Yuku free message boards

It's important not to forget the financial limitations. Great Britain ran out of financial reserves early in 1941 then pawned itself to the US to continue the war. Churchill then insured the complete destitution of Great Britain by mobilising her economy such that Britain had the greatest portion of her GDP serving the war machine, by a significant margin - in order to maximise the British war effort and in his eyes to retain Britain's strategic role as a great power.

Post war Great Britain was exhausted - at one stage the home fleet was a light cruiser and some destroyers. Food rationing was carried well past the war. How do you justify research into cutting edge fighters when you have just won the war and your people are still on ration cards?

There was absolutely no room to move financially until the early 1950's - at which point the British government committed to a major re armament campaign.

Britain's defence spending was still unsustainable, with the early sixties budget in the +10% of GDP range - roughly double the Reagan cold war peak in the United States. It wasn't until the Thatcher reforms of the 1980's that the last of the wartime economic damage was undone.


Shortcut back eighty years - Disraeli was well aware that Britain's early lead in industrialisation was about to be overtaken in Europe, and there was very little Great Britain could do about it, other than to reap the dividends that a century of trading had given them on the worlds markets.

Britain maintained a first class navy 1887-1914 through her 18th/19th century industrial legacy, low cost labour and by accepting a tiny army in European terms.

Maintaining a first class navy and a first class air force, even without an effective army strained the economy to its limits 1919-1939 - and the priority given to the RAF in the re armament programme can explain much of the RN's shortcomings 1939-1942.

Britain never had the capacity to maintain in peacetime a first class (size and quality) air force, navy and army. Yet this is exactly what they tried to do in the cold war. Britain's 20th century fate was sealed by the cost of the war 1941-45 war, but this was not helped by the decision to maintain a British army of the Rhine, something no British government had ever contemplated, even at the peak of their strength. At some point in the 19th century British statesmen had forgotten that long term strategic conflicts were won by economic strength. The policy that had delivered global power and empire was abandoned, and that legacy of economic strength was consumed, consciously or unconsciously, in the effort required to defeat Germany twice.

When you consider the British Korean War order of battle - don't wonder where all the leading edge technology on the cusp of development in 1945 went. Instead marvel that they had a semblance of a modern military at all! That they did could be put down the willingness of the British government and people to live under a rationing environment (as only one of a number of strict controls) for years in peacetime.

We could probably compare sources, or perhaps even definitions. But I know Pedden contains warnings about the depletion of foriegn reserves in 1938!

1941 was the year that cash and carry was suspended and lend lease introduced, which is for me the date that the British Empire was broke. The sale of British assets in the US certainly raised money, but the money was raised at fire sale prices.

Churchill actually removed treasury from the war cabinet serveral times.

Certainly the various financial arangements were complex.

Arguing which year they went broke is not going to change the dire financial and economic position immediately post war, which is supported by multiple independent sources of data.