I have some questions to the lend-lease program: As far as I know it mainly supported GB and the USSR. I wonder: Did they ever pay their debts? When and how? How did that effect the national budget of GB and the USSR and their policy?
Printable View
I have some questions to the lend-lease program: As far as I know it mainly supported GB and the USSR. I wonder: Did they ever pay their debts? When and how? How did that effect the national budget of GB and the USSR and their policy?
Taking Roosevelt's analogy of the garden hose at face value I always thought that the whole point of lend-lease was that you didn't have to pay anything for it?
Unlike in WWI where it was the UK's crippling debts to the USA that finished her off as a world power and ushered in American dominance.
The UK did have serious debt problems after WWII (factoid: rationing actually got worse in the UK after the war had ended) but I don't think it was a result of lend lease.
when was this lend-lease program and by who was it set up?
Surely not the Marshall plan
WW2
befor the americans Joined the war,
We were running out of ships to fight with,
America's people wernt willing to go to war in europe,
so the president came up with the Lend-Lease system
Where america Suplied the ships for britain But Was not a part of the war
(undoubtedly a huge factor for pearl harbour)
A nother ingenious plan he came up with was to Call the atlantic oacean..
An American pond.
So any attacks on freindly ships There Would Be an attack on america.
(also undoubtedly a nother factor why america was attacked)
its also where the saying
"Our freinds over the pond"
Comes from.
The lend-lease program was a bit of a fiction aimed at the isolationist American public. British cash reserves had been consumed very quickly once the war started and it was clear that they would no longer be able to pay for American-made weapons and material. For the US to simply give the British what they needed would have been tantamount to entering the war. This was completely unacceptable to most Americans at the time. Lend-lease was a way out of this problem: the US transferred weapons and material to the British in exchange for access to British bases. Above, I said this was a bit of a fiction, but the US really did use British bases so this isn't entirely true.
Since the lend-lease program involved an exchange of weapons for bases, there was no debt.
Once the US entered the war, transfer of US resources to the British was no longer quite the same issue. Lend-lease was no longer really important, though I believe it continued in a formal sense.
I'm don't know if lend-lease was applied to the USSR; I don't think the Russians could offer bases. In any case, they entered the war only about 7 months before the US, so there would have been little time for them to benefit from the program before it became irrelevant.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-lease
According to Hansard, the record of note for the debates that take place in the UK the Houses of Parliament, the debate in the Commons on 28th February 2002 shows that the UK expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31st December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:
"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]…"
"Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows."…
"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 [sic] in 1945. "
Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8th July 2002 that:
"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us. "
I understand that it was a big amount, but my English is not good enough to understand if and how much was actually paid. And what about the Russians?
Wow, three posts in the time it took me to compose 4 paragraphs.
the inital lone was
£1,075
"one thousand and seventy five million Pounds seterling"
with 2% interest
(dosent say if its , interest of 2% per year on the Whole amount or 2% per year on the balance remaining)
There is no mention of the russians in the text you have posted.
1075000000
- 244000000
Is 1/2 the Equasion needed To find out how much was payed back.
You also need to know how the Interest worked.
and how much money in interest was payed.
Add the 2 figures togther and thats The total payed so far.
So the British paid some 800 million pounds while the Germans received money from the Marshall Plan?
So lucky we did not win the war!:laugh4:
I don't think the debt referred to above was lend lease, IIRC it was to shore up sterling after the war, which was about to go tits up because we had spent all our money on tanks.
It has been remarked on....Quote:
So the British paid some 800 million pounds while the Germans received money from the Marshall Plan?
So lucky we did not win the war!
And of course when your factories were rebuilt they were state of the art 1950s ones rather than knackered 1920's ones. Not that I am seriously suggesting anyone ought to let either the Luftwaffe or the RAF do their town planning for them...
So it is still uncertain how much the Brits paid.
And I still wonder about Stalin. I cannot imagine that the Americans gave him the money as a gift nor that Stalin was willing to pay with money or give them bases.:help:
The statements You posted Say.
That they Were talking about the Lend lease agreement,
One guy seems to ask How Much do we still owe?
Then he is Told, That The Lend lease is not repayable,
BUT they took out a signifigant lone in 1945.
Its feas able that britain did not receve much of this ammount and that it was more of a "money laundering operation" to cover up the Re-payments of the Lend lease.
However,
Its Also Just as Unlikley.
Not really sure what information you are after - but several web sites have decent information on the aspects of Lend-Lease to include the numerous countries that recieved some sort of aid under the guise of the Lend-Lease Act.
This one has some of the answers I think you are looking for to include a link to the actual wording of the 1941 Lend-Lease Act.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/BigL-5.html
Hope this helps.
It provides an interesting read - that might answer the question your wanting to get to .
Some might be confusing several different aspects and legislation that constitute the different programs that often get lumped into the Lend-Lease debate. There were several programs before the March 1941 legislation that is titled the Lend Lease Act.
For instance in 1939 the Pittman Act allowed France and England to Purchase their previous cash and carry order of ammunition.
i have heard that a lot of the supply trucks that the soviet union used in in the initial phases of the war was supplied by the u.s, but as soviet production revved up, by the end of the war, the americans had managed to supply about 5% of what the soviets consumed during the war.
The USSR received military aid from the US. Lend Lease allowed the US to aid anyone deemed necessary to our national defense. Roosevelt interpreted that loosely to mean 'anyone fighting Germany and Japan' by the end of the war almost every country fighting the Axis was receiving some kind of aid.
If I can dig up a few books I'll have exact figures of some sort. I remember SPAM and Jeeps being mentioned in particular.
All I know is that by D-Day the Brit's had quite a few American Tanks...infact XXX Corp was comprised mostly of Shermans and the odd Crusader here and there.
I already knew that there was huge help for GB and the USSR. Now I know that most of it was paid by 'testing weapons' 'using bases' and other things (thank you Redleg).
Still do not know:
Did GB and the USSR send the planes, trucks and tanks back after the war? (guess the ammo was gone)
Did they pay money at all?
Who funded this program. I guess the US goverment. But it is such a huge amount - how did Roosevelt make the people accept to pay more tax to pay for the weapons for the British and Soviets?
No. Well, I say no, I admit I don't know what happened to all the scrap but I doubt it was shipped back across the atlantic.Quote:
Did GB and the USSR send the planes, trucks and tanks back after the war?
Bear in mind the Americans couldn't even ship as many GIs back as they wanted, it wouldn't have been in her interest to strip the British and French of tanks (which after all they hardly needed back in Michigan) with the soviets looking not very friendly in eastern Germany.
Anopther factoid: after WW1, the UK automotive industry went into major recession because the goverment sold off all the trucks and other motor vehicles it no longer needed, so there was no market for new ones.
After WWII they learned their lesson and scrapped everything the demobilised.
English assassin makes several excellent points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
I would add:
The wear and tear on military equipment in wartime conditions is extraordinary, without even taking combat damage into account. Most of the planes, tanks, and trucks which were shipped were probably scrap by the time the war ended.
The US (and all other) armed forces contracted dramatically at the end of the war, so even equipment in possession of the US was scrapped or mothballed shortly after the war ended.
The pace of technical innovation was such that much of the lent equipment was obsolete by the war's end. In the famous case of the 50 over-age destroyers lent to the British early in the war, the destroyers were obsolete (for all but ASW) when they were delivered.
Anyway, for the reasons mentioned above, most of the equipment delivered was not worth returning.
It was considered essential to keep the USSR in the war. Keeping them supplied meant more Germans fighting and dying in the east and fewer waiting to kill Americans on the beaches of France. So, this aid meant fewer American casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
You gotta remeber that FDR went a great deal into bringing America out of the great depression, so the masses would have jumped off a bridge for him if he said to. The add in Pearl Harbor and you have enraged population willing to do anything to win, and get revenge. So FDR's job really was that hard in convincing people that it was worth the taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus