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 26th, 2017, 03:17 PM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,162

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lycurgus View Post
German control of continental Europe = Germany becoming too powerful = Not good for British interests.
Well tbf after WWII the British had already failed at maintaining their eternal objective of preventing one entity from controlling continental Europe. After WWI in the same scenario I think the Brits would have made peace.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Remove Ads
Old September 30th, 2017, 03:11 PM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 8,378

Decolonization was not an exclusively British phenomenon. Both the French and Dutch experienced the same thing, as did Portugal. Decolonization was pretty much inevitable regardless of the European power involved and has its roots that in most cases precede WW2. Britain lost the largest empire but was going to lose it anyway, war or no war.

Having said that (and without any statistics to back it up to hand), I will bet dollars to donuts that the English people as a whole live much better today than before the war, so losers? Not even close.
royal744 is online now  
Old October 1st, 2017, 06:20 AM   #43
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 194

Quote:
Originally Posted by davor View Post
I'm inclined to think that Grest Britain was in fact the biggest loser in the WWII.
In actual fact, Britain won World War II. I saw it on World at War and my grandparents told me. This is actually generally well known.
Warwolf is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 06:36 AM   #44
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2016
From: Greater Manchester
Posts: 194

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl_of_Rochester View Post
The Americans wouldn't have been able or perhaps even willing to mount D-Day
D-Day was a mainly British-conceived-and-led operation.
Warwolf is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 10:48 AM   #45
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Istanbul Turkey
Posts: 183

Soviet Union lost 22 million or some say 28 million dead and although Soviet Bloc extended its military and idological influence to Central Europe that bloc dissolved 45 years later without much after effect. So massive loss of human life and destruction of its territory Soviet Union could claim little in long term.

Germany and Japan were levelled , they lost 6 million people each , their industry infrastructure and urban areas were destroyed and they were totally occupied. None of them could claim their war aims reached quite the opposite happened (Hitler's One Thousand Reich dream from Urals to Atlantic was dead and Japanese Empire was moribund , her Home Islands were in ruins and starved and occupied as well as most of her conquests) Their post war economic miracle were only thanks to Marshall Plan aid and start of Cold War bickering between US and Soviet Union when they were able to strike deals with US under much more favorable terms.

Rest of the Europe was also only saved itself from post war slup and Far Left political pressure thanks to Marshall Aid.

UK though although bankrupted financially by 1945 , won the primary aim of war , liberating Eureope (at least western portion of it) , chased away yet another expansionist Continental dicatorial power close of her shores. (which British considered vital for National Security) After the war she got rid of its colonies which became toxic assets both economically and politically much more efficiently (compared to France and Netherlands and even US if we count Vietnam War involvement) , rehauled its economy and public services and retained some sort of dignity and priorty in western World in military and diplomatic areas as well as other Eurpean countries second only to US. Economic troubles and depression of UK in 1970'ies were more about state interfarence and public sector becoming too powerful and out of control AFTER THE WAR. (during that era US also entered economic stagnation as well)

Colonies becoming semi independent even before the war which only accelerated the process.

Last edited by merdiolu; October 1st, 2017 at 11:01 AM.
merdiolu is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 11:41 AM   #46

jgrooms's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Shawnee
Posts: 358

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwolf View Post
D-Day was a mainly British-conceived-and-led operation.


Who was this Eisenhower dude I’ve read so much about? You can wiki the order of battle or maybe even pull a book off the shelf? But it was in no way “mainly” a British op.,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jgrooms is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:16 PM   #47
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2017
From: Connecticut
Posts: 1,162

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warwolf View Post
D-Day was a mainly British-conceived-and-led operation.
UK's biggest contribution to D-Day was it's territory being used as a preparation/staging base without which the operation wasn't possible. Other than that, UK's involvement really didn't mean the Operation's success or failure. US had more men and resources.
EmperoroftheBavarians43 is online now  
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:17 PM   #48

Rajeev's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2015
From: India
Posts: 461

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
The Empire was dying before the war, the war merely accelerated the process.
As far I can make out, disintegration of Empire became inevitable after WW-2.

Can you please mention 3 or 4 things which signified that Empire was already "dying" before 1939?

Thanks

Rajeev
Rajeev is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:43 PM   #49
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Istanbul Turkey
Posts: 183

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajeev View Post
As far I can make out, disintegration of Empire became inevitable after WW-2.

Can you please mention 3 or 4 things which signified that Empire was already "dying" before 1939?

Thanks

Rajeev
Republic of Ireland was created in 1923

Canada , South Africa , Australia and New Zealand became Dominions in Commonwealth with their own local goverments , parliments , administrations

Indian National Congress formed and full authority of Viceroy was not dominant anymore. India Bill under Congress pressure had a lot of support in Commons in 1930'ies

Gold Standart was abandoned. Pound was floated compared to other foreign currencies.

With Washington Naval Treaty UK first time in her history agreed to limit size of Royal Navy (main military arm of Empire)

During Dardanelles Crisis in 1922 , Dominions (except New Zealand) refused to send troops for on overseas campaign on Londons whim first time. London backed down against Turkish Nationalist Army and British coalition goverment fell

Great Depression and rise of unemployment began to effect war debt repayment schedule to US. Credits of British goverment and banks were affected negatively

Last edited by merdiolu; October 1st, 2017 at 02:18 PM.
merdiolu is offline  
Old October 1st, 2017, 01:50 PM   #50
Archivist
 
Joined: Apr 2014
From: Istanbul Turkey
Posts: 183

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmperoroftheBavarians43 View Post
UK's biggest contribution to D-Day was it's territory being used as a preparation/staging base without which the operation wasn't possible. Other than that, UK's involvement really didn't mean the Operation's success or failure. US had more men and resources.
%55 of Land Forces de embarked on D-Day (6th June) was either British or Canadian. On naval side Royal Navy and RCN had almost %58 of vessels sailed on Normandy shores. Up until 3rd US Army activated on 1 August 1944 British and Canadians had more troops or at least equal margin with US Army in Normandy Campaign. That's why Eisenhower's principal arms commanders in SHEAF were all British ( Montgomery , Leigh-Mallory , Ramsay , Teddler) and main planning was done by Frederic Morgan another British general till May 1943. After 12th Army Group was activated and 6th Army Group landed on Provence on August 1944 overwhelming US manpower and material superiorty became evident and Eisenhower took over land command.

Last edited by merdiolu; October 1st, 2017 at 02:30 PM.
merdiolu 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.