UK in the World Wars

[Czert]

I'd add to Rubidium's comments by saying that Britain (and the US) went into WW1 with virtually no army by continental standards. It took them a long time and a lot of money to develop the national-service army, the armaments industries and the rest of the infrastructure needed by a modern army.

What's more inexplicable to me is the failure of the French to develop a workable offensive doctrine or decide (as the numerical inferiors) to stand on the defensive.

actualy frogs army was in numerical parity or superiority compared to germans. and as bonus they did have maginot line which multiplied thier defensive strenght. what killed fraance combat performance was extremly weak morale and in most cases very impotentent leadership, booth political and military.

 

[Secret Master]

We aren't talking about war crimes or genocide in this thread. We also are not talking about deliberately inducing famine, whether the British, Soviets, or Germans do it.

Stick to talking about British military and economic performance, or the thread will be killed.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Are you seriously defending Polish invasion of Soviet Russia in 1920?

You mean the Polish-Soviet war in 1920 where the Soviets tried to invade and reoccupy Poland, while the Poles at the same tried to liberate their former territories?

This is clearly off topic and I'm not going to discuss this with someone who defends the Russian occupation of Poland.

 

[Opanashc]

You mean the Polish-Soviet war in 1920 where the Soviets tried to invade and reoccupy Poland?

This is clearly off topic and I'm not going to discuss this with someone who defends the Russian occupation of Poland.

It is off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War. Read about it.

 

[Saeronor]

It is off-topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Soviet_War. Read about it.

While we're at it, you might benefit from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–1919
...in case someone thinks 1920 was happening in a vacuum, that Soviet army was defending "homeland" in 1920 and that they had any business being there in the first place.
Also,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Rights_of_Peoples_of_Russia
...in case someone thinks Soviet Russia could simply inherit claims of Imperial Russia to multiple territories listed above.

As for off-topic value - dealing with an argument that introduced this particular example requires determining whether it fits. Which requires actually discussing it. The alternative is to ignore entire argument - not sure which option is less helpful to the discussion at hand.

 

[Opanashc]

And thread closed.

 

[darth254]

If ignorance is bliss you must be very happy. The first world war ended when the German population could no longer stomach the privations they suffered due to the UK blockade. This resulted in a large number of the military not admitting that they lost the war...they felt it was some commie/jewish plot , not their own failure to understand the actual workings of total war. This same ignorance was the primary reason for the start of the 2nd world war.

I love your idea that the British empire put up a poor showing...and yet still managed to win in both wars.

I'm not disagreeing Germany overextended itself in both World Wars, and for as powerful as they were militarily, they offset it with their massive failure in terms of handling diplomacy whereas the UK handled diplomacy much much better. and no doubt the UK ultimately came out on top in both World Wars. I'm happy they managed to.

But it just feels their contributions were mostly secondary to what they should have been. like I said, I'm not trying to blame their soldiers. That's like blaming the soldiers of Russia for the empire's embarrassment in WW1 when it was more about getting out-led and out-equipped. Maybe it had more to do with leadership and whoever set their objectives/priorities. Both World Wars they had to rely on additional help because they were not performing well enough in the wars.

 

[Opanashc]

And what should the UK have accomplished, in order to "perform well enough"?

 

[darth254]

And what should the UK have accomplished, in order to "perform well enough"?

WW1, huge portions of Belgium get overtaken before they even set up a stronghold with France and they never really budge the Germans out until 1918. So all the fighting is occurring on allied (including Belgian) territory. Meanwhile in the east, Russia is stuck fighting Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans all at once. UK then tries to alleviate the pressure with Galipoli against the soft underbelly of the Central Powers, and that was a disaster. They just did not seem to bring any pressure to the fronts.

WW2, ignoring appeasement policies that led up to the invasion of Poland, neither them or France did much of anything when Poland got invaded, and then France gets rolled within six week span.....just not a good performance.


I'm not saying France was stellar either, but France has historically received criticism for their performances, while UK has had a free pass when they were far from stellar as well.

 

[Czert]

Well first of all my name is not Director, that's someone else. And I kind of disagree with that, it's not like the allies just went "here ya go Hitler have some tasty Czechoslovakia and Austria". They didn't exactly have a choice and instead of going for the costly war route, they decided to be diplomatic in order to stop further German expansion. Of course that didn't work but how an earth were they supposed to know?

The Soviets on the other hand didn't just allow the Germans to take territory, they actually very actively helped them with economic, diplomatic, and military co-operation, I.E Poland.

I'm not saying the Allies were innocent, but they certainly didn't help the Germans nearly as much as the Soviets, which then ironically went onto be the Germans worst enemy.

actualy they did have chose, even churchil in 38 told "we did have choice betwen shame and war, we chosen shame and will have war".
and did you heard about one small, unimportant book called main kampf writen by hitler ? its english/france tranlastion was avaivable waaaay before 38. and here hitlers goals were nicely stated.
and why western didnt acted ? because his goals were liked by thier political leadeership and fited to thier goals, but they simply ignored danger hiden there.
chamberlain "peace for your time" was not only driven by wanting peace, but it fited his view of world politick, since he and his party wiewed stronger germany (at expanse of eastern nations) nice counterwheight to france power, and if frnace have to worry more about thier land in europe....it will weaken thier position outside of europe, serving in interes of british empire which can be maken stronger here.
they were simply blind in that that hitlers germany can turn against west - them. since 38 relationship of british ruling party and geman ones, were more of friends than of enemies. just look how uk king (cant recal his name, that one which was forced to resigh because he maried divorced american woman) were very pro-german and how he admired hitler. and look how hitler tried to make peace with britain in 40, after fall of france.
i personaly think if in uk in charge was this king and chemberlain ideological succesor....it will be great posibility.
and what was result of this stupid "we dont care about your eastern allies" policy ? lose of british empire, which was only logical, since uk was unable to fight japanese when they have hands full figting germany, and losing of "white superiors" to "asiatic inferiors" showed to british colonies, they can win against them too, taht they are not superior, so they wanted independce, and the got it.

and for soviets, yes they cooperated with germany booth military and economicaly, but hey whcih major state DIDT economicaly cooperated with germany, until they were at war with them ?
just look at swedisn iron send to germany during whole war. and just google how many vehicles/resources us (ford is nicest example) sold to hitler before war between tem. hell, even ibm was selling tabulator machines which were used in concetration camps.

 

[Opanashc]

UK had a total of 6 divisions to send in the beginning of WW1. They were not allies with Belgium - Belgium was serious about its neutrality. UK did not have a big army until 1916 - and its not like anyone was achieving much on the Western Front in 1916-17.
In WW2, UK could not have done anything for Poland. Its forces were not even in France yet, when Poland fell! I have to agree about Fall of France.

 

[darth254]

UK had a total of 6 divisions to send in the beginning of WW1. They were not allies with Belgium - Belgium was serious about its neutrality. UK did not have a big army until 1916 - and its not like anyone was achieving much on the Western Front in 1916-17.
In WW2, UK could not have done anything for Poland. Its forces were not even in France yet, when Poland fell! I have to agree about Fall of France.

the main theme seems to be the UK being ill-prepared on the ground in both wars. It also seems kind of telling and rather insulting too that Germany would be willing to go through Belgium and take on the UK as well rather than dealing only with France through their shared borders.

 

[Saeronor]

BEF kinda surprised everybody in 1914. Schlieffen's Plan and its later mutations didn't account for British troops doing much or, rather, even being there in the first place - heck, that was pretty much the point. If anything, Germans preferred to knock France out before Empire could actually deal serious blows.

 

[Opanashc]

the main theme seems to be the UK being ill-prepared on the ground in both wars. It also seems kind of telling and rather insulting too that Germany would be willing to go through Belgium and take on the UK as well rather than dealing only with France through their shared borders.

Germany was trying to go for a quicky, when presented with a 2-front war. Since beating Russia quickly was not possible simply due to distances involved, it had to be France, and France had fortified its border well. Thus Schliffen decided on going around through Belgium.

 

[darth254]

Germany was trying to go for a quicky, when presented with a 2-front war. Since beating Russia quickly was not possible simply due to distances involved, it had to be France, and France had fortified its border well. Thus Schliffen decided on going around through Belgium.

The Schlieffen plan was intended to be executed despite it drawing in the UK. Heck, some variants of the plan predicted UK involvement Yet the Germans still intended to execute it anyways and would rather draw both in both the militaries of Belgium and UK into a war rather than limiting the big boys to France and Russia. Like I said, that shows a certain degree of disregard they had for the UK to go ahead and invade Belgium anyways. They were more deterred by the French fortified border than by Belgian and UK participation.

 

[Opanashc]

The Schlieffen plan was intended to be executed despite it drawing in the UK. Heck, some variants of the plan predicted UK involvement Yet the Germans still intended to execute it anyways and would rather draw both in both the militaries of Belgium and UK into a war rather than limiting the big boys to France and Russia. Like I said, that shows a certain degree of disregard they had for the UK to go ahead and invade Belgium anyways. They were more deterred by the French fortified border than by Belgian and UK participation.

In a short-war, it was justified. If peace ensued by Christmas, as Germany intended, British potential would not have mattered.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

actualy they did have chose, even churchil in 38 told "we did have choice betwen shame and war, we chosen shame and will have war".
and did you heard about one small, unimportant book called main kampf writen by hitler ? its english/france tranlastion was avaivable waaaay before 38. and here hitlers goals were nicely stated.
and why western didnt acted ? because his goals were liked by thier political leadeership and fited to thier goals, but they simply ignored danger hiden there.
chamberlain "peace for your time" was not only driven by wanting peace, but it fited his view of world politick, since he and his party wiewed stronger germany (at expanse of eastern nations) nice counterwheight to france power, and if frnace have to worry more about thier land in europe....it will weaken thier position outside of europe, serving in interes of british empire which can be maken stronger here.
they were simply blind in that that hitlers germany can turn against west - them. since 38 relationship of british ruling party and geman ones, were more of friends than of enemies. just look how uk king (cant recal his name, that one which was forced to resigh because he maried divorced american woman) were very pro-german and how he admired hitler. and look how hitler tried to make peace with britain in 40, after fall of france.
i personaly think if in uk in charge was this king and chemberlain ideological succesor....it will be great posibility.
and what was result of this stupid "we dont care about your eastern allies" policy ? lose of british empire, which was only logical, since uk was unable to fight japanese when they have hands full figting germany, and losing of "white superiors" to "asiatic inferiors" showed to british colonies, they can win against them too, taht they are not superior, so they wanted independce, and the got it.

and for soviets, yes they cooperated with germany booth military and economicaly, but hey whcih major state DIDT economicaly cooperated with germany, until they were at war with them ?
just look at swedisn iron send to germany during whole war. and just google how many vehicles/resources us (ford is nicest example) sold to hitler before war between tem. hell, even ibm was selling tabulator machines which were used in concetration camps.

I don't think you understand me, I'll address each point individually:

1. The world was really not in the mood for another bloody world war and I don't really blame them. They didn't choose shame, they chose diplomacy which unfortunately failed, but I'd say it's much more shameful to immediately choose war and the death of many over diplomacy. Compare it to Russia invading Ukraine, would you support the west using force through war or diplomacy? I know what id prefer.

2. Needless to say, you cannot base international politics off of an idealistic and ideological book.

3. Somewhat agree that some UK leaders did want a strong German counter-weight to France but that very quickly dissapated after the whole Rhineland incident. The monarch's opinion is fairly irrelevent and he was quickly brought down anyway.

4. I'm afraid I don't understand your English for a lot of the middle paragraph.

5. It is true the allies did have some economic co-operation with Germany, but that pretty much immediately ended once Germany started getting greedy and warmongering. The soviets however continued not only the economic co-operation, but also it's military co-operation even as Germany was conquering other countries. Big undeniable difference there.

 

[Czert]

While we're at it, you might benefit from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_westward_offensive_of_1918–1919
...in case someone thinks 1920 was happening in a vacuum, that Soviet army was defending "homeland" in 1920 and that they had any business being there in the first place.
Also,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Rights_of_Peoples_of_Russia
...in case someone thinks Soviet Russia could simply inherit claims of Imperial Russia to multiple territories listed above.

As for off-topic value - dealing with an argument that introduced this particular example requires determining whether it fits. Which requires actually discussing it. The alternative is to ignore entire argument - not sure which option is less helpful to the discussion at hand.

for soviet-polish war, well it is realy hard to tell who was wrong and who right, since it was imposible to tell which borders poland should have. some polish politicans wanted to include land ihnabited by ukrainers and bielorusians, all because these lands were part of former poland, before it was divided between russia and prussia.

and for declaration, well, one thing is "thing writen on paper" and second political reality, as this declaration, and alliance between france and czechoslovakia in 38 and between uk and poland in 39 showed.

 

[Opanashc]

5. It is true the allies did have some economic co-operation with Germany, but that pretty much immediately ended once Germany started getting greedy and warmongering. The soviets however continued not only the economic co-operation, but also it's military co-operation even as Germany was conquering other countries. Big undeniable difference there.

I'll give you Poland, since I don't want to argue that one anymore (even though Poland was totally cooperating with Germany earlier, during conquest of Czechoslovakia, so how are they any better?), but what other military cooperation was there? Enlighten me, please.

 

[FOARP]

UK being a naval and economic powerhouse just seemed to have such an underwhelming performance in the World Wars. I guess in WW2 you can make at least make a strong case they showed awesome grit for stomaching it out alone against Nazi Germany until the Nazis invaded the USSR, but still......what were the main factors for such poor showing?

I have to be honest and say that I think you need to read up more on what the actual British contribution to the wars was. There is always a danger of exaggerating your own contribution and under-estimating those of other countries when trying to list what those contributions were, or even being seen to engage in arrogant jingoism, but:

- The plurality of combat troops in action in 1918 were British. The majority of German prisoners taken on the Western Front in 1918 were taken by the British Army. The main weight of the war after the Russian collapse, the Italian defeat at Capporetto, and the French mutiny fell on the British. The 1918 German offensive fell on the British and was defeated on the British front, with the 100 days offensive that followed it being carried out in large part by the British, with British troops also taking part in the counter-offensives in Italy, the Balkans, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. The Ottoman Empire was defeated largely by Britain and the British Empire. The German Navy was defeated largely by the Royal Navy. Armoured warfare began with British efforts on the Western Front, and the relatively small BEF of 1914 was instrumental in the victory at the first battle of the Marne. The British blockade was one of the main factors in the collapse of the Central Powers. If the UK is not recognised as a heavy factor in the defeat of the Central Powers in WW1, then it is hard to see why not.

- In WW2 Britain and the British Commonwealth and Empire played the main role in war in North Africa, Burma, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, and the skies over Germany (of 1,350,000 tons of bombs dropped on Germany within her 1937 borders 657,000 were dropped by RAF bomber command). The majority of Allied troops deployed in Italy were British or British Commonwealth, the same is true of the troops that took place in D-Day. Again, it is hard to see in what sense the UK was not deserving of her seat at the big table at the end of the war.
​

None of the above should be taken to diminish the American, Chinese, French, Russian contribution in the world wars, nor to omit the fact that Britain fought alongside a Commonwealth and Empire, but taking into account the state of development of most of Britain's colonies at the time, I can't see how anyone could conclude that Britain's contribution was less than you might expect based on its economic and industrial power or should not be counted as a significant factor in victory.

​