The British Empire

[Arrian]

****ing ****, man.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Repeat after Serb: Russia is the mightiest nation the planet has ever seen. Their leaders were all inspired geniuses, there have NEVER been any mass deaths or persecutions of Rus citizens by their enlightened leaders (all American Hollywood hype, cos you know....we have nothing better to do), EVERY modern invention stems from Mother Russia, Russian equipment is, bar none, the BEST in the world....everything from commercial airplanes to tanks to rifles to toasters. That's why we se so many Russian brand names on our shelves, you see, and why so many European airlines use those Russian-made jets!

All hail Mother Russia!!!!!

-=Vel=-
PS: Oh, and in a similar vein, the USA really IS the Great Satan, responsible for every ill the world has known since about 1776. Every time a world leader catches a cold or has an attack of gas....yep....that would be the fault of the pigs in the USA....

[PLATO]

A complete threadjacking in progress!!

I think the Soviet role in WWI and WWII would make a great thread. Unfortunately, I was expecting to discuss the British role in colonizing Africa. Oh well...

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

My BS detector always brakes when I read your trools.

So you have no proof for your lies then? I thought as much.

Here's what the actual percentages of vital equipment supplied to the Soviets by us Americans.

80% of all canned meat.

Seeing as the Red Army fought mostly on Kasha, that was very nice of the Yanks but I'm sure they could have done without it.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.

This I find unbelievable. Didn't the Soviets have a different railway gauge?

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
57% of all aviation fuel.

Possible. I'm not in a position to challenge.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
53% of all explosives.

Oh C'MON! If there's one thing Uncle Joe always liked it was a big bang. Plus, take the calibre sizes of russian hardware into consideration and you can see there's NO WAY that lot would fit through Murmansk and Arkangel.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
74% of all truck transport.

Enterirely possible. 400,000 Studebakers is a hell of a lot.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

88% of all radio equipment.

Possible, but not exactly high priority from a "Shock Army! THAT WAY!" point of view.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

53% of all copper.
56% of all aluminum.
60+% of all automotive fuel.

Again, not in a position to challenge. I suspect these figures are not fully checkable - first you have to work out how much left, how much arrived, and how much of the relavant 5 year plan was bs.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

74% of all vehicle tires.

Possible, with the note that's non-AFV tires.

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

12% of all armored vehicles.

This one I find very hard to swallow. That's at least 3,000+ AFVs - are you sure all this would fit through the bottlenecks?

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
14% of all combat aircraft.

Beats me why they bothered, given the massive superiority of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front for much of the war.

[TheStinger]

I'll some up Britain in Africa.

We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

[Tolls]

Damn...Stinger beat me to it!

That was pretty much what I was going to say. We might have done a better job than many of the other European powers, but we still did a rubbish job...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I'll some up Britain in Africa.

We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

Well, I think that US pressure had a lot to do with the quick exit. Overall, I think that the British experience in Africa was a positive one. It is my understanding that many government functions are still carried out by British nationals.

In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it.

[DinoDoc]

Re: The British Empire

Originally posted by David Floyd
was the presence of the British positive or negative, overall, in terms of the development/"civilization" of regions such as Africa, India, Australia/NZ, US, Canada, etc.?

Whaddya think?

The origins of the Middle East mess we currently find ourselves in largely flowed from thier actions. I'd say it was an overall negative effect on the region.

[Tolls]

"It is my understanding that many government functions are still carried out by British nationals."

Not sure about that. Most West African (OK, Ghana and Nigeria) countries are pretty solidly run by the locals.

"In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it."

The countries formed by the European division of sub-Saharan Africa were (and are) complete figments. There has been an awful lot of bloodshed caused by these lines on maps. For a couple of examples from British colonies look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)...

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Tolls
""In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it."

The countries formed by the European division of sub-Saharan Africa were (and are) complete figments. There has been an awful lot of bloodshed caused by these lines on maps. For a couple of examples from British colonies look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)...

I agree that there is bloodshed now. IMO it would have been worse without some kind of starting point for a nation that the Europeans provided. Eventually Africa would have sorted it out as they are trying to do today. Providing some type of framework, I believe, has lessened the bloodshed in the long run.

[Tolls]

But the frameworks for the nations already existed in the shape of the old kingdoms, all of which were swept away, while we favoured the minor emirs and chiefs because they were easier to handle.

The failure to take this into account was the start of the mistakes...it was to continue with our failure to draw the locals into the administration, resulting, at the end, in the civil wars and complete failures in terms of governance that occurred on independence. We handed government over to people who had little to no experience of it...and that is our fault.

It's not as if we didn't have experience of using locals in government...we ruled India like that for years, which is why its independence has been slightly more successful.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Tolls
But the frameworks for the nations already existed in the shape of the old kingdoms

I didn't realize that this was the case. I had always been taught that a great part of the continent was ruled by local tribal organizations that were to small in scope to represent the foundings of a nation state.

It's not as if we didn't have experience of using locals in government...we ruled India like that for years, which is why its independence has been slightly more successful.

This faliure is likely due to not having a pool of literate and qualified people to draw from. If educational systems had been installed to provide a local pool of talent then I think that colonials would have tapped into it. While I am sure that there was some effort on this front, it may have proved to large a cultural shift to have been possible to take hold in the time frame of the colonial era.

[Velociryx]

See....everything would have just been all hunky-dory if we'd let the Ruskies conquer the world. They're inherently superior, and would not have made the mistakes that the foolish Brits and Americans have....

-=Vel=-

[Tolls]

"I didn't realize that this was the case. I had always been taught that a great part of the continent was ruled by local tribal organizations that were to small in scope to represent the foundings of a nation state."

The city states of Northern Nigeria were unified (I believe) by the time we arrived, and southern Ghana (into Nigeria) had the fairly solid Asante. But we weren't there for the good of the locals...we were there for the resources.

"This faliure is likely due to not having a pool of literate and qualified people to draw from. If educational systems had been installed to provide a local pool of talent then I think that colonials would have tapped into it. While I am sure that there was some effort on this front, it may have proved to large a cultural shift to have been possible to take hold in the time frame of the colonial era."

We provided schooling in India to train the locals up to be civil servants...there was schooling in Africa as well, but it was always cut short. I mean, we were there for decades, and yet failed to build anything.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I'll some up Britain in Africa.

We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

Most of Africa was never part of the British Empire.

Agreed, the nations were drawn up across trivbal and cultural boundaries.

Some African states have retained their borders with minimal bloodshed (Nigeria, South Africa). Some haven't. (Uganda probably the worst ex-Brit state for this, although their are plenty others).