Lend-Lease repayments

Btw,
has anyone of you seen a Russian tv series "Shtraf-batallion"? ("penal batallion"). I have. In original! Sent to me by a friend from Russia, a Jew but very patriotic Russian also.
Folks! It is one of the best movies about war I´ve ever seen. It shows the cruelty of it. Just like my Grandpapa told me. And has a kind of wonderful humor too.
I humbly recommend.

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

1. Which major allied country's leadership would gladly have divided the spoils of a subjugated western Europe with Hitler had they not been attacked by same?

2. Which major allied country paid in blood for victory merely because they had no choice i.e. they were invaded?

3. Which major allied country despite the impossibility of being invaded by Germany(and despite a sneak attack by another country) neverthe less devoted the majority of their resources to seeing that Hitler was defeated?

4. Which major allied country used WW II an an excuse to invade and sieze control of eastern europe?

5. Which major allied country after WW II rebuilt, fed, clothed and helped back onto their feet their former enemies who were dedicated to their destruction?

lol..this kind of thing could go on ad infinitum

 

Please don't start throwing mud at each other...

Like you said, it's pointless to compare the contributions of the Allies to the war, since all did just about everything they could and we can't and shouldn't ask more.

 

Roel wrote:

All my "mud" was aimed at Stalin and the Soviets, not at Izaak

 

I don´t feel mudded by Grieg in the least.

BUT:
conc. p.5.: Germany was not “dedicated” to destruction of USA. It was rather USA who provoked Germany to declare war and then, USA was “dedicated” to destroy Germany, which largely happened. Yes, later the US helped FRG on their feet. But here you have again the question of motives, money changing pockets and the Cold War situation. Not entirely selfless help, don´t you think?

conc. p.1.: Had Hitler not attacked, there would not have been a question of dividing the spoils of western Europe but a question where Stalin (having conquered all continental Europe) would stop and who would be able to stop him.
conc. p.2.: USSR was attacked (very successfully, to start with) because Stalin was a little bit too menacing (without Hitler knowing of his REAL, immediate plans, though) and forgot to prepare plan B.

conc.p.3.: Why exactly? Especially regarding the vast majority of it´s public opinion?
conc.p.4.: Touche´. Not me.
Of course, nobodt with his senses intact denies the evil of the Evil Empire. But the official, politically correct line during WW2 was that USSR was a poor victim of Nazi hordes, loosing uncounted millions of lives and billions of wealth, and a precious ally of the US. In this light, should everything sill be counted in dollars? That is the only question I was asking.

I like your questions, Grieg. I really do.

 

Howard Stern wrote: JK!! ( you may not get the joke unless you are familiar with US though)
Izaak Stern wrote:

This is the only one I take issue with. If I leave my bathroom window unlocked did I provoke the burglar who climbed in and robbed my house?
I realize that this isn't a direct analogy but I do think it is silly to claim that the US provoked Germany to declare war. Germany was invading European countries and subjugating millions of people yet the US provoked them by trying to come to the aid (indirectly, albeit) of those they were attacking?

The economic equation doesn't add up. Considering the unbelieveable cost of WW II, a significant portion of which was borne by the US it makes no sense to me. You will have to be more explicit regarding money changing pockets and so forth because I cannot see where this is leading.

 

This is a VERY indirect analogy, indeed. Maybe even a silly one, Grieg.

OK. I will be more explicit.
For many reasons The US Establishment (I realize it is difficult to define, who exactly belongs to the Establishment, but there is, for me, no doubt that some people have much more to say in politics than others, and the influetial ones do talk together and sometimes even reach some conclusions) decided to back up Britain and USSR very energetically, knowing that it would probably mean war with Germany.
This probability was almost certainly taken into account and considered acceptable.

Why, exactly was the US helping USSR (knowing that the Soviet system was not any better than German – actually much worse) ? In order to help Britain? How many times did Hitler implore Britain to stop the silly war between them? It was Britain that always said : NO. This wasa sovereign British choice (a noble one, accepted, but still – it was their decision and they should have known it´s possible consequences). Why should the American taxpayer pay for British decisions and American soldier die for the same? Were they ever asked????

American industry earned a lot during the war. Not only equipping own troops but also sending L/L wares, all paid by the American taxpayer. That is what I mean by money changing pockets.

After the war came Marshall Plan. Again, American wares sent to Europe. Capital investments. Partly paid by the American, partly by european taxpayer. Money changing pockets. Has any ONE American company lose money because of these activities? I am asking.

The US companies have largely built the Soviet heavy industry, which (much later) led to it´s becoming a superpower and a direct threat to the US. Has any US company lost a cent due to cold war? I am just asking.

If you are thinking of the US as a whole, a community of people with common interests, I am afraid you may one day come to the conclusion that you have been wrong.

 

After WW2, European industries lay in ruins. There was great demand for products that only the US at that time could deliver. This meant that there was a great dollar shortage in Europe after the war; though international cooperation and rebuilding programs did all the work in putting the European economies back on their feet, the Marshall plan really helped too by quenching Europe's thirst for dollars. In short, the aid given to Europe after WW2 ended up right back in the US. In this way it really did help the Western European countries, but it also helped the USA and not a penny was lost.

 

!00% agreed

 

Ricky wrote:

Let's assume that the reader knows nothing of economics.
Adam produces a widget that costs 8 dollars in production/distrubution costs. He wishes to sell it for 10 dollars and make a profit.
Ben wishes to buy Adam's widget but unfortunately has no money as his house recently burned down and everthing he earns goes to feed and shelter his family.
Adam decides to help rebuild Ben's house so he gives him 15 dollars so that Ben can buy his widget as well as spend some on rebuilding his house.
Adam's outlay 15 dollars + 8 dollars = 23 dollars
Adam's revenue = 10 dollars

Now, one could argue that Ben will continue to buy Adams' products and that in the long run Adam will benefit. In the old Colonial type system Ben would be made dependent upon Adam's finished goods(widgets) while providing Adam with cheap natural resources with which to build widgets.
Nothing of the sort occurred or was contemplated in Europe. After spending untold billions to rebuild the economies of Europe (and Japan)
they became the chief competition rather than captive consumers of American products.
Add to the rebuilding costs the billions spent to station military forces in Europe and keep the Soviets from gobbling up a weakened western Europe the way that they did eastern Europe and the equation becomes even more lopsided.
"Not a penny was lost"? I fail to see the self serving motive you impute (at least from an economic sense, there is no doubt that the US had a strong interest in western Europe remaining free of Soviet domination)

 

Hi Grieg,

only one quibble:

Do you mean Roel?

I know Roel & I have similar views on some issues, but really... :lol:

 

I would once again like to point out to Grieg and anybody involved: the US Establishment (incl. producers of infrastructure, of oil etc.) is not exactly the same as the US taxpayer, who had to pay for the charity.
American companies earned money during WW2 selling machines that destroyed, and after the WW2 – selling machines that rebuilt. Not free of charge. Taxpayer paid.

 

Izaak Stern wrote:

This I know. However unless one is willing to believe (and some are) that the US government is being controlled by hidden forces made up of big business interests then the theory fails.

That is inevitable under a Capitalist economic system. Have you a better way? Had these American companies not had the industrial capacity to build more and better weapons of war than the aggressor nations then the world would have descended into darkness with brutal Totalitarian and racist regimes stamping on the face of humanity. I don't begrudge them a reasonable profit for their contributions.

 

However, European production, contrary to Marshall's doomsday views of the time, wasn't 0. Anyway, it'll only get more complicated this way; the postwar European situation can't be simplified that easily. I will simply tell you that what I said above, the fact that the American Marshall plan aid went right back to the US helping Western Europe clear up its dollar shortage, wasn't something I came up with myself. I was told this by a renowned professor of Economic History at Leiden University, who based his statement on a few decades of research. Without having seen this research I'm still going to trust his authority on the subject, wouldn't you?

There simply wasn't "no" money in Europe after the war, there was too little foreign currency (obviously, since all foreign investment into Europe had been cut short by the war), meaning that in order to buy needed American reconstruction goods they needed dollars which the Marshall Plan, intended to aid reconstruction, provided.

In the case of Dutch Marshall Plan aid, by the way (14.5 billion dollars), 90% was a loan and most of that was repaid.

 

Roel wrote:

Never. Reason rules my thoughts not respect for the vaunted opinions of other higher authorities. Never accept things on faith

A lack of foreign currency wouldn't be a problem if Europe was producing goods. A bilateral trade agreement with the US would provide the needed currency to purchase American goods. The larger problem was that the cities and factories of much of Europe (especially Germany obviously) were in ruins.


You don't have to be a genuis to realize that if I have to give you the money for you to purchase my goods then I cannot profit from that arrangement. I realize that this a simplification but the principle remains the same which is the purpose of a model is it not?

 

Well, we might just as well stop all education then, because students can do little more than believe what the professors think is important for them to know as a knowledge base for further studies... Now I could of course run to the library and read all his works and then come back to you on this, but I lack the time and motivation, plus I see no reason to believe him then, since it's still just his word against mine.

I agree with you that you shouldn't believe someone just because you see him as an authority on it (though there is one infamous experiment that shows a human tendency to do so anyway). However, in this case there are several reasons for me to believe the man's words; for one thing he's showing his authority on the subject beyond a nominal title. For another, his job is to tell first year students the basics of economic history, which means that whatever he says is deemed important enough (and certain enough) not to be left out as detail for the specialist. And then there's the fact that his works are widely referred to as a reliable source.

 

Good bye.

I haven´t time to continue here.
It has been a pleasure to exchange opinions, particularly with Ricky and Roel.
Good luck!

 

Izaak, I'm sorry to see you go...
:cry:

 

Ok,

After WW2, America gives a shed-load of money ($13 billion by 1953) to Europe, to help it to stay alive & rebuild after years of war (pedantically, 4 years 9 months, give or take).

However, there is the fact that the aid did not start arrving until 1947, after two of the worst winters Europe had known for a long long while. We had to beg for the aid - largely because the Americans were unaware of quite how bad conditions were, rather than any stingyness on their part.

After all, why would America want a Europe so devestated that they cannot export stuff there?
The aid did benefit America short-term also - the goods bought with the money had to be shipped on US vessels, etc.
Also, that would be rather leaving her glorious allies rather in the lurch.
'Ok, you've got Europe back, bye now'

So, my conclusion...

The Marshall Plan was not entirely altruistic.
The Marshall Plan could have been set up sooner.
The Marshall Plan was desperately needed and was most most welcome.

Any further comments? :smok:

 

Ricky wrote:

Almost nothing is ever entirely altruistic (philosophically, I'm against promoting altruism anyway...see Objectivism..Ayn Rand ..etc )

As to lateness well, better late than never