Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

July 4, 1940 - Churchill's Finest Hour?
The Providence Journal ^ | 07-04-2013 | Daniel F. Harrington

Posted on 07/04/2013 8:36:46 AM PDT by Dansong

July 4, 1940 — Churchill’s finest hour? DANIEL F. HARRINGTON On July 4, 1940, Winston Churchill stood before Parliament and delivered stunning news about the horrible events that had occurred the night before; events he himself put in motion. The new prime minister received his first standing ovation since assuming Britain’s highest post just two months before. The recognition brought tears to his eyes, though the news itself was sufficiently tragic to produce tears without the ovation. So what exactly did Churchill announce that fateful day? To understand what our English cousin did (Churchill was half-American by birth; his mother was Jennie Jerome of New York), it is essential to first recall the dire circumstances he faced. England was at war with Germany, standing alone against a seemingly insurmountable foe. Churchill and the rest of the world had watched in amazement as Adolf Hitler had swallowed up countries wholesale: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Po-land, Denmark, Norway and now France had all capitulated under the Nazi blitzkrieg and surrendered to the Fuhrer. Churchill stood alone. Popular opinion, especially in America, favored compromise: Churchill should sue for peace lest he face annihilation by a superior enemy. Remember, these were the days when people thought Hitler’s daring couldn’t miss — and five years before the full measure of his wickedness would be revealed. Tiny England, common sense suggested, would fare no better in the face of Hitler than her allies had; more to the point, the United States showed no interest in entering another European war. America was officially neutral. President Franklin Roosevelt even made keeping our boys out of the conflict a campaign theme. Joseph P. Kennedy, our ambassador to England, thought the war already lost, declaring, “Democracy is finished in England,” before resigning his post later that year. His words seem strange today but accurately expressed the common sentiment of the time. Churchill believed otherwise. “We shall never surrender!” he declared to a beleaguered nation, famously adding, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” And so, on July 4, 1940, Churchill revealed to Parliament that he had personally given the order to fire upon and sink three French battleships stationed at Oran in French North Africa, resulting in the death of nearly 1,300 French seamen. Young men, mostly; men who considered the British their brothers in arms; men in the prime of their lives, yet now entombed at the bottom of the sea. Why on earth would Churchill have done it? The answer is brutally simple. Though France had surrendered to Germany, its navy was still intact. (Its army was decimated.) Britain, understandably, asked its ally to turn its warships over to the U.K., the United States or any other neutral port, lest they be seized by Hitler and turned on Britain. But the French Navy refused, naïvely believing the ships were unimportant or could defend themselves. Churchill proved this reasoning a myth by sinking the ships in mere minutes. Upon learning of the sinking of the French fleet, the world bristled. But no one now doubted Churchill’s resolve. Roosevelt was particularly impressed, believing that England just might hold out. France was stunned. The act caused outrage, but it also inspired. Two French families who lost their sons by British fire actually requested that the Union Jack lie with the French flag on their sons’ caskets. In his memoir, Churchill praised the families, noting that “the comprehending spirit of simple folk often touches the sublime.” Indeed. One week after the fleet at Oran was destroyed, Hitler, as Churchill predicted, launched the Battle of Britain with a massive bombardment by the Luftwaffe of England. The English survived, but just barely, and, perhaps, because Germany offered no naval challenge. You know the rest of the story. On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought America into the war — war in the Pacific, initially. Amazingly, it was Hitler himself who brought America into the conflict in Europe: He declared war on America on Dec. 11. Upon hearing the news, Churchill retired for the night “and slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful,” knowing that with America by his side, the war was won. As we remember our many heroes this Independence Day, perhaps we might also raise a glass to the memory of our distant cousin, Sir Winston S. Churchill: the weeping warrior who fired upon his friends so that we could freely embrace ours; the man who stood alone and promised a frightened world blood, sweat and tears, and chillingly delivered on all counts, so that we might enjoy our own freedoms today. Daniel F. Harrington is president of Chartwell Investment Services, in Rumford. His business is named after Churchill’s beloved estate in Kent, England. ©2013, Published by The Providence Journal Co. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or commercially redistributed. Back Continue


TOPICS: Editorial; Germany; Miscellaneous; United Kingdom; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: austria; france; freedom; germany; independenceday; july4; unitedkingdom

1 posted on 07/04/2013 8:36:46 AM PDT by Dansong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dansong

Woops...I know, paragraphs are your friend. I’ve been a freeper since 2003, lurking since 1998 or so. This is my first post! Go easy, huh?


2 posted on 07/04/2013 8:38:30 AM PDT by Dansong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dansong

I really liked the line break Po-land.


3 posted on 07/04/2013 8:42:30 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dansong

Thank you. Our lives, our fortunes, our sacred honor! Churchill made the same pledge, and the English people were a living sacrifice for the salvation of Western Civilization. That Obama disregarded this is a measure of his disregard for us,also.


4 posted on 07/04/2013 8:50:08 AM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
To quote Captain Willard. "..What balls.."

And I'll hafta admit that being a public school system dropout, most of my "education" on Churchill comes from the net.
And started with Iron Maiden. d:^)

5 posted on 07/04/2013 9:07:32 AM PDT by CopperTop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dansong
On July 4, 1940, Winston Churchill stood before Parliament and delivered stunning news about the horrible events that had occurred the night before; events he himself put in motion. The new prime minister received his first standing ovation since assuming Britain’s highest post just two months before. The recognition brought tears to his eyes, though the news itself was sufficiently tragic to produce tears without the ovation.

So what exactly did Churchill announce that fateful day?

To understand what our English cousin did (Churchill was half-American by birth; his mother was Jennie Jerome of New York), it is essential to first recall the dire circumstances he faced.

England was at war with Germany, standing alone against a seemingly insurmountable foe. Churchill and the rest of the world had watched in amazement as Adolf Hitler had swallowed up countries wholesale: Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway and now France had all capitulated under the Nazi blitzkrieg and surrendered to the Fuhrer.

Churchill stood alone.

Popular opinion, especially in America, favored compromise: Churchill should sue for peace lest he face annihilation by a superior enemy. Remember, these were the days when people thought Hitler’s daring couldn’t miss — and five years before the full measure of his wickedness would be revealed.

Tiny England, common sense suggested, would fare no better in the face of Hitler than her allies had; more to the point, the United States showed no interest in entering another European war. America was officially neutral. President Franklin Roosevelt even made keeping our boys out of the conflict a campaign theme.

Joseph P. Kennedy, our ambassador to England, thought the war already lost, declaring, “Democracy is finished in England,” before resigning his post later that year. His words seem strange today but accurately expressed the common sentiment of the time.

Churchill believed otherwise. “We shall never surrender!” he declared to a beleaguered nation, famously adding, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

And so, on July 4, 1940, Churchill revealed to Parliament that he had personally given the order to fire upon and sink three French battleships stationed at Oran in French North Africa, resulting in the death of nearly 1,300 French seamen. Young men, mostly; men who considered the British their brothers in arms; men in the prime of their lives, yet now entombed at the bottom of the sea. Why on earth would Churchill have done it?

The answer is brutally simple. Though France had surrendered to Germany, its navy was still intact. (Its army was decimated.) Britain, understandably, asked its ally to turn its warships over to the U.K., the United States or any other neutral port, lest they be seized by Hitler and turned on Britain. But the French Navy refused, naïvely believing the ships were unimportant or could defend themselves. Churchill proved this reasoning a myth by sinking the ships in mere minutes.

Upon learning of the sinking of the French fleet, the world bristled. But no one now doubted Churchill’s resolve. Roosevelt was particularly impressed, believing that England just might hold out. France was stunned.

The act caused outrage, but it also inspired. Two French families who lost their sons by British fire actually requested that the Union Jack lie with the French flag on their sons’ caskets. In his memoir, Churchill praised the families, noting that “the comprehending spirit of simple folk often touches the sublime.” Indeed.

One week after the fleet at Oran was destroyed, Hitler, as Churchill predicted, launched the Battle of Britain with a massive bombardment by the Luftwaffe of England. The English survived, but just barely, and, perhaps, because Germany offered no naval challenge.

You know the rest of the story. On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought America into the war — war in the Pacific, initially. Amazingly, it was Hitler himself who brought America into the conflict in Europe: He declared war on America on Dec. 11.

Upon hearing the news, Churchill retired for the night “and slept the sleep of the saved and the thankful,” knowing that with America by his side, the war was won.

As we remember our many heroes this Independence Day, perhaps we might also raise a glass to the memory of our distant cousin, Sir Winston S. Churchill: the weeping warrior who fired upon his friends so that we could freely embrace ours; the man who stood alone and promised a frightened world blood, sweat and tears, and chillingly delivered on all counts, so that we might enjoy our own freedoms today.

Daniel F. Harrington is president of Chartwell Investment Services, in Rumford. His business is named after Churchill’s beloved estate in Kent, England.

6 posted on 07/04/2013 10:04:05 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dansong

Thank you for posting this. It was really interesting and I didn’t know the history in that detail.


7 posted on 07/04/2013 10:10:24 AM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dansong
Although the USA provided the necessary resource for the Allies, 40% of all support came from the USA on the Western and Eastern front, American owes a great deal to Churchill. It was he alone who fought in Norway when everyone was telling him to retreat and fortify the Island. Although defeated in Norway, the blow to the German Navy precluded any hope for a Naval assault on England (another reason to sink the French ships). England's survival of the Battle of Britain then weakened the German Luftwaffe that with American production of aircraft, Air Superiority was quickly gained after the US entry into the War.

Hitler had little choice but to attack the Soviets to gain access to the Balken Oil fields. This open another (fatal) front for Nazi Germany.

It was also Churchill's call to first fight in Africa so the young US Army could become battle tested and learn German Military strategy.

Many Historians also believe that Churchill and Montgomery's attack strategy after securing Paris MAY ended the War in late 1944. However with US providing most of the resources, Eisenhower plan won out.

8 posted on 07/04/2013 10:17:54 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dansong

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win
without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Winston Churchill 1940


9 posted on 07/04/2013 10:27:24 AM PDT by Liberty Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks Dansong.
on July 4, 1940, Churchill revealed to Parliament that he had personally given the order to fire upon and sink three French battleships stationed at Oran in French North Africa, resulting in the death of nearly 1,300 French seamen. Young men, mostly; men who considered the British their brothers in arms; men in the prime of their lives, yet now entombed at the bottom of the sea. Why on earth would Churchill have done it? The answer is brutally simple. Though France had surrendered to Germany, its navy was still intact. (Its army was decimated.) Britain, understandably, asked its ally to turn its warships over to the U.K., the United States or any other neutral port, lest they be seized by Hitler and turned on Britain. But the French Navy refused, naïvely believing the ships were unimportant or could defend themselves. Churchill proved this reasoning a myth by sinking the ships in mere minutes. Upon learning of the sinking of the French fleet, the world bristled. But no one now doubted Churchill’s resolve.

10 posted on 07/04/2013 10:29:38 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dansong

If I read ‘England’ again in this thread, I will scream.


11 posted on 07/04/2013 10:45:06 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

’ However with US providing most of the resources,’

Not true. Many of the resources in NW Europe (as well as Italy, Sicily, Greece) in 44-45 were British (and the Canadians contributed greatly also).


12 posted on 07/04/2013 10:46:57 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Churchill was the key man in the summer of 1940 to make sure that Britain did not make a peace deal with Hitler. The Foreign Secretary (and Churchill’s rival for Prime Minister) Lord Halifax, as well as former PM and Party leader Neville Chamberlain wanted to negotiate a deal with Hitler. Churchill’s debating power alone kept this from happening.

This is a perfect example of one man changing history.


13 posted on 07/04/2013 11:23:55 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Liz; Old Sarge; sickoflibs
...on July 4, 1940, Churchill revealed to Parliament that he had personally given the order to fire upon and sink three French battleships stationed at Oran in French North Africa, resulting in the death of nearly 1,300 French seamen. Young men, mostly; men who considered the British their brothers in arms; men in the prime of their lives, yet now entombed at the bottom of the sea. Why on earth would Churchill have done it? The answer is brutally simple. Though France had surrendered to Germany, its navy was still intact. (Its army was decimated.) Britain, understandably, asked its ally to turn its warships over to the U.K., the United States or any other neutral port, lest they be seized by Hitler and turned on Britain. But the French Navy refused, naïvely believing the ships were unimportant or could defend themselves. Churchill proved this reasoning a myth by sinking the ships in mere minutes. Upon learning of the sinking of the French fleet, the world bristled. But no one now doubted Churchill’s resolve.

Great story - thanks.

14 posted on 07/04/2013 2:14:26 PM PDT by GOPJ ((MSNBC?)... liberal anger - - the privileged wheeze of entitled brats ... Greenfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman; 11th Commandment
Although the USA provided the necessary resource for the Allies, 40% of all support came from the USA on the Western and Eastern front, American owes a great deal to Churchill. It was he alone who fought in Norway when everyone was telling him to retreat and fortify the Island. Although defeated in Norway, the blow to the German Navy precluded any hope for a Naval assault on England (another reason to sink the French ships). England's survival of the Battle of Britain then weakened the German Luftwaffe that with American production of aircraft, Air Superiority was quickly gained after the US entry into the War.
On the topic of American production of aircraft (and of war materiel generally), the book

Freedom's Forge:
How American Business Produced Victory in World War II
Arthur Herman
is fascinating. In 1939 the Allies - including the USA - were woefully unprepared for war or for wartime production. The German blitzkrieg of Poland was followed by the “sitzkrieg” interregnum when Britain and France had declared war on Gernmany, but were unprepared for war and the German forces were otherwise engaged. That was shattered when Germany turned its forces west and captured France by the end of May, 1940. Britain and the US were both shocked. From that time on, FDR - who had been undersecretary of the Navy during WWI, and had seen US production capability fail utterly to deliver war materiel to Europe before the Armistice - pursued a policy, not only of producing materiel to keep Britain in the war but, of comparable priority, preparing for all-out US production of war materiel. That is, building facilities and producing machine tools.

The result was that on Dec 7, 1941 the US had limited weaponry on hand - but FDR was able to make and fulfill a pledge to build 50,000 warplanes during 1942.

Hitler had little choice but to attack the Soviets to gain access to the Balken Oil fields. This open another (fatal) front for Nazi Germany.
Hitler’s main objective, after murdering the Jews, was “lebensraum” - that is, territorial expansion at the expense of (what he called the inferior races inhabiting) Poland and Russia. Had Britain and France acceded to the German-Soviet division of Poland instead of declaring war, Hitler arguably would have left France alone and simply attacked the USSR, counting on the antipathy to the USSR of conservatives in Britain and France - and the fear in those countries of the German blitzkrieg - to secure his western flank.
It was also Churchill's call to first fight in Africa so the young US Army could become battle tested and learn German Military strategy.

Many Historians also believe that Churchill and Montgomery's attack strategy after securing Paris MAY ended the War in late 1944. However with US providing most of the resources, Eisenhower plan won out.

8 posted on July 4, 2013 1:17:54 PM EDT by 11th Commandment

’ However with US providing most of the resources,’

Not true. Many of the resources in NW Europe (as well as Italy, Sicily, Greece) in 44-45 were British (and the Canadians contributed greatly also).

The US was far from providing all the soldiers, but in terms of materiel - no contest. Even Stalin gave a tribute to that, a toast in which he mentioned,”US production, without which the war could not have been won.” Liberty ships took, in addition to other materiel, the parts to assemble trucks in Iran (because assembled trucks took up ten times the space in a Liberty Ship as the parts did). The parts were unloaded and taken directly to their places in the assembly line. After each truck was assembled, it was loaded with war materiel from other Liberty ships. The keys were handed to a Soviet driver to be driven to the places where the materiel, and then the truck, were needed. The trucks then provided the Soviet Army with crucial mobility.

And that was of course aside from the massive production of ships, aircraft, engines, medium tanks, and so forth.


15 posted on 07/04/2013 2:51:48 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

After June, 1944, the majority of the troops were American.Before that.mostly Commonwealth. Most of their troops and most of the casualties. One reason for Montgomery’s failures was a lack of junior officersand senior noncoms , owing to heavy losses in the past.


16 posted on 07/04/2013 8:01:15 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

It’s interesting that Churchill didn’t always give his own radio addresses, though he wrote them all — a famous actor did a spot-on imitation of Churchill, and from time to time, when Churchill was not available (he kept strange hours, for obvious reasons, slept here and there during the day and night, and of course had to travel a bit, and had hundreds of meetings) the actor posed as Churchill. :’)


17 posted on 07/05/2013 4:12:54 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

My initial point is correct. Without the immense and undervalued British resources, American and allied soldiers would never have landed in Europe, from Sicily to Normandy.

79% of all ships on D-Day were British. Just 16% were US. 50% of all air cover on D-Day was British. And American units relied on RAF Typhoon air support all across NW Europe. American troops in Normandy and beyond also relied on specialised British armour on numerous occasions.

American units in 21st Army Group, notably the 82nd and 101st, and even some in the 9th Army, used the British Red Lion supply line. The Anglo-Canadian-Polish army used this supply line (the British also used many RAF petrol drops in 1944-45) NOT the famous Red Ball Express. British 21st also supplied US troops with the correct food in winter 44-45 when US rations were found to be grossly unsuited.

The same story is true of the allied wars in Italy and Sicily: it was the RN who landed most of the American and allied troops, and the RAF played a crucial role in air landing and air support. And it was the same Royal Navy who saved Clark’s bacon at Salerno.

If I can recommend a book to YOU, it would be the recent and superb ‘Britain’s War Production’ by historian David Edgerton, which utterly shatters many myths about British ‘weakness’ and British war productions.


18 posted on 07/05/2013 6:20:30 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

‘The US was far from providing all the soldiers, but in terms of materiel - no contest. Even Stalin gave a tribute to that, a toast in which he mentioned,”US production, without which the war could not have been won.” Liberty ships took, in addition to other materiel, the parts to assemble trucks in Iran (because assembled trucks took up ten times the space in a Liberty Ship as the parts did). The parts were unloaded and taken directly to their places in the assembly line. After each truck was assembled, it was loaded with war materiel from other Liberty ships. The keys were handed to a Soviet driver to be driven to the places where the materiel, and then the truck, were needed. The trucks then provided the Soviet Army with crucial mobility.
And that was of course aside from the massive production of ships, aircraft, engines, medium tanks, and so forth.’

And you seem grossly unaware of the British Lend Lease supplies to Stalin. Britain gave immense amounts (given its size and given the state of the war) to the USSR.

4,613 aircraft and 6,939 tanks/armoured vehicles were given by the UK to the USSR. And there was even an RAF squadron fighting on the Eastern Front for the Soviets!.

And lets not forget the Canadians also supplied Lend Lease aircraft, tanks and supplies to the USSR.


19 posted on 07/05/2013 6:29:32 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Supplies Despatched to the USSR by Greate Britain between 1 October 1941 and 31 march 1946
Admiralty Supplies

Battleships -1
Destroyers-9
Submarines -4
Motor Minesweepers-5
Minesweeping Trawlesr -9
ASDIC -293 sets
Radar -329 sets
Submarine Batteries (complete) 41
6” guns complete -2
5.25” guns complete -35
4” guns complete with 16 spare barrels -36
12pdr guns complete with 12 spare barrels -22
20mm Oerlikons with 54 spare barrels -162
.5” Vickers machine guns with 52 spare barrels -384
.5” Browning complete with 120 spare barrels -240
.30” Martin -210
2” Rocket projectors -36 sets
AAD Type L projectors with ammunition -16 sets
Misc Gun mountings -530
Mines (various) 3206
Paravanes -318
Depth Charges -6800
Hedgehog Projectiels -2304
Torpedoes -361
Smoke generators, candles and Lachrymatory candles-5124 sets
Greande throwing eqpt -67 sets

Ammunition

15” -2000 rounds
6” - 2400 rounds
4.7 “, 4.5”, 4”, 3” -13600 rounds
12pdr -31000
2pdr -93000 rounds
20mm -882000 rounds
.5” Vickers 5792000 rounds
.5” Browining 1399000 rounds
.455” SA 26000 rounds
.303” SA 359000 rounds
.30” SA 899000
2” Rockets 4000
Flares & misc pyrotechnics 8273

War Office Supplies

Tanks (various) all
supplied with
ammunition - 5218
MT vehicles - 4343
Bren Carriers - 2550
Motor Cycle - 1721
AFV and MT spares 4090 tons

Weapons
PIAT projector - 1000
Thompson SMG - 103
2pdr AT Rifle - 636
6pdr AT gun - 96
Boys AT Rifles - 3200
Bren guns - 2487
7.92mm Besa guns - 581
Smoke Generators - 303000

Ammunition
PIAT - 100000
2pdr AT gun -2807000 rounds
.45” SMG -20807000 rounds
6pdr AT - 776000 rounds
Boys AT - 1761000 rounds
.303” SA - 89332000 rounds
7.92mm BESA - 53411000 rounds
2” Mortar (HE &Smoke) - 1163000 rounds
3” Mortar (HE&Smoke) - 162000
Signal Cartridges - 2204000
Clams - 159000

Electronic Equipment
Radar -1474 sets
Radio - 4338 sets
Valves- 42850
Misc Radio Test Eqpt -850 items
Charging & Generating Eqpt -160 sets

Telephone Equipment
Telephone Cable -30227 miles
Telephones-2000 sets
Switchboards 40 line -60
Switchboards 10 line -400

Miscellaneous Items
Exploder Cable 1070 miles
Camouflage Netting -3013000 meters
Camouflage Face Veils - 1199500
Surveying & Meteorological Eqpt -925 items
Specialloid Pistons -159000
Tyres -72000

Air Ministry Supplies

Aircraft (all types) -7411
Aircraft Engines - 976
MT Vehicles -724
Petrol, oil & other products -14146 tonns

Ammunition
.303” -162000000 rounds
.30 -66450000 rounds
.5” -24000000
20mm - 17500000

Aircraft Engines and MT Spares worth - 15981000 pounds
Misc aircraft eqpt worth - 1734000 pounds

Raw Materials, Foodstuffs, Machinery & Industrial Plant Supplied by the UK

Aluminium 32,000 tons £3,803,000
Copper 40,000 tons £2,204,000
Industrial Diamonds N/A £1,424,000
Jute 100,435 tons £4,975,000
Rubber 114,539 tons £239,000
Graphite 3,300 ton £160,000
Tin 28,050 tons £7,774,000
Wool 29,610 tons £5,521,000

Foodstuffs
These included tea, cocoa beans, palm oil, palm kernels, groundnuts, coconut oil, pepper and spices.

Total Value of Foodstuffs supplied:£8210000

Machine Tools, Plant and Associated Eqpt.

Machine Tools £13,081,000
Power Plant £12,264,000
Electrical Eqpt £9,091,000
Misc Eqpt (e.g.: communications, food processing,
textile plant, port and salvage eqpt.) £4,691,000
Misc industrial plant £5,201,000

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=1588&start=30


20 posted on 07/05/2013 6:31:50 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

‘Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive. Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom.

In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.

http://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm#sthash.ciPG09uE.dpuf


21 posted on 07/05/2013 6:32:52 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

When Britain aided the Soviet Union in World War Two

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/features/8608031/Britain-aid-Soviet-Union-World-War-Two.html


22 posted on 07/05/2013 6:33:50 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Lend-Lease to Russia: The First Moscow Protocol. June 1941- June 1942.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?126245-Lend-Lease-to-Russia-The-First-Moscow-Protocol-June-1941-June-1942

British Lend Lease to Russia

http://historum.com/war-military-history/43283-british-lend-lease-russia.html


23 posted on 07/05/2013 6:35:05 AM PDT by the scotsman (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dansong
I was alive in 1965 when Churchill passed away. The huge headline in the local paper stated Man of the Century Dead. True today as much as it was then despite Time magazine giving Einstein that honour. I was 7 at the time. It was the first time in my life I had become aware of a famous person dying. I was unable to comprehend much about the Kennedy assassination a little over a year prior. That said you don't get a champagne named after you for nothing and I think Churchill would have appreciated that honour better than the Time magazine one.


24 posted on 07/05/2013 6:38:24 AM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xp38
Wow! Awesome post!!
25 posted on 07/05/2013 7:02:42 AM PDT by Dansong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: the scotsman
http://www.amazon.com/review/R354FNQZ4MAG8X/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R354FNQZ4MAG8X
provides a review of Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War - which seems to be the title under which your suggested reading is available here.
I will say that I’m surprised that Britain would have given Stalin a battleship. I had known, of course, that Churchill had proposed to send aid to the USSR, his own hostility to Communism notwithstanding. It was all to clear from my own reading that FDR had recognized the USSR as his first diplomatic act, and that his administration was riddled with commies. Including Alger Hiss. The attitude of American conservatives towards the war on Germany’s Eastern Front was, simply, that the pity was that they couldn’t both lose. But once we were fighting the Germans . . .
But it turns out that helping Afghanistan fight the Soviets wasn’t all that much more of a bargain than helping the Soviets against the Germans ended up being.

26 posted on 07/05/2013 3:15:49 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (“Liberalism” is a conspiracy against the public by wire-service journalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson