4 ms·
> and the Blitz failed to inflict any meaningful damage on it c. 40,000[1]–43,000 civilians killed[2] c. 46,000–139,000 injured[2] Two million houses damaged
by bilekas 10mo ago
> and the Blitz failed to inflict any meaningful damage on it
c. 40,000[1]–43,000 civilians killed[2]
c. 46,000–139,000 injured[2]
Two million houses damaged or destroyed (60 percent of these in London)
Sure.. Okay.. France was worse, France is also no longer a world influence it was once.
- vkou 10mo ago40,000 dead[1] and two million houses damaged in a country of 40 million people (presiding over a global empire of a billion souls) over six years is not meaningful... Especially in the context of the largest and most destructive war the world has ever known. > Sure.. Okay.. France was worse, Don't look at Metropolitan France, two thirds of it got to sit the war out as a puppet state. Look further east. How many houses were 'damaged or destroyed' in Germany, Poland, the USSR..? This isn't a suffering Olympics, but compared to war expenditures, the cost of rebuilding the damage inflicted to the Isles was a rounding error. Those expenditures (and their associated debts) were what crippled Britain's ability to maintain an empire, not the cost of rebuilding. --- [1] That sort of thing was a normal day over there. A normal one - not even a bad one.
- bilekas 10mo agoThis isn't a "who had it worse" My point is the UK decided to rebuild at home after significant damages in their capital city, and I agree with them. A lot of EU was destroyed and had to rebuild, the US wasn't and was able to boom.
- mikkupikku 10mo agoFrance's role in future global affairs easily eclipses the UK's. France still has a future as a great power, whereas the UK's opportunity is already squandered.