Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A documentary about Churchill and Roosevelt. Roosevelt was highly duplicitous with no intention of going to war with anyone contrary to myth. In 1941 the US provided 1% of British supplies.
Not that I’d expect you to be objective, but $31 billion of the $50 billion of lend lease materials and services went to the British empire. You of course highlight only 1 percent in 1941 because the act was signed into law partway through that year and the U.S wasn’t fully committed to the war yet. Churchill himself referred to it as the most unsordid act a nation has ever done for another.
A documentary about Churchill and Roosevelt. Roosevelt was highly duplicitous with no intention of going to war with anyone contrary to myth. In 1941 the US provided 1% of British supplies.
Its a miracle FDR got the Lend Lease Act through Congress at all before the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. The act did not pass the Senate until March of 1941 which left America not able to do much for Britain during the year of 1941.
Isolationist feelings in the USA ran high and kept us from doing lots of things we should have done. Nor, was our large German immigrant and Irish immigrant population sympathetic to the UK. The truth is that FDR struggled to help Britain and had to virtual violate the Neutrality Act to do so. For example, Britain badly needed destroyers in 1940 to protect British shipping convoys. FDR could not legally give these destroyers to Britain, so with a bit of ingenuity an exchange was worked out where Britain gave America leases to naval bases in Bermuda in return for 50 American destroyers.
Britain was on the right side of this conflict, but before the nazi attack on western Europe in 1940 and the later Holocaust it was not as easy to see the moral rightness of supporting Britain. The Great Depression had been a worldwide phenomenon and almost all Americans wanted our financial resources used at home to aid the unemployed and in economic recovery. America had not fully recovered from the Depression by the beginning of World War II.
The fact that America did as much as it did before Pearl Harbor is probably remarkable. And, there were plenty of politicians who believed that FDR "went too far" doing the limited amount he did.
One point of the documentary (I saw this on TV about 13/14 years ago), was how duplicitous Roosevelt was. Changing his mind, saying one thing and meaning another. He even demanded, and got, territory for supplying "aid" which was paid for. Unbelievable. He had no intention of committing the US to the war against Hitler. Britain went into WW2 on principle thinking the US should do the same. To Churchill it was obvious what Hitler wanted and was doing which the US could not get away from. Mein Kampf was full of bile towards the USA. Roosevelt was naive in thinking the USA was immune.
British and French orders for raw materials and goods from the USA just before and in the early part of WW2 alleviated the US soup lines for sure. Both countries never re-armed quick enough, using USA industry as a cushion. Even though, only 80% of US industry was active in 1941. Postan in "British War Production", states that the French suggested to primarily use the massive and idle US industry for supplies, to common British & French specifications, and the British & French use their own men to fight. One man in a factory is one man less at the front. The idea never got far. Postan states that most of the "arms" supplied was mainly raw materials and machine tools. Much of these raw materials were normal trade in peace time.
The UK owned substantial parts of US industry and land with pre-war import much from the USA, like cereals. The UK used other continents for food as a hedge against famine. The Irish famine left a big mark. Most of Argentina's meat production was British owned - all the canned meats the British army used was from from Argentinian. When war broke out this peace time trade was now the USA supplying Britain. The US also made Britain sell many of these organisations at knock down prices as well.
Churchill was naive in relying on the USA too much, pre Dec 1941 they came across as opportunists - the demanding of territory should have made Churchill weary of the USA. Niall Ferguson in The War of the World, page 333, states:
"In Asia, the USA had already established a pattern of calling on others to take stands against aggression, while pursuing its own economic interest".
"When Roosevelt began to do the same in Europe too, Chamberlain concluded that Americans were "a nation of cads". He said "it is best and safest to count on nothing from the Americans except words".
Chamberlain, distrusted the Americans to a degree viewing them as economic opportunists. He wasn't far wrong as the USA made a profit on WW2, demanded territory and had the cheek to meddle in internal British Empire affairs, in order to get at the markets. Chamberlain was right in only words coming from the USA, as Roosevelt was doing. The British did not insist that the USA give territory back to Mexico. Churchill would have been fully aware of Chamberlain's view, which was being enacted before him.
At Churchill's insistence, an American was supreme commander in NW Europe, as a lever by Churchill in order to get them to adopt Germany First, which was the correct strategy for the USA. The Americans were flattered. The Americans had zero experience at this level, which was an appalling suggestion by Churchill. The Americans naturally thought the British would be in charge as it was their own backyard. That was a poor move by Churchill, as progress post Normandy proved, with the US generals only being colonels when WW2 broke out. This was akin to the Germans putting an Italian in charge of the Afrika Korps.
BTW, the 50 WW1 destroyers were for public consumption. The Royal Navy assessed them as near useless. For convoy protection fast and agile craft were needed - corvettes. Only about three ever put to sea after extensive refits, with the British giving them to the Dutch and Soviets.
Not that I’d expect you to be objective, but $31 billion of the $50 billion of lend lease materials and services went to the British empire. You of course highlight only 1 percent in 1941 because the act was signed into law partway through that year and the U.S wasn’t fully committed to the war yet. Churchill himself referred to it as the most unsordid act a nation has ever done for another.
The US was not going to be fully committed to the war unless they were attacked, the documentary made that clear. The myth that without U.S. supplies Britain was doomed was blown. In fact only about 10% overall the British got from the USA, about 5% for the USSR.
Churchill during WW2 said a lot to flatter the U.S.. Montgomery in his memoirs pulled back from giving his views on the poor performance of the American generals at the Bulge for fear of upsetting them, he wrote that - Eisenhower was US president by then. He should have told it was it was for historical reasons. Keeping the Americans happy was common in the UK.
The US was not going to be fully committed to the war unless they were attacked, the documentary made that clear. The myth that without U.S. supplies Britain was doomed was blown. In fact only about 10% overall the British got from the USA, about 5% for the USSR.
Churchill during WW2 said a lot to flatter the U.S.. Montgomery in his memoirs pulled back from giving his views on the poor performance of the American generals at the Bulge for fear of upsetting them, he wrote that - Eisenhower was US president by then. He should have told it was it was for historical reasons. Keeping the Americans happy was common in the UK.
We had t try ando keep the US happy, as after WW2 Britain was left bankrupt.
The British Government of the time sent John Maynard Keynes to Washington after WW2, howerver according to historian Alan Sked, "the U.S. didn't seem to realize that Britain was bankrupt", and continally refused a loan. Part of the reason was the views of certain US politicians and negotiators and the fact that Britain had elected a Socialist Labour Government under Clement Attlee and thar Winston Churchill, who was very popular in the US was defeated in the 1945 election. Also the fact that FDR had sadly passed away and the Truman administration was less sympathetic to Britain.
In the end a relatively small loan was negotiated with interest, the loan was even "denounced in the House of Lords, but in the end the country had no choice."
America offered $US 3.75bn (US$52 billion in 2019) and Canada contributed another US$1.19 bn (US$17 billion in 2019), both at the rate of 2% annual interest.
The US lloan was also subject to further conditions, the most damaging of which was the convertibility of sterling,, the effect of which was to worsen British post-war economic problems.
The UK remained allies with the US, and fought alongside the US in Korea, there was then a falling out in the 1950's over Suez, after which relations were strained.
A further strain on relations occurred in the early 1960's when Lyndon B. Johnson wanted Britain to join the ground war in Vietnam, however Britain declined.
Keynes was advocating printing money for infrastructure project and other projects that would create economic growth rather than take loans from the USA. The US government printed lots of dollars for private companies take loans on super low interest rates to buy up partially destroyed European and Japanese industries. Hence why post WW2 the US dominated world industry.
Unfortunately Keynes never homed in on reclaiming values accumulated in land, reducing, or eliminating, income tax. That would have catapulted the economy forwards.
A further strain on relations occurred in the early 1960's when Lyndon B. Johnson wanted Britain to join the ground war in Vietnam, however Britain declined.
If the US had not been so arrogant continuing with their economic opportunism, then Britain may have joined them in Viet Nam, and assisted in the diplomatic side in which the British were superb at. The US desperately wanted the UKs experience in jungle warfare. Johnson at times was foolish and arrogant - and naive. Look at him poking his nose in on the TSR2 plane. Subsequently, prime minister Wilson wanted nothing to do with him, sending them packing when they called for UK entry into the Viet Nam war. Britain's war did not end in 1945, it was 1946, as they went to Viet Nam to fight the Viet Minh. They won and gave the country back to its legal owners, the French.
Even today the British are world leaders in jungle warfare, training countries who have jungles:
The US was not going to be fully committed to the war unless they were attacked, the documentary made that clear. The myth that without U.S. supplies Britain was doomed was blown. In fact only about 10% overall the British got from the USA, about 5% for the USSR.
Churchill during WW2 said a lot to flatter the U.S.. Montgomery in his memoirs pulled back from giving his views on the poor performance of the American generals at the Bulge for fear of upsetting them, he wrote that - Eisenhower was US president by then. He should have told it was it was for historical reasons. Keeping the Americans happy was common in the UK.
The amount of $31 billion dollars represented an enormous transfer of resources from 1941 to 1945. Thirty one billion dollars is equal to about $350 billion today. Additionally, as noted another $11 billion (about $150 billion today) in supplies was sent to the USSR. Other nations including the Netherlands and free France received a total of about $10 billion ($130 billion today) from the Lend Lease Program. As I stated previously, Lend Lease did not begin until March of 1941, therefore, there should be little surprise that only a small amount aid was transferred by the end of 1941. In fact, 98% of Lend Lease aid was given from 1942-1945.
I agree that nazi Germany was unlikely to defeat Britain and the USSR after 1941. However, there is a great difference between not being defeated and actually winning World War II. The great contribution that the USA made was in supplying resources and soldiers that allowed German soldiers to be driven out of the territories in Europe (and Africa) that had been occupied.
I suspect that if Lend Lease had been less consequential that both Britain and the Soviet Union would have said so. Instead, when I review the historical record what I find are a series of statements from both countries thanking the USA for providing the aid.
No one should be surprised that an American, General Eisenhower, was appointed supreme commander of SHAEF. America put up 20 Army divisions for the invasion of Europe as opposed to 14 for Britain. Some other units were provided by free French forces and other nations. Americans would have been reluctant to accept anything less than the top position where they were providing more forces than anyone else.
Last edited by markg91359; 05-12-2019 at 08:07 AM..
The US were not expecting the supreme commanders position. It was not a good thing to give that position to inexperienced men. Their inexperience showed in the massive US losses. The US had to pour more troops into Europe as they were losing men at a rapid rate. The Lorraine over 50,000, Hurtgen Forest 34,000, 90-100,000 at the Bulge, then all the others. The losses and bloodshed was leading nowhere. Losses due to the quality and inexperience of the US generals and the supreme commander.
The broad-front was the strategy adopted to great resistance by Montgomery. He wanted the Northern Thrust, which Eisenhower did adopt and limply prioritised, never allocating enough resources. Market Garden was a part of that. Montgomery wanted to get north to seize the vital Ruhr and get tanks onto the open north German plains, which is a straight run into the heart of Germany. He wanted a 40 division thrust. Most of the US generals agreed, even the German generals agreed.
However one by one they sided with Eisenhower and his broad-front. The faster they went east the more the Soviets were checked as well. After the under resourced Market Garden operation reached but never made a foothold over the Rhine, Eisenhower went cold on the Northern Thrust.
If it is easy to go east on the north German plains then it is easy to go west on them, Montgomery saw this. The Soviets quickly got to the borders of Denmark. It took a big effort for the British Second Army to run north and get to the Baltic cutting off the Soviets who looked like they would get into and occupy Denmark. All unnecessary if the the focus was full on the Northern Thrust, which it was not.
Eisenhower was supreme commander with Montgomery over all ground forces in Normandy. It worked coming in ahead of schedule with 22% less casualties than predicated. After Normandy Eisenhower took on both roles, which was far too much for one inexperienced man, a man who had never commanded an army but was now commanding a number of army groups. After the lightening advances from the Normandy beaches, everything moved at a snails pace. The Rhine was crossed six months after Market Garden. The vital Ruhr was occupied only a month before the end of the war. The Ruhr could have been seized in the Fall of 1944 if all resources were focused.
Churchill must have regretted offering the supreme commanders post to an American as many top Americans were proving to be incompetent. In 1942 the USA was a liability. The USAAF in Britain was receiving about 70% of its supplies locally until 1943 - stated in the USAAF official history. Shipping losses to U-boats had fallen steadily throughout 1941 only to reach spectacular levels with the entry of the USA into the war. Supplies for the USAAF were ending up on the Atlantic's seabed. All major historical authorities: Morrison, Roskill, Churchill, Bauer and even General Marshall are agreed this was entirely due the incompetence of the U.S. Navy not taking advice from the British in forming convoys and imposing blackouts in cities.....and the stupidity of Admiral King. The correspondence between King and Marshall can be found in Bauer's history and ends with an Army general correctly advising a US Admiral on maritime tactics. Then in late 1942 the poor performance of the American troops in North Africa.
All sides had incompetent generals and admirals. However when the incompetent is told where he going wrong and the right way to do it, then ignores the advice, that is not acceptable with immediate replacement the only option. Strangely the US kept these incompetents.
In 1942 the USA knew nothing about managing a modern war learning everything from the British. At the Dec 1941 Arcadia conference the British gently directed the US to model its war economy and planning on the British system.
Last edited by John-UK; 05-13-2019 at 03:25 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
