But France also had an occupation army in Germany from 1945-1948. Wikipedia gives size of GB as 240 000 sq km, and France as 600 000 sq km, so France is three times bigger, and has better conditions for agriculture, too.
It’s not Special that GB had rationing during the War, or in the period immediately after. I’m just puzzled why both rationing went on much longer compared to other European countries, and why the rest of the economy also went downwards so much that it was the “Sick Man of Europe” in the 60s and 70s, when France, Netherlands, Italy etc. weren’t.
Was it only compared to before - a big Empire crashing down, whereas Italy had been poor before, too? But France was an Empire, too, lost their colonies, too, and got themselves dragged into a foreign war in the 1950s, too. And then went again to Algeria…
But the Devaluation happened in 1949 (similar to Germany switching to the D-Mark) yet British economy didn’t improve in the next decades. And Bretton Woods affected the other European countries, too.
Was it that Bretton Woods disproportianlly hurt the Brits because they depended so much more on imports, while France and Germany had internal consumer markets? But the strong D-Mark was seen not as hindrance for Exports, but as incentive to go with Quality so that exports would happen even if the Exchange rate was unfavourable. Did the Brits miss that method?
My parents lived through the war. According to my late father, the reason rationing lasted so long was state control with bureaucrats expanding their empires by controlling more and more.
After WW2 the socialist government nationalized the commanding heights industries and intensely regulated the rest. They nationalized railroads, coal mining, telephones, and steel industries.
Germany had one national railroad (Deutsche Bahn) till the 1980s, and one national telephone Company (Telekom) till the 90s or so.
Coal mining was private, as was steel (Krupp), but subsidized (Kohlepfennig - coal penny) and in the 1960s, the end of German coal was visible on the horizon, so the local government started a slow Transition into other sectors. Steel profited indirectly from making weapons, during the War and later during re-armament as part of NATO.
National rail meant that families who didn’t own cars could still travel, which helped the tourism industry - both in Germany and abroad. (The taste for tourism might have been partly started by the Nazi program “Kraft durch Freude” - strength though joy - basically state-sponsored cheap Holidays. In the 1930s, often the very first Holidays of their lifetimes for poor workers. Financially a loss, but kept the Population happy and the Nazis in favour).
Exactly - nationalizing key industries did not encourage entrepreneurs to go out and invest. Plus to pay for this, along came higher taxes. I recall an article about British taxes - before Thatcher, the top marginal tax rate hit 84% - Not far off from the Beatles’ lament: “Let me tell you how it’s going to be, ♪
One for you nineteen for me…
'Cuz I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman…” ♫
For some employees, such as senior engineers even, it was more cost-effective to give the employee a car and driver (non-taxable at the time) rather than give him a raise when much of it simply went to the government.
Yet national railway and telephone did help German infrastructure - even if the Money for building the railways and laying the cables Comes from the government via taxes, the workers have to be paid and can then spend the Money. Plus a better infrastructure helps the whole economy: see FDR’s new deals which built a lot of infrastructure.
A high top marginal rate itself doesn’t tell much - at what Level did it apply? It’s only a Problem if it hits too low. US had 70% top rate in the years after WWII, and yet it boomed (see the Chart at the entry “Death of taxes” at Liberalism works)
That should help the economy, though, to manufacture a car and pay a Driver. High government debt by itself is not a Problem - only if lenders loose faith in the country; lots of People coming back from war is not a Problem in itself - they could start the economy by spending Money to buy the things not available; and Young People returning alive meant more workers for industry.
So far, it sounds as if Britain was not destroyed enough and therefore didn’t have to rebuilt and buy new stuff as much as Germany or France’s citizens had to, nor to invest in new machinery for effective, Quality industry.
British Industry was had been propped up by the Empire. The concept of “Imperial Preferences” meant in theory that everyone in the British Empire and Commonwealth would benefiyt from a large and vast free trade zone, in reality, it meant that everybody had to buy British or else.
The end of the War led to the end of Empire. The Independence of India meant that it was no longer a case that the British could just force people in the Sub-Continent to buy their stuff when Industry X got badly hurt. The war has seen the loss of the Far East, the source of most of Britains raw materials and post war, the destruction caused by the war and the almost immediate communist insurgency meant that supplies did not resume as before in 1945. China, another large market, closed in 1949. Britians vast trading networks in S America, ended because of the war and post war saw the US having taken over economically.
I agree with Quartz, puddleglum, and anyone else who points to GB’s post-war, socialist government as the reason for GB’s slow growth during that time frame. Choosing socialist bureaucrats to lead a country out of a recession/depression/war devastated economy greatly reduces the possibility of entrepreneurship, and restricts the actions that could lead to a faster recovery.
There was a pent-up demand for consumer goods - but government deliberately starved the home market because they wanted manufactured goods to go for export and earn foreign currency. At one point 66% of the price of a new car was tax. Second-hand cars were actually more valuable than new ones because the price wasn’t controlled.
So that gave France an Advantage - what about Netherlands? Italy?
Yes, obviously they struggled with rebuilding (and with loosing their Empire: not only the colonies, but also the identity + pride; and starting another war) - but their economy didn’t make them “the sick man of Europe”.
But just saying “socialist” isn’t an Explanation, it’s not a fact, it’s a Label. And an inexact at that, given how much parties and their political platforms have changed since than.
What policies did the British govt. during that period enact that were drastically different from those of Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy… ? All of which had to re-built, all of which had to cope with loosing part of their Population, (and another part being crippled) in the war?
During the re-building, Germanys government had the Label “conservative” - but they fed children in School one warm meal (with foreign aid until the Money Reform and full statehood); there were warming rooms during cold winters; there were lots of Actions done by the government to help People, that today would probably be labeled socialist, but were considered normal and necessary back then because most of the Population was hungry and cold, many People had lost their homes, many families had lost People in the war or in the camps…
Most were poor, so there was less Stigma; the industry was booming trying to satisfy demand, which also meant workers were needed.
10 years after the end of the war, in the mid-1950s, Germany was hiring foreign workers, from Italy, Greece and then Turkey (poorly educated Country folk looking to earn Money) because industry needed workers desperatly. Gastarbeiter - Wikipedia
The French let their former colonies, like Algerians, enter during the 1960s. Why wasn’t Britain booming similar?
Yes, Ludwig Erhard, Father of the Wirtschaftswunder Wirtschaftswunder - Wikipedia is credited with making smart policies and not getting greedy. But France and Netherlands / Scandinavia also slowly prospered, too. (Some part of Italy might have been tourism from Germans, but they also had industry in the North).
But the socialist government was voted out in 1951 1951 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia partly apparently because of the rationing. So nationalisation, too high taxes, wrong policies towards industry could have been reversed from that Point, and Britain should have prospered like Germany under Adenauer and the others. (If conservatives were actually that much more competent at economic policy as they like to Claim).
High military spending (including the quest for a British Bomb, and various delivery systems for it) was one factor. West Germany had no military to spend money on, of course.
West Germany started the Bundeswehr in 1955 - partly at the urging of NATO/ allies as defense against the Russians starting from East Germany and Walking through. Bundeswehr - Wikipedia
True, West Germany didn’t get involved in a war like Britain in Korea - but France went to war in Indochine in the 1950s, too. And also wanted nuclear weapons.
But: France, Netherlands and West Germany signed Treaty of Rome in 1957, with the customs Union, the first form of what then became the EU. Britain didn’t have that, only the Commonwealth.
That’s a weird economic policy. Why punish home customers in favour of Export instead of just promoting both markets?
Though British cars faced the hurdle that most countries on the continent drive on the other side (different steering). The only exception was Sweden, which switched in 1967. So cars were a bad case for preferring Export over internal consumption.
Why then the Aversion against the custom Union the Treaty of Rome established, and the Long delay before joining the EG was even considered (and then only with Special Terms)? If you want to push exports for your Country, a customs Union next door is better than relying on Commonwealth half the globe away (India, Canada, Australia…)
The Commonwealth was seen as an already-existing customs union - we already had our Economic Community, it just wasn’t a European one.
There has always been opposition to joining the Common Market here, based on a mixture of Imperial Preference, aversion to becoming partners with the Europeans we’d been fighting only a few years before, distrust of the French, and a belief the Britain was still a major power, which didn’t need to pool its sovereignty with anyone.
Do they count all the US soldiers in GB waiting for Overlord, which the British kept putting off?
Apparently the British wanted to restore their Empire, and the Americans wanted to invade Germany and end the war.
Were Churchill’s dire warnings about socialism true?