The Soviet Union vs The British Empire

TheVlad

False, Russia was one of the major European powers. True she wasn't as highly industrialised as Britain and Germany, but she had comparable military technology and a massivley greater population.

In what way was she a major European power?

She had connections to the British Royal Family, giving her a certain prestige but was otherwise the lapdog of the French.

Her technology was 50-100 years behind Western Europe, and her full military might defeated in WWI by a few minor divisions of the Germany army. Swords weren't really a match for machine guns.

The 'massively greater population' was spread across a vast Empire that was incredibly difficult to communicate across due to a lack of industrialisation and about as divided as the Indians and British.

TheVlad

How large are these large numbers of Indians? A couple of Ghurka regiments is not enough to repel the Red Army.

Firstly, the Red Army would didn't exist at that time.

Secondly, the Russians would find it difficult to equip and transport any army across the world to India.

Thirdly, the Indians would fight in their millions for the British as they did in WWI and WWII- and be far better equipped by superior British technology.

Reply 43

bikerx23

I think the worrying thing really is that, despite all the decomissioning.etc.etc., between them russia and america have enough nuclear weapons to irradiate the entire surface of the earth...and george bush is calling for them to build more (maybe he feels small because he couldn't do it all on his own....)
Is it compulsory for an american, republican president to want to destroy the world? despite all his flaws, atleast clinton seemed to care that people were suffering

Reply 44

bikerx23

I think the worrying thing really is that, despite all the decomissioning.etc.etc., between them russia and america have enough nuclear weapons to irradiate the entire surface of the earth...and george bush is calling for them to build more (maybe he feels small because he couldn't do it all on his own....)
Is it compulsory for an american, republican president to want to destroy the world? despite all his flaws, atleast clinton seemed to care that people were suffering

A) Bush is building a different type of weapons.
B) Clinton built more nukes as well.

Reply 45

The best way to solve this hypothetical question is probably to compare the two powers concerned at the height of their strength and simply assume that despite the fact that both were at their greatest at different times we will assume that both are of a similiar level technologically.

Population of the British Empire if it existed today with the same territories and bounderies it had at its height:

approxomitely 2,126,000,000.

Population of the USSR if it existed today with the same territories and bounderies it had at its height:

approxomitely 300,000,000

I couldnt be bothered working out what the total GDP of each state would be if they still existed but heres a short list of all the nations within the world top 50 which exist today and were once part of each state and their GDP and international ranking.

British Empire:

4 United Kingdom 2,295,039
9 Canada 1,098,446
11 India 749,443
15 Australia 692,436
29 South Africa 226,486
35 Hong Kong, SAR, PRC 172,932
37 Malaysia 127,942
39 Israel 122,987
41 Singapore 116,326
43 New Zealand 107,670
45 United Arab Emirates 103,006
49 Egypt 91,688
50 Nigeria 91,574

USSR :

10 Russia 755,437

Bearing in mind the vastly greater amount/variety of resources available to the British Empire as a result of its far wider spread and varied territories (rather than the rather homogenous USSR) and the fact that the USSR at its height never came close to achieving a share of world manufacturing output etc of the level the Empire achieved the two states really arent in the same league and any hypothetical question as to which would win in a war is really rather silly- The Empire would be far far richer, more advanced with far greater global influence and far greater military potential. The Empire would win easily.

Reply 46

TheVlad

Dude, the British Empire never felt capable of fighting Russia on even terms.

No. The British Empire never had any reason to take on Russia on even terms. In fact what you mean here by 'even terms' is 'play right into the hands of the enemy ' which is something the Empire was always good at avoiding and which is why it became the first Global superpower and the largest, most powerful Empire in history .

Thats why she pursued alliances, first with Germany and then with Japan in late 19th century to counter Russia's large army.

Britain had a habit of using alliances rather than having to waste huge amounts of money on maintaining a giant army. If Britain had required to raise an army of equal or greater size to that of Russia it could have done so and it would also have been a far more professional and advanced army than any Russia could field at the time.

When the Germany thing didn't work out (they had some disagreement over China) the British decided it was time to make friends with France in Russia. The British Empire would never be able to defend her Asian interests against a Soviet advance because even with colonial troops because of her small land forces.

The Empire had millions of soldiers in the Asian colonies and as stated previously had greater forces been required they had would have been raised. Britain had always seen the maintainance of a large standing army as a needless waste of money.

The Indian population never considered themselves to be British and I doubt that large numbers of them would be prepared to die for an Empire of which they would be getting pretty tired by 2010.

Why on Earth would they have been happy to exchange the comparitively benevolant British for the autocratic Russians? Also some of the most passionately 'British' colonial soldiers were from India and lets not forget that the Russian populace itself was not particularly enthusiastic about its rulers. Really there is no concievable chance Russia could win any hypothetical conflict against the British Empire. Its no more realistic than saying modern day France or Spain could take the USA.

Reply 47

Saudi Arabia was never part of the British Empire. You also forget that the Soviet Union had control over eastern Europe, which is an extra 120 million people. Plus many of the British colonies you mentioned were either significantly poorer or had significantly less people than they do now. Also, while Russia would count on its entire population in case of war, Britain was hard-pressed to recruit large armies from most of its colonies. Russia never did win wars because of its economy; it did so because of its sheer manpower.

Reply 48

Bismarck

Saudi Arabia was never part of the British Empire.

Quite right. Not sure how that ended up on the list.

You also forget that the Soviet Union had control over eastern Europe, which is an extra 120 million people.

I didnt bother taking alliances and nations under influence into account as that would take forever. Anyway if you wish to take such things into account it just adds to British Power with western Europe and the USA and others on its side.

Plus many of the British colonies you mentioned were either significantly poorer or had significantly less people than they do now.

Yes but how else can you compare the two states within this hypothetical question? These questions are always impossible to answer perfectly. The question was of course which would win between the USSR and Empire and the only way to deal with this is two imagine that the two states, at their height, were extant at the same time and to imagine would they would be like if this was you case you can only take the information regarding their constituent parts in the modern day into account.

Also, while Russia would count on its entire population in case of war, Britain was hard-pressed to recruit large armies from most of its colonies. Russia never did win wars because of its economy; it did so because of its sheer manpower.

Even if the Empire could not count on its entire population the sheer superiority of its population would ensure far greater manpower than the USSR. Also im surprised that so many people in this thread seem to be under the delusion that the populace of the USSR actually supported the tyrannical regime and would happily fight for it. I do not think it is correct ot state that the USSR could count on its 'entire population' at all.

Reply 49

an Siarach

I didnt bother taking alliances and nations under influence into account as that would take forever. Anyway if you wish to take such things into account it just adds to British Power with western Europe and the USA and others on its side.

Um...they weren't just Soviet allies. They were under the direct control of Moscow.

Yes but how else can you compare the two states within this hypothetical question? These questions are always impossible to answer perfectly. The question was of course which would win between the USSR and Empire and the only way to deal with this is two imagine that the two states, at their height, were extant at the same time and to imagine would they would be like if this was you case you can only take the information regarding their constituent parts in the modern day into account.

So if Britain controlled the million or so people living in North America in 1750, does that mean the current American GDP and population count towards the British empire?

Even if the Empire could not count on its entire population the sheer superiority of its population would ensure far greater manpower than the USSR. Also im surprised that so many people in this thread seem to be under the delusion that the populace of the USSR actually supported the tyrannical regime and would happily fight for it. I do not think it is correct ot state that the USSR could count on its 'entire population' at all.

Someone should tell that to the 27 million Soviet citizens who died during WWII. How many did Britain lose? A million? Russia lost more people during the War than the rest of the world combined, and that includes Chinese casualties from the Japanese occupation.

Reply 50

Bismarck

Um...they weren't just Soviet allies. They were under the direct control of Moscow.

Soviet Republics Independent states
Armenian SSR Armenia
Azerbaijan SSR Azerbaijan
Byelorussian SSR Belarus
Estonian SSR Estonia
Georgian SSR Georgia
Kazakh SSR Kazakhstan
Kirghiz SSR Kyrgyzstan
Latvian SSR Latvia
Lithuanian SSR Lithuania
Moldavian SSR Moldova
Russian SFSR Russian Federation
Tajik SSR Tajikistan
Turkmen SSR Turkmenistan
Ukrainian SSR Ukraine
Uzbek SSR Uzbekistan

Is the list of constituent states of the USSR and their independant successors taken from wikipedia. I realise the rest of East europe was very much under Moscows sway but they did not form part of the USSR.

So if Britain controlled the million or so people living in North America in 1750, does that mean the current American GDP and population count towards the British empire?

As i stated earlier this kind of question is entirely hypothetical and almost impossible to answer at all let alone answer satisfactorily. For there to be a comparison between the Empire and the USSR in this context you would have to assume that the Empire had survived in the form it held at its height and this is what i did. If you can think of a better way of answering the question then do so.

Someone should tell that to the 27 million Soviet citizens who died during WWII. How many did Britain lose? A million? Russia lost more people during the War than the rest of the world combined, and that includes Chinese casualties from the Japanese occupation.

I have to say im surprised that you would put forward this daft argument. Theres a difference between dying for your country and choosing to die for your country as the many,many Russians who were conscripted then forced to attack the Germans without weapons and then slaughtered by their own officers if they dared try to retreat no doubt realised. Military command incompetance is also a very peculiar way of measuring the patriotism of the average (conscripted) soldier and i dont see how Britains lower casualty rate (which resulted from many many factors not least having a far better military and command) can be taken as a sign of its people being less patriotic. Really a sub standard argument compared to your usual excellence.

Reply 51

NDGAARONDI

16

TheVlad

But the Soviets would already have a far larger military with trained troops. There is no way that Britain could compete with Russia in manpower and land warfare.

No good quoting numbers, otherwise Britain would never have been invaded by the Romans.

Reply 52

NDGAARONDI

16

The British empire wins hands down. You could always introduce a third empire if you want - the Mongolian empire. Now I'm going back to play Risk. :biggrin:

Reply 53

Bismarck

Eastern Europe did what Moscow told it to do; I don't see why you don't consider it to be a part of the Soviet empire.

It was not part of the USSR. The thread concerns the USSR. I disregarded allies and nations 'under the sway' because it was already a cumbersome enough subject. Anyway as previously stated taking these nations into account does change the picture much. The USSR gains East Germany and Poland etc while the British Empire gains the USA, France etc. Not quite an even gain.

The difference between an ally and a subject is that the former chooses to help you, while the latter has no choice. I think it's fair to say that Eastern Europe had no choice. The Eastern European countries under Soviet control were Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia (currently Czech Republic and Slovakia), and Hungary. The Soviet Union also controlled Mongolia.

Il agree with that although even with these other nations it doesnt make too much of a difference.

I can't think of a better way, but your method has serious flaws.

Ive stated repeatedly its far from perfect. The question is such that you cannot answer it in a satisfactory manner.

For example, were the Iroquois Indians one of the most dominant empires of all time since they controlled the eastern part of the present-day United States, which would probably be the most powerful country in the world had the US not existed?

A rather more tenuous link than that which ive put forward although the point is sound.

As I recall, every major country in WWII had a conscripted army. You're also confusing the state of the Russian army in WWII with its state in WWI. The Russian soldiers had weapons during WWII, after the first few months anyway.

I know all the major nations had conscripted armies but there is a huge difference between the Russian army and those of the USA and UK and conscripts into the former would have been far from willing. No i am not confusing the Russian army of the two wars. The army of the Second World war was very poorly equiped and commanded and as stated the officers frequently slaughtered their own troops. Do you not think the huge casualty figure for Russia would be rather strange if their military had been anything near competant and well equiped?

I think a much better reason for the Soviet casualties was the fact that Germany sent 2/3 of its soldiers to the eastern front. An overwhelming majority of the fighting in WWII took place on Soviet soil.

Yes. But how does this in any way measure the willingness of the average Russian soldier to fight and how does it make him any more patriotic than those of the USA and UK? The reason that Germany had the majority of its troops on the Eastern front is simply because the Western front was basically closed (while the Eastern remained active) and required smaller troops to guard as any significant movements by the Allies to invade would give them plenty of time to move re-inforcements to that front.

The reason Britain only had 700,000 casualties was because there was no land combat in Britain.

Exactly. How does this in any way reflect the patriotism of the respective nations/peoples?

After a few initial disasters, British infantry didn't fight German infantry in large-scale battles until the second front was opened, and at that point, most of the fighting on the western front was done by Americans.

True with the first point, not totally true with the second point. The majority of the forces involved in the allied invasion of europe were from the British Empire although as progress was made the USA did gradually became the main player.

Reply 54

NDGAARONDI

The British empire wins hands down. You could always introduce a third empire if you want - the Mongolian empire. Now I'm going back to play Risk. :biggrin:

Yup. Quite simply the USSR at its height could not match the global influence etc of the British Empire at its height. You cannot really go into greater specifics without encountering major problems such as those myself and Bismarck have been discussing for the last while.

Reply 55

an Siarach

It was not part of the USSR. The thread concerns the USSR. I disregarded allies and nations 'under the sway' because it was already a cumbersome enough subject. Anyway as previously stated taking these nations into account does change the picture much. The USSR gains East Germany and Poland etc while the British Empire gains the USA, France etc. Not quite an even gain.

Um...are you claiming that the British Empire could have forced France and the US to do whatever it wanted? :confused:

France and the US were not on good terms with Britain throughout the period in question, let alone being under Britain's control.

I know all the major nations had conscripted armies but there is a huge difference between the Russian army and those of the USA and UK and conscripts into the former would have been far from willing. No i am not confusing the Russian army of the two wars. The army of the Second World war was very poorly equiped and commanded and as stated the officers frequently slaughtered their own troops. Do you not think the huge casualty figure for Russia would be rather strange if their military had been anything near competant and well equiped?

What makes you think Russian troops were unwilling to fight? Last time I checked their homeland was on the verge of being destroyed, and their families on the verge of being enslaved or slaughtered. I don't think anyone needs more motivation than that.

I don't see how you can hold Russia's army not being as well equipped as the Germans against Russia. Russia never was a major industrial power; it was always economically backward. The Soviet leadership couldn't get this equipment out of thin air.

Yes. But how does this in any way measure the willingness of the average Russian soldier to fight and how does it make him any more patriotic than those of the USA and UK? The reason that Germany had the majority of its troops on the Eastern front is simply because the Western front was basically closed (while the Eastern remained active) and required smaller troops to guard as any significant movements by the Allies to invade would give them plenty of time to move re-inforcements to that front.

And who's fault was it that the western front collapsed within six weeks while Russia was able to contain Germany for 4 years?

Exactly. How does this in any way reflect the patriotism of the respective nations/peoples?

How do you measure patriotism? Given Britain's unwillingness to commit to a land war, it seems that it couldn't count on its men to give up their lives for their country in large enough amounts. Russian soldiers were willing to do that. The amount of wars fought by Russian troops absolutely dwarfs the amount of wars fought by other countries. There was hardly a day in the 18th and 19th century when Russia was not in war.

True with the first point, not totally true with the second point. The majority of the forces involved in the allied invasion of europe were from the British Empire although as progress was made the USA did gradually became the main player.

Very patriotic to open a front when your opponent is on the verge of losing.

Reply 56

Rex Imperator

OP

an Siarach

The best way to solve this hypothetical question is probably to compare the two powers concerned at the height of their strength and simply assume that despite the fact that both were at their greatest at different times we will assume that both are of a similiar level technologically.

Population of the British Empire if it existed today with the same territories and bounderies it had at its height:

approxomitely 2,126,000,000.

Population of the USSR if it existed today with the same territories and bounderies it had at its height:

approxomitely 300,000,000

I couldnt be bothered working out what the total GDP of each state would be if they still existed but heres a short list of all the nations within the world top 50 which exist today and were once part of each state and their GDP and international ranking.

British Empire:

4 United Kingdom 2,295,039
9 Canada 1,098,446
11 India 749,443
15 Australia 692,436
29 South Africa 226,486
35 Hong Kong, SAR, PRC 172,932
37 Malaysia 127,942
39 Israel 122,987
41 Singapore 116,326
43 New Zealand 107,670
45 United Arab Emirates 103,006
49 Egypt 91,688
50 Nigeria 91,574

USSR :

10 Russia 755,437

Bearing in mind the vastly greater amount/variety of resources available to the British Empire as a result of its far wider spread and varied territories (rather than the rather homogenous USSR) and the fact that the USSR at its height never came close to achieving a share of world manufacturing output etc of the level the Empire achieved the two states really arent in the same league and any hypothetical question as to which would win in a war is really rather silly- The Empire would be far far richer, more advanced with far greater global influence and far greater military potential. The Empire would win easily.

Exactly! I wanted these empires to clash in 2010 during the height of their power, when technological and demographic levels had advanced and expanded over time from their founding.

Being British, of course I side with the Empire over those communists. :wink:

Reply 57

Lord Waddell

If you are taking into account puppet states, then Britain would have most of the Middle East at its beck and call - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Oman etc. They would be swimming in oil assuming that they could hold the place, and I don't know how effective the Red Army is in the desert. And they would probably be no less reluctant to fight for the British than would the puppet states of Eastern Europe.

Reply 58

Lord Waddell

If you are taking into account puppet states, then Britain would have most of the Middle East at its beck and call - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Oman etc. They would be swimming in oil assuming that they could hold the place, and I don't know how effective the Red Army is in the desert. And they would probably be no less reluctant to fight for the British than would the puppet states of Eastern Europe.

Actually, the British sphere of influence was limited to northern Iran. Russia controlled the southern half. Saudi Arabia was not a puppet British state. It got some assistance from Britain, but it had an independent foreign policy. The rest of the Middle East, excluding Syria and Lebanon, was under British control.

Reply 59

Lord Waddell