No U.S. involvement in WW2

Deleted member 1487

you do know Canada was not in the Sterling area? The value of the Canadian dollar was based on the value of the US dollar rather than the pound sterling.

I suspect that the chart refers to the sterling area rather than the British empire.
It doesn't matter, they imported almost $1 billion US dollars worth of goods. That chart is in US dollars worth of imports. It says British Empire and Egypt, not Sterling area.
Besides going by this LL value chart Canada nor any other Commonwealth nation is listed independent of the value given to the British Empire:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
Plus considering that Canada was economically integrated into the British production supply chain factoring it out would have been pointless: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lend-lease/
 
I already pointed out the statistical lie that is that chart; it is for the entire British empire+Egypt and Canada alone imported nearly $1 billion in 1941 from the US.

Go back and read the posts more carefully, as it appears you are conflating 2 different things.

hipper's 1 billion by the end of 1941 was the total for Lend Lease; your 1 billion for Canada was total imports.
 

hipper

Banned
I already pointed out the statistical lie that is that chart; it is for the entire British empire+Egypt and Canada alone imported nearly $1 billion in 1941 from the US.

I'm not sure how you make out that the chart is a lie - it states that the British empire paid about 2 1/2 billion dollars to the US in dollars through 1941 and received about 600 million dollars from Lend lease

your frequently restated position that the UK would collapse or be forced to seek accommodation with Hitler for the lack of that 600 million dollars is I feel unreasonable.

cheers Hipper.

Edit sorry Aber Ive had a closer look at the chart you posted from British war economy it looks more like 600 million dollars through 1941 rather than one billion...
 

Deleted member 1487

Go back and read the posts more carefully, as it appears you are conflating 2 different things.

hipper's 1 billion by the end of 1941 was the total for Lend Lease; your 1 billion for Canada was total imports.
I'm addressing the point that the chart is saying that there were more cash paid imports for the Empire+Egypt than LL in 1941. I'm pointing out that Canada was a huge part of that, not Britain, as imports to Britain were what was LLed, not imports by Canada or the rest of the British Empire and Egypt.

I'm not sure how you make out that the chart is a lie - it states that the British empire paid about 2 1/2 billion dollars to the US in dollars through 1941 and received about 600 million dollars from Lend lease

your frequently restated position that the UK would collapse or be forced to seek accommodation with Hitler for the lack of that 600 million dollars is I feel unreasonable.

cheers Hipper.

Edit sorry Aber Ive had a closer look at the chart you posted from British war economy it looks more like 600 million dollars through 1941 rather than one billion...
It's Disraeli's "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Using the Empire+Egypt configuration to say that much more was paid for in cash than received in LL covers up that it was Britain getting that LL, while the Empire and Egypt were paying cash still. Really we should consider that Canada on that chart was nearly $1 Billion of the cash spent, while I'm not sure what Australia, South Africa, India, etc. or Egypt paid in cash. Britain herself was not paying cash, the rest of her associated territories were. Britain herself was broke, it was the imperial territories that were importing with cash paid. The problem is the chart does differentiate between Britain and the empire+Egypt in terms of who paid for their imports with cash.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm addressing the point that the chart is saying that there were more cash paid imports for the Empire+Egypt than LL in 1941. I'm pointing out that Canada was a huge part of that, not Britain, as imports to Britain were what was LLed, not imports by Canada or the rest of the British Empire and Egypt.


It's Disraeli's "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". Using the Empire+Egypt configuration to say that much more was paid for in cash than received in LL covers up that it was Britain getting that LL, while the Empire and Egypt were paying cash still. Really we should consider that Canada on that chart was nearly $1 Billion of the cash spent, while I'm not sure what Australia, South Africa, India, etc. or Egypt paid in cash. Britain herself was not paying cash, the rest of her associated territories were. Britain herself was broke, it was the imperial territories that were importing with cash paid. The problem is the chart does differentiate between Britain and the empire+Egypt in terms of who paid for their imports with cash.

Given the graph was originally prepared by the US government, you should take up any complaints about the misuse of statistics with them. :)

You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions without referencing source documents, especially on the cash payment part. Lend-lease exports only exceeded paid for exports in March 1942.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Given the graph was originally prepared by the US government, you should take up any complaints about the misuse of statistics with them. :)

You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions without referencing source documents.
It's not an issue of the chart, but how it is used within the context of the argument by book and by Hipper to claim that Britain herself was still paying cash. What assumptions am I making? I already cited Canada's import value from the US in 1941 previously in this thread.
 
I think you're misreading the text in a few key aspects. First, the peak of the food crisis occurred after the poor harvest of 1943, meaning that it was only by November 1943 (Well after the Ostheer was on a death spiral) that lend lease aid made a serious difference. Second, the Soviet government had (terrible) options to conserve food supplies - mainly by starving GULAG prisoners (OTL even during the worst of the war their death rate was "only" 30%) and those unable to work to death. While a terrible option, the USSR would certainly go through with it. Third, I believe the text makes an error in ignoring "unofficial" provisioning the RKKA regularly used to up caloric intake. This mainly involved private plots and fisheries most RKKA units would use to supplement state rations. Finally, your own conclusion ignores that the Soviet Union always had the option to purchase food aid from the West or receive it for free from humanitarian organizations - given the option, I doubt the pragmatic Stalin would choose defeat over asking for food aid.

The Bread of Affliction: The Food Supply in the USSR during World War II, by William Moskoff -

"The central fact behind the increased importance of the collective farm market was the drastic drop in food production, especially in 1942 and 1943, and the diminished proportion that went to the civilians. In 1943 overall agricultural production was only 38 percent of the 1940 level. In 1943, however, the Red Army began to recapture agricultural areas of the Ukraine, Belorussia, and the Caucasus and by the next year, 1944, agricultural output had risen to 54 percent of the 1940 level. Not surprisingly, the collapse of the food economy led to astonishing increases in prices. The most rapid rate [Emphasis by author] of increase in prices took place in 1942 and began to taper off in mid-1943."

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945, by Walter Scott Dunn -

"By November of 1941, 47% of Soviet cropland was in German hands. The Germans had 38% of the grain farmland, 84% of the sugar land, 38% of the area devoted to beef and dairy cattle, and 60% of the land used to produce hogs. The Russians turned to the east and brought more land into cultivation. In the fall of 1941, the autumn and winter crops increased sharply in the eastern area. But despite all efforts, farm yields dropped from 95.5 million tons of grain in 1940 to 29.7 million tons in 1942. Production of cattle and horses dropped to less than half of prewar levels and hogs to one fifth. By 1942, meat and dairy production shrank to half the 1940 total and sugar to only 5%. Farm production in 1942 and 1943 dropped to 38% and 37% of 1940 totals."
 
It's not an issue of the chart, but how it is used within the context of the argument by book and by Hipper to claim that Britain herself was still paying cash. What assumptions am I making? I already cited Canada's import value from the US in 1941 previously in this thread.

See for example the September 1942 report to Congress referencing deliveries under cash payment programmes still coming off the production line, which should be added to lend lease deliveries in assessing the impact of US support. At that point cumulative Lend Lease exports were less than 40% of total exports in the period.
 

Deleted member 1487

See for example the September 1942 report to Congress referencing deliveries under cash payment programmes still coming off the production line, which should be added to lend lease deliveries in assessing the impact of US support. At that point cumulative Lend Lease exports were less than 40% of total exports in the period.
Care to post a link to what you are talking about?
 

Deleted member 1487

p.7 already they are saying they transferred over $5 Billion in goods and services between March 1st 1941-August 1942, with another $1.36 Billion in processing by the end of August, effectively with $6.5 Billion being contracted in 18 months (really though since May 1941 when the first shipment was sent).

See for example the September 1942 report to Congress referencing deliveries under cash payment programmes still coming off the production line, which should be added to lend lease deliveries in assessing the impact of US support. At that point cumulative Lend Lease exports were less than 40% of total exports in the period.
Ok. P.11 gets to the point above. You're making a MASSIVE sin of omission with this point, as it says the cash payments made were by ALL nations getting LL, which includes a list of 27 nations other than Britain and the Commonwealth/Empire. And yes the Empire includes the Commonwealth in terms of Lend-Lease and cash payments so Canadian imports paid in cash count. So making any statements about British ability to make cash payments is extremely disingenuous if not an outright attempt at lying.
 
Ok. P.11 gets to the point above. You're making a MASSIVE sin of omission with this point, as it says the cash payments made were by ALL nations getting LL, which includes a list of 27 nations other than Britain and the Commonwealth/Empire. And yes the Empire includes the Commonwealth in terms of Lend-Lease and cash payments so Canadian imports paid in cash count. So making any statements about British ability to make cash payments is extremely disingenuous if not an outright attempt at lying.

p11 lists 35 other countries eligible for Lend Lease, not 27.
p9 says that 35% of Lend Lease is going to USSR - almost all the rest will be going to the British Commonwealth (with some for China), unless you consider that Cuba, Costa Rica, Bolivia etc were major recipients.

You seem to missing the point that Lend Lease was a US government programme to ensure continuity of supplies beyond the cash purchase programmes, and so for a time they both ran in parallel.
 

Deleted member 1487

p11 lists 35 other countries eligible for Lend Lease, not 27.
p9 says that 35% of Lend Lease is going to USSR - almost all the rest will be going to the British Commonwealth (with some for China), unless you consider that Cuba, Costa Rica, Bolivia etc were major recipients.

You seem to missing the point that Lend Lease was a US government programme to ensure continuity of supplies beyond the cash purchase programmes, and so for a time they both ran in parallel.
Eligible, not currently receiving. Since they were talking about the value already sent out in LL and paid in cash, only the 27 were relevant unless you think the paid in cash stuff was from all 35...in which case that is even less chance the UK proper was paying cash into 1942. As of 1942 35% of LL was going to the USSR, but there is no talk about how much the UK proper was paying cash for.
I know what LL was, we are talking about the cash ability of the UK proper to get imports from the US, the entire point of this thread. LL isn't on the table for the purposes of this thread, so the question we've been discussing for the last several pages and what you yourself were claiming was that the UK proper was capable of making cash payments for shipments into 1942....but your own document contradicts your statement.
 
so the question we've been discussing for the last several pages and what you yourself were claiming was that the UK proper was capable of making cash payments for shipments into 1942....but your own document contradicts your statement.
Not my document - it belongs to the US government.:)

Which countries apart from Britain do you think made up a significant proportion of the $5.8 billion cash purchases between March 1941 and August 1942?

Or the $6.5 billion to October 1942, referenced on p13 of the Seventh report - there's a nice graph on the ongoing cash purchases.
 

hipper

Banned
Eligible, not currently receiving. Since they were talking about the value already sent out in LL and paid in cash, only the 27 were relevant unless you think the paid in cash stuff was from all 35...in which case that is even less chance the UK proper was paying cash into 1942. As of 1942 35% of LL was going to the USSR, but there is no talk about how much the UK proper was paying cash for.
I know what LL was, we are talking about the cash ability of the UK proper to get imports from the US, the entire point of this thread. LL isn't on the table for the purposes of this thread, so the question we've been discussing for the last several pages and what you yourself were claiming was that the UK proper was capable of making cash payments for shipments into 1942....but your own document contradicts your statement.

I see what the issue is by 1941 in January Britain had committed to buy 1,4 billion dollars worth of stuff from the us its moveable assets were 1.8 billion dollars worth of stuff. the uk had run out of dollar assets. It can't order any more stuff from the U.S.

The table shows what was delivered to the UK through 1941 obviously most of that stuff had been ordered previously and paid for by the UK. Deliveries of lend lease items starts becoming significant in the second half of 1942.

If lend lease had not been potentially available. Them other choices could have been made second half of 1942.less aents And more raw materials purchased. Which would have ment that the UKs war potential would be mildly reduced cpared to oTL but mouthing that required the UK to leave the war.

You are wellcome to believe that the UK would have continued to order stuff from the U.S. them made peace when no more stuff was possible to be purchased but it's not very Rational.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not my document - it belongs to the US government.:)

Which countries apart from Britain do you think made up a significant proportion of the $5.8 billion cash purchases between March 1941 and August 1942?

Or the $6.5 billion to October 1942, referenced on p13 of the Seventh report - there's a nice graph on the ongoing cash purchases.
All the Commonwealth, the USSR paid cash until around October 1941, Latin America (which is half those eligible), Egypt, the Dutch and Belgians, Polish and Czech governments in exile, Free French, China even, plus even Norway and it's exiled merchant fleet which was the 3rd largest in the Allied navy. Granted the UK government paid in cash from at least March-May, so several hundred million was them.

From the 2nd report of LL:
P.3 has a chart that says until August 1941 they had only 11 cash reimbursements out of 4,747 requests (the rest were LL) received from Britain.

For that p.13 7th report that is for ALL exports from the US, not just to Britain.
 

hipper

Banned
All the Commonwealth, the USSR paid cash until around October 1941, Latin America (which is half those eligible), Egypt, the Dutch and Belgians, Polish and Czech governments in exile, Free French, China even, plus even Norway and it's exiled merchant fleet which was the 3rd largest in the Allied navy. Granted the UK government paid in cash from at least March-May, so several hundred million was them.

From the 2nd report of LL:
P.3 has a chart that says until August 1941 they had only 11 cash reimbursements out of 4,747 requests (the rest were LL) received from Britain.

For that p.13 7th report that is for ALL exports from the US, not just to Britain.


You are under a misapprehension of the structure of lendlease the UK's financial position was at its worst in 1941 but as American forces began to be stationed abroad, they paid for services in dollars, which then could be exchanged for stuff, I.e. Britains ballence of payments position improved. The Americans adjusted the level of lend lease ( the things the UK DiD not have to pay for) to minimise the UK's dollar balances, i.e. When the UK had more dollars the Americans started charging for stuff that had not been chargeable before.

The UK never ran out of dollars it's account was held quite low by the Americans however.
 

Deleted member 1487

You are under a misapprehension of the structure of lendlease the UK's financial position was at its worst in 1941 but as American forces began to be stationed abroad, they paid for services in dollars, which then could be exchanged for stuff, I.e. Britains ballence of payments position improved. The Americans adjusted the level of lend lease ( the things the UK DiD not have to pay for) to minimise the UK's dollar balances, i.e. When the UK had more dollars the Americans started charging for stuff that had not been chargeable before.

The UK never ran out of dollars it's account was held quite low by the Americans however.
The amount of dollars injected by US forces into British held economies was no where close to what was needed to fund the war effort.

I see what the issue is by 1941 in January Britain had committed to buy 1,4 billion dollars worth of stuff from the us its moveable assets were 1.8 billion dollars worth of stuff. the uk had run out of dollar assets. It can't order any more stuff from the U.S.

The table shows what was delivered to the UK through 1941 obviously most of that stuff had been ordered previously and paid for by the UK. Deliveries of lend lease items starts becoming significant in the second half of 1942.

If lend lease had not been potentially available. Them other choices could have been made second half of 1942.less aents And more raw materials purchased. Which would have ment that the UKs war potential would be mildly reduced cpared to oTL but mouthing that required the UK to leave the war.

You are wellcome to believe that the UK would have continued to order stuff from the U.S. them made peace when no more stuff was possible to be purchased but it's not very Rational.
Yet the Brits blew through their dollar/gold stocks before being promised anything by the FDR administration. Perhaps with a less friendly US government in charge they'd more carefully manage their money, but what do they lose from their production effort not to have US supplies? Beyond that why keep fighting if they cannot sustain a war effort and have no hope of having the US support them? Seems like Halifax would win out with an unfriendly US government in charge in the long run.
 

hipper

Banned
The amount of dollars injected by US forces into British held economies was no where close to what was needed to fund the war effort.


Yet the Brits blew through their dollar/gold stocks before being promised anything by the FDR administration. Perhaps with a less friendly US government in charge they'd more carefully manage their money, but what do they lose from their production effort not to have US supplies? Beyond that why keep fighting if they cannot sustain a war effort and have no hope of having the US support them? Seems like Halifax would win out with an unfriendly US government in charge in the long run.

The decision to remain in the war was made before the decision to continue purchases from the US was taken. By January 1941 he was exiled to the US

The point abouT why keep fighting without hope of ultimate victory was countered by Churchill in the May cabinet crisis by an appeal to emotion which was succesfull. Taking an extra year to increase Uk production in contrast would not cause the UK to quit. Germany made two fatal mistakes in 1941 which justified the UK remaining in the war.
 
Another important thing to note is that, if we're assuming relatively little to none U.S. involvement period, the lack of American economic warfare would likely allow Hitler to bring Spain into the war. If such occurred, Britain automatically losses 42% of its iron ore supply and a large amount of Potash needed for agriculture. That alone would likely force the UK out of the war, as the factories would be starved of materials while the population at large would be starved of life.
 
Top