US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.

Norah on the contrary, without LendLease, this country would have collapsed into bankruptcy. the money was used to establish the Welfare State in the late 1940s, the NHS, the Education reforms and the nationalisation of totally bankrupt utilities like the railways and coal industry, and other utilities which were inless of a mess.

There is of course a question as to whether the money should have been used to rebuild and restore our industries, which is what it was intended for and which countries like France and Germany did and which meant that British industry fell behind other countries in the 1950s and 60s in innovation, productivity causing us the Balance of Payments issues we had over that period with constant devaluations against the dollar.

But I very much think that by the end of the war, where our determination to hang in, no matter what, was the reason the US funded us they way they did, meant that the while Eurpoean countries sprang from defeat and occupation with a renewed vigour to build their countries anew. in this country everyone including poiticians of all parties were so physically and mentally exhausted by the effort it had cost us to keep going, and keep the allies on board that they were just too exhausted for us to be able to build upindustry again so quickly and that spending it on the Welfare system was probably the right decision.

But whatever the decision, as a country, we would have been totally bankrupt without that money.

DaisyAnne

JaneJudge

I make my own clothes

This is beginning to sound strangely familiar. Monty Python's Four Yorkshiremen - that's it!

Norah

M0nica

We completed all our lend lease repayments in 2006. One of the achievments of Gordon Brown was that, under his stewardship, we finally paid off all our WW2 debt.

Yes, 61 years of huge payments. I merely wonder if that total in any way impacts the economy still - today.

I'm not wondering why the pay back, though I used to wonder the fairness of it all, just any lingering impact.

Inflation had reduced the impact of the loan, to pay it off another loan was taken out. $42m to the US, $11m to Canada, symbolic, not of great economic significance.
Whenever a loan matures or gets paid off if there is no time limit the UK always starts another loan, or increases QE.

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan were different. Lend-Lease was a wartime arrangement. The Marshall Plan was money given to countries in Western Europe as part of the European Recovery Program and didn't have to be repaid. The UK received more than any other country. The money played an important role in preventing the Soviet Union from having a greater influence in post-war Europe and achieving more political stability.

It was Marshall Plan money which was used to establish the NHS and the welfare state.

growstuff

It was Marshall Plan money which was used to establish the NHS and the welfare state.

And, I understand, to keep our armed forces all over the world to try to hang on to the Empire.

Whereas other European countries used it to rebuild their infrastructure and manufacturing base.

Glorianny

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

The USA had to show they were being paid. Many in America didn't think it was "their" war. It was difficult to persuade them and would have been more so without the deal. I hate to think what would have happened if we hadn't.

However, I have never noticed paying for this altering my life. I cannot imagine my adult children have ever thought about it and my GCs - young adults - may well not be aware of it unless it came up in history lessons. They have their own problems which are as different from ours as ours were from our parent's.

I have a feeling that discussing Lend Lease is just an old person's conversation. Old people who believe tax pays for the state.

DaisyAnne

Glorianny

Although Lend-Lease was undoubtedly a programme that saved the UK, the idea that it was purely altruistic on the US side is not true. The US negotiated hard and theUK surrendered rights over many of the inventions and innovations they held. Things like radar, jet airplanes and other developments. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/may/05/secondworldwar.comment#:~:text=Between%20March%201941%20and%20September,year's%20UK%20gross%20national%20product.

The USA had to show they were being paid. Many in America didn't think it was "their" war. It was difficult to persuade them and would have been more so without the deal. I hate to think what would have happened if we hadn't.

However, I have never noticed paying for this altering my life. I cannot imagine my adult children have ever thought about it and my GCs - young adults - may well not be aware of it unless it came up in history lessons. They have their own problems which are as different from ours as ours were from our parent's.

I have a feeling that discussing Lend Lease is just an old person's conversation. Old people who believe tax pays for the state.

I don't think I said it altered your life. I said it was a deal not a completely altruistic donation.
It was also an attempt to keep the US out of the war.
I don't think it is anything to do with age. It's an interest in history and historic dealings. Young people are probably as unaware of it as they are many other historic events, but it isn't just the old who discuss such things.

Glorianny "I don't think I said it altered your life. I said it was a deal not a completely altruistic donation.
It was also an attempt to keep the US out of the war.
I don't think it is anything to do with age. It's an interest in history and historic dealings. Young people are probably as unaware of it as they are many other historic events, but it isn't just the old who discuss such things."

Agreed. It wasn't altruistic, it was a way to keep the US out of the war a bit longer and off their land, or that was my dad's opinion.

I merely wondered if repaying was a big impact on our economy.

I am "old people" no debate there.

growstuff

Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan were different. Lend-Lease was a wartime arrangement. The Marshall Plan was money given to countries in Western Europe as part of the European Recovery Program and didn't have to be repaid. The UK received more than any other country. The money played an important role in preventing the Soviet Union from having a greater influence in post-war Europe and achieving more political stability.

Yes, that is right. The monies were largely used to boost the UKs influence in the Empire, and in re-arming, not for the Welfare state. Whereas Germany used it to build their economy. That is why the U.K. struggled so badly post war until the decision to join the common market was made. Our first application was rejected but eventually with the demise of de Gaulle we reapplied and was successful.

Norah

Glorianny "I don't think I said it altered your life. I said it was a deal not a completely altruistic donation.
It was also an attempt to keep the US out of the war.
I don't think it is anything to do with age. It's an interest in history and historic dealings. Young people are probably as unaware of it as they are many other historic events, but it isn't just the old who discuss such things."

Agreed. It wasn't altruistic, it was a way to keep the US out of the war a bit longer and off their land, or that was my dad's opinion.

I merely wondered if repaying was a big impact on our economy.

I am "old people" no debate there.

It's interesting to speculate as well that if there was one field the UK excelled in at the time it was invention and innovation. Had the rights to radar, jet engines and other things remained in UK hands how much would they be worth? The US of course valued technology and took German scientists at the end of the war as well.

Whitewave You're still confusing the two.

Lend-Lease was used by the UK and some other countries to pay for the war effort.

Both Germany and the UK received Marshall Plan money. Germany used it their share to rebuild its shattered economy, whereas the UK used much of its share for the NHS and the Welfare State.

Germany obviously didn't receive Lend-Lease funds.

Marshall plan money didn't need to be repaid.

Glorianny excelled in life sciences and innovation before 2016, but since then has lost billions of pounds in funding and has suffered from the barriers from collaborating with others in the EU.

Ooops! I meant "The UK excelled ...".

I wonder if those who voted for Brexit because they thought UK manufacturing would increase and the so-called elites would be brought down a peg or two have seen the light yet.

Brexit was always about a handful who manipulated the masses for their own ends. The Truss government looks as though it's not even going to try and hide it.

Thank goodness I can say I didn’t vote for Brexit.

Ukraine is currently being loaned $billions to fight the Russians by the US and others, there will be a payback over the following decades.
At the end of WW2 Germany and Japan had their whole infrastructure destroyed and had to rebuild and re-equip from scratch. Britain suffered much less, buildings and machinery used for war production did not get replaced. Germany and Japan became much more efficient we did not

growstuff

Whitewave You're still confusing the two.

Lend-Lease was used by the UK and some other countries to pay for the war effort.

Both Germany and the UK received Marshall Plan money. Germany used it their share to rebuild its shattered economy, whereas the UK used much of its share for the NHS and the Welfare State.

Germany obviously didn't receive Lend-Lease funds.

Marshall plan money didn't need to be repaid.

Bit embarrassing - seeing as I looked at post war economics when doing my degree? 100 years ago.

Did LendLease/ Marsall plan affect my life? You bet it did! as a result I did not grow up in a nazi state and paid for the NHS that ensured my childhood illness was treated frequently and well without my parents having to worry about the cost.

I lived in Sweden for a few years while it was a real socialist country and the gap between rich and poor wasn't so great. Unfortunately all that has changed and they have moved more and more to the right since then. Very sad.

Of course wealth should be better distributed and the tax system is one way of achieving that but Truss and her Tories are heading in the opposite direction. She thinks it's fairer that the rich get a bigger rebate when taxes are cut.

M0nica

Did LendLease/ Marsall plan affect my life? You bet it did! as a result I did not grow up in a nazi state and paid for the NHS that ensured my childhood illness was treated frequently and well without my parents having to worry about the cost.

Sorry to be pedantic, but Lend-Lease contributed hugely to the Allies' victory in WW2, but didn't fund the NHS. It paid for essential supplies and weapons. The Marshall Plan funded the NHS and wasn't paid back.

The US gave Marshall Plan funding for two main reasons. It wanted a market for its exports. Without the money, Western Europe couldn't have afforded them. Secondly, it wanted a socially, politically and economically stable buffer zone against the Soviet Union.

Lend-Lease and the Marshall Plan were different.

Grantanow

Of course wealth should be better distributed and the tax system is one way of achieving that but Truss and her Tories are heading in the opposite direction. She thinks it's fairer that the rich get a bigger rebate when taxes are cut.

I'm not sure that "fairness" is in her vocabulary. "Levelling up" and "just about managing" certainly aren't.

nanna8

It’s changed then. I find that difficult to comprehend.

It has been changing for a while nanna8: www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/killed-benefits-cuts-starving-soldier-3923771 - 2014.... This country does not value caring, hence the emphasis on Charity which is 'free'.... Assisting people who are ill, whatever the cause, to cope with a complex, altered and altering health and welfare system is an undervalued front line skill l that this country seems to prefer not to pay for adequately, while several Charities have very highly paid executives. However in the present financial crisis fewer and fewer people, even in 2 income families, will have the spare capacity to work - and it can be challenging and time consuming work as well as very rewarding - as volunteers... The future looks bleak for many of us in the present climate...