PDA

View Full Version : The Final Payment.... (Merged)


ORAC
28th Dec 2006, 18:03
We have spoken of this several times, but just to remind everyone the final payment will be made tomorrow.......

The Times: Sixty years on, we finally pay for the war

Britain will this week pay off the last instalment of the multibillion-dollar loans that were secured from the United States and Canada more than sixty years ago to help fund the war effort.

On Friday this country will make its final repayment on the US$4.33 billion loan given by the United States in 1945. Canada will also receive the last payment on its Can$1.25 billion loan. The payments — $83.25 million (£43 million) to the US Government and $22.7 million to Canada — are the last of fifty instalments that have been paid since 1950, totalling $7.5 billion to the United States and $2 billion to Canada, including 2 per cent annual interest on the initial loans. Britain agreed the loan with the United States in 1945 in the form of a direct line of credit worth $3.75 billion and a lend-lease facility worth $585 million. It was intended as a final settlement for the financial claims of each country against the other for costs arising out of the Second World War, and provided the essential capital to fund Britain’s postwar construction. Canada followed suit with a direct line of credit of $1.25 billion agreed in 1946.

Ed Balls, the City minister, told The Times last night that it was a historic moment. “This week we finally honour in full our commitments to the US and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago. It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period. We honour our commitments to them now as they honoured their commitments to us all those years ago.”

Under the arrangement, the US handed a financial lifeline to Britain, allowing it to secure oil, food, arms and other military equipment on credit to help the war effort. Though other countries also benefited under the programme — a $48 billion project — Britain received the largest chunk of aid. When the war finished, the economist Maynard Keynes — by then the government adviser Lord Keynes — led a delegation to the U.S to agree repayment for those materials for which it had been charged and to secure a loan of $4 billion. He warned that Britain had been left facing a “financial Dunkirk”.

In 1950, Britain’s national debt stood at about 200 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. Today the comparable figure is 36.8 per cent.

The loans have been repaid on the same principle as a home mortgage. Repayments cover both the capital sum borrowed and the interest due on the loan. In the 1950s and 1960s, payments were geared mainly to paying off the interest, while in latter years, the repayment of capital has increased. Under the terms of the agreement, this country was allowed to defer up to six annual instalments and did so in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976, on the grounds that international exchange rate conditions and the UK's foreign currency reserves made payments in those years impractical.

The loans were taken out under two facilities — a line of credit of $3.8 billion and a lend-lease loan facility of $586 million (about £145 million at 1945 exchange rates) which represented the settlement with the US for lend-lease. With interest added Britain’s total bill was $7 billion. The conditions of the loan included that the pound should be convertible into the dollar within 12 months. The payments will be made by a simple electronic transfer of funds, and are timed for December 29 simply because it is the last working day of the year. the British Government has never in the duration of the loans lobbied to have them reduced or cancelled, and has always insisted it is right to meet the commitments it made in return for the financial support given by the United States and Canada both before and after the war.

While Friday's payments will close the book on the UK's Second World War debts, Britain still owes and is owed billions of pounds in relation to loans made and costs incurred during the First World War. However, since a moratorium on all war debts agreed at the height of the Great Depression, no debt repayments have been made to or received from other nations since 1934.

High Wing Drifter
28th Dec 2006, 18:45
I half believed that Britain had had the payments reduced or cancelled given our poodle like relationship with the US! Pity that it was for nothing.

The British Government has never in the duration of the loans lobbied to have them reduced or cancelled, and has always insisted it is right to meet the commitments it made in return for the financial support given by the United States and Canada both before and after the war.
How much of that $82bn has Britain received from Germany and Japan?

tony draper
28th Dec 2006, 18:50
They used to come to us, we loaned Tommy Jefferson the cash to buy Luisianna off the French,hmmm,wonder if the buggas ever paid that back?
Think there was about 150 dollars to the pound then as well.:E

brickhistory
28th Dec 2006, 18:53
They used to come to us, we loaned Tommy Jefferson the cash to buy Luisianna off the French,hmmm,wonder if the buggas ever paid that back?
Think there was about 150 dollars to the pound then as well.:E

We'll give you Louisiania back if you'd like. Not the whole original territory, just the current state. With inflation, it should be a fair trade.....

By the way, thanks for honoring your WWII word. Good on ya, UK!

Two's in
28th Dec 2006, 19:22
The only noteworthy point of this article is that the City Minister (whatever the hell that is) is really called Ed Balls - he must have a set not to have changed his name years ago...

Ed Balls, the City minister

brain fade
28th Dec 2006, 19:49
Am I correct in believing that we owed shed-loads to the Canadians too, for war related activities.

But seeing we were near broke and acknowledging the work we'd done- that they cancelled the debt?

The US is a war economy btw. No war, no profit!:mad:

blue up
28th Dec 2006, 20:59
Thanks, Yanks.

I don't speak German. Partly thanks to you.

I have a USAAF flying jacket that was left at my grandparents' house by one of their temporaray "tennants" in 1944. He never returned to collect it.

Grandpa was kinda busy at the time on 5th June 1944 (Dead centre, with the Sgt's arm round his shoulder)
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j279/foggythomas/Pic_IndCoy.jpg

Paying taxes to pay back the US? OK. Paying taxes to fund the EC? Not happy.

blue up
28th Dec 2006, 21:01
Also, hasn't Finland honoured their repayments? I seem to recall that they were the only other country to have done so prior to tomorrow.

frostbite
28th Dec 2006, 21:14
This is probably the point at which we learn that 'we' have borrowed another few billion to help out with the expenses in Iraq.

Also, that the payments we will be saving in future just nicely cover the new EU tariff that Bliar kindly negotiated on our behalf.

Loki
28th Dec 2006, 22:47
Sadly, it was originally a gift....come the end of hostilities our allies decided it was a loan, applied at interest rates designed to cripple us.

ORAC
28th Dec 2006, 22:59
Sadly, it was originally a gift....come the end of hostilities our allies decided it was a loan, applied at interest rates designed to cripple us. Lend-lease etc were never a gift, check the Senate records. A 2% percent APR extortionate? Not in this universe........

G-CPTN
28th Dec 2006, 23:34
The reason for 'non-repayment' before the prescribed term is exactly because 2% is 'cheap money', just as a low fixed-rate mortgage wouldn't be repaid early and student loans are allowed to run full term. You just can't GET cheaper money . . .

Blacksheep
29th Dec 2006, 01:37
Cheap loan? 2% was about market rate at the time the loans were made.

The problem was the extortionate prices that were charged for the war materials purchased or leased under lend-lease that we bought with the loan. For example each of those clapped out old unfit-for-purpose four stacker destoyers they flogged us cost the same as building two brand new fleet destroyers of the A to I classes. But we had to pay the price - we needed them faster than we could build them...

The greatest help came from Canada. Without their navy and especially the huge armada of Flower class Corvettes and River class Frigates - ships that were fit for purpose - we might well have gone under during the U-Boats' "Happy Times".

Anyway, Thanks Yanks and Thanks Canadians. We're all square now.

Rollingthunder
29th Dec 2006, 01:49
Yes, thanks for the bucks, you can mail the cheque to my PO Box.

Not sure how fit for service the Flower Corvettes were though. By all accounts sailing in them in the North Atlantic was akin to being inside a washing machine on full chat for many days. Nevertheless, they and the men did the job.

StbdD
29th Dec 2006, 02:48
Cheap loan? 2% was about market rate at the time the loans were made.

The US farm loan bill of 1940 specified a %4 interest rate to US citizens who were increasing their crop production in order to feed guess who? US taxpayers paid for that food which was sent to the UK. Interest rates on loans to US servicemen in excess of %6 were forbidden by law.

A %2 loan was extremely discounted chicken feed. And by the way, lets face it, the US ignored the odds on repayment.

For example each of those clapped out old unfit-for-purpose four stacker destoyers they flogged us cost the same as building two brand new fleet destroyers of the A to I classes. But we had to pay te price - we needed them faster than we could build them...

The UK didn't pay a cent for the destroyers. They were "traded" for 8 bases in the Atlantic that the UK couldn't defend so the gents in the big offices made a deal. The US defended the bases and gave the UK the destroyers for the priveledge. (US entered the war when did you say?) Don't like 4 stackers? Tough, that's all there was. They were ok for the US to use escorting food and material to the UK and losing lives before they were even in the war (USS Reuben James). Feal free to google.

A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped from the US: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totalled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the Britain and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.

Lage quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. These were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar ]with payment to be stretched out for 50years at 2% interest.

Now I'm no accountant but it seems the US taypayers GAVE the UK $24.6 BILLION. Other than that, the ridiculously low interest rates on the rest of what was BOUGHT seems pretty reasonable.

The US screwed ya huh? We'll have our $24.6 Billion back thanks, in todays exchange rate. Ta.

pigboat
29th Dec 2006, 04:17
Not sure how fit for service the Flower Corvettes were though. By all accounts sailing in them in the North Atlantic was akin to being inside a washing machine on full chat for many days. Nevertheless, they and the men did the job.

I had an uncle that spent some time on them on convoy duty out of St. John's and Halifax. His expression was "That-ahh, them fcukers could roll like a bar'l." :p

Blacksheep
29th Dec 2006, 05:29
A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped from the US: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, In delivering them, 22,750 Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy sailors paid for them with their lives along with more than 56,000 merchant seamen of all nations.

Chickenfeed?

The Flower class corvettes were often said to "roll on wet grass" pigboat, but they were stout little ships all the same, and fit for purpose.

StbdD
29th Dec 2006, 05:59
USS Reuben James (a 4 stacker by the way), torpedoed and sunk with 115 of her crew protecting a convoy, 31 Oct 1941. That would be before the official US entry to the war as I'm sure you know.

30,248 merchant crewman of all nations, including the US, died in what is called the Battle of the Atlantic. Delivering food and war material to the UK and USSR. I'd suggest that's another debt of yours rather than a credit.

You still owe the US $24.6 Billion (in 1945 money). (maybe we will forget the F-4 and a few other goodies the US bought for you later)

No charge for the Reuben James.

Reality. Hate it when that creeps into a good rant. We want our money back. $24.6 billion will do. Ta.

brickhistory
29th Dec 2006, 13:13
How about we appreciate the ultimate sacrifice of those who gave all and those who survived but endured f'in' misery to get supplies across the Atlantic and that, even though the branches differ, both countries still speak English? (soon, perhaps to be supplanted by Spanish and Arabic, respectively?)

Nah, too much fun to claim one's willy is bigger (and ours IS!).

StbdD
29th Dec 2006, 14:31
How about we address the realities instead of the myths?

I still want our $24.6 BILLION back.

MagnusP
29th Dec 2006, 14:36
How about we address the realities instead of the myths.
And I still want our $24.6 BILLION back.
No probs. Just remind us how much you owe us for the territories you stole in 1814? :ok: We can probably strike a deal.

StbdD
29th Dec 2006, 21:44
Gee I dunno... did ya have a lease or title agreement from the American Indians? Ah, no. buggah

Ancient American Indian proverb: When you get your ass kicked you go home and shut up.

In any case, we still want the $24.6 billion back. Call it honour amongst thieves.

AlexB
29th Dec 2006, 22:00
Instead of bitching (joking or not :p )I'd like to take this moment to thank the United States of America, Russia, Canada, China, Australia, New Zealand, India, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Holland, Luxembourg,Norway, Poland, South Africa and Yugoslaviafor their contributions during the 2 World wars. All of these countries helped us in some way, some with the most critical supplies (USA) and some with the most troops (Russia), despite all the jokey comments, even I, as a 20 year old appreciate the sacrifices these countries went through in a time of need :)


Note: This is just for the second World war, there are still debts of £40bn from what the beeb have told me, as well as the fact that this figure was put on ice during the great depression.

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2006, 23:05
And to Germany for putting up a spirited fight . . .

AlexB
29th Dec 2006, 23:06
And to Germany for putting up a spirited fight . . .
True, and for developing a lot of the technology we use now.

ShyTorque
29th Dec 2006, 23:12
I'm looking forward to the reduction in income tax, which will no doubt be announced tomorrow.

Hello...HELLO, is there anyone there? :confused:

Fat chance :rolleyes:

brickhistory
29th Dec 2006, 23:13
And to Germany for putting up a spirited fight . . .

THAT was funny!




Thank you, I'm still chuckling...................

StbdD
31st Dec 2006, 21:02
Yeah, always alot of fun these debates, then someone comes along and provides the facts.

Please note that the loan in question was granted after the war as during it the US Taxpayers GAVE the UK about $24.6 Billion worth of food and supplies. (For the dense, that means the war was over and this loan had shite to do with the war)

FROM VARIOUS SOURCES

The U.S. extended $4.34 billion in credit in 1945, allowing the U.K. to stave off bankruptcy after devoting almost all its resources to the war for half a decade. Since 1950 Britain has made payments on the debt at the end of every year except six. No worries, shit happens.

The loan, the equivalent of 119 billion pounds in today's money, or $233,109,365,511.57, was double the size of the U.K. economy at the time. Today it's a fraction of the Treasury's 550 billion-pound debt burden, about 36.4 percent of the economy. But no worries, Britain was on it's ass and needed help.

At the time it was granted, the loan strained trans-Atlantic relations. British politicians expected a gift in recognition of their contribution to the war effort. Yeah, right. A $233,109,365,511.57 present. I don't think so.

"It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period,"

U.K. Treasure minister Ed Balls said in a statement from the Treasury. "We honor our commitments to them now as they honored their commitments to us all those years ago."

A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped from the US: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totalled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the Britain and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.

Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. These were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out for 50 years at 2% interest.

I'm not an accountant but it seems the US taypayers GAVE the UK $24.6 BILLION. The ridiculously low interest rates on the rest of what was BOUGHT seems pretty reasonable.

To those that understand this was a post war debt to be paid, respect. Congrats to have paid it off. To the rest that prefer to bite the hand that helped... sorry, I'd prefer not to be kicked off pprune. But I will say that we'd like our $24.6BILLION back thanks. In 2006 dollars please.

As to the timing of the fight, I'd guess that Poland (whose security the UK garaunteed), the Rhineland, Checkslovokia , Austria, Ethiopia and China might debate when and in fact IF the UK fought. Without being too much of a stick in yer eye, you didn't do much in France either. Your greatest accomplishment there being a retreat in which you lost most of your weapons and material.

The US replaced your weapons, fed your people, protected the convoys and eventually came into the war. Have a glance around the RA, RN, RAF and the FAA in 1940 and 1941 to see if the US was involved.

Have a look at the convoys of food for Britain escorted by US Navy forces, to the loss of at least one destroyer with 115 hands....before the formal entrance of the US into the war.

In short, didn't do our part? Fark you. We paid for it, supplied it and fought it. Eventually we won it ALONG with our allies.

Don't like our movies? Make your own you incredibly witless twit.

Sven Sixtoo
31st Dec 2006, 23:16
StbD
Thank you
The US has been our greatest ally for over 100 years.
Now please get a grip of mid-20th century history.
USA, the world's largest economy, with all the resources anyone could wish, held off joining the party against Fascism until forced by a completely unexpected external event. By which time the British population were on the ragged edge of starvation, losing 30% of every delivery into the island, losing on average 50 aircrew (notwithstanding that we had conscriiption, all volunteers and the brightest and best of our young men), every night, run out of options and only saved firstly by the greatest air action ever and secondly by the monumental folly of opening a second front in the East.
You turned up in time, and paid in blood. But don't pretend that anyone on Earth has a claim on Great Britain for the Second World War. We bankrupted ourselves to hold the line for two years. We paid the bill for freedom with all our treasure and much of our blood. We will not claim now that you owe us for that blood and treasure. But do not presume to claim that somehow we owe you.
yours
Sven

tony draper
1st Jan 2007, 00:01
Yer we should fine em that much for being late twice.:rolleyes:

brickhistory
1st Jan 2007, 00:03
Yer we should fine em that much for being late twice.:rolleyes:


Bitte?









................

con-pilot
1st Jan 2007, 00:19
Ja, vos es doss?

(Sorry about the crappy German, I'm into me Scotch getting ready for the party tonight, proper prior planning you know.;) )

Capt.KAOS
1st Jan 2007, 14:07
There´s still a lot of WW1 debts around. Except Finland, none of the countries did pay their WW1 debt to the US in full. UK financial reputation took a nose dive after not being able to pay the WW1 debt to the US, which payments have not been serviced since 1934 and has not been written off. Harding made it clear that there would be no relief. Ally ok, but at a price...

PFR
1st Jan 2007, 15:41
I had a thread running in a similar vein over in the Aviation History and Nostalgia Forum, but it was closed by the Moderator :=
The context being: shouldn’t our European "brothers" have contributed considering they benefited from the Victory the Allies brought :hmm:
It read:-
Britain will settle its World War II debts to the US and Canada when it pays two final instalments before the close of 2006, the Treasury has said.
The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215847.stm
Am I the only one, or have I missed something Should'nt our European cousins have been contributing to these payments, considering they benefitted from the libration we brought - especially when their economies became strong & successful. Read France, read Germany even.
Or Am I:ugh:
Cheers to all & Happy New Year.
Anyone care to add their views..........PFR:)

ORAC
1st Jan 2007, 15:51
There´s still a lot of WW1 debts around. Except Finland, none of the countries did pay their WW1 debt to the US in full. UK financial reputation took a nose dive after not being able to pay the WW1 debt to the US, which payments have not been serviced since 1934 and has not been written off. Harding made it clear that there would be no relief. Ally ok, but at a price... Hansard - 2002 (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020228/text/20228w04.htm): War Debts

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer.... 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.....

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.....

Makes squabbling about the odd $24 billion a bit penny-ante.......

luoto
1st Jan 2007, 19:24
Yes. Finland paid back its war "damages" (sic) to the Soviet Union. A bit of a sore subject to pay it but Finland paid it ahead of schedule and the drive to make the payments help build up its ravaged war industries.

AMF
2nd Jan 2007, 02:51
Yeah, always alot of fun these debates, then someone comes along and provides the facts.
Please note that the loan in question was granted after the war as during it the US Taxpayers GAVE the UK about $24.6 Billion worth of food and supplies.
FROM VARIOUS SOURCES
The U.S. extended $4.34 billion in credit in 1945, allowing the U.K. to stave off bankruptcy after devoting almost all its resources to the war for half a decade. Since 1950 Britain has made payments on the debt at the end of every year except six. No worries, shit happens.
The loan, the equivalent of 119 billion pounds in today's money, or $233,109,365,511.57, was double the size of the U.K. economy at the time. Today it's a fraction of the Treasury's 550 billion-pound debt burden, about 36.4 percent of the economy. But no worries, Britain was on it's ass and needed help.
At the time it was granted, the loan strained trans-Atlantic relations. British politicians expected a gift in recognition of their contribution to the war effort. Yeah, right. A $233,109,365,511.57 present. I don't think so.
"It was vital support which helped Britain defeat Nazi Germany and secure peace and prosperity in the postwar period,"
U.K. Treasure minister Ed Balls said in a statement from the Treasury. "We honor our commitments to them now as they honored their commitments to us all those years ago."
A total of $50.1 billion worth of supplies were shipped from the US: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on air bases) that went to the U.S. It totalled $7.8 billion, of which $6.8 billion came from the Britain and the Commonwealth. Apart from that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.) No lend lease money went to Canada, which operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to Britain and Soviet Union.
Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. These were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out for 50 years at 2% interest.
I'm not an accountant but it seems the US taypayers GAVE the UK $24.6 BILLION. The ridiculously low interest rates on the rest of what was BOUGHT seems pretty reasonable.
To those that understand this was a post war debt to be paid, respect. Congrats to have paid it off. To the rest that prefer to bite the hand that helped... sorry, I'd prefer not to be kicked off pprune. But I will say that we'd like our $24.6BILLION back thanks. In 1945 dollars please.
As to the timing of the fight, I'd guess that Poland (whose security the UK garaunteed), the Rhineland, Checkslovokia , Austria, Ethiopia and China might debate when and in fact IF the UK fought. Without being too much of a stick in yer eye, you didn't do much in France either. Your greatest accomplishment there being a retreat in which you lost most of your weapons and material.
The US replaced your weapons, fed your people, protected the convoys and eventually came into the war. Have a glance around the RA, RN, RAF and the FAA in 1940 and 1941 to see if the US was involved.
Have a look at the convoys of food for Britain escorted by US Navy forces, to the loss of at least one destroyer with 115 hands....before the formal entrance of the US into the war.
In short, didn't do our part? Fark you. We paid for it, supplied it and fought it. Eventually we won it ALONG with our allies.
Don't like our movies? Make your own you incredibly witless twit.

Ah, how facts shred the opposition. Nice post StbdD

I'd also like our 24.6 (1946) billion dollars back, thanks. And what's with no payments since 1934 for WW1 debts owed the US by the UK? Don't put away that UK government checkbook just yet!

AMF
2nd Jan 2007, 02:57
[QUOTE=brickhistory;3041833]..... even though the branches differ, both countries still speak English? QUOTE]

Then they should understand this...."Pay up!" (24.6 billion 1946 $$$s).

Capt.KAOS
2nd Jan 2007, 10:08
[quote=brickhistory;3041833]..... even though the branches differ, both countries still speak English? QUOTE]

Then they should understand this...."Pay up!" (24.6 billion 1946 $$$s).To put things in todays perspective:

The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2005 was -$2,693.8
billion (preliminary) with direct investment valued at current cost, as the value
of foreign investments in the United States exceeded the value of U.S. investments
abroad (table 1). At yearend 2004, the U.S. net international investment position
was -$2,360.8 billion (revised).

R4+Z
2nd Jan 2007, 15:30
So we have a post about the fact that England has finally paid off it's war debt to america. So what endebitness (is there such a word?) does america owe to the UK & Australia for us standing by them? They have proved by thier willingness to accept repayment of this debt that they didn't help us out of the goodness of thier hearts back then. So should there be a cost for B,liar and Little johnny's support and over how many years...... OK so I'm dreaming. But why not?

mcgoo
2nd Jan 2007, 16:08
Its my understanding that the US gave us billions of dollars of supplies free during the war and the loan was post war to help rebuild our infrastructure.

R4+Z
2nd Jan 2007, 16:34
I'll accept that but then the question arises that if they had got involved at the begining (we were protecting thier values as well as our own) then we wouldn't have sustained the damages that needed rebuilding!

I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask.....

If the reason the US gets involved in a war, any war, is financial rather than altruistic?

BenThere
2nd Jan 2007, 16:39
I don't think you can make a case that will stand up to serious scrutiny that the reason for any US military action, ever, was financial.

Loki
2nd Jan 2007, 17:12
Ben There:

I agree, but the fact remains that at the end of WW2, the USA had billions of dollars worth of brand new industrial plant whereas the other participants production capacity and infrastructure was either clapped out or in smoking ruins (a bit of both in the case of the UK).

It was probably not planned that way, but the USA was in a dominant position post 1945. To its credit, US industry switched to the manufacture of peacetime goods very well (though only partially). Inventing the threat from the USSR, which was in dire straits, justified keeping the industrial/ military complex which remained very much in business. In the end, notwithstanding the considerable human cost, the USA did quite nicely out of the whole grisly affair. I`m glad someone did.

AcroChik
2nd Jan 2007, 18:02
I first ran into the Lend Lease program when I was in high school and exclaimed in a history class, "We won the war for them!" My teacher was a charmingly erudite British woman on an academic exchange program who rather than criticizing my ignorance gently set me right by assigning ~ what was for a high school kid ~ a lengthy research project and paper about Lend Lease.
One of the first things I found out about Lend Lease was that Britain was not the only country receiving materials from the US. While approximately $30 bilion went to the UK, another $11 billion-or-so went to the USSR and a few billions to China.

Lend Lease as agreed by all participants was a "net-net" deal. In a program called Reverse Lend Lease, things like rent on airbases and other services were also valued and accounted for. These goods and services totalled approximately $8 billion, with this sum "netted out" from the flow coming from the US.

In other words, as the program went on, from 1941 through 1945, the accounting was made at agreed rates and the final sum owed adjusted accordingly to give effect to any payments or exchanges made by all parties.

It's not lost on me that a global conflagration that quite literally ended with the saving of civilization as we know it has just a few days ago come to a close during my lifetime with the stroke of a pen.

West Coast
2nd Jan 2007, 18:12
Its courtesy to provide the source when posting such data, unless you of course devined the numbers.

tony draper
2nd Jan 2007, 18:12
Well we did give yers the Jet Engine and Radar for nowt,yers made a few quid on them since.
:rolleyes:

tilewood
2nd Jan 2007, 19:44
Well we did give yers the Jet Engine and Radar for nowt,yers made a few quid on them since.
:rolleyes:

Ah! Yes, and our dear Labour 1945 (Red in tooth and claw) Government also handed the jet engine free and for nothing to Uncle Joe Stalin. He of the pogroms and gulags.


No one can say we weren't even handed!


Stupid and gulllible ---- but even handed!! :hmm:

Re-entry
2nd Jan 2007, 21:17
ORAC. All the best for NY. We will triumph!

allan907
2nd Jan 2007, 23:41
endebitness (is there such a word?)

Nope. But there is such a word as indebtedness.

Isn't the reason for UK and Australia standing with the US to enhance the likelihood of the US coming to our aid if the Indonesians (in our case - or any of a whole load in the UK case) start to get uppity and land hungry?

Call it insurance. I, for one, am glad that we are keeping our payments up.

Blacksheep
3rd Jan 2007, 01:21
So, the defence of freedom comes, not as a matter of honour or "because its the right thing to do", but at a price...

...and all these years I had thought my Dad and his comrades in arms (of all nations) had settled the bill in full.

In blood



We had a German chap working with us for a few years. During the crewroom banter he'd sometimes be teased by we Brits with the customary "Who won the war then?" and he'd answer "Yah! but ve came second!"

One has to keep a sense of proportion. ;)

Blacksheep
3rd Jan 2007, 03:35
I can conceed that we did owe a great debt to the USA. Now we've repaid it.

The Europeans, at the very least every single one of those nations that ended up this side of the iron curtain, but in general all of them, owe a great debt to Britain that has never been, never will be and indeed, never can be repaid.

We could have done a deal with him at Dunkirk but Britain stood alone against Hitler not for a deal or a loan, but because in that particular case it really was the right thing to do.

airspeedsalive
3rd Jan 2007, 04:02
So we have a post about the fact that England has finally paid off it's war debt to america. So what endebitness (is there such a word?) does america owe to the UK & Australia for us standing by them? They have proved by thier willingness to accept repayment of this debt that they didn't help us out of the goodness of thier hearts back then. So should there be a cost for B,liar and Little johnny's support and over how many years...... OK so I'm dreaming. But why not?



Dude...get over it. Face it - we saved the world for you guys, the least that you can do is pay us back - I'm just pissed that it took so long:)

airspeedsalive
3rd Jan 2007, 08:13
Glad it's finally paid back - what took so long?!

Tricky Woo
3rd Jan 2007, 10:11
NO CHARGE

Now the US Ambassador came round to Number Ten this evenin'
While Tony was fixin' supper
And he handed him a piece of paper he'd been writin' on
And after wipin' his hands on his apron
Blair read it - and this is what it said

For policin' the world - five dollars
For protectin' the oil this week - one dollar
And for holdin' the euro - fifty cents
An' depreciatin' the dollar, while strengthening the pound' - twenty-five cents

Takin' out Saddam - one dollar
Gettin' rid of Ba'ath - five dollars
And nation-building Iraq - two dollars
Total owed - fourteen seventy-five

Well, as Blair looked at him standin' there expectantly
And I could see the mem'ries flashing through his mind
And so he picked up the pen, and turnin' the paper over
This is what he wrote

For these years that we stand with you
When the world's still against you - No charge
For watching your back, and takin' the flack
from the rest of Europe - No charge
For the time and the tears
That you'll cost through the years, there's No charge
And when you add it all up
The full cost of our support is No charge

With Iraq's morgues filled with dead
And more worries ahead - No charge
For our advice and the knowledge
And the cost of your carnage - No charge
For our tanks, guns and 'planes and for backin' your claims
There's No charge, Sir
And when you add it all up
The full cost of our support, is - No charge

Well, when the Ambassador finished readin'
He had great big old tears in his eyes
And he looked up at Blair standing there and said
Tony, we sure do need you
Then he took the pen,
And in great big letters
He wrote PAID IN FULL

Lord knows when you add it all up
The cost of real love is - No charge

TW

ORAC
3rd Jan 2007, 13:04
"Mortgaged to the Yank" - BBC4, 9pm.

The former British ambassador to washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, tells the story of the the multibillion dollar debt that Britan finally finished repaying to America on New Year's Eve, giving a very critical view of the "special relationship" in the process.

brain fade
3rd Jan 2007, 13:06
Airspeedsalive

Well.......you've been paid, with interest, for goods you inflated the prices of. But hey, we needed them!

As for saving us, thanks for your bit and you'll find we did a bit ourselves but...................it was the Russkis that won it! (as any fule no):rolleyes:

High Wing Drifter
4th Jan 2007, 09:10
"Mortgaged to the Yank" - BBC4, 9pm.
I watched that. It concentrated mainly the US pulling the financial plug on VJ day and on the flawed "justice" argument for free aid from the US. Maybe there was a Churchillian slant to the programme, but I'm even more astonished at the sheer wit, oratory, intellegence and cunning of the man; I'm intrigued by the implication that it was Churchill created the issue of the cold war, through his "Iron Curtain" speech, to drive US self interest in Britain's favour.

Anyway, I was hoping the programme would get the meat; the strings attached. But unfortunately these were glossed over. I'm certain that the strings, whatever they are, persist to this day and cost Britain dear in the long run.

ORAC
4th Jan 2007, 10:16
To protect the Pound, the convertibility of sterling into other currencies was ended at the start of the war in 1939. The Empire, and more generally the Sterling Area, was critical to the UK during the war years in supplying resources, in pooling and rationing all dollar and gold earnings and providing sterling balances, held in London, to enable the war effort to be sustained.

Lend-Lease forced the UK to take on ever-larger debts with the other Sterling Area countries. The sterling balances by 1945 were equivalent to seven times the value of the UK gold and dollar reserves.

After the war the US put heavy pressure on Britain to move towards multilateral trade arrangements and to dismantle the Sterling Area. The objective of British policy was to sustain sterling’s role as an international currency and the City of London as a global financial centre.

Among the strings attached to the loan after lend-Lease was terminated was one of crucial importance - the US insisted on the convertibility of sterling and an end to the Sterling Area dollar pool within one year of the loan agreement coming into force, together with the freeing of the blocked sterling balances over a period of years. Britain finally had to ratify the July 1944 Bretton Woods agreements, establishing the IMF and the Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and support the US proposal for an International Trade Organisation designed to eliminate trade discrimination and any prefered trade agreements between the member nations of the Sterling Area.

Two years after the agreement, on 15 July 1947 the UK made sterling convertible. Five weeks later it had to be suspended because of a massive run on the pound as holders of sterling tried to convert it into dollars. A similar dollar crisis hit the whole of Western Europe in 1947. The whole of Europe teetered on the precipice of a great depression.

Thankfully, if that's the right term, that also risked the rise of communism within Western Europe - and the Cold War was just seen as the emerging threat. The result was the decision of the USA to propose a European Recovery Programme and offer aid to Europe - The Marshall Plan (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19970501faessay3823/david-reynolds/marshall-plan-commemorative-section-the-european-response-primacy-of-politics.html) - of which the UK was a major backer and recipient. Over the next 4 years the USA provided $13bn in aid.

High Wing Drifter
4th Jan 2007, 13:17
ORAC,

I think the points you made were covered in the programme, but there were references to other unspecified strings attached to the initial loan and the Marshall plan. I suspect the unfathomable technology transfers and the cancellation of competitive defence projects, the basing of the US forces in the UK and Germany are the obvious ones. But believe there are more strings than meets the eye...because I'm that kind of suspicious fellah.

R4+Z
4th Jan 2007, 13:50
So we now have a merged thread which totally ignores the fact that there are two seperate topics, however similar. One being about having paid off the debt and the other about why there ever should be a debt. At the chance (if there is one) of being banned for however long. I have to ask why the moderators insist on merging threads with different points just because they address the same topic? It shows a total lack of appreciation of the subject by the moderators and belittles the points being made by the individual posters. To quote a famous if not imfamous Australian.....

Please Explain!!!!!

Jet Blast is being strangled by this type of action. Please return to the jet blast of old, Where debate and differing points of view were welcomed and acknowledged!

AMF
5th Jan 2007, 01:49
Ben There:
I agree, but the fact remains that at the end of WW2, the USA had billions of dollars worth of brand new industrial plant whereas the other participants production capacity and infrastructure was either clapped out or in smoking ruins (a bit of both in the case of the UK).
It was probably not planned that way, but the USA was in a dominant position post 1945. To its credit, US industry switched to the manufacture of peacetime goods very well (though only partially). Inventing the threat from the USSR, which was in dire straits, justified keeping the industrial/ military complex which remained very much in business. In the end, notwithstanding the considerable human cost, the USA did quite nicely out of the whole grisly affair. I`m glad someone did.

Talk to a Pole about that "imaginary" Soviet threat, both during and after the war.

This post represents the type of thinking that, along with the "USSR won the war not the Americans" view, has me hoping that the next time Euro countries go to war with each other trying to maintain their global colonial designs or stamping out Euro-spawned Socialist dictators running amok in Europe, we stay completely out of it and let you exterminate each other, the remaining living under someone's iron bootheel.

We should have let the USSR gobble up everyone, not just Eastern Europe, and let you figure it out your own problems. Our military/industrial complex would have worked-out just fine anyway, we didn't need a free Europe to fight the cold war.

Just think, all those western Euro countries now whining about the Eastern Euro immigrants flooding into them because their former commie-economies are so poor at home wouldnt have that problem.

You'd all be evenly screwed, but apparently happy there were no debt payments to the evil U.S. So be it next time.

brain fade
7th Jan 2007, 13:44
Is it true that while we've paid our WW2 debt, we still owe the US for WW1?

Bahn-Jeaux
7th Jan 2007, 14:44
I am not sure of the facts in this case but I seem to remember on a WW1 documentary that upon entry to this fray, the UK had to supply the US with decent artillery and other ancilliaries for ground warfare.
Dont know much about the payment arrangements one way or the other.
This is just a recollection, not a statement of historical fact so dont bring the guns to bear if I am wrong on this.

tony draper
7th Jan 2007, 15:54
I remember reading that after the Ist World War the British Government paid a very large amount of cash to the German Company Krupps for using their patented fusing system in our shells,can't let a little thing like a world war get in the way of business can we.
:uhoh: