Achtung Lend Lease

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by dav789dav, Nov 26, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Forgive me my walnut-sized brain if this is a stupid question, but ...

    Shouldn't Deutschland reimburse us for our Lend Lease repayments to the US? It's not as if Lend Lease was actually used for Britain's private benefit (infrastructure, etc) - it was for the altruistic and humanitarian mission of ridding Europe of German tyranny. If anyone has ultimate liability for LL repayments, it's the Chermans.
     
  2. Better still, the Yanks should cough up pro rata to the UK what they gave to every other fcuker in the form of the Marshall Plan aid!
     
  3. The British lend-lease repayments were taken into account when calculating the Germans' repayments to Britain. The trouble is, that the Americans were loaning money to Germany, so Germany could pay its war debt to Britain, and then Britain could pay back the Americans for lend-lease. The money was back were it had started, with the interest accumulated along the way.
     
  4. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Yes, good idea. I think we need a (er what is it?) a Potsdam Conference or something a la WW1. Reparations, reparations and more reparations!!! Bl00dy box-heads.
     
  5. Bloody annoying that we coughed up for 60 years (& surrendered the empire) yet just about everyone else gets their debts written off these days:(
     
  6. And look who's got an empire today.
     
  7. Exactly. I was reading an article the other day that was making quite a persuasive argument that we should never have gotten involved in the First World War, and the attendant knock-on effects, but should of instead either remained neutral or gone in to help Belgium and then left Germany and France/Russia to fight it out themselves. Would have arguably stood us in a much better position financially in later years.
     
  8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm

    It is hard from a modern viewpoint to appreciate the astronomical costs and economic damage caused by this conflict. In 1945, Britain badly needed money to pay for reconstruction and also to import food for a nation worn down after years of rationing.

    "In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.

    "The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."

    The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.

    But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it.

    As a result, the UK took a loan for $586m (about £145m at 1945 exchange rates), and a further $3,750m line of credit (about £930m at 1945 exchange rates). The loan was to be paid off in 50 annual repayments starting in 1950, although there were six years when payment was deferred because of economic or political crises.
     
  9. Just to Keep this at the top, as it is a pet peeve of mine.

    The UK still owes the US $40b in debt from WWI, that was never repayed.

    news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk...757181.stm
     
  10. Out of curiosity, what peeves you? Nonpayment of the debt or the fact of even owing it?
     
  11. As far as I'm concerned no debt is owed.

    My pet peeve is this garbage:

    "Forgive me my walnut-sized brain if this is a stupid question, but ...
    "Shouldn't Deutschland reimburse us for our Lend Lease repayments to the US? It's not as if Lend Lease was actually used for Britain's private benefit (infrastructure, etc) - it was for the altruistic and humanitarian mission of ridding Europe of German tyranny. If anyone has ultimate liability for LL repayments, it's the Chermans."

    "Better still, the Yanks should cough up pro rata to the UK what they gave to every other fcuker in the form of the Marshall Plan aid!"


    I post these links to point out the ignorance of those previous comments:


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm
    "In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
    "The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4757181.stm
    Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
    The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
    But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it.
    As a result, the UK took a loan for $586m (about £145m at 1945 exchange rates), and a further $3,750m line of credit (about £930m at 1945 exchange rates). The loan was to be paid off in 50 annual repayments starting in 1950, although there were six years when payment was deferred because of economic or political crises.



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
    "In a 1945 state department survey on the US public's attitudes to its wartime allies, Britain was one of the least trusted countries," says Dr Clavin.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml
    Hard luck story
    We all know the easy British explanation for our cumulative export defeat in world markets from the 1950s onwards, especially at the hands of the Germans. This story tells us that lucky West Germany had all her industries and infrastructure bombed flat or removed as reparations, and then was able to re-equip herself from scratch with Marshall Aid dollars. Meanwhile, so this hard-luck story goes on, poor old Britain had to struggle on with worn-out and old-fashioned kit.
    This is utter myth. Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation. The truth is that the post-war Labour Government, advised by its resident economic pundits, freely chose not to make industrial modernisation the central theme in her use of Marshall Aid.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_02.shtml
    Nonetheless, John Maynard Keynes, the chief economic advisor to the new Labour Government, warned ministers in August 1945 that Britain’s world role was a burden which ‘… there is no reasonable expectation of our being able to carry ...’
    As he pointed out, the entire British war effort, including all her overseas military commitments, had only been made possible by American subsidies under the Lend-Lease programme. If the Americans stopped Lend-Lease, Britain would face a ‘financial Dunkirk’ - his words - unless Washington could be touched for a loan of $5 billion. Keynes wrote that such a ‘Dunkirk’ would have to be met by:
    '… a sudden and humiliating withdrawal from our onerous responsibilities with great loss of prestige and the acceptance for the time being of the position of second-class Power, rather like the present position of France.'



    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_06.shtml
    "The sad irony is that it had been in vain that the Labour Government had sacrificed the modernisation of Britain as an industrial country for the sake of using Marshall Aid to support a world power role - strategic and financial."


    Britain/UK or whatever you want to call yourselves pissed away all monies. No conspiracy, No "The Joos" did it. The Marshall Plan money was WASTED by your government. You NEVER had to pay for Lend-Lease. (Lend-Lease: the UK leasing land for US forces to fight from during WWII. The UK recieving food, fuel, and war materials in exchange.).

    That is It

    End of Story

    Accept it

    I'm truly sorry if anyone is offended, but this "We were Screwed" after WWII is total B*llSh*t.

    It is based upon a virulent form of bigotry many Europeans have, but which the British excel. i.e. All former colonials are inferior in all ways for perpituity.
     
  12. Erm...and your point is? Are you trying to tell us they aren't?
     
  13. If he knows he's not inferior then it wouldn't upset him. As it upsets him so much to use underlining he clearly has a self-esteem problem.

    Personally, I think he is being a bit harsh on himself. I doubt he is inferior 'in all ways' - some of these foreign types can play a jaunty tune, or cook quite interesting dishes (best to avoid unwashed salads, mind).