what if the soviets invaded britain?

if the soviets beat the fuck out of everyone in ww2 and invaded britain what do you think would have happended?

 

More vodka...

 

The Royal Navy would have beat the piss out of the Soviet Navy and they wouldn't have been able to land troops.

 

we'd all be dancing like this down Fabric

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WpYWpN0VXU"]Dances of the soldiers

 

Thanks To The Russian Influence, British Vehicles Would Have Been

Even Less Reliable Than They Were At That Time....

History Has Shown, The Russians Have Never Ever Produced Anything Which

In Anyway Resembled A Comfortable, Reliable, Stylish Car....

So I Guess Your Best Option, Would Have Been The Tube, A Bicycle, A Set Of Roller Skates,

Or Just Footing It....



Cheers Glen.

 

No cold war, but more like ww3 or a continuation of ww2.

 

When WWII ended, the Soviet armed forces was all but destroyed. They wouldn't have stand a chance against the UK and it's American allies. The bond between our 2 nations (UK & USA) was (and still is) very strong. We would have destroyed them to the point that the US and/or the UK would have taken over Russia and would have broken up the Soviet Union much sooner than it has happened.

Edit: to Joshua. It would be the Soviets learning a new way to dance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9XuJJXylw"]The Twist - Chubby Checker - YouTube

 

We should have taken Stalin out when we had the chance. He set Russia and Eastern Europe back a century. Killed and ran off the intellectuals, writers, artists. Where was Russia on D-Day? They sure were there after Germany was decimated by allied bombers. Where were they during the reconstruction? Stealing Mercedes machinery and eastern Europe land. Shows a great contrast to Western victors ideals and USSR opportunism. One helps a people when they are down and the other rapes them.

 

Would be doubtful that there would have been a D-day if there weren't any economical consequences for US to leave Europe to the nazi's but ok.

 

I doubt they'd have made it further than the French Coast. Our Navy was massively superior to any navy then. In many ways it is still, technically.

But, if they had, we would at least have superior caviar. And our tennis players might win.

 

Erm - not quite. The Red Army was sweeping across Europe quite nicely. If we hadn't met them around Berlin they would have carried on.

 

The Soviets had man power, but they were short on everything else, from bullets to food. Even in a pretend set up, theres no way they could have invaded Britain.

 

The Royal Navy has been all but completely gutted. Don't even have an aircraft carrier right now (though are building one) - sold the last one off. For better or worse, the US navy is more powerful than all the worlds navies combined. It seems silly to me for an island nation to neglect its ships, but that is what has happened, none the less.

Having said that though, the British military has for centuries excelled at doing more with less, and they continue to do that now. Maybe that's why during the Iraq conflict the Royal Army got stuck with Basrah, which was the the most violent area at the time. When was the last time, since the British sorted it out, we heard anything going down in Basrah? I can't even remember. If I ruled a country, I'd certainly be sure to make friends with London no matter what their military budget was.

 

We have a technically advanced navy, not one based on 1940's aircraft carriers.

Do I need to remind you that, in the South Atlantic incident (The Falklands War) in the early 80's, we carried out a combined military action against the occupying Argentinian forces by means of a relatively small force comprising a naval task force, with it's air support, special forces action (which was critical) and the ultimate occupation of the territory by the Parachute Regiment (2 Para)??? An action which, for your information, was declared impossible to acheive by the US Navy prior to it's implementation.

There is no such thing as "The Royal Army" - you are clearly ignorant. Iraq is an area that was once largely a British Empire Protectorate - but our modern involvement is entirely independent of any such history.

 

Лондон

 

I didn't say it wasn't technically advanced, I was speaking in terms of overall might. And while aircraft carriers were very popular in the 1940s, they are still very important today - the most recent NATO actions in Libya being a prime example. In the event that there are no FOB with which to house airplanes, and air power being critical, aircraft carriers are still a very important part of naval operations.

Exactly, the British military managed to do a great deal with a relatively small force. Thank you for helping to clarify my point.

My apologies for preferring to use Royal Army instead of British Army. If I'd known this would bother you so much, I would've been a little more careful. But thanks for judging my knowledge on the matter by a simple, benign misstep. Also I don't know why you're bringing up Iraqs past with the British Empire, I was merely pointing out the success the British had in the recent Iraq conflict. I'm not really sure why you are being so argumentative about this - my post was complimentary of the British military and was meant to show admiration for it.

 

The combined air forces of the US and Britain would have bombed the Soviets back to Moscow.

 

I wasn't being bad-tempered, really, lol - I was just trying to get the record straight.

I mentioned our past with Iraq (the Mesopotamian protectorate) mainly so it is clear that we had one, lol. Some might not know this.

I don't dispute that both the US and ourselves, and many other European countries besides ourselves, have a capacity and an interest in these things. However, there is a tendency for some Americans to adopt a somewhat out of context bombasticism regarding these topics, and it does sometimes need re-adjusting. lol.

Glad to see you aren't maybe one of them.

 

Are we talking about today , or ww2 ? Cause it's apples and oranges .

The United States navy hands down has the most powerful tech. driven navy in the world today . However , In years to come in the economic mess how will it remain so ? It may very well go the way of the Russian navy , who needs more tow boats then warships whenever set to sea . However their attack subs are well maintained and ready .

The Royal Navy has the second tech. driven powerful navy in the world . With France , then Japan , Russia , South Korea , Italy . It's debateable but I think pretty close .

At last check I thought the royal navy had three carriers . No super carriers . However the Q.E. class super carrier will change and upgrade their capabilities . But again in the economic crisis , will they come to be ? Currently their carriers can only launch harrier jump jets , not very functional for some roles . They did indeed win the last naval engagement in the early 80s . Experience means alot and right now the U.K . and the United States are the only countries building 90,000 ton carriers . But China has plans on some just under . I think in years to come India and China will become much more powerful using Russian tech . Just my humble opinion of course .

 

We were talking about WW2, I played a direct role in derailing that topic.