Didn’t the US soldiers in GB get their rations from US? I thought that’s partly why they were so popular, they had Access to Nylons, chocolate and cigarettes which the Brits hadn’t had for some time.
Yes, I believe they were. I think that was when frozen food came into large scale use.
“They are over many, over sexed, and over here.”
I thought it’s “over sexed, over paid and over here”? Oversexed, Overpaid And Over Here - Meaning & Origin Of The Phrase
I’m sure you are correct.
While the Brits, in turn, were “underpaid, undersexed and under Eisenhower.”
I’m pretty sure the British wanted to end the war, too, but they also didn’t want to blow the invasion. It would have been quite stupid to invade in 1943.
What about them? They took a long time to recover economically.
I mean, let’s not exaggerate things; Britain wasn’t Laos. It was still a First World country, and the swoon didn’t last long. The 1950s were a time of rapid economic growth.
Again, I’m trying to figure out why Britain alone went during the 50s and 60s not with booming economy, but turning into “the sick man of Europe” before joining the EG (EU). I’m not saying that the other European countries- Netherlands, but France is similar in most regards, especially also with a war in the 50s, and also loosing colonies and an Empire - went rich immediatly: but their economy was comparativly booming and growing, and they stayed that way.
The Impression of the average worker/ citizen in Western European countries during 50s and 60s seems to have been “everything is improving each day/ year”. (Contrast this with Eastern Germany, where People revolted in 1953 already, because their Standard of living was so much lower compared to the West, along with oppression).
But the Brits seem to give the Impression that everything was still bad, not much improvement, not much new goods, higher wages, etc.
The first hit, the oil crisis in 1973, affected all western countries. And at some Point, the boom slowed down to a recession. But Britain especiall was called “Sick man” and apparently much much worse off compared to the others, so I wonder what factors were different and caused this.
So far, tentativly, the industry was not forced to rebuilt destroyed Equipment, and stayed with old machinery from the 1930s - which hindered compared to European countries with modern, efficient machinery.
Some mentioned the strong unions - but I haven’t seen hard Facts on how much the unions blocked or delayed compared to France, which also has strong unions. (I’ve heard, but not confirmed, that when Trains switched from coal to electric or diesel, the unions forced that a stoker still had to drive with each Train, though he was superflous.)
One Argument was socialist govt., but that can’t be full truth, since the conservatives were voted back in 1951, and ran for 13 years.
One Argument was nationalisation, but other European countries also had national railways etc.
One Argument was the govt. deliberatly stifling home consumption in favour of exports, but I don’t have hard numbers on how much, for how Long etc.
One mention was high tax rate, but no context on how big a Segment of Population that applied to; and highest tax rate was 70% even in the US back then, so that’s not a difference, either.
There was mention of the Sterling, and Bretton Woods, but Bretton Woods applied to all Major European countries, too; and the Sterling was devalued first in 1949, so it should have either recovered, or better policies used to strengthen it.
There was a mention that Britain relied on the colonies not only for raw materials, but also (by forcing “Buy British”) as consumer market, which was lost, too.
But if exports would have brought wealth, joining the Rome Treaties would have made even more sense.
Especially since the article on Marshall plan mentions not only that the biggest Portion went to GB, but also, that the main effect was not the Money, but the Change in laws bottlenecking certain industries, Lifting of wartime laws/ Restriction on industries, easing regulations and trade between the nations - in other words, a forerunner of EWG/ EG/ EU. For the Europeans, Treaty of Rome was therefore a Logical step of what had worked economically (along with the wish for peace by making war simply logistically impossible); yet Britain apparently did not share this view.
The only difference I could find so far was with regard to Food: France has roughly 3 times the landsize, with roughly same Population, and better weather. So Britain depended on imports before the war, and was worse off/ took longer to recover afterwards. Though even there I wonder about the Netherlands and similar, who also have small land mass to Population size, and colder weather.
Maybe it was the not-joining of Treaty of Rome that put Britain behind NL, Germany and France decisivly?
And the US had no idea how well the Germans fought until Africa and Italy. Nonetheless, in 1944 the British still wanted to fight up through Italy and in the Mediterranean, taking men and landing craft away from Overlord. Not to mention Admiral King of the USN who wanted to take ships and landing craft away from Europe for the war in the Pacific.
Okay, but now you’re off the topic of your own thread. The “sick man of Europe” tag was given to Britain long after war’s end, in the late 60s. Britain’s economy performed quite well for fifteen-plus years before that, but starting with the pound devaluation in 1967 things went south. You’re way, way past the “post-war” period at that point.
Secondly, you’re still sort of assuming Britain was alone in this regard. Irrespective of what BRITISH PEOPLE called the country as an attack on the government of the day, it was not alone in having serious economic problems in Europe. Those other countries, however, didn’t have a zippy English-language insult to criticize their governments.
(underline added)
You asked - GB: why was economy and food situation worse after WWII?
All of the countries of Europe and Great Britain had to seriously rethink, and change, their pre-war governments. Suffering thru two devastating “world” wars that were only separated by a short 20 years of uneasy peace may have weighed heavily on the voters minds. But which route should they take? Which political parties were more convincing?
Some countries were managed better than the others. Which means some did worse. GB voters chose to start with a more socialist leaning government. While some of their programs were retained, that particular experiment only lasted until 1951. Out with the old, in with the older. (Personally, I find the parliamentary system/quirk of calling for new elections whenever the mood strikes to be somewhat disruptive, a definite gamble, and amusing when done Italian-style. List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office - Wikipedia )
It’s a mistake to assume that a country will prosper regardless of the “type” of government it chooses. The Brits, the Germans, the Greeks, etc. have only themselves to blame/thank for the actions of their elected leadership. The end results speak for themselves. As it turned out, GB didn’t do as well as many of it’s neighbors.
Do extremely high tax rates encourage entrepreneurship? Will tight regulations encourage manufacturers to produce newer, faster, bigger, smarter, cheaper (but well made) products? Did the voters, and their elected representatives, even want to encourage entrepreneurship? Maybe they liked living the same life under the same old rules?
I would think so, too. A great crisis develops, and the government is changed, offices, duties and responsibilities are shifted about, and Hitler continues invading Poland.
I am reading Masters and Commanders by Andrew Roberts, and he places great importance on the United States not wanting Britain to keep the Empire. Does the USA bear any responsibility, despite the Marshall Plan, for Britain doing so badly post war?
A-hem, Hitler AND Stalin continued to invade Poland. (Why do so many people ignore that fact?)
In spite of the Marshall Plan? What’s that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that the U.S. was working against it’s own interests by undermining the Marshall Plan’s attempt to rebuild G.B. and Europe? How dare they???
While Stalin certainly seemed busy creating his own post-war puppet governments in Eastern Europe, the U.S.A. certainly failed in their responsibility to claim England, Wales, and Scotland as it’s 49th, 50th, and 51st states. :rolleyes:
It is probably ignored because the Commie Russkis won WWII. More Russians were killed than any other of the Allies, and they killed more Germans than the other Allies combined. I imagine Truman and Eisenhower wished that the USA had sent them just enough fewer lend lease that their government would have collapsed just before they got to Berlin.
I don’t think the USA worked against it’s own interests in supporting Britain, but apparently they were very much opposed to Britain recovering the parts of the British Empire removed in WWII. I don’t know if any efforts were made after the war. They didn’t want to participate in “reconquering the Empire”, though.
Nope, frozen food didn’t become popular in the UK until the 1950s when refrigerators & freezers started showing up in ordinary British households.
I meant the USA.
Some companies provided frozen food for shipment to the British Isles and later Europe, and figured they could make money from the wives of returning GIs.
constanze, could you provide information aobut reparations to Britain after WWII? According to the wiki article, there were no German reparations to Britain.
The article also states:
And in the article on the Marshall plan, it states:
So what industry are you suggesting the British took away, and when?
It was mostly steel industry from the Ruhr Region. The German article on Reparation Demontage (Reparation) – Wikipedia however, notes, that “most” of the dismantled machines were transported into the SBZ (pre-East Germany) and from there to USSR
I did know that the industry in the soviet Zone was sent on, but I didn’t know that parts of machines from the GB Zone were sent eastwards.
there’s also
Then I’m sorry that I expressed myself unclear in the OP.
I haven’t heard that Britain was doing well in the 15+ years before the Devaluation. Granted, it’s more anecdotes, but if economy was booming, only Food being rationed (due to factors like lack of arable land) then People would be complaining less, I guess, than if everything was short/ expensive.
It’s not about the “English-language” Insult. It’s that outside of GB, there are newspapers that are not tabloids, but Report Facts, and experts giving their opinions after looking at tons of Facts. The “Sick man” Expression wasn’t only used in British press; it was used in the translated Version in the European countries while discussing the state of GB, especially about joining the EG/EU.
And I’m asking for more Facts because I’m assuming at this Point from a non-broad view of the past, but don’t want to read a dozen detailled books, or wade through paper comparing the GDP of each Country for each year to get the Facts. That’s why I hoped for a short overview from an expert with links to condensed Facts.
Stalin was a blood-thirsty monster who was responsible for somewhere between 3.5 and 20 million Russians BEFORE he chose to join Hitler’s death machine.
Mainstream published estimates of the total numbers of “victims of repression” in the late 1930s have ranged from Dmitrii Volkogonov’s 3.5 million to Ol’ga Shatunovskaia’s nearly 20 million.
The voters in G.B. chose a socialist-leaning democratic government before VE day. Their choice. I’m under the impression that European democratic governments also chose their representatives post war. Eastern European governments had the added “influence” of Joe “the Psychopath” Stalin’s version of communism. And the race was on. Which government would be the most successful?
G.B. didn’t do as well as Germany, but they were far ahead of Greece. The Brits are resilient, and have proven to be willing to make adjustments as needed. In hindsight, some adjustment could have been made sooner.
The 13 individual colonies which formed the U.S.A. didn’t approve of colonialism, and 48 states later supported those countries which rejected European/G.B. colonialism post WWII. That’s not exactly the same thing as actively punishing Europe and G.B. countries for attempting to maintain, or reclaim, their colonies.
Um, July 26, 1945 was after VE day.
The changeover occurred during the Potsdam Conference which should be easy to remember as after the war in Europe.