"UK settles WWII debts to allies"

[scottydawg]

Originally posted by Angus
You can call some 50 years of cold war "spineless" if it pleases you.
What would have been the alternative? A land warfare between former allies which would have outscaled WW2 by a vaste amount?
Anyway, if you bring the focus down to Poland only, guess what. At Yalta (or was it Teheran?), Churchill was the only of 3 leaders to insist that Poland was to be a sovereign state at the war's end, while Stalin did not agree. The point of pivot was the U.S., with Roosevelt (already failing in health) at the steer.
Churchill lost. But he sure had the spine.

I guess my language was a little strong, forgive me please, no need to go ballistic.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Thrawn
I wonder what the effect of one nuke going off in Russia would have been.

Given the rate of casualties the soviets were willing to soak up, I believe it would be negligable. If there were a series of nukes then it would have made a difference but only temporarily. Once the soviets had their own nukes it would have gone on the offensive as long as any significant part of their govt. country was still in existance.

In any case it's moot since there weren't enough bombs to do that and the cold war ended anyhow.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
I have yet to read one book that "praised the Invasion of Italy".

Salerno 1943
In September 1943, in the first weeks of the Allied campaign to liberate Italy, an Anglo-American invasion force of over 80,000 men was nearly beaten back into the sea by the German defenders in a ferocious ten-day battle at Salerno, south of Naples.

This is the story of the tense, bitter struggle around the Salerno beachhead which decided the issue and changed the course of the campaign - for those ten critical days the fate of Italy hung in the balance. Using documentary records, memoirs and eyewitness accounts from all sides, Angus Konstam recreates every stage of the battle at every level as it happened, day by day, hour by hour.

His painstakingly researched account offers a fresh perspective on a decisive battle that has been neglected by British and American historians in recent years, and it gives a fascinating insight into the realities of warfare in Europe 60 years ago.

[ROC]

National governments are much lower risk than individuals and so get much better interest terms.

Which has What, exactly, to do with his whine that "he" had to pay it back with his taxes? It's even better because it was lower, but Still Owed.

[rogerdee]

remember the Royal Navy  the British merchant Navy if england had surrendered  and germany had got there hands on them they would have been every where.

Imagine tirpits bismark  and all the other big and little ships  and u boats around America or at least the east coast.The japanese on the west coast that would have been big trouble.

Alot of countries got screwed after the war Poland the worst,things cant be changed  but lessons should be lernt.

 One country should not invade another

[Holden McGroin]

That the USA alone out produced the Axis 3 to 1 in total war material and was producer of 5/8 of the allied production in from 1938 to 1945 may have had something to do with the outcome of the war.

Detroit was the front line.

[Kurt]

Originally posted by john9001
"at the time of D-day the russians had turned the fight on the eastern front and were pushing the germans back, the americans were in italy pushing the germans out of there, and operation dragoon, the invasion of southern france was scheduled. Even without the island of england to launch D-day from germany had lost the war, it would just have taken a little longer."

At the time of D-day?  The war was practically over.

The deciding point was 1940 in the battle of Britain.  When someone talks about a German invasion of England they are talking about 1940, NOT 1944.

Sure, by 1944 when D-day happens it is a downhill slide for Germany, but the point here is that D-day wouldn't have happened without an Allied England.  Because we needed air superiority to do it, and we didn't have anywhere else from which to field a large airforce.

You do realize that D-day was near the end of the war, not the beginning, right?

[Squire]

As with every thread I have ever seen on the topic, people still have a hard time admitting the war was a team effort to defeat Germany, both in terms of material, and in fighting. Nobody did it alone. Not the USA, not the Soviets, not G.B.

Get over it.

[mosgood]

Originally posted by Pei
National governments are much lower risk than individuals and so get much better interest terms.

Even when they are under siege by the 3rd reich?  What interest rate would you have given Iraq a few years ago on 4 billion dollars with the US army knocking at their door?

I'm willing to bet the brits would have agreed to a heck of a lot higher interest rate than they got considering the situation.  And what's the big deal with America actually charging them for weapons and equipment?  Or getting a deposit of gold upfront?

I went through hard times a few months ago and took a loan offered by a friend... even though it was a loan that I paid back... he still saved my rear by coming through when I needed it.

All that said, the brits deserve a heck of a lot of credit for what they took during WW2 whether we loaned or gave them a lot of the equipment they needed at the time to weather it.

[Angus]

Originally posted by scottydawg
I guess my language was a little strong, forgive me please, no need to go ballistic.

Hat off to you.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Kurt
At the time of D-day?  The war was practically over.

The deciding point was 1940 in the battle of Britain.  When someone talks about a German invasion of England they are talking about 1940, NOT 1944.

Sure, by 1944 when D-day happens it is a downhill slide for Germany, but the point here is that D-day wouldn't have happened without an Allied England.  Because we needed air superiority to do it, and we didn't have anywhere else from which to field a large airforce.

You do realize that D-day was near the end of the war, not the beginning, right?

Another honest and good point

[soda72]

%2 geeesh  that doesn't even cover inflation...  

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Kurt
The deciding point was 1940 in the battle of Britain.  

So all that land in the Soviet Union that was conquered that about doubled the size of the Riech until the siege of Stalingrad was after the war was decided?  

A bunch of Russians would probably disagree.  What ever happened to Boroda anyway?

Boroda!

Boroda!

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So all that land in the Soviet Union that was conquered that about doubled the size of the Riech until the siege of Stalingrad was after the war was decided?  

A bunch of Russians would probably disagree.  What ever happened to Boroda anyway?

Holden,
I think you might have missed where I was coming from.. The question was whether the Allies could have stopped Germany if the UK fell in 1940.  Regardless of the eastern war, If the western front had been won by Germany then Russia wouldn't have ever stopped them.

Anyhow, what I'm getting at here is that I'm not discounting what happened in Russia... Its simply not the topic I was addressing.  Sorry if you felt I left them out.

[Rolex]

Back to the original topic for a minute...

The basic principle of international debt is that a nation capable of repaying debt should do it, unless the debt is so large that it can never be repaid or  does not have the resources to develop a GDP capable of any repayment. If repayment contributes to extraordinary political and social instability causing further social and monetary costs, buy backs, rescheduling, swaps or forgiveness are considered.

Since Great Britain was/is a significant creditor as part of the London Club (a group of post WWII private international debt holders) it would have been self-defeating to ask for, or have debt relief for such a small amount when owed many times that from other nations. Repayment was continued and made neither as a display of British national pride, nor US unreasonableness. It was to uphold the basic principles and mechanism of international debt.

It would look foolish to ask for payment of debts owed to the England by poor countries with little resources or ability to repay if England was given, or asked for debt relief.