Steel Shortage after WW2
Discussion
unsprung said:
2xChevrons said:
This is the immediate reason as far as the car industry was concerned. There was a global shortage of steel (due to problems with the coal supply, the industrial ruin of much of Europe, the inevitable delay in switching from wartime to peacetime production and the surviving works being all-but clapped out after six years of running flat-out with minimal maintenance) and the UK's finances were dire. So the Attlee government implemented the 'Export or Die' regime and desperately hawked almost anything that wasn't nailed down in Britain to anyone who would buy it (a big part in why Stafford Cripps gave the USSR the blueprints to the Nene jet engine). Steel was rationed for industrial use. Not only was a lot of the steel itself being sent to Europe but British steel purchasers had to be able to prove that a certain percentage of their output would be going to export and earn foreign exchange. The more exports, the more steel.
This is why Rover created the Land-Rover. The market for posh saloon cars was on its knees, the old Meteor Works in Coventry had been bombed into rubble and Rover had to restart production in the huge and now massively under-utilised Lode Lane factory. Rover had no real export market to speak of so was at the back of the queue for steel. The Land-Rover would be in more demand in the rugged post-war world, would be a good export product, needed relatively little steel itself and would earn enough Brownie Points at the Ministry of Supply to get Rover the steel it needed to restart saloon production on a big enough scale to make Solihull viable.
The export drive was partly why all the British firms set their sights on America in the late 1940s/early 1950s, plus it was the only market in the world with the money to buy cars then-and-now and no-one in America had been able to buy a new car for six years. Austin and Rootes set up US subsidiaries (Austin even had a skyscraper in New York as its HQ) and you had made-for-America products like the A90 Atlantic and then the Austin-Healey. Morris had over 1000 North American dealers in 1947. With the exception of sports cars none of the British imports had any real success - the Minor, the A40 and the Minx all had brief sales booms but proved to be too fragile and unreliable for American motoring conditions...and then the VW Beetle came along and cleaned up.
As for why America had its post-war boom- billions upon billions of dollars worth of industrial infrastructure had been installed during the war, nearly all of it in the hands of existing major industrial firms. Not only was there five years of war to make good on, but there was also nearly 20 years of Great Depression (finally vanquished by the New Deal and then, ironically for what is considered the boom time of American capitalism, state intervention and funding on a scale that would have made Lenin proud). There was the perfect mix of a lot of new technology to exploit, a lot of infrastructure to repair, huge industrial investment and resources and millions of GI Bill-receiving servicemen ready to settle down, get a job and start spending on a scale that the world had never seen before. And all this in the only major economy of the world completely untouched by war and in fact in much better economic health in 1945 than it had been in 1939.
photographs and long text I almost never quote in full on PH This is why Rover created the Land-Rover. The market for posh saloon cars was on its knees, the old Meteor Works in Coventry had been bombed into rubble and Rover had to restart production in the huge and now massively under-utilised Lode Lane factory. Rover had no real export market to speak of so was at the back of the queue for steel. The Land-Rover would be in more demand in the rugged post-war world, would be a good export product, needed relatively little steel itself and would earn enough Brownie Points at the Ministry of Supply to get Rover the steel it needed to restart saloon production on a big enough scale to make Solihull viable.
The export drive was partly why all the British firms set their sights on America in the late 1940s/early 1950s, plus it was the only market in the world with the money to buy cars then-and-now and no-one in America had been able to buy a new car for six years. Austin and Rootes set up US subsidiaries (Austin even had a skyscraper in New York as its HQ) and you had made-for-America products like the A90 Atlantic and then the Austin-Healey. Morris had over 1000 North American dealers in 1947. With the exception of sports cars none of the British imports had any real success - the Minor, the A40 and the Minx all had brief sales booms but proved to be too fragile and unreliable for American motoring conditions...and then the VW Beetle came along and cleaned up.
As for why America had its post-war boom- billions upon billions of dollars worth of industrial infrastructure had been installed during the war, nearly all of it in the hands of existing major industrial firms. Not only was there five years of war to make good on, but there was also nearly 20 years of Great Depression (finally vanquished by the New Deal and then, ironically for what is considered the boom time of American capitalism, state intervention and funding on a scale that would have made Lenin proud). There was the perfect mix of a lot of new technology to exploit, a lot of infrastructure to repair, huge industrial investment and resources and millions of GI Bill-receiving servicemen ready to settle down, get a job and start spending on a scale that the world had never seen before. And all this in the only major economy of the world completely untouched by war and in fact in much better economic health in 1945 than it had been in 1939.
I'm making an exception for this highly-informative and well-written examination by 2xChevrons
sod the car talk; I'd come to PH daily for this combination of history, culture and economics
thank you
PAUL500 said:
Had the US not entered the war we would have been fighting on three fronts all alone, Japan would have taken the Far east and Australia, India etc, Africa and the middle east would have gone next to the Axis forces.
We would then have had a long drawn out defence of the nation whilst the Germans and Russians battled it out.
We would have been starved into submission by whoever won the outcome of that, and given that the nuclear option was not a huge leap for Hitler, he would have had the upper hand probably.
The world would have been carved up into 3 distinct areas, those of the US, Europe and Africa/Middle East for the Germans and the east for Japan.
I imagine a cold war would then have existed between the 3 due to the atomic age, just like it did anyway.
German territories would have been the first to decay as you cannot enslave such a big area indefinitely with such a small home population to manage it all, so again a bit of a fall of the wall scenario maybe about now though rather than the 90s.
The chances of Germany building an atomic device were almost zero.We would then have had a long drawn out defence of the nation whilst the Germans and Russians battled it out.
We would have been starved into submission by whoever won the outcome of that, and given that the nuclear option was not a huge leap for Hitler, he would have had the upper hand probably.
The world would have been carved up into 3 distinct areas, those of the US, Europe and Africa/Middle East for the Germans and the east for Japan.
I imagine a cold war would then have existed between the 3 due to the atomic age, just like it did anyway.
German territories would have been the first to decay as you cannot enslave such a big area indefinitely with such a small home population to manage it all, so again a bit of a fall of the wall scenario maybe about now though rather than the 90s.
The SOE had taken out the only large scale source of heavy water production in Europe and heavy water is only used as a moderator in a nuclear reactor to produce Plutonium 239, you still have to build the reactor and extract the Plutonium.
Once you have enough Plutonium you then have to weaponise it into a workable implosion type fission device using very complex explosive 'lenses' detonated by very fast and accurate detonators.
The amount of engineering required is VAST, just read about what was involved in the Manhattan project. Germany didn't have anywhere near enough capacity to build an atomic weapon.
PAUL500 said:
Had the US not entered the war we would have been fighting on three fronts all alone, Japan would have taken the Far east and Australia, India etc, Africa and the middle east would have gone next to the Axis forces.
We would then have had a long drawn out defence of the nation whilst the Germans and Russians battled it out.
We would have been starved into submission by whoever won the outcome of that, and given that the nuclear option was not a huge leap for Hitler, he would have had the upper hand probably.
The world would have been carved up into 3 distinct areas, those of the US, Europe and Africa/Middle East for the Germans and the east for Japan.
I imagine a cold war would then have existed between the 3 due to the atomic age, just like it did anyway.
German territories would have been the first to decay as you cannot enslave such a big area indefinitely with such a small home population to manage it all, so again a bit of a fall of the wall scenario maybe about now though rather than the 90s.
The US were always going to enter the war in the Pacific as soon as Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbour. It was their area of influence, far more than Europe. There was a strong isolationist movement in the US and it's quite conceivable that a different POTUS could have considered allowing Europe to fight amongst themselves, whilst they dealt with the actual threat in the East.We would then have had a long drawn out defence of the nation whilst the Germans and Russians battled it out.
We would have been starved into submission by whoever won the outcome of that, and given that the nuclear option was not a huge leap for Hitler, he would have had the upper hand probably.
The world would have been carved up into 3 distinct areas, those of the US, Europe and Africa/Middle East for the Germans and the east for Japan.
I imagine a cold war would then have existed between the 3 due to the atomic age, just like it did anyway.
German territories would have been the first to decay as you cannot enslave such a big area indefinitely with such a small home population to manage it all, so again a bit of a fall of the wall scenario maybe about now though rather than the 90s.
Africa and the ME didn't go to the Axis forces - they were turfed out of North Africa by British 8th Army - there seems to be some historical revisionism going on here
(You could actually consider the 2nd Battle of El Alamein the pivotal battle of WW2 in Europe, as it convinced the US to commit to the Western Front and coming as it did before the fall of Stalingrad).Nazi occupied Europe was blockaded by the RN. The only resources they could acquire were those already in Europe (including iron ore from Sweden) or from allies, such as the oil fields at Ploetsi or those that they could plunder from Soviet lands. They therefore had a finite amount of resources that were diminishing throughout the war.
Britain on the otherhand was able to trade and import resources from all around the globe, thanks to their dominance of the seas and their control of the world's merchant navy's. They also had the means to pay for it. So once the UK geared up to full war production in the second half of 1940, their resources and therefore military production exceeded Germany's and this disparency continued to grow and indeed accelerate the longer the war went on.
As an industrial war of attrition, Germany would always lose. The same as they did in WW1. They had no way of knocking Britain out of the war - either by invasion or starvation. Without US support, it may have taken longer, perhaps another couple of years but the outcome was inevitable, given the will to fight.
227bhp said:
TEKNOPUG said:
227bhp said:
Hoofy said:
ApOrbital said:
I know they took steal from all the churches to melt down.
I was going to say the same.To add something to this convo: https://goo.gl/maps/wK1WwCgXnkC2
The whole railings thing was probably propaganda which got out of hand.
Excellent thread chaps.
When I read through topics like this it always reminds me of things I saw as a kid back in the 60's.
Of the fake houses painted on the sides of the factory walls.
Of listening to my dads stories of North Africa, Paratroop training at Ringway and his mainland Europe experiences.
But most of all it brings freshly to my mind, and tears to my eyes, when emptying my Fathers house after he had passed away, the memory of finding the 'Missing in Action' letters that my Mother received in 1944 when my Father was captured at Arnhem.
Nothing gives me stronger and more respectful image of my parents.
When I read through topics like this it always reminds me of things I saw as a kid back in the 60's.
Of the fake houses painted on the sides of the factory walls.
Of listening to my dads stories of North Africa, Paratroop training at Ringway and his mainland Europe experiences.
But most of all it brings freshly to my mind, and tears to my eyes, when emptying my Fathers house after he had passed away, the memory of finding the 'Missing in Action' letters that my Mother received in 1944 when my Father was captured at Arnhem.
Nothing gives me stronger and more respectful image of my parents.
As an illustration of the 'scrap metal as war propaganda', consider this:
RRS 'Discovery' (as used by Capt. Scott to go to Antarctica in 1900, which carried out the famous oceanographic survey of the South Atlantic in the 1920s and which took Mawson to firm up Britain and Australia's claim to large chunks of Antarctica in 1929) was lying at the Victoria Embankment as a static ship for training Sea Scouts and RNVR recruits during WW2. The ship's machinery (engines, boilers, feed equipment, pumps, dynamos, switchboard and steam windlass) were all removed in 1943. Newspapers of the time carried pictures of the boilers being lifted out with captions along the lines that "even national icons are called to assit the war effort as the boilers from Scott's 'Discovery' to assit the national drive for scrap metal." The value in making it appear that nothing was sacred, 'we're all in this together' and that the government was investigating every avenue was clear.
In fact a couple of years ago the Dundee Industrial Heritage Trust found a small advert in a trade publication which actually showed that the contents of the engine room had been sold off as a single lot by a shipbreaker and scrap dealer in Sunderland. They were probably broken for spares and reused in overhauling naval trawlers - of much more practical use than either leaving them in an increasingly decrepit ship in London or melting them down but "national symbol stripped for sale by scrap company" doesn't have the same ring to it. The Admiralty needed the space onboard as well, so probably saw the chance to raise a little ready cash, make 'Discovery' more useful and gain some apparently good publicity at the same time.
Of course now it means that the DIHT has a hope of finding out where the machinery went, since 'Discovery' has been with empty engine and boiler rooms since 1943. And her engines were very highly thought of in their day - of unique design and considered some of the highest-quality marine triple-expansion engines ever made.
RRS 'Discovery' (as used by Capt. Scott to go to Antarctica in 1900, which carried out the famous oceanographic survey of the South Atlantic in the 1920s and which took Mawson to firm up Britain and Australia's claim to large chunks of Antarctica in 1929) was lying at the Victoria Embankment as a static ship for training Sea Scouts and RNVR recruits during WW2. The ship's machinery (engines, boilers, feed equipment, pumps, dynamos, switchboard and steam windlass) were all removed in 1943. Newspapers of the time carried pictures of the boilers being lifted out with captions along the lines that "even national icons are called to assit the war effort as the boilers from Scott's 'Discovery' to assit the national drive for scrap metal." The value in making it appear that nothing was sacred, 'we're all in this together' and that the government was investigating every avenue was clear.
In fact a couple of years ago the Dundee Industrial Heritage Trust found a small advert in a trade publication which actually showed that the contents of the engine room had been sold off as a single lot by a shipbreaker and scrap dealer in Sunderland. They were probably broken for spares and reused in overhauling naval trawlers - of much more practical use than either leaving them in an increasingly decrepit ship in London or melting them down but "national symbol stripped for sale by scrap company" doesn't have the same ring to it. The Admiralty needed the space onboard as well, so probably saw the chance to raise a little ready cash, make 'Discovery' more useful and gain some apparently good publicity at the same time.
Of course now it means that the DIHT has a hope of finding out where the machinery went, since 'Discovery' has been with empty engine and boiler rooms since 1943. And her engines were very highly thought of in their day - of unique design and considered some of the highest-quality marine triple-expansion engines ever made.
I said "if the US had not entered the war" as in if they had no reason to if japan had not attacked them directly.
Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
PAUL500 said:
I said "if the US had not entered the war" as in if they had no reason to if japan had not attacked them directly.
Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
The US were looking for any excuse to declare war on Germany, the USN had been given a 'shoot on sight' policy in regards to the U-boats in the Atlantic which was a declaration of war in all but name.Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
You seem to have overlooked what was Hitlers' biggest mistake, operation barbarossa. Look at a map of the USSR in 1941, there are huge areas of nothing to soak up manpower whilst creating a logistical nightmare for what was a largely horse drawn army. By the late 1940's the Red army would've been in residence in Berlin regardless of the German 'wonder weapons'
V1, not particularly accurate, a problem which was then compounded by the double agents of the XX committee feeding back false information as to where they were impacting. To give an idea of how inaccurate the V1 was, it was discovered after the war that the Germans had launched a concerted offensive against one of the East coast ports, no one noticed during the war as only one of the dozens launched had actually hit the port.
V2, again not particularly accurate whilst simultaneously being a huge drain on the German war economy.
V3, the shells fired were unstable in flight and thus inaccurate, the launching site at Mimoyecques was repeatedly targeted by the RAF from 1943 onwards disrupting the construction before 617 sqn finished the job in 1944
Johnnytheboy said:
Tango13 said:
The US were looking for any excuse to declare war on Germany, the USN had been given a 'shoot on sight' policy in regards to the U-boats in the Atlantic which was a declaration of war in all but name.
Point of order though: Germany declared war on the USA.The policy almost worked as a U-boat fired upon the USS Greer, a couple of more 'incidents' like that would've tipped public support in FDR's favour.
As it happened his trade embargoes on Japan provoked them into attacking Pearl Harbour which had the same end result.
Tango13 said:
Johnnytheboy said:
Tango13 said:
The US were looking for any excuse to declare war on Germany, the USN had been given a 'shoot on sight' policy in regards to the U-boats in the Atlantic which was a declaration of war in all but name.
Point of order though: Germany declared war on the USA.The policy almost worked as a U-boat fired upon the USS Greer, a couple of more 'incidents' like that would've tipped public support in FDR's favour.
As it happened his trade embargoes on Japan provoked them into attacking Pearl Harbour which had the same end result.
PAUL500 said:
I said "if the US had not entered the war" as in if they had no reason to if japan had not attacked them directly.
Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
US intervention in the Pacific was inevitable once Japan attempted to extend their empire. Hence why they attacked the US fleet at Pearl Harbour preemptively. So I don't think that you could have a scenario whereby the Japanese attacked the British and the US weren't involved. Indeed the Japanese invasion of British occupied Malaya begun only hours before their attack on Pearl Harbour.Britain could not have continued to fight WW2 on its own, so a lot of the things that happened after the US entered would not have happened, as Britain would have been stretched way too far over too many fronts to carry them all out.
Again I did not say Germany would have had atomic weapons by 1945 but with them having to only fend off Britain in the west they would have not have had to stretch their resources as far as they ended up doing, so eventually by the late 40s many of the wonder weapons they were working on would started to have emerge as credible threats.
when examining the collaboration of Britain and America during WWII, it is interesting to note today the tradition aboard USS Winston S. Churchill:
"Churchill is the only US Navy vessel to have a Royal Navy officer permanently assigned to the ship’s company as well as flying a foreign nation’s ensign. Lt Sewell is the ninth Royal Navy officer to have served onboard."
article:
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
the ship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churc...
"Churchill is the only US Navy vessel to have a Royal Navy officer permanently assigned to the ship’s company as well as flying a foreign nation’s ensign. Lt Sewell is the ninth Royal Navy officer to have served onboard."
article:
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activ...
the ship:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churc...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff