Best Air Force 1939-1941

[ctrian]

England (or UK) did not benefit from Lend Lease

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.

 

[parsifal]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.

Why would they run out of everything? After Lend lease they continued to churn out vast quantities of domestically produced war materiel. In the ETO Lend Lease amounted to about 10% of aircraft receipts, and a somewhat smaller proportion of ground arments. Britian never received foodstuffs under Lend Lease.

Eventually, Leand Lease did help the British, but in 1941-2 it hardly compewnsate for the myriad of problenms that the British had to deal with as a result of US weaknesses.

This line of argument is non-sequita. I fail to see where it is leading to to be honest

 

[Lighthunmust]

Of the many things I have observed regarding human nature and the psychology of competition, the following two observations come to mind and I wonder if they are not somewhat being manifested in this and other threads:

A competitor or his supporters will frequently insist "he was holding his own" until suddenly being overwhelmed even when impartial observers were aware from the beginning of a steady decline in performance that defeat was inevitable.

Victors will frequently consciously and unconsciously exaggerate the prowess of the vanquished because victory over even a worthy opponent is never enough to satisfy the human desire for a glorious victory over the almost invincible.

seems very deep. could you explain in slightly more simple terms for someone interested, but confused.....

The Vanquished frequently exaggerate the prowess of the Victor to make defeat less stinging by taking pride in the honorable and valiant actions of individuals and groups in what history judges as a bad cause.

That after the victory the Victor frequently dismisses the Vanquished as fools for opposing them even though when in the midst of the conflict both the Victor and the Vanquished demonstrated foolishness and wisdom in close to equal measure.


What I am communicating is that while reading the excellent postings of both sides of this debate I am keeping these four bias in mind and I hope the people posting are doing the same. I obviously from the "I like" checks I have made tend to agree with what you and others are writing in support of the RAF. However, I could easily do the same for the others point of view but did not so as not to appear hypocritical or fickle. I think all things considered the conflict during the time period "Was a very close run thing" to paraphrase Wellington after Waterloo.

 

[Mustang nut]

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say . Without lend lease UK would have to stop the fight because they would run out of everything ,see in the real world you need money to buy things and the ''Empire'' had none.

Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me.

 

[parsifal]

I understand, for the record I believe the LW was the superior air force in 1939-41, but I also believe that in 1942, the positions were reversed.

I hope my arguments are not depicting the germans as fools. I am saying the British benefitted from a superior organaization in their fighter defences over England in 1940-1, and that they enjoyed certain flow on advantages from that. But the factsd are what they are....Germany did start to lose the initiative, losses for them did start to mount. Eventually they did suffere great dmage at the hands of the RAF, far more so than was meted out on Britain by the LW. Surely you agree these are all unavoidable truths about the war

 

[ctrian]

Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me.

Touche

 

[Lighthunmust]

what is a Turkish.
As for Lend Lease Canada was never a recipient as far as I know we were a giver

English rhyming slang. Turkish bath = laugh

Ctrian in times of war economics change. The UK had substantial assets in the USA which were signed over as were some territories like Diego Garcia etc. You can represent Lend lease as charity to a bankrupt state if you like but for the USA to allow Britain to lose would be allowing the whole of Europe and Africa to be lost to the USA as a market.
However when discussing economics and bancruptcy with someone in Greece you probably have more expertise than me.

OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I understand, for the record I believe the LW was the superior air force in 1939-41, but I also believe that in 1942, the positions were reversed.

I hope my arguments are not depicting the germans as fools. I am saying the British benefitted from a superior organaization in their fighter defences over England in 1940-1, and that they enjoyed certain flow on advantages from that. But the factsd are what they are....Germany did start to lose the initiative, losses for them did start to mount. Eventually they did suffere great dmage at the hands of the RAF, far more so than was meted out on Britain by the LW. Surely you agree these are all unavoidable truths about the war

I think you are doing a very good job at not depicting the Germans as fools and keeping bias in check. I also think your summation in the second paragraph is excellent.

 

[Mustang nut]

OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great.

Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world

 

[pbfoot]

Did Canada buy all those Shermans it used?

Maybe we swapped dor PBYs, Mosquitos, Helldivers and we also made some Shermans but armour is not a point I claim but we did produce 800K trucks and 50k of various amoured vehicles
WWII: Canadian War Industry - Canada at War

 

[Readie]

Why would they run out of everything? After Lend lease they continued to churn out vast quantities of domestically produced war materiel. In the ETO Lend Lease amounted to about 10% of aircraft receipts, and a somewhat smaller proportion of ground arments. Britian never received foodstuffs under Lend Lease.

Eventually, Leand Lease did help the British, but in 1941-2 it hardly compewnsate for the myriad of problenms that the British had to deal with as a result of US weaknesses.



This line of argument is non-sequita. I fail to see where it is leading to to be honest

I cannot see what point ctrian is trying to make either...
The allies paid for the victory in every conceivable way and sharing resources was the only way forward.

Cheers
John

 

[Lighthunmust]

OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great.

Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world

Actually you are quoting me and I was mainly referring to Greece's situation and how somewhat by the grace of good Geopolitical location we don't find ourselves in a similar position. The political talking heads here in the States are already speculating that we may find ourselves in Greece's debt position.

Steve not John

 

[Readie]

OUCH! You play rough Mustang Nut. I think it fair to say the U.K. and U.S.A. have considerable experience with financial mismanagement. Fortunately we have had for the better part of two centuries the benefit of better Geopolitical location to cope with it. By the way the cultural debt the U.K. and U.S.A. owe to Greece is immeasurably great.

Readie I was just jesting The debts the UK had at the end of the war were paid, not only to USA but to many other countries who helped us with credit and equipment. As for lend lease it was a partnership, the USA sent us some stuff and we allowed them to use our aircraft carrier for a few years. The cost of defeat would have exceeded the cost of lend lease by a huge margin, lend lease was the cheaper option for the USA. Britain needed US help but by helping Britain the US was also helping itself and the rest of the world

MN, you said what I was thinking but, didn't get around to saying about Greece.
The UK has paid its debts and I'm glad we have paid every single penny.
But, debt is not just about money, in my view we still have a debt of honour to our allies that can never be repaid.

Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

Actually you are quoting me and I was mainly referring to Greece's situation and how somewhat by the grace of good Geopolitical location we don't find ourselves in a similar position. The political talking heads here in the States are already speculating that we may find ourselves in Greece's debt position.

Steve not John

Ummm... the good ship UK may be joining the USA as well.
Its all gone Pete Tong ( wrong)
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

I think you are doing a very good job at not depicting the Germans as fools and keeping bias in check. I also think your summation in the second paragraph is excellent.

The Germans were most certainly not fools. Their Field Marshall's were brilliant. Rommel was a military genius.
Were it when wrong was the ideology that drove the Third Reich and the madmen that that attracted.

Cheers
John

 

[ctrian]

I cannot see what point ctrian is trying to make either...
The allies paid for the victory in every conceivable way and sharing resources was the only way forward.

Cheers
John

you can't make this stuff up...
The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.

 

[Readie]

you can't make this stuff up...
The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.

Apart from providing your obvious entertainment what point about Britain -USA are you trying to make?
I'm sure you can provide some sound financial guidance that we'll benefit from on the question 'how do you fight a war when you have just spent all your money 21 years early in WW1 and started a recovery from the biggest single economic disaster that we have every encountered in the Western world'.
The current one is excluded for the purpose of this discussion.
Cheers
John

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree that if the naval air forces of japan were included in the debate, we would have a tussle for second, but the USN and the IJN are not included in the poll. Difficult to see how the JAAF is superior to the RAF without the help or inclusion of the IJN AF

I need to update first post. Remember talking me into making it include naval forces?

 

[parsifal]

oh yes, I forgot......in that case, its a strong contest for second

 

[parsifal]

you can't make this stuff up...
The Brits were not going to run out of anything ? Yep i guess imports were going to be paid with .....what? I guess you did Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease then.

Britain throughout the war was still exporting considerable amounts of materiel, they also had huge and profitable investments overseas, for example the oil fields in Iraq. They were also receiving considerable credits from the worlds largest merchant marine (which remained the case until the latter half of 1944). There were also various austerity means that assisted greatly, for example in 1942 Britain ceased to be dependant on food imports, by dint of great efficiencies she produced enough food to feed herself, If Britain did not have lend lease it would have hurt, no doubt, but that is completely different to ceasing production altogether. Really, that is just such an absurd statement to make that I am surprised you would even attempt to make it in any serious vane.

With regard to doing Roosevelt a favour, well in a sense they did. Massive amounts of British money was used to prepare US industry for war prior to 1941, and Britain made a significant contribution to US naval defences by trasnferring large numbers of ASW escorts to the USN, and teaching the US some ASW tactics. Lend lease was actually a mutualk assistance package. The nett overall benefit was in Britains favour, but the sum of the parts was greater as a result of the mutual co-operation than if each part had operated separately

This is in stark contrast to the economic relationship between Germany and Italy. This was a nasty little relationship if ever ther was one.