# What If? Britain doesn't go Bankcrupt at end of WWII **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346 "2010-08-15T19:03:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/21 "2010-08-16T15:01:25Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > … That doesn’t even factor in the physical destruction the war caused (blitzed-out ruins were still being cleared into the late 1950s!). … I lived in London in 1961, and took [this picture](http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/4337347428/) then. That whole side of Mecklenburgh Square had been bombed in the 1940s, and was still in ruins in 1961. It wasn’t the only part of central London like that in 1961, though it’s the only one that I have a picture of. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/22 "2010-08-16T15:13:52Z")
But I can’t work this out, forgive my lack of understanding, but wasn’t the UK just as big of a military and economic power as the USA before WWII? It had interests in Latin America (which it virtually owned) and alot of capital which it had invested in the railways of the US and transportation. So how could a country like Germany, be able to afford all these wars in such a small amount of time and not be virtually bankcrupt either? And just to refocus the question I did at the start, what would of happened if the UK retained it’s finanacial and economic dominance and came out on top just like the US after the war ended? ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/23 "2010-08-16T15:17:31Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > > [@Lumpy](#): > > > > … That doesn’t even factor in the physical destruction the war caused (blitzed-out ruins were still being cleared into the late 1950s!). … > > I lived in London in 1961, and took [this picture](http://www.flickr.com/photos/75905404@N00/4337347428/) then. That whole side of Mecklenburgh Square had been bombed in the 1940s, and was still in ruins in 1961. It wasn’t the only part of central London like that in 1961, though it’s the only one that I have a picture of. I read about how East Germany was still looking like a war ravaged country where as the West German state had rebuilt itself, could you say economic policies were to blame for the lack of a drive to clear that wreakage up? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/24 "2010-08-16T16:29:01Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > But I can’t work this out, forgive my lack of understanding, but wasn’t the UK just as big of a military and economic power as the USA before WWII? It had interests in Latin America (which it virtually owned) and alot of capital which it had invested in the railways of the US and transportation. > > So how could a country like Germany, be able to afford all these wars in such a small amount of time and not be virtually bankcrupt either? > > And just to refocus the question I did at the start, what would of happened if the UK retained it’s finanacial and economic dominance and came out on top just like the US after the war ended? The _British Empire_ was as powerful as the USA before WWII. But nationalism in the colonies and protectorates had been building for years even before WWII. After the war, it became impossible to hold classic colonial empires anymore. Britain gave in more or less gracefully; France clung on stubbornly and just got kicked out of North Africa and Indochina. In less than twenty years Britain contracted from being the seat of a world empire to a European country with a few overseas dependencies. Britain might have been overall stronger than Germany, but much of it’s strength lay in colonial forces which were busy holding the colonies, and the Navy which could only indirectly contribute to a British victory. It required an overwhelming material superiority to successfully invade “Fortress Europe”, which Britain alone simply didn’t have. And in fact Germany did bankrupt itself putting forward the effort it did. Britain couldn’t retain its financial and economic dominance because that vanished during the war itself. By 1945 it wasn’t there anymore to retain. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/25 "2010-08-16T16:39:17Z")
> [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > > There was some money that was split between India and Pakistan at independence, that’s true. But India was either going to get independence or devolve into an uncontrollable civil war… > > But surely, both things happened, didn’t they? > > Britain had no control over events during the partition when Pakistan (‘Land of the Pure’) engaged in a bloody - by which I mean many millions slaughtered - separation from predominantly Hindu India. The partition was done by the British. The borders were set by the British, and the act authorizing independence for both India and Pakistan was passed by the British parliament. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the “British had no control…” ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/26 "2010-08-17T10:28:00Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > > > But surely, both things happened, didn’t they? > > > > Britain had no control over events during the partition when Pakistan (‘Land of the Pure’) engaged in a bloody - by which I mean many millions slaughtered - separation from predominantly Hindu India. > > The partition was done by the British. The borders were set by the British, and the act authorizing independence for both India and Pakistan was passed by the British parliament. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the “British had no control…” Britain had no effective control of events, other than to try something that by that time had become impossible, like cancelling independence day. The partition was going to happen come what may, and there was nothing any of the parties involved could do to stop it. [From this link:](http://www.throughmyeyes.org.uk/server/show/nav.22207) > [@](#): > > Muhammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League called for a separate Muslim state. In March 1947, Lord Mountbatten was sworn in as Viceroy and began talks with Indian leaders. After repeated attempts at negotiations failed, the British and the Congress Party eventually consented to Jinnah’s demands. India would be divided along religious lines. In June 1947, leaders of the Congress Party and the Muslim League agreed that Pakistan would be formed out of the majority Muslims areas, and India out of the majority Hindu areas. The large provinces of Punjab and Bengal would be divided. The Sikh community, which lived mainly in the Punjab, had to choose between the two new nations. > > The difficult task of establishing the new boundary between India and Pakistan fell to a British lawyer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe. On 14 August 1947, the independent Islamic Republic of Pakistan was declared. At midnight on 15 August, Jawaharlal Nehru, leader of the Congress Party, became the first Prime Minister of independent India. > > Massive population movements occurred after the Partition, accompanied by outbreaks of inter-communal violence. It is estimated that nearly 15 million people moved to areas that they believed would be safe based on the religious majority. All communities suffered violence. The ensuing chaos makes it difficult to give an exact number but it is estimated up to a million people were killed during the Partition, with the Punjab suffering the highest death toll. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/27 "2010-08-17T10:53:07Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > > [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > > > The greatest disaster to befall the UK post war was the Attlee Labour Government. Attlee and Co. believed all of the bogus economic growth statistics churned out by the Soviet Union for the previous twenty years, pre and post war, and were convinced that an economy managed by government bureaucrats was the wave of the future. > > > > The idiots were even stupid enough to retain war time rationing for years after WWII. That’s one major factor that helped Churchill and the Conservatives return to power. > > It had nothing to do with “bogus economic growth statistics churned out by the Soviets”. The British knew from their own experience that it was only through the most far-reaching state control and management of the economy – indeed, of the national life – that they had survived and eventually won the war. They believed – and this was widely accepted at the time – that a centrally planned economy, done right, was more efficient and effective. They had, in fact, much more state control of the economy than the Nazis and this, they thought, was at least partly why they won. > > The objection to state control was not inefficiency but unfreedom; the British had tolerated a degree of state control during the war which was justified by the national threat, but wouldn’t otherwise be acceptable. At the same time, there was widespread consensus that _some_ degree of state control of the economy was justified and necessary to prevent a repetition of, say, the Great Depression, or the kind of social inequality that characterized pre-war Britain. The postwar Labour government was an attempt to find that balance. > > I should point out that the notion that state planning was at least potentially efficient was also widely accepted in the US. People were painfully aware that it took the Soviets four years to replicate the atomic bomb but just two years, shortly afterwards, to replicate the hydrogen bomb. And by the late fifties they appeared to be ahead in the space race – the first artificial satellite, the first man in space. This led to a sense of crisis on the part of some; they expected the US to be eclipsed, economically and militarily, by the USSR. They did not think that the US would (or should) tolerate the unfreedom necessary to match the Soviet performance, and thought that the best hope was a conflict sooner rather than later, while the US still had superiority. Plus, they thought their inevitable eclipse by the Soviets could be postponed for as long as possible by the state at least taxing the population for an unprecedented level of defence expenditure. Hence the British had marginal tax rates in excess of 90% to support the development of the NHS, while the Americans had marginal tax rates in excess of 90% for a federal government whose main expenditure was on the military. > > There were others, of course, who argued that central planning was inherently inefficient, but this didn’t really become the received view of the political and economic establishment until the 1970s. By the 80s and 90s it was the dominant view and has heavily influenced economic policy since which, of course, is why in our own time we had the Global Financial Crisis Central planning that is narrowly focused on one major project, developing a nuclear bomb, building one or more enormous and highly photogenic dams here and there, are attainable in short order, even for a centrally planned economy. Where a centrally planned economy falls flat on its face is enabling an adequate market system to develop. One that is not only flexible but capable of adapting to the demands and requirements of both producers and consumers. None of the centrally planned economies of the now extinct Soviet bloc had anything remotely resembing a market economy capable of providing a decent standard of living for the majority of its people. If you have been schooled otherwise then you have been profoundly miseducated. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/28 "2010-08-17T11:14:00Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > > > But surely, both things happened, didn’t they? > > > > Britain had no control over events during the partition when Pakistan (‘Land of the Pure’) engaged in a bloody - by which I mean many millions slaughtered - separation from predominantly Hindu India. > > The partition was done by the British. The borders were set by the British, and the act authorizing independence for both India and Pakistan was passed by the British parliament. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the “British had no control…” Well, if you fire a bullet from a gun, you could have bought the gun, bought the ammunition, loaded the gun, aimed the gun and fired the gun. But once the bullet has left the barrel you have not one iota of control over what happens next. Clear now? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/29 "2010-08-17T13:00:06Z")
> [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > Where a centrally planned economy falls flat on its face is enabling an adequate market system to develop. One that is not only flexible but capable of adapting to the demands and requirements of both producers and consumers. > > None of the centrally planned economies of the now extinct Soviet bloc had anything remotely resembing a market economy capable of providing a decent standard of living for the majority of its people. If you have been schooled otherwise then you have been profoundly miseducated. Sure. My point is that this wasn’t appreciated - or obvious - in 1945. Plus, the British experience of central planning during the war wasn’t focussed on a single project, like the atomic bomb or a dam; it involved managing and directing the entire economy, directed towards a single aim - winning the war - which had many, many different aspects. And, crucially, it succeeding in achieving that aim, though only by sacrificing many other objectives. What the British sought to do after 1945 was to continue with some degree of central planning, less focussed, less single-minded and less all-embracing, but still using central government to achieve social objectives by regulating the economy. We now know the limitations of this method, having observed it in action, but what they knew was its potential, having observed what had been achieved in the previous six years. My point all along is that this had nothing to do with a naive acceptance of Soviet propaganda. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/30 "2010-08-17T14:37:32Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > I read about how East Germany was still looking like a war ravaged country where as the West German state had rebuilt itself, could you say economic policies were to blame for the lack of a drive to clear that wreakage up? Rebuilt _itself?_ Not quite. West Germany received **huge** amounts of aid from the American Marshall Plan. East Germany got nothing from America because it was Communist. ---
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/31 "2010-08-17T17:09:12Z")
Ok, but considering the total war effort of all the major combatants, why did the UK come off as the worse economically out of the European major powers? It took us until the _1980’s_ to control inflation and be economically competitive. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/32 "2010-08-17T17:15:00Z")
> [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > Ok, but considering the total war effort of all the major combatants, why did the UK come off as the worse economically out of the European major powers? It took us until the _1980’s_ to control inflation and be economically competitive. Probably successive governments interfering in things they would have been better off not interfering in and not interfering in things that they would have been better of interfering in. ---
**Author:** ![BlinkingDuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/33 "2010-08-17T18:26:15Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > > [@Ryan\_Liam](#): > > > > I read about how East Germany was still looking like a war ravaged country where as the West German state had rebuilt itself, could you say economic policies were to blame for the lack of a drive to clear that wreakage up? > > Rebuilt _itself?_ Not quite. > > West Germany received **huge** amounts of aid from the American Marshall Plan. East Germany got nothing from America because it was Communist. I was under the impression that the Warsaw Pact countries were offered aid but they refused. Do I remember incorrectly? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/34 "2010-08-17T18:43:32Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > > The partition was done by the British. The borders were set by the British, and the act authorizing independence for both India and Pakistan was passed by the British parliament. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the “British had no control…” > > Well, if you fire a bullet from a gun, you could have bought the gun, bought the ammunition, loaded the gun, aimed the gun and fired the gun. > > But once the bullet has left the barrel you have not one iota of control over what happens next. > > Clear now? Yeah, about as clear as mud. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/35 "2010-08-17T18:47:44Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Well, if you fire a bullet from a gun, you could have bought the gun, bought the ammunition, loaded the gun, aimed the gun and fired the gun. > > > > But once the bullet has left the barrel you have not one iota of control over what happens next. > > > > Clear now? > > Yeah, about as clear as mud. Could you perhaps try and get someone you know to explain it to you? It’s not a very difficult concept. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/36 "2010-08-17T19:14:04Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > > Yeah, about as clear as mud. > > Could you perhaps try and get someone you know to explain it to you? > > It’s not a very difficult concept. 🙂 Perhaps you can let us have a serious discussion and confine your snotty remarks to the thread which you ran away from. Don’t you have to go back there and arbitrarily declare things irrelevant? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/37 "2010-08-17T19:18:52Z")
Regarding the India-Pakistan issue, it should be pointed out that the riots continued unabtated for nearly a year, and contarary to the nonsence put forward by **Aquila Be** it should be pointed out that violance was present throughout India. My own family was living in Delhi and they were evacuated by air only because my grandmothers father was an army officer and he had the connections. Most of the muslim families in my grandmothers neighbourhood were slaughtered mercilessly. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/38 "2010-08-17T19:19:46Z")
> [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > Britain had no effective control of events, other than to try something that by that time had become impossible, like cancelling independence day. > > The partition was going to happen come what may, and there was nothing any of the parties involved could do to stop it. I don’t think we’re in huge disagreement (I already stated that one way or another Pakistan and India were going to end up not controlled by the British), but I wouldn’t characterize the events when they unfolded as uncontrollable civil war. I’d characterize them as a negotiated settlement between Britain, the Congress Party and the Muslim League. As for the ensuing violence, I don’t mean to downplay it by any means, but the high estimates are 1 million killed and 15-20 million in population exchange. While that is certainly horrific, the Indian population at the time is usually estimated to be around 350 million, so, we’re talking about a fraction of the population being involved in the violence. I personally wouldn’t characterize that as a civil war. ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/39 "2010-08-17T19:29:12Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > Could you perhaps try and get someone you know to explain it to you? > > > > It’s not a very difficult concept. 🙂 > > Perhaps you can let us have a serious discussion and confine your snotty remarks to the thread which you ran away from. Don’t you have to go back there and arbitrarily declare things irrelevant? It wasn’t a snotty remark. I just wanted you to be able to understand something with which you were having difficulty. As you only posted ‘clear as mud’ without actually specifying what you didn’t understand I thought it might be better if you could get someone to talk you through it in person. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346/40 "2010-08-17T19:33:59Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > As for the ensuing violence, I don’t mean to downplay it by any means, but the high estimates are 1 million killed and 15-20 million in population exchange. While that is certainly horrific, the Indian population at the time is usually estimated to be around 350 million, so, we’re talking about a fraction of the population being involved in the violence. I personally wouldn’t characterize that as a civil war. Well, in the first place a civil war is not determined by the number of people killed. It is a matter of the nature of the conflict. And 50% is ‘a fraction’ of the population. As is 90% You consider 1 million people out of 350 million dying to be in some way insufficient for you, personally, to characterise the conflict as a civil war. Is your personal classification of such things of any importance? Particularly considering the amount of bloodshed you obviously require before something qualifies in your mind as a civil war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-britain-doesnt-go-bankcrupt-at-end-of-wwii/550346.md?page=3)