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.
The USSR weakened the Nazi war machine and likely would have kept on pushing at great cost to themselves outwards. I think the war would have taken far longer to arrive at a conclusion, but nothing to say the new European Order would not be of a red colour , rather than stripes.
A possibility but have to remember that while Russia bore the brunt of the war and inflicted heavy casualties on the Germans it was the concern of Allied landings on mainland Europe that forced Hitler to keep a large amount of his military in France and Norway.
Without American forces and materiel no such landings would have been possible and he could have concentrated the full power of the Wehrmacht on the Russians. Without the Americans German factories would not have received the massive amount of damage they actually suffered so Hitler's war machine would have been for the most part in full swing
Fact is the eventual outcome of the war in Europe without British involvement would have been vastly different, Mainland Europe would have without a doubt remained under Nazi rule. No argument about that.
Unlike Americans though the British don't claim to have won the war single handedly!
Who are these Americans who claim to have won the war single handedly? Some half drunk old tourist in a pub? I never met one who made such a claim.
When movies were made about the war they generally focused on the part that particular country played in the war. The British, Americans and Russians all made movies with the emphasis on their own individual exploits and experiences.
"The Longest Day" was probably the first movie featuring the story of two different armies at war
What is the source of your $40 billion cost estimate? My research (as stated in my post #94) shows the total cost of UK involvement in the Afghan conflict as $4.5 billion. If you can substantiate your number, I'll change mine.
In your post #81, the money WAS important because you discuss altenative investments for the money spent on the Afghan conflict. But, now that I have shown that the UK money spent on the Afghan conflict was actually a tiny portion of UK GDP, the money is now meaningless and British lives are more important. Hmmm.
The $40 Billion estimate comes from the Ministry of Defence's own figures, which suggest the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn, whilst the cost of UK operations in Afghanistan and Operation Herrick were £22.2 billion, however others have claimed the figure to be as high as £37 billion.
Adding the lower official figures of £8.4 billion and £22.2 billion together, you get a total of £30.8 billion, which even under today's significantly lower exchange rate equates to $39.10 United States Dollar.
In terms of the UK defence budget and in relation to a country with less than 1/5th the population size of the US, I would suggest that this is a sizeable amount of money, and would have plugged last years budget deficit or built over 40 large hospitals, numerous schools or paid for the care of the elderly and vulnerable etc.
I would also suggest that current US aid to Ukraine is a controversial political subject in the US right now, however it doesn't come close to the waste of lives and bloodshed, as well as financial losses in respect of British involvement in the pointless US led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for my emphasis, it was always on the 768 British deaths (as well s thousands who were injured and maimed) in relation to Operation Telic and Operation Herrick, and it's you that has elaborated on the financial cost, which I merely called significant.
In terms of these conflicts being pointless, the War in Iraq just help de-stabilise the region and eventually led to the emergence of an Islamic caliphate, which led to civil war in Syria and other problems across the region, whilst in terms of Afghanistan, the rather pathetic US withdrawal left the Taliban in a better position than in 2003, and allowed the Islamic fundamentalist world to claim propaganda victory over the US.
In hindsight Britain would have been better adopting a more cautious approach, in the same way many of our European neighbours did, and this could have prevented needless deaths and injuries, as well as financial expenditure, just as the British decision to stay out of the Vietnam conflict did back in the 1960's, when LBJ pressed the UK in relation to joining the war, only to be told 'no'.
It's also worth noting that Britain has now reviewed it's strategy and armed forces, with an emphasis on it's traditional naval maritime roles coupled with new technology and more investment in Ai and autonomous warfare, as well as Intelligence, Cyber, Space etc, and it's now becoming clear that Britain and most other European nations would be reluctant to become involved in another such US led disaster.
As for the British war dead and injured, they were quickly forgotten about by recent US administrations, with lots of threats to Britain regarding trade deals and interference in our domestic politics, and this should not and can not be easily forgotten, although nobody wants US hormone treated meat, banned food additives, genetically modified crops or chlorine washed chicken etc, so an agricultural deal was never real an option.
As for future UK relations with the US, only 19% of Britons now believe in a Special Relationship with the US, and in terms of areas such as foreign policy, US led conflicts, extradition and a raft of other area, it's fairly clear the Britain would be better off taking a leaf out of our European neighbours books.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-15-2023 at 03:00 AM..
The $40 Billion estimate comes from the Ministry of Defence's own figures, which suggest the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn, whilst the cost of UK operations in Afghanistan and Operation Herrick were £22.2 billion, however others have claimed the figure to be as high as £37 billion.
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 $40 Billion estimate comes from the Ministry of Defence's own figures, which suggest the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn, whilst the cost of UK operations in Afghanistan and Operation Herrick were £22.2 billion, however others have claimed the figure to be as high as £37 billion.
Adding the lower official figures of £8.4 billion and £22.2 billion together, you get a total of £30.8 billion, which even under today's significantly lower exchange rate equates to $39.10 United States Dollar.
In terms of the UK defence budget and in relation to a country with less than 1/5th the population size of the US, I would suggest that this is a sizeable amount of money, and would have plugged last years budget deficit or built over 40 large hospitals, numerous schools or paid for the care of the elderly and vulnerable etc.
I would also suggest that current US aid to Ukraine is a controversial political subject in the US right now, however it doesn't come close to the waste of lives and bloodshed, as well as financial losses in respect of British involvement in the pointless US led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for my emphasis, it was always on the 768 British deaths (as well s thousands who were injured and maimed) in relation to Operation Telic and Operation Herrick, and it's you that has elaborated on the financial cost, which I merely called significant.
In terms of these conflicts being pointless, the War in Iraq just help de-stabilise the region and eventually led to the emergence of an Islamic caliphate, which led to civil war in Syria and other problems across the region, whilst in terms of Afghanistan, the rather pathetic US withdrawal left the Taliban in a better position than in 2003, and allowed the Islamic fundamentalist world to claim propaganda victory over the US.
In hindsight Britain would have been better adopting a more cautious approach, in the same way many of our European neighbours did, and this could have prevented needless deaths and injuries, as well as financial expenditure, just as the British decision to stay out of the Vietnam conflict did back in the 1960's, when LBJ pressed the UK in relation to joining the war, only to be told 'no'.
It's also worth noting that Britain has now reviewed it's strategy and armed forces, with an emphasis on it's traditional naval maritime roles coupled with new technology and more investment in Ai and autonomous warfare, as well as Intelligence, Cyber, Space etc, and it's now becoming clear that Britain and most other European nations would be reluctant to become involved in another such US led disaster.
As for the British war dead and injured, they were quickly forgotten about by recent US administrations, with lots of threats to Britain regarding trade deals and interference in our domestic politics, and this should not and can not be easily forgotten, although nobody wants US hormone treated meat, banned food additives, genetically modified crops or chlorine washed chicken etc, so an agricultural deal was never real an option.
As for future UK relations with the US, only 19% of Britons now believe in a Special Relationship with the US, and in terms of areas such as foreign policy, US led conflicts, extradition and a raft of other area, it's fairly clear the Britain would be better off taking a leaf out of our European neighbours books.
What's all that got to do with poverty in Britain ?
Who are these Americans who claim to have won the war single handedly? Some half drunk old tourist in a pub? I never met one who made such a claim.
When movies were made about the war they generally focused on the part that particular country played in the war. The British, Americans and Russians all made movies with the emphasis on their own individual exploits and experiences.
"The Longest Day" was probably the first movie featuring the story of two different armies at war
A possibility but have to remember that while Russia bore the brunt of the war and inflicted heavy casualties on the Germans it was the concern of Allied landings on mainland Europe that forced Hitler to keep a large amount of his military in France and Norway.
Without American forces and materiel no such landings would have been possible and he could have concentrated the full power of the Wehrmacht on the Russians. Without the Americans German factories would not have received the massive amount of damage they actually suffered so Hitler's war machine would have been for the most part in full swing
Without British forces and materiel no such landings would have been possible and he could have concentrated the full power of the Wehrmacht on the Russians. Without the British German factories would not have received the massive amount of damage they actually suffered so Hitler's war machine would have been for the most part in full swing.
In WWII, Germany's military might rested with their army (the Heer). Prior to the Normandy invasion (where most of the military capability was American), the only significant European front on land for Britain that I'm aware of was the landing of the British Expeditionary Force in 1940. And the BEF came very close to being driven into the sea by the German army.
So, the Soviet Red Army DID face the Germans alone. By the time of the allied invasion of Normandy, the
German army was already in retreat from the Red Army.
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?
No old WW2 vet I ever talked to claimed that America alone won the war. The general opinion seemed to be along the lines they were over in Europe to get rid of Hitler plain and simple
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.
