Any one see this on google news about Britain paying back its war debt to usa and Canada. Second world war


THE Government will this week fully discharge Britain's Second World War debts to America and Canada, when it pays the last instalment of multi-billion dollar loans which helped bankroll the war effort.

According to The Times, final payments will be made this Friday on the 4.33 billion (2.2bn) loaned by the US in 1945 and the 1.25 (£0.6bn) billion borrowed from Canada.

Payments of 83.25 million (£43 million) will be made to the US Government and 22.7 million (£11.6m) to Canada, the paper said.

[GrahamC]

Great news... only half a doz more wars to pay for now then.

[hermanmunster]

And the rest of the debt racked up in the last 5 years by Gordon 'Viv Nicholson' Brown. call me prudent...I think not

[Pat_C]

This seems to me like finding someone dying in the road and offering to help - for a flat fee of £500 (payable by instalments).

[Pat_C]

Originally Posted by hermanmunster

And the rest of the debt racked up in the last 5 years by Gordon 'Viv Nicholson' Brown. call me prudent...I think not

Ah - that would explain the pink Cadillac outside No. 11 then

[overkill]

The last govt paid back the largest sum since the 50's, and this is the last remnants of the debt. Since this country was officially bankrupt in 1940 and could not carry on the war, I think it's more a recognition of a moral duty rather than the money itself.

[JagoPlasma]

Originally Posted by Pat_C

This seems to me like finding someone dying in the road and offering to help - for a flat fee of £500 (payable by instalments).

not to mention the guy who was dieing did it to save yours(Americas) and others(France, etc) asses

[hermanmunster]

The price extracted by the USA for this help wasn't only financial. We had to give up all kinds of properties and back down on many issues too. The USA , I believe, made a profit from WW2 (notwithstanding the human cost of course).
The USA would not be the power it is today if WW2 didn't happen.

Still we were the beggars and so the proverb goes...we had no choice.

Contrary to the above I have no inherent dislike of the US.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by hermanmunster

The price extracted by the USA for this help wasn't only financial. We had to give up all kinds of properties and back down on many issues too. The USA , I believe, made a profit from WW2 (notwithstanding the human cost of course).
The USA would not be the power it is today if WW2 didn't happen.

Still we were the beggars and so the proverb goes...we had no choice.

Contrary to the above I have no inherent dislike of the US.

We certainly did. The US put enormous pressure on us to allow the spread of 'democracy' in our imperial territories, and played no small part in pressuring us to give it up. We also backed down in the face of US pressure (cynically, and domestically motivated I might add) over Palestine, pressure and decisions which we are still living with the consequences of today.

The US did indeed make a profit out of WW2. As they did in WW1. The US didn't come out of the Great Depression fully until the early 40's, surprise, that's when they started selling arms and equipment to us and the other allied powers, and developing their war economy.

Yes, we were beggars, and as such, short of doing what half the cabinet wanted, we needed US help.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by Pat_C

This seems to me like finding someone dying in the road and offering to help - for a flat fee of £500 (payable by instalments).

Or holding your education to ransom, ala the labour party.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Games Guru

Or holding your education to ransom, ala the labour party.

.......taken of course from a Tory Green paper. We can't win Guru, face it.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by JagoPlasma

not to mention the guy who was dieing did it to save yours(Americas) and others(France, etc) asses

It was to save its own a** too I'd like to say. After France who do you think was next on the list? If Hitler hadn't chosen to go East before taking England history might have been well different.

But we had a war we pay for it hey... It's not like we don't charge other countries interest on their loans.

[drskhaled]

so what are we gonna do with all the extra millions we'll have next year now that we've paid off this debt? I reckon we should all have a party paid for by the govt.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by drskhaled

so what are we gonna do with all the extra millions we'll have next year now that we've paid off this debt? I reckon we should all have a party paid for by the govt.

We'll spend in on Iraq I guess? Or TB's retirement fund...

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Jenn

It was to save its own a** too I'd like to say. After France who do you think was next on the list? If Hitler hadn't chosen to go East before taking England history might have been well different.

But we had a war we pay for it hey... It's not like we don't charge other countries interest on their loans.

The US offered to help only as a result of Roosevelts personal intervention. He (rightly) felt that should the NAZI's defeat us, then the whole World was at risk. The loan was offered because at that time the US was not at war with anyone, and the US public was still very much against coming in. Roosevelt, in fact had to battle with congress even to give us the support they did. Historians argue that he also cynically manoeuvred the Japanese into a position where they had two options. Attack the US or come to the table and submit to disarmament talks. With the military in command of Japan, the latter was never going to happen. Once the US was in, Roosevelt could legitimately give 'aid' as well as just 'lend'.

The loan was therefore an expedient. Without it we would have gone under, and Churchill would probably have been out voted by the half of the cabinet led by Halifax, and a shameful peace drawn up with NAZI Germany.

Actually Jenn, Hitler attacked Britain in 1940. He went East in 1941. He never really wanted to attack as at all, and attacked Russia when, and probably correctly, it was surmised that we posed no significant land based threat.

As such, the politicans argue it is right to pay it back.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by overkill

Actually Jenn, Hitler attacked Britain in 1940. He went East in 1941. He never really wanted to attack as at all, and attacked Russia when, and probably correctly, it was surmised that we posed no significant land based threat.

Some of his advisors were of the opinion and advised him that Germany should "finish off" England before going for Russia. Fighting on two fronts isn't a good thing.
But Hitler thinking he was a military genius decided that he was going for Russia and "when he won" it'd make England beg for peace; he just didn't expect not to win there.

[Sonic67]

And if Hitler hadn't had to bail out the Italians who had taken on south east Europe and got in a mess he could have attacked Russia three months early and not then been stuck outside Moscow in Winter.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

And if Hitler hadn't had to bail out the Italians who had taken on south east Europe and got in a mess he could have attacked Russia three months early and not then been stuck outside Moscow in Winter.

Yes, Jenn, that's correct. The likes of Adolf Galland (the high ranking Luftwaffe ace) were highly concerned over the prospect of a war on two fronts and Galland claims he raised the issue in a personal meeting. However, the general staff while concerned over the two front war, argued, quite rightly, that Britain, at that time, posed no Land based threat. Hitler of course, took no convincing..........

Absolutely Sonic. It was one of three crucial decisions that cost Germany the war. One, the decision (for political reasons) not to allow Guderian to advance with his Panzers on Dunkirk from the South, a move which would have seen the BEF wiped out, two, the decision to switch from military to civilian targets in the B of B, and three the decision to delay Barbarossa while he sorted out Musso's mess. Imagine if had attacked as intended in the Spring? The way the Soviets collapsed, and with no prospect of winter in sight to hold the German advance up, the result could have been we would all be speaking German now! Just think, we owe it all to a blundering, bald, loudmouthed Italian.............

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Some of his advisors were of the opinion and advised him that Germany should "finish off" England before going for Russia. Fighting on two fronts isn't a good thing.
But Hitler thinking he was a military genius decided that he was going for Russia and "when he won" it'd make England beg for peace; he just didn't expect not to win there.

Just to add on to Overkills excellent post, Hitler probably had no option but to attack Russia at that time. The disposition of the (very large) Soviet forces was quite offensive (i.e. they were in formations more suited to attack than defence) and some believe that the Soviets themselves were starting to build up for an attack on Nazi Germany.

Hitler came extremely close to winning. Even with Barabarossa delayed, the German army came within a whisker of taking Moscow. If Hitler hadn't held up the assault on the Moscow-Gorki area with ultimately useless diversions in Stalingrad / Leningrad and economic targets in the South, it is almost certain that they'd have taken Moscow and destroyed the capability of the USSR to continue the war.

[ash]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Some of his advisors were of the opinion and advised him that Germany should "finish off" England before going for Russia. Fighting on two fronts isn't a good thing.
But Hitler thinking he was a military genius decided that he was going for Russia and "when he won" it'd make England beg for peace; he just didn't expect not to win there.

Hitler admired the British Empire. He loved the way they ruled so much of the world and he wanted to do the same. He didn't want to fight a war with Britian, he wanted to be another world-power just like Britian, but Britian did not agree so they fought...

[overkill]

Originally Posted by ash

Hitler admired the British Empire. He loved the way they ruled so much of the world and he wanted to do the same. He didn't want to fight a war with Britian, he wanted to be another world-power just like Britian, but Britian did not agree so they fought...

He did indeed. In the few personal documents remaining there is a consistent theme of admiration of the British Empire and way of life (the class system mainly), then disbelief and regret that the two nations were at war. Hitlers 'table talk', a genuine record of Hitlers personal comments, is littered with such references.

[Kenny Glasgow]

Originally Posted by Jenn

Some of his advisors were of the opinion and advised him that Germany should "finish off" England before going for Russia. Fighting on two fronts isn't a good thing.
But Hitler thinking he was a military genius decided that he was going for Russia and "when he won" it'd make England beg for peace; he just didn't expect not to win there.

So I presume that he would stop at Carlisle and Chester then....

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Kenny Glasgow

So I presume that he would stop at Carlisle and Chester then....

Like you didn't understand the point...

BTW I'm not British so may not always use the words/names that don't offend the Scots and Welsh. I apologise for this great mistake.

[Kenny Glasgow]

Jenn

I did understand, just having a bit of fun

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by hermanmunster

And the rest of the debt racked up in the last 5 years by Gordon 'Viv Nicholson' Brown. call me prudent...I think not

Best chancellor we have in ages me thinks. Godd PM prospect too i feel

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by Kenny Glasgow

Jenn

I did understand, just having a bit of fun

Fair enough, I thought you weren't joking

[Sonic67]

Well you could also throw in the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour which then led to Hitler declaring war on America to show solidarity. In a year Britian had gone from standing alone to having Russia and America as allies. A single tank factory in Detroit was churning out more tanks than the whole of Germany. Even if Germany did better and held out for longer the result might have been a nuclear bomb being dropped on Berlin rather than on Hiroshima.

[Squiffy]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Well you could also throw in the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour which then led to Hitler declaring war on America to show solidarity. In a year Britian had gone from standing alone to having Russia and America as allies. A single tank factory in Detroit was churning out more tanks than the whole of Germany. Even if Germany did better and held out for longer the result might have been a nuclear bomb being dropped on Berlin rather than on Hiroshima.

Or if Germany had successfully beaten Russia, they'd have the resources of Europe and a significant portion of Asia to call upon. If Germany had beaten Russia there is no question in my mind that the British would have been forced into a negotiated peace.

I love all this alternative history stuff. I generally don't believe in the grand sweep of history and inevitabilities. History turns on great individuals and the choices they make.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Squiffy

Or if Germany had successfully beaten Russia, they'd have the resources of Europe and a significant portion of Asia to call upon. If Germany had beaten Russia there is no question in my mind that the British would have been forced into a negotiated peace.

I love all this alternative history stuff. I generally don't believe in the grand sweep of history and inevitabilities. History turns on great individuals and the choices they make.

However, they didn't. I must admit, I don't have any time for alternatives, interesting as they are, as quite simply they didn't happen, so its irrelevant. In my line of work such speculation is meaningless as so much is still being uncovered that is relevant, and could change the reading of the history anyway.

I am a firm believer in the underlying currents of history, and the Second World War is very much an example of that. It was, and even amongst right wing 'great individuals' theorists, this is accepted, the result of events beyond the control of any one or even many men. Had Germany not collapsed in the way it did in 1918, then the general staff could not have blamed the Socialists or the Jews, and then a certain Austrian, working as a secret agent in 1919, could not have slowly won people over to his views. At the same time, had the Russians not driven out the Jews in the pogroms launched by Alexander III's govt, then anti-Semitism would not have risen in Germany the way it did, directly as result of the huge influx of poor, Eastern Jews. None of this is down to 'one man' or 'great men' but all of it led to war.

Nor were events in the US in the 1920's down to 'great men'. It was a national move (overspending fueled by the post war boom) that led to the first collapse of the US economy, and then the clamp down on immigration that led to huge Japanese resentment - which then resulted in Japan becoming anti-Western. And further to this:-

Japan was also a society with an unresolved problem. On the one hand it was moving towards capitalism, on the other it still held to 'traditional' views on the role of it's emperor and leadership. No one man, no matter how 'great', ever resolved this, only the defeat, and manner of defeat, in WW2 produced the situation for it to be reconciled under true democratic rule.

It was also a national problem, again not led by anyone that saw the crash of 1929. Arguably, it was the feeling that traditional methods could no longer cope with the scale of the ensuing problems that led to the election of Roosevelt and his attempts to introduce a govt led answer to the nations problems. In other words, political heresy in the pre Great Depression years. However, he could not have done so had the currents of history not been with him.

However, each to his own. History should be enjoyable, is always open to debate, and there is no 'right'.

What worries me is when groups of people led by the likes of Nial Ferguson who is on the right (New Right) claims there is - and this is the guy who believes (going on is books) that evidence is for the birds........

[hermanmunster]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

Best chancellor we have in ages me thinks. Godd PM prospect too i feel

Anyone can seem to be a 'good chancellor' when they have set the highest tax burden since records began.

Just add up what you are paying....

Mr Average..whoever he is pays 50% of his gross income to the treasury in one way or another. At these levels of taxation we should have the finest services in the world....so where are they?

The only people who are OK are the super wealthy, the career benefits claimants and the criminals. Those in the middle have been squeezed to death, unfortunately many haven't realised it yet. They continue to spend based on house price inflation and easy credit, not on real wealth, it's financial suicide...this country is heading for a deep recession.

And as for a good PM, he has as much charisma and appeal as a wet weekend in Skegness. Not that there's anyone from any party who would get my vote at the moment...we need realists not chamaeleons who change their colour to match the current mood.