Lend-lease [what You Never Knew]

cshortridge73
24th June 2013, 15:14
I wish to state early on that this article is probably not going to be interesting to all concerned. What it does dive into is the amounts of money spent, and some percentages of who gave what to whom.
Now does it provide data and info that the average person was not aware that took place...."Yes, it does....big time!!!!"
I was taken back by the "numbers of planes, ships, trucks, locomotives, and rail cars that was shipped.....almost unbelievable.
My hat is off the President Roosevelt that was at the head of making this happen.

click: LEND-LEASE PROGRAM [WHAT YOU NEVER KNEW] (http://navalmerchantshiparticles.blogspot.com/2013/06/lend-lease-what-you-never-knew.html)

kypros
24th June 2013, 18:35
BUD so desprately needed at that time,President Roosevelt a political magician to get this bill through in face of strong opposition on his home front,I recall the final payment just six years ago well reported on our local news.KYPROS

E.Martin
25th June 2013, 18:42
With out Lend Lease and the USA coming into WW2 we would never have survived, when the war finished we were on the bones of our ****
Lend Lease finished and the Yanks wanted paying,they then came up with the Marshal Plan which involved lots and lots of money interest rate 2% which took from 1945 untill 2006 to pay off.
Not a bad business deal for Uncle Sam.

Aberdonian
25th June 2013, 22:32
Lend Lease finished and the Yanks wanted paying,they then came up with the Marshal Plan which involved lots and lots of money interest rate 2% which took from 1945 untill 2006 to pay off.
Not a bad business deal for Uncle Sam.

What was the Russian stance on the issue of repayment?

Aberdonian

ben27
26th June 2013, 00:04
good morning cshortridge73.yesterday.00:14.re:lend-lease(what you never knew).a very informative link on the above subject.i must confess I did not know all of it.but during the war we were bombarded with the generosity of the americans.i was in the navy.the 50 destroyers given to the R.N.were a great saver at the time.without lease lend the outcome of the war may have been reversed.i for one think the americans did a great act of generosity.thank you for posting.regards.ben27

Samsette
26th June 2013, 02:47
What was the Russian stance on the issue of repayment?

Aberdonian

Toughski-Shitski???????

Generous indeed. Churchill said something about it being a most unselfish act. And it was, regardless of all the benefits acrueing to the US economy.

stores
26th June 2013, 05:27
hi BUD, great posts, have read every one, some great stories of Liberty Ships, and others, this post was really interesting, thanks again, STORES.

jg grant
26th June 2013, 11:39
what uncle sam did was give us the boxing gloves and say, get in the ring and sort that bugger out', when you've done give us the gloves back or pay usfor use thereof. INMHO.

sparkie2182
26th June 2013, 13:06
All the above is in reference to fiscal terms.

Let's not lose sight of the American lives lost...............Most of America's youth were right there, in the ring, alongside us.

E.Martin
26th June 2013, 13:16
All the above is in reference to fiscal terms.

Let's not lose sight of the American lives lost...............Most of America's youth were right there, in the ring, alongside us.

Only after Germany declared war on the USA.

sparkie2182
26th June 2013, 13:27
I still like to thing they are remembered, irrespective of how their politicians decided policy.

jmbrent
26th June 2013, 18:11
Should all of the war debt incurred fighting Nazi Germany not been transferred to Germany who after all lost the war? Then maybe Britain would be in a much better financial position than it is in today!! Or is that an ungentlemanly way of looking at it?

Duncan112
26th June 2013, 18:20
Not ungentlemanly, a natural reaction, but it was the crippling reparations inflicted on Germany after the First World War, and consequent inflation, which gave Hitler one of his axes to grind that helped him rise to power.

Hugh Ferguson
26th June 2013, 19:34
Knowing that the U.S. Coastguard photographed many ships passing through New York awaiting convoy I had great hopes of getting hold of a photo of a ship I was in which had a huge deck cargo.

We had loaded in St. John N.B. and coasted down to New York awaiting convoy to form which would sail from Hampton Roads to Italy. The deck cargo was literally half way up the masts and consisted of light weight cased vehicles.

Had I succeeded in acquiring said photo I would love to have posted it here as an example of a typical Lend Lease cargo.

Samsette
27th June 2013, 04:00
Only after Germany declared war on the USA.

Some folks are never satisfied.(Cloud)

Samsette
27th June 2013, 04:04
Should all of the war debt incurred fighting Nazi Germany not been transferred to Germany who after all lost the war? Then maybe Britain would be in a much better financial position than it is in today!! Or is that an ungentlemanly way of looking at it?

Why? Germany did not declare war on Great Britain. Check it out.

spongebob
27th June 2013, 04:17
Why? Germany did not declare war on Great Britain. Check it out.

You are right Samsette, Neville Chamberlain Declared that Great Britain was at war with Germany and NZ, Australia, and Canada did likewise within hours.
The Germans accepted the situation.
Franklin D Roosevelt effectively brought the USA into the conflict on the Allies side well before Pearl Harbour forced him to openly declare and he did this by changing a law that enabled the USA to manufacture all forms of armaments for supply to Allied countries.

Bob

Samsette
27th June 2013, 18:15
A better friend would be hard to find, Bob.(Thumb)

Actually, Canada took a few days to make up its mind.

chadburn
27th June 2013, 19:22
A better friend would be hard to find, Bob.(Thumb)

Actually, Canada took a few days to make up its mind.

Although I understand Lockheed Hudson,s for the RAF were being towed across the Border from the US and flown out from Canada.

E.Martin
27th June 2013, 19:35
Why? Germany did not declare war on Great Britain. Check it out.

Britain never actually declared war on Germany we gave them a ultimatum about getting their troops out of Poland which they refused
so consequently we went to war

Binnacle
27th June 2013, 20:49
Chamberlain's declaration of war 3/9/39

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ww2outbreak/7917.shtml

Rodney
27th June 2013, 21:15
cshortridge73,

Many thanks for your link to "Lend-Lease". And a thank you to all for the kind posts re: The U.S.A. and President Roosevelt, it makes a wonderful change from the "yank bashing" that is a constant on an other M.N. site.

Regards, Rodney

Hugh Ferguson
28th June 2013, 08:44
See HERE (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=11451#8)
And HERE (https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/showthread.php?t=11451#12)

chadburn
28th June 2013, 10:43
cshortridge73,

Many thanks for your link to "Lend-Lease". And a thank you to all for the kind posts re: The U.S.A. and President Roosevelt, it makes a wonderful change from the "yank bashing" that is a constant on an other M.N. site.

Regards, Rodney

The situation would be no different if we started off with a non Nuclear WW3 and the "Orange Forces" decided to move West across Europe, we would still have to rely on the powerhouse and the good offices of America to provide the supplies required and the ships (from those held in their Reserve Fleets) to form a new Atlantic Bridge. Barring for their interference in the Suez debacle we have a lot to thank the Americans for in my view.

stein
28th June 2013, 15:27
Barring for their interference in the Suez debacle we have a lot to thank the Americans for in my view.

The interference consisted in the US not giving their support, something which Eden and MacMillan (stupidly some say) just assumed they would get from Eisenhower once the operation had started. On their own (with France and Israel) Britain had not the financial clout for such an adventure.

Even before the Suez incursion British reserves were below what could be considered safe. The Eden government knew that for the Pound-Dollar rate, and the cohesion of the Sterling area, to hold, they would need help from the IMF, and there the Americans held all the cards.

E.Martin
28th June 2013, 15:53
Dear old England is not the same
We dreaded invasion and yet it came
No! its not the beastly Hun
The goldarn yankee Army come.

They moan about our luke warm beer
Drink beer like water over here
But after drinking 2 or more
You'll find them lying on the floor.

Most of us agree that without American aid world history would have been alot differant so it is a good job we let them win the war of Independence.
I have read that USA was the only country in the World that came out of WW2
showing a profit.
Also read that that American oil was getting to Germany through Spain.

WilliamH
28th June 2013, 17:14
I fully agree that the Germans could not have been beaten without the help of the U.S.A in manpower, weapons and materials. However we should remember that Germany was researching nuclear weapons and were quite advanced in rocket technology, so if Britain had fallen, and then Iceland the U.S.A could have been vulnerable to rocket attacks. It was in America's interest that Britain survived.

chadburn
28th June 2013, 18:32
The interference consisted in the US not giving their support, something which Eden and MacMillan (stupidly some say) just assumed they would get from Eisenhower once the operation had started. On their own (with France and Israel) Britain had not the financial clout for such an adventure.

Even before the Suez incursion British reserves were below what could be considered safe. The Eden government knew that for the Pound-Dollar rate, and the cohesion of the Sterling area, to hold, they would need help from the IMF, and there the Americans held all the cards.

The main clincher was that the American Govt threatened to stop the Marshall Aid programme as far as I remember.

Samsette
29th June 2013, 01:47
The main clincher was that the American Govt threatened to stop the Marshall Aid programme as far as I remember.

That is interesting. That Marshall was still being doled out in 1956, I mean.

stein
29th June 2013, 07:13
1950-1 was the final year of Britain's Marshall Aid. Little of it spent on reindustrialisation, but much on defense, on welfare, and on supporting the Pound? One of the most damaging conditions of Lend-Lease was the Dollar convertibility of Sterling (a not unnatural demand: banning the devaluation of the debtor... the PIIGS's problem of today).

chadburn
29th June 2013, 16:52
That is interesting. That Marshall was still being doled out in 1956, I mean.

Yes, I got it wrong.(Sad)

kypros
29th June 2013, 17:09
I believe its only fair to point out that there was another price to pay for the MARSHAL AID PLAN that was Britain doing away with the IMPERIAL PRICE PREFERENCE system which excluded the US from trading with the BRITISH EMPIRE on price equality and opened almost a quarter of the world to US COMPANYS .KYPROS

stein
30th June 2013, 08:17
It was a free trade arrangement, and it was lost at Bretton Woods in 44:

Bretton Woods: Keynes' Fall of Singapore

…Keynes' … Bretton Woods performance was not merely a defeat, it was a historic disaster of the order of the Fall of Singapore two years earlier, in which Lieutenant-General Arthur Percival, in spite of having more men and better equipment than his Japanese attackers, surrendered supinely within a few weeks, in the largest capitulation in British history. Keynes' failure at Bretton Woods was equally unforgiveable, and for British long-term interests even more damaging…

A negotiator with Britain's true economic interests at heart would not have allowed chimerical new schemes of international finance to dominate the conference, but would have focused like a laser (or, there being no such thing then, like a Martian Heat-Ray) on Britain's three crucial interests: the preservation of Imperial Preference, the largest possible post-war loan, and permission for an immediate sterling devaluation similar to the 30% fall which became inevitable in 1949.

Imperial Preference had proved its value in the 1930s, in allowing a modest reciprocal arrangement against the still gigantic American tariffs, so that British manufacturers had a chance in Empire, Dominion and later Commonwealth markets of competing against U.S. products that had built huge efficiencies of scale behind their high tariff wall. Had that benign system continued in full force, being modified modestly as the various post-war free trade agreements were signed (none before the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 would have lowered tariffs enough to affect Imperial Preference), Britain would have had its own free-trade area that was well designed to balance its raw-material-poor manufacturing and service economy. Joining the European Economic Community would have been superfluous and indeed obviously economically counterproductive.

http://www.prudentbear.com/2013/03/bretton-woods-keynes-fall-of-singapore.html

Hugh Ferguson
30th June 2013, 10:04
Fascinating! I certainly knew nothing of that debacle.

stein
30th June 2013, 10:38
I’ve got the book reviewed in above link, and it is not as condemning of Keynes as the review. The Americans were in a position to dictate the conditions, and however arrogantly better-knowing Keynes might have appeared to the Americans (led by a Soviet spy); it is mere conjecture that someone with more respectful manners, and less high flying ideas, would have done better. Britain did not “give at the doors” when they ruled the World, and the Americans when taking charge were correspondingly little concerned with the plight of the deposed, as China too will be.

I admit to finding it slightly unpleasant to read that Keynes consistently referred to the participants that were neither English nor American at the conference as “the monkeys” though… (Jester)

Rodney
19th October 2013, 22:10
Hugh,

Many thanks for your post #23. I have just finished reading "See HERE" re. w.w.2 Tankers North Atlantic. A magnificent thread; I am indebted to you...I will commence reading "And HERE" tomorrow.

My comment on my post #22 bares no reflection to S.N. at all. I was comparing it to "another site" which is constantly yank bashing and denigrating other nationalities merchant seamen. This led me to believe the moderators must have been in agreement to allow such undocumented drivel a forum. Thus my remark on my #23 was intended as a compliment.

Once again thank you.

Rodney

ben27
20th October 2013, 00:52
good day cshortridge73.sm.25th june.00:14.re:lend lease{what you never knew}I have posted on this thread before#5.but readind your post again and members input I thought I woul mention an incident that happened at sea when the japs surrendered.we were in the pacific.after we heard and had a celebration of sorts the next day the captain called for volunteers to dump all equipment no longer needed over the side.when we query'd this we were told.what was lost in action did not have to be paid for.under lease lend.we dumped all our planes.fuel.and anything that was not bolted down.the other explanation was the less we took back the more jobs in industry.if you can believe it.when we got to Norfolk Virginia and handed our ship back to the usa.navy they stripped her bare,they said they were short of copper.and wanted the wiring,it was a long time ago.thanks for your interesting thread again.regards ben27

kypros
20th October 2013, 10:26
RODNEY to me the most important political decision of the twentieth century was the American presidents to support Britain,this was taken with a lot of hostility in the US against it,the world as a lot to thank the President for.KYPROS

Hugh Ferguson
20th October 2013, 15:25
You will never be able to repay the Americans! The taking of Tarawa involved the greatest loss of life to the U.S. Marines in one action.
All returned to the British as was Hong Kong & Singapore. I would ask, how do you repay blood lost? .