Did anyone repay the full value of their Lend-Lease support? -
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 окт 2024
- Join us on Patreon: / timeghosthistory
Or join the TimeGhost Army directly at: timeghost.tv/s...
Check out our TimeGhost History RUclips channel: / timeghost
Between 2 Wars: • Between 2 Wars
Follow WW2 Day by Day on Instagram: @ww2_day_by_day
Follow TimeGhost History on Instagram: @timeghosthistory
Like us on Facebook: / timeghosthistory
Source literature list: bit.ly/SourcesWW2
Archive footage: Screenocean/Reuters - www.screenocea...
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.
#timeghost #timeghost #history #historical #history #worldwartwohistory #worldwartwo #ww2 #ww2history #historymatters #maps #cartography #camo
This question came from many users! Thank you to everyone who asked this.
The Anglo-American Loan Wikipedia article says Canada also loaned 1.9b, but doesn't give a source, can you make a video about it if that's true?
A 2% loan. Man, if only.
Although the line of credit was not just beneficial to the British, it kept the US economy humming along too since we would be the largest market for the stuff they would buy. Might as well pay them in Disney Dollars.
“Buy” or “sell”?
2% of 10 billion dollars is still 200000000
To be fair the British Empire probably had a really good credit score since they owned a quarter of the world and invented capitalism in the first place lol
@@cringlator Capitalism was invented by the Dutch, but they did started the industrial revolution though.
@TheDailyKnife009 Yeah, but at that rate, it doesn't even beat inflation. We are immediately losing money. Plus, that doesn't take into account the opportunity cost. We could have put the money into an investment that pays better.
Still worth it though to help our ally recover.
Pretty trippy
We take it for granted but the idea of one of Englands former colonies saving their economy with a credit line is wild.
Imagine telling that to the loyalists back in 1776
Rome actually did this
The importance of basically all of British colonies former or current had was invaluable. Some were rightfully not so willing to help out.
They would be fuming
Now imagine telling them that the reason for the aid was Germany conquering France...
Sadly germany wasnt a thing then@@AnimeSunglasses
ORIGINAL: Germany also "donated" a hefty amount to the US Treasury some years back in a repayment of the Marshall Plan, though it's not clear how formal this was.
EDIT: I have looked into this again and I was operating under a slight misapprehension; the story is more complicated (naturally, being that it involves Germany). Nevertheless, Germany has paid hundreds of millions of dollars' worth in funds to the US to establish transatlantic institutions, and as of 2006 at least had long established its Marshall Plan aid into a self-sustaining fund. I encourage people to google and read "Marshall Plan 1947-1997: A German View" for more information on this topic.
the missing golds???
Marshall plan was 90% grant money, not a loan. Although it did require the use of US products to build it. Thats a cheaper than borrowing money and and paying interest rates, plus sucking up money from other projects. Not sure what world people see that as a negative. Also Not sure what your reference is about.
@@syahran1518what missing gold. They got all their gold back years ago. It was stored outside Germany, because of the threat of a Soviet invasion it was not kept in Germany. Or are talking about all that Nazi gold and art the Nazis embezzled through Switzerland that ended up all over the world.
My Uncle in the south pacific. On day on the island he was in charge of he saw 2 men walking about the island. He asked what they were doing. He was told counting the tree stumps. He asked why and was told the US was going to pay $5 to France for each distorted tree. Not only did we get their islands back for them but we paid them to let us have the privilege to do it.
we paid them in flappy disney dollars, whilst our int personnel completely took over their country, seems like a win for whoever is king of usa
i dont know if it was a win for american peasants but it was certainly a win for american king... whomever that is.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95room temp iq comment from KitKat
The French are unbelievable. They charged the brits £200 for each trainload of soldiers and gear to cross France in WW1.
Half the country collaborated yet still got a share of the spoils, then they had the gall to go around shaving womens heads for fraternising.
US foreign policy toward Europe after WWII was not some starry-eyed altruistic endeavor: it was designed with US interests firmly in mind. This loan, the Marshall plan, NATO, etc, were ALL aimed at integrating Europe & the UK into an American dominated political, economic and military system. It worked. And reason it worked so smoothly is that the US advanced its own interests by pursuing CONVERGENT interests with Europe. The UK wanted the loan. Europe wanted the Marshall Plan. Ditto NATO. That was the genius of American foreign policy in Europe in the send half of the 20th C.
Yeah... But it really stands in stark contrast to anywhere else for decades
People have friends. Nations have interests. if it works for both sides, then fair enough!
@@trooperdgb9722 I don't disagree! I commented because I see a lot of Americans online talking about these policies as if they're some sort of charity, as if they don't recognize that these policies serve US interests. It's really odd.
@@Splattle101 Nor do many recognise just how MUCH was paid back... in ways other than financial too. There was a UK/US agreement to share research on supersonic flight...so the Brits forwarded all the results of the (very advanced) research by the Miles aircraft company... Unfortunately someone (political figure no doubt) decided that such research was too valuable and secret to be shared... so no reciprocal information sharing occurred..... and of course the US built and flew the X-1. That had to leave a bad taste...
@@trooperdgb9722 We also sold Britain many of our most advanced jet fighters throughout the Cold War, including the F-4 Phantom. American fighter-pilots have contributed directly to Britain's air defenses ever since the 1940's, and we still have a fighter wing in the U.K. performing that mission. Britain *did* benefit from our post-War aerodynamics research, even if we didn't share the stuff we learned from the X-1 with them.
Thanks for covering lend-leases history.
Thanks for the comment!
This is actually so cool. Countries working like this is genuinely amazing to learn about.
Ever heard of the Friendship Train? It was a massive charity organized by the US that quickly grew beyond its target, taking several trains to haul everything to the coast before it was shipped to France.
The French responded with the Merci Train, sending dozens of wagons to the US as thanks. Most of the wagons are preserved in museums to this day.
Almost cheaper for England to make peace with Germany
@@timesnewlogan2032That is freaking awesome. For all their faults, cooperation between Western countries is magnificent to behold. Long may it continue.
"Working together" by keeping britian within an inch of its life so it didn't fall to communism while making sure america would make money?
@Abdul-Akeem_Akinloye Long May it continue.
It occurred to me that it had to be low interest as the depression only ended a few years earlier and would start again if it was a higher rate.
try to get a loan on anything at 2%
What is even crazier than that is the money we loaned Britian in WW1 got paid back finally in like 2010
@@dangreene3895 Even that was done more by inflation than anything else. The only country that repaid its WWI loans without discount, offset or delay was Australia. UK Hansard records; ‘the Australians need to be taught a lesson’ and then Britain collected those payments for itself instead of properly paying them to America.
@@seanlander9321 When I was a kid they used to have a story every year how Finland was paying back money to us from when Russia invaded them in the 30's , and that was the only country I ever heard of trying to pay us back, until recently
@@dangreene3895 Yeah, Americans seem to want to keep quiet that Australia gave more than it received. Just like the British don’t want to know that only Australia paid them back for WWI.
Actually, the U.K. never fully repaid the loans borrowed from the U.S during the First World War. Britain paid back about half of the debt before suspending payments during the Great Recession, and the matter was set aside during and after the Second World War.
don't know where you guys get your data from but for an alternte view you culd tart here :
encyclopedia of WW1
Version 1.0
|
Last updated 15th January 2015
War Finance (Australia)
By Jatinder Mann
Thank you for the recognition that the UK continued to pay off its lend lease payments.
All too often Americans are unaware of this, which is why, I suspect, many Americans resent the whole affair.
It's also fair to suspect that much of the value was probably inflated, which is why the US economy was so strong coming out of the war, which is probably one of the reasons why Britons resented it as well.
However, what neither the British, nor the American public realise is that, without it, the result would have been very, very different.
And the fact is that Lend Lease provided the beneficiaries with what they needed. The UK needed convoy escorts and plentiful, effective armour, the Russians needed decent air support and logistics. I know that Russia got some tanks, but it was US logistical support (read; trucks) that permitted the sweeping success that was Bagration.
What part did you miss that what was paid back was not lend lease. No one paid that back. No one was asked to pay it back either. What your talking about is the loan the British paid back which was a post war loan called the Angelo American loan that some of ithar loan paid .10¢ in the dollar civilian industrial resources for British factories. The rest was to keep British operational
As for your imagination of what Americans are thinking, try the other way around. Most of all 99% of them don't care one way or another about it. The ones that do say anything is usually in response to British go on about being by themselves for almost 2 years and the US did nothing.
@@Matt-mt2vi Considering that your post is barley intelligible, I won't embarrass you further by posting any more than this.
Nor, BTW, did I say that "All Americans" think about it at all.
It appears that your reading comprehension, as well as the rest of your post, is hard of understanding.
And you appear to think that ignoring the plights of your longest serving allies (nor am I even talking about the UK in this case) for 2 years was completely acceptable.
That is the kind of thought process" that I associate with your current MAGAts.
@@davidcolin6519 don't worry about me, I'm not thinned skinned. You on the other hand.....
As you keep embarrassing yourself and continue like act like a fool by over generalizing to make weak minded insults.
Far too many British posters have a Napoleon complex. So please seek treatment for your PPD. The slight you feel is your caused by your own imagination. Clearly based on your own ignorance of what Americans know or think. Just like not all Europeans think the same from Western to Eastern Europe. The US is not a singular entity either with a single mind. Not to mention the trolls that love to get people like yourself all fired up. Then the most ignorant part of your point is the fact that most of the world doesn't constantly think or care about WW2 either. Even if they do they mostly only know only parts of it, mostly what affected them. Most Chinese only care about there part of that war in China that was far longer than WW2 receive less recognition the number of lives lost worse than what the Soviets endured. Africa and the majority of the Americas South of the US don't care at all. As for the British poster they constantly display their own ignorance about anything other what happened that they directly took part in.
My reading comprehension, lol. You made a claim about paying back LL that the video specifically pointed out was false. What they paid back the Angelo-American loan, Of which 1/3rd of it covered the last shipment of LL civilian industrial resources for British factories that they decided they would keep. Like Soviets the British were upset that LL was ended so quickly, even though that was the terms of the agreement once Germany surrendered. 50 Billion was given away as part of LL, and not everytying given to all the allies was part of LL, such as building up oil production in Britain.
So if want to keep imagining that fairytale that people in the US are *specifically* ignoring that the "British" fought nearly 2 years longer. You also have to keep ignoring that most Americans ignore even US contributions as well as basically most information about WW2.
The US also sat out most of the nearly 50 some wars European wars as well. And shouldn't have taken part WW1 either. The US had no treaties with any European country and by law should have remained neutral, but they didn't. India a British colony was also not too keen to fight for the British either.
Even though the US was supposed to be like Switzerland and be neutral, they were not during those 2 years. Not only was LL a clear violation of being neutral. The US took some overt military actions with British ships against German submarines during those 2 years that the US was not part of WW2. It made massive ocean territory claims from Greenland to US shores to provide safe passage of cargo bound to Britain, greatly reducing the danger zone of German subs. Contributions it made in finding the Bismarck USCGC Modic and the British PBY plane was at the time being piloted by a US service member training the British to operate the plane.
@@davidcolin6519 Even Britain, struggling as it was, built locomotives for Russia to run on their narrow gauge tracks. Russia's dire circumstance were largely due to Stalin's epic mismanagement. It's still being mismanaged to the present day.
@@Mavis-u3k Yes, I am aware, and the UK supplied a lot of other war materials to the USSR.
It's very easy to criticise Stalin and the Soviet system, and much of that criticism is absolutely valid. However, you also need to recognise that the soviets inherited a country that had effectively been run as a private estate for centuries. Rapid industrialization and education was no easier than it has been for, for example, the DRC.
The real sadness is that the Russian people have a cultural affinity for "strong" leaders, and they seem incapable of getting past that.
OTOH, before we get too condescending, the Anglo world isn't much better. After all, the USA has had Reagan and Dick Cheney as well as DJT, and the UK has had Thatcher and Blair, and our systems of "democracy" are so far from ideal that even using the term for Anglophone countries gives the wrong impression.
This had me look up Australia's payments post ww2. We played back a bill of 27 million US dollars by October 1946. 1 year to pay off the American lend lease debt. This may have been made easier by the Aussie dollar being worth 3 USD at the time so we paid about 9miolion Aussie dollars and we were free an clear.
@@solreaver83 America didn’t pay out Reverse Lend Lease to Australia though.
Yes, we paid in reverse lend lease.
Don't have a reference, but recall Australia was in credit as we were supplying food to the US overseas forces.
@@warrenklein7817 yeah I was reading there were some crafty dealings going on. Australia was charging fees for having American troops in Australia. They ran up a tab basicly which they used to reduce the end bill for lend lease. Even gave the title to the land used for the American embassy in Canberra.
Thanks USA, much appreciated 👍
Yeah well maybe not.....
Back when we had some sense and not everything was transactional. I think our investment in a stable Europe paid off.
Supposedly Portugal paid back the Marshall Plan aid, though
This question never crossed my mind, but I'm glad to know the answer, very interesting. Love this channel
Is it actually true that Finland is the only country that actually paid its reparations?
I love how a victim was forced to pay reparations to its invader.
That was the correct answer that I got correct on an extra credit test that took me from a B to an A much to my teachers amazement, considering he had me down as a D student up to that test.
@@JohnHenryEden2277 ... huh?
@@Torantes Finns had to pay reparations to the USSR who invaded them and stole around 10% of their land.
@@JohnHenryEden2277 please name every country that invaded Russia in 1941
I helped pay towards that debt, I also helped pay for the West Africa Squadron.
*starts playing patriotic music.
The US left behind a huge amount of material in the SWPA for Australia to destroy as waste.
In the end Australia's Lend Lease account was balanced to net zero taking into account reverse Lend Lease and the cost of all this disposal.
Of course, a lot of material escaped destruction and was unofficially repurposed on farms all over Australia.
Finland (a member of the Axis, not an Allied country), was the only Axis country to pay off their war debt in full. No one else did.
Mostly it was paid in blood.
Thanks I remember the press frenzy about the final UK repayment
I know of two countries that were in credit with the USA . Both Australia and New Zealand were owed money by the USA for goods and services at the end of the war . There may be others .
The Soviet Union also supplied raw materials and oil through Iran .
I belive were are the only country to pay those afreed debts in full though.
Nope, Australia had repaid in full by 1946, while America did not repay Australia.
I think it took us until the mid 90s
No
We borrowed the money and continued to borrow money
Well since LL wasn't a loan like he correctly stated. They paid back a post war loan. I believe the British are still paying for WW1 debts. Russia paid in "full in full" the far greater reduced total price penny on the dollar price for LL items they kept. Refusing to pay for project Hulu ships and items that were not formally signed agreement. And of course say they received far less then the total the US claimed.
Australia received a bill, they claimed they gave more than they received. Debt was marked as paid in full with a land agreement.
I don't believe anyone else was billed
@@seanlander9321 source ?
“AmErIcA iS eViL bRoOoOo TrUsT mE”
“I kNoW fIrSt HanD aBoUt DeBt TrApS cUz I mAxEd OuT mY cReDiT”
The U.S. fully expected Britain eventually repay everything, even though the country was on its knees due to the war. Germany, on the other hand, had billions of dollars pumped into it for 'reconstruction' after the war. A war that they started. A war which caused millions of deaths and the devastation of most of Europe and large parts of Russia. Britain paid money to the U.S.A. who then poured that money into Germany. In effect Britain won the war but Germany won the peace.
Germany had the shame of losing both world wars, and US and Britain didn't want Germany to start another one, and also they'd like a new ally in the fight to contain Communism, so West German was given a lot of aid to get them back on their feet, kinda like kill your enemy with kindness thing
USA wrote off over 20 billion USD of Britain's Lend Lease debt in 1945.
Marshall Plan (ERP) 1948-1952
"Britain actually received more than a third more Marshall Aid than West Germany - $2.7 billion as against $1.7 billion. She in fact pocketed the largest share of any European nation."
BBC The Wasting of Britain's Marshall Aid
it was Winstin Churchill who started the war. Germany under the ww2 regime never declared war against Britain.
britian said "dont attack Czechia or it will be war" then the germans attacked czechia and there was no war.
how was germany to know that poland would be different than czechia in the eyes of the british.
the entire war is the fault of british flipflop policy. if they could be trusted to actually keep a defensive pact than germany never would have invaded poland and millions of polish lives would have been saved. it is british lies that caused so much devastation. and also churchill was a racist.
churchill declared war on germany not the other way around.
@@kitkat47chrysalis95 found the neo not c, no one wants you here bucko. Go back to the Confederacy where you belong
OP, what did you want, Treaty of Versailles #2? Because it worked so good the first time.
Lend Lease and the Marshall Plan were essentially for the future benefit of the United States; by strengthening/rebuilding countries and economies, the US would have diplomatic allies, markets friendly to US industry, etc. This wasn’t out of the kindness of their hearts, or punishing and rewarding whichever nation.
Thank you America 🇬🇧
Thank them? You may want to read up on the details of that loan mate ...
it's fucking hilarious how the tables turn
Some things increase in value when you loan them out. Not so for weapons. Especially not if the war they were made to fight, has ended.
Missing payments from the Soviet Union have entered the chat:
Stalin said "we paid in blood!" So I had heard. True or not?
So?
Everyone else did too.
@@kjj26kI dont think the british and americans had their country ravaged by an extermination campaing...
US provides about $30bn aid to Britain - and Britain provides $7.5bn in reciprocal aid to the US. So called 'Reverse Lend-Lease. It went both ways.
So many people look this horse in the mouth, sadly.
Is Britain the closes one to paying us back
And then there are people that believe that russia paid its loan from lend-lease in full 😂 or not recognize lend-lease as important at all
It’s hard to put into perspective how much the US gave during WW2. We were helping even before we fought.
Russia probably would have lost or at least lose a much higher number of troops without the help. I’m more curious if Russia paid it at all?
There is an older "short" adressing this issue.
-TimeGhost Ambassador
Finland didn't get lend lease (not that we didn't want it, but Soviets didn't let us take it), but was the only country to pay Soviets the war reparations in full, and years before the loan was due.
Tbf, Finland was never offered it as by the time the system came into effect, they were a German ally.
Finland.
My 6th grade teacher said that Finnland did. And he was the authority on everything!
I get that the point is that your teacher was not as knowledgeable as he suggested, but - that aside - I don't think Finland even got lend-lease (at least not from the U.S.
Technically, all of nothing is nothing.
@@redbeard5939 I have no doubt that he got some thing wrong, but we loved him. I even had another teacher who had had him, who thought he was great!
That's nearly true, since Finland was actually the only country to fully pay their war reparations in time.
this guy is talking about lend lease, not war reparations
The British also gave the USA penicillin, radar, sonar, the jet engine, microwave technology, aircraft bubble canopy technology, aircraft carrier technology and the means to break the sound barrier to specify a few examples. Debt more than repaid!
first US patent for radar was granted in 1935 (CORRECTION 1934). sonar was invented in France. post war RR sold the Nene jet engine to the US the year after Attlee gave it to USSR. P38 had a bubble canopy.
Penicillin As the medical application was established, the Oxford team found that it was impossible to produce usable amounts in their laboratory.[89] Failing to persuade the British government, Florey and Heatley travelled to the US in June 1941 with their mould samples in order to interest the US government for large-scale production.[95] They approached the USDA Northern Regional Research Laboratory (NRRL, now the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research) at Peoria, Illinois, where facilities for large-scale fermentations were established.[96] Mass culture of the mould and search for better moulds immediately followed.[95]
@@nickdanger3802 The first sonar was developed by a British naval architect in 1906. The Royal Navy used sonar, under the name ASDIC, from 1920. Watson Watt invented radar and patented it in February 1935, although the name "radar" was coined by the US navy in 1939. The P38, Mustang etc. used British technology for their bubble canopies. When Florey and Healey took penicillin to the USA, the spores carried on the lapels of their jackets, the USA was given penicillin in return for providing means for large-scale production. This saved many American lives.
@@nickdanger3802 1. The radar gifted to the USA was small band radar facilitated by the Cavity Magnetron. This allowed radar to be fitted to aircraft and ships.
2. The sonar was far more advanced system than that used by the French.
3. The Whittle Jet engine was donated complete with blueprints to the USA in 1941 for GE to develop their understanding of materials and processes. The Nene was just one of many engines sold to, or produced under licence by, the USA post WWII. It was not given to the USSR it was sold to them
4. As for your lecture on Penicillin if you are going to copy / paste from Wikipedia to look clever you should really delete the annotations!
Oh and btw without Tizard passing on the secrets of splitting the atom and nuclear fission proven by the British under their 'Tube Alloys' project their would have been no Manhattan Project. Which used mostly British scientists like Chadwick.
You're welcome.
@@noonsight2010 1934- A. H. TAYLOR ET AL SYSTEM FOR DETECTING OBJECTS BY RADIO Filed June 13, 1933 3 Sheets-Sheet l RECEIVER lM/D qwawa TIME AIRPLANE TRANSMITTER Nov. 27, 1934. A. H. TAYLOR ET AL 1,981,334
Known locally as the AG lab went on a tour through it about 7 years ago as I live in Peoria very interesting place @@nickdanger3802
And so ensuring the US would be a reserve currency propping up the dollar........
sterling area, formerly, a group of countries that kept most of their exchange reserves at the Bank of England and, in return, had access to the London capital and money market. After the devaluation of the pound sterling in September 1931, the United Kingdom and other countries that continued to maintain parity with sterling and to hold their reserves in London became known as the sterling bloc.
Forgetting about Australia?, pretty sure we paid off our debt shortly after the war was over, and dont forget we supplied the yanks with more reverse lend lease than we were supplied with in the first place
Australia received almost $2 billion in US Lend-Lease aid during the Second World War, military aircraft representing a quarter of this total.7
Cutting the Gordian Knot: Reassessing Australia's Lend-Lease Settlement Abstract
LEND-LEASE AND RECIPROCAL AID
HC Deb 16 October 1945 vol 414 cc943-4W943W
§Sir R. Glyn asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value in dollars under the reverse Lend-Lease total of 5,600,000,000, came from the British Commonwealth and Empire; how much from the United Kingdom; and how much from all the rest of the Allies jointly .
§Mr. Dalton Of this total $3,797,000,000 was in respect of reverse Lend-Lease from the United Kingdom and Colonies, $1,498,000,000 from the Dominions (not including Canada) and India and $305,000,000 from the rest of the Allies.
This misrepresents the point of lend Lease. The objective was to defeat the Axis and remove the threat to the US, Europe and the Allied far-East. A joint war effort. The US might have supplied, say, a tank but the British trained and supplied the skilled Armour troops to operate it - feeding them, providing personal weapons etc, the rear echelon troops to repair and maintain this tank and in many cases, providing the gasoline from British oil wells to run the tank. The US couldn't alone provide the manpower to defeat the Axis - a tank on its own didn't contribute anything.
Peace in Europe was worth the investment. Blood is thicker than water.
IIRC there were also terms that granted US interests favorable and even priority treatemnt in post war access to markets and economic negotiations. Though that may have been part of the Marshall Plan and I'm misremembering.
Either way those stipulations are why the US went from an agricultural and industrial power, to world dominating superpower basically overnight, we gave the rest of the world no choice but to do business with us.
The sterling area (or sterling bloc, legally scheduled territories)[1][2] was a group of countries that either adopted or pegged their currencies to the pound sterling.
The area began to appear informally during the early 1930s, after sterling had left the gold standard in 1931, with the result that a number of currencies of countries that historically had performed a large amount of their trade in sterling were pegged to sterling instead of to gold. A large number of these countries were part of the British Empire; however, a significant minority were not.
Early in the Second World War, emergency legislation united the sterling bloc countries and territories (except Hong Kong) of the British Empire in a single exchange control area to protect the external value of sterling, among other aims. Canada and Newfoundland were already linked to the US dollar and did not join the sterling bloc.[3]
That was the marshall plan, but that was also extremely oversimplified. The project that used marshall plan money only had that requirements. The money was 90% grants not a loan so like LL there was no required pay the money back by buying US steel or US company or something to do that project. The US got a fraction of the money back into its economy. Britiian or other country got workers paid and infrastructure built for future profits.
The cost of fighting tyranny….
Britain would have remained affluent and powerful if they didn’t fight Nazism.
Am I missing something? 10 cents on the dollar for a $10 billion dollar loan would be $1 billion, right? Where did $586 million come from?
3.75 billion USD line of credit loan, 586 million for final balance of Lend Lease.
10 billion was the dollar amount assigned to reverse Lend Lease provided to USA.
US wrote off over 20 billion of LL debt in 1945.
United States: War Loans to UK
HL Deb 27 May 2002 vol 635 cc126-7WA127WA
§Lord Laird asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they owe money to the United States Government as a result of World War Two debt: if so, how much is owed; when it will be repaid; and what representation they have made to the United States Government concerning the debt being cancelled. [HL4422]
§Lord McIntosh of Haringey 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.
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 he completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer repayment.
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 their obligations under the 1945 agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lent in 1945 and so no representation has been made.
The Angelo American loan which what he was talking about was for 3.7 Billion. The rest of it, 2.7 Billion, was for Britiian to remain operational not just in Europe, but its navy as well
Because it was in the name of defeating Hitler, it’s cool. But, this country’s economic decisions during, and after, both world wars, was less than ideal. Germany was able to refinance, for the lack of a better term, the war reparations they owed via the Treaty of Versailles, and other Axis countries also failed to repay the Allies in full. In this video, we see how the British paid pennies on the dollar for economic aid before we even entered the war. After the war, we essentially rebuilt Europe, which cost tens of billions, we had to throw more money into reorganizing Japan, and there was the billions attached to the Marshall Plan. Of course, much of this falls under “you have to spend money to make money.” There was an obvious purpose to revitalizing Europe of course, we needed a healthy continent to expand trade and all that. We still lower prices in exporting weapons, especially during wartime, right now it’s to countries like Israel and Ukraine; over the last decade we have sold an unprecedented quantity of arms, at wholesale, to Saudi Arabia. This all plays a role on why we spend so heavily on Defense. The military-industrial complex is alive and well, despite Eisenhower’s warning in the late 1950s. 750 military bases, 5,200 fighter jets? We don’t spend to defend our borders, we spend to fight others’ battles overseas, mainly in the desert wasteland that is the Middle East; when Muslim countries see the U.S. military occupying their lands, killing their people, decade after decade, it has a massive effect on the minds of the young men who live there. It breeds resentment and anger for the superpower that thinks it can do anything it wants without impunity, and it ultimately creates terrorist groups who seek revenge as they reach adulthood and lasts their entire lives. If only we left them alone, the world would be a safer place. *please excuse the unrelated tangent. 😊
Yes, but the givers tend to gain power over the takers
If it was 50 annual payments, and started in 1950, then why was the final in 2006? They fall behind on payments or some thing?
Britain was allowed to skip 5 years and took an extra year
@@nickdanger3802 Thank you for the explanation.
lol the 12th of Twentysixvember
It never occurs to us but the Soviets never charged us for crushing the Axis war machine. Would we have paid ?
Вернуть конечно можно, но зачем? Ведь можно просто объявить кредитора врагом народа, а через лет 50 сказать, что должен только 10 процентов от 10 процентов, и вообще, никак это не помогло
Though not a lend-lease deal, but how much did the soviet union pay back?
What's a few $billion between friends?
The records of the Mead Committee contains the details of who paid what. The negotiations with the UK were fraught with the refusal by Britain to honour its obligations. As a side issue to Lend Lease, the leases of British bases swapped for destroyers are coming to an end soon, which should be interesting.
what the USA received was permission to buy land and build bases.
Bermuda and locations north of Bermuda were included "freely" although the US was required to assume the protection of those locations.
all bases south of Bermuda had been turned over by 1952. owing to its close proximity to Washington, Bermuda was the last base to be turned over in 1995.
@@nickdanger3802 The US had closed the bases by ‘95, but did they end the leases? ‘Cause I can’t find where it’s confirmed that the leases have ended.
Now do one on US profiteering.
Selling munitions to both sides in both wars.
Do tell us a fairytale. So how much do you know about Soviet giving the oil and other resources to Germany that it didn't have to invade all of western Europe and to invade the Soviet Union. The US was neutral mostly and couldn't sell weapons to anyone that includes Germany.thereveas no version of LL for Germany which was a way around the law against selling to war participants.
If you want to make a bad case about oil sale that no oil from US but they do a gray market sale of half a day worth of oil. By selling oil to a 3rd party and that oil from SU was sent to Germany.
Britain sold all its war horses to Germany. Which was one of the main logistics transportation of German logistics invasions.
US companies that sold non war equipment before the war. Less so during the years when the war started and nothing during the years the US was at war with Germany.
As for US companies in Germany they were run by Germany not the US, just like all the other foreign owned companies, like BP. They had no control over them.
@@Matt-mt2vi Who pulled your chain?
@@johnx9318 so calling out the lies is some how pulling my chain? That's a not reality that your imagination.
@@Matt-mt2vi I addressed my comment to the author of the video to see if he could follow up with other angles.
I didn't invite the tin foil-hats to a bring-a-pitchfork drooling debate.
source ?
Thus, Russia must pay up.
At the end of the war Britain was in debt to Canada by 54 billion the debt was entirely waved by Canada 🇨🇦 🇬🇧🇺🇸
Canada made plenty out of two world wars. The only country that Britain has never repaid a penny to is, Australia.
I mean, britain could just tell Canada what ro eo thoug right?
@@RichardMontgomeryYT British bludgers. Did you know that Britain only joined in on the Australian occupation in Japan because Australia paid? No wonder Britain ended up under Australian command in Japan and later Korea, it was completely washed up.
"Britain was in debt to Canada by 54 billion"
source ?
@@nickdanger3802 Scott, the giant Canadian Dick
I've been wondering that myself.
Thanks for watching!
Pssst indie don’t give trump any ideas.
Well I was hoping for some accuracy and context but some hopes right?
The '10 cents on the dollar' was for the materiel the USA did not want returned to the USA and it was sold basically for the bare metal. The goods supplied to, retained, used or lost by the UK were charged at the full invoice price.
You then forgot to mention is that Britain supplied to the USA some $6.8 Bn in what was called 'Reverse Lend Lease'. Like food, trucks, equipment, bases, and other supplies.
That was never repaid or credited.
You also forgot to mention that Truman made that 50 year loan dependent on the convertibility of Sterling to Gold and then in 1947 the USA launched the biggest currency raid ever mounted. The nett result was the value of Sterling halved which doubled our Dollar debt to the USA.
The UK was weak having fought every day of the 6 years of WWII across all theatres unlike the 3 1/2 years the USA fought. The USA where no bombs fell on its industry and so was never handicapped by being on the front line like the UK's industry and civilians were. 67,000 of them died. The UK also supplied thousands of aircraft and tanks and thousands of tons of munitions free of charge from Summer 1941 to Summer 1946 to the Soviet Union.
FunFact: The UK alone not counting its Commonwealth lost more men KIA (1/2 Mn) in WWII than did the USA a country 5 times its population. THAT alone damaged the post WWII British economy.
Churchill was the man of the century for standing against Nazism.
I feel like yeah sure we can go into an auditing circle on who owes what or what so and so did towards this war and what about their contribution to this theater. I mean one could even argue that the US involvement in the European theater was an overreach by Roosevelt and that the UK “owes” it to the Americans for saving them from the Nazis regardless of whether they won or lost in the skies above Britain. I certainly think the UK preserved and won against all odds with whatever little support the US could provide.
However, the main point is that the US and UK had a lot they benefitted from each other in order to support the liberation of the free world. Is it really constructive to argue that the lend lease payments were extremely punitive when the Americans’ lend lease was supplied during Britain’s “darkest hour”? I mean even the Marshall Plan sought to rebuild European economies to a level better than seen pre war. That’s not to discount the hard work and people of those countries, but it’s our willingness to cooperate and shared history that ensures a better democratic society for all.
wish I was as smart as you think you are. when hitler declared war on the USA Britain had already received about one billion USD in Lend Lease goods and services.
Britain total free aid to USSR, £308 million/1.23 billion USD.
nonmilitary aid was not free.
RUSSIA (BRITISH EMPIRE WAR ASSISTANCE)
HC Deb 16 April 1946 vol 421 cc2513-92513
§45. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre asked the Prime Minister if he will publish a comprehensive statement giving a list of 2514the weapons and materials, together with their costs, that were supplied in aid to the U.S.S.R. by the British Empire, between 1st October, 1941, and the termination of hostilities in Europe.
§The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee) Yes, Sir. I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The House may like to have the following summary of this. In the period from 1st October, 1941, to 31st March, 1946, we supplied to the Soviet Union 5,218 tanks, of which 1,388 were from Canada. We supplied 7,411 aircraft, including 3,129 aircraft sent from the United States of America. As previously explained on the 10th May, 1944, the aircraft from the United States of America were sent on United States Lend Lease to the Soviet Union as part of the British commitment to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for the supply of British aircraft to United States Forces in the European Theatre (about 1,000 used aircraft, ND). The total value of military supplies despatched amounts to approximately £308 million. We have also sent about £120 million of raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies and hospital equipment.
We are very glad to have been able to give this assistance to our Soviet Allies and to have helped to equip and sustain them in their bitter struggle against the common enemy.
§Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre Can the Prime Minister say whether the Soviet public have been informed by the Soviet Press and radio of this substantial contribution to the Allied victory over Germany in the East?
§The Prime Minister Full publicity was given to the reply which was given by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 10th May, 1944 Of course, this is essentially a matter for the Soviet authorities, but I should hope that full information will be given.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodģe Will my right hon. Friend arrange for this information to be put over the B.B.C. by the regular Russian broadcasts which are now being made so as to enable our Russian Allies to develop a proper perspective in judging the relative merits in contributions of those who brought about our united victory?
§The Prime Minister I would like to consider that suggestion, which seems to me to be a good one.
According to
Report to Congress on Reverse Lend-Lease
The amount of RLL was meant to be factored into the final agreed upon amount of repayment.
It's not like they just sent a bunch of tea and biscuits to New York and we just drank and ate it all and didn't pay for it. RLL was almost exclusively used in the European theaters of war where the US was operating in cooperation with their European allies. Things like providing winter clothes or repairing crashed planes.
@@EvilCapitalisto I like the whole premise of that comment mate. Well said.
But I would gently point out some inaccuracies and context if I amY?
1. The USA was forced kicking and screaming into WWII by two events: Pearl Harbour and Germany declaring war on the USA. So it was hardly 'overreach'.
2. The USA never saved the UK from the Nazis. We and our Commonwealth did that all by ourselves all through 1940 and all of 1941. The USAAF arrived in late 1942 some 6 months after the RAF put up the first 1,000 bomber raid and US ground forces only got into action in November 1942 and that was in North Africa after the british 8th Army had defeated Rommel.
3. The UK's 'darkest hour', as Churchill called it,was from mid-1940 to mid-1941 along time before Lend Lease started arriving (in June 1942) and months before the USA entered the war.
4. An American Senator called Marshall Aid a 'back door subsidy' to post WWII US industry because no cash arrived in Europe as everything purchased had to come from the USA. And it could not be re-exported. So machine tools, hand tools, diggers, bulldozers and all the rest came free of charge and destroyed the European market for UK built products. On top of that Germany was forgiven all her debts for losing WWII while the UK had to pay the USA for winning the war.
Ayo, much different reactions from viewers and line of thought compared to video about lend-lease to the Soviet Union. Go figure.
India is calling for the $45 trillion (yes trillion with a T) that the British took 😅 Good that the USA got the loan paid back
Russia ??
We covered the Soviet Union in a previous short, you can find it on our shorts page or watch it here: ruclips.net/user/shortsKpFBHs8XWUM
what about Russia's $1 Trillion lend-lease from America... from what I understand, none of it was ever paid back, despite the fact that Russia would have collapsed if it wasn't for America's assistance
Because British economy was the result of carrying the first two years of the war, and sitting in the firing line while some countries sat out of range.
We were having breakfast.
And history repeats itself
Can't really blame the USA for not being close to the European theatre.
Well, for the USSR and the US the war didnt start until 1941/42, so....
There is a reason why russian talking points today seeds so easily in the US.
@@ianmacfarlane1241 Yet the UK was close enough to fight in Asia.
Russia and GB need almost 70 years to repay debt. God bless America👏
what debt did russia pay back? just 5 years after ww2 ended the states and russia turned their backs on eachother in korea
@@Chase92488If I remember correctly last payment Russia did was on 21 august 2006 and the debt was officially settled.
@@Chase92488 doesn't matter. Money is money.
What about the Soviet Union they were supplied with quite a lot, and due to the hostility between them and the West, after WW2, did they ever return or buy any of the equipment that was given?
The Soviets repaid precisely an amount known as a poofteenth.
The soviets buried and hid equipment claiming it was destroyed. They found 8 buried hurricanes outside of kiev a few years ago, and wagner pmc found hundreds of thompson smgs in a underground complex
The Soviets paid far more in blood than any conceivable dollar amount. For making D-Day possible, the "debt" should have been waived.
Fwiw, France should have given independence to Indochina, that would have saved millions of lives.
@@modelcitizen72 The Soviets chose to wage war by human sacrifice, it was their loss. A deal is a deal, except of course when it’s with a cheating Slav.
@vegard2000 Yeah, I heard about russian and Wagner troops finding that weapon depot had like Thompsons and stuff, but politically, there have to have been discussions involving the USSR paying back the Allies Lendlease
I would love to see you do one on Russia please not England.
We did, you can watch it here: ruclips.net/user/shortsKpFBHs8XWUM
if only youtube allowed links...
@@maruftimthe fact that you can't even copy and paste it either...
*Britain.
Or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
@@igobyplane You can find it on our shorts tab on our channel if you are unable to copy/paste it from mobile.
The soviets definitely didn't
Well no because most of the stuff they received was free of charge
Then again, neither the Brits. If anything, the Americans just gave them even more money.
@datcheesecakeboi6745 Not saying you wrong but I recall it was a lease
Paid more than anyone. In blood.
@@datcheesecakeboi6745
Those fucking train cars sure as hell weren't...
Haiti really got screwed lmao
Did not Puty make that last payment a few decades ago? Ah, full value. o.k.
They all owe us way more moeny. They should all pay us the full amount with with interest.
Who is 'us'?
They paid in blood.
A pile of military aid is always less expensive than blood.
No they shouldn't, we already agreed to this
We should have let Britain come out of it on their own. Nothing of value was gained by doing this.
How has it affected you?
@@ianmacfarlane1241 well the British still exist, so I'd say...... negatively
Unlike the Urss, the British Empire paid heavily for the American support and the Usa showed a little of leniency only after the war ended because a totally broken GB would be useless against the Soviets at best or fall to communism in the worst case scenario.
The Usa did the bare minimum to keep GB alive, allowing her to recover but never beyond a certain point.
By helping her on the short term they gained a big market for American products (which were needed to rebuild GB and the rest of Western Europe) and in the long run a reliable ally during and after the Cold War.
So yeah, quite the opposite of "nothing of value was gained"
Nothing of value was gained by helping....stop the Nazis?
Lol, you got robbed
Such a shame that some Americans today believe that lend lease to Ukraine is about “we give them money”🫠
Many Americans still think that choosing isolation while the rest of the world burns/is about to burn is a smart option despite 2 world wars proving that, even when guarded by 2 oceans, you can't hide forever from troubles because sooner or later they'll come for you and they'll hurt you a lot.
And this is ignoring all the political, strategic, diplomatic and economic consequences of losing allies and influence to regimes that, regardless of what you do, consider you and your values sworn enemies