View Full Version : Mortgaged to the Yanks
Any one else watching the details of how the US manouvered Britain into taking on most if not all of the burden for the cost of the WW2 on channel 4 today (Saturday 14th April)?
Britain takes on the cost, Europe gets the grants and the US becomes a superpower at the expense of Britain - they did well.
I'm more of an ITV/BBC 1 man myself. I do watch a little Channel 4 though. Time team is my favorite. I even suggested that they excavated the Duke of Kent's crash site to square up a couple of anomolies/conspiracy theories with that case.
As for BBC 2, I rarely watch it.
j4bberw0ck
14-Apr-07, 23:57
and the US becomes a superpower at the expense of Britain - they did well.
And of course you believe this :lol::lol: Like they wouldn't have been the superpower anyway? And perhaps they orchestrated the whole thing, so that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia as part of an American plot to persuade Britain to declare war so they could profit from it?
j4bberw0ck
15-Apr-07, 00:41
I suppose the programme didn't mention that if Roosevelt hadn't personally intervened to get arms, ammunition, food and machinery supplied to the UK, we would have lost the war in 1940? (That was Churchill's belief, by the way). And if they hadn't entered the war in 1941 on our side, we would have lost the war in 1941? (That too was Churchill's belief).
There seems to be a fashion just now of re-writing history in TV programs. Perhaps it's to do with advertising revenues.
There was an interesting progrvamme on Radio 4 the other day; when Britain went to war with Argentina, Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger personally saw to it that Britain had anything we needed in terms of arms and ammunition despite the US being officially neutral. Without that we couldn't have won.
Not the first time, and not I imagine the last, that the US has pulled our under-funded, and under-resourced, nuts out of the fire.
Of course, there were those countries who signed secret peace pacts during WW2 the hope that we would lose. When that little scam failed they screamed that we were not doing enough to help them and demanded we supply them with arms and supplies for free whilst they kept the extent of their own armaments hidden and protected.
There are those who still cannot stomach the fact that a Country who behaved in that despicable way didn't succeed in their efforts and live in the hope that it can rise up and eventually control the World.
There are those who would like to make us believe that our friends are really our enemy, that we have failed at everything and that we have done nothing but evil in the world throughout our history.
They call themselves "Revisionists" which is a euphemism to cover up that they are really doing which is perverting the truth to support their own particular beliefs and aims.
Once you understand what they are doing they become quite entertaining and very difficult to take at all seriously.
Anybody know what is happening in the Chess World? I believe Garry Kasparov is in the news again for some reason or other.
cliffhbuber
15-Apr-07, 04:41
"how the US manouvered Britain into taking on most if not all of the burden for the cost of the WW2 ..."
No doubt there was profiteering from the war industry with the many contracts the US had to supply Britain.
Not many would recall that Canada wrote off the UK debt from the foodstuffs and other necessitites supplied to Britain during the war....to the tune of over 600 million pounds in 1945 currency.
And of course you believe this :lol::lol: Like they wouldn't have been the superpower anyway? And perhaps they orchestrated the whole thing, so that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia as part of an American plot to persuade Britain to declare war so they could profit from it?
Do you have an alter ego called Fred?
See there you go jumping to your own preconceived notions. Resorting to a personal slag of "Do you have an alter ego called Fred?" - Pathetic.
I suppose the programme didn't mention that if Roosevelt hadn't personally intervened to get arms, ammunition, food and machinery supplied to the UK, we would have lost the war in 1940? (That was Churchill's belief, by the way). And if they hadn't entered the war in 1941 on our side, we would have lost the war in 1941? (That too was Churchill's belief).
There seems to be a fashion just now of re-writing history in TV programs. Perhaps it's to do with advertising revenues.
There was an interesting progrvamme on Radio 4 the other day; when Britain went to war with Argentina, Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger personally saw to it that Britain had anything we needed in terms of arms and ammunition despite the US being officially neutral. Without that we couldn't have won.
Not the first time, and not I imagine the last, that the US has pulled our under-funded, and under-resourced, nuts out of the fire.
Much better at least you are talking about the issues here.
I and the show were both aware of the help Britain received from the US. The focus was the war debt that left Britain much worse off financially than other countries in the period after the war. It was not so much that the US gained, but that Britain lost a lot of power because of it.
Of course, there were those countries who signed secret peace pacts during WW2 the hope that we would lose. When that little scam failed they screamed that we were not doing enough to help them and demanded we supply them with arms and supplies for free whilst they kept the extent of their own armaments hidden and protected.
There are those who still cannot stomach the fact that a Country who behaved in that despicable way didn't succeed in their efforts and live in the hope that it can rise up and eventually control the World.
There are those who would like to make us believe that our friends are really our enemy, that we have failed at everything and that we have done nothing but evil in the world throughout our history.
They call themselves "Revisionists" which is a euphemism to cover up that they are really doing which is perverting the truth to support their own particular beliefs and aims.
Once you understand what they are doing they become quite entertaining and very difficult to take at all seriously.
Anybody know what is happening in the Chess World? I believe Garry Kasparov is in the news again for some reason or other.
Interesting post has nothing to do with the title of the thread.
And of course you believe this :lol::lol: Like they wouldn't have been the superpower anyway? And perhaps they orchestrated the whole thing, so that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia as part of an American plot to persuade Britain to declare war so they could profit from it?
There is a theory that the Queen is still in charge over there in the US. Bush can trace his royal blood back to God knows when. And the UK pretended to lose the 1812 war as conventional history clearly shows that the UK had a harder job to lose it than to win it.
Bush always looks humbled in front of the Boss at State dinners, the special relationship, Churchill's royal connections, the US always comes to the Uk's aid in times of strife, Edward VIII lived in the US after abdication, US bases on UK soil, Brits leading the Manhatten project, land/lease, US towns and states still named after British royalty, etc etc. Put it all together and you can make a case that it is the UK in charge.
"how the US manouvered Britain into taking on most if not all of the burden for the cost of the WW2 ..."
No doubt there was profiteering from the war industry with the many contracts the US had to supply Britain.
Not many would recall that Canada wrote off the UK debt from the foodstuffs and other necessitites supplied to Britain during the war....to the tune of over 600 million pounds in 1945 currency.
Thanks for that one cliff.
j4bberw0ck
15-Apr-07, 10:37
See there you go jumping to your own preconceived notions. Pathetic.
Tetchy this morning, Tristan? Alka-Seltzer always used to work quite well :lol: . It may even restore your sense of humour.
Much better at least you are talking about the issues here.
Oh thank you! Imagine my relief. :lol:
I and the show were both aware of the help Britain received from the US. The focus was the war debt that left Britain much worse off financially than other countries in the period after the war. It was not so much that the US gained, but that Britain lost a lot of power because of it.
There's a saying that covers it rather nicely: "All's fair in love and war". You might argue that the fact the UK lost out financially is Germany's fault for starting it all in the first place, which is what caused the UK to respond, and nothing at all to do with America. Then, after the event, we paid the price for declaring war. There's no insurance fund to compensate countries. Brown malodorous stuff happens.
Is it not the Warsaw Convention that requires victorious aggressor countries to finance the rebuilding of those who lost and were destroyed? Since we were on the winning side, we didn't qualify for help and when you think about it that's exactly the way it should be, otherwise there's be no economic barrier to going to war - countries might contemplate invading next door to get financial help after the event whether they won or lost.
I think it's just a very, very good job that America's there - warts and all. If you want the US to bail us out every time, financially as well as militarily, then let's all make a formal request to be accepted as the 51st State.....
Infinitely preferable to being a member of the sclerotic and impotent EU.
"how the US manouvered Britain into taking on most if not all of the burden for the cost of the WW2 ..."
No doubt there was profiteering from the war industry with the many contracts the US had to supply Britain.
Not many would recall that Canada wrote off the UK debt from the foodstuffs and other necessitites supplied to Britain during the war....to the tune of over 600 million pounds in 1945 currency.
Well said Cliff....I'm sure a lot of us don't think about this -if we knew it in the first place....and (going a little off topic) I suspect we also under-estimate the very significant contribution of the Canadian soldiers in WW1.:(
j4bberw0ck
15-Apr-07, 10:44
Put it all together and you can make a case that it is the UK in charge.
Absolutely, Rheggers. I've often argued that the earthworm is in fact cunningly in charge of the mole when the mole eats it. It's a little known fact that earthworms are infinitely cleverer and more devious than moles, and once eaten by the unsuspecting lawn-wrecker, they slip easily into the driver's seat et voila! There you have it. Warmth, comfort and personal transport for life.
Just thank your lucky stars that earthworms aren't even cleverer and about 4 feet long. The job of being a human might never be the same again, and sure as sure you'd think twice before sitting down on a grassy hillside on a summers day :lol::lol:
j4bberw0ck
15-Apr-07, 10:54
I suspect we also under-estimate the very significant contribution of the Canadian soldiers in WW1.:(
When I was away last year on the bike I spent quite a lot of time in France and Belgium visiting WW1 sites and cemeteries while I traced my grandfather's war around Arras, Ypres, the Ypres Salient, and Kemmel. It's a quick way of getting a reality check on the numbers of Commonwealth soldiers who died.
Well said Cliff....I'm sure a lot of us don't think about this -if we knew it in the first place....and (going a little off topic) I suspect we also under-estimate the very significant contribution of the Canadian soldiers in WW1.:(
Since the thread has been taken off course anyway...
Vimy ridge was one of those milestone moments in Canadian military history and an important battle for the Allies (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=feature/vimy90&CFID=13786881&CFTOKEN=79936194). It was the first time the Canadians had come together to fight as a Canadian Corps.
No doubt there was profiteering from the war industry with the many contracts the US had to supply Britain.
Oh there was, in WWII the American economy grew faster than at any other time in history.
But it wasn't just contracts with Britain they profited from, fortunes were made from supplying Germany as well, not least the fortunes made by Prescot Bush and George Walker, George Bush's grandfather and greatgrandfather. Let's not forget the bank they founded, the Union Banking Corporation of New York, among other things owned a third share in Auschwitz. Let's not forget that many of the bullets which killed British soldiers, the bombs which fell on British cities, were paid for with American money.
Not much has changed and the Bush family, Neil, Jeb, George Snr, Marvin, and George Jnr, are all making fortunes from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I was away last year on the bike I spent quite a lot of time in France and Belgium visiting WW1 sites and cemeteries while I traced my grandfather's war around Arras, Ypres, the Ypres Salient, and Kemmel. It's a quick way of getting a reality check on the numbers of Commonwealth soldiers who died.
My daughter went on a "history" school trip aged 13, to the Commonwealth War Graves in France & Belgium...and has certainly never forgotten the experience.
Working on my family history, I've found that my great-uncle's son (gt uncle emigrated to Canada late 19th century) joined the Expeditionary Force in 1916 -I've found his attestation papers but haven't so far been able to discover what happened to him.
Yes - I have taken the thread sideways -but I sometimes feel that our Canadian Orgers may think we've forgotten, or perhaps never knew, how much Canadians did for us in the 2oth Century!
There was an interesting progrvamme on Radio 4 the other day; when Britain went to war with Argentina, Secretary of Defence Caspar Weinberger personally saw to it that Britain had anything we needed in terms of arms and ammunition despite the US being officially neutral. Without that we couldn't have won.
Not the first time, and not I imagine the last, that the US has pulled our under-funded, and under-resourced, nuts out of the fire.
Like Suez you mean?
America got the countries of the Empire opened up to American trade and oil traded in dollars out of the deal, the dollar became the worlds researve currency. They have had an enourmous return on their investment, it is still worth billions of dollars a year to them.
My daughter went on a "history" school trip aged 13, to the Commonwealth War Graves in France & Belgium...and has certainly never forgotten the experience.
Working on my family history, I've found that my great-uncle's son (gt uncle emigrated to Canada late 19th century) joined the Expeditionary Force in 1916 -I've found his attestation papers but haven't so far been able to discover what happened to him.
Yes - I have taken the thread sideways -but I sometimes feel that our Canadian Orgers may think we've forgotten, or perhaps never knew, how much Canadians did for us in the 2oth Century!
Others took it off course long before you brought up Canada's involvement in the war.
As for your gt-uncle's son have you checked some of the Canadian Government sites. They have some very good sections on Canada's involvement, and what happened to Canadians during the war.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/
As for your gt-uncle's son have you checked some of the Canadian Government sites. They have some very good sections on Canada's involvement, and what happened to Canadians during the war.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/
I have been using Canadian sites and found him (Sinclair Mowat) at the 1901 and 1911 Vancouver census, then found his signing-up papers (1916, when he was aged 18).
He hasn't appeared in the listing of WW1 Commonwealth war dead....and I believe I might be able to get a copy of his service records which should tell me a bit more.
Thanks a lot for this link though, Tristan -not one I'd found before, and may well help:)
Tetchy this morning, Tristan? Alka-Seltzer always used to work quite well :lol: . It may even restore your sense of humour.
Not at all just find post that try and belittle and make fun of people tiresome.
Britain has now paid back all her debts to the US, France, Germany etc has yet to honour theirs. :mad: No wonder they have done better than us in the post war era.
Like Suez you mean?
I can't believe I am doing this! Fred, I have to agree with you. The US really stabbed Britian in the back.
Oh there was, in WWII the American economy grew faster than at any other time in history.
Could not last long could it?
Thats a bit simplistic Fred, Whilst you are correct about the rate of expansion regarding the US economy during the war years, to compare this to both pre and post war economies is not as simple as you are making out.
Britain has now paid back all her debts to the US, France, Germany etc has yet to honour theirs. :mad: No wonder they have done better than us in the post war era.
That is one of the points I was hoping would be brought up in this thread.
I know Britain was saddled with a proportion of the cost that we have just paid off.
Were France and some of the other European counties involved in that debt or were they offered grants?
I am not sure but my understanding was they were offered grants (as I believe was Britain) at a later stage but Britain was the only European country that the US had take on the debt.
Like Suez you mean?
The US wanted to clip the wings of UK colonial power. Do you agree we had too many fingers in too many third world pies?
The US wanted to clip the wings of UK colonial power. Do you agree we had too many fingers in too many third world pies?
Bit more to it than that.
If my memory serves me correctly, Nasser had nationalised the Suez Canal to finance the Aswan High Dam construction.
This had caused the US and UK to withdraw finance that had been promised for the project and the USSR had offered Nasser the money.
Eisenhower did not want Soviet influence in the area.
Later, Eisenhower admitted that not supporting Britian had been his greatest foreign policy mistake. Nasser was a hero for arab nationalism, and with the US support for Isreal, the arab nations were only going to gravitate towards the Soviets.
As for the British Empire, the writing was already on the wall since WWII, but this just increased the rate at which countries were given independence. In many cases this led to years of conflict and corruption which could possibly have been avioded if a slower transition to independence had been made.
Interesting post has nothing to do with the title of the thread.No, but it revolves around the same thing. Sorry if I don't simply subscribe to the "Everybody is wonderful except America!" Syndrome you and others seem stuck with.
America provided us with a lot more things than we paid for. Unlike certain other Countries we repay our debts. Apart from the Commonwealth Countries, how many other Countries offered us assistance with materials to protect ourselves?
You are simply examining the one small part of the whole picture because it suits your own particular point of view. Saying that examining the rest of the painting is taking the subject off course is a very weak tactic.
All it indicates is that people should only examine the small detail that suits your purpose and ignore anything which doesn't.
How many Countries offered to recompense us for the losses we sustained by fighting on to protect them and ensure they eventually regained their freedom?
sweetheart
15-Apr-07, 23:48
The natural result of a deal you can't refuse, but a hard bargain, is resentment if you bring it up and think about it all the time... so why bring it
up? In the inter-imperial politics of empire belly bumping, it was par for the
course. The editors brought it up to shove a wedge in to the atlantic, and
to get some lad to toss a rock at the US embassy deniably.
The media are helping the population towards a more anti-american viewpoint,
perhaps in preparation for a wider atlantic, clearly in preparation for that,
and the latest rhetoric reminds us of why.
Who gives a toss what happened, its over and done with, bargained and paid
for, why discuss this now, after so many years?
Those voles, commanded by earthworms are gathering en-masse at night,
and towing highland coos on to the roads. Good thing earthworms are small!
The natural result of a deal you can't refuse, but a hard bargain, is resentment if you bring it up and think about it all the time... so why bring it up? In the inter-imperial politics of empire belly bumping, it was par for the course. The editors brought it up to shove a wedge in to the atlantic, and to get some lad to toss a rock at the US embassy deniably.
Did you know that we had food rationing in the UK until 1954, when the rationing of meat finally eneded? Some foods such as bread and potatoes which wern't rationed during the war had to be rationed after the war.
It wasn't just politics, it was real people making real sacrifices.
Boozeburglar
16-Apr-07, 01:15
Just as the real people in Iraq are being sacrificed.
Jeemag_USA
16-Apr-07, 02:49
The natural result of a deal you can't refuse, but a hard bargain, is resentment if you bring it up and think about it all the time... so why bring it
up? In the inter-imperial politics of empire belly bumping, it was par for the
course. The editors brought it up to shove a wedge in to the atlantic, and
to get some lad to toss a rock at the US embassy deniably.
The media are helping the population towards a more anti-american viewpoint,
perhaps in preparation for a wider atlantic, clearly in preparation for that,
and the latest rhetoric reminds us of why.
Who gives a toss what happened, its over and done with, bargained and paid
for, why discuss this now, after so many years?
Those voles, commanded by earthworms are gathering en-masse at night,
and towing highland coos on to the roads. Good thing earthworms are small!
It was brought up because the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thread was getting old and worn out and something new was needed for the resident political experts to do battle with [lol]
Earthworms voleback riding, thats a cracking thought!
Did you know that we had food rationing in the UK until 1954, when the rationing of meat finally eneded? Some foods such as bread and potatoes which wern't rationed during the war had to be rationed after the war.
It wasn't just politics, it was real people making real sacrifices.Do you remember Ration Books, fred? I do and the length of time Rationing lasted had more to do with our own incompetent Government, which was incapable of getting it's own act together after the War, than anything to do with America or any other Country for that matter.
Jeemag, I agree with you, the Thread was simply started for no other reason that the two previous ones were running out of "Lets bash America" steam.
I've been hearing the same tripe since "I like Ike" was President and old Nikkita was busy denouncing Stalin.
Despite the fact that the record had been "Digitally Re-Mastered" you can still hear the scratches from the worn out "Original Version".
It didn't make the Top 100 the first time round but they keep re-releasing it in the hope that somebody, anybody, will be silly enough to buy it!
There's more chance of Vera Lynn reaching the Top of the Pops before this propaganda ever will.
All together now, one, two, three, "There'll be Bluebirds over ......!" Heaven help us, that does bring back memories!
"Wot! No bananas?"
No, but it revolves around the same thing. Sorry if I don't simply subscribe to the "Everybody is wonderful except America!" Syndrome you and others seem stuck with.
I was never trying to do that. I was simply trying to look at an aspect of history that others in this thread are starting to engage in.
America provided us with a lot more things than we paid for. Unlike certain other Countries we repay our debts. Apart from the Commonwealth Countries, how many other Countries offered us assistance with materials to protect ourselves?
That is a large number of countries.
You are simply examining the one small part of the whole picture because it suits your own particular point of view. Saying that examining the rest of the painting is taking the subject off course is a very weak tactic.
All it indicates is that people should only examine the small detail that suits your purpose and ignore anything which doesn't.
How many Countries offered to recompense us for the losses we sustained by fighting on to protect them and ensure they eventually regained their freedom?
I have no problem bringing other details that are relevant like you just have. Your other post which tried to take us down that same old "wave the American flag route and if you don't you are an aniti-american conspericiy theroist...no I am not ....you are ....route" which was getting everyone no-where.
Do you remember Ration Books, fred? I do and the length of time Rationing lasted had more to do with our own incompetent Government, which was incapable of getting it's own act together after the War, than anything to do with America or any other Country for that matter.
So you don't think it is possible that the impact of the war, increased debt and the loss of the pound as the standard currency could have contributed in any way?
Jeemag, I agree with you, the Thread was simply started for no other reason that the two previous ones were running out of "Lets bash America" steam.
If you would like to go down that "Lets bash America" vs America is the best country ever that never makes a mistake route, you could always start your own thread.
Britain was worse of at the end of the war and even now compared to the States and elsewhere things are much more expensive here. Although our standard of living is good it is not as good as other English speaking countries. Whether that has to do with poor government as you suggest or other factors like the debt is open for discussion.
Just as the real people in Iraq are being sacrificed.
Yes the people of Iraq are making a lot of sacrifices for very much the same reasons.
Iraq should be a very wealthy country with its vast oil wealth but during the invasion America deliberately and unneccessarily destroyed their infrastructure, the troops guarded oilwells while Baghdad was left to anarchy with wholesale looting. Then $21 billion dollars of frozen Iraqi assets being held by the UN was handed over to America who somehow lost it. The result of this was that Iraq had to borrow money from the World Bank and the loans, just as with Britain after the war, came with conditions, conditions Iraq had no option but to accept. Just as with Britain American corporations are making fortunes while Iraq will be kept poor. At the moment a country with enourmous wealth in natural resources is trying to borrow money from Japan, a country with little natural resources.
Into the fifth year and electricity is still rationed in Baghdad, the water is still unfit to drink, petrol and cooking oil in short supply, an average of 70 people a day killed and millions forced to leave their homes.
Yes those are real people making real sacrifices (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-16T000722Z_01_L15353217_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-REFUGEES-AMNESTY.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2) for the benefit of the rich people of America.
an average of 70 people a day killed.
It is about time you quoted figures which are closer to the truth instead of the daft 650,000 figure.
Blah blah blah...
Into the fifth year and electricity is still rationed in Baghdad, the water is still unfit to drink, petrol and cooking oil in short supply, an average of 70 people a day killed and millions forced to leave their homes.
...blah blah blah.
Oh, and I wonder why that is? Maybe it is them pesky insurgents/freedom fighters going around blowing electricity sub stations and power lines up and polluting the drinking water supplies and blowing up waterworks and roadside bombing fuel tankers and suicide bombing their fellow 'Arabs', people of the same race (and invariably religion as innocent Shi-ites/Sunnis get shredded along with their intended target) and actively ensuring that Iraq will take a long and bloody road to stability (if ever that word can be used to describe Iraq in the future), but oh no, it's the Yanks fault that all the woes fred describes exists today.....[lol]
Boozeburglar
16-Apr-07, 10:31
What exactly makes the 650000 figure so unbelievable? There seems to be widespread support for it, outside the organizations you would expect to deny the figure as they are still involved and it is bad propaganda.
What exactly makes the 650000 figure so unbelievable?
What makes it so believable? Try looking at the official UN figures.
Yes those are real people making real sacrifices (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-04-16T000722Z_01_L15353217_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-REFUGEES-AMNESTY.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-2) for the benefit of the rich people of America.
Yes, of course Fred, it really is the fault of the US isn't it.
The London-based human rights group called on the United States, the European Union and others to help Jordan and Syria, whose governments are struggling to care for some two million Iraqi refugees who have fled their homeland.
Another 1.9 million are displaced within Iraq, many in the past year marked by suicide bombings and sectarian violence.
Quoted from the link Fred posted.
Yes, those damn yanks, well known for suicide bombings and sectarian violence.
peter macdonald
16-Apr-07, 18:35
I suppose the programme didn't mention that if Roosevelt hadn't personally intervened to get arms, ammunition, food and machinery supplied to the UK, we would have lost the war in 1940? (That was Churchill's belief, by the way). And if they hadn't entered the war in 1941 on our side, we would have lost the war in 1941? (That too was Churchill's belief).
Very true JWok according to Alenbrookes War diaries that was indeed Churchills belief When Pres Trueman discontinued Lend lease on 19th August 1945 he had little comprehension what would happen in the UK ..Churchill had already told American bankers in 1944 that"there will be little for our soldiers to come home to " in other words the UK was bankrupt ! It had mobilised more fully than any country other than Germany and paid a heavy cost The question surely was why did Trueman end the agreement...the UK s 1945 election had returned a huge Labour majority under Atlee with a real Socialist program with the national health better housing but which also inluded Nationisations of the industrries that had been terribly battered in the war
years As could be expected this did not go down well in Washington and despite denials this was the real cause of the end of Lend lease 3 weeks after labour took office.. The government had featured such ministers such as Nye Bevan and Manny Shinwell both not known for American sympathies!!
regarding the Marshall plan I think the only non USSR sphered European country to not benefit was Finland they were told quietly to refuse the aid by Moscow
PM
j4bberw0ck
16-Apr-07, 19:06
Very true JWok according to Alenbrookes War diaries that was indeed Churchills belief
Thank you, Peter. There's an interesting paper >>>here<<< (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/papers/twoworldwars.pdf) about the economic background to the two world wars which I've been sweating my way through as time allows (some of it's a bit heavy), and the author is quoted >>>here, in a BBC newspiece<<< (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/papers/twoworldwars.pdf) making some interesting comments about the real cost of the US assistance to the UK; comments like:
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
Other interesting snippets:
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme (Lend-Lease). 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. (my bold)
and:
the terms of the loan were extremely generous, with a fixed interest rate of 2% making it considerably less terrifying than a typical mortgage.
Finland gets a mention in the BBC article, too - right at the end. But the overall picture which emerges from the BBC piece and from the academic paper is hardly that of America as a rapacious, greedy, self-centred usurer that Tristram seems to have bought into. Though as we keep seeing in here, for some, America is just too tempting a target to resist.
I'm just glad that so far, they've been on our side. Warts and all.
Yes, of course Fred, it really is the fault of the US isn't it.
Yes, those damn yanks, well known for suicide bombings and sectarian violence.
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq till we invaded, Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East.
It's bad enough our killing so many people with our illegal invasion but to then try and blame it all on the Iraqi people is just adding insult to injury.
I raised a question and am getting some answers.
A bit confused by your post, one part says "In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," You then quote the broken lend/loan agreement where Britain would be responsible for 1/10 of the cost of remaining equipment, then you go on to mention how good the mortgage was after the loan.
Three distinct points all of which raise a lot of questions about what went on, and its effect on Britain. I understand the point of the article that by today's standard the effect now is not a lot, but at the time I think it would have been catastrophic for Britain.
If you want to continue to put blinkers on and see this thread as a view of "America as a rapacious, greedy, self-centred usurer that [Tristan] seems to have bought into." rather than engaging in debate and a chance to share insight and information into a very interesting part of Britain's history I, and I would guess most people, would find that very boring.
The big question for me is why america broke the initial agreement and demanded the world currency move from British Pounds to US dollars. I think because of that they made a lot more than they ever would have over the dept.
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq till we invaded, Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East.
It's bad enough our killing so many people with our illegal invasion but to then try and blame it all on the Iraqi people is just adding insult to injury.
You reckon Fred? I would say that may be Lebanon or perhaps (believe it or not) Syria.
You reckon Fred? I would say that may be Lebanon or perhaps (believe it or not) Syria.
Well I bow to your infinite wisdom but the fact remains it was still far from sectarian.
I suppose the programme didn't mention that if Roosevelt hadn't personally intervened to get arms, ammunition, food and machinery supplied to the UK, we would have lost the war in 1940? (That was Churchill's belief, by the way). And if they hadn't entered the war in 1941 on our side, we would have lost the war in 1941? (That too was Churchill's belief).
Everyone asks "what if they hadn't arrived?" when the question should be "what if they hadn't arrived two years late?"
America didn't decide to join the war, Germany declared war on America. There were plenty in the American government would have been happy to see Hitler win, his beliefs were closer to theirs than ours were, America was still an apatheid state at the time, would be for another 23 years.
“America can always be relied upon to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else”
Winston Churchill
Everyone asks "what if they hadn't arrived?" when the question should be "what if they hadn't arrived two years late?"
Laff (off topic but) I have heard more than one person say we should have joined into the gulf war as fast as the US joined WW2.
There had never been a suicide bombing in Iraq till we invaded, Iraq was the most secular country in the Middle East.
It's bad enough our killing so many people with our illegal invasion but to then try and blame it all on the Iraqi people is just adding insult to injury.
I did not say that all the blame lay with the Iraqi people, but likewise I do not believe that the blame lies with the US.
There are plenty of contries that have a hand in the mess that is Iraq - and you don't have to look that far beyond its borders.
To harp on about the US is to blame for this and the US is to blame for that seems to be the in thing to do - do you honestly think that Iran and Syria are innocent in all this?
Everyone asks "what if they hadn't arrived?" when the question should be "what if they hadn't arrived two years late?"
America didn't decide to join the war, Germany declared war on America. There were plenty in the American government would have been happy to see Hitler win, his beliefs were closer to theirs than ours were, America was still an apatheid state at the time, would be for another 23 years.
Before America entered the war, it was democratic and isolationist, at the same time Germany was a dictatorship and invading every country under the Sun, I don't think similarities between the US and Germany actually stand up.
peter macdonald
16-Apr-07, 22:02
The first time Americans engaged in hostile action after September 1, 1939 was on April 10, 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat that had just sunk a Dutch freighter. The Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected the U-boat preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties onboard the Niblack nor the U-boat
"America didn't decide to join the war, Germany declared war on America. There were plenty in the American government would have been happy to see Hitler win, his beliefs were closer to theirs than ours were, America was still an apatheid state at the time, would be for another 23 years."
Im not sure the USA,s very sizable Jewish community would agree with that comment After all the USA did try to give Jewish refugees a home unlike the UK who basically shut their eyes to the problem
yes there were many in the government who disagreed with the war but this consisted of mainly honest isolationists who did not fancy getting dragged into a repeat of WW1 The other sizable chunk were of Irish decent ...Why did Roosevelt join the war?? After the Rueben James incident he basically had no choice politically but Roosevelt has been a mystery to trouble a lot better historians than ever i will be
You should also say that there were a lot of the UK and French upper classes who also wanted Hitler to win to treat the working class chappies a lesson (was there not some royals who ended up in Bermuda as governor because of their "opinions"??)
PM
ps "America was still an apatheid state at the time, would be for another 23 years." Very true and the UK put up signs saying "No Irish" and in other parts of the country catholics couldnt get a job, a decent house etc etc You have got to remember Fred civil rights marches happened on both sides of the Atlantic
I just knew this thread would end up to be another US bashing thread. I think that was the thread starter's intention.
I just knew this thread would end up to be another US bashing thread. I think that was the thread starter's intention.
Interesting that you would say that even though I have asked those who have tried to start this US bashing/conspiracy idea not to, and even gone so far as to start a US in Iraq thread so that can be debated there. It does help to read the posts...shrug.
Everyone asks "what if they hadn't arrived?" when the question should be "what if they hadn't arrived two years late?"
Just be thankful that they did, or at the least all of mainland Europe would be speaking German - no Fred, not Russian before you say it.
America didn't decide to join the war, Germany declared war on America.
True, but the US were alreasy activly involved in the war, the atlantic convoys for example.
There were plenty in the American government would have been happy to see Hitler win, his beliefs were closer to theirs than ours were,
Not sure about that, there were plenty that did not want to join the war.
America was still an apatheid state at the time, would be for another 23 years.
Cant argue with that point, however WWII did speed up the integration of the US military.
j4bberw0ck
16-Apr-07, 23:12
A bit confused by your post, one part says "In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," You then quote the broken lend/loan agreement where Britain would be responsible for 1/10 of the cost of remaining equipment, then you go on to mention how good the mortgage was after the loan.
No, Tristan, if you go back and read very carefully, I quoted an economist with apparently, some expertise on the topic - this,would tend on the face of it to distinguish him from you. There appears to be an argument for the US offering reasonable terms to the UK during WW2, is the gist of it.
but at the time I think it would have been catastrophic for Britain.
Can you expand on the reasons why you think it was catastrophic for Britain? As in the reasoning, not a qualitative judgement on the result?
If you want to continue to put blinkers on and see this thread as a view of "America as a rapacious, greedy, self-centred usurer that [Tristan] seems to have bought into." rather than engaging in debate and a chance to share insight and information into a very interesting part of Britain's history I, and I would guess most people, would find that very boring.
I don't think it's me wearing blinkers, but I expect you to disagree. I think you've seen a one hour (or less) documentary-with-an-agenda and now you're an expert; I claim no expertise other than a fair-to-middling acquaintance with economics and a passionate interest in that, and history. As to what you find boring......... well, I can't hold myself responsible for your attention span :lol: .
The big question for me is why america broke the initial agreement and demanded the world currency move from British Pounds to US dollars. I think because of that they made a lot more than they ever would have over the dept.
You mean "debt". And what agreement on dominance of the UK pound did America break? One possible explanation, I suppose, is that the UK parted with the Gold Standard in 1931, and the US in 1933 (one of the benefits of an interest in economics is understanding some of the significance of such an act).
After the gold standard was abandoned the US economy motored on in a way which dwarfed the UK's and so the adoption of the US dollar as the world benchmark became inevitable - before WW2, not after it. After WW2 you wouldn't have peed on a pound note had it been on fire. At Bretton Woods all that happened was that there was an acknowledgement that the US economy and so the dollar, dominated the world economy. That's all - nothing special. It was an acceptance of the truth.
I presume that's what you're driving at, anyway.........
No, Tristan, if you go back and read very carefully, I quoted an economist with apparently, some expertise on the topic - this,would tend on the face of it to distinguish him from you. There appears to be an argument for the US offering reasonable terms to the UK during WW2, is the gist of it.
Can you expand on the reasons why you think it was catastrophic for Britain? As in the reasoning, not a qualitative judgement on the result?
I don't think it's me wearing blinkers, but I expect you to disagree. I think you've seen a one hour (or less) documentary-with-an-agenda and now you're an expert; I claim no expertise other than a fair-to-middling acquaintance with economics and a passionate interest in that, and history. As to what you find boring......... well, I can't hold myself responsible for your attention span :lol: .
You mean "debt". And what agreement on dominance of the UK pound did America break? One possible explanation, I suppose, is that the UK parted with the Gold Standard in 1931, and the US in 1933 (one of the benefits of an interest in economics is understanding some of the significance of such an act).
After the gold standard was abandoned the US economy motored on in a way which dwarfed the UK's and so the adoption of the US dollar as the world benchmark became inevitable - before WW2, not after it. After WW2 you wouldn't have peed on a pound note had it been on fire. At Bretton Woods all that happened was that there was an acknowledgement that the US economy and so the dollar, dominated the world economy. That's all - nothing special. It was an acceptance of the truth.
I presume that's what you're driving at, anyway.........
Yawn, read what is said not what you want.
Just be thankful that they did, or at the least all of mainland Europe would be speaking German - no Fred, not Russian before you say it. Speaking Russian? That’s why some people are so upset with America. They prevented the very thing they still wish for. They won’t be happy until we have to call each other “Comrade”!
Be careful who you upset quirbal or come the Revolution you'll be joining me in the Gulag. One thing is certain, I suspect I would much prefer the company there, I never did learn how to 'Tow the Party Line'!
America didn't decide to join the war, Germany declared war on America.Bit like the Russians in that case, weren’t they. But at least the Americans didn’t fall over themselves to cosy up to Hitler and sign a “Non-aggression Pact” and then collude with the Nazis in trying to totally eliminate certain European Countries and their populations on a permanent basis. But they failed with that also didnt they!
j4bberw0ck
16-Apr-07, 23:34
Yawn, read what is said not what you want.
I actually studied your post rather carefully....... but if you feel unable to respond to my questions, then I do understand. Goodnight! [lol]
Yawn, read what is said not what you want.It must have been caught off you and certain other people in that case! Oh, I forgot, if it's not anti-American then it's propaganda, a lie or a Conspiracy isn't it!
I actually studied your post rather carefully....... but if you feel unable to respond to my questions, then I do understand. Goodnight! [lol]
Not close enough it seems.
Britain did not fair as well after the war as many other countries. If that was because of US changing the terms, Britain taking on the debt, bad government or something else that is the question.
It must have been caught off you and certain other people in that case! Oh, I forgot, if it's not anti-American then it's propaganda, a lie or a Conspiracy isn't it!
Thats what you say.
The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest.
Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6215847.stm
It would appear that the vast sum we have paid to America over the 60 years since the end of WW2 amounts to a grand total of less than Four Billion pounds.
That is far less than half to amount London is to spend on providing one Sporting Event in 2012. Four times the cost of the Millennium Tent or seven times the cost of a certain building in Edinburgh.
The loans were at a fixed interest rate of 2%. You try getting a loan at 2% fixed interest for even a two year period, never mind a fifty year one, but don’t be offended when the people you ask fall about laughing.
In effect, by not paying the debt off before now we have been making money on the deal.
In 1945 the average house price was £500. Paying for it at the same rate the Loans off America were paid you would have paid back £1,000.
The average house price in 2006 was £200,000.
In other words you would have a would have a 200 thousand pound house which had cost you the grand total of one thousand pounds.
And that is a bad deal? Don’t you wish you could get one like that?
What is really interesting is that the US wrote off the post-war debt to all other countries except the UK. From 1946-2006, the US insisted the debt to be repaid(we didn't pay it to be honorable) including when Maggie was cuddling Ronnie...
Well I bow to your infinite wisdom but the fact remains it was still far from sectarian.
Not saying they were or not - just postulating.
At the end of the War America wrote off the debt for the materials which had been used during the War. The loan was for anything which was left at the end of the War which was still of use.
The materials were priced at a tenth of the production costs at an interest rate of two per cent. To use the average house price analogy I used earlier, for what is now a £200,000 home which would have been priced at £500 in 1945 then the price charged under the scheme would have been £50 and the total payments would be £100.
The fact that we only made the “Final Payment” on the debt last December is simply because nobody had thought it worthwhile to pay the debt off earlier rather than pretence that we were kept in penury all these years by the Americans.
The “Final Payment” was for about £45 million. For a comparison, the Annual Budget for the NHS amounts to over £65 billion (that's 65 billion, not million). NHS Highland alone has an Annual Budget of about eight times the amount of the “Final Payment” to America.
It would appear that both the Title of the Thread and the Initial Post are both highly prejudicial and highly misleading.
What is really interesting is that the US wrote off the post-war debt to all other countries except the UK. From 1946-2006, the US insisted the debt to be repaid(we didn't pay it to be honorable) including when Maggie was cuddling Ronnie...
That was my understanding as well and I am not sure why they did that if not in some way to weaken Britain economically.
I understand there was also a grant given to Europe (including Britain) at a later stage. I had heard that may have been in part to strengthen an alliance against Russia.
It would appear that both the Title of the Thread and the Initial Post are both highly prejudicial and highly misleading.
Checking the facts rather than what amounts to highly misleading “anti-American” propaganda, which is what the highly biased and twisted interpretation being presented at the start of this Thread is, gives a completely different picture.
Take it up with channel 4, that was the name of the show.
Whether channel 4 and the former ambassador to the US is right or wrong is open to debate and some people are engaging in that debate by presenting some interesting facts both for and against. To accuse channel 4, the former US Ambassador, myself and others who have a view different than yours of of spreading "highly misleading “anti-American” propaganda". Seems a bit much and could be seen as being slanderous.
According to the BBC link that was posted earlier
Britain owed to US in 1934: £866m
Adjusted by RPI to 2006: £40bn
Which is think is a substantial sum especially for a county trying to rebuild itself
We stopped paying that particular debt in 1934 and it would appear that nothing has been paid or asked for since then. The report also states that far more than that is actually owed to us as a result of the same cause, ie. World War 1.
Seeing you have obviously checked the report (Which was very difficult to find, I must admit, I Googled "World War Debt" and it was the first item) you will also have seen,
Britain owed to US in 1934: £866m. Adjusted by RPI to 2006: £40bn
Other nations owed Britain: £2.3bn. Adjusted by RPI to 2006: £104bn Those figures show that poor, down-trodden little Britain was due to make over two and a half times as much out of World War 1 than the Americans.
You seem to have forgotten to mention that small detail in your comment about that particular debt also or that we made a conscious choice to stop paying it off and that Americans have chosen to ignore us having done so.
How much are we going to make out of Iraq then?
We stopped paying that particular debt in 1934 and it would appear that nothing has been paid or asked for since then. The report also states that far more than that is actually owed to us as a result of the same cause, ie. World War 1.
Seeing you have obviously checked the report (Which was very difficult to find, I must admit, I Googled "World War Debt" and it was the first item) you will also have seen,
Those figures show that poor, down-trodden little Britain was due to make over two and a half times as much out of World War 1 than the Americans.
My mistake getting blurry eyed staring at the monitor :)
This is the quote I should have taken
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.
That $3,750m line of credit and the shift in the currency world standard may have been the final straw. It is still a lot of money to a country that was "By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced." especially as you argued the government of the day was "incompetent"
The article did also points out
Economist JM Keynes biographer, Lord Skidelsky, says: "Keynes wanted either a gift to cover Britain's post-war balance of payments, or an interest-free loan. The most important condition was sterling being made convertible [to dollars]. Everyone simply changed their pounds for dollars. [Loans were] eaten up by a flight from sterling. They then had to suspend convertibility. The terms were impossible to fulfil."
I would still love to know why as Rheghed said "What is really interesting is that the US wrote off the post-war debt to all other countries except the UK. From 1946-2006, the US insisted the debt to be repaid(we didn't pay it to be honorable) including when Maggie was cuddling Ronnie..." and why they put the other terms on the UK and not other countries.
How much are we going to make out of Iraq then?Sorry, didn't know the current situation in Iraq was given consideration in the late 1940s. I think another thread was started to to discuss that!
Tristan, I would assume because we were in a far better position than the other Countries in Europe who benefited under the Marshall Plan most of who had been under Nazi control for most of the War.
With respect to John Maynard Keynes, he was the advisor to the Post War Government who signed up to the loans.
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. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_02.shtml
Keynes wanted the loan but didn’t want to pay for it. Perhaps I can tap my Bank Manager up for a “free loan” with no strings, I wonder what the answer would be?
Not only that but Britain has agreed, along with over 40 other Countries, to hold it currency at the Pre-war Gold Standard and keep it within narrow margins which meant that the pound was massively overvalued.
Sir Stafford Cripps refused to devalue for three years. Seeing Governments see devaluation as some kind of failure somebody has to take the blame. In the late 1940s it was the nasty Americans. In the 1960s. Wilson blamed the "Gnomes of Zurich" and in the 1990s, Major blamed "Financial Speculators". None of them were going to tell the truth, "We refused to face the facts and made a complete mess of things!"
One of the first people to complain about American Aid to Britain and the Countries of Europe was Andrey Vyshinsky, the Soviet Ambassador in a speech to the United Nations in 1947. Since then, others have found it expedient to their own aims to perpetuate that claim.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.