Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Has the top two most powerful countries militarily ever been such close allies as they are now?
ProDemocracy    8/24/2006 11:20:32 AM
It seems that the second ranked power in the world is always aligned against the first. First ranked Britain always faced France in the 1700's and 1800's. Although briefly allied during the Crimean War, Britain and France were for the most part rivals. In the 1900's, Britain faced Germany. During 1914, Britain and Germany were the two most powerful countries in the world and on opposite sides. In 1941, Russia and Germany were the two most powerful - and went to war. By 1945 after the US had increased the military, it was the US and Russia. And once it became the US and Russia, the cold war began. Until now, has there ever been a time in history when the worlds two most powerful nations were as close allies as the US and UK are currently? It would seem that there is nothing those two countries could not accomplish together - not that they don't need others. But in the face of wide UN opposition and in the face of opposition from other powers - namely Russia and China, the US and UK went ahead in Iraq. And noone tried to stop them...more than likely because they couldn't.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Forest    The 'C' words   9/4/2006 1:10:39 PM
 
The French: Cowered by, Capitulated to, and then Collaborated with the Germans. A type of Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale – setting a new precedent in abject defeatism rarely surpassed in history’s annuls. (Can anyone suggest a more dismal performance?)

 An who is Frenchy blaming for THEIR spinelessness – the BEF!

 
Quote    Reply

Forest    The 'C' words   9/4/2006 1:19:00 PM
 
The French: Cowered by, Capitulated to, and then Collaborated with the Germans. A type of Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale – setting a new precedent in abject defeatism rarely surpassed in history’s annuls. (Can anyone suggest a more dismal performance?)

 An who is Frenchy blaming for THEIR spinelessness – the BEF!

 
Quote    Reply

EssexBoy    UK a world power?   9/4/2006 3:08:18 PM
I can't believe anyone seriously thinks that the UK is a world power. Ther 2003 Defence White Paper concluded that the UK's armed forces should be re-organised so that they could conduct three small to medium scale operations simultaneously or (given time to prepare) one large scale operation. The paper then goes on to state:
 
"Participation will generally be in coalition with other countries and large scale intervention operations are unlikely to be conducted without the U.S."
 
>>
 
That doesn't sound like the capabilities of a world power to me.
 
It would be interesting to read the French government's assessment of French military capabilities. Any links anyone? 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       9/4/2006 3:24:22 PM
The French also lost 300,000 troops in the Battle of France...on top of nearly 2 million deaths in WWI.  They were war weary and couldn't stand up to the NAZIs.  Who could at that point?  Just the Russians in the East who lost 10 million men and bled the Wermacht dry.  If it wasn't for the Russians, the Nazis would have still been in power....the  UK and the US had less to do with the defeat of Germany.  The Nazis were deterred by the English Channel and UK subs so Operation Sea Lion was never launched; Hitler felt if he could conqueor his real enemies in the USSR and create more lebensraum the British might give up...or not he didn't care all that much what happened to Britian since it was an island and not on the mainland of Europe.  Hitler hated France and the USSR the most, and it was his goal to defeat at least those two countries.  He couldn't defeat the Russians and that led to his downfall.
 
I think though that neither the UK nor France today would be considered in the top two military powers in the world...China, India, Russia, Israel, and perhaps even Iran have stronger militaries then these two countries.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       9/4/2006 3:24:27 PM
The French also lost 300,000 troops in the Battle of France...on top of nearly 2 million deaths in WWI.  They were war weary and couldn't stand up to the NAZIs.  Who could at that point?  Just the Russians in the East who lost 10 million men and bled the Wermacht dry.  If it wasn't for the Russians, the Nazis would have still been in power....the  UK and the US had less to do with the defeat of Germany.  The Nazis were deterred by the English Channel and UK subs so Operation Sea Lion was never launched; Hitler felt if he could conqueor his real enemies in the USSR and create more lebensraum the British might give up...or not he didn't care all that much what happened to Britian since it was an island and not on the mainland of Europe.  Hitler hated France and the USSR the most, and it was his goal to defeat at least those two countries.  He couldn't defeat the Russians and that led to his downfall.
 
I think though that neither the UK nor France today would be considered in the top two military powers in the world...China, India, Russia, Israel, and perhaps even Iran have stronger militaries then these two countries.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/4/2006 3:36:42 PM
I find it rather curious and funny how Israel has managed to build itself a myth of power to the extent that some people think they can challenge the UK or France where being a world power is concerned. Both the UK and France are strong world powers, and can influence anywhere in the world through military, economic or political means, Israel on the other hand is a regional power.


 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       9/4/2006 5:10:11 PM
The French: Cowered by, Capitulated to, and then Collaborated with the Germans. A type of Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale – setting a new precedent in abject defeatism rarely surpassed in history’s annuls. (Can anyone suggest a more dismal performance?) An who is Frenchy blaming for THEIR spinelessness – the BEF!
 
WW2 Belgium and Nerderland which surrendered in few days destabilizing all combined order of battle of British and french, Italians in WW2 etc..
Russian did even worse than French in 1941.After 3 month of combat in Russia, German did not have more losses than in the six week campaign of 1940.And germany had less than half losses in conquering rest of continental Europe than they did have on 1940 in France.
In 1940, french governement split between those who wanted to continue the fight even German occupied most of our land where was our heavy and war industry, and those who wanted to take "not so bad" german armistice conditions and hoped to do what Germany have done after 1918 once Hitler would died or quit power.
The French government asked US to remove the ban on weapons to France (we could have payed with our gold stock which was send in canada during the war).USA refused to remove the embargo so those who wanted to seize opportunity of armistice won.If USA have accepted to deliver weapons and materials (on paiements), probably France would have stayed in the fight.
As Russia was on the side of Germany, USA neutral, UK in its island on the verge of being defeated, and our industry taken by german, what did reamain? Fighting with spears vs nazis? Moron!
Some people collaborated  (a minority) because they thought democracy and its weakness was cause of defeat, that Bolshevism was even a bigger danger, they were fascist or nazis and they thought France could allied with germany, because of hatred of English betrayal after Mers El Kebir, because german were very correct in occupied zone with most of French during the two firs years, because german were clever enough to not to impose too harsh conditions in armistice...Does it make sense?
In Belgium, Nederland or Norway, collaboration was even much stronguer.
For you information I remember you who were nazis:
Moron!
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       9/4/2006 5:11:07 PM
Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
 
Quote    Reply

ProDemocracy       9/4/2006 5:30:10 PM

The French: Cowered by, Capitulated to, and then Collaborated with the Germans. A type of Stockholm Syndrome on a nationwide scale – setting a new precedent in abject defeatism rarely surpassed in history’s annuls. (Can anyone suggest a more dismal performance?) An who is Frenchy blaming for THEIR spinelessness – the BEF!
 

WW2 Belgium and Nerderland which surrendered in few days destabilizing all combined order of battle of British and french, Italians in WW2 etc..

Russian did even worse than French in 1941.After 3 month of combat in Russia, German did not have more losses than in the six week campaign of 1940.And germany had less than half losses in conquering rest of continental Europe than they did have on 1940 in France.

In 1940, french governement split between those who wanted to continue the fight even German occupied most of our land where was our heavy and war industry, and those who wanted to take "not so bad" german armistice conditions and hoped to do what Germany have done after 1918 once Hitler would died or quit power.

The French government asked US to remove the ban on weapons to France (we could have payed with our gold stock which was send in canada during the war).USA refused to remove the embargo so those who wanted to seize opportunity of armistice won.If USA have accepted to deliver weapons and materials (on paiements), probably France would have stayed in the fight.

As Russia was on the side of Germany, USA neutral, UK in its island on the verge of being defeated, and our industry taken by german, what did reamain? Fighting with spears vs nazis? Moron!

Some people collaborated  (a minority) because they thought democracy and its weakness was cause of defeat, that Bolshevism was even a bigger danger, they were fascist or nazis and they thought France could allied with germany, because of hatred of English betrayal after Mers El Kebir, because german were very correct in occupied zone with most of French during the two firs years, because german were clever enough to not to impose too harsh conditions in armistice...Does it make sense?

In Belgium, Nederland or Norway, collaboration was even much stronguer.

For you information I remember you who were nazis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
" href_cetemp=">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane
">link
Moron!

 

 




Maybe if France would have fought, the US would have sold it weapons like it did the UK when the UK refused German terms.  The French also had an excellent navy which could have carried on the fight from the British Isles or various British/French bases.  The bottom line is that if the French had produced enough weapons before the war, used those weapons effectivitly, they would not have had to depend on the US to sell them weapons.  The US was neutral...and the US also thought the French Army could handle the German Army...bad estimation on the part of the US.
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       9/4/2006 6:44:50 PM
 
"The French also lost 300,000 troops in the Battle of France...on top of nearly 2 million deaths in WWI.  They were war weary and couldn't stand up to the NAZIs."
 
Sure once the Maginot line was surpassed, all hope of stopping the German offensive had quickly crumbled. Many a frenchmen staked alot on the strength of the Maginot Line against any future German attack; With the Germans operating in their rear and to their front allied operations, the life-line too sustaining any military operation for the allies up north in the low countries, was effectively severed by the German on-slaught that came from the Ardennes. Many people also fail to take into account the roll the League of Nations had played in many European hearts, at keeping any threat of war breaking out in europe. That hope was easily crushed by Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia and in Hitler's re-occupation of the rhine industrail district both in 36'.... which in his opinion on the ineffectiveness of the League was pretty much confirmed!
 
 "Who could at that point?  Just the Russians in the East who lost 10 million men and bled the Wermacht dry.  If it wasn't for the Russians, the Nazis would have still been in power....the  UK and the US had less to do with the defeat of Germany. "
 
The Russians, if you remember, were doing everything they could too appease Hitler by staying on his good side, from the summer of 39' to the mid-summer of 41'... in effect, keeping him in power! The military force was there in europe to stop Hitler before 39', captured german documents after WW 2 confirmed any Allied mititary show of force would have been enough too deter him... it was the will to do so, that was severely lacking, or... one could almost say that it didn't exist at all! Which leaves us with the many hypothetical what if's and if only?
 
Also... The UK, US and the Soviets had alot to do with defeating the Germans together. The Russians payed in blood, the Americans in economics, money & materials and the British in sheer will power too carry on the fight... even with the Russians allied with Hitler at the time. If you ask me, the British deserve alot more credit than they are currently given, by just staying in the fight!
 
To have chucked it in before Operation Barbarossa, would have given  Hitler an undreamed of opportunity of defeating the Russians with all his flanks secured from any threats of an external invasion (Think about N. Africa and the instability of the Balkans & especially the importance of Britain serving as an unsinkable base in which too launch the future D-Day operations). The dreaded two front war any pre-world war 2 German leader feared! That extra OOMPH with those extra divisions from the atlantic coast & the med would have been just enough to have pushed into and quite possibly taken Moscow and just might have captured Stalin (again, another BIG what if's), which would have done much to destroy the soviet war effort. The taking of Moscow would have substantially increased German industrial war productions and also not forgetting too mention... Moscow being the main nerve center for the entire region west of the Urals. So many what if's....
 
 "The Nazis were deterred by the English Channel and UK subs so Operation Sea Lion was never launched; Hitler felt if he could conqueor his real enemies in the USSR and create more lebensraum the British might give up...or not he didn't care all that much what happened to Britian since it was an island and not on the mainland of Europe." 
 
Partly right in your estimation. It was pretty much recognized then, unlike now, where most of the credit belonged in the opening stages of the battle for Britain, IMHO... the RAF. Without effective aircover for British battleships and land forces, and or... the heart of industrial war-making (S. England)  in supplying H.M Royal military forces; By putting up a very rigorous defence in the air.... it was compelling enough for Hitler too abandon any desire in subjugating the UK in it's entirity. Without the RAF, the Germans would or could have done to the R.N. what the japanese had done too her far eastern fleet in the out break of war in that region; Also... what allied aircover had done to the Germans before and after D-Day, is good enough of a picture to paint, of the peril the British land forces would have faced without any effective air cover against the Germans! Your right in saying that Hitler saw the USSR a
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics