Why do people think Britain was on the verge of starvation in WW2 when they were producing 20k aircraft per year and...

t. buttflustered britbong

Do not look it directly or it might blow up.

Veeky Forums is just a bunch of circlejerking Frenchies and Americans in my experience.

>iron cross
>swastika scrubbed out of the flag
Lol, did fucking Paradox put this in an old Hearts of Iron loading screen or something?

Not sure if serious

So it's just the artist being a cuck then

say it with me
O B S E S S E D

The swastiku got washed off when the boot dived.

?

If the UK wasn't important, why did the US lend lease so much to them?

Because building US bases in Britain counted as lend-lease to Britain.

>Britain was on the verge of starvation in WW2

I used to believe this meme. I only recently released just how wrong it is. The u-boats barely made a dent in Britain's wartime economy. Their only meaningful victory was in forcing the allies to adopt a convoy system, which slowed down transatlantic travel but that's about it. The Kreigsmarine didn't intercept enough shipping to make any meaningful difference.

businessinsider.com/a-german-u-boat-from-wwi-has-been-found-off-the-coast-of-belgium-2017-9

In related new, another u-boat wreck was discovered just yesterday, this one is in unusually good condition. Uniquely, the u-boat appears to be still completely sealed, meaning that there isn't any water inside the main compartment. The only explanation is that the men were simply trapped on the bottom of the ocean and died when they ran out of oxygen and suffocated. The German government must now decide whether to attempt to extract the dead men inside for land burial, or simply designate the wreck as a sea grave.

Because WW2 serves as the foundational myth of modern society, and what is a myth without drama.

Is it really a myth if, well, it actually happened?

U-boats are kind of like snipers. They aren't really that significant, but they make the enemy feel paranoid. Because they are hard to detect, they appear to be everywhere.

They're more like insurgents. They can't effectively combat enemy combat elements, but are hard to detect and bring to battle at any condition other than the ones the insurgents/u-boats want to fight in. They exist to prey on noncombat elements primarily, and the mere threat of their existence controls areas that aren't directly being patrolled.

Nope, since it's US property, nonce.

That must be why 35 million+ gross tons of shipping went to the UK per year, because the Uboats controlled the seas.

Does anyone have any source which has the industrial output of Britain in 1940 (just before the lend-lease act)? I'd really like to know if this meme is real or not

What would comparing 1940 before lend-lease to 1940 after lend-lease accomplish? Either way Britain is getting materials from abroad.

British agriculture was so fucked that they continued to ration dairy (in very limited forms) into the 80s.

thestar.com/entertainment/2007/10/09/cool_britannia_rules_the_whey.html

That is not what I'm saying at all. Please read more carefully.

Furthermore, imports were down.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

> These figures show a shocking 40% drop in dry
-cargo imports between 1940 and 1944, or a 37% drop between 1940 and 1943. 20

Check out the same link. Although it's more concerned iwth overall sub warfare and the steps the British took to compensate for lesser volume of shipping coming in.

>unrestricted
>submarine
>warfare

Why don't you please read more carefully. Your article, which you apparently never read besides scanning for some numbers that confirm your hypothesis, states that much of the lost import was made up by decrease in exports and increase in domestic production. Furthermore, the article states in relevant passages that there were either no shortages or actual increase in all crucial categories of goods, i.e. steel, non-steel metals, chemicals.
British imports declined but it did not cause any shortages because in a war economy it cut down on luxury imports, consumer goods, and re-export industry.

Sure. A myth isn't told because it's not true, a myth is told because it can incite behavior with it's explanatory power.

It doesn't MATTER if the myth is true or not. What matters is what people can believe. This is why so many myths die so hard. For the average person, even an intelligent, well educated one, the post-war era is the human age, and the war against the Nazis is a war against Kaos.

This, btw is what neo-Nazis don't get about 'abloobloobloo why is Hitler viewed as worse that Stalin?' Aside from any actual differences of intent and scale, it's that no matter how big of death tolls they claim for Stalin, that just makes him an evil man. While the Nazis are like a modern Apep, a force that would unmake the 'cosmos' and destroy 'ma'at'

>British agriculture was so fucked that they continued to ration dairy (in very limited forms) into the 80s.
Population of cattle in Britain increased during the war.

>Why don't you please read more carefully.
>Why don't you please read more carefully.
Pot? Meet kettle.>That must be why 35 million+ gross tons of shipping went to the UK per year,

>Britain's dry-cargo imports, in millions of tons
>1940: 41.9
>1941: 30.5
>1942: 22.9
>1943: 26.4
>1944: 25.1
EVERY YEAR THEY HAD 35 MILLION TONS!!!!!

>states that much of the lost import was made up by decrease in exports and increase in domestic production.

>Check out to the same link, although it's more concerned with overall sub warfare and the steps the British took to compensate for lesser volume of shipping coming in.

Would you look at that? Meanwhile of course, none of that changes the actual claim made: U-boats ability to strike more or less anywhere restricted British control of the water to wherever they had guns or planes pointed at that moment, and merchant ships going off on their own were extremely vulnerable.

So then why the prolonged milk price controls into the 80s? Autism?

This.

>Meanwhile of course, none of that changes the actual claim made: U-boats ability to strike more or less anywhere restricted British control of the water to wherever they had guns or planes pointed at that moment, and merchant ships going off on their own were extremely vulnerable.
Yeah British merchant ships were so vulnerable that production of metals, food, and chemicals all increased during the war.

I'm gonna guess because if you give a beuracracy something to do, they'll keep it up forever if you give them a chance.

Paper thin armor

They were so vulnerable that about 80 million tons of displacement were sunk over the course of the war. And said production increases were primarily because it was harder to import stuff and they still had demand.

You were objectively proven wrong. Deal with it.

>EVERY YEAR THEY HAD 35 MILLION TONS!!!!!
You do realize dry-cargo isn't everything, right? Britain imported 10+ millions of tons of oil.

>about 80 million tons of displacement were sunk over the course of the war.
Actually you aren't even close to being right.

>And said production increases were primarily because it was harder to import stuff and they still had demand.
Yeah I guess that means Britain was on the verge of starvation because the Uboats controlled the oceans.

/int/posting in general is a terminal cancer killing this board

Incorrect. Check out page 38 of the same PDF.
This, however, is correct. I have no idea why I wrote that; 13.5 million is way closer to the mark.
I have never stated or implied that all thread. I have merely stated that the threat of U-boats meant that the Royal Navy only effectively commanded the sea in reach of its own guns, and could not send out unprotected merchant ships.

>I have no idea why I wrote that;
I do. You are a fucking moron.

>Check out page 38 of the same PDF.
I think you forgot to add 3 zeroes at the end. Not even you can actually believe Britain only had 44,000 tons of imports in the entire year of 1941.

...