It always amazes me that the US refuses to try to recover any of the money we unselfishly provided to the rest of the world in the way of material! The cold hard fact is that without American material, along with our entry into WW2, Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia and I believe we made a big mistake not taking advantage of the natural influence we could have wielded at the time and following the war!
Tell you what, we’ll do a deal. The British and Russians will pay back all the lend-lease, and in return you will execute a million or so young men to make up for those from Allied countries who died on your behalf in WW2. Sounds fair?
Well thats a load of bo**ocks, it might have taken longer but eventually the Russians would have beaten the Germans, also the Germans would never had invaded the UK the Royal Navy would have ensured that.
Poor effort. Show again.
Stifled laughter…:mrgreen:
Um, didn’t their British just get done paying their Lend Lease a couple of years back?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan#Repayment
Secondly, the markets created for U.S. goods and services after the War far exceeded whatever America provided for Lend Lease, or The Marshall Plan for that matter…
Mr. Texan, how do you know the U.S. hasn’t done that very thing? Far as I know the Germans have been paying back their debts to the U.S. and as Nick pointed out, the U.K. paid their last bit in April of 2006. The Russians, although they had no obligation to perfect Soviet debts after the collapse, paid off their debt in March of 2009.
To say that we did not exercise influence in Europe after the war ended is incorrect. It was the opinion of those in government at the time to keep resources in western Europe (to include monies owed the U.S. ) in order to stabilize the region politically, and economically, and prevent as much as possible the expansion of the Soviet Union. Well used, and considered influence if you ask me…
You really need to bring your A-game Mr. Texan, if you want to play hop-scotch here.
The United States did an awful lot of stuff to help the UK and the Soviets win the war, but none of it was done “unselfishly”. Every country in the world, throughout history, has always acted in it’s own interests; neither the UK, the Soviet Union, nor the United States was any different in this respect during WW II.
Whether Germany could have defeated the UK and Soviet Union, absent our entry into the war, is arguable. But if it had, the US would have been in a very difficult situation and it would have required far more in the way of sacrifice for the US to stave off defeat at Germany’s hands. Keeping the UK and the Soviet Union as viable combatants against Germany was in our vital interest.
Bit of a non sequitur there, old chap.
‘Money’ … ‘provided to the rest of the world in the way of material’?
Which was it? Money? Or material?
Anyway, when did the US ‘refuse to recover’ any of the money which it provided in the way of material?
Or perhaps materiel?
Anyway, old chap, and I know this will be profoundly disappointing to you, my country actually ended the war with a positive Lend-Lease balance for American money and or material or materiel sent down here. You had to pay us. That was very unselfish of you. We also made a profit out of Britain over the same period. I suppose that’s all partly because we’re a lot bigger than Texas, and able to produce a lot more materiel. Or material. And a bit of money, for us, as well.
Really?
Maybe it’s the shade from the wide-brimmed Stetsons, or the pressure on the brain from hat bands contracting in the heat, in Texas that obscures the fact that, long before America entered the war, Britain had defeated any German attempt to invade it and was, all by itself with its not inconsiderable Commonwealth countries, fighting the Nazis alone, and with some success, while the rest of the world stood by.
Umm, Germany started that enterprise long before America came into the war and didn’t do all that well, largely due to the resilience of the Soviets.
Also, and I hope you won’t mind me mentioning it, the Soviets belted the living bejasus out of the Germans in 1944-45 and also out of the Japanese in a couple of weeks at the end of that war.
While Allied, as distinct from exclusively American (the ships on the Murmansk run weren’t exclusively, or even largely, American) efforts undoubtedly helped the Soviets repulse the Nazis, you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Nazis could have got all the way to Vladivostok if the other Allies hadn’t provided any support.
Are you channelling Henry Ford?
Before the start of lend lease in 1941 British, French and other countries money had already paid for the expansion of US industry that was able to supply the lendlease materials you refer to. I am not totally sure of my figures but I believe before the start of hostilities US unemployment was still very high possibly up to 10 million unemployed if make work schemes werent included. The US ended the war with full employment and was the wealthiest county in the world by far whichever way you look at it total GDP or GDP per head.
Lend lease and Marshall aid werent charity it was hard headed pragmatism. Via lend lease the US was able to keep mainly Russia but also Britain fighting the axis without those two countries the US would have had to spill vast amounts of blood if they had tried to take on the Axis.
After the war the Marshall aid plan did its job of rebuilding shattered countries and almost certainly was the main reason that western europe did not fall under communist influence.
The US got great value for money from Lend Lease and Marshall Aid and the rest of the world can be truly thankful for it but it wasnt charity and the US at the time did not begrudge it.
While I certainly don’t subscribe to, nor share, Legal Texan’s ill-informed attitude, in the interest of fairness, I’m prompted to point out some relevant facts;
Nevertheless, it would be accurate to say that the Brits and their Commonwealth were desperate to get the United States actively involved in the war on their side. And this was after France and Britain failed, through neglect and serious error, to stop the rise of another European tyrant who caused that war.
Actually, the US entered the war against Germany, albeit in an undeclared manner, just three months after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. On September 1, 1941, Admiral King, as Commander of the US Atlantic Fleet issued the following order;
"MY INTERPRETATION OF THREAT TO UNITED STATES OR ICELAND FLAG SHIPPING WHETHER ESCORTED OR NOT, IS THAT THREAT EXISTS WHEN:
-
POTENTIALLY HOSTILE VESSELS ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN SIGHT OR SOUND CONTACT OF SUCH SHIPPING OR ITS ESCORT.
-
POTENTIALLY HOSTILE SURFACE RAIDERS APPROACH WITHIN 100 MILES OF SUCH SHIPPING, ALONG THE SEA LANES BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND ICELAND.
-
POTENTIALLY HOSTILE SURFACE RAIDERS OR SUBMARINES EITHER APPROACH WITHIN 100 MILES OF SUCH SHIPPING TRAVERSING ROUTES DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 3 (W) (5) BELOW, OR ENTER THE PROCLAIMED NEUTRALITY ZONE.
-
ANY POTENTIALLY HOSTILE FORCES APPROACH TO WITHIN FIFTY MILES OF ICELAND."
DESTROY HOSTILE FORCES THAT THREATEN SHIPPING NAMED IN (B) AND (C) ABOVE."
See;http://www.historyarticles.com/new_page_10.htm
Getting “all the way to Vladivostok” is a largely meaningless issue in this context. Moreover, the example of the “Murmansk run” is misleading since only about 25% of Lend-lease supplies were delivered to the Soviets over that route. Fully 50% of Lend-lease supplies were delivered to the Soviets through Siberian ports, and the ships that carried these supplies were overwhelmingly American-built. In addition, another 25% of Lend-lease aid to the Soviets traveled through Mid-eastern ports and slightly more than half of the ships involved in that effort were American-built.
In all seriousness, this topic makes me laugh.
More like 5-10 million.
Right. The second string isn’t going to cut it here. I wonder what we owe the British for radar? Or what we owe the British for “Tubular Alloys”, the English nuclear project before our own was off the ground? Oh yes, and for Fred Whittle’s jet engines we used in our experimental trials. If you think this was one way, think again.
On behalf of all Texans who didn’t fall asleep in history class, I humbly apologize.
Chill out, it was a passing troll who we only didn’t ban because we were having so much fun. Think of a cat playing with it’s food 
Good question. My answer would be “not much”.
The British continually bring up these technological issues, but I wonder precisely just what they were worth? Every item was already under development in the US. Moreover, the US was able to throw much more financial , industrial, and human resources into their development, which meant that they were available to combat forces far sooner than would have been the case had Britain kept them to herself.
One example is the proximity fuse; several countries, including the United States had been working on it for years, but no one had ever been able to produce a workable fuse for gun-launched projectiles due to the engineering problems involved. British engineers were ready to give up and passed the problem to the US; within a year proximity fuses for gun-launched projectiles were being manufactured and within 18 months, they were in mass production.
Well, for one the British development of the cavity magnetron allowed for a very useful radar unit that the U.S. was some time away from duplicating. although the U.S, did, and does possess a huge ability to develop technology, it was" 2 in the bush". The British had the “Bird in the hand” . Considering the importance of radar, there was no time to spend flushing those 2 from the bush.
sorry, but to my opinion you’re writing bool shit…
Germany invades Britain ?? rofl… Germany in Wladiswostok ? rofl…
i don’t have the writing talent others have on this forum, but i think you just wanna make us laugh ?? ok your turn …
Actually, the US was only about 6 months from the development of workable centemetric radar. Where it was most important was in the battle of the Atlantic and in that the British needed large numbers of radar sets far worse than the US. And the British were not in a position to be able to mass produce those radar sets in anywhere near the numbers needed.
So, turn the question around; What was it worth to Britain to turn the technological data over to the US? What could Britain do with it otherwise?
Tube Alloys? Nada
Gun-launched proximity fuses? Nada
Jet Engines? A little, but not nearly enough manufacturing resources and the US was right behind them.
Radar? A little, but again no mass production of the sets needed
6 months is an eternity in war. Not having an available technology when needed is a disaster. Even a day, or a week can be the difference between success, and catastrophe. Though Britain had far less in production capacity, they had what was needed, and the U.S. had the ability to produce em like popcorn. sounds like it was teamwork, not a question economic advantages. Thats just the way I see it, and only on the subject of radar.