Comments by "Mike O\x27Neill" (@EllieMaes-Grandad) on "How important was the Battle of the Atlantic? (U-boat bases, Norway, Britain, France, and more!)" video.

The Labour government after 1945 continued rationing, as socialists love the idea. The Conservatives were elected 1952 and ended it.
4
@JevansUK No fuel rationing in the 1970s, although it came close.
3
@TheImperatorKnight Post-WW2, the UK was socialised, the Liebore Party government saw to that, until booted out. [I was there, a small child from 1946].
3
They were fed by coastal convoys, sent around Scotland after arrival in UK waters, adding to passage time. E-boats and mines took a toll on the east coast traffic . . .
3
It was essentially a battle of attrition. The Germans could not sink ships faster than US yards could build them. At that point, Germany lost the battle.
3
@TheUstasha101 Capture of a magnetic mine was probably Britain's biggest success at the time.
2
@hermitoldguy6312 That was a major and expensive element in provision of shipping, for UK registered vessels and for neutrals. Merchant seamen were not keen to risk their lives, so war premia had to be paid to them. With ship losses came manpower losses . . .
2
Tankers were prime targets too, especially in the Caribbean.
2
In Britain too!
2
@tobiasGR3Y Fleet building was important, but the UK alone could not produce enough merchant hulls. Not only were replacements needed to cover losses, but there was extra traffic to move. The navies eventually had enough escorts, plus radar, h/f d/f, new weapons, new tactics by 1943. Tactics in 1940 were abysmal; Captain Walker RN started that ball rolling.
2
A battle of attrition. Eventually, the Germans could not sink ships faster than US yards could build them
1
Britain's east coast ports were used, with some difficulty. Transit times to/from were longer than normal, eroding total available capacity.
1
It was a 'tonnage war' of attrition. Sinking ships anywhere, anytime was the aim, although inbound would be more critical. However, cargoes outbound were commercial as well as military, as Britain attempted to earn money to fight the war and pay for food as she'd always done. Every ship lost hurt Britain.
1
France was a bread-basket after 1940. France was impoverished, financially, industrially and nutritionally for four long years.
1
It was a close-run thing in both cases; neither was a foregone conclusion. Had Russia not bled as she did, European nations would have suffered badly, for a greater time. You're correct, from an economic sustainability viewpoint, rationally viewed. If the UK had fallen and Germany were not subjected to attack, war would have continued much, much longer.
1
@SamuelJamesNary Those WSC and FDR conferences agreed a "Germany First" policy. Eventually, the USA geared-up to fight on multiple fronts, but always Germany first.
1
@SamuelJamesNary I doubt shipping space was allocated to 'luxury items'; the need was for basic stuff. Who would be paying for imports of anything but austerity items?
1
Britain had railways in all directions, essentially to/from ports and between industrial centres. We're talking freight and, in the main, those trains did not move at high speeds or for long distances. The north/south lines catered for substantial passenger traffic, on a London-centric basis. Needless to say, freight volume increased massively in wartime.
1
@SamuelJamesNary Britain's railways were adequate for the traffic of the time; come WW2 and volumes of freight increased substantially. Some new lines were built, others had capacity increased, but working them needed extra waggons and engines, crew hours too Traffic patterns changed, with more emphasis on imports from the west coast and replacement of coastal shipping [colliers mostly] by coal trains from the north to London and east coast destinations. That was a major headache for operators, but they 'bust a gut' anyway. The RN was oil-fired, but fishing boats and small vessels were coal-fired - and there were a lot of them!
1
In WW2, ships from transatlantic convoys did go to London via Scotland, not the Channel obviously. Many ships which survived the ocean crossing were lost along the east coast.
1
Not "kwayz" but "keyz" - a surprising gaffe! This bloke knows less than he thinks.
1
€ire would have been over-run anyway. The Nazis did not respect neutrality. Sweden was useful and Switzerland too difficult to hit, as well as too useful.
1
€ire was neutral. Had the UK gone down, they would have done so too.
1
@styx4947 Irish neutrality was faux. deValera signed a book of condolences in 1945, on hearing of Hitler's death. Had the UK been defeated, €ire would not have been left alone.
1
I've seen pix of US tankers supplying oil to u-boats, early in the war. Obviously, it was soon stopped.
1
Not hitting the US subs at Pearl Harbor was a bad mistake on the part of the Japanese. They ignored repair shops, docks and oil tanks as well - none too clever really.
1