AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

[Aelita]

It's nominal, but inflation was relatively low. The source was the British Annual Abstract of Statistics.

My own rough calculations suggest, using real price index, that that the 798.3 million pounds from 1903 would be equivalent to ~1,383 million pounds in 1939 prices, so definitely something to take into consideration when evaluating the real debt burden.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is an attempt to put the two sets of figures together. The date is the end of the financial year, the second date is the national income from the second post. The third figure is the National Debt at the date and the fourth figure is the National Debt as a percentage of the National Income. Similarly the fifth figure is the National Debt Service for the year ending and the sixth is the National Debt Service as a percentage of National Income

31/03/1905 - £1,940.0 - £796.7 - 41.1% - £28.0 - 1.4%
31/03/1907 - £1,940.0 - £779.2 - 40.2% - £28.5 - 1.5%
31/03/1908 - £1,940.0 - £762.3 - 39.3% - £29.5 - 1.5%
31/03/1909 - £1,940.0 - £754.1 - 38.9% - £28.0 - 1.4%
31/03/1910 - £1,940.0 - £762.5 - 39.3% - £21.8 - 1.1%
31/03/1911 - £1,940.0 - £733.1 - 37.8% - £24.6 - 1.3%
31/03/1912 - £2,241.0 - £718.4 - 32.1% - £24.5 - 1.1%
31/03/1913 - £2,241.0 - £711.3 - 31.7% - £24.5 - 1.1%
31/03/1914 - £2,241.0 - £706.2 - 31.5% - £24.5 - 1.1%
31/03/1925 - £4,035.0 - £7,655.9 - 189.7% - £357.2 - 8.9%
31/03/1930 - £4,384.0 - £7,596.2 - 173.3% - £355.0 - 8.1%
31/03/1936 - £4,530.0 - £7,901.6 - 174.4% - £224.0 - 4.9%
31/03/1937 - £4,850.0 - £7,909.9 - 163.1% - £224.0 - 4.6%
31/03/1938 - £5,200.0 - £8,149.0 - 156.7% - £226.8 - 4.4%
31/03/1939 - £5,000.0 - £8,301.1 - 166.0% - £230.0 - 4.6%

Therefore in the financial year ending 31st March 1925 the National Debt as a proportion of National Income was six times more than the financial year ending 31st March 1914. The National Debt Service for 1924-25 was eight times more than 1913-14.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Another possible way of measuring inflation is the cost of warships. All the British battleships from Dreadnought to the Iron Duke class cost about £1 per ton. Nelson and Rodney at £7.5 million each on a displacement of 35,000 tons cost about £2 a ton.

Edit

Nobody spotted the deliberate mistake, which was that the Dreadnought to Iron Duke cost about £100 per ton while Nelson and Rodney cost about £200 per ton. However, it still shows that the cost of capital ships was stable in the decade up to World War One and doubled in the decade after it.

 

[Thomas1195]

The R class was ordered under the 1913-14 Navy Estimates, which ended on 31st March 1914, which unfortunately is before the POD.

Similarly the your Super QE would be better than the OTL Hood, but it would not be completed until after the war ended and therefore didn't contribute to winning the war. IIRC Hood cost £6 million to build and the £860,000 was spent on her 3 sisters before they were cancelled. So either the money shouldn't be spent at all or the money, labour and steel used to build more tanks.

I did consider including not building the Hood class in Post No. 91.

You know, Britain was well capable to build BBs like Admiral class and produce a large amount of tanks, planes, shells...for many years without total conscription, as Keynes had figured out. They should have increased the number of colonial soldiers to reduce the use of native British because most of them were not industrial workers.

And the Entente (especially the French under Joffre and Nivelle) should have listened to Kitchener (he was correct in thíd case) and never launched offensives like headless chickens only to be massacred.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You know, Britain was well capable to build BBs like Admiral class and produce a large amount of tanks, planes, shells...for many years without total conscription, as Keynes had figured out. They should have increased the number of colonial soldiers to reduce the use of native British because most of them were not industrial workers.

I'm not sure that you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Admiral class battleships, large numbers of tanks, aeroplanes and shells cost money. Said money can be raised by increasing taxes or borrowing increasing the National Debt of the United Kingdom. If you want to make the UK less poor in 1919 then there is little point building battleships however good if they were completed too late to take part in the war they were built to fight. All building the OTL Hood did was increase the UK's debt burden without contributing to the victory in that war. I admit that your Super Queen Elisabeth would have been a better long term investment, but that is beyond the scope of the OP.

About 2 years ago I scanned the History of the British Ministry of Munitions volume on tank production. Unfortunately the images were very hard to read because I didn't find out that they were out of focus until after I left London. However, it says that one of the limitations on building more tanks was that by 1916 most of Britain's available manufacturing capacity was being used by other types of weapon, so building more tanks meant making less of something else. Furthermore merchant shipbuilding had to be increased to replace the ships that the U-boats were sinking. I read in another book that the proposal to build 4,000 tanks in 1918 was only possible at the expense of cutting the production of artillery shells.

As the war began in 1914 and conscription wasn't introduced until 1916 I know that Britain was capable of building large quantities of munitions without conscription, because it did. However, I also contend that conscription should have been introduced on 4th August 1914.

Then the mobilisation of the Army would have been more orderly. It might have reduced the cost of the war slightly, because the recruits would have remained in their civilian jobs longer increasing the UK's tax revenue slightly. It would also have allowed a more efficient distribution of the conscripted men because there would be a much greater chance of them being assigned to a corps of the Army that their skills best suited, e.g. mechanics to the RFC instead of the infantry and men that were more valuable doing their civilian jobs would not be conscripted in the first place because there would be a reserved occupations scheme.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

AFAIK an important reason why the Great War was so financially expensive for the UK was that the war effort was not co-ordinated as well as it could have been. In part this was due to the administrative machinery, such as the Committee of Imperial Defence, created as a result of Boer War experience not being used properly or breaking down completely.

E.g. AFAIK the Admiralty and War Office were presenting different strategies to the Cabinet, which approved both of them instead of deciding which would win the war soonest, for the fewest casualties and the lowest cost. Again AFAIK experience in the Great War led to the formation of the Chiefs-of-Staff and Joint Intelligence Sub-Committees of the CID in the 1920s. These forced the Admirals, Air Marshalls and Generals to work out a joint proposal to put to the Cabinet for approval. IIRC these reforms to the CID gave the British Government the best administrative machinery for deciding grand strategy in the world from the middle 1920s until after the end of World War II.

Further down there were problems like the a bidding war between RFC and RNAS which pushed up the price of aircraft. IIRC the Government went through one Air Committee and two Air Boards before finally solving the problem by creating the RAF.

And there were problems within the services themselves. For example a Naval Staff was first proposed in 1887 (IIRC by Lord Charles Beresford) but not created until 1912 and it wasn't working properly until 1918.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I'm not sure that you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Admiral class battleships, large numbers of tanks, aeroplanes and shells cost money. Said money can be raised by increasing taxes or borrowing increasing the National Debt of the United Kingdom. If you want to make the UK less poor in 1919 then there is little point building battleships however good if they were completed too late to take part in the war they were built to fight. All building the OTL Hood did was increase the UK's debt burden without contributing to the victory in that war. I admit that your Super Queen Elisabeth would have been a better long term investment, but that is beyond the scope of the OP.

About 2 years ago I scanned the History of the British Ministry of Munitions volume on tank production. Unfortunately the images were very hard to read because I didn't find out that they were out of focus until after I left London. However, it says that one of the limitations on building more tanks was that by 1916 most of Britain's available manufacturing capacity was being used by other types of weapon, so building more tanks meant making less of something else. Furthermore merchant shipbuilding had to be increased to replace the ships that the U-boats were sinking. I read in another book that the proposal to build 4,000 tanks in 1918 was only possible at the expense of cutting the production of artillery shells.

As the war began in 1914 and conscription wasn't introduced until 1916 I know that Britain was capable of building large quantities of munitions without conscription, because it did. However, I also contend that conscription should have been introduced on 4th August 1914.

Then the mobilisation of the Army would have been more orderly. It might have reduced the cost of the war slightly, because the recruits would have remained in their civilian jobs longer increasing the UK's tax revenue slightly. It would also have allowed a more efficient distribution of the conscripted men because there would be a much greater chance of them being assigned to a corps of the Army that their skills best suited, e.g. mechanics to the RFC instead of the infantry and men that were more valuable doing their civilian jobs would not be conscripted in the first place because there would be a reserved occupations scheme.

Conscription was a difficult step for Britain - it was just so......un-British.

However I do agree - the problem with relying on an all volunteer force is that the military is reliant on using those men and those men often have chosen the Regiment of choice further reducing the army's ability to reinforce / expand certain units.

Conscription however serves several purposes - the most important and not immediately apparent one - is that it keeps skilled workers where they are needed - this was done straight away in the years leading up to WW2 when conscription was reintroduced.

The other main advantage of conscription is that it allows the military (in principle) more leeway in placing men where tehy are needed and where their skills are of greater use in particular jobs and regiments etc

Lastly it allows control over the rate of call up - at the beginning of WW1 volunteers spent months living in tent cities drilling in civvies with Broom sticks because there was no way to equip them - the country was still struggling to adapt its industry to a war one - better to have left them where they were till they could be properly inducted, equipped and housed etc.

 

[Thomas1195]

Conscription was a difficult step for Britain - it was just so......un-British.

However I do agree - the problem with relying on an all volunteer force is that the military is reliant on using those men and those men often have chosen the Regiment of choice further reducing the army's ability to reinforce / expand certain units.

Conscription however serves several purposes - the most important and not immediately apparent one - is that it keeps skilled workers where they are needed - this was done straight away in the years leading up to WW2 when conscription was reintroduced.

The other main advantage of conscription is that it allows the military (in principle) more leeway in placing men where tehy are needed and where their skills are of greater use in particular jobs and regiments etc

Lastly it allows control over the rate of call up - at the beginning of WW1 volunteers spent months living in tent cities drilling in civvies with Broom sticks because there was no way to equip them - the country was still struggling to adapt its industry to a war one - better to have left them where they were till they could be properly inducted, equipped and housed etc.

The problem was the scale of conscription. Iotl, at least a fifth of several war industries was conscripted (oh man, i forgot the source, but i remember that one of them was shipbuilding). And conscription in Ireland would cause dissent like OTL.

 

[Thomas1195]

That still requires fighting on the Western front and the Ottomans are highly unlikely to stay neutral given they believe (100% accurately as it happens) that the French and British want to partition them post war so its Germany or bust and its not in Britain's power to choose any of these outcomes.

It can gamble on everything going well but it can't decide what will and won't happen given its one out of multiple belligerents.

The straits are forced in 1915, the ottomans knocked out of the war. Romania and Bulgaria join the entente side. Dual monarchy collapses under allied offensives in 1915. Germany throws in the towel as left alone fighting an impossible battle.

Gallipoli succeeds - The Turks exit the war and Austria Hungary collapses in 1916.

Faced with a three front war Germany sues for peace.

Instead of Gallipoli, pursuade the French to allow an assault on Alexandretta, where coastal defence was much weaker, to slice the ottoman empire into half would be much better

 

[Thomas1195]

I'm not sure that you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

Admiral class battleships, large numbers of tanks, aeroplanes and shells cost money. Said money can be raised by increasing taxes or borrowing increasing the National Debt of the United Kingdom. If you want to make the UK less poor in 1919 then there is little point building battleships however good if they were completed too late to take part in the war they were built to fight. All building the OTL Hood did was increase the UK's debt burden without contributing to the victory in that war. I admit that your Super Queen Elisabeth would have been a better long term investment, but that is beyond the scope of the OP.

About 2 years ago I scanned the History of the British Ministry of Munitions volume on tank production. Unfortunately the images were very hard to read because I didn't find out that they were out of focus until after I left London. However, it says that one of the limitations on building more tanks was that by 1916 most of Britain's available manufacturing capacity was being used by other types of weapon, so building more tanks meant making less of something else. Furthermore merchant shipbuilding had to be increased to replace the ships that the U-boats were sinking. I read in another book that the proposal to build 4,000 tanks in 1918 was only possible at the expense of cutting the production of artillery shells.

As the war began in 1914 and conscription wasn't introduced until 1916 I know that Britain was capable of building large quantities of munitions without conscription, because it did. However, I also contend that conscription should have been introduced on 4th August 1914.

Then the mobilisation of the Army would have been more orderly. It might have reduced the cost of the war slightly, because the recruits would have remained in their civilian jobs longer increasing the UK's tax revenue slightly. It would also have allowed a more efficient distribution of the conscripted men because there would be a much greater chance of them being assigned to a corps of the Army that their skills best suited, e.g. mechanics to the RFC instead of the infantry and men that were more valuable doing their civilian jobs would not be conscripted in the first place because there would be a reserved occupations scheme.

Maybe a limited conscription would be desirable. IOTL, Kitchener also planned to fight a slow war slowly increased their army to launch major offensive in 1917, but many factors including the French (a big and uncontrollable factor) screwed them up.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Conscription was a difficult step for Britain - it was just so......un-British.

However I do agree - the problem with relying on an all volunteer force is that the military is reliant on using those men and those men often have chosen the Regiment of choice further reducing the army's ability to reinforce / expand certain units.

Conscription however serves several purposes - the most important and not immediately apparent one - is that it keeps skilled workers where they are needed - this was done straight away in the years leading up to WW2 when conscription was reintroduced.

The other main advantage of conscription is that it allows the military (in principle) more leeway in placing men where tehy are needed and where their skills are of greater use in particular jobs and regiments etc

Lastly it allows control over the rate of call up - at the beginning of WW1 volunteers spent months living in tent cities drilling in civvies with Broom sticks because there was no way to equip them - the country was still struggling to adapt its industry to a war one - better to have left them where they were till they could be properly inducted, equipped and housed etc.

I think that there is a very good case for saying that the First World War taught the British State how not to run a long war against another great power. Lessons learned in the Great War like its best to have an orderly mobilisation of you manpower are why in my opinion the British State managed its resources in World War II much better than anyone else.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As for the follies, had they just been used as monitors they would have been ok. Once the inherent flaw in Fishers speed = armour was recognised they should all have been completed as the carriers the navy was crying out for post Jutland.

I agree that completing Courageous and Glorious with flying off decks like Furious would have been a great improvement on Campania and the converted railway ferries.

However, in the short and long term their existence was the worst thing that happened to the Royal Navy. Their conversions to proper flush deck aircraft carriers in the 1920s cost about £2 million each, when a new ships of the same displacement would have cost about £4 million, carried more aircraft and had better protection. If they hadn't existed the RN would have had 4 aircraft carriers in the middle 1920s (Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Vindictive) and without any ships that were suitable for conversion I think its very likely that the OTL 1924 Plan for a force of 7 aircraft carriers consisting of 4 new ships of 17,000 tons and the 3 Follies by 1938 would have been replaced by a plan for five 27,000 ton aircraft carriers or six 22,500 ton aircraft carriers by the same date. I also think that its very likely that the Cabinet would override the objections of the RAF and Treasury and allow at least 4 of them to be laid down 1924-34. That is 3 in place of the OTL Folly conversions and the fourth in place of the OTL Ark Royal. I am prepared to sacrifice 3 County class cruisers (cost about £2 million each) if the Treasury won't cough up enough money to make up the difference for the £12 million to build 3 new ships and the £6 million that it cost to convert the 3 Follies.

In the shorter term my cruiser plan for World War One is to build 12 D and 8 E class cruisers instead of the 12 D, 3 E and 5 Effingham class cruisers ordered, but only 8 D, 2 E and the 5 Effinghams actually completed. Due to some jiggery pokery the D class are built with six 6" in 3 twin turrets and the E class eight 6" in four twin turrets, which AFAIK was feasible technically, but wasn't done IOTL because single open mounts were thought to be better.

This means no Effingham class cruisers were available for conversion to aircraft carriers and the E class built in their place were too small. Therefore instead of converting Vindictive and building the OTL Hermes to satisfy the requirement for 2 North Sea aircraft carriers a pair of enlarged Hermes class were built. The ships were larger because instead of the 40,000 shp machinery they were fitted with E class cruiser machinery producing 80,000 shp because a higher maximum speed was required. This meant a larger hull was required, but it also meant a larger hangar and longer flight deck.

Also in my TL Eagle is completed as a battleship in World War One and after they war she is sold to Chile along with the Canada. Therefore the requirement for 2 ocean aircraft carriers is met by the OTL Argus and converting the Italian ocean liner Gulio Cesare, which was proposed several times during World War One IOTL.

IOTL Argus and Vindictive were completed before the end of World War One, but Eagle and Hermes weren't completed until well into the 1920s. ITTL I hope to have Argus, Gulio Cesare and the Super Hermes built instead of Vindictive to be completed by the end of World War One, with the Super Hermes built in place of the OTL Hermes completed several years earlier than the real one.

In my TL there were enough resources to build the ships because a cut in merchant ships construction was possible due to an earlier introduction of trade convoys. However, it could also have been done by not building Hood and starting her cancelled sisters.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think that there is a very good case for saying that the First World War taught the British State how not to run a long war against another great power. Lessons learned in the Great War like its best to have an orderly mobilisation of you manpower are why in my opinion the British State managed its resources in World War II much better than anyone else.

Another lesson was always prepare for a long war even if you think it will be a short one. Or to put it another way if you want the war to be over as quickly as possible then (apart from surrendering) prepare for the longest possible war.

E.g. in the OTL Great War the development of the aircraft carrier was retarded because the projected completion date of new or converted ships was usually after the projected end date for the war. And when it wasn't there was more competition for the shipbuilding resources, e.g. by 1917 all construction of aircraft carriers and "proper" warships had to take third place to merchant ships and escort vessels to protect them.

 

[Thomas1195]

I agree that completing Courageous and Glorious with flying off decks like Furious would have been a great improvement on Campania and the converted railway ferries.

However, in the short and long term their existence was the worst thing that happened to the Royal Navy. Their conversions to proper flush deck aircraft carriers in the 1920s cost about £2 million each, when a new ships of the same displacement would have cost about £4 million, carried more aircraft and had better protection. If they hadn't existed the RN would have had 4 aircraft carriers in the middle 1920s (Argus, Eagle, Hermes and Vindictive) and without any ships that were suitable for conversion I think its very likely that the OTL 1924 Plan for a force of 7 aircraft carriers consisting of 4 new ships of 17,000 tons and the 3 Follies by 1938 would have been replaced by a plan for five 27,000 ton aircraft carriers or six 22,500 ton aircraft carriers by the same date. I also think that its very likely that the Cabinet would override the objections of the RAF and Treasury and allow at least 4 of them to be laid down 1924-34. That is 3 in place of the OTL Folly conversions and the fourth in place of the OTL Ark Royal. I am prepared to sacrifice 3 County class cruisers (cost about £2 million each) if the Treasury won't cough up enough money to make up the difference for the £12 million to build 3 new ships and the £6 million that it cost to convert the 3 Follies.

In the shorter term my cruiser plan for World War One is to build 12 D and 8 E class cruisers instead of the 12 D, 3 E and 5 Effingham class cruisers ordered, but only 8 D, 2 E and the 5 Effinghams actually completed. Due to some jiggery pokery the D class are built with six 6" in 3 twin turrets and the E class eight 6" in four twin turrets, which AFAIK was feasible technically, but wasn't done IOTL because single open mounts were thought to be better.

This means no Effingham class cruisers were available for conversion to aircraft carriers and the E class built in their place were too small. Therefore instead of converting Vindictive and building the OTL Hermes to satisfy the requirement for 2 North Sea aircraft carriers a pair of enlarged Hermes class were built. The ships were larger because instead of the 40,000 shp machinery they were fitted with E class cruiser machinery producing 80,000 shp because a higher maximum speed was required. This meant a larger hull was required, but it also meant a larger hangar and longer flight deck.

Also in my TL Eagle is completed as a battleship in World War One and after they war she is sold to Chile along with the Canada. Therefore the requirement for 2 ocean aircraft carriers is met by the OTL Argus and converting the Italian ocean liner Gulio Cesare, which was proposed several times during World War One IOTL.

IOTL Argus and Vindictive were completed before the end of World War One, but Eagle and Hermes weren't completed until well into the 1920s. ITTL I hope to have Argus, Gulio Cesare and the Super Hermes built instead of Vindictive to be completed by the end of World War One, with the Super Hermes built in place of the OTL Hermes completed several years earlier than the real one.

In my TL there were enough resources to build the ships because a cut in merchant ships construction was possible due to an earlier introduction of trade convoys. However, it could also have been done by not building Hood and starting her cancelled sisters.

Well, if Hood and sisters were cancelled, than RN would have had to play an even bigger catch up game with the US and Japan, who were building ships which were superior to QE and R classes (1916 Naval Act and 8-8 program). IOTL WNT would halt the race, but imagine the 1916 Naval Act being completed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, if Hood and sisters were cancelled, than RN would have had to play an even bigger catch up game with the US and Japan, who were building ships which were superior to QE and R classes (1916 Naval Act and 8-8 program). IOTL WNT would halt the race, but imagine the 1916 Naval Act being completed.

1. To be pedantic Hood and her sisters aren't ordered in the first place in my TL so they can't be cancelled.
2. Only one very big and unsatisfactory battle cruiser (Hood) was actually completed IOTL. In my TL not building her does not put the RN behind in your game of catch up. In my opinion Hood as built was an obstacle.
3. In the TL I'm imagining the RN performs better, but the war still ends on 11th November, 1918. However, it doesn't cost as much money and fewer lives were lost. However, the Americans still have to postpone their 1916 programme to build convoy escorts to defeat the U-boats.
4. The TL I'm imagining it intended to shave several hundred millions of Pounds off the National Debt. That releases tens of millions of Pounds that IOTL was spent on servicing the National Debt for building capital ships of the G.3 and N.3 classes. However, they aren't built because:
5. The Americans still call the Washington Conference, which produces a treaty nearly the same as OTL. In this Washington Treaty the UK is still allowed 3 post-Jutland ships, but because there is no Hood she is allowed to build 105,000 tons of new ships before the treaty expires instead of 70,000.
6. Even if what you wrote did happen it is a price well paying for the improvement in the Royal Navy's force of aircraft carriers.

 

[Thomas1195]

1. To be pedantic Hood and her sisters aren't ordered in the first place in my TL so they can't be cancelled.
2. Only one very big and unsatisfactory battle cruiser (Hood) was actually completed IOTL. In my TL not building her does not put the RN behind in your game of catch up. In my opinion Hood as built was an obstacle.
3. In the TL I'm imagining the RN performs better, but the war still ends on 11th November, 1918. However, it doesn't cost as much money and fewer lives were lost. However, the Americans still have to postpone their 1916 programme to build convoy escorts to defeat the U-boats.
4. The TL I'm imagining it intended to shave several hundred millions of Pounds off the National Debt. That releases tens of millions of Pounds that IOTL was spent on servicing the National Debt for building capital ships of the G.3 and N.3 classes. However, they aren't built because:
5. The Americans still call the Washington Conference, which produces a treaty nearly the same as OTL. In this Washington Treaty the UK is still allowed 3 post-Jutland ships, but because there is no Hood she is allowed to build 105,000 tons of new ships before the treaty expires instead of 70,000.
6. Even if what you wrote did happen it is a price well paying for the improvement in the Royal Navy's force of aircraft carriers.

Well, so 3 nelson plus the remaining 10000 tons (Hood 45000 ton) could be spent on CVs. But RNs would lack speed, you cannot build a heavy armour fast BBs (26-27 knots) at 35000 ton in 1920s.

 

[BooNZ]

I think that there is a very good case for saying that the First World War taught the British State how not to run a long war against another great power. Lessons learned in the Great War like its best to have an orderly mobilisation of you manpower are why in my opinion the British State managed its resources in World War II much better than anyone else.

Another lesson was always prepare for a long war even if you think it will be a short one. Or to put it another way if you want the war to be over as quickly as possible then (apart from surrendering) prepare for the longest possible war.

Perhaps not.

By the end of 1940 the British were broke.

Without Lend-Lease and FDR's loose interpretation of neutrality, the British faced financial collapse before the end of the 1941.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Perhaps not.

By the end of 1940 the British were broke.

Without Lend-Lease and FDR's loose interpretation of neutrality, the British faced financial collapse before the end of the 1941.

Wrong war, this is about World War 1 not WWII.

 

[BooNZ]

Wrong war, this is about World War 1 not WWII.

No I had the correct war. I was responding to someone stating how well the British managed the Second World War due to lessons learnt in the First.

 

[Thomas1195]

No I had the correct war. I was responding to someone stating how well the British managed the Second World War due to lessons learnt in the First.

Well, britain 1914 was economically stronger than in 1939, besides, the fall of france also screwed them up.