1945 war debt to US 'almost paid'

[Hanno Spoelstra]

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4970720.stm

The UK will repay debts owed to the US dating from the World War II by the end of this year, the government says.
Under the lend-lease programme, which began in March 1941, the then neutral US could provide countries fighting Hitler with war material.

The US joined the war soon after - in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbour - and the programme ended in 1945.

The final payment of £45m will be made by the 31 December, meeting a 1945 obligation to repay the debt in full.

"Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," the Treasury's Ivan Lewis said in a written commons reply.

[Bill Murray]

I would have thought that my country would have long ago forgiven this debt. Doesn't make me real proud although I imagine it does make the British proud.
Bill

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Bill Murray
I would have thought that my country would have long ago forgiven this debt.

Don't take it personally, Bill, but here's how President Roosevelt explained Lend-Lease: "Your neighbour's house is on fire. He comes to you, and asks if he can have your hose. You say, 'I will not give you my hose. But I will lend it to you. You can borrow it to put out your fire. And when the fire is out, you will return it to me'". If I was Mr. Lewis I would send Mr. Bush a hose!

H.

[Bill Murray]

Yes, my friend, I was being a bit sarcastic. I am reminded, however, how many times since 1945 our British friends have stood beside us (others as well) in various military endeavours that were not very popular with the rest of the world.

As another historical footnote, our Mexican friends celebrated Cinco de Mayo yesterday, which has to do with the battle for Puebla, Mexico where the Mexicans defeated the French. The French invaded Mexico because they declined to repay loans to the French incurred in an earlier conflict. Mexico never paid.

Bill

Originally posted by Bill Murray
I would have thought that my country would have long ago forgiven this debt. Doesn't make me real proud although I imagine it does make the British proud.

Hmmmmm, I suspect most of the "British" don't even know about it, but its true that fighting a World War and paying the Lend-Lease back did virtually bankrupt the country and its interesting to compare the US 50's boom with the UK austerity in the same period.

Not to forget the large tracts (to us) of real estate used as US military bases both here and in the dependencies that is rent free in perpetuity it seems.

As an interesting illustration, building land is now worth a bit over 1 million GBP per acre on average but nearly 5 million in inner London. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/la...and-future.htm

R.

[John McGillivray]

One of the goals of US Foreign policy at that time, was the dismantling of the British Empire. The US was willing to help the British avoid defeat, however, they were going to make them pay through the bloody noses for it

[alleramilitaria]

i think that the payment was REQUIRED for the US to be able to give new gear to england by US law. i think if you look at the way the US gives new gear to other countries the gear is never really given but sold at a highly discounted rate. i do think there is a law that keeps us from just giving new gear to anyone. we can give old excess gear in lue of scrapping, but NEW gear has to be payed for (T-16s vs WWI distroyers for example).

[Lynn Eades]

So Dave the obvious question arises, what is wrong with a "token" fee?

[alleramilitaria]

i think we did that with most of the surpluss items but the NEW gear was sold at cost without intrest. that way we could leagaly do it and still stay nutral befor dec 8 44, and do it leagaly after that. remember that some people wanted rosevelt impeached for even selling the british gear.

[Lynn Eades]

Dave. Ijust learned a bit more. Thanks.
Lynn.

Originally posted by alleramilitaria
i think we did that with most of the surpluss items but the NEW gear was sold at cost without intrest. that way we could leagaly do it and still stay nutral befor dec 8 44, and do it leagaly after that. remember that some people wanted rosevelt impeached for even selling the british gear.

I don't think so.

The only thing "at cost" was a few WWI four funnel destroyers saved from the scrappers' gas-axe.

Lend-Lease was replaced, or converted, in Aug 1945 by a loan to cover it of $130,000,000,000 and from 1951 at a rate of 2% interest. Doesn't seem like "at cost" or "without interest".

Missed payments simply extended the loan and it is quite obvious the British economy was effectively bankrupted by the repayments until the early 1990's. The Treasury weren’t able to repay in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1968 and 1976.

It is also recognised that a different situation might have ensued if we had demanded royalties on the free-issue technology of the magnetron, jet engine, antibiotics and nuclear research.

Here's a reference to this period from an author researching a reference work on the British pound.

http://www.sundayherald.com/53579

R.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Richard Notton
Lend-Lease was replaced, or converted, in Aug 1945 by a loan to cover it of $130,000,000,000 and from 1951 at a rate of 2% interest. Doesn't seem like "at cost" or "without interest".

It has nothing to do with helping out your neighbour - war is big business. It was and still is.

It is also recognised that a different situation might have ensued if we had demanded royalties on the free-issue technology of the magnetron, jet engine, antibiotics and nuclear research.

And don't forget the research into metal fatigue on pressurised aircraft fuselages. Britain learned an expensive lesson with the Comet, of which the lessons learned were shared freely with other aircraft manufacturers.

H.

[Les Freathy]

Interesting topic i did not realise we were still paying back the loan. If we owed that much how come in the 1950/60s so much kit was given to other nations or sold for peanuts in this country and we have been paying for it. Dont get me wrong without it we would have been in all sorts of trouble and probably would have struggled to survive in a big way plus any records about as to how much sits at the bottom of the Atlantic thanks to U boats prehaps we should have billed the aggressor.
Just a thought
Les