PDA

View Full Version : Question about Lend/Lease



Gibbage1
10-18-2005, 09:49 PM
Simple question.

Did the Russians EVER pay there tab?

I know we sent them a LOT of hardware and materials with the idea they would pay us for them, or give back what they dont want after the war. Hence the lend/lease. Did they ever pay up? Right after the war, the Russians almost instantly became our enemy. They did not give us back anything, and I dont know if they ever paid us.

Anyone know?

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 09:55 PM
i think there was a clause that damaged/destroyed didnt haveto go back, or maybe there was orders to destroy stuff as the americans didnt want it back...

atleast for the english

dunno about the russians

Aeronautico
10-18-2005, 10:04 PM
I always wonder about this stuff...

PBNA-Boosher
10-18-2005, 10:08 PM
I know that most of Europe still hasn't paid its war debts to the US from WW1 still.

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 10:14 PM
there might be more debt than there is money actully.

money is funny.

we have a debt based economy aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

civildog
10-18-2005, 10:44 PM
Debt is an asset, that's why assets are equal to your liabilities and equity.

I think the whole world owes us a lot of money, but since money makes the world go around wouldn't it stop spinning if we collected on the debt and sucked it all up thereby?

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 10:46 PM
*shrug*

money is pretty much created out of thin air, and the only thing stopping the dollar, or any other currency being worth pretty much nothing is the belief people place in it.

"debt is a good replacement for the shackles of slavery"

Daiichidoku
10-18-2005, 11:38 PM
i dont think the US formally asked for anything in return or repayment post war...certainly didnt make any fuss about it, anyhow

if anything, they should have insisted upon the return of poland to poland

Gibbage1
10-19-2005, 12:20 AM
I do know that aircraft were "sold" to the Russians. When doing research on the PBY, I came accross a little known fact. US sold a LOT of PBY Catalina's to Russia and in fact Russia baught a license to build there own. The PBY's Russia baught from the US were 72$ each. We are talking full, flying, PBY Catalina's. 25$ per engine, and 22$ for the rest. Thats just friggen insane!!!! I doubt that even covers the fuel used to ferry the aircraft over!!!

a lot of people talk about Lend/Lease on the forums, but never get into the MEAT of it. Like what EXACTLY was it? If we were just GIVING this stuff away, then why give it a name like Lend/Lease?

Im just trying to educate myself.

TwoCrows
10-19-2005, 12:31 AM
Twenty million dead to defeat the nazis.

They paid the tab.... and the butcher's bill.

No ally paid more than they did.

.....and it was not the fault of the Russians that the fascists and the nazis are making a come back.

arcadeace
10-19-2005, 12:35 AM
I've heard much was never paid back, nor that it was realistically expected. To proclaim it Lend/Lease is not a bad idea politically, and console the taxpayers.

TwoCrows
10-19-2005, 12:37 AM
Consider what would transpire if...um...say.... China were to cash in their US Treasury Bills.

War is expensive.

arcadeace
10-19-2005, 12:49 AM
That was very interesting Woofie.

alert_1
10-19-2005, 12:52 AM
Did the Russians EVER pay there tab?
Not a single buck

F19_Olli72
10-19-2005, 12:55 AM
Well, i got curious and checked it out (the lend lease act). Some excerpts:

"SEC. 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time. when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary Of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the bead of any other department or agency of the Government -

(2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article...

"(b) The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receives any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit to the United States may he payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory."

So, from what i read some stuff was just "lending", "exchanging" and "disposed" or "transfer title to"....these terms sound as if no payment was required. But anyway, i dont have any idea how big the debt was.

Also, in the last paragraph it says payment could be property or "or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory". That could be whatever, not just cash.

Just cos U.S didnt get a huge sack of gold after the war, doesnt mean the lend/lease countries havent payed back at least some.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq59-23.htm

Professor_06
10-19-2005, 01:39 AM
You have to keep the Politicss in perspective. At the time of the lend lease it was illegal to aid a warring nation; ie Britain, The US could not get in involved in the war. Britain was flat dead broke. So FDR came up the phoney lend lease program. It was his way of getting th US in the WAR and bypass any laws. It wasnt done with the actual intent of getting repaid. It was done to defeat fascism and help Britain without violating isolationist law. After the war we rebuilt part of Europe with the Marshall plan. Its the American way.

ploughman
10-19-2005, 02:36 AM
Nearly there.

The UK is on the brink of the final installment in paying off it's war debt which will be history by the end of 2006. It was scheduled to have been paid of by 1999 but six deferrments at various time have extended the life of the debt.

The following is a parliamentary Q & A from Hansard.


War Debts

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer

(1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]

(2) what total payments have been made to meet World War II debts owed to the United Kingdom by other countries; what debts remain unpaid; and what the schedule is of future payments to the UK; [38425]

(3) what the level is of First World War debt owed by the United Kingdom to the United States of America; in what year repayments were last made to the USA; and what plans he has to (a) pay off the debt and (b) cancel liability to this debt; [38427]

(4) what outstanding schedule of payments the United Kingdom Government will make to the USA in respect of World War II debt; and what the date is of the final payment; [38424]

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1440W

(5) what loans and other financial liabilities incurred by the United Kingdom with the United States of America for World War II (a) have been paid and (b) are outstanding; [38426]

(6) what recent representations the United Kingdom Government have made to the USA for the cancellation of (a) World War I and (b) World War II debts and lend-lease loans. [38440]

Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows.

First World War debt

At the end of the First World War the United Kingdom debt to the United States amounted to around 850 million. Repayments of the debt were made between 1923 and 1931. In 1931, President Hoover of the United States proposed a one-year moratorium on all War debts, which allowed extensive international discussions on the general problems of debt repayment to be held. However, no satisfactory agreement was reached. In the absence of such an agreement no payments have been made to, or received from, other nations since 1934.

At the time of the moratorium the United Kingdom was owed more by other nations (2,269 billion) than the outstanding principal it owed the United States ($4,368 billion--at 1934 exchange rates this was around 866 million).

Second World War debt

Under a 1945 Agreement the United States Government lent the United Kingdom a total of $4,336 million (around 1,075 million at 1945 exchange rates) in war loans. These loans were taken out under two facilities: (i) a Line of Credit of $3,750 million (around 930 million at 1945 exchange rates); and (ii) a Lend-Lease loan facility of $586 million (around 145 million at 1945 exchange rates), which represented the settlement with the United States for Lend-Lease and Reciprocal Aid and for the final settlement of the financial claims of each government against the other arising out of the conduct of the Second World War.

28 Feb 2002 : Column 1441W

Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001 principal of $346,287,953 (243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend in 1945.

TheStriker_p51d
10-19-2005, 02:52 AM
well if their still in debt, tell them to send us all their copys of the paid addon from oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
10-19-2005, 04:09 AM
I know that most of Europe still hasn't paid its war debts to the US from WW1 still.

The UK, at least, is still paying the debts back. It takes a while as the depression and WW2 put us even more in debt.

With regard to Lend-Lease the period of lease was typically 40 years, and lend-lease didn't necessarily come with a price tag. A friend in the ATC used No. 4 Mk I* rifles for target practice in the early 80s. The * indicates rifles produced in the USA for UK use. Sometime prior to 1985 they all had to be packaged up and sent back to the USA.

Aaron_GT
10-19-2005, 04:18 AM
If we were just GIVING this stuff away, then why give it a name like Lend/Lease?

Congress, prior to December 1941, was unwilling to pass a bill providing direct aid, hence the fig leaf of lend lease. But as I noted above, the US government sometimes did ask for the stuff back!

Freycinet
10-19-2005, 04:46 AM
Funny how some ignoramuses are happy to just post "not one cent paid back", etc., in the face of the evidence...

Anyway, as was rightly said, the USSR paid its dues in huge rivers of blood in WWII, many many times more war dead than the US.

During the war, despite lend-lease, it was definitely the Western Allies that felt the onus to contribute more in the battle against Nazi-Germany, with requests for a 2nd front since 1942. A main reason for Operation Torch was to relieve the pressure on the USSR, even though it wasn't more than a very insignificant side-show of course.

Tooz_69GIAP
10-19-2005, 05:48 AM
As far as I recall, after the fall o the Soviet Union, the Russian leaders decided to write off any debts, as they were incurred by a different country, and a differnet leadership/regime. I.E. Russia is not the USSR, and vice-versa.

neural_dream
10-19-2005, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by CivilDog:
...I think the whole world owes us a lot of money,...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif !!!!???!!! Are you kidding ????!!!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Only one country in the world owes more in external debt than the States, and that's the UK. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

1 World $ 12,700,000,000,000 2004 est.
2 United Kingdom $ 4,710,000,000,000 2003
3 United States $ 1,400,000,000,000 2001 est.
4 Italy $ 913,900,000,000 2004 est.
5 Spain $ 771,100,000,000 2004 est.
6 Canada $ 570,000,000,000 2004
7 Australia $ 308,700,000,000 3rd quarter, 2004 est.
8 Portugal $ 274,700,000,000 2004 est.
9 China $ 233,300,000,000 3rd quarter 2004 est.
10 Brazil $ 219,800,000,000 2004 est.
11 Russia $ 169,600,000,000 2004 est.
12 Korea, South $ 160,000,000,000 2004 est.
13 Argentina $ 157,700,000,000 2004 est.
14 Mexico $ 149,900,000,000 2004 est.
15 Indonesia $ 141,500,000,000 2004 est.
16 Iraq $ 125,000,000,000 2004 est.
17 India $ 117,200,000,000 2004 est.
18 Poland $ 99,150,000,000 2004 est.
19 Israel $ 74,460,000,000 2004 est.
20 Greece $ 67,230,000,000 2004 est.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:31 AM
Off topic but still related after WW1 the US decided that Germany should not have to pay her any reparitions yet the allied nations had to pay back their war debt.

Britain is still paying back its war debt to the US for WW2 .... great.

Also its not the 1st time Russia has got off scot free. Britain heavily financed Imperial Russian pre revolution and after 1917 we saw no reypayments back at all.

Maybe its time Britain got wise to being screwed over all the time why should the defeated get off scot free while a supposed victor gets squeezed for every penny by her bloated 'ally'.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CivilDog:
...I think the whole world owes us a lot of money,...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif !!!!???!!! Are you kidding ????!!!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Only one country in the world owes more in external debt than the States, and that's the UK. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html

1 World $ 12,700,000,000,000 2004 est.
2 United Kingdom $ 4,710,000,000,000 2003
3 United States $ 1,400,000,000,000 2001 est.
4 Italy $ 913,900,000,000 2004 est.
5 Spain $ 771,100,000,000 2004 est.
6 Canada $ 570,000,000,000 2004
7 Australia $ 308,700,000,000 3rd quarter, 2004 est.
8 Portugal $ 274,700,000,000 2004 est.
9 China $ 233,300,000,000 3rd quarter 2004 est.
10 Brazil $ 219,800,000,000 2004 est.
11 Russia $ 169,600,000,000 2004 est.
12 Korea, South $ 160,000,000,000 2004 est.
13 Argentina $ 157,700,000,000 2004 est.
14 Mexico $ 149,900,000,000 2004 est.
15 Indonesia $ 141,500,000,000 2004 est.
16 Iraq $ 125,000,000,000 2004 est.
17 India $ 117,200,000,000 2004 est.
18 Poland $ 99,150,000,000 2004 est.
19 Israel $ 74,460,000,000 2004 est.
20 Greece $ 67,230,000,000 2004 est. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a strange list if true becasue British/European media are always telling us that it is infact the USA who has the greatest debt.

Which would actually make sense. If Britain had debts of that size how would it make any reypayments that would even dent the interest ?

Aaron_GT
10-19-2005, 07:15 AM
This is a strange list if true becasue British/European media are always telling us that it is infact the USA who has the greatest debt.

They might be talking about government operating deficits, or operating deficit as a proportion of GDP, or a whole host of other measures of some sort of debt. There are so many different measures to choose from!

from CIA world fact book:
UK public debt: 39.6% of GDP = under $1 trillion *
US public debt: 65% of GDP = about $7.5 trillion

So that's probably the measure of debt being used in the press.

* The factbook had the figures in PPP so I had to do a rough conversion of GDP back to actual $

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 07:25 AM
Well it is certainly an eye opener if accurate. How can the UK operate without suffocating under its huge debt? I dont think those figures would be managable if they were real. The average personal debt excluding mortages ect is substantially lower in the UK than in the USA - so its not related to that.

OberUberWurst
10-19-2005, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by TwoCrows:
Twenty million dead to defeat the nazis.

They paid the tab.... and the butcher's bill.

No ally paid more than they did.

.....and it was not the fault of the Russians that the fascists and the nazis are making a come back.

What TwoCrows said..

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 07:43 AM
Id say that all countries lost but some coutries lost a hell of a lot more(people/territory/money) than others did.

ploughman
10-19-2005, 10:24 AM
Only one country in the world owes more in external debt than the States, and that's the UK.


We owe HOW MUCH!?!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

US$ 4,710,000,000,000

Isn't that like nearly five trillion? I knew I had a bit on a credit card but I had no idea I'd run up that much.

My share is US$ 78,500.

I'm screwed.

Which idiot gave us that long a line of credit?

Doug_Thompson
10-19-2005, 10:48 AM
Many of the replies here are excellent, but let me be blunt.

The U.S. government passed a bunch of neutrality laws in the 1920s and 1930s banning the sale of arms to any belligerent who couldn't pay in gold. The idea was to prevent the U.S. from becoming tied to either side in another European war by credit. As one Englishman said in the 1700's, I believe: "Owe a man 1,000 pounds, you have a creditor. Owe him a million, and you have a partner."

Here's the blunt part: Lend-Lease was a fiction. The U.K. needed weapons, and the U.S. wanted to keep them in the war.

Technically, "lending" stuff didn't break the neutrality laws. Now, did any rational human being expect that anything "lent" to somebody fighting a war was going to be returned? No.

The Russians didn't repay, and neither did the British, French, Dutch or anybody else. What reasonable expectation could anybody have that the debt would be repaid after what happened in WWII.

They did the fighting. We supplied them. It was a great deal for us.

Friendly_flyer
10-19-2005, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by CivilDog:
I think the whole world owes us a lot of money,

For the moment I think is it the other way around. This is one of the major conserns of the US goverment.

p1ngu666
10-19-2005, 11:00 AM
they haveto, basicaly alot of actions are to stave off a massive finacial collapse.

money is pretty much created, theres massivly more "money" than in any point in history, but the material wealth (ie resources like trees, minerals etc) of the world or potential is pretty much the same or worse.

money is "created"

p1ngu666
10-19-2005, 11:03 AM
the making of arms made alot of jobs, thus theres wealth redistribution and creation from that, and tbh america didnt have a need for alot of the stuff postwar anyways.

Professor_06
10-19-2005, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
Many of the replies here are excellent, but let me be blunt.

The U.S. government passed a bunch of neutrality laws in the 1920s and 1930s banning the sale of arms to any belligerent who couldn't pay in gold. The idea was to prevent the U.S. from becoming tied to either side in another European war by credit. As one Englishman said in the 1700's, I believe: "Owe a man 1,000 pounds, you have a creditor. Owe him a million, and you have a partner."

Here's the blunt part: Lend-Lease was a fiction. The U.K. needed weapons, and the U.S. wanted to keep them in the war.

Technically, "lending" stuff didn't break the neutrality laws. Now, did any rational human being expect that anything "lent" to somebody fighting a war was going to be returned? No.

The Russians didn't repay, and neither did the British, French, Dutch or anybody else. What reasonable expectation could anybody have that the debt would be repaid after what happened in WWII.

They did the fighting. We supplied them. It was a great deal for us.

Thats exactly right. I said the same thing several post earlier. I wish people would do a little reading before they post. FDR needed to save the world from fascism and britain was running out of monmey and time..... It was money well spent. Er.. most of it anyway. The whole part of helping save Russia from the tyranny of the Fascist and leave them to the tryrany of Stalin is a different thread.

Frog that open mouth wide
show whole inside
silly frog

Basho....

S!

neural_dream
10-19-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by Professor_06:
FDR needed to save the world from fascism and britain was running out of monmey and time..... It was money well spent. Er.. most of it anyway. The whole part of helping save Russia from the tyranny of the Fascist and leave them to the tryrany of Stalin is a different thread.
Why did the States prefer to ally with the Brits instead of the Germans? Were they confident that they would win this way or they had to because of the Japanese? I don't remember when the Japanese allied with the Germans. Or was there already a strong sense of democracy over totalitarian regimes?

No601_Bigbyte
10-19-2005, 04:27 PM
Shame Tony didn't tell George we couldn't afford our recent adventure in the desert. We could have paid you your stinking money back much quicker.

Why don't you just send the bill to Berlin? They started the bloody war!

p.s. You still owe us for some crates of Tea in Boston.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-19-2005, 04:35 PM
Doug Thompson

€œThe Russians didn't repay, and neither did the British, French, Dutch or anybody else. What reasonable expectation could anybody have that the debt would be repaid after what happened in WWII.€

"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."...
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Under the Agreement the loans would be repaid in 50 annual installments [sic] commencing in 1950.</span> However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment."

Just to clarify€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The United Kingdom has €˜deferred€ 6 times over the last 56 years, come 2007 <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">our</span> debt will be paid, in full€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

civildog
10-19-2005, 05:05 PM
No601_Bigbyte..
p.s. You still owe us for some crates of Tea in Boston.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Well, you guys burnt down the White House when we ignored your overdue notices for the tea so I think we are even on that issue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AlGroover
10-19-2005, 06:38 PM
I don't think the US would have been pleased to have the ports clogged with millions of tons of returned obsolete equipment. That would be a plot even too machiavellian for uncle Joe.

Xiolablu3
10-19-2005, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
FDR needed to save the world from fascism and britain was running out of monmey and time..... It was money well spent. Er.. most of it anyway. The whole part of helping save Russia from the tyranny of the Fascist and leave them to the tryrany of Stalin is a different thread.
Why did the States prefer to ally with the Brits instead of the Germans? Were they confident that they would win this way or they had to because of the Japanese? I don't remember when the Japanese allied with the Germans. Or was there already a strong sense of democracy over totalitarian regimes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm, they allied with England and France because they were democracies?

I cant believe you need to ask this question!

In 1941 the US government sent an inspector to find out if the British were going to give in, or whether they would fight on (and therefore USA support them)

The conclusion was that Britian was in the fight till the end and so FDR started lend lease.

Even if Britain was going to give in, I cant imaggine USA joining the war on the Nazis side!?!?

panther3485
10-19-2005, 08:11 PM
Hi there, No601_Bigbyte,

Quote:
*"Shame Tony didn't tell George we couldn't afford our recent adventure in the desert. We could have paid you your stinking money back much quicker.

Why don't you just send the bill to Berlin? They started the bloody war!

p.s. You still owe us for some crates of Tea in Boston."

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!

Mate, that's THE BEST post, your really cracked me up! Truly masterful!

(And I was gonna post something serious!)

Best regards,
panther3485

Pirschjaeger
10-19-2005, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by OberUberWurst:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TwoCrows:
Twenty million dead to defeat the nazis.

They paid the tab.... and the butcher's bill.

No ally paid more than they did.

.....and it was not the fault of the Russians that the fascists and the nazis are making a come back.

What TwoCrows said.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relative to what? Without relative limits Poland paid the most.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-19-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
FDR needed to save the world from fascism and britain was running out of monmey and time..... It was money well spent. Er.. most of it anyway. The whole part of helping save Russia from the tyranny of the Fascist and leave them to the tryrany of Stalin is a different thread.
Why did the States prefer to ally with the Brits instead of the Germans? Were they confident that they would win this way or they had to because of the Japanese? I don't remember when the Japanese allied with the Germans. Or was there already a strong sense of democracy over totalitarian regimes? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Errm, they allied with England and France because they were democracies?

I cant believe you need to ask this question!

In 1941 the US government sent an inspector to find out if the British were going to give in, or whether they would fight on (and therefore USA support them)

The conclusion was that Britian was in the fight till the end and so FDR started lend lease.

Even if Britain was going to give in, I cant imaggine USA joining the war on the Nazis side!?!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, totally different political ideals. The people fight, kill, and die for family, nation, and freedom while to politicians fight for their jobs.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-19-2005, 09:22 PM
I would guess the end results of WW2(The Cold War) made some differences in the lend/lease payback terms.

I think when the lend/lease programs were developed no one expected a postwar East/West Cold war. Russia's new stance at the end was what saved Germany from the fate decided at Yalta, which would have been worse than the Treaty of Versaille. Germany became a propaganda tool.

I think this also had an impact on reparations.

Fritz

BfHeFwMe
10-19-2005, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by Freycinet:
Funny how some ignoramuses are happy to just post "not one cent paid back", etc., in the face of the evidence...

Anyway, as was rightly said, the USSR paid its dues in huge rivers of blood in WWII, many many times more war dead than the US.

During the war, despite lend-lease, it was definitely the Western Allies that felt the onus to contribute more in the battle against Nazi-Germany, with requests for a 2nd front since 1942. A main reason for Operation Torch was to relieve the pressure on the USSR, even though it wasn't more than a very insignificant side-show of course.

Yeah, but how many of those rivers ran in Finland, Latvia, Lithiunia, Eastonia, Moldavia, Mongolia, Poland, along with the other seized territories, all while playing footsie with Adolf. As I recall they extended an 'empty' hand to Britian, France, and the other western allies including Poland.

Nothing like forcing the fence sitters and neutrals into Hitlers alliance by grabbing and threatening Romanian and Hungarian lands. You could almost say Russia forced the flow, not to mention giving legitamacy to Hitlers land grabs on the world stage.

Rivers of blood, not like they weren't used to them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

jarink
10-19-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Rivers of blood, not like they weren't used to them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stalin killed more Russians (and Balts and Ukrainians and Uzbeks and Georgians and I think you get the picture) than Hitler.

No601_Bigbyte
10-20-2005, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, No601_Bigbyte,

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!

Mate, that's THE BEST post, your really cracked me up! Truly masterful!

(And I was gonna post something serious!)

Best regards,
panther3485

Your welcome.

The other thing I wanted to say was Maybe we should just have let the Germans Invade. They do make better cars and brew nicer beer after all.

Aaron_GT
10-20-2005, 03:01 AM
I don't think the US would have been pleased to have the ports clogged with millions of tons of returned obsolete equipment. That would be a plot even too machiavellian for uncle Joe.

Some equipment was returned at the end of WW2 and redistributed to other allies. Some equipment went back in the 1980s, although I suspect that was more down to an officious pen-pusher enforcing the letter of the agreement.

ploughman
10-20-2005, 03:15 AM
...and brew nicer beer after all.

They do not! Bunch of fizzy wee the lot of it. Wrap yourself around a nice pint of Ramrod young man, and think of England.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
10-20-2005, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by panther3485:
Hi there, No601_Bigbyte,

Quote:
*"Shame Tony didn't tell George we couldn't afford our recent adventure in the desert. We could have paid you your stinking money back much quicker.

Why don't you just send the bill to Berlin? They started the bloody war!

p.s. You still owe us for some crates of Tea in Boston."

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!

Mate, that's THE BEST post, your really cracked me up! Truly masterful!

(And I was gonna post something serious!)

Best regards,
panther3485

LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
that made me spill some coffee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

neural_dream
10-20-2005, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by No601_Bigbyte:
The other thing I wanted to say was Maybe we should just have let the Germans Invade. They do make better cars and brew nicer beer after all.
lol. Do you remember a program at channel 4 a few months ago, "Why the Germans are better than us?". They have sexier women, better cars, better health, better education, many more international successes in football, much less crime, better beer, better organisation ..... blah blah blah.

ViktorViktor
10-20-2005, 03:37 AM
Speaking of WWII help-programs, can someone give an overview of the Marshall Plan ? Was this also a Pay-US-Back-Later deal ? Did the recipients pay this back ? Were Germany and Japan also included ?

The only thing I (think I) know is that Norway paid this back to the US.

By the way, Viking-S, that's a nice Jack o' Lantern you've got there, very Halloweenish !
(Just kidding)

butch2k
10-20-2005, 03:53 AM
---------------------------------------
Sec. 1314. Authority to reduce the Russian Federation's Soviet-era debt obligations to the United States


The Russian Federation has assumed the debts owed by the former Soviet Union, including roughly $480,000,000 in Lend-Lease debt dating back to U.S. assistance during World War II and $2,240,000,000 in debt owed to the United States as a result of credits extended under Title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954. Section 1314 authorizes the President to reduce this debt after notifying the appropriate congressional committees of his intention at least 15 days in advance of any formal determination to do so, and allocates such sums as may be necessary in fiscal year 2003 for the cost of reduction in this debt. Debt reduction may be implemented upon entry into force of a ``Russian Federation Nonproliferation Investment Agreement'' authorized under section 1315. The authority provided by this section shall be available only to the extent, however, that appropriations for the cost (as defined in section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990) of reducing any debt pursuant to this section are made in advance.

The Managers understand that any debt reduction agreement reached pursuant to this subtitle is likely to involve the full value of the Russian Federation's Soviet-era official debt to the United States. The purpose of the debt reduction will be to provide new funds for nonproliferation programs in the Russian Federation, rather than to provide debt relief to a country that is, after all, meeting its international financial obligations. The Managers hope, therefore, that any debt reduction agreement will encompass not only the face value of the debt, but also the interest or other debt servicing charges that would otherwise be owed.

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 07:24 AM
My apologies to the British, for two reasons:

1.) You paid us back.
2.) That we didn't just forgive the debt.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
My apologies to the British, for two reasons:

1.) You paid us back.
2.) That we didn't just forgive the debt.

Its quite funny that was my point ... were Britain the only country to actually repay debt (or actually intend to pay) from WW2?