The 1,000 calorie figure comes from the UK's national archives.Its a lot higher than that, way over a 1000. A 1000 a day is more like the Siege of Leningrad.
Edit: I know how they get that number, at least part of the error. They are taking the % reduction and multiplying by what an officer worker eats today (2000 calories or so). People used to eat roughly twice as much when they did manual labor all day.
I have added up the ration allowance by type of food. You get rations more like 1800 to 2400 for civilians, higher for soldiers. Still enough to cause excess fatalities but not 1000 calories. If you go below 1500 average, then people start dying fairly fast and you will go back above 1500 per person due to deaths in not too many months.
What date is "harvest time"? & which crops? For my 64 years the wheat harvest in the midwestern US occurs in the weeks from latter June & early July. When is that in England, Wales, and Scotland?
All those measures are OTL from WW2, farmers went from planing max money per acre to government ordered max calories per acre. Your objections would work in peace but national survival on the line, the rules change drastically. Even in peace depending on prices , what farmers plant year to year can change greatly. Foot and Mouth caused farmers to change from pastoral for a time just as Mad Cow Disease did earlier, milk quotas etc also make changes, farmers tend to be quite flexible.You can't just snap your fingers and completely restructure the agricultural system of an economy like the UK. Snip
Got to take those figures with a pinch of salt if extrapolating to wartime. Remember whats planted is based on what price they can sell in a world market not what they could produce if needed. That the 70's figure is less than was managed OTL in WW2 and possibly only as much as pre war is a big red flag. Also barley and oats at the time would be as big as wheat and a government mandated use of natural flour ( ie milled as brown not purified to white) increased effective yield ( less waste and it also preserved iron, vitamins etc )
The UK will do exactly diddly squat if Germany greatly expands it submarine force.
Yes. I think we could have been starved out. We weren't because the Nazi were unprepared for such a campaign, lacked the forces to impose a blockade and the allies developed technology and tactics faster than the Nazi did.
As an aside I suspect there is a different view between Americans and British contributors. They Americans don't seem to grasp the physiological impact of the battle of the Atlantic or how utterly reliant the UK is on SLOC. The key point is those SLOC don't have to be closed to force us out of a the war, just damaged to the extent that life becomes unacceptably hard for the civilian population ( aka rations cut and cut and cut) and leaves the military short of the resources ( basically fuel and ammo) needed to prosecute the war.
Most of the stuff we needed to carry on came to us by ship over the ocean. Target those key supply areas ( especially fuel) early enough and attack port facilities and ship repair facilities constantly and things are looking very different. if you can also knock out fuel concentration points and handling equipment you make things much harder and lead to more and more imports by ships
Thankfully the Nazis couldn't!
EDIT - WW1, I think, was a closer run thing particularity in early 1917. Had the Germans gone harder earlier they might have succeeded.
The 1,000 calorie figure comes from the UK's national archives.
So whenever the Atlantic in either World War is brought up the German attempt to remove the British from the conflict by cutting off its shipping is mentioned. I'm wondering that even if the Kriegsmarine was more successful and effectively removed much of the exported materials and food to the Isles, would that have hurt the United Kingdom enough to drop out before Germany itself began losing? I'd imagine the situation is probably different between the 1910's vs. the 1940's. What are you're thoughts?
A submerged Uboat in 41/42 cannot recharge its batteries and cannot manouvre 'as quickly' to position itself ahead of a convoy as one that is able to operate on the surface with impunity and is therefore less likely to be in a position to attack a given convoy.
Not really, in 1912 RN Officers were putting together plans based on moving the battleships out to the Scottish west coast and Ireland while filling the North Sea with composite cruiser squadrons supported by 2 ship types that didn't exist yet - Seaplane Carriers and Aircraft Carriers. They were alive to the threat of surprise attacks by submarines against merchant ships even though this activity was illegal at the time.
The German (mis)calculations on Britain's needs were based on pre-war rates failing to take into consideration that convoy conserves shipping and rationing guarantees supplies - not reduces consumption. The Brits in WW1 didn't feel pressured enough to ration fodder for racehorses.
What is routinely ignored is the occupation of the continent by any european power effectively blockades Britain from 100% european trade, even before said european power dips its toes into blue waters. Britain is forced to access almost all its imports across oceans and most of its colonies (and friendly dominions) are even further away. Britain is has to fund higher prices, fund additional transport/ transaction costs, and fund the additional costs of the war. While half its available resources are dedicated to fighting a war, it will struggle to raise export currency to pay the price of war to profiteers.I think it was the only viable strategy that the Germans had - they could not invade, they could not bomb into submission - blockade was the only strategy left and it started at a disadvantage with regards to Geography - made slightly better with the occupation of France and Norway but the Atlantic was an Allied lake effectively surrounded by bases and airfields into which German Aircraft, Submarines and surface ships could only raid.
The British was also the only nation with previous experiance of fighting a Uboat war and obviously had lots of Blockade and anti Blockade experiance
Britain had the mass majority of the worlds merchant fleet effectively under its command
For some reason, this board has this one big blind spot. We accept that losing powers lie all the time, yet for some reason, the UK doesn't about WW1.
Cobblers, without the US its a cold war scenario, Britain cannot invade Europe and Germany cannot invade Britain. Sea power vs land power as per every other continental war Britain was part of for the preceding two centuries. Assuming Germany and Russia go to war ( ideologically hard to avoid ) then there is a good chance WW2 ends with the Iron curtain at the channel.What is routinely ignored is the occupation of the continent by any european power effectively blockades Britain from 100% european trade, even before said european power dips its toes into blue waters. Britain is forced to access almost all its imports across oceans and most of its colonies (and friendly dominions) are even further away. Britain is has to fund higher prices, fund additional transport/ transaction costs, and fund the additional costs of the war. While half its available resources are dedicated to fighting a war, it will struggle to raise export currency to pay the price of war to profiteers.
If Britain stood alone (including with the dregs of empire), Britain would have fallen. However, the reality was the British war effort in both wars was ultimately propped up by American commercial interests.
What is routinely ignored is the occupation of the continent by any european power effectively blockades Britain from 100% european trade, even before said european power dips its toes into blue waters. Britain is forced to access almost all its imports across oceans and most of its colonies (and friendly dominions) are even further away. Britain is has to fund higher prices, fund additional transport/ transaction costs, and fund the additional costs of the war. While half its available resources are dedicated to fighting a war, it will struggle to raise export currency to pay the price of war to profiteers.
If Britian stood alone (including with the dregs of empire), Britain would have fallen. However, the reality was the British war effort in both wars was ultimately propped up by American commercial interests.
All those measures are OTL from WW2, farmers went from planing max money per acre to government ordered max calories per acre. Your objections would work in peace but national survival on the line, the rules change drastically. Even in peace depending on prices , what farmers plant year to year can change greatly. Foot and Mouth caused farmers to change from pastoral for a time just as Mad Cow Disease did earlier, milk quotas etc also make changes, farmers tend to be quite flexible.
For example during WW2 as a result of these changes meat production falls by around 300,000t a year but grain and potatoes grow by around 300,000t each ( 1180-> 812 , 4264-> 7132, 4354 -> 8701 ). 10 acres of grassland to raise livestock produces around enough calories to feed about 12 people for a year, of wheat its nearer 200 and potatoes around 400, as a result arable land doubled in size during WW2 ( pre war most was grassland ).