Why did Britain come off worse from WW2 than the Soviets?

[Emperor Palpatine]

The Soviets had almost all of European USSR destroyed 1st by scorching the earth as the red army withdrew, secondly by German bombardment, 3rd by scorched earth as the Wehrmacht withdrew and 4th by Soviet bombardment. The USSR also lost at least 20 million of its people.

In the struggle against Hitler, Britain bankrupted itself but somehow the Soviets didn't.

Also, Britain's population losses in contrast didn't come anywhere near Soviet losses. Luftwaffe bombing was directed more towards civilian areas than industrial targets. Overall, I don't think a strong case can be made that the Luftwaffe decimated British industry.

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

 

[TFSmith121]

Britain is a resource-poor island nation;

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

1) Britain is a resource-poor island nation; the Soviet Union was a continental near-autarky.

2) The USSR was a centralized command economy; Britain depended on international trade and was integrated into the world economy, for good or for ill;

3) The USSR had an internal economy and market that could included a huge amount of pent-up demand; Britain had a much smaller market that was dependent on imports;

4) The USSR had tremendous internal energy resources; Britain - other than coal - did not until North Sea oil was developed, and that didn't occur until the 1970s.

5) The USSR was not drained by an overseas empire; the British, at a time the writing was on the wall in terms of decolonization, attempted repeatedly to hang onto territories where the population didn't want them to stay;

6) etc.

Best,

 

[okmangeez]

The Soviets had almost all of European USSR destroyed 1st by scorching the earth as the red army withdrew, secondly by German bombardment, 3rd by scorched earth as the Wehrmacht withdrew and 4th by Soviet bombardment. The USSR also lost at least 20 million of its people.

In the struggle against Hitler, Britain bankrupted itself but somehow the Soviets didn't.

Also, Britain's population losses in contrast didn't come anywhere near Soviet losses. Luftwaffe bombing was directed more towards civilian areas than industrial targets. Overall, I don't think a strong case can be made that the Luftwaffe decimated British industry.

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

The Soviets looted and plundered all of Eastern Europe, northern Korea, and Manchuria.

Basically, they took and stole literally everything they could carry and brought them back to the USSR.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The Soviets had almost all of European USSR destroyed 1st by scorching the earth as the red army withdrew, secondly by German bombardment, 3rd by scorched earth as the Wehrmacht withdrew and 4th by Soviet bombardment. The USSR also lost at least 20 million of its people.

In the struggle against Hitler, Britain bankrupted itself but somehow the Soviets didn't.

Also, Britain's population losses in contrast didn't come anywhere near Soviet losses. Luftwaffe bombing was directed more towards civilian areas than industrial targets. Overall, I don't think a strong case can be made that the Luftwaffe decimated British industry.

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

Define "Come off Worse" while mentioning 20 (actually 26.6) million Russian Casualties in the same sentence?

Basically I don't agree with you that Britain - as in the UK - came off worse than Russia!

As for not Bankrupting themselves - such things are measured differently in the Soviet Union - it helps when you have 4 year plans - that get replaced with a new 4 year plan upon the previous 4 year plans failure and so on and a massive amount of statistical Deceit goes a long way when creating a workers paradise.....

 

[Reminiscence]

The Soviets looted and plundered all of Eastern Europe, northern Korea, and Manchuria.

Basically, they took and stole literally everything they could carry and brought them back to the USSR.

I don't think that's how it works.

 

[PhilKearny]

But Britain had a tremendous head start--it had looted and plundered the world for the last 300 years.

The Soviets looted and plundered all of Eastern Europe, northern Korea, and Manchuria.

Basically, they took and stole literally everything they could carry and brought them back to the USSR.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Define "Come off Worse" while mentioning 20 (actually 26.6) million Russian Casualties in the same sentence?

Basically I don't agree with you that Britain - as in the UK - came off worse than Russia!

As for not Bankrupting themselves - such things are measured differently in the Soviet Union - it helps when you have 4 year plans - that get replaced with a new 4 year plan upon the previous 4 year plans failure and so on and a massive amount of statistical Deceit goes a long way when creating a workers paradise.....

Britain came off worse in the sense that it no longer had the economic clout to be a superpower after the war and quickly became a 2nd rate power. Britain couldn't afford to have a nuclear arsenal as big as America's but the Soviets achieved rough parity in the 70s whilst maintaing a massive standing army and navy etc.

 

[juanml82]

Britain came off worse in the sense that it no longer had the economic clout to be a superpower after the war and quickly became a 2nd rate power. Britain couldn't afford to have a nuclear arsenal as big as America's but the Soviets achieved rough parity in the 70s whilst maintaing a massive standing army and navy etc.

And in the process, they bankrupted themselves while Britain had one of the world's best standards of livings and was funding stuff like the NHS instead of thousands of nuclear warheads

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

In what sense?

Britain was (and remained) substantially more prosperous than the USSR.

If one considers relative "Great Power" status, yes, Britain fell out of that status after WW II, while the USSR rose.

But this happened for a simple reason: the USSR was a much larger nation, with a much greater population and much greater natural resources.

Britain's Great Power status was acquired in the 1800s, when she enjoyed technological superiority and naval supremacy. Naval supremacy allowed her to acquire a vast colonial empire and establish loyal daughter countries (the "white Dominions"). Britain also accumulated massive external assets.

After WW II - the colonial empire slipped away, and the daughter countries went their own ways. Britain was reduced to its own resources, which were much smaller than the USSR's. Also, of course, Britain used up its external assets to pay for its war effort, and ran up debts. The USSR had spent no external assets (it had none), and contracted no debts that it was going to pay.

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

In what sense?

Britain finished the war bankrupt and needed an American and Canadian loan in 1946 just to survive. In the ensuing decades Britain repeatedly had to go to the IMF for loan after loan. The same can't be said for the Soviets.

 

[okmangeez]

I don't think that's how it works.

Actually, the Soviets did take a lot of industry and resources from other countries and brought them back to the USSR.

Reasons why the USSR soared so early on.

 

[Lateknight]

Less moral fiber, simpley put the soviets wanted sucessmore then the British.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Actually, the Soviets did take a lot of industry and resources from other countries and brought them back to the USSR.

Reasons why the USSR soared so early on.

The Soviet looting of Eastern Europe, while ultimately profitable in the 40s, was singularly incapable of replacing all the damage the Soviets suffered during WW2 nor capable of sustaining Soviet reconstruction into the 50s and the further growth it experienced on into the late-60s/early-70s. The numbers are dead simple: mid-1940s USD terms, the Soviets looted an approximate $5 billion worth. The estimated monetary value of the damage they took is something like 10 times that number (going off of memory here). And that's before we get into the opportunity costs or the inestimable value of Soviet human losses...

Less moral fiber, simply put the soviets wanted sucess more then the British.

That is some of the most specious reasoning I have ever heard. Who the bloody hell in the British Isles didn't want Britain to succeed as a nation?

Besides the Irish, obviously.

 

[fasquardon]

The Soviet looting of Eastern Europe, while ultimately profitable in the 40s, was singularly incapable of replacing all the damage the Soviets suffered during WW2 nor capable of sustaining Soviet reconstruction into the 50s and the further growth it experienced on into the late-60s/early-70s. The numbers are dead simple: mid-1940s USD terms, the Soviets looted an approximate $5 billion worth. The estimated monetary value of the damage they took is something like 10 times that number (going off of memory here). And that's before we get into the opportunity costs or the inestimable value of Soviet human losses...

Right. The looting was no-where near enough to replace the losses of WW2.

Also, just as the USSR was looting, so were the British, Americans and French.

For example, all of the hydrogen peroxide that the British used in their rocket programs was looted from Germany after the war, 10s of billions of pounds worth of German patents were taken by the British, French and (most of all) the Americans. For several years after WW2, the Western Powers followed a policy of de-industrializing Germany - deconstructing factories and shipping them back home. They only stopped due to fears of West Germany falling to a Communist revolution.

Why did Britain come off worse after the war even though the Soviets suffered far more?

Britain DIDN'T come off worse from WW2.

It came off FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR better.

So why was the USSR a super power when Britain wasn't?

Well, in 1947, Britain was a super power. And a more powerful one than the USSR!

But Britain made poor policy choices in the years and decades after WW2 and Britain also decided that it didn't want to fight the shift to American supremacy too hard.

Also, while the USSR made better policy choices, in a sense her "superpowerdom" was also a huge bluff. In truth, the USSR was only a super power in that she could threaten the USA with enough damage in a war that it was never worth it to the USA to interfere too much in the USSR itself and in a relatively small area of the world around the USSR. But the USA would still have won any war with the USSR. (Though by the 80s, "winning" would look more like "we lost 95% of our population and you lost 99% of yours, we win!")

fasquardon

 

[Emperor Palpatine]

Well, in 1947, Britain was a super power. And a more powerful one than the USSR!

1947 was the year Britain pulled out of Greece because it couldn't afford the upkeep of 70,000 troops. How many Red Army soldiers were in Eastern Europe at the same time? Also the Soviets didn't need an American loan like Britain did in 1946 and they also Marshall aid so they clearly weren't in as desperate an economic position as Britain was after the war.

 

[fasquardon]

1947 was the year Britain pulled out of Greece because it couldn't afford the upkeep of 70,000 troops. How many Red Army soldiers were in Eastern Europe at the same time? Also the Soviets didn't need an American loan like Britain did in 1946 and they also Marshall aid so they clearly weren't in as desperate an economic position as Britain was after the war.

The Soviets DID need a loan - they seriously considered accepting the American offer of Marshall aid. In the end, they thought that the costs to their sovereignty outweighed the benefits.

So they let people starve rather than being drawn into dependence on America.

And Britain could have afforded the Greek occupation if it hadn't been rolling out the welfare state and various other things considered more important by the British government - the Soviets would not build a comparable safety net until the 60s.

fasquardon

 

[pdf27]

1947 was the year Britain pulled out of Greece because it couldn't afford the upkeep of 70,000 troops. How many Red Army soldiers were in Eastern Europe at the same time? Also the Soviets didn't need an American loan like Britain did in 1946 and they also Marshall aid so they clearly weren't in as desperate an economic position as Britain was after the war.

The same Britain that "couldn't afford" 70,000 troops in Greece was running a crash programme to build nuclear weapons, super-advanced jet bombers, vast numbers of state-owned houses, as well as introducing universal healthcare and a major expansion of the social security system - all while supporting a very large army of occupation in Germany, fighting various brushfire wars around the Empire and phasing out rationing.
It's all down to national priorities - the UK was not willing to trash the standard of living of the populace to remain a major military power, the USSR was. The UK for instance started on a major housebuilding programme immediately after the war, the Soviets waited 10 years.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

(Though by the 80s, "winning" would look more like "we lost 95% of our population and you lost 99% of yours, we win!")

Unlikely, given that the Soviet arsenal was actually bigger then the American one by that point.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Britain finished the war bankrupt and needed an American and Canadian loan in 1946 just to survive. In the ensuing decades Britain repeatedly had to go to the IMF for loan after loan. The same can't be said for the Soviets.

Given that 1-1.5 million Soviet citizens died in a famine shortly after the war I'd say the USSR did need help just to survive. They just said no, because unlike Attlee Stalin was willing to let a ton of people die if it meant getting what he wanted.

 

[Just Leo]

One could argue that Britain didn't enter WWII to come out better, while the Soviet Union did. For those in the gulags, one could again argue that the quality of life wasn't all that good.