Yeah, rationing was easily one of the most hated things on the British home front. Rationing continued several years after the war and more or less directly led to the Labour government losing to the Conservatives over the issue of continuing rationing.
Things that were less obvious to the general public were rationed until 80s, maybe even early 90s. Certain types of fluids for machinery hydraulics, certain types of alloys, a large number of purified chemicals for a wide range of industries and uses.
Basically the Americans went back to their pre-war policy of fucking over and undermining the British whenever possible. To make sure the British Empire dissolved and America was to secure its place as the new super power.
They were very harsh on Britiain and France for post war depts, meaning Britian had to spend what little money it had paying off the Americans instead of feeding people, and the Americans also withdrew thir direct food support that hey had sent during the war that made things even worse.
All of this while they were investing heavily into building Germany back up as a buffer to the Soviets.
I mean… that’s not quite right. The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government made many choices that didn’t help the cause combined with bad luck. Wikipedia certainly doesn’t agree with your assessments.
Lend-lease repayments didn’t start til 1951. That repayment plan was 50 years at 2% interest. The US lend-lease plan involved the US giving the UK $31B, that’s the equivalent to $500B today. How that could be anything by a gigantic gift between allies I’m unclear.
That’s a lot of money. I’m sorry you think it was harsh - but it doesn’t read that way to me at all.
More importantly, the US was the one leading the rebuilding of Germany - France and the UK were still trying to dismantle German heavy industry until 1950 or so. The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war (just like post WW1…) than trying to build it back up.
Then there was the Marshall Plan, which the UK received 26% of the total funds from (about $200B today - and 3% of the GDP of the countries aided).
This whole comment skirts around the issues i mention in my comment while also garnishing it with praise for tangential acts the US did during the war.
Yes the US were rather generous DURING the war. My comment never says otherwise, but its the Post-war actions of the US that I mention. You even try to gloss over this with your line
The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war
Almost like Germany was the agressor and loser of a horiffic war and decimated UK industry in the process or something.
Then there was the Marshall Plan
Which is you read your own link:
which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
Or to start the conversation that had the US joined the war earlier there would not be as much of a need to rebuild these countries.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
Basically, your view is quite biased and aims to paint the US as charitable saints instead of war profiteers.
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
The US didn’t withdraw food support - it was just reorganized and curtailed somewhat. In terms of the Labour government’s culpability, there were a variety of worker’s strikes - including dock workers - that resulted in tons of meat and fish going bad. The Labour government eventually ordered the Army to break the strike.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
No - the loans were issued then. The lend-lease was basically entirely forgiven. The loans always had a 5 year grace period.
The UK was bankrupt. You got loans from the US, Canada and others that you wish were gifts to stay afloat. At absurdly good rates - and additional aid in rebuilding from the Marshall plan.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
A half percent of GDP growth. It was 3% of the GDP of the countries. Did nothing is highly debatable.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Probably not the reason you had to ration in 1953 still, and I’m not sure what betrayal you’re referring to.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
This was netted out from the lend-lease that was forgiven. You also got to keep all the equipment for rebuilding.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Do you have examples of this?
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
You make it sound like the UK was bankrupt because of their own mismanagement. They were basically repelling an invasion for years while being the USA’s stepping stone into the European theatre.
Acting like it’s noble to build up the country of the destroyed enemy, but not assist the ravaged ally in the same way is really odd.
We did assist that ravaged ally after, with an emergency loan with a very low interest rate, and the UK was the largest beneficiary of the Marshall plan dollars.
France was #2.
I don’t know where this revisionist animosity is coming from, but it’s not reflected in reality.
A couple points to help clarify why these actions were taken:
The British (and French) owed the US for WW1 and the Nazis were financial trolls who didn’t pay back Anglo or French debts because they wanted to fuck over the lenders (who they felt were Jewish).
The US had lent out over a $1T to the Allied powers for WW1 and that’s why FDR supported England while the US was neutral - losing that much money would ruin any country in 1940.
The cause of the rise of fascism in Germany after WW1 was determined to be the austerity enforced on the Germans in order to pay back the reparations. Investing in Germany was mandatory to eliminate the rise of another populist dictator.
This was the second war Britain got into that it could defend itself abroad without the US (Singapore was an embarrassment for Britain and the Burma campaign is underreported but showed the English were still fighting in their colonial style of using poorly trained irregulars that repeatedly cost them supply and initiative). It became clear to the US that the British could not afford another war and we’re in no position to rebel against any judgement imposed on them.
Britain was also losing her own colonial nations that had nothing to do with America. India was never going to remain a British occupied region. Huge swaths of Africa were decidedly outside her grasp. Most of the middle east was also anxious for their own independence so Britain never stood a chance of being their Victorian size for long.
Yeah, rationing was easily one of the most hated things on the British home front. Rationing continued several years after the war and more or less directly led to the Labour government losing to the Conservatives over the issue of continuing rationing.
Things that were less obvious to the general public were rationed until 80s, maybe even early 90s. Certain types of fluids for machinery hydraulics, certain types of alloys, a large number of purified chemicals for a wide range of industries and uses.
Why did it continue?
Basically the Americans went back to their pre-war policy of fucking over and undermining the British whenever possible. To make sure the British Empire dissolved and America was to secure its place as the new super power.
They were very harsh on Britiain and France for post war depts, meaning Britian had to spend what little money it had paying off the Americans instead of feeding people, and the Americans also withdrew thir direct food support that hey had sent during the war that made things even worse.
All of this while they were investing heavily into building Germany back up as a buffer to the Soviets.
I mean… that’s not quite right. The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government made many choices that didn’t help the cause combined with bad luck. Wikipedia certainly doesn’t agree with your assessments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Post-Second_World_War_1945–1954
Lend-lease repayments didn’t start til 1951. That repayment plan was 50 years at 2% interest. The US lend-lease plan involved the US giving the UK $31B, that’s the equivalent to $500B today. How that could be anything by a gigantic gift between allies I’m unclear.
That’s a lot of money. I’m sorry you think it was harsh - but it doesn’t read that way to me at all.
More importantly, the US was the one leading the rebuilding of Germany - France and the UK were still trying to dismantle German heavy industry until 1950 or so. The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war (just like post WW1…) than trying to build it back up.
Then there was the Marshall Plan, which the UK received 26% of the total funds from (about $200B today - and 3% of the GDP of the countries aided).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Basically, your view is quite biased and uncharitable as compared to reality.
This whole comment skirts around the issues i mention in my comment while also garnishing it with praise for tangential acts the US did during the war.
Yes the US were rather generous DURING the war. My comment never says otherwise, but its the Post-war actions of the US that I mention. You even try to gloss over this with your line
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
Almost like Germany was the agressor and loser of a horiffic war and decimated UK industry in the process or something.
Which is you read your own link:
you’ll see did basically nothing.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
Or to start the conversation that had the US joined the war earlier there would not be as much of a need to rebuild these countries.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
Basically, your view is quite biased and aims to paint the US as charitable saints instead of war profiteers.
The US didn’t withdraw food support - it was just reorganized and curtailed somewhat. In terms of the Labour government’s culpability, there were a variety of worker’s strikes - including dock workers - that resulted in tons of meat and fish going bad. The Labour government eventually ordered the Army to break the strike.
https://pasttense.co.uk/2017/01/08/today-in-londons-transport-history-100s-of-drivers-in-road-haulage-strike-1947/
No - the loans were issued then. The lend-lease was basically entirely forgiven. The loans always had a 5 year grace period.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-nazi.4042453.html
The UK was bankrupt. You got loans from the US, Canada and others that you wish were gifts to stay afloat. At absurdly good rates - and additional aid in rebuilding from the Marshall plan.
A half percent of GDP growth. It was 3% of the GDP of the countries. Did nothing is highly debatable.
Probably not the reason you had to ration in 1953 still, and I’m not sure what betrayal you’re referring to.
This was netted out from the lend-lease that was forgiven. You also got to keep all the equipment for rebuilding.
Do you have examples of this?
Do you have examples of this?
You make it sound like the UK was bankrupt because of their own mismanagement. They were basically repelling an invasion for years while being the USA’s stepping stone into the European theatre.
Acting like it’s noble to build up the country of the destroyed enemy, but not assist the ravaged ally in the same way is really odd.
We did assist that ravaged ally after, with an emergency loan with a very low interest rate, and the UK was the largest beneficiary of the Marshall plan dollars.
France was #2.
I don’t know where this revisionist animosity is coming from, but it’s not reflected in reality.
A couple points to help clarify why these actions were taken:
The British (and French) owed the US for WW1 and the Nazis were financial trolls who didn’t pay back Anglo or French debts because they wanted to fuck over the lenders (who they felt were Jewish).
The US had lent out over a $1T to the Allied powers for WW1 and that’s why FDR supported England while the US was neutral - losing that much money would ruin any country in 1940.
The cause of the rise of fascism in Germany after WW1 was determined to be the austerity enforced on the Germans in order to pay back the reparations. Investing in Germany was mandatory to eliminate the rise of another populist dictator.
This was the second war Britain got into that it could defend itself abroad without the US (Singapore was an embarrassment for Britain and the Burma campaign is underreported but showed the English were still fighting in their colonial style of using poorly trained irregulars that repeatedly cost them supply and initiative). It became clear to the US that the British could not afford another war and we’re in no position to rebel against any judgement imposed on them.
Britain was also losing her own colonial nations that had nothing to do with America. India was never going to remain a British occupied region. Huge swaths of Africa were decidedly outside her grasp. Most of the middle east was also anxious for their own independence so Britain never stood a chance of being their Victorian size for long.
Oh buddy, that ship had long since sailed.
Not at all. Pre WW2 America still had a much smaller military than the British Empire, which was at its peak pre-war.
Not at all. Pre WW2 America still had a much smaller military than the British Empire, which was at its peak pre-war.