The Soviet Union vs The British Empire

Bismarck

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.

Nope but they were no more a part of the British Empire than the Eastern European states were a part of the USSR. The relationship was different certainly but still Poland etc were nations under the influence of the USSR, not part of it. Nations such as Nepal(which handed its army over to us in its entirity for the Second World War) could have been said to have the same relationship to the British Empire and doubtless others could be counted. As stated previously i simply took the two states into account - not the nations allied with or under the influence of each state,regardless of how closely.

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.

And this applies equally to the British.

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.

I dont hold it against them. I raised the point as being a factor as to why Russia suffered such appalling casualties seeing as you had quoted the casualty figure as a rather bizarre way of proving the Russian troops were more willing to fight for their country than the British.

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

France. And anyway that is irrelevant.

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.

Oh come on. Britain was unwilling to commit to a land war because it would not have been a strategically sound move at the time. Russian soldiers were given no option in the matter and suffered horribly for it. I dont see how you can equate Russias warmongering (regardless of its success) with it having a patriotic population. Explain exactly how this patriotism resulted in the revolution and civil war of the early 20th century?

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

Patriotism had nothing to do with.

Reply 62

username23872

zaf1986

Britain, because it will be backed by the US.

Russia won't stand a chance, because its military cannot cope. Neither can its economy for that matter.

U r wrong, See american Economy and the Vietnam War, See the Russian Economy and the Afghan War.. See the British Empire's economy and Afghan-anglo wars..

Reply 63

Lord Waddell

1

che guevara

U r wrong, See american Economy and the Vietnam War, See the Russian Economy and the Afghan War.. See the British Empire's economy and Afghan-anglo wars..

Well I don't know what that comment is meant to allude to, since neither the American or British economies collapsed because of these two wars. You have to remember that the British Imperial Army would have been trained to fight the Soviets, same as the Americans in the Cold War, so a conventional war with the USSR might have been one that the British Empire was quite good at. The conflicts to which you refer were guerilla wars on the whole, not conventional wars. If any of these had been conventional wars, then there would have been no doubt that the superpower in each case would have won.

Reply 64

che guevara

U r wrong, See american Economy and the Vietnam War, See the Russian Economy and the Afghan War.. See the British Empire's economy and Afghan-anglo wars..

Which were completely different types of conflict to that which would occur in this hypothetical scenario.

Reply 65

wallstreet

1

Hi guyz! I have ocassionaly seen you discussion and became very interested couze Iam from UZbekistan, which once was a part of USSR. As I have noticed, here you try to judge wheter British E. was more poweful than USSR or vice-versa. I just want to say that there is I think no point to make such discussions, as USSR was much bigger and powerful than Britain. BUT, one thing you shouldnot forget. USSR system was based on command economy, where people couldnot have they own property, they couldnot open companies, everyone had to work for government, etc. If someone had anti-communism ideas (I would say democratic ideas) he would be severely punished or even executed. So, the real POWER of USSR was based on lives and blood of people, whether Britain manage to build truly democratic society, where people are free, where people feel more comfortable. In my opinion, the real power of any society or country should not be based on its army or forces, but rather on the way people treat they home country, the level of live in that country and this is a REEL POWER! thx !

Reply 66

NDGAARONDI

16

WIUT

as USSR was much bigger and powerful than Britain.

I notice you said Britain rather than the British empire. Plus these two different scenarios are constitutionally different. You could always make comparisons with two other empires, the Roman Empire and the Mongolian one.

Reply 67

WIUT

Hi guyz! I have ocassionaly seen you discussion and became very interested couze Iam from UZbekistan, which once was a part of USSR. As I have noticed, here you try to judge wheter British E. was more poweful than USSR or vice-versa. I just want to say that there is I think no point to make such discussions, as USSR was much bigger and powerful than Britain. BUT, one thing you shouldnot forget. USSR system was based on command economy, where people couldnot have they own property, they couldnot open companies, everyone had to work for government, etc. If someone had anti-communism ideas (I would say democratic ideas) he would be severely punished or even executed. So, the real POWER of USSR was based on lives and blood of people, whether Britain manage to build truly democratic society, where people are free, where people feel more comfortable. In my opinion, the real power of any society or country should not be based on its army or forces, but rather on the way people treat they home country, the level of live in that country and this is a REEL POWER! thx !

Yeah, but this was a discussion of who would win a hypothetical war. Thus the democrating nature of the British Empire would be a hindrance rather than an advantage. When power is decentralised, there are more dissenters who are less likely to take orders and anti-war feeling is rife. Total war is almost impossible.

Reply 68

NDGAARONDI

I notice you said Britain rather than the British empire. Plus these two different scenarios are constitutionally different. You could always make comparisons with two other empires, the Roman Empire and the Mongolian one.

Considering that the barbaric mongols effortlessly swept aside empires of similiar strength and levels of developement to that of the Romans id have to go with them although the Roman Empire might make something of a fight of it under a commander of the calibre of Belisarius.

Reply 69

spikdboy

I think France would definitely lose. Yeah, France would get it's ass kicked.

Reply 70

spikdboy

I think France would definitely lose. Yeah, France would get it's ass kicked.

Is that an ironic comment on France's tendency to lose wars? Or have you simply misunderstood the thread?

Reply 71

spikdboy

TheVlad

Is that an ironic comment on France's tendency to lose wars? Or have you simply misunderstood the thread?

I don't think someone could misunderstand the thread that much to say France would lose.

(The former)

Reply 72

spikdboy

I don't think someone could misunderstand the thread that much to say France would lose.

(The former)

hmm yeah... one would think they would have realised that the Germans always go through Belgium..

Reply 73

jamlan

12

TheVlad

hmm yeah... one would think they would have realised that the Germans always go through Belgium..

hahaha. Yes, the traditional route for the invasion of France. Maginot Line my bum!

Reply 74

TheVlad

Is that an ironic comment on France's tendency to lose wars? Or have you simply misunderstood the thread?

That French are odds on favourites to lose any war in the world regardless of whether or not they are involved.

Reply 75

jamlan

12

an Siarach

That French are odds on favourites to lose any war in the world regardless of whether or not they are involved.

Chances are you've already seen this but it's always worth posting.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html :biggrin:

Reply 76

jamlan

Chances are you've already seen this but it's always worth posting.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html :biggrin:

Yeah i saw that a while ago - very funny apart form the typically yankeecentric belief that they single handedly saved the French and the World in both world wars when (at least with regard to the first ) that honour resides with the British Empire.

Reply 77