Best Air Force 1939-1941

[buffnut453]

IIRC, the UK received approx 25% of its war materiel from Lend Lease. Whilst that's a considerable proportion, its removal would not have resulted in automatically in the UK having to surrender. Lend Lease was a purely pragmatic decision by Roosevelt. By mid-1940, the only democratic nations of substance outside the US were the UK and the English-speaking nations of the Commonwealth. If the UK ceased fighting, America would have been surrounded by expansionist dictatorships with little chance for the US alone to overcome them (launching D-Day from Greenland, anyone?). The probably result (assuming Barbarossa followed a similar path to the way things panned out in reality) would be a Soviet-dominated Europe, or at least a long, bloody fight between the USSR and Nazi Germany, with Japan having effectively a free hand in the mainland battles of the Far East - no Burma Campaign, which was one of the main drains on IJA strength, and little need for the Pearl Harbor attack.

 

[Lighthunmust]

......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.

The U.K. did the U.S.A. just as big a favor as received. For one they held the wolf at bay long enough for America to gather strength. Anyone with a knowledge of the prewar size, organization, and sophistication of the U.S. Military knows that America benefited enormously from the example set and shepherding it received from the U.K. military. Just two things among many demonstrate this. The British showed great patience and acumen in dealing with the bigotry toward the British displayed by USN CinC Ernest King. A bigotry so strong that it prevented him from accepting obvious facts and techniques of modern naval warfare in 1941-42 that led to the loss of many merchant ships and death of many merchant seamen. These were facts and techniques he was later forced to acknowledge and adopt. The British also provided significant aid to America's Signals Intelligence capability. The U.S. had some capability but the example and support from GCHQ greatly expanded it. We can debate all we want to about who had the best planes and pilots, but more Allied soldiers were saved and more battles won because of an almost total monopoly on good SIGINT from the U.K. and U.S.A. SIGINT was the single most significant weapon of the war, not the Atomic Bomb which became the most significant weapon of the postwar, and certainly not any fighter or bomber during the war.

 

[ctrian]

This site is amazing, i learned that the Brits were doing Roosevelt a favor by accepting lend lease and that they were so rich they could built and buy anything they wanted ... I need an aspirin.Better yet get the whiskey.

 

[parsifal]

Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.

You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do.

So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way

 

[ctrian]

Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.

You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do.

So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way

Nope i think i'll get a double dose.

 

[Readie]

Well a whiskey may improve your judgement and your temperament, but with regard to your other comment, thats not what anyone has said. What has been said is that there were mutual benefits arising from the relationship. Thats been said by a number of people. whats also been said is that with or without LL, the british could continue to produce and continue to prosecute the war effectively. This was in response to your rather inane comment that the brits without US charity would not be able to fight.

You should refrain from trying to skew the argument away from what people have said, and try and cover the tracks that lead to your own unsustainable positions when doing so. People like me will always point out the silliness of your position if you do.

So, if you are done slagging the British war effort from an unsustainable position, are we ready to move on....happy to continue either way

parsifal,
ctrian is just winding us up.
We know we are right and so does he.
Funnily enough I thought the Greeks were on our side.
Cheers
John

 

[Readie]

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

Don't forget the 'neutral' Swiss the people who financed the Third Reich....

 

[ctrian]

parsifal,
ctrian is just winding us up.
We know we are right and so does he.
Funnily enough I thought the Greeks were on our side.
Cheers
John

Actually it's you that are winding me up,but what can i say i'm a weak character and i take the bait

 

[parsifal]

Okay, fair enough. What evidence do you have then to support your claim that Britain was 100% dependant on LL to sustain its war effort. Please include verifiable references so that we can verify whether you are full of it like in other threads.

If you cannot provide some evidence to support this claim of yours, then you need to modify your position to state that its merely your opinion based on...nothing.

 

[Mustang nut]

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

Sorry Steve

The point I was making was that Greece has defaulted on its national debt 5 times the UK never has despite 2 world wars and the Napoleonic wars etc etc. That is off topic but in 1939-45 it was taken into account by those that extended credit to the UK and today is taken into account on world money markets.


originally posted by Parsival
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

Parsival great post

there was also the transfer of Radar and other technologies. The choice faced by the USA was to help the British or see Britain possibly taken over by the Nazis. I dont know how you can price the difference but there was the possibility of the US facing the British and Japanese fleets armed with ASDIC and RADAR and Russia facing fleets of 4 engined bombers and the full force of the German war machine with no distactions in North Africa and Europe. In that scenario lend lease is a no brainer.

 

[Readie]

Actually it's you that are winding me up,but what can i say i'm a weak character and i take the bait

An honest answer.
But, we are right and I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make.
Cheers
John

 

[ctrian]

Okay, fair enough. What evidence do you have then to support your claim that Britain was 100% dependant on LL to sustain its war effort. Please include verifiable references so that we can verify whether you are full of it like in other threads.

If you cannot provide some evidence to support this claim of yours, then you need to modify your position to state that its merely your opinion based on...nothing.

Clear the foam from your mouth.

''In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediately.''

Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1937-1945 - Lend-Lease and Military Aid to...

There was a british meeting after the fall of France were they had to decide if they would carry on the war and how they were going to pay for it since they had no money left.I don't remember where i read that but i'll try to look around.

 

[Tante Ju]

In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..

Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.

 

[ctrian]

In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..

Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.

You're wasting your time with them (so am i ) .Britain could fight on indefinitely producing everything and maybe just maybe if Roosevelt begs them they would allow ''some'' American aid.

 

[buffnut453]

In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..

Per my earlier post, across the entire war (1939-1945), lend-lease accounted for about 25% of military hardware obtained by the UK. The key problem was lack of gold reserves in the UK, not overall bankruptcy of the UK economy (it is possible for someone to remain financially solvent even if they don't have any savings in the bank!).

I agree that WWII marked the death-knell for the British Empire and the emergence of the US as the world's only industrial and military superpower. That said, I for one am very proud of my nation's sacrifices. The alternatives, per my earlier post, are a Europe dominated either by Nazism or Communism.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Some of you need to tone it down a bit and play nice! This thread is on the verge of getting out of hand (as the other one is).

This is the one and only warning. I also don't want any "He Said, She Said" crap, just cool it down.

 

[parsifal]

According to Andrew Clark aeditor of the business section of the Observer Newspaper, in an interview I saw recently and something of an amateur historian that specialises on wartime economics (I understand)

(What was Britains financial position at thye time of Lend lease)

"The UK was incapable of buying some war equipment it wanted, without
going into debt. At the time Lend-Lease went into effect, the British
dollar reserves, and assets convertible into dollars, were quite low.
The British economy was still a powerful modern economy, and Britain
was not yet in debt".

(in reply to the question was Britain bankrupt at the time of lend lease?)

"Not at the time Lend-Lease went into effect. That would have been
true some time later. In any case, this is precisely the same as
most other international transactions. The British economy was
under a great deal of strain and uncertainty, but that's hardly
unknown even in peacetime circumstances."

(Was the British economy on the Brink of Bankrupotcy in 1941?")

"I would be very reluctant to describe an entity as being on the
brink of bankruptcy when said entity was not actually in debt.
Up until Lend-Lease started, Britain had been buying war materiel
from the US on a cash basis, and Britain was getting close to
not being able to do this any more. The British economy was
capable of keeping a war effort going, although not as large a one
as the authorities thought desirable".

(If Britain had been refused Lend lease would they have been bankrupt, and could they have continued the fight?)

"Britain wouldn't have gone bankrupt without the US.
Rather, the British war effort would simply have had to be scaled down to
take into account lack of supply from the US. That would have had
significant consequences for the course of the war but it wouldn't have
meant a German victory."

In any event, this mans views offer a pretty clear appraisal of the military potential of the British without Lend Lease. I think his views and opinions are accurate and balanced

 

[Readie]

In 1941, Britain can no longer pay for imports. Its bankcrupt. Without US help in 1941 - Lend Lease - it cannot continue.. cannot pay.. all vital supplies are from USA..

Perhaps this low position is difficult to accept, but is true. FDR was very smart politician in world politics. He saw the opportunity, the British had no position to argue - so he took everything. Bases, and colonies. British colonies were vital to British trade - in 1941 decisive agreement about "free trade". It sounds nice. But it was death sentence to colonial empire. British had to compete with US industry in equal terms now - no chance.

You seem to be quite pleased to point this out Tante Ju.
I'm not sure where you hail from but, I'm guessing its not Britain.
You and your comrade ctrian continually over look one thing .
Even though I rather suspect that the tongue is firmly planted in the cheek....

The USA, The Commonwealth and Great Britain were allies.
If polictical deals were done to help each other out then so what?

I would rather any deal was done and been born a free Englishman that the subject of the Third Reich.
We have paid dearly for our liberty and it would be very wrong to belittle the hard decisions made and their consquences.

That's it from me as I have nothing I wish to add to this thread.

Cheers
John

 

[ctrian]

How would Britain continue to fight if :
Up until Lend-Lease started, Britain had been buying war materiel
from the US on a cash basis, and Britain was getting close to
not being able to do this any more. The British economy was
capable of keeping a war effort going, although not as large a one
as the authorities thought desirable

Rather, the British war effort would simply have had to be scaled down

Scaled down to what? Without M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Rommel is drinking his coffee in Cairo.The RAF's Bomber Command has to close shop since they can't take the horrific losses they historically absorbed.No P-40 for N.Africa ,no P-36 for Far East , supplies of all types ,fuel etc etc etc.
There's a thing called Liebig's law check it up.Lend lease kept Britain from collapsing ,thanks to it it could continue the fight .

 

[Mustang nut]

How would Britain continue to fight if :
Without M3 Grant and M4 Sherman Rommel is drinking his coffee in Cairo.The RAF's Bomber Command has to close shop since they can't take the horrific losses they historically absorbed.No P-40 for N.Africa ,no P-36 for Far East , supplies of all types ,fuel etc etc etc.
There's a thing called Liebig's law check it up.Lend lease kept Britain from collapsing ,thanks to it it could continue the fight .

I dont know what point you are making, without lend lease the Americas are isolated Europe Africa Asia and eventually India Australasia are under the control of either the Nazis Communists or Japanese. Lend lease was a deal between allies for mutual benefit. The USA may have eventually been the biggest winner financially but how would you price a dark age of Europe including Britain being ruled by Adolf? As I understand history Greece was liberated by lend lease weapons.