British Debts

Ajax · 04-02-2007, 06:47 AM

Last year Britain finally finished paying off the USA for World War Two equipment & aid. It was somthing in the region of US$4.34 billion, and World War One debts are still hanging in the balance. They are about GB£225 billion or roughly US$325 billion. Should they be written off? Should they be slowly repaid? I personally need to know the US viewpoint first...

Glider · 04-02-2007, 09:10 AM

All WW1 depts have in effect ben written off. When the 1930's depressions struck it was recognised that the countries simply couldn't pay them off. The UK owe the USA a fair amount of money but the French alone owe the UK a lot more.

A better question might be should the other countries who still owe WW2 debts be made to pay them off.

Ajax · 04-08-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glider

All WW1 depts have in effect ben written off. When the 1930's depressions struck it was recognised that the countries simply couldn't pay them off. The UK owe the USA a fair amount of money but the French alone owe the UK a lot more.

A better question might be should the other countries who still owe WW2 debts be made to pay them off.

This thread seems void, then.
Case Closed

Instal · 10-28-2007, 04:53 PM

The last thing I want to do with the following comments is to cast disparaging remarks to my friends south of the border but I have allways wondered about Britain owing money to the U.S. for WW2. I personally find it reprehensible that Britain would owe anyone anything for carrying the fight to the Nazi's particularly when the US had it's head in the sand. Profiting from someone who is fighting that kind of evil is just wrong. The British people suffered greatly from the war they should not be made to continue to suffer because they did the right thing. And ya ya ya I know they weren't the only ones to suffer.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2007, 05:55 PM

Heads in the sand? During that period Nazi Germany, no matter how dastardly they were as a nation did NOTHING to the US that would incite a war. As a matter of fact supplying the UK the tools of the trade was done at risk and at times placed the US into provocative and potentially dangerous situations with regards to our neutrality and sovereignty. The real sin during that period was the way Britain and France sat on their asses for 8 months after Germany rolled through Poland. Yea it was evil to so called profit - I wonder what the would would be like had the US NOT given the UK war material during that period!

pbfoot · 10-28-2007, 06:35 PM

I agree the US tried to avoid the war and I don't blame them if they had of suceeded then then wouldn't have been thrust into the job of World police man
.But back on topic was the methods used by the US to supply the Allies without ruining there neutrality. I tried to google pics of this but the best i could come up with was this drawing. So as not cause a breech of neutrality the USAAF landed aircraft on runways that crossed the border between the US and Can and we stole the aircraft and dragged them over to Canada

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-28-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

The last thing I want to do with the following comments is to cast disparaging remarks to my friends south of the border but I have allways wondered about Britain owing money to the U.S. for WW2. I personally find it reprehensible that Britain would owe anyone anything for carrying the fight to the Nazi's particularly when the US had it's head in the sand. Profiting from someone who is fighting that kind of evil is just wrong. The British people suffered greatly from the war they should not be made to continue to suffer because they did the right thing. And ya ya ya I know they weren't the only ones to suffer.

Our heads in the sand?!!!

Sorry but that was a pretty dumb statment to make and honestly not very well thought out.

I will leave it at that because it honestly does not deserve an answer.

Instal · 10-28-2007, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Our heads in the sand?!!!

Sorry but that was a pretty dumb statment to make and honestly not very well thought out.

I will leave it at that because it honestly does not deserve an answer.

How is this a dumb statement? The isolationist movement in the U.S. was very strong right up to Pearl so yes the U.S. had it's head in the sand. The general population wanted nothing to do with the war. The only one trying to do something was F.D.R. and yes he did this at great political risk because THE REST OF THE COUNTRY HAD THIER HEADS IN THE SAND. So, F.D.R. knows he must do something and the only thing he can do is get the Brits as much raw material as he can. At a price. It is that price which is now debt that is the topic of this thread. Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2007, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

How is this a dumb statement? The isolationist movement in the U.S. was very strong right up to Pearl so yes the U.S. had it's head in the sand.

Germany was no physical threat to the US. At that time the Nazi war machine could not reach North America and the felling was the European War was not our war - that's not putting your head in the sand - it was reality! The Larger and physical threat were the Japanese and that threat showed it's ugly head on December 7.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?

Your hypothetical situation stinks - it was more like - "hey I need a gun to kill this guy - can you loan the money to buy the gun and I'll pay you back when I can?"

But then again - in a "hypothetical situation" - if this intruder was seen coming through the window and your friend had a chance to subdue him before he done harm but instead just sat there (like Britain and France did from September 1939 till May 1940) then who's to blame if you're left fighting for your life. I'm sorry but your logic stinks.

Bottom line, if the US was really that evil about profiting on "Lend Lease" then the US would of DEMANDED immediate payment at the end of WW2 - but that never happened!!!!!

mkloby · 10-28-2007, 08:54 PM

Instal - You have an emotional reaction, but think about it - The US sent massive amounts of materiel and equipment to the UK, even at a time when the US had no intention of entering the war. Why should US taxpayers foot the bill for war supplies for the UK?

Instal · 10-28-2007, 09:30 PM

OK guys I am not attacking the moral fiber of the U.S. or it's citizens who I have the ultimate respect for. It seems to me that the emotional reactions are not coming from me. The policy of the U.S. and it's allies today is that we should intervene when there is wrong being done in the world and I for one applaud this policy and I think you do as well. So how can this be the right thing to do now but not the right thing to do then. You can't have it both ways. There were Americans who thought it shamefull that the U.S. hadn't done more sooner such as Edward R Murrow who was seeing the blitz first hand. There were many others. I am looking at this from a big picture point of view. World War two wasn't a European war it was a war for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the world. It is a fact that it took the U.S. longer to recognise this then it should have. So who should pick up the tab? Everyone who benefited by it's victory. So is it fair that the U.K. tax payers pick up the tab when the U.S. benefited as much as anyone. And please don't read anything more in to this than a discussion. I am not making an attack I am stating the case as I understand it and I welcome any information that will change my view.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

OK guys I am not attacking the moral fiber of the U.S. or it's citizens who I have the ultimate respect for. It seems to me that the emotional reactions are not coming from me. The policy of the U.S. and it's allies today is that we should intervene when there is wrong being done in the world and I for one applaud this policy and I think you do as well. So how can this be the right thing to do now but not the right thing to do then. You can't have it both ways. There were Americans who thought it shamefull that the U.S. hadn't done more sooner such as Edward R Murrow who was seeing the blitz first hand. There were many others. I am looking at this from a big picture point of view. World War two wasn't a European war it was a war for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the world. It is a fact that it took the U.S. longer to recognise this then it should have. So who should pick up the tab? Everyone who benefited by it's victory.

OK......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

So is it fair that the U.K. tax payers pick up the tab when the U.S. benefited as much as anyone.

Benefited? In what way? By "selling or leasing" aircraft to our allies for profit? That's called Capitalism and it was one of the freedoms preserved as a result of WW2. As stated, the US didn't demand it's money at the end of WW2 and in essence the whole deal was probably better for UK (or for that matter any other lend lease "customer") taxpayers in the long run.

Remember - the US Government covered the Lendlease loans, not the companies who built the hardware - in essence the US Tax payer loaned the material to our allies - should the US Tax payer be held liable for that debt especially (as twice stated) the Nazi threat could of and would of been neutralized in the fall of 1939?!?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

And please don't read anything more in to this than a discussion. I am not making an attack I am stating the case as I understand it and I welcome any information that will change my view.

No problem...

Instal · 10-28-2007, 10:08 PM

Big picture here folks. The benefit is being able to live in a world free of Nazi tyranny.

FLYBOYJ · 10-28-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Instal

Big picture here folks. The benefit is being able to live in a world free of Nazi tyranny.

Sure - then as you put it, it should be no big deal for those countries who borrowed to pay for that freedom to repay their debts?!?!?

Instal · 10-28-2007, 10:35 PM

Perhaps I am being unrealistic. What this world would be like if the Allies had not won the war is unthinkable. To me the cause of the fight transcends the cost of waging it. Not only do I think the debt should be forgiven I don't think it should exist in the first place.