Re: British economy
- From: "L2007" <removemebayremovemecity@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:39:13 -0400
"Andrew Clark" <aclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Batavus" <Bdroogstoppel@xxxxxxx> wrote
To put it clear: if the USA has been a real neutral state, or, even
more bad, sympathic for the german cause, the UK wouldn't have had
the possibility to buy anything more in the US. So without the US the
UK would have steered into a bankruptcy.
Well, no, because the British wouldn't have gone bankrupt without the US.
Rather, the British war effort would simply have had to be scaled down to
take into account lack of supply from the US. That would have had
significant consequences for the course of the war but it wouldn't have
meant a German victory, especially not after 1948 when the British atomic
bomb came on the scene.
Even if no Atomic bomb, and the UK was far more advanced on that front than
the USA, the UK and Soviet economies were far larger than the Axis economies
and both were heavily industrialised countries, which the likes of Italy was
The Germans went for a big gamble in wiping out the USSR in one swipe. It failed. Once it failed there was only going to be one loser. The US shortend the war that is clear, they never decided it. The UK produced so much armaments they could even supply the USSR too. In WW2 "generally" the USSR and British used their own equipment.
If the USA did not sell supplies the UK would have wound up their Atom bomb project, which had been around since 1939, and the bomb available much sooner.
- Prev by Date: Re: Austrian army
- Next by Date: Re: Revisionist television ?
- Previous by thread: Re: British economy
- Next by thread: Re: British economy