I seem to remember hearing a few yrs ago, we had made the last payment we owed to the USA for help in WW11, what was this help, I was always under the impression friends helped each other out for free.
In todays modern conflicts, do the Countries we are presently helping out pay us anything in return, for our help.
Kev, this should be right up your street.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Sky High - 18th July 2011 at 08:15
…….and so it continues as still we shell out cash, we don’t have, to countries which don’t need it and for little thanks.
By: Al - 18th July 2011 at 08:00
I always thought that it was grossly unfair that the UK was so crucial to the eventual freedom of the rest of Europe during WW2, but was very nearly bankrupted by it.
It seems like even countries like Germany and Japan were given huge amounts of reconstruction aid after the war, enabling them to become economically strong again, but the impecunious UK once again had to go it alone.
WW2 brought the US well and truly out of the Great Depression, and into a boom time in the late 1940s and 1950s, and a good part of the lease-lend and money lending agreements between the US and the UK included the eventual dismantling of the British Empire to open up trading routes and partners for the US.
And France! Their gold reserves were shipped to Canada by the UK so they wouldn’t fall into Nazi hands, and then after the war it was handed back to them totally intact. The UK gave De Gaulle and his ‘Free French’ a safe haven in 1940, then afterwards the ingrate vetoed the UK application to join the EEC…
By: Sky High - 18th July 2011 at 07:09
“That’s probably an oversimplification but it isn’t all about money; there are ‘cultural’ problems too. I believe that overall it is possible to raise more arable calories from any given piece of land than it is to raise livestock calories. But to do that the way-of-life that people have known for millennia would have to change. Not easy!”
Precisely – you have hit most of the nail on the head. Notwithstanding this when you add on to that problem the corruption and internecine battles in most of the continent you have a recipe for disaster, which is turned into catastrophe when there are floods or droughts.
But we still pay, to return us to the title of the thread.
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 22:03
C,D. This info is dated 2003, prior to that the facts and figures quoted would have POSSIBLY put a further year or more to it.after getting it all collated.It realy needs updating, however this would not change their plight.
As for whiskey, the more you drink, the less you give about owt 😉
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Creaking Door - 17th July 2011 at 21:45
But this information seems to say that the rainfall is sufficient for a huge increase in arable land:
I came across this a while ago. It poses a few questions…
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/current_and_potential_arable_land_use_in_africa
Also, I don’t know the first thing about whisky / whiskey! 😉
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 21:09
C.D. re thread 30. I agree there is/should be more arable land , it is there, but the rain isn’t.. Climate change or what, I just know they have had very little rain for the last few yrs, and they are now going through their worst drought ever.
Interestingly on another Post on GD we are discussing the merits of various Whiskey’s.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 20:58
C.D. Warrem,Sorry about not being able to keep up, but that’s how nearly all my threads turn out, one thing, sort of ties up with another, then, “Bobs your uncle” and it’s like being in the TARDIS and we are off somewhere else.
Guess thats what makes the G.D. Thread so interesting.
Jim.
Lincoln .7/
By: Creaking Door - 17th July 2011 at 20:47
I came across this a while ago. It poses a few questions…
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/current_and_potential_arable_land_use_in_africa
Interesting that it concerns the amount of arable land that could be productive; that is, not land for livestock.
I remember being told years ago, and I don’t know how significant this is, that because cattle are such a status symbol in parts of Africa that the tradition is to have as many cattle as possible; rather than fewer healthier cattle. There is, I think, another reason for African herdsmen to have ‘too many’ cattle and that is that the grazing is not enclosed so that if one herdsman has ten cattle, and another has twenty, the one with twice the cattle is going to get twice the grazing even though this over-grazing is damaging to the grazing! Come the inevitable drought all the cattle die whereas if fewer healthier cattle had been reared the grazing would be better and these fewer cattle may have survived the drought.
That’s probably an oversimplification but it isn’t all about money; there are ‘cultural’ problems too. I believe that overall it is possible to raise more arable calories from any given piece of land than it is to raise livestock calories. But to do that the way-of-life that people have known for millennia would have to change. Not easy!
(I can’t keep-up with this thread; it seems to cover a very wide range of topics! :o)
By: Aspis - 17th July 2011 at 20:41
The US now owes the UK $334Billion…
Where from? Bonds they sold you? In that case i have bad news for you. The more $ the US prints (and they ‘ve print a lot in the past 2 years), the less your bonds worth. They ‘re “burning” their debt by printing paper. That’s why recently the Chinese have turned towards EU bonds and they even bought some Japanese ones recently. The Chinese want to reduce somewhat their exposure to US debt, at least as long as Uncle Sam is cutting down trees to make paper to give the Chinese. 😀 😀
By: Creaking Door - 17th July 2011 at 20:28
The US now owes the UK $334Billion…
That’s a thought provoking figure!
However, I suspect that this is just the proportion of the staggering total of US borrowing and the banks of the US, the UK, Germany, France and especially China will all hold a portion of it; just the same as US banks will hold a portion of UK, Spanish, Italian, French and Greek government debt.
By: kev35 - 17th July 2011 at 17:44
No. Hitler and Germany were seen as the main enemy. Remember, by April 1942 the Americans, the Doolittle Raiders, had bombed Japan. The raids were largely ineffectual in a military sense but were a great morale booster to the US public and a warning to the Japanese that even that early on, the US was able to strike back. By the end of the summer of 1942 American strength in the Pacific was growing ever stronger and the campaign to retake Pacific islands from the Japanese had begun on August 7th at Guadalcanal. You could argue that by mid 1942, the Japanese war of conquest was over, from then on they were to struggle to hold every piece of land they had taken. Really, to understand why the Japanese contemplated war, not only with America, but with Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, the Phillipines and the Dutch East Indies, you need to look deeper into the almost unfathomable machinations of a Nation which seventy years on, depending which opinions you read, still considers itself to be a victim rather than the aggressor. A good place to start would be the Judgement of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East which is available on the internet. It’s about 1500 pages long but it gives you an idea of the background.
Had the atom bomb even been considered as a weapon by the time of Pearl Harbour? I don’t know, it’s not something I have any knowledge of or great interest in. My interests lie more with the personal struggles of the common soldier, sailor or airman.
Regards,
kev35
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 17:18
Kev, Reverting back to thread 22, did the USA put Germany first, to give themselves just that bit of extra time to develope the Atom bomb prior to the bombing of Japan?.albeit some time later.
Jim.
Lincoln ,7
By: kev35 - 17th July 2011 at 17:04
That really is a separate issue. My understanding, simple as it is, is that ‘holding out’ would never have led to victory. Could Britain have held out anyway without the material and supplies from America? Early 1942 saw the fall of Singapore, the loss of two capital ship and the almost total destruction of the RAF in the Far East. Had Britain not held out as long as it did then America would not have had the floating aircraft aircraft carrier England was to become or the springboard for invasion. A trip of less than 100 miles across the Channel was much easier to contemplate than an invasion fleet launching troops ashore after a trip across the Atlantic.
In essence, I think that there could never have been a victory without Britain holding out as long as she did, remember, if Operation Sealion had been successfully carried out in 1940 the war could well have been over before the spring of 1941. Further to this, there could have been no victory without the materiel and manpower support of the Americans. and we shouldn’t forget that grossest of mistakes made by Hitler when he decided to take on as intractable an enemy as Russia.
Regards,
kev35
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 14:34
Just to go a tad further on this theme, would we, here in the U.K. been able to have held out on our own without the help of the USA, Or would we have ended up as in medaeval times, and be held under seige until we capitulated?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 17th July 2011 at 13:11
Kev. Many thenks for the info.Most interesting reading.
What would we do without your input?.on the forum.
Hope you managed to catch up on your sleep;)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: kev35 - 17th July 2011 at 09:03
Lincoln.
Going back to the original thrust of your thread I think you’ll find that President Roosevelt stretched the bounds of US Neutrality as far as possible in favour of the UK. Prior to Pearl Harbour US aid in terms of materiel and ships had been forthcoming (V&W destroyers?) IIRC US warships had even started escorting convoys and were actively searching for U-Boats both by air and sea. America’s isolationism collapsed completely with the attack on Pearl Harbour. You may, or may not, find the following of interest…..
http://www.historyarticles.com/new_page_10.htm
Remember, even after the attack on Pearl Harbour, America introduced a policy that Germany would come first.
As regarding the agreement signed in February 1942, I imagine much of that had been discussed long before Pearl Harbour. Pearl Harbour wasn’t the surprise it is made out to be. Radio traffic, intercepts and all manner of intelligence had come together to suggest that an attack on American interests in the Pacific was an imminent ineveitability. I think the ferocity and scope of the Japanese attacks which began on 7th December 1941 was the surprise.
Regards,
kev35
By: Sky High - 16th July 2011 at 17:11
Linc – why indeed? The answer to your question, which applies equally to the whole continent is contentious, notwithstanding years of drought, and probably for another thread!
By: Lincoln 7 - 16th July 2011 at 17:01
ZRX61… Rick, can we have it NOW please:D I am willing to accept, Western
Union, American Express, even Paypal, on behalf of the U.K.
Obviously, I would give every single penny to the Treasury:D
(Walks away laughing like Muttley)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: ZRX61 - 16th July 2011 at 16:42
The US now owes the UK $334Billion…
By: Lincoln 7 - 16th July 2011 at 16:26
S.H. The graph looks good, IF they have the rain, they have plenty of possible Arable land.But if the news is corect they are suffering one of the worst droughts ever.
They, whoever did the sums, seem to pay a lot of attention to South Africa.:(
why, when they in SA have the largest Diamond, Gold, tin. copper, zinc , and most other mineral deposites in the world, do they still need outside help?. I have always been puzzled by this fact. It’s slave labour at it’s worst, but surley they could rely upon the rest of the world a little less.
C.D. Yes, I agree re the little girl in the Advert, it’s exploitation not only of her, but those in real need.
One thing I cannot seem to get my head around, when you see those poor children, bones showing just how they are suffering malnutricion, just how well it’s “Mother” looks,
Jim.
Lincoln .7
Sign In
July 16, 2011 at 10:45 am