were a winner. Not financially, but because the ideas that we feel matter were not supplanted by diametrically opposed ideas.

It was inevitable that we would forge a relationship with the Americans because they broadly see it how we do. We were never going to be able to forge such a relationship with say Germany or France.

Our influence around the world was always going to diminish sooner or later, given that we're a small nation, and the process began around the 1870s when larger nations adopting similar methods came to the fore.

Every nation has allies, that's understandable. Actually, prior to the United States becoming a powerful nation we didn't really have what you would call anything approaching reliable allies due to no one seeing it like we did. We were able to arrive at a business arrangement with the French where we carved up bits of Africa between us; but it was always on shaky ground because of a divergence in political philosophy.

We can sit down with the Americans, and while we may not agree with the methods, and Iraq springs to mind here; we do agree on a liberal, market philosophy and in terms of allies, that base thought upon which your policies flow is the most important thing in terms of reaching an agreement.
Peaceful is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 09:13 AM   #29
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 2,163

Originally Posted by Naomasa298 View Post
Is it really? How'd that work out in Iraq?
That's better than losing the war and losing the peace. At least you win one of them. And as the rest of ht statement said:

"...better is to win the war and win the peace, and best of all is to totally avoid the war."
MAGolding is offline  
Old September 23rd, 2017, 11:53 AM   #30

sailorsam's Avatar
Joined: Oct 2016
From: Merryland
Posts: 688

WWII destroyed Japan and Germany as they existed. five years later they were basket cases. fifty years later they had recovered, but I can't say the war was a positive development for them.

WWII Italy suffered but not as much as above.

WWII USSR suffered greatly and it took years for them to recover, even after winning on the battlefield (of course if they had lost they would have ceased to exist).

WWII USA came out stronger and more confident but did lose many lives and a fair amount of treasure.

Don't know about the Baltics but Scandinavia suffered a gloomy occupation and the usual disruptions of war.

WWII British Empire; though they won on the battlefield they would lose many of their colonies, most notably India and Malaysia. The people in those countries lost faith in London as the enlightened white father and did not rest until the Brits got pushed out. this defenestration might have been inevitable but the war speeded things.

I remember reading a piece on Malaysia; the understanding was that England would rule over but also protect, but they could not stop the Japanese, and the brits jumped ship when invaded and the Malays suffered. so they had no desire to welcome John Bull back postwar. loss of faith.

so imho nobody 'won'. some lost worse than others.

+1 on Poland being the real loser. ironic as France/Britain declared war supposedly to save them.
France was also a loser. They lost their country, suffered occupation, and lost colonies same as the Brits. as I understand it a fair amount of people in places like Viet Nam welcomed the Japanese, at least initially.

Holland got occupied and ended up losing Indonesia.

Last edited by sailorsam; September 23rd, 2017 at 12:00 PM. Reason: clarify intelligent observation
sailorsam is offline  

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

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 12:19 PM
Biggest weapons and equipment mistakes in WWII Number24 War and Military History 339 July 17th, 2016 02:47 AM
What was the bigger loss for Britain? WWI or WWII? thesaintoftheinternet European History 81 July 30th, 2015 01:41 PM
Biggest Egos in WWII FailWhale War and Military History 18 January 18th, 2015 12:26 PM
Italy Versus Britain Without Commonwealth or US Help in WWII, Who Would Win? Italian Commando Speculative History 421 June 22nd, 2013 02:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.