I’m hoping there’s a short answer to this - although obviously it’s never one factor - as to why Great Britain was so much worse off after WWII than other Allied nations. E.g. Food rationing went on till 1954 Rationing in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia when other nations had ended it earlier: was it because of the small Island/ big Population - different than e.g. France or Italy?
And why was the economy off much worse, compared to other European nations, since Britain had similar pool of educated Population and skilled workers as France, also a lot of houses to rebuilt after bombing.
One factor I’ve heard that was bad for Germany short-term but beneficial middle- and Long-term were the reparations in form of machinery, especially towards Britain (who occupied Mid-Germany - the Ruhr Region with heavy industry): whole factories were dismantled and shipped off (similar to what the Russians did in East Germany). However, this forced German industry to invest in more efficient and modern machines, which put the economy ahead soon, while Brits worked with outdated, oldfashioned, inefficient machines.
But that can’t be the only reason.
Loss of colonies also affected France, but they didn’t become the “Sick man of Europe” in the 1960s and 70s.
Sometimes, the strong unions resisting any Change (until Thatcher smashed them) are cited; but French also have strong unions and strike/ protest easily.
Paying for the welfare state, plus spending huge amounts of Marshall Aid propping up the Sterling Area, plus rearmament for the Korean War. Lend-Lease ended abruptly once the war was over and we had to seek a huge loan from the US, the price of which was the convertibility of sterling - which soon had to be suspended as the blocked sterling balances started to flow out of London.
Again: comparable to other European countries, in General? Why would it be a bigger burden on the GB Budget than for France, or Italy, or Netherlands?
Why was this propped up? Why was propping up the Sterling more expensive than propping up the Franc?
But the French got quickly drawn into the Indochine War, too. Also, how much of the Armament was originally lend-lease with favourable Terms from the US? (Compared to France who had to buy much more…)
Not a complete answer but I remember learning that bread wasn’t rationed during the war but was during the Berlin Airlift.
In terms of welfare states, I think the UK’s immediately following the war was much more generous than other countries - France and Germany elected conservative governments, the UK elected a socialist one. But also, significantly - the UK got through the war by keeping the working classes committed to victory, and to do that the government sold a vision of the postwar world of the New Jerusalem. With victory the government had to deliver or face disillusionment. France had been occupied and Germany defeated, so no promises were made and none kept due to defeat.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
An interesting Point. Was the Problem that because Germany and France had been more destroyed, there was more demand by the Population, which helped domestic economy?
Government was very keen to maintain sterling’s status as a reserve currency - that is, foreign countries maintaining large sterling balances in London. Plus many other (usually Empire) countries pegged their currency to sterling, often at par, with local versions of pounds, shillings and pence.
In 1949 Britain was forced, reluctantly, to devalue sterling because the rate had become indefensible. It was seen as a serious blow to the currency’s prestige.
Pretty much the entire population of Great Britain was involved in the war effort. Railways were run into the ground and transport generally was poor. Factories everywhere had been switched to war production and there was no capital to switch them back - in any case, all the machinery was pre-war and worn out. Throw in thousands of soldiers coming home to a country that they barely recognised; to fractured families and a serious lack of jobs, you have a recipe for revolution.
What they got was a socialist government under Nye Bevin that promised to take away the power of the “bosses” and give it to the workers through the unions. That kept the lid on but the serious structural problems remained, so it took a while for GB Ltd to get back on its feet.
Was it an issue of food production? The United Kingdom hadn’t been self-sufficient in food production even before the war. The huge costs of the war made it difficult for Britain to import food even after the war ended.
Very few people today realize how extremely close to utter bankruptcy WW2 pushed Great Britain. I once read somewhere–I think in Churchill’s history of the War–that until sometime in 1944 GB had more troops on the front lines, doing the actual fighting, than the US did. For GB, it was truly total war, because of the circumstances. Such a thing is ruinously costly.
Rationing was dropped by stages. They tried taking sweets and sugar off the ration in 1949, and stcks ran out in a matter of weeks, so had to reimpose rationing. In the very last stage, it was only meat that was rationed until 1954.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, the UK was responsible for the civil administration of a substantial occupation zone in a completely destroyed Germany (as had not been the case in the aftermath of WW1), which meant having to feed an extra population, to the point where for some time bread had to be rationed in the UK, as it had not been during the war; as well as the other issues of propping up their economy until their currency reform of 1948 (compare with the financial problems in Germany in the early 20s, culminating in the hyper-inflation of 1923 - that at least was avoided).
During the war, the rationing system was designed consciously to reduce dependence on imports and meat (which was seen as a nutritionally inefficient use of land) towards grains and vegetables; and with agriculture as with any other industry, there had been so much gone into the war effort that investment in new equipment and techniques had gone by the board and existing machinery was increasingly worn out: they couldn’t just turn on the taps of a peacetime food economy, particularly not when it came to increasing food imports. US Lease-lend came to an abrupt end; the government was already massively in debt from the war, and hamstrung by having to repay at prewar exchange rates under the new Bretton Woods system, which also made imports that much more expensive: it wasn’t until 1949 that devaluation loosened the situation (and the international price of support for that was pretty high).
Churchill, only a little bitter about being bumped out of office right after he saved the free world… said of Clement Atlee “a modest little man… with much to be modest about.”
If you watch the Michael Palin movie “A Private Function” it’s about an English small town; the hoity toity types are secretly raising an illegal pig to have for a feast planned for the royal wedding - which would have been what, about 1951? Every pig was registered and all the meat went into the ration system.
And presumably with rationing came price controls - you are forced to have one market for yor produce, the obvious next step is they set the price, lowering the incentive to produce more.
One reason I read was that, to follow on Bob++'s point - while the war and the previous depression meant that not a lot of new industry had been built - unlike much of Europe, their industry had not been turned to rubble and so they did not spend a lot of money replacing factories and infrastructure; yet that 1920’s infrastructure was old and inefficient compared to the new factories coming online on the continent.
I once took a tour of the Isle of Lewis and Harris and the fellow there, while touring the museum-ized “black cottages” mentioned that after the war the government decided to move everyone into real houses and out of medieval mud-floor cottages. There’s an example of heavy socialist spending without a great return on capital. Presumably, these became “council houses” and also did not generate much income for any government.
But how is that different from e.g. France, which also had many soldiers on the front? Even worse, it was split into an occupied part with collaborateurs, and a free part with resistance (which lead to People “settling” old feuds + debts twice: once under Nazis, the collobateurs could vent their grudges by denouncing others as resistance; after the War, People got payback by calling others collaborateurs).
The only difference I can see offhand is that France has a much bigger landmass, so agriculture is easier. But Britain had their colonies (slowly loosing)…
That’s why the Switch in Germany to the new D-Mark, while a catastrophic destruction of capital short-term, was good Long-term: with rationing, Money had no value, only goods through black market had value, so there was an overhang. Wiping away savings account, but switching rents and wages 1:1 meant that Money was useful again. Reports tell of how empty shop Windows filled overnight with stuff - hoarded against better times.
That’s what I mentioned above: in Germany, reparations being done in machines meant a forced modernisation of industry; 70- 90% of cities reduced to rubble meant a huge consumer market for clothes, Apartments, and furniture. (There was first the “Food wave”, then the “furniture wave” and then the “travel wave” - at the same time as the “car Wave” - that is, a large part of the Population bought These things because they were available again finally, and People earned Money.
Actually a building boom should help the Population - you Need workers to build the houses, who get paid, and spend the Money. Nicer houses should mean new furniture, and positive mood in the Population.
For the first decades in Germany, rent and Apartments were both controlled, and allocated according to Need (bombed-out People, refugees from the East, families with children…) Of course, rich People could cheat, or you could trade, but mostly, after the bombing / flight from the East, People were glad to just have a working Roof and 4 walls to Keep the cold out. Yet there was a building boom despite the controlled rent, partly the government Sponsoring building new Apartments, and partly because the workers earned Money (and People having a proper Apartment wouldn’t die of the cold in winter, or get sick).
The Link to Bretton-Woods states that post-war, not only GB and USA, but most Major European countries joined the fixed Exchange with the Dollar, too. So why was the Sterling a disadvantage for the Brits, but not the Franc for the French, or the Krone for Netherlands?
Compared to the US, percentagewise, GB was of course much more involved. But compared to France or Netherlands, which were (partly) occupied, plundered, had their men fighting in Allied Armies - was GB that much more involved than them?