Could Germany have won the war ?

I guess., jaw, you think this is some form of satisfactory response…

I quite agree that the items transferred by the British were useful in every respect. I would point out that pennicilin had been in service nearly a decade before WW2 and its anti-biotic effects were noted in the last part of the 19th century; nuclear science was not invented by the British and it wasn’t received by a scientific community in the US that had never heard of it either. There was a group of scientists working on it all over the country but they lacked the funding by the government until Tizard and Einstein lit a fire under Roosevelt. The first sustained nuclear reactor pile came into service at the University of Chicago under the direction of the Italian refugee nuclear scientist Enrico Fermi, supported by a large cast of characters. Sonar too was under active research here but I understand they were behind the British. Jet engine research in the US was considerably behind the English and didn’t catch up until 1945. I agree the proximity fuze was very valuable to us, especially in the Pacific. ULTRA was absolutely vital in the European war, as was the US breaking of Japanese codes in the Pacific.

Those precious gifts were gratefully received…
& If Hitler’d gottem instead?

My understanding was that we finally repaid it a couple of years ago. The interest rates and repayment terms were however extraordinarily generous, particularly considering that we probably couldn’t have even borrowed money on the capital markets at the time for any price.

Post war Britain needed even more money and was turned down by the US (Britain was crippled as an economy with rationing only ending in the late 50’s for the last items).

The interest rate was generous on the lend lease loans though and we finished paying it back about 8 years ago now I think.

One thing most people also forget (or do not know about) is the Destroyers for bases deal, the reverse Lend Lease (British Commonwealth countries supplied the US to offset the lend lease borrowing), Commonwealth countries loans to the UK (Canada was the biggest next to the US).

But wasn’t it a standard quip - that the only thing the U.S. charged in the first couple of years of both world wars…
… was interest on their war loans…

Well, we did arm and guard Australia for a while. Why all this mourning for the Poms?

No loans in the first couple of years of WW2 until the Lend Lease Act, it required a change in US law to give loans to beligerant Nations - before lend lease everything had to be paid for at market value.

The Destroyers for bases was a one off fudge around.

WW1 US bankers and companies loaned money and credit from 1915 onwards (not the US Government which was saying the loans and credit were against the spirit of neutrality), the loans and credit were also to the Central Powers although not as much as to the Triple Entente. US Government loans themselves started in 1917 with the US entry to the war.

[spoiler]

The outbreak of war in 1914 coincided with a recession in the United States. By 1915, American neutrality was being criticized as bankers and merchants began to loan money and offer credits to the warring parties, although the Central Powers received far less. Between 1915 and April 1917, the Allies received 85 times the amount loaned to Germany. This was good business for American enterprises, notably munitions and foodstuffs.

According to Harold Faulkner, [1] the total dollars loaned to all Allied borrowers during this period was 2,581,300,000. The scope of the loans was not unnoticed in early 1915 as Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan sent a letter to J. P. Morgan & Co., reminding that the policy of neutrality and private bank loans were “inconsistent with the true spirit of neutrality.” [2] Bryan also quipped that “money is the worst of all contrabands because it commands everything else.”

After the United States entered the war, the government itself kept the Allies afloat with loans, financed partially through the sale of war bonds. Barbara Tuchman, in The Guns of August, writes that, “Eventually, the United States became the larder, arsenal, and bank of the Allies and acquired a direct interest in Allied victory that was to bemuse the postwar apostles of economic determinism for a long time.” [3]

The Nye Report of 1936

It was precisely this postwar view that influenced Senator Gerald Nye’s report on US neutrality in World War I and the role of war debt as a factor in declaring war. Speaking in the Senate in July 1939, Nye reiterated that: “No member of the Munitions Committee…has ever contended that it was munitions makers that took us to war. But that committee and its members have said again and again, that it was war trade and the war boom…that played the primary part in moving the United States into war.: [4]

The June 5, 1936 fifth committee report exonerated Wilson in terms of allegations that he had taken America to war to protect financial interests. However, the report also mentioned that Wilson was, “caught up in a situation created largely by the profit-making interests in the United States…” [5]

Summary

Despite American neutrality, loans and trade with Britain and France during the war accelerated the need to see the Central Powers defeated. Even the Lusitania carried contraband munitions, a fact downplayed by Wilson but mentioned in Senator Robert LaFollette’s anti-war speech of April 1917. American investment between 1915 and 1917 was one factor in entering the war. The 1936 Nye Report’s investigation and analysis sought to avoid a similar financial entrapment as another continental war loomed in the 1930s.

[1] Harold Underwood Faulkner, The Decline of Laissez Faire 1897-1917 (New York, Rinehart & Co., 1951.

[2] Quoted in same source.

[3] Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (New York: MacMillan Company, 1962), p. 337.

[4] Congressional Record, 76 Congress, 1 Session (1939) pp. 10,405-6

[5] United States Special Committee, Senate Report 944, Part 5, 74 Congress, 2 Session, pp. 1-9.
[/spoiler]

Something I read in some reliable secondary source ages ago, but which I’ve not been able to confirm from other sources, is that Australia ended the war with a Lend Lease credit from supplying the American effort in the SWPA and other support to the Americans such as naval bases.

Yeah, but only from 1942 to 2013, with some long periods of lack of interest, bordering on “let Australia sink or swim against the Asian hordes”* in between.

We got on okay from 1788 to 1942 without your help. :wink: :smiley:

  • Which is why we cunningly encouraged you to get involved in Vietnam, after alarm at your lack of interest in the threat posed to us by Indonesia in the early 1960s.

Let me repeat, Lend Lease was never paid back. It was a gift. I may be off by a few years, but loans made prior to Lend Lease were, I think, paid back around 1976. In the immediate post war period before the Marshall Plan - of which the UK was by far the biggest recipient - there was a “bridge loan” from the US on the order of $3-4B, when a billion actually meant something.

I’m racking my brain trying to find a single instance of anyone, any country anywhere after the Revolution, just handing us free money to remain afloat. What do they say about biting the hand that feeds you?

I could have sworn Australia is a member of the BRITISH Commonwealth. I wasn’t aware that it was America’s responsibility - as opposed to Australia’s - to protect Australia against “Asian hordes”. And, I’m having a difficult time visualizing any Indonesian “threat” to Australia that wouldn’t be immediately reduced to cinders by the Australians. Maybe in a parallel universe.

On the other hand, maybe Australia could petition the US government to add another thirty or so states to the Union.

The deal was that lend-lease items had to be paid for if not returned or destroyed, and that anything delivered after it terminated also had to be paid for (both at a 90% discount). HM Treasury made the final payment of $83.3 Million on the 29th of December 2006 (as part of the Anglo-American loan - the outstanding Lend-Lease balance was rolled into this). The lend-lease proportion of the loan was $650 million in 1946 dollars (~$8.3 billion in current terms).

Let me repeat, Lend Lease was never paid back. It was a gift. I may be off by a few years, but loans made prior to Lend Lease were, I think, paid back around 1976. In the immediate post war period before the Marshall Plan - of which the UK was the biggest recipient - there was a “bridge loan” from the US on the order of $3-4B, when a billion actually meant something.

I’m racking my brain trying to find a single instance of anyone, any country anywhere, just handing us free money to remain afloat. What do they say about biting the hand that feeds you?

Since about 1943 or so the Australian Government (and indeed people) have considered the US rather than the UK to be the ultimate guarantor of their security. And since they don’t have nuclear weapons, they actually can’t do much to Indonesia - the F-111s were bought to give them the ability to drop 1,000lb bombs on Jakarta in the event of such a war, and their capability isn’t much greater nowadays.

True, pdf. I didn’t mention the $650M because it was the only part of Lend Lease that had to be repaid. It was a tiny fraction of the Lend Lease total.

Next time I’ll try to make it clearer that I’m mixing humour and irony with history, in a comment specifically directed to Nickdfresh who I expect would have understood my comment.

As for Australia in the 1960s reducing any Indonesian threat to cinders, we were fighting them in a long-forgotten fringe war without any American assistance, or interest.

At the time, Indonesia had perhaps the largest communist party in the world outside the USSR and PRC with a population about ten times ours, with potential support from the nuclear armed USSR or PRC in any conflict with Australia while America’s washing of its hands over West Irian made it clear to us that America wasn’t going to support us as it had in WWII because we weren’t a base it needed for that conflict in pursuit of its own interests. The country most likely to be reduced to cinders if that conflict grew was Australia.

I lived through that period.

You clearly have no understanding of it, from the Australian perspective.

Perhaps so, RS, but it’s still difficult to imagine or visualize. Would Australia have been invaded? By whom? Sarong-wearing, bamboo-spear toting Batik-clad warriors? Invading Australia would be like the Germans invading Russia: the geometry and geography of the situation argue against it.

Considering that Sukarno was an oft-inebriated wannabe starlet-entranced playboy who liked to visit night clubs in New York, I have to say the threat might have been a tad overstated. In the end, how did that work out for Sukarno?

But then, I didn’t live in Australia, so I defer to your knowledge on the ground.

Let me repeat, Lend Lease was never paid back. It was a gift.

A little basic fact checking suggests otherwise. And you don’t even have to trust Wiki… I’d be interested in seeing any info supporting the Britain got it as a literal (as opposed to a 10-cent-on-the-dollar deal) gift. I am less sure about all the other recipients of L-L repaying, but that’s a different question.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2006/12/29/britain-finally-pays-off-wwii-debt
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/britain-pays-off-final-instalment-of-us-loan--after-61-years-430118.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/industrialmobilization/p/lend-lease-act.htm

I could be in error, but my Wikipedia stated that the 10% rule only applied to the Lend Lease material that was delivered to England after Lend Lease Expired, thus a 90% discount. It further states, “There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war.” This isn’t the only reference in Wikipedia to the gift of Lend Lease but it was handy so I quote it here. The chapter is entitled “Repayment”; the reference is “Anglo-American Loan”.

Regards

Not sure where you got that from Leccy, but Wikipedia says:

"Loans and Grants[edit]

The Marshall plan, just as GARIOA, consisted of aid both in the form of grants and in the form of loans.[78] Out of the total, 1.2 billion USD were loan-aid.[79]

The UK received 385 million USD of its Marshall plan aid in the form of loans.[79] Unconnected to the Marshall plan the UK also received direct loans from the US amounting to 4.6 billion USD.[79] The proportion of Marshall plan loans versus Marshall plan grants was roughly 15% to 85% for both the UK and France.[82]"

As nearly as I can tell, the loans had to be repaid, but the grants did not.

Regards