Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do understand don't you that most of the Allied troops landing on those beaches in Normandy in 1944 were NOT American right? Or did you get your history from Saving Private Ryan?
The Americans got the most crap on Omaha beach and the Canadians got their share on Juno facing up to the 12th SS Panzer, a fanatical group of Hitler Youth types who executed 100 Canadian POWs on or the day after D-Day
You do understand don't you that most of the Allied troops landing on those beaches in Normandy in 1944 were NOT American right? Or did you get your history from Saving Private Ryan?
Americans comprised 47% of the troops landing on D-day, not "most", but close. The British provided 39%.
In my post, I used the term "military capability" not number of troops. My choice of words was no accident. The US provided huge amounts of military material to Britain via programs like Lend Lease. Without this material support, some doubt there would have been an allied invasion. Or if there was, it may have ended like the BEF disaster.
Also, D-day was just the first day of the invasion. By the beginning of 1945, of the 73 allied divisions in Europe, 49 were American and 12 were British.
Last edited by Wayfarerz; 08-15-2023 at 05:33 PM..
During the second half of 1941 Stalin at one point seriously considered handing over parts of the Soviet Union to the Germans in exchange for peace. After Pearl Harbour Stalin (who was nobody's fool) knew that now America was in the war the Germans would be fighting a two front war and with America's industrial might now at hand it was only a matter of time before Germany was finished and that was one reason that he decided to fight on.
There were other reasons of course but when Germany declared war on the United States both Stalin and Churchill broke out the champagne and cigars
That may all be true, but the eastern front consumed so much of the German war machine – I'm talking like three quarters of the German war effort. It accounts for almost half of the total worldwide fatalities of WW2. By the end of 1941 the Germans were on the way to losing the war it was just a matter of how long they could hold out. It's not realistic, imo, to assume Germany was going to defeat the Soviets and also occupy vast tracts of western Europe. There is no doubt that the entry of America into WW2 changed the course of the war but I don't think it changed the destination.
I think what was more decisive was that America's industrial might allowed it to fight the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. The Soviets and the British were already producing 2-3x more war machinery than the Germans by 1942 a fact that is often overlooked. By sheer weight of men and machinery the Soviets would have eventually crushed the Germans.
[quote=BCC_1;65696776]That may all be true, but the eastern front consumed so much of the German war machine – I'm talking like three quarters of the German war effort. It accounts for almost half of the total worldwide fatalities of WW2. By the end of 1941 the Germans were on the way to losing the war it was just a matter of how long they could hold out. It's not realistic, imo, to assume Germany was going to defeat the Soviets and also occupy vast tracts of western Europe. There is no doubt that the entry of America into WW2 changed the course of the war but I don't think it changed the destination.
I think what was more decisive was that America's industrial might allowed it to fight the war in Europe and the war in the Pacific. The Soviets and the British were already producing 2-3x more war machinery than the Germans by 1942 a fact that is often overlooked. By sheer weight of men and machinery the Soviets would have eventually crushed the Germans.[/QUOTE
The biggest mistake made after the invasion of the Soviet Union was the policy laid down in the matter of treatment of the newly occupied people. The Ukrainians and large numbers of Russians had no love for Stalin or the Soviet Union but instead the Nazis treated them as "non-Ayrians of the Slav race. The Red Army in 1941 was no match for the Wehrmacht. Stalin had purged many of it's officers in the 1930s and as history shows it was in full retreat for months. The death squads which followed the advancing Wehrmacht however soon changed the attitude of the disenfranchised and it became a clear choice in fighting for a hated Communist regime against a regime that was even far more worse.
Germany's industrial output was seriously put back by the round the clock bombings of its factories by the RAF and USAF and that was fortunate to say the least since the Nazis had managed to produce some fearsome weapons. Imagine swarms of Me262 fighter jets intercepting squadrons of B-17s and Lancasters. I doubt even the P-47 Mustang could have saved them. Many vets of the Allied Armoured Brigades had horror stories to tell of their encounters with the Tigers in service with the Panzers. The V-1 and V-2 rockets had they been produced in the thousands could have wreaked havoc on the battlefield. Such weapons in very large numbers could have turned the tide for Germany on the eastern front in 1943/44.
We can thank the airmen of the RAF and USAF for preventing this from happening and they paid for it tragically in very large numbers
You didn't provide a specific source for your numbers, but I believe they came from James Heappey (a British Armed Forces Minister) so let's use his numbers.
First, you represented the $40 billion cost as the cost of the Afghan conflict in your earlier post, but now you're presenting it as the cost of the conflicts in Afghanistan AND Iraq. You can't just add in the costs of other wars.
Heappey states the UK cost of the Afghan conflict as 22.2 billion UKP over 20 years. This works out to average 1.11 billion UKP per year. At today's exchange rate, this is equivalent $1.41 billion per year.
The UK GDP in 2018 (I had to pick some year's GDP) was $2.878 trillion which means the UK cost of the Afghan conflict was only 0.05% of UK GDP.
Now, you can change some of my assumptions (and feel free to do so), but the UK Afghan conflict cost is always going to be much less than 1% of your GDP.
Clearly, the case cannot be made that the cost of the Afghan conflict had a significant impact on the UK economy.
As always, if some of my calculations are wrong, please let me know and I will edit my post.
The UK cost in relation to support of the US in the War on Terror including the wars in Iran and Afghanistan is over £30.6 Billion, which equates to around $40 Billion, however many believe it be double this figure, as other costs were not factored in this amount. It also should be noted that the figure in relation to Afghanistan, generally relates to Operation Herrick (2003 - 2014) and excludes Operation Toral (2015 - 2021) and other related operations. It also should be noted that Britain was spending over £4 billion a year at the height of Operation Herrick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channel 4 News (2021)
The sterling cost to the taxpayer is harder to quantify. The British government has released figures, but experts say these numbers significantly underestimate the true total cost.
Military analysts say these government figures miss out massive additional costs incurred by the state thanks to the decision to go to war against the Taliban.
Frank Ledwidge from the University of Portsmouth published an analysis of the real total spending in his 2013 book Investment in Blood.
He told FactCheck he included “conservative” estimates of many items of additional spending not counted by the MoD.
These range from the C-17 transport aircraft bought to resupply UK forces in Afghanistan, the cost of maintaining a bigger army than we would otherwise have needed during the period, and the statistical value of the lives lost in the conflict.
Mr Ledwidge calculated that Britain had actually spent around £37bn in 2013.
He thinks this will have risen to £38-£39bn now, calling the government’s estimates “bargain-basement, lowest possible figures”.
But even this larger sum does not include the ongoing costs to the NHS of caring for wounded veterans.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, Deputy Director General at the Royal United Services Institute, agreed that the figure quoted by the government does not represent the real total cost of the war.
He told FactCheck: “It does not include the costs of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme for veterans, or extra costs incurred by the NHS or charities. I estimate at least an extra £2bn for the first of these.
“Nor does it include the very substantial diversion costs within the MoD – diverting resources from other defence purposes to this mission, especially in the 2006-2014 period. Hard to quantify, but probably the biggest of all.
“Not least, it is expressed in cash terms, not in today’s prices. This would increase the total by some £4bn.”
The verdict
Recent figures put out by the British government put the total cost of major operations in Afghanistan in the low twenty billions.
But independent analysts think the true operational cost could be around double that figure.
And this is without trying to count the additional costs to the health service of caring for wounded veterans over their lifetimes.
The comparison in relation to GDP is irrelevant, as the money relates to taxes and not GDP, and relates to UK Government spending, and such spending usually either means that money is diverted from other important public services or that taxes have to be raised.
GDP is not the same as public spending, or the money that is collected in taxes.
It should also be known that tax payers money is an important issue in the US itself, and the current use of tax payers money in relation to Ukrainian aid is controversial, as is money in relation to NATO itself.
However in reality I care more about the British deaths (as well the many thousands who were injured and maimed) during the rather pointless US led war on terror, rather than simply the finances.
The good news being that the UK is now changing it's policy and strategy in the light of recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's unlikely that Britain would be as eager to back the US in such pointless conflicts ever again, with the UK investing more in it's traditional maritime role and in relation to science, tech, intelligence etc.
The UK made one really good decision post WW2, and that was staying out of Vietnam, something that infuriated LBJ, although this now has to be balanced with the really bad decision in terms of doing more than other major European nations in relation to the post 9/11 so called US led war on terror. Although this has now led to a change in future UK policy, in a number of areas.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-16-2023 at 07:06 AM..
Americans comprised 47% of the troops landing on D-day, not "most", but close. The British provided 39%.
In my post, I used the term "military capability" not number of troops. My choice of words was no accident. The US provided huge amounts of military material to Britain via programs like Lend Lease. Without this material support, some doubt there would have been an allied invasion. Or if there was, it may have ended like the BEF disaster.
Also, D-day was just the first day of the invasion. By the beginning of 1945, of the 73 allied divisions in Europe, 49 were American and 12 were British.
D-Day was an Allied effort involving numerous British commanders, and the majority of the equipment was British, including ships, land craft, aircraft etc, whilst British commanders took a lead role alongside other allies.
The irony being that you make a post (below) suggesting that somehow the British believed it won WW2 before going on to suggest exactly the same in terms of the US.
Britain gave what it could to the Soviets during WW2 via the Arctic Convoys, and lots of countries made sacrifices, especially the poor Russians, although at least the efforts of allies diverted some German forces away from the Eastern front, just as the Soviets did in relation to the West.
I also don't think any one could deny the importance of the Eastern front being or the Soviet losses, whilst it also should not be forgotten than in terms of British and Commonwealth forces they fought on numerous fronts across the world, from Europe to Africa through to Asia etc.
In reality WW2, is seen as Britain standing up to Nazi tyranny and holding out against it, despite the odds, and this is the narrative you can hear time and time again in relation to Churchill's speeches.
In this respect Britain is right to be proud of it's efforts, however Britain didn't bask in some reflective glory in relation to it's bombed out post WW2 cities or the fact that it was now on the verge of bankruptcy or that items were still being rationed until 1954.
Finally in terms of Britain being a global super power, the country was a Naval power, with until the late 19th and early 20th century a relatively small standing Army, and it relied on most Commonwealth countries to police themselves and to defend themselves by building their own armed forces, with the Royal Navy protecting trade, something that was paramount for all sides in relation to the Commonwealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfarerz
2. In the UK, there was FAR MORE criticism of America than vice versa. IMO, it bordered on a national delusion. For example, there was a widespread belief that Britain WON World War II. In reality, the Germans were largely defeated by the Soviet Red Army with the US in a secondary role and Britain in a minor role. I think the British obsessive criticism of the US was due to at least two factors. Because the Brits saw so many American movies, they believed they knew a lot about American life. Another factor for British resentment of America was that America (a former British colony) had replaced Britain as a global superpower.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-16-2023 at 06:38 AM..
The comparison in relation to GDP is irrelevant, as the money relates to taxes and not GDP, and relates to UK Government spending, and such spending usually either means that money is diverted from other important public services or that taxes have to be raised.
OK. I chose to use % of GDP because it is the accepted method of looking at similar financial questions like sovereign debt.
But, of course, we could use % of gov't revenue instead, so let's do that.
The mid-point of the Afghan conflict was 2011. UK gov't revenue in that year was 589 billion UKP. The average UK spending for the Afghan conflict was 1.11 billion UKP (from a calculation in one of my earlier posts). So, UK spending on the Afghan conflict was 0.2% of total gov't revenue (1.11/589).
The UK cost in relation to support of the US in the War on Terror including the wars in Iran and Afghanistan is over £30.6 Billion, which equates to around $40 Billion, however many believe it be double this figure, as other costs were not factored in this amount.
The $40 billion cost number was a number that YOU introduced into the discussion. Now, you're trying to argue that the number is bad. You're argueing with yourself.
But, let's double the UK average annual cost. That moves the cost of the Afghan conflict from 0.2% of gov't revenue to 0.4% (see my previous post for the supporting calculations).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
