Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Apeking on December 28, 2006, 07:26:17 PM
-
This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215847.stm) made me chuckle, because I've only just finished paying off my student loan. Little did I know that some of my tax monies were going towards the upkeep of the poor, deprived USA:
"Britain will settle its World War II debts to the US and Canada when it pays two final instalments before the close of 2006, the Treasury has said.
The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950. The amount paid back is nearly double that loaned in 1945 and 1946.
"This week we finally honour in full our commitments to the US and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago," said Treasury Minister Ed Balls.
"It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the post-war period. We honour our commitments to them now as they honoured their commitments to us all those years ago," he added.
The last payments will be made on Friday, the final working day of the year. Under the lend-lease programme, which began in March 1941, the then neutral US could provide countries fighting Adolf Hitler with war material.The US joined the war soon after - in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbour - and the programme ended in 1945. Equipment left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed had to be paid for.
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.
Despite the favourable rates there were six years in which Britain deferred payment because of economic or political crises. There are still World War I debts owed to and by Britain. Since a moratorium on all debts from that conflict was agreed at the height of the Great Depression, no repayments have been made to or received from other nations since 1934."
I think where the report mentions "equipment left over in Britain" it actually means to say "equipment that was borrowed by spivs or that went missing, if you know what we mean".
Yes, Ed Balls is a real person (http://www.edballs.com/). He came up with the phrase "post neoclassical endogenous growth theory".
-
but "they saved us"... you mean we had to buy legitimately all of the equipment they supplied so we could fight off the forces of evil and have our guys getting killed while they sat watching for years?
-
I distance myself from this person.
-
well it's about damn time. lousy lay abouts.
-
Originally posted by Apeking
I distance myself from this person.
Best answer yet.
Geez, Apeking, you guys got very reduced rates and all.
-
I wonder what rates Adolf would have gotten if not for the RN blockade. ;)
-
See Rule #4
-
Originally posted by Ball
but "they saved us"... you mean we had to buy legitimately all of the equipment they supplied so we could fight off the forces of evil and have our guys getting killed while they sat watching for years?
Yeah, you have to pay for stuff. It's just the way things work. No Gov't gets war material for free, even from their own people.
America was on the sidelines of WWII for 2 years. The war in Europe wasn't our war until Hitler declared war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Or.....was it the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor.....I can never remember. :t
-
Originally posted by Apeking
said Treasury Minister Ed Balls.
BuWAHAHAHAHAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH
OMG, was there something more to this story?
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950. The amount paid back is nearly double that loaned in 1945 and 1946.
I wish I could get an interest rate like that...
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Yeah, you have to pay for stuff. It's just the way things work. No Gov't gets war material for free, even from their own people.
America was on the sidelines of WWII for 2 years. The war in Europe wasn't our war until Hitler declared war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Or.....was it the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor.....I can never remember. :t
Japan Bomber Pearl harbor, We declared War on japan, Germany declared war on us, we declared war on Germany, we saved England, and all of Europe from saying hail Hitler. It may be 60 year late, but at least England is paying it back, Another country that shall remain nameless still owes us big time, an we saved them form Germany twice, once in WW1 and again in WW2. Remember I said they'are nameless, so nobody say France ok?
-
Originally posted by dmf
Japan Bomber Pearl harbor, We declared War on japan, Germany declared war on us, we declared war on Germany, we saved England, and all of Europe from saying hail Hitler. It may be 60 year late, but at least England is paying it back, Another country that shall remain nameless still owes us big time, an we saved them form Germany twice, once in WW1 and again in WW2. Remember I said they'are nameless, so nobody say France ok?
I would argue that England saved us. Historically accurate but not very patriotic, I know.
Funny how we get all the credit when it was the British who stood painfully alone, after losing nearly everything, but refused to surrender.
All while we stayed on the sidelines taking bets as to how long they'd last. Or, better yet, while we stuck our heads in the sand like we continously do until we absolutely had to do something.
After Dunkirk there were plenty of respectable people in England calling for a truce with Germany. Churchill managed to rally them and that didn't happen.
If it had, and we didn't have a nice, huge, unsinkable aircraft carrier base of England to muster supplies in, Europe might read "Grossdeutschland" on the map today.
Overlord was a fairly tight-run thing as it was. Imagine if we didn't have England as a base, and had to invade from Boston or Norfolk... Kinda a logistical nightmare there, to put it lightly.
Sorry, but I get annoyed when people say "we saved England." They're one of our only allies, and a nation that is certainly deserving of the utmost respect and gratitude for their assistance today, and their fortitude of yesterday.
---
That said, pay you're bill :p
-
Originally posted by dmf
Japan Bomber Pearl harbor, We declared War on japan, Germany declared war on us, we declared war on Germany, we saved England, and all of Europe from saying hail Hitler. It may be 60 year late, but at least England is paying it back, Another country that shall remain nameless still owes us big time, an we saved them form Germany twice, once in WW1 and again in WW2. Remember I said they'are nameless, so nobody say France ok?
I sure wish I paid attention in History class. I think the country your talking about is Mesopotamia
-
The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950. The amount paid back is nearly double that loaned in 1945 and 1946.
And when you take a mortgage out to buy a house, a 30 year loan will pay back 3 times the original amount.
Was there a point to this post? Sounds like a heck of a deal over 60 years. Repayment terms like That means the US actually LOST in that venture, but hey, our allies are worth it....even the clueless ones.
Little did I know that some of my tax monies were going towards the upkeep of the poor, deprived USA:
Just because the lender doesn't need the money does not mean the debt should not be repaid.
You repaid a student loan, curious, did you major in landscape design? Your financial insights seem a tad unusual.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I would argue that England saved us. Historically accurate but not very patriotic, I know.
Funny how we get all the credit when it was the British who stood painfully alone, after losing nearly everything, but refused to surrender.
All while we stayed on the sidelines taking bets as to how long they'd last. Or, better yet, while we stuck our heads in the sand like we continously do until we absolutely had to do something.
After Dunkirk there were plenty of respectable people in England calling for a truce with Germany. Churchill managed to rally them and that didn't happen.
If it had, and we didn't have a nice, huge, unsinkable aircraft carrier base of England to muster supplies in, Europe might read "Grossdeutschland" on the map today.
Overlord was a fairly tight-run thing as it was. Imagine if we didn't have England as a base, and had to invade from Boston or Norfolk... Kinda a logistical nightmare there, to put it lightly.
Sorry, but I get annoyed when people say "we saved England." They're one of our only allies, and a nation that is certainly deserving of the utmost respect and gratitude for their assistance today, and their fortitude of yesterday.
---
That said, pay you're bill :p
Amazing, Germany couldn't even invade across the channel, yet would
apparently be able to support an invasion across 300 times as much ocean.
It may be very PC to say the US didn't turn the tide, but it's also BS.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Amazing, Germany couldn't even invade across the channel, yet would
apparently be able to support an invasion across 300 times as much ocean.
It may be very PC to say the US didn't turn the tide, but it's also BS.
Rino, thats pretty shortsighted...
If the UK had surrendered and Germany controlled all of Europe, their stratigic situation would have changed rapidly. It would have been very short order for them to be on the East coast.
It is already known that bombers capable of making the flight were under development in Germany... The subs were already off our east coast by about 1942.
If Germany had controlled the entire European continent, they would have also controlled the resources necessary to cross the atlantic.
Tell me Rino, why do you believe that the U.S. was the only country in 1942 with trans-oceanic capability? Its not like we flew to Saturn. An undesturbed Germany would have worked it out quickly.
Don't forget, they beat us to Jet power... Why do you assume they are so incompetent in other sciences?
-
Originally posted by Vudak
I would argue that England saved us. Historically accurate but not very patriotic, I know.
Funny how we get all the credit when it was the British who stood painfully alone, after losing nearly everything, but refused to surrender.
All while we stayed on the sidelines taking bets as to how long they'd last. Or, better yet, while we stuck our heads in the sand like we continously do until we absolutely had to do something.
After Dunkirk there were plenty of respectable people in England calling for a truce with Germany. Churchill managed to rally them and that didn't happen.
If it had, and we didn't have a nice, huge, unsinkable aircraft carrier base of England to muster supplies in, Europe might read "Grossdeutschland" on the map today.
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.
-
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.
Sure, if you make the rather massive assumption that Germany would have lost to Russia if it had already secured the UK.
You see, the failure in this logic is that Germany would have oWnZed Russia hard if they hadn't been tangled up in a fight in the west. Sure, that harsh Russian winter set them back... But the summer would have been hell if the Krauts weren't getting kicked in the other end.
A Germany unopposed in the west would have owned Russia back to the Ural Mountains within a year or two, setting the stage for a whole different conflict.
I think the problem here is that people are assuming that Germany's power wouldn't have changed if UK surrendered... UK was 85% of the problem for Germany, and Hitler knew it. The war you know today would have never happened if the UK had fallen in 1940.
It would have been much much worse, and the U.S. most certainly would have been hit at home at some point. I'm guessing 1943-1944, but WTF do I know. Either way, resecuring Europe would have been virtually impossible without UK still standing.
As an American, I'm asking all you other Americans to give credit where credit is due. The UK stood fast in the face of a terrible threat. We may have 'saved' them... But do not forget that they saved the world by standing strong against a determined and intelligent enemy during harder times than any of you alive today (at least, those of you playing video games) have ever seen.
There is a point where continuing to 'bash' the UK, or pretend that they are somehow incompetent becomes a shame on yourselves.
The French are a whole different matter, and largely deserve your contempt... The UK are only guilty of being Brits :aok
-
your wrong.
-
Originally posted by john9001
your wrong.
A strong comeback, from a strong intellect.
Thanks for making that clear.
Nothing better than someone who just says "you're wrong" and can't explain why.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
A strong comeback, from a strong intellect.
Thanks for making that clear.
your welcome
-
Originally posted by john9001
your welcome
Go back to sleep... Sorry we woke ya.
-
I am still pretty sure that if the Germans had bombed Vietnam with their Corsairs, the Korean war would have been won by the Japanese.
-
Originally posted by ROC
And when you take a mortgage out to buy a house, a 30 year loan will pay back 3 times the original amount.
Was there a point to this post? Sounds like a heck of a deal over 60 years. Repayment terms like That means the US actually LOST in that venture, but hey, our allies are worth it....even the clueless ones.
National governments are much lower risk than individuals and so get much better interest terms.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Funny how we get all the credit when it was the British who stood painfully alone, after losing nearly everything, but refused to surrender.
Britain wasn't alone.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Britain wasn't alone.
I have to agree , I seam to remember alot of pesky u-boats messing with convoys befor the U,S. officially entered the war ....
as for the loans most of that was done in '45-46 to help everyone rebuild . not just for England but to most of the country's devistated by the War.
-
A couple of interesting facts:
1. The lend-lease deal crawled through the senate with very few votes, and it is extimated that without Roosevelt's firm support, it would have failed.
2. It had to be "opened" with a direct payment in gold (picked up by a U.S. cruiser), as well as the UK giving up some bases (i.e. Bahama) and sharing technology (i.e. Radar when the time came)
3. Most of the first batch of equipment was quite obsolete (50 old Destroyers for instance, but it still made a difference)
4. Business was open with Germany, - it was the RN that blocked them.
5. Before entering the war, the US was already getting tangled in the "Battle of the Atlantic". They had troops in Iceland already in the Spring of 1941, they were doing escorts, and one Destroyer had already been torpedoed.
6. Churchill once referred to the Germans and the U.S. as Britain's relentless enemy and relentless creditors.
(Hope I spelled this one right)
-
before you guys get too excited, did you know that poland right after the war paid for ALL equipment, ammo, everything else that polish servicemen in western front used ?
Considering how during same time Roosevelt sold thier tulips to uncle Joe so that they could be thrown in jail upon their return ( some executed) is kinda ironic...
And they weren't even defending their own country, they were defending britain.
Look up Victory Parade in London while you're at it.
-
Originally posted by Vudak
Funny how we get all the credit when it was the British who stood painfully alone, after losing nearly everything, but refused to surrender.
Not quite alone, it was the British Commonwealth, not just Britain.
Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia were all in from the very day England declared war. ( along with several other smaller Comonwealth nations ).
I would argue the point on the nameless nation being saved by the US in WWI too, the US helped greatly to defeat a very nearly exhausted Germany sure, but wearing them out in the first place was no small feat.
I dont wish to detract from the bravery and dedication of the US forces engaged in WWI, but to claim the US won it is a bit of a stretch.
Tipped the scales the Allies way to be sure, but they sure didnt win all by themselves, millions of young men had done a lot of hard work and fighting before the US forces ever stepped booted foot in France.
-
They borrowed 4.3 billion, paid back....9 billion over 50 years? WHAT would a 1945 dollar be worth in 2006?
Oh yah, that other little thing--how ya think that 4 billion worth of stuff GOT there?--Keep in mind the US was shipping everything it could from 1939 onward, much to Germany's chagrin. As I can gather, about 5% of all US Merchant seamen in ww2 died
http://www.usmm.org/shipsunkdamaged.html
U.S. Merchant Ships Sunk or Damaged in World War II
According to the War Shipping Administration, the U.S. Merchant Marine suffered the highest rate of casualties of any service in World War II. Officially, a total of 1,554 ships were sunk due to war conditions, including 733 ships of over 1,000 gross tons. Hundreds of other ships were damaged by torpedoes, shelling, bombs, kamikazes, mines, etc. Foreign flag ships, especially those with Naval Armed Guard on board as well as ships belonging to U.S. territories such as the Philippines, are included in this list.
This is just a list of tonnage sunk from 1939-1941:
http://www.usmm.org/sunk39-41.html#anchor325668
(some were in Pacific, some were merely detained)
-
"They borrowed 4.3 billion, paid back....9 billion over 50 years? WHAT would a 1945 dollar be worth in 2006?"
I think the value is calibrated, but it's still low interest.
Anyway, the USA remains the one (?) WW2 nation to get paid up, and they even sold some crap instead of scrapping it.
Did the British (Commonwealth, do not forget that the first gold the USA picked up before the lend lease was launched was in S-Africa) get paid by anyone? Yes, partially from the USSR at least. Did the French pay? (they were still getting paid by the Germans from WWI untill the start of WWII)
And the USSR, yes they had to pay the UK and USA, but actually when the British were ALONE and PAYING the USA, the USSR was SELLING and getting PAYED by GERMANY.
All a bit,,,confusing.
-
War is business. Always has been and always will. It has to be that way unless its a commie country.
The Norwegian government set up a company called nortraship in London during the war and pooled all the free merchants into that company.(by the outbreak of ww2 norway had the largest merchant fleet in the world) They profited from hauling stuff all over the world (but mostly across the atlantic) , and the money Nortraship made by the other allies bought more ships from US shipyards and also gave us the oportunity to order the fuel for the ships, warships, planes and other stuff from the US and britain that we needed to fight with. Without those norwegian merchants the war in the atlantic would prolly have been lost and they also played a role (althoug lesser) in the pacific.
The brits gave us some stuff to fight with and included our personel into their ranks but without the money made by the brave merchant sailors we would never have had all the other shiny stuff. :)
-
One of my great uncles sailed, - I belive- with the Norse in WW2.
His ship had been sunk twice before he was 16! In the later case, he was one of 2 survivors.
Gritty "business".
-
I apologize to the Commonwealth :) But when I said "Britain stood alone" I meant the British Empire, which I included you all in, despite differeing levels of independence at the time :p
The bottom line is (this is for the America is awezum! peoples):
We (the people) were too shortsighted and selfish to get involved.
They (the British and Commonwealth people) weren't.
An interesting thought is, why do you guys think we would have suddenly gotten involved in the European theatre of WW2 if Britain had already been eliminated?
Was it because we saw the light and did that for Poland or France?
I think you all need to consult some history books that weren't published in New York... There's bigger sides to this story than just ours.
Anyway, I'm away from the internet from the weekend, so chip away :)
-
Originally posted by Roscoroo
as for the loans most of that was done in '45-46 to help everyone rebuild . not just for England but to most of the country's devistated by the War.
If you are referring to the Marshall Plan, that was in the form of some $13 Billion in grants that the Euros could use to purchase American goods: grants, not loans.
-
Originally posted by Ball
but "they saved us"... you mean we had to buy legitimately all of the equipment they supplied so we could fight off the forces of evil and have our guys getting killed while they sat watching for years?
But I thought we shouldn't be the World's police?
-
Originally posted by john9001
your wrong.
You haven't made a valid point in this thread. Eat more scooby snacks.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
before you guys get too excited, did you know that poland right after the war paid for ALL equipment, ammo, everything else that polish servicemen in western front used ?
Considering how during same time Roosevelt sold thier tulips to uncle Joe so that they could be thrown in jail upon their return ( some executed) is kinda ironic...
And they weren't even defending their own country, they were defending britain.
Look up Victory Parade in London while you're at it.
I've often used this as an example fd ski. <> I hope things are going well for you.
-
Nobody got screwed more in WW2 than the Polish. The most decimated city in WW2 was actually...Warshaw. Not Berlin, Hiroshima, Hamburg or Coventry.
Poland was the line that the Nazis crossed, and the nations who declared war on them were the British and the French.
As things went, the Brits (Commonwealth included, - which is important) carried on, ALONE, and while the Nazis were suckling on several European countries (Poland, France, Lowlands, Norway&Denmark etc), the Brits were paying their U.S. manufactured gear in gold. In the meantime, the USSR was doing deals with the Nazis.
So, as I see it, the USA should have flushed those "depts" years ago. Just to keep a good face.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You haven't made a valid point in this thread. Eat more scooby snacks.
"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."
-
The turnpoints in the USSR actually happened at the same time (strange!) as major turnpoints in the med. While the med was very much smaller in scale, it still was a help, - Stalingrad makes the turn at the time of operation Torch in N-Africa, and Kursk happens at the time of the invasion of Sicily.
There are certainly different opinions about this, but IMHO, if the Brits had made a Truce with Germany in Summer 1940 (No BoB) and thereby lifted the naval blockade, - Germany would have beaten the USSR.
Not the topic though.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Nobody got screwed more in WW2 than the Polish. The most decimated city in WW2 was actually...Warshaw. Not Berlin, Hiroshima, Hamburg or Coventry.
Poland was the line that the Nazis crossed, and the nations who declared war on them were the British and the French.
As things went, the Brits (Commonwealth included, - which is important) carried on, ALONE, and while the Nazis were suckling on several European countries (Poland, France, Lowlands, Norway&Denmark etc), the Brits were paying their U.S. manufactured gear in gold. In the meantime, the USSR was doing deals with the Nazis.
So, as I see it, the USA should have flushed those "depts" years ago. Just to keep a good face.
Not to mention getting screwed by being made a Communist puppet state for 50 years after WWII because the Allies were too worn down and spineless to stand up to Stalin after the war was over.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
Not to mention getting screwed by being made a Communist puppet state for 50 years after WWII because the Allies were too worn down and spineless to stand up to Stalin after the war was over.
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 wonder what the effect of one nuke going off in Russia would have been.
-
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."
I have yet to read one book that "praised the Invasion of Italy".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I have yet to read one book that "praised the Invasion of Italy".
Salerno 1943 (http://www.amazon.com/SALERNO-1943-Invasion-Campaign-Chronicles/dp/184415517X/sr=8-11/qid=1167424099/ref=sr_1_11/002-4319821-7820803?ie=UTF8&s=books)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by scottydawg
I guess my language was a little strong, forgive me please, no need to go ballistic.
Hat off to you.
:aok
-
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
:aok
-
%2 geeesh that doesn't even cover inflation...
:furious
-
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!
(http://www.mtv.com/shared/media/news/images/a/Andrew_WK/sq-i-am-yelling-dellmtv.jpg)
Boroda!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sicily was a cakewalk. Throw in Anzio, Naples and Monte Cassino, Sicily is long forgotten.
-
Originally posted by 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.
I'd really like to see the numbers for this.
Axis is basically Germany, Italy and Japan, along with their sattelite nations.
Allied count as UK + Commonwealth, USSR and then USA (In the order of enter) as well as those who fell, Poland, France, the Lowlands etc.
What counts as war material? And what period of production?
I allow myself to doubt these numbers, and suggest that they're out of context. When dealing with WWII statistics and the top usage & production, it turns out roughly like:
Aircraft: USSR then USA, closely followed by the UK
Tanks: USSR then UK or USA?
Navy: USA and closely by UK.
Steel? Oil? Cloth? Transport? I still don't get this to add up as a that high war material percentage vs the Axis, nor the absolue 5/8 (alarm, the USSR is in there!).
As for the whole war effort, the frigging percentage is somewhere, not so major maybe, but....very....IMPORTANT
-
Well done Britain, they paid off every cent they owed the USA. Well done the USA. Without the USA, who knows what the world would be like now.
The British always do what's right in the end.
Don't spoil it.
No one can really thank the USA for the sacrifice of the men who died for our freedom. We can thank them for their money and we can repay them.
I speak as someone who lived in a country whose leaders lacked the vision to make the right decision, yet produced eight Victoria Cross winners and who instinctively knew where right lay.
-
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?
If NOT the BoB, it was definately the Allies turning the tables on the U-Boats towards the Autumn of 42.
But excellent post Kurt.
-
the numbers are here:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm
-
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.
Excellent post. Hats off. You are absolutely correct. In the statesmen world, it was the alcoholic bastard Churchill who turned out to be the only honest man of them all, with morals and spine to show for it.
Roosevelt on the other hand was as cold and calculating as Stalin, and at the same time very "happy go lucky" when giving away what's not his.
Kinda makes me wonder every time I drive down the Roosevelt Ave in Warsaw that there isn't a Churchill one...
-
The war against nazi germany was won on the eastern front and at stalingrad in particular and it was paid for in russian blood who not only fought Hitler but had to suffer stalin and the nkvd as well...the western front in comparison was a sideshow and a more civilised war....a timely reminder;)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Excellent post. Hats off. You are absolutely correct. In the statesmen world, it was the alcoholic bastard Churchill who turned out to be the only honest man of them all, with morals and spine to show for it.
Roosevelt on the other hand was as cold and calculating as Stalin, and at the same time very "happy go lucky" when giving away what's not his.
Kinda makes me wonder every time I drive down the Roosevelt Ave in Warsaw that there isn't a Churchill one...
Call it what you please, but if you look at history this actually happened.
The US did NOT back up the Brits demand upon keping Poland as a sovereign state when Germany was defeated. PUNKTUM. (PERIOD)
Roosevelt was at the time, neither cold nor calculating IMHO. He was wearing himself out and not up to the strain for this one vs. uncle Joe. So, Winnie didn't have his vote. There was one who wanted Poland to absolutely stay as a sovereign state, and that was old "alcoholic" Winnie.
Stalin, of course, didn't want any Poland at all ....
As for Roosevelt, IMHO he deserved many an avenue none the less.
He really did lots of political maneuvers that are manifested in history as brilliant.
Anyway, happy new years to you all, and the hat off for F.D.Roosevelt!
-
perspective... the population of canada at the time was a mere 12.5 million.
-
Originally posted by Torque
perspective... the population of canada at the time was a mere 12.5 million.
Good ol' Canada, "we were there too, you just forgot"... just trying to remain relevant. hehe.
J/K Torque, I love you harmless Canadians :aok
-
Originally posted by Torque
perspective... the population of canada at the time was a mere 12.5 million.
Canada punched well above it's weight in both fighting and training airmen
130,000 commonwealth airmen, more than half of them Canadian, trained in Canada during the war under the commonwealth air training plan was an enormous achievment and crucial to the war effort.
Canada
-
Team effort all the way.
Without Britain, there would have been no base from which to launch the invasion of Europe.
Without the United States, there would have been NO invasion of Europe, period.
Without the Soviet Union, Germany could have deployed 60 divisions or more in the west to crush any cross-channel invasion.
Without a team effort, the war against Germany would have been prolonged, allowing Hitler's scientists to develop the atomic bomb....and ultimately dominate all of Europe.
-
A little more info to think about dug up from another thread.
Originally posted by Widewing
The Soviets didn't buy anything...They were GIVEN vast amounts of equipment, material and food. If you research the type and volume of lend-lease "stuff" sent to the USSR, you will be astounded.
Here's some examples of what the USA supplied to the Soviets:
77,900 Jeeps
151,000 light trucks
202,000 2 1/2 ton trucks
956,000 miles of telephone cable
380,000 field phones
35,000 command radio sets
99% of all locomotives used
95% of all railroad rolling stock used
95% of all railroad rails and switches
70% of all avgas of 100 octane or higher
Enough food to feed one daily meal to every soldier that served during the entire war.
This list is huge. Critical steels and rare metals, the vast majority of machine tools and manufacturing equipment. Enough M4 Shermans to fully equip two full armored divisions.
I haven't even mentioned aircraft, or medical supplies, or gun powders and explosives... The US manufactured and delivered 495 million rounds of Soviet small arms ammunition.
The USA basically supplied the Soviets with their industrial base for the first 10 years of the cold war.
Britain contributed as well, but only a small fraction of what the US sent over.
Like I said, research the incredible volume of "stuff" given to the Soviets and you will find it simply jaw dropping.
My regards,
Widewing
Bronk
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Excellent post. Hats off. You are absolutely correct. In the statesmen world, it was the alcoholic bastard Churchill who turned out to be the only honest man of them all, with morals and spine to show for it.
Roosevelt on the other hand was as cold and calculating as Stalin, and at the same time very "happy go lucky" when giving away what's not his.
Kinda makes me wonder every time I drive down the Roosevelt Ave in Warsaw that there isn't a Churchill one...
What, no Reagan Ave?
-
Originally posted by lukster
What, no Reagan Ave?
try the ronald reagan turnpike, avenue indeed. he gets a road eight lanes wide in many places and people pay to drive on it.
-
WOW! COOL!
Woth that and 79 cents I can now buy that 79 cent cup of coffee at the local gas & puke! :aok
;)