BadDoggie
May 5 2006, 10:30 am
It's about time.QUOTE
1945 war debt to US 'almost paid'
The final payment of £45m will be made by the 31 December, meeting a 1945 obligation to repay the debt in full.
Jimbo
May 5 2006, 10:32 am
Not exactly a speedy repayment, but then you might say the same thing about the U.S. and the time it took her to actually join in the fighting...
Yeti
May 5 2006, 10:33 am
Plus now the US can pay up their UN dues.
Exile
May 5 2006, 10:38 am
Does this mean Tony doesn't have to do what George tells him to do anymore?
Carm
May 5 2006, 10:39 am
QUOTE (Yeti @ May 5 2006, 11:33 am)
Plus now the US can pay up their UN dues.
My sentiments exactly!
Small Town Boy
May 5 2006, 10:50 am
It's extremely rare for war debts to be repaid; Germany still owes billions. I have no idea why the British bothered paying it back; America never would have.
Iceberg Slim
May 5 2006, 10:58 am
I imagine the U.K. has repaid her debts because she is an honourable nation that keeps her word. I can't understand why anyone would want to act differently. I suppose it's because honourable behaviour is no longer valued.
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:02 am
"I imagine the U.K. has repaid her debts because she is an honourable nation that keeps her word."
Hmmm...
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:05 am
It's like the Chris Rock bit... "I ain't never been to Jail", "You're not supposed to go to jail." "I pay back my war debts". "You're supposed to pay back your war debts. Whadda ya want, a cookie?"
Crawlie
May 5 2006, 11:11 am
Still paying off the cleaning ladies are we? Blimey.
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:12 am
Post #4. Reaction time is excellent today.
I really think its commendable the debts been paid at all, above poster is right, war debts are hardly ever on the top of the expenditure list. Would've been better though to transfer the money to the UN. That debt is outstanding and Im rather tired of it being the fall back retort. Sigh. Yes, all our mamas are fat, on welfare, and can't afford icecream etc etc
@DW I love that skit, I take care of my kids!
BadDoggie
May 5 2006, 11:14 am
QUOTE (Jimbo @ May 5 2006, 11:32 am)
Not exactly a speedy repayment, but then you might say the same thing about the U.S. and the time it took her to actually join in the fighting...
And why exactly should a neutral nation have been quicker to send millions of its own to their deaths to fight
yet another European war which was, in large part, caused by the the winners of the last one only 20 years earlier ignoring that country's advice against crushing retribution payments?
woof.
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:16 am
@BD
Yes sir! I heard dat!
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:16 am
QUOTE (BadDoggie @ May 5 2006, 12:14 pm)
And why exactly should a neutral nation have been quicker to send millions of its own to their deaths to fight yet another European war which was, in large part, caused by the the winners of the last one only 20 years earlier ignoring that country's advice against crushing retribution payments?
Because
everything is America's fault. Duh.
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:17 am
Well, seeing as they got involved in the end and ended up one of the most influential partners, then actually, many things today probably are their fault yes...
Because it was the *right* thing to do. Now shut your can of worms. Don't make me stop this car. Man, I can not believe Im even posting in these politco threads again. Backing out slowly now, fight amongst yourselves.
Owain Glyndwr
May 5 2006, 11:18 am
QUOTE (BadDoggie @ May 5 2006, 12:14 pm)
And why exactly should a neutral nation have been quicker to send millions of its own to their deaths to fight yet another European war which was, in large part, caused by the the winners of the last one only 20 years earlier ignoring that country's advice against crushing retribution payments?
woof.
well, for one reason, to make up for the fact that that supposedly neutral country help finance the Nazi regimes rise to power and re-armourment. Good enough reason as any, i think.
Also is wasn't a european war. Try looking in the other direction and you may have noticed Japan quietly taking over the pacific rim, since the early 30's.
I wonder if perhaps the whole war might have shortened (or even the European part avoided) had the Americans bothered to take notice and do something about it.
Jimbo
May 5 2006, 11:18 am
QUOTE (BadDoggie @ May 5 2006, 11:14 am)
And why exactly should a neutral nation have been quicker to send millions of its own to their deaths to fight yet another European war which was, in large part, caused by the the winners of the last one only 20 years earlier ignoring that country's advice against crushing retribution payments?
woof.
Maybe to fight global tyrrany? Just a thought...
Crawlie
May 5 2006, 11:20 am
Wow. Well BD has got what he set out to achieve no doubt. And I thought he was sick to death of the "Rest of the World vs. USA" topics. Obviously a bit bored today huh?
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:20 am
fight it and then support it for the next 70 years...genius...
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:20 am
Seriously though... I think the British have a bit of an issue with this loan repayment business as they claim it crippled their economy for an eternity and was a partial explanation as to a bluecollar worker in Germany in the 1960s, whose country had been completely destroyed just fifteen to twenty years earlier, was far better off than his counterpart in Britain.
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:23 am
Didn't it also have something to do with the whole British nuclear arsenal being dependent on American satellite guidance during the cold war (and still today i think...).
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:23 am
Europe should have been left to rot. I didn't always feel that way but I'm beginning to.
Uncle Nick
May 5 2006, 11:23 am
@Exile: Tony Blair will continue doing what Bush wants!!!
Jimbo
May 5 2006, 11:24 am
QUOTE (Jules Winnfield @ May 5 2006, 11:20 am)
Seriously though... I think the British have a bit of an issue with this loan repayment business as they claim it crippled their economy for an eternity and was a partial explanation as to a bluecollar worker in Germany in the 1960s, whose country had been completely destroyed just fifteen to twenty years earlier, was far better off than his counterpart in Britain.
In fairness I think most Brits are more pissed off that the USA refused to properly join in until, effectively, 1942. Hard to say how different things might have been had the USA joined in in 1939 along with us and the French. Not much different at all in all likelihood - would have made the US look better though.
Iceberg Slim
May 5 2006, 11:24 am
QUOTE (Owain Glyndwr @ May 5 2006, 12:18 pm)
well, for one reason, to make up for the fact that that supposedly neutral country help finance the Nazi regimes rise to power and re-armourment. Good enough reason as any, i think.
Oh come on now. I think British appeasement under Chamberlain and the crushing reparations for WWI that the French insisted on were equally at fault. There is enough blame for all sides in the war and that statement is just incendiary and does the truth an injustice. It's not as though the U.S. was the only one supporting Germany. At that time the real scare was the commies anyway. Better Hitler in central Europe than Stalin was the theory.
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:24 am
@jimbo
Selective memory. What about the logistical support the US provided from the very beginning of the war? And by the end of 1941 what was it that British had done really? They had repelled the Germans in the Battle of Britain and were fighting a one-on-one campaign against them in North Africa. It's not like they were fighting on multiple fronts or that their cities were getting bombed out on a daily basis.
Yeti
May 5 2006, 11:25 am
QUOTE
And why exactly should a neutral nation have been quicker to send millions of its own to their deaths
Millions ? Closer to half a million BD.
Owain Glyndwr
May 5 2006, 11:29 am
QUOTE (Iceberg Slim @ May 5 2006, 12:24 pm)
It's not as though the U.S. was the only one supporting Germany.
no, i don't disagree with anything you wrote. Only the US were the only country that did nothing about the mess that created. until 1942. That was my point. BD, was asking why they should have joined in the war, I was pointign that they were as much to blame as everyone else for what happened and should have taken equal responsibility for sorting out the mess. Instead they shirked this responsability and also watched on whilst Japan took over the pacific.
Jimbo
May 5 2006, 11:30 am
QUOTE (Yeti @ May 5 2006, 11:25 am)
Millions ? Closer to half a million BD.
Indeed, and a lot of them in the Pacific theatre which you can't really attribute to a 'European' war (just in case you were wondering BD, since Iceland isn't in the Pacific, the Pacific is a big lake to the West of the USA).
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:35 am
QUOTE (Owain Glyndwr @ May 5 2006, 12:29 pm)
I was pointign that they were as much to blame as everyone else for what happened and should have taken equal responsibility for sorting out the mess.
Please elaborate!? Nazi Germany was a European problem, created by European politicians at Versailles, mismanaged by the same European politicians in the 1930s, and an issue screwed up definitively by European military commanders in 1939 who dug-in and prepared to fight a WWI type trench war when they could've invaded Germany and marched all the way to Berlin when Hitler invaded Poland.
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:36 am
QUOTE (Yeti @ May 5 2006, 12:25 pm)
Millions ? Closer to half a million BD.
Bah, what's 1/2 a million lives between friends?
Like I said, Europe should have been left to rot under rubble, famine and fascism.
Iceberg Slim
May 5 2006, 11:36 am
@OG
I agree completely, there are sins of commission and sins of omission. The US is guilty for what it didn't do. It didn't support the league of nations, it didn't engage with the world as Woodrow Wilson had hoped after WWI and it didn't face up to its responsibilities as a global power. Some things never change.
However, when they did act, they did some amazing things. It's quite easy to overlook how much the world owes the U.S.. Japan and all of Europe are the stable economies they are today only through the training, loans and gifts that the U.S. so freely gave after the war. We all have short memories
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:40 am
For your information, France and Great Britain were global powers back then too...
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:41 am
"Japan and all of Europe are the stable economies they are today only through the training, loans and gifts that the U.S. so freely gave "
Narf. Really, this kind of attitude is the one that means many Americans still think they're right in polcing the world according to their interests...
brokenm
May 5 2006, 11:42 am
What bothers me is that most people do not aknowledge the benefit that the US has had due to the US helping Europe after WWII.
Crawlie
May 5 2006, 11:42 am
QUOTE (Jimbo @ May 5 2006, 12:24 pm)
In fairness I think most Brits are more pissed off that the USA refused to properly join in until, effectively, 1942.
I don't think that is entirely fair. The US was a vital training ground for a lot of our pilots who were drafted in a hurry and were involved in a lot of crucial battles during the war such as, say, The Battle of Britain. They may not have had an active role but they certainly did not refuse to lend a hand in the preparations or refuse vital supplies for the actual war.
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:42 am
QUOTE (Iceberg Slim @ May 5 2006, 12:36 pm)
However, when they did act, they did some amazing things. It's quite easy to overlook how much the world owes the U.S.. Japan and all of Europe are the stable economies they are today only through the training, loans and gifts that the U.S. so freely gave after the war. We all have short memories
Bingo.
QUOTE (Pirulero @ May 5 2006, 12:41 pm)
Narf. Really, this kind of attitude is the one that means many Americans still think they're right in polcing the world according to their interests...
From
A NY Times review of "The Case For Goliath":
QUOTE
Mandelbaum, the Christian A. Herter professor of American foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, pulls aside the curtain of diplomatic civility to expose the crude and obvious reality that everyone prefers to ignore, at least in public. He explains coolly and clearly the various ways in which the United States now functions as a global government, offering the planet the services of physical security, commercial regulation, financial stability and legal recourse that are normally provided by national governments to their citizens. Non-Americans naturally do not like to admit this, even as they enjoy the results, and American leaders do not like to spell it out, least of all to the voters who pay for it. But the evidence is clear. The network of military alliances (like NATO) and trade pacts (like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and international organizations (like the United Nations and World Bank and Group of 8) that the United States was mainly responsible for bringing to life has become an American-led global management system. It is familiar, inclusive and fairly unobtrusive. Its institutions provide a reasonable role for lesser powers, which is why the NATO alliance of consent survived and expanded while the wretched conscripts of the Warsaw Pact rebelled.
Owain Glyndwr
May 5 2006, 11:45 am
QUOTE (brokenm @ May 5 2006, 12:42 pm)
WHat bothers me is that most people do not aknowledge the benefit that the US has had due to the US helping Europe after WWII.
i think everyone acknowledges that. Europe wouldn't be what it is today without their support.
As Jimbo pointed out though, it did irk some people that the perpretators of that war were given far superior financial support than America's allies. Despite those countries suffering devastating losses in terms of people and infrastructure.
edit: mmmm looking back i think i may have misread your post. you mean most americans don't acknowledge that the US benefitted?
mere
May 5 2006, 11:45 am
umm could someone please explain something to me?
let's see if i have this correct...
so... when the US get involves they are evil and butting in other's business and being a horrible superpower blah blah
but... when the US doesn't get involved (or waits a bit longer than others) it is still seen as evil and shirking responsibility and not honing up to it's duties etc.
so what i need explained- when is the US NOT evil (pls, i'm serious here since either choice A or B above people are not happy w/)? What should the US do if no matter what it does it is critized for?
Jules Winnfield
May 5 2006, 11:47 am
QUOTE (brokenm @ May 5 2006, 12:42 pm)
WHat bothers me is that most people do not aknowledge the benefit that the US has had due to the US helping Europe after WWII.
It's called you scratch my back, I scratch yours. I don't see what the issue is? The US isn't a charity and why should it be? At least the US helped these countries develop into flourishing economies after World War II unlike that other group of countries east of Berlin that a large part of European public opinion thought was heaven on earth.
Iceberg Slim
May 5 2006, 11:47 am
QUOTE (Jules Winnfield @ May 5 2006, 12:40 pm)
For your information, France and Great Britain were global powers back then too...
Yes, in 1939. In 1946 they were wrecks. Which is the time period in question. Neither of them really re-attained the global position they held before the war. France most certainly not and Britain actually chose to take an "elder statesman" role and tried to be the mentor of the United States - with only limited success.
brokenm
May 5 2006, 11:47 am
No OG that was not my point. My point is the US would also not be what it is today without the benefit of having economically strong allies.
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:48 am
"The network of military alliances (like NATO) and trade pacts (like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and international organizations (like the United Nations and World Bank and Group of 8) that the United States was mainly responsible for bringing to life has become an American-led global management system. "
That's true...
"It is familiar, inclusive and fairly unobtrusive. Its institutions provide a reasonable role for lesser powers"
That is bullshit!
"No OG that was not my point. My point is the US would also not be what it is today without the benefit of having economically strong allies."
And that, is the crux of the matter. Especially in the case of Japan, which was most definitely in their interests to have a controlling influence in...
Yeti
May 5 2006, 11:49 am
and probably because the US was farsighted enough to realise that it was cheaper to help develop Germany as a democratic nation than to risk coming back again in a few decades for another shindig, this time with the big handgrenades.
Owain Glyndwr
May 5 2006, 11:49 am
QUOTE (brokenm @ May 5 2006, 12:47 pm)
No OG that was not my point. My point is the US would also not be what it is today without the benefit of having economically strong allies.
yeah i realised i had misread your post. i edited mine.
i think you are right about that point.
DrivinWest
May 5 2006, 11:50 am
QUOTE (Owain Glyndwr @ May 5 2006, 12:45 pm)
As Jimbo pointed out though, it did irk some people that the perpretators of that war were given far superior financial support than America's allies. Despite those countries suffering devastating losses in terms of people and infrastructure.
Germany and Japan (the former as evidenced by the period between WWI and WWII) were ripe for the types of government that the allies fought against and would end up fighting in years to come; fascist or communist. Propping them up economically prevented that.
The allies weren't at risk for going down the same slope as the defeated nations.
mere
May 5 2006, 11:50 am
QUOTE (Iceberg Slim @ May 5 2006, 12:47 pm)
Britain actually chose to take an "elder statesman" role and tried to be the mentor of the United States - with only limited success.
i don't think the US really wanted Britain as a mentor. The US kind of likes to operate on it's own w/o GB looking over at it
(note- i could be extremely wrong here. just what i'd think otherwise why fight for independce from Britain if later you're going to go and ask them to be the big brother mentor?)
Pirulero
May 5 2006, 11:52 am
@ mere
Britain though was still seen by themselves and to some degree by the americans as a model of how to keep global influence and interest safe...hence the elder statesman role...
You are viewing a low fidelity version of this page. Click to view
the full page.
