Anyone else up watching things unfold?

"Limited" help? I don't disagree that the Russians swung the balance
and that the US provided much of the logistics, but both the UK and US
paid heavily in lives, as did the Russians obviously, and the British
Empire was pretty much sacrificed to the cause. The UK was bankrupt
after the war and we only finished paying some of the war loans (to the
US) in recent years. "Limited"? I would say that pretty much all
involved paid very heavily.

 

The wayback machine isn't coughing up anything useful.

 

Not really comparable. From memory, total UK losses were something
like 500,000. The Russians lost 25 million.

The Empire was declining anyway.

Still paying, apparently.

 

"Limited" help? I don't disagree that the Russians swung the balance

Champ muttered

I've read estimates of Russian losses as high as 29 million, but you
have to realise that that is an overall loss in the period. Many, many
millions of those were killed by the Russians themselves. And of
course the overall populations of the two nations were also very
different. I'm not sure of the per capita loss rate, though the
Russian one will still be higher.

True, but nevertheless, the war speeded that process up.

I thought the final payments had been made in the last couple of years?
Not certain, but wibble.

Anyhoo, my (admittedly pedantic) point was that while the cost to the
UK may have less than the Russians, it wasn't "limited". The 39-45 war
involved pretty much every citizen of the UK to some degree, either
through direct action in the forces, being affected by enemy action in
the UK, working for war effort or losing family members.

 

The Russians used somewhat dubious tactics in order to up their body
count: forced on by officers and Commissars who would shoot them if
they stopped or turned back, the Russian soldiers advanced in open
order across fields offering no cover.

Only the front row was armed, as they didn't have enough weapons to go
round. As the front row was cut down by German machine-gun fire, the
hitherto unarmed soldiers behind would pick up the weapon from their
dead comrade and continue to advance.

By throwing huge numbers of (literally) cannon fodder forward, the
Russians would therefore take German positions by sheer weight of
numbers. Dead numbers.

Heftily.

 

He was "only trolling"

 

Business as usual then.

 

Relative to our size we probably gave an *immense* amount.

Russia's contribution was massive *and* they had a culture where
taking casulaties was accepted. (Thanks to Stalin, I guess.)

92 per cent of German casualties were on the Eastern front. I think
that tells you all you need to know.

Russian one will still be higher.

Per capita is irrelevant. If Jersey had fought and lost it's whole
population it would have made little difference to German progress.

UK may have less than the Russians, it wasn't "limited".

I wasn't talking about cost. However if you measure military success
in dead Germans then UK/US contribution was 8 per cent. Whether or not
we put a label of limited on it is up to you.

I'm immensely proud of *all* Britain's actions in WW2. The best way we
can honour our heros is to be honest about them!

Which is a matter of pride! And we suffered bombing which the yanks
and aussies didn't. However to equal Russia's contribution we'd have
had to kill off half our poulation during a struggle on mainland
europe over several years.

We didn't.

Isn't Africa; the Battle of Britain; the Battle of the Atlantic and
our part in D day enough for you? Or do you feel that if we didn't win
the whole thing single handed it was an empty achievement?

We can't re write history just because Stalin was a c**t.

 

So, say the Russians kill 10m of their own people, they still lost 15m
at a conservative estimate, which is still 14.5m more than the
British.

Dodger posted the data a few days ago.

 

Des muttered

Since I have the Concise Oxford here on my desk, would you like the
verbatim entry?

Superpower. Noun. Any of the few most powerful and influential nations
of the world.

Bzzzt! You're *still* wrong. Britain was most assuredly one of the
most powerful and influential. Thus, a Superpower.

And they let you teach other people? <shakes head in despair at the
recklessness of the French>

 

DannyBoy muttered

SNIP

"Contribition" can be defined in many ways in addition to lives lost.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

Eh? What are you on about?

 

So, say the Russians kill 10m of their own people, they still lost
15m

Sure. There were many times more Russian dead and I'm not sure why
this is so difficult. I'm not attempting to suggest the contribution
of the UK was "more valuable" than the Russians in any way. It's
straight forward - take away any invidious comparisons, simply the UK
contribution was not "limited" as was suggested. Smaller, sure. But
not limited.

 

So you're saying a word can't be used to describe something that
existed before that word was first used? Have you any idea how
ridiculous that sounds?

 

Wrong. When the word was coined, the UK did not come into that
category.

Oh ferfuxsake. In 1922, the UK was *still* one of the world's most
influential nations. So, it could have been described as a Superpower
contemporaneously. And even if that were not the case, then we can
still apply terms retrospectively. Or are you now making up your own
rules for English, like you make up almost everything else?

They let you teach kids? Great. If all teachers in France are like
you, France is doomed which should put a smile on almost everybody's
face.

 

Desmond Coughlan says...

Says the Irishman brought up in Scotland.

It may be occupied by another nation, or selling out to a European
governing body, but it will always be France. You're welcome to it.

 

They get what they deserve.

 

Des muttered

Hysterical? Nothing so dramatic. Simply enjoying watching you twist
and turn like a..... twisty turny thing.

So your latest tack seems to be "comparison". The UK - as was - was
less powerful than the US - as is - therefore somehow this disqualifies
it from having been a superpower. Masterly. This holds even less
water than your last position.

However. Let's finish this.

<commentator's voice, sotto voce: "And as Wegg readies his serve for
match point, Coughlin fidgets nervously on the base line, having failed
to score a single point in this entire match">

You earlier made quite a fuss about the 1943 book "The Superpowers" by
WTR Fox as the basis of your theory that the UK couldn't be a
Superpower..

Now then, it occurred to me that I know someone who would probably have
a copy of that very book, so I emailed him and asked him if he did, and
if so to check out a certain point in it for me. Which he did, and
he's confirmed my suspicion. WTR Fox stated in his book that there
were _three_ Superpowers. The US. The USSR. And the UK.

<Commentator: Yes! It's _another_ ace! Game, Set and Match!
Coughlin never even saw the ball! >

Bye-bye, Des. It's been emotional.

 

No, *massive* help in materiel. manpower they had. The Russian aircraft
industry, for example, was hugely reliant on US aluminium.

to join in.

Neither side' joined in'. It's debatable whether either would have, had
not Hitler declared war first on one, then on the other.

No. One out of three correct. ;-)

 

Fuggin 'ell Des!

 

Indeed but to be honest, I was referring more to you being a sad delusional
fuckwit!