Fantasque Time Line Index du Forum Fantasque Time Line
1940 - La France continue la guerre
 
 FAQFAQ   RechercherRechercher   Liste des MembresListe des Membres   Groupes d'utilisateursGroupes d'utilisateurs   S'enregistrerS'enregistrer 
 ProfilProfil   Se connecter pour vérifier ses messages privésSe connecter pour vérifier ses messages privés   ConnexionConnexion 

Relations économiques France-USA-GB - Prêt-Bail (Lend-Lease)
Aller à la page 1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
 
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    Fantasque Time Line Index du Forum -> Les Alliés
Voir le sujet précédent :: Voir le sujet suivant  
Auteur Message
Casus Frankie
Administrateur - Site Admin


Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006
Messages: 10007
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Jeu Juil 15, 2010 19:05    Sujet du message: Relations économiques France-USA-GB - Prêt-Bail (Lend-Lease) Répondre en citant

Le Prêt-Bail OTL (par Mark Bailey)

Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11) was the name of the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, France and other Allied nations with war material between 1941 and 1945. It began in March 1941, over 18 months after the outbreak of the European war in September 1939, but before the U.S. entrance into the war in December 1941. It was called An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States. This act also ended the pretense of the neutrality of the United States. Hitler recognized this and consequently had submarines attack US ships.

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $759 billion at 2008 prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. totaled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the material was to be used until time for their return or destruction. Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.

This program was a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement.

Political background
Lend-Lease came into existence with the Lend-Lease Act of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article". In April, this policy was extended to China as well. Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the end of October, 1941.

There was an entirely different program in 1940, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. The UK had been paying for its matériel in gold under "Cash and carry", as required by the Neutrality Acts of the 1930s.

NOTE: In both FTL and APOD, this destroyers for bases deal did not occur, as there was no RN need for these ships with the MN still fighting. Instead, some of these vessels were transferred to the MN and other navies. A question for both FTL and APDO is ‘what Lend-Lease or other beneficial arrangements can be obtained by transfer of British and French bases to the USA in 1940?’

Everett Dirksen, at the time a Republican U.S. Representative, was able to secure the passage of an amendment to the Lend-Lease bill by introducing the resolution while 65 of the House's Democrats were at a luncheon. Section (3)(c) of the Act thus provided that "after the passage of a concurrent resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, neither the President nor the head of any department or agency shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a)" [5]

Administration
Franklin D. Roosevelt set up the Office of Lend-Lease Administration in 1941, appointing steel executive Edward R. Stettinius as head. In September 1943 he was promoted to Undersecretary of State, and FDIC director Leo Crowley became head of the Foreign Economic Administration which absorbed responsibility for Lend-Lease.

Lend-Lease aid to Russia was nominally managed by Stettinius. Roosevelt's Soviet Protocol Committee, dominated by Harry Hopkins and General John York, who were totally sympathetic to the provision of "unconditional aid." Until 1943, few Americans objected to Russian aid.

Significance
Lend-Lease was a critical factor in the eventual success of the Allies in World War II, particularly in the early years when the United States was not directly involved and the entire burden of the fighting fell on other nations, notably those of the Commonwealth and, after June 1941, the Soviet Union. Although the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Axis Declarations of War brought the US into the war in December 1941, the task of recruiting, training, and equipping U.S. forces and transporting them to war zones could not be completed immediately. Through 1942, and to a lesser extent 1943, the other Allies continued to be responsible for most of the fighting and the supply of military equipment under Lend-Lease was a significant part of their success. In 1943-44, about a quarter of all British munitions came through Lend-Lease. Aircraft (in particular transport aircraft) comprised about a quarter of the shipments to Britain, followed by food, land vehicles and ships.

Even after the United States forces in Europe and the Pacific began to reach full-strength in 1943–1944, Lend-Lease continued. Most remaining allies were largely self-sufficient in front line equipment (such as tanks and fighter aircraft) by this stage, but Lend-Lease provided a useful supplement in this category even so, and Lend-Lease logistical supplies (including motor vehicles and railroad equipment) were of enormous assistance.

Much of the aid can be better understood when considering the economic distortions caused by the war. Most belligerent powers cut back severely on production of nonessentials, concentrating on producing weapons. This inevitably produced shortages of related products needed by the military or as part of the military-industrial complex.

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. The USSR had a pre-war stock of over 25,000 locomotives and 600,000 railcars. The Lend-Lease stock did not start being shipped until 1944. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2∏ ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front.U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical to the USSR.

Lend Lease was a critical factor that brought the U.S. into the war, especially on the European front. Hitler cited the Lend-Lease program when he declared war on the U.S. on 11 December 1941.

Repayment
Main article: Anglo-American loan
Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when the United States terminated Lend-Lease when the war ended on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted the Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest. The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

Quotations
Franklin D. Roosevelt, eager to ensure public consent for this controversial plan, explained to the public and the press that his plan was comparable to one neighbor's lending another a garden hose to put out a fire in his home. "What do I do in such a crisis?" the president asked at a press conference. "I don't say... 'Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it' …I don't want $15 — I want my garden hose back after the fire is over."

Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."

US deliveries to USSR
 
American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

"pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Delivery was via the Arctic Convoys, the Persian Corridor, and the Pacific Route. The Pacific Route was used for about half of Lend-Lease aid: by convoy from the US west coast to the Soviet Far East, via Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian railway. After America’s entry in the war, only Soviet (or Soviet-flagged) ships were used, and there was some interference by Japan with them. The Alaska-Siberia Air Route, known as Alsib, was used for air deliveries and passengers from 7 October 1942.

Reverse Lend-lease
Reverse Lend-lease or Reciprocal Aid was the supply of equipment and services to the United States, e.g. the British Austin K2 military ambulance. From Canada the Fairmile launches for anti-submarine use and Mosquito photo-reconnaissance aircraft. New Zealand supplied food to United States forces in the South Pacific, and constructed airports in Nadi, Fiji.

In 1945–46 the value of Reciprocal Aid from New Zealand exceeded that of Lend-lease, though in 1942–43 the value of Lend-lease to New Zealand was much more that of Reciprocal aid. The UK also supplied extensive material assistance to US forces stationed in Europe, for example the USAAF was supplied with hundreds of Spitfire Mk.V and Mk.VIII fighter aircraft.

"The cooperation that was built up with Canada during the war was an amalgam compounded of diverse elements of which the air and land routes to Alaska, the Canol project, and the CRYSTAL and CRIMSON activities were the most costly in point of effort and funds expended.
[...] The total of defense materials and services that Canada received through lend-lease channels amounted in value to approximately $419,500,000.
[...] Some idea of the scope of economic collaboration can be had from the fact that from the beginning of 1942 through 1945 Canada, on her part, furnished the United States with $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000 in defense materials and services.
[...] Although most of the actual construction of joint defense facilities, except the Alaska Highway and the Canol project, had been carried out by Canada, most of the original cost was borne by the United States. The agreement was that all temporary construction for the use of American forces and all permanent construction required by the United States forces beyond Canadian requirements would be paid for by the United States, and that the cost of all other construction of permanent value would be met by Canada. Although it was not entirely reasonable that Canada should pay for any construction that the Canadian Government considered unnecessary or that did not conform to Canadian requirements, nevertheless considerations of self-respect and national sovereignty led the Canadian Government to suggest a new financial agreement.
[...] The total amount that Canada agreed to pay under the new arrangement came to about $76,800,000, which was some $13,870,000 less than the United States had spent on the facilities."

UK lend-lease with Canada
UK lend-lease arrangements with its colonies is one of the lesser known parts of World War II history, as US Lend Lease dominates most available information due to its vast economic and physical scope. However, the UK's lend-lease arrangements with its colonies is one of the many infrastructural reasons for the Allied Forces victory.

The Gander Air Base now known as Gander International Airport in Newfoundland was leased to Canada for 99 years because of its urgent need for the movement of fighter and bomber aircraft to the UK. One of the reasons why the UK was able to win the Battle of Britain was because of this Canada-Newfoundland lend-lease arrangement, but not all Battle of Britain historians have noted this important connection.

Gander Air Base (built 1936) was mentioned in the 1941 Allied propaganda film Churchill's Island, winner of the first Academy Award for Documentary Short Subject. The Gander Air Base land-lease is assumed to have been written in 1939–1940. Upon Newfoundland joining Canada in 1949 the lease is assumed to have terminated as Newfoundland was part of Canada.

Canada also made loans to Britain during and immediately after the war under terms similar to the Anglo-American loans, these loans were fully repaid in late 2006 along with the American loans. A portion of the Canadian loan was written off in 1949 as part of the agreement to bring Newfoundland into Canada.

The UK may have had similar (but more limited in scope) land-lease arrangements during World War II with The United Provinces of India, Australia and New Zealand—but the Gander lend-lease model was not the predominate kind of arrangement in these regions.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Casus Frankie
Administrateur - Site Admin


Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006
Messages: 10007
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Jeu Juil 15, 2010 19:22    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Quelques questions à propos du Prêt-Bail sont valables en FTL comme en APOD.
En voici quelques unes. Certaines ont déjà reçu des éléments de réponse (mes observations en bleu dans le texte).
La parole à Mark.


There are some common questions here for both FTL and APOD.
Some of these are:

When will Franco/Belgian gold reserves and saleable economic assets in the USA and South America run out? This date may determine when Lend-Lease starts in FTL/APOD.
Question en partie évoquée dans une annexe - Loïc nous la retrouvera exactement (la semaine prochaine).
Partial answer in an annex - Loic will find out next week.


Both London and Algiers have bases in the Caribbean which they would be willing to transfer to the USA. But neither needs anything like the 1940 destroyer deal. If both coordinate their efforts, what could they exchange these bases for? (Note: this could vary from a ‘credit stream’, equipment, economic assistance, merchant ships, ‘aircraft instead of destroyers’, or anything else.)
Déjà évoqué entre nous - à voir avec Fantasque à son retour.
Already discussed (but not fully answered). To be seen with Fantasque when he'll be back from holydays (I know, we have many holydays in France)


What will be French and Belgian attitude towards and policy on Lend-Lease? [Note: The British policy within APOD is to proceed with cash and carry, but to refuse to sell their economic assets in the USA and South America. They can only do this because the French and Belgians remain in the war and the UK has a large industrial base with which to arm itself. The French and Belgians cannot refuse to sell such assets as they have no remaining industrial base of their own.]
I'm afraid you're (mostly) right.
Somewhere in FTL, De Gaulle tells "If we keep on fighting, we'll have a heavy debt in money towards the USA. If we don't fight, USA will finally win this war - but we'll have a debt of blood, and blood is a currency very difficult to repay." (I hope my translation is true)


What is French policy on their Army equipment? Will they fully convert to standard US equipment, down to and including rifles?
Mostly, yes. We have a very detailed annex about that, Loic will tell you where it is.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ladc51



Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2006
Messages: 1261
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Jeu Juil 15, 2010 20:33    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Citation:
What will be French and Belgian attitude towards and policy on Lend-Lease? [Note: The British policy within APOD is to proceed with cash and carry, but to refuse to sell their economic assets in the USA and South America. They can only do this because the French and Belgians remain in the war and the UK has a large industrial base with which to arm itself. The French and Belgians cannot refuse to sell such assets as they have no remaining industrial base of their own.]
I'm afraid you're (mostly) right.
Somewhere in FTL, De Gaulle tells "If we keep on fighting, we'll have a heavy debt in money towards the USA. If we don't fight, USA will finally win this war - but we'll have a debt of blood, and blood is a currency very difficult to repay." (I hope my translation is true)


Je suis assez d'accord. Si on se place du point de vue américain, je ne vois aucune raison de ne pas pousser leur avantage pour racheter les investissemnts français (et belges ?) en échange du lend-lease. Et je ne vois pas comment les Français pourraient résister à cette pression ; au moins, en échange de ces investissements, ils obtiennent un accés quasi illimité au armes, matériels et munitions américaines... Mais dans ce cadre, je crains qu'une partie de notre beau programme de constructions françaises aux USA en 42 passe à la trappe ! soit le matériel préconisé par les Français est adopté par l'USArmy, soit il n'est pas standardisé, donc pas construit...
_________________
Laurent
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Capitaine caverne



Inscrit le: 11 Avr 2009
Messages: 3487
Localisation: Tours

MessagePosté le: Jeu Juil 15, 2010 21:07    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

En fait, il me semblait avoir lu quelque part que les investissements français étaient progressivements vendus tout au long de la guerre, la france terminant à sec et même carrement dans le rouge. Ce sont les stocks d'or et les liquidités qui sont liquidés par le passage au lend-lease. Les américains si ils ont un intéret évident à faire les poches de leurs alliés, ils n'ent n'ont pas forcément à les dépouiller complétement de tout leur patrimoine. Au moment du passage du "Cash &Carry" au "Lend-Lease" entre 40 et 41, les USA ne savent pas combien de temps va durer la guerre, qu'elle va leur tomber dessus, que les japonais vont s'en meler, etc...
Si ils ratissent complètement leurs alliés, ceux-ci risquent de ne plus être capable de payer quoi que ce soit à terme. Si les alliés des USA se retrouvent en faillite après un endettement excessif du à un dépouillement dans les règles, l'Oncle Sam ne recuperera jamais le montant de ses prèts. C'est dans leur intérèt que les alliés conservent une capacitéde paiement tout au long du conflit, pour pouvoir régler leurs dettes après la guerre.
_________________
"Au jeu des trônes, il n'y a que des vainqueurs et des morts, il n'y a pas de demi-terme". La Reine Cersei.
"Les gens se disent en genéral affamé de vérité, mais ils la trouvent rarement à leur goût lorsqu'on la leur sert". Tyrion Lannister.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ladc51



Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2006
Messages: 1261
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Ven Juil 16, 2010 06:40    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Bonjour,

Citation:
En fait, il me semblait avoir lu quelque part que les investissements français étaient progressivements vendus tout au long de la guerre, la france terminant à sec et même carrement dans le rouge. Ce sont les stocks d'or et les liquidités qui sont liquidés par le passage au lend-lease.


Je crains que ce soit l'inverse :
- les stocks d'or et de devises (de la France et de la GB) sont liquidés par la loi "cash and carry", votée au début de la guerre (pour remplacer les lois sur la neutralité qui empêchaient de vendre des armes aux belligérants). Avec cette nouvelle loi, les alliés sont avantagés, puisqu'ils sont les seuls à pouvoir envoyer leurs cargos charger des armes dans des ports américains (puisqu'ils maitrisent les mers, ce qui n'est pa s le cas de l'Axe). Mais ils doivent payer cash et leurs réserves d'or et de devises fondent à vue d'oeil, atteignant un niveau alarmant dès l'automne 40. Ceci étant une situation OTL, qui n'a aucune raison d'être différente en FTL
- avec le passage début 41 à la loi prêt-bail, le président des USA peut décider de prêter des armes à des pays dont il estime que la défense est utile à la sécurité des USA. Qui dit "prêt" dit bien sur que les alliés en question ne payent pas les armes qu'ils n'achètent pas. Il n'y a plus de raison de voir baisser leurs stocks d'or et de devises (qui d'ailleurs, étaient déjà dans le rouge).
- Vue des USA, la philosophie de la loi lend-lease est que la sécurité des USA peut être plus utilement défendue en assurant la sécurité d'autres pays qui sont en première ligne contre l'Axe (rappel : le Japon est encore neutre) plutôt qu'en les laissant se battre seul et perdre et en laissant l'Allemagne se retourner ensuite contre les USA sans alliés... Dans ce contexte, le président des USA est autorisé par le Congrés à décider d'allouer des armes aux armées où elles seront le plus utile (à ce moment-là) pour la défense des USA. Dans ce cadre-là, le président américain doit pouvoir diriger l'effort de l'industrie militaire américaine de façon optimale, ce qui explique qu'il souhaite racheter les investissements étrangers (alliés) dans cette industrie. Accessoirement, ce rachat prépare une position économique hégémonique pour l'après-guerre ce qui est, sinon le but recherché, au moins une conséquence annexe identifiée et acceptée de bon coeur...

PS : sur le prêt-bail, lire "Le Prêt-bail, arme de victoire, origine et développement de la loi de prêt-location, par Edward R. Stettinius jr"
_________________
Laurent
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
marklbailey



Inscrit le: 05 Jan 2008
Messages: 121
Localisation: Canberra, Australia

MessagePosté le: Lun Juil 19, 2010 06:36    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

I believe that Laurent is quite correct. In OTL, the USA completely stripped the British Empire (including the Dominions) of its assets during cash-and-carry.

This is what fuelled the enormous economic boom in the USA after the war and well into the early 1960s. I have heard this described as 'in four years the USA accumulated all of the economic benefits Europe had taken 300 years to obtain from their Empires'. This is an obvious exaggeration, but the sentiment seems valid.

It was Great Power politics at its most obvious. All we can say is that Great Power politics is a ruthless game.

I will comment only on APOD.

In APOD, the addition of France and Belgium to the war as active Allies does two things:

1. They must have priority for US equipment.

2. They take the pressure off the British Empire.

The first point makes both France and Belgium dependent on the USA and deprives them of any choices. It is inevitable that they will be both asset-stripped just as the British Empire was 1941-42 in OTL. In APOD, this is a major economic matter but a minor one for these two governments, because they remain active powers, and in the case of France she retains her status as a Great Power.

Belgium adds to her status as a small power. Both automatically become 'bedrock states' of the post-APOD Europe.

The second point benefits all three powers (British Empire, French and Belgian Empires) by retaining a European financial centre, and above all else by allowing them to 'form up together' to partially counterbalance US power. Of course, they are weak by comparison, but they are much stronger united than separate, and can retain some independence from the USA. In OTL, London had to do what Washington said. In APOD, London and the Franco-Belgian goverments are strong enough and important enough to retain some independence.

They will (in APOD) still be dependent on the USA, but they will not be completely subordinate to Washington.

In a 'post APOD' world, that means that, for example, in 1956 at Suez, the Anglo-French would not have to bow to US demands due to the effect the refusal of the US loan would have on their economies.

This, I stress, is an APOD comment. It may, or may not, be of value for FTL.

Regards: Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Casus Frankie
Administrateur - Site Admin


Inscrit le: 16 Oct 2006
Messages: 10007
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Lun Juil 19, 2010 08:38    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

"Great powers have no friends, they only have interests"
I believe that most of you wrote, Mark, can (and will) apply to FTL.
Except may be Suez : such a crisis (as it was OTL) may not be in the future of FFO - that is, FTL or APOD.

"Les Grandes Puissances n'ont pas d'amis, elles n'ont que des intérêts"
Je pense que l'essentiel de ce que Mark a écrit peut s'appliquer à la FTL. Je doute cependant que la crise de Suez (telle qu'elle est survenue OTL) survienne dans l'avenir de la FTL (ou de l'APOD).
_________________
Casus Frankie

"Si l'on n'était pas frivole, la plupart des gens se pendraient" (Voltaire)
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Capitaine caverne



Inscrit le: 11 Avr 2009
Messages: 3487
Localisation: Tours

MessagePosté le: Lun Juil 19, 2010 09:32    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Casus Frankie a écrit:

"Les Grandes Puissances n'ont pas d'amis, elles n'ont que des intérêts"


C'est hélas vieux comme le monde. Au 19ème siècle, on disait déjà: <<En affaires, on n'a pas d'amis, seulement des correspondants!>> ( Monte-Christo au banquier Danglars).
_________________
"Au jeu des trônes, il n'y a que des vainqueurs et des morts, il n'y a pas de demi-terme". La Reine Cersei.
"Les gens se disent en genéral affamé de vérité, mais ils la trouvent rarement à leur goût lorsqu'on la leur sert". Tyrion Lannister.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
patrikev



Inscrit le: 28 Mai 2010
Messages: 1774

MessagePosté le: Mar Juil 20, 2010 19:21    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Je profite du sujet pour demander si quelqu'un a des données précises sur les échanges avec le Canada? Je n'ai pas grand-chose pour le moment, et Mlle de Miribel commence à se faire du souci.

http://www.1940lafrancecontinue.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=556&highlight=

Si les Français ont le choix en FTL, ils aimeraient peut-être augmenter leurs achats au Canada pour limiter leur ardoise auprès des États-Unis. Le Canada est un pays allié qui envoie des troupes, alors que les États-Unis sont encore neutres.
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
marklbailey



Inscrit le: 05 Jan 2008
Messages: 121
Localisation: Canberra, Australia

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 09:53    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Good point patrikev, and Canada accepts pounds and francs, meaning dollars can be conserved.

Regards: Mark
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ladc51



Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2006
Messages: 1261
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 10:53    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Les investissements français au Canada sont déjà prévus (canon de 75 TAZ-39, pièces pour le SAV-42) : cf. l'annexe 41-5-2

Je me demande si on peut même aller plus loin avec des investissements français au canada permettant la production (partielle ?) de SAV-42 à l'usine American Locomotive Works de Monteréal...
_________________
Laurent
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Xgentis



Inscrit le: 10 Juil 2010
Messages: 127
Localisation: Belgique.

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 12:26    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Est-il sage de mêttre tout nos oeuf dans le même panier? N'y a t-il pas d'autres pays ayant des capacité industrielle satisfaisante?
_________________
Resiste et mords!
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ladc51



Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2006
Messages: 1261
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 15:00    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Il faut et suffit de faire le tour des pays alliés ou neutres disposant d'une base industrielle suffisante en 1941 pour l'utiliser (après conversion plus ou moins lourde depuis une production strictement civile vers une production militaire).

Depuis la conquête par l'Allemagne de la Tchécoslovaquie et de la France, depuis la "neutralisation" de l'URSS par le pacte germano-soviétique, il ne reste que la Grande-Bretagne (dont l'industrie est insufisante pour couvrir ses propres besoins), les USA et le Canada. Dans une moindre mesure, l'Asutralie et l'Afrique du Sud suivront en 42.

Le choix est donc très très réduit...
_________________
Laurent
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Xgentis



Inscrit le: 10 Juil 2010
Messages: 127
Localisation: Belgique.

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 15:53    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Peut-être faire quelque investissement mineur au Mexique même si leurs industrie sont peux nombreuses leurs main d'oeuvre est la moin couteuse.
_________________
Resiste et mords!
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
ladc51



Inscrit le: 17 Oct 2006
Messages: 1261
Localisation: Paris

MessagePosté le: Mer Juil 21, 2010 16:16    Sujet du message: Répondre en citant

Dans un pays aussi industrialisé que les USA, il faut en moyenne 1 an pour construire une usine d'armement ou pour transformer une usine civile en usine d'armement...

Une industrie d'armement est dépendante du tissu industriel environnant : sous-traitant, fournisseur, artisans, infrastructures, approvisionnement en matières premières et semi-finies. Quant aux ouvriers, contrairement à ce que nous pensons aujourd'hui un ouvrier spécialisé est un vrai métier d'expérience qui ne s'improvise pas, et in faut une proportion non négligeable d'OS pour faire tourner une usine.

Si c'était faisable au Mexique, le gouvernement FTL l'aurait fait en AFN...
_________________
Laurent
Revenir en haut de page
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur Envoyer un message privé
Montrer les messages depuis:   
Poster un nouveau sujet   Répondre au sujet    Fantasque Time Line Index du Forum -> Les Alliés Toutes les heures sont au format GMT + 1 Heure
Aller à la page 1, 2, 3, 4  Suivante
Page 1 sur 4

 
Sauter vers:  
Vous ne pouvez pas poster de nouveaux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas éditer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas supprimer vos messages dans ce forum
Vous ne pouvez pas voter dans les sondages de ce forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Traduction par : phpBB-fr.com