Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lend-lease was, give the equipment back or destroy it as the US did not want most of it back, especially vehicles as they would impact on new sales in the USA. There are lots of mounds in the UK, Africa and the Far East full of US made Jeeps. Lend-lease was funded from the taxes from full employment from war needs. The British basically paid for the lend-lease via their payments from previous equipment.
Pre-war factories are empty -> US factories full in wartime -> employees paying taxes which Uncle Sam never had pre war-> use the taxes for lend-lease -> costs Uncle Sam nothing. War stops -> taxes go to Uncle Sam. Quite simple.
The output of the USA in WW2 was quite staggering. New factories sprang up all over. Crash training course emerged to teach the skills. Those with ready made skills became trainers. Shipyards made from nothing. People migrated from the countryside into the towns and cities.
Lend-lease was, give the equipment back or destroy it as the US did not want most of it back, especially vehicles as they would impact on new sales in the USA. There are lots of mounds in the UK, Africa and the Far East full of US made Jeeps. Lend-lease was funded from the taxes from full employment from war needs.
You gloss over that the "taxes from full employment" were those collected on the wages paid to American workers, not British taxpayers.
As well, your fallacy that the "vehicles … would have impact on new sales in the USA" is pure BS fantasy. Those military vehicles AND MILITARY EQUIPMENT or Ships had virtually no other use in the civilian USA marketplace. Few civilians would ever have use for the firepower, the naval vessels, the field artillery and firearms geared for military use.
I'm reminded of those few who bought P-51's at the end of the war for pennies on the dollar. Other than sporting recreational flying, these had no other viable use. It's only as a nostalgia item, perhaps a few in air racing teams … that have any value today. Fortunately, for those few who bought them for a couple thousand dollars post WW2, the collector value has skyrocketed … if they are still the ones who own them. I had a friend with a Spitfire who bought it post WW2 for next to nothing, his family foundation restored it as a museum flying collectable … and he died in a weather related crash with that plane a few years ago ferrying it back from an airshow display. It wasn't a very good instrument conditions flying machine as it turned out.
At best, a few Jeeps would find civilian buyers who could put them to use for off-road purposes, But those vehicles were hardly the stuff of civilian transportation, not capable of the prevailing highway speeds of the USA at the time. I've driven more than a few old surplus WW2 Jeeps on hunting/fishing trips and they were crudely suited for such use .. but not family transportation or comfort travels, even in the post WW2 years compared to domestic vehicles of the era.
The British basically paid for the lend-lease via their payments from previous equipment.
Pray tell, what "payments" were those?
This, of course, is quite contrary to the assertion in your prior post that Britain did in fact pay for their Lend Lease wartime equipment. Didn't happen during or after WW2, and I don't see any payments made to the USA in advance of WW2 for equipment that might be coming their way in another war.
Pre-war factories are empty -> US factories full in wartime -> employees paying taxes which Uncle Sam never had pre war-> use the taxes for lend-lease -> costs Uncle Sam nothing. War stops -> taxes go to Uncle Sam. Quite simple.
Thank for making my point. The US workers were the ones taxed and paid for this equipment, not the British.
The obvious difference here in our approaches is that the "Uncle Sam", ie, the US Gov't … is "of the people" who are not SUBJECTS, but CITIZENS. IOW, Uncle Sam's "free money", or as you describe … "costs Uncle Sam nothing" … did, in fact cost $Billions paid for by the people CITIZENS OF THE USA. It came out of our pockets, our economy.
Suffice to say that the US population could have had the pleasure of spending their money earned upon their backs upon their own choices. Instead, we got to spend it on defending your country … and our common interests as determined by a minority of the USA population at the time.
The output of the USA in WW2 was quite staggering. New factories sprang up all over. Crash training course emerged to teach the skills. Those with ready made skills became trainers. Shipyards made from nothing. People migrated from the countryside into the towns and cities.
Indeed, something that the British gov't and population were not capable of doing themselves and relied upon entangling the USA in your regional disputes at the cost of USA blood and treasure.
For those of us USA folk who have family members who didn't come back from the European theater, it's a burden from which there is no functional recovery. And then there's some who did come back with lifetime injuries, such as my Dad. The British, French, nor any other Euro country contributed one penny to his lifetime of disability … those costs via the VA were borne by the American taxpayer for decades as were the more serious long term disabilities sustained by so many others.
I appreciate a common background with your country and the preservation of the core beliefs of our societies, but your persistence in claiming that the British more than paid their share of their defense and the USA benefitted from your regional troubles … it's rather insulting in light of the facts of the matter. You guys didn't pay during WW2, didn't hardly pay afterwards, and most certainly relied upon the goodwill and friendship bonds of the USA to your benefit in the years post WW2. What's more ingratiating about that is that so little of the wealth of the British society was held then and today by such a small percentage of your population. If, as you suggest, the USA population benefitted so well from the WW2 war machine, then I'll suggest that the British investor class benefitted even far more so … and yes, I know USA folks who owned sizable positions in those "war machine" companies whose wealth exploded via war production items used in WW2.
Other USA companies got devastated by the war time production. A classic example would be the Indian motorcycle company, which lost their civilian market share and presence due to their war effort production. Post WW2, the company survived for only a few years and folded as a result.
Of course, we're happy with much of the political outcome of WW2 with the defeat of the Axis powers. But my impression here in your posts is to minimize the efforts of the USA population (as differentiated from the USA gov't) in support of that effort on behalf of the British, costs which were carried by the people of the USA for decades after the war.
Indeed, something that the British gov't and population were not capable of doing themselves and relied upon entangling the USA in your regional disputes at the cost of USA blood and treasure.
For those of us USA folk who have family members who didn't come back from the European theater, it's a burden from which there is no functional recovery. And then there's some who did come back with lifetime injuries, such as my Dad. The British, French, nor any other Euro country contributed one penny to his lifetime of disability … those costs via the VA were borne by the American taxpayer for decades as were the more serious long term disabilities sustained by so many others.
I appreciate a common background with your country and the preservation of the core beliefs of our societies, but your persistence in claiming that the British more than paid their share of their defense and the USA benefitted from your regional troubles … it's rather insulting in light of the facts of the matter. You guys didn't pay during WW2, didn't hardly pay afterwards, and most certainly relied upon the goodwill and friendship bonds of the USA to your benefit in the years post WW2. What's more ingratiating about that is that so little of the wealth of the British society was held then and today by such a small percentage of your population. If, as you suggest, the USA population benefitted so well from the WW2 war machine, then I'll suggest that the British investor class benefitted even far more so … and yes, I know USA folks who owned sizable positions in those "war machine" companies whose wealth exploded via war production items used in WW2.
Other USA companies got devastated by the war time production. A classic example would be the Indian motorcycle company, which lost their civilian market share and presence due to their war effort production. Post WW2, the company survived for only a few years and folded as a result.
Of course, we're happy with much of the political outcome of WW2 with the defeat of the Axis powers. But my impression here in your posts is to minimize the efforts of the USA population (as differentiated from the USA gov't) in support of that effort on behalf of the British, costs which were carried by the people of the USA for decades after the war.
Remember Winston Churchill came toFDR begging we get involved in the war, England was about to loose if not for the involvement of the USA. FDR gave your country old surplus war machinery left over from WW1 and food and oil was from 1941 to 1945 free France and the Soviet Union also received help to after the war everything that was sent over from the states stayed were it was because it was useless to the USA anymor.
Remember Winston Churchill came toFDR begging we get involved in the war, England was about to loose if not for the involvement of the USA. FDR gave your country old surplus war machinery left over from WW1 and food and oil was from 1941 to 1945 free France and the Soviet Union also received help to after the war everything that was sent over from the states stayed were it was because it was useless to the USA anymor.
What you say is total nonsense. Most is just totally incoherent inaccurate babble really. The Germans declared war on the USA, the USA never joined in to help anyone. The UKs industrial output was equal to Germany's. What they made was generally superior to US products.
The Germans and Italians were attempting to defeat the British in North Africa and unable to do so. The British had wiped out most of their surface fleet and defeated them twice in the air over Dunkirk and over southern England.
Look at 1hr 14 mins. The USA assessed that the Axis would be beaten by the Soviets and British alone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KU997m9o4&t=4438s
This is the wrong thread for "the USA won the war all by itself" shouting. The reality is they were very poorly led.
This is the wrong thread for "the USA won the war all by itself" shouting. The reality is they were very poorly led.
But apparently it's been your soapbox for a "everything the USA did was wrong" and "everything the British did was fabulous" thread.
You've made it clear that your point of view is that we (the USA) were just a bunch of rubes who couldn't do anything right in design/development/manufacturing without the firm hand of superior British guidance and management.
You clearly state that British and German manufactured goods were better than anything the USA produced at the time, all of our goods were inferior products. Some of us might take exception to that assertion with cause; American manufacturing of many goods was 2nd to nobody's in quality/design/manufacturing. Indeed, American ingenuity provided durable mass consumer goods on a scale and affordability unmatched by your vaunted British producers.
You make it sound like the USA should be grateful to the British that we were given an opportunity to come out of our dark ignorance while fulfilling your wartime manufacturing and materiel needs. Not to mention the basic goods of survival, such as foodstuffs, fuel, and the essentials of life which were desperately needed by your war machine and civilian population during the war years.
You deride the USA citizens for not entering the war earlier, yet you ignore that the USA provided convoy protection assistance to get goods to England during the time of "neutrality" before entering the war. Such activity was manifestly illegal under the cover of "neutrality" and was undertaken at great risk by the USA to benefit Britain. At that, many Americans who supported the British gov't and people volunteered to serve with you in the European theater before the USA was at war with the Axis side.
You ignore that the USA had already recently provided a lot of blood and treasure not too many years before for a major conflict that didn't involve the USA. All part of the petty rivalries from the centuries of disputes over territory and politics long fostered by a defective system of power in the hands of "royal families" and landed gentry. WW1 was most certainly not the USA's fight nor did Americans gain anything for their efforts to support you.
So Roosevelt campaigned and won his presidency under the premise that "we aren't going to send our boys to a foreign war", and neutrality regarding European conflicts was paramount at the time … especially in light of the limited economic resources of the American population due to the depression years. You ignore that the largest single immigrant group in the USA at the time was from Germany, so if there were sympathies to a "homeland", they would have been to Germany … but most folk here in the USA had left those allegiances behind in their decision to emigrate to America.
You entirely misrepresent how little the British paid for the assistance provided by the USA and fail to recognize that the citizens of the USA personally bore the burden to do so.
You alone set the stage here for a USA bashing and a push-back by those American citizens who have paid dearly for the survival of England during those perilous times for your country. If you've mentioned it, I must have missed any "thank you" for the American efforts on your behalf.
And we have NASCAR we don’t need F1 racing and why was the American General Dwight D. Eisenhower put in as supreme commander of the allied forces, why wasn’t your General why wasn’t your beloved Bernard Montgomery not put in charge, from what I see the USA paid for a majority of the war bills, and if it were not for the effort of the Big3 automakers that turned their assembly plants into war machine assembly plants you British would not have the war machines to keep on. Ford was rolling a Liberator off the Willow Run production line every 63 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week you see good old American industrial might at it’s best.
wrong tread, take to another. BTW, Churchill made a big mistake in suggesting an American be supreme commander as it was a shambles at times, when in the Bulge Montgomery had to take control of two US armies, the First and the Ninth (he was in charge of the Ninth until the end of the war) and parts of the USAAF had to be put under RAF command. But that is another thread. This is automotive.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
You are slow.
And you make many allegations unsupported b y facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
The car was British designed for sure, who also tuned the engine, then the Americans tuned it again. It had a poor power/weight ratio. The Americans built the car in the USA so as to gain experience and knowledge.
No the MK IIs were not British designed or manufactured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
There were far better engines around, but it was Ford who were pushing their own products, so that was the best engine they could offer. Americans had little experience of that sort of racing.
Yeah, I know you claim those V-8s weren't successful until the Brits souped them up. And we all know that's just plain silly.
Far better engines?
They WON, how much better were the engines in the cars trailing the leaders?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
NO I will not. Did you read what I wrote? I doubt it. The laminar flow wings were by NACA with the Air Ministry pushing NAA to their research. But after testing later in the war few found them to add an advantage.
Despite your unsupported claims to the contrary, references list the Mustang as having been designed at and manufactured by North American Aviation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
