# British Debts



## Ajax (Apr 2, 2007)

Last year Britain finally finished paying off the USA for World War Two equipment aid. It was somthing in the region of US$4.34 billion, and World War One debts are still hanging in the balance. They are about GB£225 billion or roughly US$325 billion. Should they be written off? Should they be slowly repaid? I personally need to know the US viewpoint first...


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2007)

All WW1 depts have in effect ben written off. When the 1930's depressions struck it was recognised that the countries simply couldn't pay them off. The UK owe the USA a fair amount of money but the French alone owe the UK a lot more.

A better question might be should the other countries who still owe WW2 debts be made to pay them off.


----------



## Ajax (Apr 8, 2007)

Glider said:


> All WW1 depts have in effect ben written off. When the 1930's depressions struck it was recognised that the countries simply couldn't pay them off. The UK owe the USA a fair amount of money but the French alone owe the UK a lot more.
> 
> A better question might be should the other countries who still owe WW2 debts be made to pay them off.



This thread seems void, then.
*Case Closed*


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

The last thing I want to do with the following comments is to cast disparaging remarks to my friends south of the border but I have allways wondered about Britain owing money to the U.S. for WW2. I personally find it reprehensible that Britain would owe anyone anything for carrying the fight to the Nazi's particularly when the US had it's head in the sand. Profiting from someone who is fighting that kind of evil is just wrong. The British people suffered greatly from the war they should not be made to continue to suffer because they did the right thing. And ya ya ya I know they weren't the only ones to suffer.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

Heads in the sand? During that period Nazi Germany, no matter how dastardly they were as a nation did NOTHING to the US that would incite a war. As a matter of fact supplying the UK the tools of the trade was done at risk and at times placed the US into provocative and potentially dangerous situations with regards to our neutrality and sovereignty. The real sin during that period was the way Britain and France sat on their asses for 8 months after Germany rolled through Poland. Yea it was evil to so called profit - I wonder what the would would be like had the US NOT given the UK war material during that period!


----------



## pbfoot (Oct 28, 2007)

I agree the US tried to avoid the war and I don't blame them if they had of suceeded then then wouldn't have been thrust into the job of World police man 
.But back on topic was the methods used by the US to supply the Allies without ruining there neutrality. I tried to google pics of this but the best i could come up with was this drawing. So as not cause a breech of neutrality the USAAF landed aircraft on runways that crossed the border between the US and Can and we stole the aircraft and dragged them over to Canada


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> The last thing I want to do with the following comments is to cast disparaging remarks to my friends south of the border but I have allways wondered about Britain owing money to the U.S. for WW2. I personally find it reprehensible that Britain would owe anyone anything for carrying the fight to the Nazi's particularly when the US had it's head in the sand. Profiting from someone who is fighting that kind of evil is just wrong. The British people suffered greatly from the war they should not be made to continue to suffer because they did the right thing. And ya ya ya I know they weren't the only ones to suffer.



Our heads in the sand?!!!

Sorry but that was a pretty dumb statment to make and honestly not very well thought out.

I will leave it at that because it honestly does not deserve an answer.


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Our heads in the sand?!!!
> 
> Sorry but that was a pretty dumb statment to make and honestly not very well thought out.
> 
> I will leave it at that because it honestly does not deserve an answer.



How is this a dumb statement? The isolationist movement in the U.S. was very strong right up to Pearl so yes the U.S. had it's head in the sand. The general population wanted nothing to do with the war. The only one trying to do something was F.D.R. and yes he did this at great political risk because THE REST OF THE COUNTRY HAD THIER HEADS IN THE SAND. So, F.D.R. knows he must do something and the only thing he can do is get the Brits as much raw material as he can. At a price. It is that price which is now debt that is the topic of this thread. Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> How is this a dumb statement? The isolationist movement in the U.S. was very strong right up to Pearl so yes the U.S. had it's head in the sand.


Germany was no physical threat to the US. At that time the Nazi war machine could not reach North America and the felling was the European War was not our war - that's not putting your head in the sand - it was reality! The Larger and physical threat were the Japanese and that threat showed it's ugly head on December 7.


Instal said:


> Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?


Your hypothetical situation stinks - it was more like - "hey I need a gun to kill this guy - can you loan the money to buy the gun and I'll pay you back when I can?"

But then again - in a "hypothetical situation" - if this intruder was seen coming through the window and your friend had a chance to subdue him before he done harm but instead just sat there (like Britain and France did from September 1939 till May 1940) then who's to blame if you're left fighting for your life. I'm sorry but your logic stinks. 

Bottom line, if the US was really that evil about profiting on "Lend Lease" then the US would of DEMANDED immediate payment at the end of WW2 - but that never happened!!!!!


----------



## mkloby (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal - You have an emotional reaction, but think about it - The US sent massive amounts of materiel and equipment to the UK, even at a time when the US had no intention of entering the war. Why should US taxpayers foot the bill for war supplies for the UK?


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

OK guys I am not attacking the moral fiber of the U.S. or it's citizens who I have the ultimate respect for. It seems to me that the emotional reactions are not coming from me. The policy of the U.S. and it's allies today is that we should intervene when there is wrong being done in the world and I for one applaud this policy and I think you do as well. So how can this be the right thing to do now but not the right thing to do then. You can't have it both ways. There were Americans who thought it shamefull that the U.S. hadn't done more sooner such as Edward R Murrow who was seeing the blitz first hand. There were many others. I am looking at this from a big picture point of view. World War two wasn't a European war it was a war for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the world. It is a fact that it took the U.S. longer to recognise this then it should have. So who should pick up the tab? Everyone who benefited by it's victory. So is it fair that the U.K. tax payers pick up the tab when the U.S. benefited as much as anyone. And please don't read anything more in to this than a discussion. I am not making an attack I am stating the case as I understand it and I welcome any information that will change my view.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> OK guys I am not attacking the moral fiber of the U.S. or it's citizens who I have the ultimate respect for. It seems to me that the emotional reactions are not coming from me. The policy of the U.S. and it's allies today is that we should intervene when there is wrong being done in the world and I for one applaud this policy and I think you do as well. So how can this be the right thing to do now but not the right thing to do then. You can't have it both ways. There were Americans who thought it shamefull that the U.S. hadn't done more sooner such as Edward R Murrow who was seeing the blitz first hand. There were many others. I am looking at this from a big picture point of view. World War two wasn't a European war it was a war for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the world. It is a fact that it took the U.S. longer to recognise this then it should have. So who should pick up the tab? Everyone who benefited by it's victory.


 OK......


Instal said:


> So is it fair that the U.K. tax payers pick up the tab when the U.S. benefited as much as anyone.


Benefited? In what way? By "selling or leasing" aircraft to our allies for profit? That's called Capitalism and it was one of the freedoms preserved as a result of WW2. As stated, the US didn't demand it's money at the end of WW2 and in essence the whole deal was probably better for UK (or for that matter any other lend lease "customer") taxpayers in the long run.

Remember - the US Government covered the Lendlease loans, not the companies who built the hardware - in essence the US Tax payer loaned the material to our allies - should the US Tax payer be held liable for that debt especially (as twice stated) the Nazi threat could of and would of been neutralized in the fall of 1939?!?!?


Instal said:


> And please don't read anything more in to this than a discussion. I am not making an attack I am stating the case as I understand it and I welcome any information that will change my view.


No problem...


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

Big picture here folks. The benefit is being able to live in a world free of Nazi tyranny.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 28, 2007)

Instal said:


> Big picture here folks. The benefit is being able to live in a world free of Nazi tyranny.



Sure - then as you put it, it should be no big deal for those countries who borrowed to pay for that freedom to repay their debts?!?!?


----------



## Instal (Oct 28, 2007)

Perhaps I am being unrealistic. What this world would be like if the Allies had not won the war is unthinkable. To me the cause of the fight transcends the cost of waging it. Not only do I think the debt should be forgiven I don't think it should exist in the first place.


----------



## Haztoys (Oct 28, 2007)

Why does a big part of the world think America should allway foot the bill.. ?...And don't get me wrong I don't mind foot the bill alot ..Just we do it to much.. What going to happen when we run out of money..???

Man I long for alittle "Isolationist Movement" sorry ...But I would like to leave my kids something then other then a big national debt ...Sad..


----------



## Instal (Oct 29, 2007)

OK I am going out on a limb here and I think there are people with chainsaws all around me. I may have my facts wrong about this so slam away if you read anything that needs correction. From 39 - 41 Britain bought weapons and raw materials primarily from the States to fight Hitler and preserve freedom and democracy in the world. It was one of the main reasons G.B. ceased to be a world power and the U.S. became one. A simple transfer of wealth. G.B.'s caufers were bled dry and most of that money went to the U.S. The U.S. proftited enormously from WW2 so forgive me if I think it's Great Britain that footed the bill for WW2 and to forgive this rediculous so called debt is the least that could be done.


----------



## Haztoys (Oct 29, 2007)

Instal said:


> OK I am going out on a limb here and I think there are people with chainsaws all around me. I may have my facts wrong about this so slam away if you read anything that needs correction. From 39 - 41 Britain bought weapons and raw materials primarily from the States to fight Hitler and preserve freedom and democracy in the world. It was one of the main reasons G.B. ceased to be a world power and the U.S. became one. A simple transfer of wealth. G.B.'s caufers were bled dry and most of that money went to the U.S. The U.S. proftited enormously from WW2 so forgive me if I think it's Great Britain that footed the bill for WW2 and to forgive this rediculous so called debt is the least that could be done.



Instal..I realy think your way off the mark on the "proftited enormously" ..I would say any enormous money we made...Was all spent plus on the arms the US military used to fight WW2 with... And its hard to see profit when it takes 50 years to pay it back..And I would say Great Britain did not pay for the arms the US military used to fight with..And that was a drop in the bucket to Lendlease.. 

Your forgetting the arms,, ships and planes and so on..The US military used to help Great Britain..The America tax pay payed that bill...


----------



## Instal (Oct 29, 2007)

Am I way off the mark? Wasn't the U.S. in the best financial condition in it's history after WW2? I think it was. AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING. What I am saying is that after the war G.B. was in the wost financial condition it had ever been. If this state of affairs was not caused by the reasons I mentioned please tell me what did cause this amazing transformation of these two countries fortunes in such a short time.


----------



## Instal (Oct 29, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Heads in the sand? During that period Nazi Germany, no matter how dastardly they were as a nation did NOTHING to the US that would incite a war. As a matter of fact supplying the UK the tools of the trade was done at risk and at times placed the US into provocative and potentially dangerous situations with regards to our neutrality and sovereignty. The real sin during that period was the way Britain and France sat on their asses for 8 months after Germany rolled through Poland. Yea it was evil to so called profit - I wonder what the would would be like had the US NOT given the UK war material during that period!



Why is it a sin that the UK did nothing when the Nazi's rolled through Poland yet it's OK that the U.S. did nothing either. G.B. and France did nothing not because they wouldn't it was because they couldn't. They were simply not prepared. They immediately declared war and set about preparing for that war while the U.S. neither declared or prepared.


----------



## Graeme (Oct 29, 2007)

Instal said:


> Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?



Hi Graham,
The analogy that was actually bandied around at the time was the ‘fire extinguisher’ one, coined by one of Roosevelt’s advisers;

“It seems to me that we Americans are like the householder who refuses to lend or sell his fire extinguisher to help put out the fire in the house that is right next door.”

However, Anti-interventionist Senator Burton Wheeler countered this logic with;

..“you can’t put your shirt-tail into a clothes wringer and pull it out suddenly while the wringer keeps turning.”

Roosevelt sought a solution (Lend Lease), and refashioned the above analogy thus;

His new idea would get…“rid of the silly, foolish old dollar sign” proposing that the USA should lend its garden hose to help his neighbour put out his fire-and if the hose were damaged there would be “a gentleman’s obligation to repay in kind.”

(From ‘The Most Unsordid Act’: Lend-Lease, 1939-1941 by W.F. Kimball 1969.)

Have you read much on the Canadian Mutual Aid?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2007)

I do agree with Instal on one thing; that it wasn't the worse sin of the war for Britain not to invade Germany in 1939 - as Britain did not have the means.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

Instal said:


> Why is it a sin that the UK did nothing when the Nazi's rolled through Poland yet it's OK that the U.S. did nothing either. G.B. and France did nothing not because they wouldn't it was because they couldn't. They were simply not prepared. They immediately declared war and set about preparing for that war while the U.S. neither declared or prepared.



1. Because it was in their own back yard

2. The UK and France DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY!

Not prepared?!?!? Bullsh!t - had The UK and France pulled their head out of their asses they could of at least tried to roll partially into Germany - they had the assets maybe not to invade the country as a whole but they could of done something to show Hitler that they were not going to allow him to go any further by pretending to open another front, and i blame the leadership of both countries for that blunder. Instead they both sat there and France was eventually swallowed....

here, real simple....

Phoney War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I do agree with Instal on one thing; that it wasn't the worse sin of the war for Britain not to invade Germany in 1939 - as Britain did not have the means.


The UK alone - YES. Combined with France they had enough strength to do something. The Minute Germany rolled into Poland they (France and Britain) should of incurred on the German border. It would of thrown Hitler off balance as he now had 2 fronts and might of bough Poland more time. Mind you, all this IMO....


----------



## The Basket (Oct 29, 2007)

Britain and France declared war at the absolute worst moment. If we declared war at the Munich conference then Germany would have been defeated quickly.

Jodl or Keitel said that there was only a military screen in the west as most forces were invading Poland. French army could have done a lot of damage if they invaded.

I am no yank basher. US support either military or supplies kept us going and we would have lasted 5 minutes without it.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2007)

I've read about the phoney war over and over again, Joe, and I recognise the potential that Great Britain and France had for an invasion of Germany in 1939. 
The best attack on British and French policy can be found in _Panzer Battles_ by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin. Without trying to attack the actions of France (most importantly), von Mellenthin makes it obvious to the reader that France had every oppurtunity to overrun the 'West Wall' - which was poorly built and garrisoned. However, he does make the point that German propaganda was good enough to make the 'West Wall' seem formidable. 

The British means of attacking Germany can only be found in the air and sea. Without the French, Britain had not a single chance of inflicting damage to Germany - the B.E.F was not an offensive force, it had no potential as such. 

The fault of the phoney war can only be found with France - it seems an obvious bias against France but with all the history at hand, it's obvious that only France had the power to say yes or no to an invasion of Germany. Britain attacked Germany, albeit lightly, during the months between September 1939 and June 1940.

France had the largest army in Western Europe - it was up to them and no one else.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I've read about the phoney war over and over again, Joe, and I recognise the potential that Great Britain and France had for an invasion of Germany in 1939.
> The best attack on British and French policy can be found in _Panzer Battles_ by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin. Without trying to attack the actions of France (most importantly), von Mellenthin makes it obvious to the reader that France had every oppurtunity to overrun the 'West Wall' - which was poorly built and garrisoned. However, he does make the point that German propaganda was good enough to make the 'West Wall' seem formidable.
> 
> The British means of attacking Germany can only be found in the air and sea. Without the French, Britain had not a single chance of inflicting damage to Germany - the B.E.F was not an offensive force, it had no potential as such.
> ...




Agree 100% - it's unfortunate what happened but then again we're talking about the French!


----------



## Haztoys (Oct 29, 2007)

Instal said:


> Am I way off the mark? Wasn't the U.S. in the best financial condition in it's history after WW2? I think it was. AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING. What I am saying is that after the war G.B. was in the wost financial condition it had ever been. If this state of affairs was not caused by the reasons I mentioned please tell me what did cause this amazing transformation of these two countries fortunes in such a short time.



Yes the US financial condition was better . The US did not get the **** bombed out of it.. You act like G.B. payed for EVERY bomb and plane..?

WE did not charge G.B. all of the bill..Lendlease was a small % of the over all bill of what it cost the US to fight the war.. 

"Amazing Transformation" ...US did not get bombed to the stone age..And GB did ..Europe and Japan could not export jack for some time after the war ..Do to having been bombed to the stone age..And the US could .. Maybe thats way..Not that the war did not get the ball rolling..GB losted control of some the country they got there money from..The US has alot of steel lumber and oil (at that time ) in the US ...And GB and Europe and Japan got theres from countrys they controled ...And after the war they did not control the same countrys they had..

How could a 4+Billion dollars of the LL money could of helped the "Amazing Transformation" in 1946 or 49 or 51..How.??.....It was not payed back at that time ...How .. The money was not in the US's pocket to use.. It was still in GB's pocket..??..

And after WW2 was the start of the US's fake numbers to run this country..Spend what you do not have and rack up dept..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2007)

Instal said:


> How is this a dumb statement? The isolationist movement in the U.S. was very strong right up to Pearl so yes the U.S. had it's head in the sand. The general population wanted nothing to do with the war. The only one trying to do something was F.D.R. and yes he did this at great political risk because THE REST OF THE COUNTRY HAD THIER HEADS IN THE SAND. So, F.D.R. knows he must do something and the only thing he can do is get the Brits as much raw material as he can. At a price. It is that price which is now debt that is the topic of this thread. Here's a hypothetical for you. You and your best friend are sitting in your living room and in comes a criminal to harm you and your family. You do not have a gun but your best friend does and he turns to you and say's I'll help you get rid of this guy but you owe me for the rest of your life. Is this right?



Until Pearl Harbor it was not America's war. Did Britian run over and help us out in Vietnam? No because it was not there war...

That is why it was a pretty dumb statement.



Instal said:


> I am looking at this from a big picture point of view.



Ofcourse you can do that now.

Hind sight is allways 20/20.

 



Instal said:


> World War two wasn't a European war it was a war for the preservation of freedom and democracy in the world.



It became one but before then it was Europes problem. It was Europes job first to clean up there own continent.



Instal said:


> Everyone who benefited by it's victory. So is it fair that the U.K. tax payers pick up the tab when the U.S. benefited as much as anyone.



That is a very dumb way to look at it. Why the hell should the UK not pay for the products that were made by US citizens. The UK would have made the US pay for them as well. Its called a debt. The money to make those things had to come from somewhere. 



Instal said:


> And please don't read anything more in to this than a discussion. I am not making an attack I am stating the case as I understand it and I welcome any information that will change my view.



No worries. Discussions can get heated sometimes but dont lose any sleep over it.



Instal said:


> Big picture here folks. The benefit is being able to live in a world free of Nazi tyranny.



No you are not seeing the Big Picture here.

As Joe has stated. The US Government paid to have those planes and tanks and guns and equipment built and sent to England, Russia, and slews of other countries. Therefore when the US Government paid for these things it raises a debt because the money could just not come from nowhere. (Money does not grow on trees). Therefore if our allies were not paying the money back it would the be the US Tax Payers (citizens like Me, Joe, Dan, Erich, Eric, Matt, etc...) that would be paying for that out of our pockets even today.

Is the US Tax Payers having to pay for it really that fair when the equipment was not for our fighting soldiers?



Instal said:


> Why is it a sin that the UK did nothing when the Nazi's rolled through Poland yet it's OK that the U.S. did nothing either.



Because it was not our war. It was Europes war at the time.




Instal said:


> G.B. and France did nothing not because they wouldn't it was because they couldn't. They were simply not prepared. They immediately declared war and set about preparing for that war while the U.S. neither declared or prepared.



I think you need to learn your history a bit more. The Germans were weaker than France and England at the start of the war. Even German Generals warned Hitler that if the English and French attack from the west they could defeat Germany.

Also to say they were not prepared is pretty foolish as well. Germany had started to remilitarize years before WW2. As early as 1933 Germany started showing signs of aggression. Who was appeasing the Germans? Was it the US? No it was England and France. Germany was building up for war right in front of there eyes and they new it.

The US was in no position to go to war in 1939. We had a very small military at that point that was very outdated. It takes time to build and Army, modernize it and get over the damn ocean....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I do agree with Instal on one thing; that it wasn't the worse sin of the war for Britain not to invade Germany in 1939 - as Britain did not have the means.



I agree with you that Britian alone did not have the ability but combined with France they could have done something.


----------



## Instal (Oct 29, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Until Pearl Harbor it was not America's war. Did Britian run over and help us out in Vietnam? No because it was not there war...
> 
> That is why it was a pretty dumb statement.
> 
> ...



Would you quit calling me dumb and I didn't say Germany was unprepared I said Britain and France were.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Oct 29, 2007)

oh boy......


----------



## Instal (Oct 29, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> oh boy......



You're kidding right 'cause I was.


----------



## Haztoys (Oct 30, 2007)

Instal said:


> Would you quit calling me dumb and I didn't say Germany was unprepared I said Britain and France were.



Mr Instal..You have not been around here to long..Theres some old boys who REALY know there history ..And DerAdler is one of them.. FlyBoyJ and PlanD also..And if you come across "strong willed" ..As you "did"..You best know your facts and history..Because they will carpet bomb you..They realy pride them selves on the facts..And you even got me into it..And I do not do that ..I use to "think" that I knew about war history and all...Until I came here..And if you read my posts ...I will ask why on stuff and bring a small peace of info to a post..But sit back and learn around hear most days..So if your sure on your facts and want to charge the gunners nest ..Do so ..But you may get cut to peaces..

And being called dumb ..Thats nothing ..One of my first few post PlanD called me F#$%khead or [email protected]#$kstane ..LOL...So dumb was light.. 

And you didn't even try to torpedo my last post..???..And I'm ez to sink..A few of these guys realy know there stuff ...Your going to need a little more armor if your going to play these are the "facts"...


----------



## mkloby (Oct 30, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> And being called dumb ..Thats nothing ..One of my first few post PlanD called me F#$%khead or [email protected]#$kstane ..LOL...



You just have to love pd - he's such a jawdropping a**hole!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

Instal said:


> Would you quit calling me dumb .



I was not calling you dumb. I was calling the post or the way of looking at it dumb. I am sorry if you took it the wrong way.

Either way to survive in these parts of the woods you have to be thick skinned.



Instal said:


> and I didn't say Germany was unprepared I said Britain and France were



*Go back and read my post.* I said that France and Britian together were prepared to do something about Germany. England itself was not prepared to fight Germany on her own but combined with France they could have. Germany was not ready in 1939 to fight both France and England. If France and England had acted in 1939 and invaded from the West Germany would not have been able to continue there conquest of Poland and possibly would have folded.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2007)

_"And being called dumb ..Thats nothing ..One of my first few post PlanD called me F#$%khead or [email protected]#$kstane ..LOL...So dumb was light.."_

Did I ? At least you didn't get put off the site.

_"You just have to love pd - he's such a jawdropping a**hole!"_

I am an as*hole. 

_"I said that France and Britian together were prepared to do something about Germany. England itself was not prepared to fight Germany on her own but combined with France they could have. Germany was not ready in 1939 to fight both France and England. If France and England had acted in 1939 and invaded from the West Germany would not have been able to continue there conquest of Poland and possibly would have folded."_

I do not disagree with this statement but it should be realised that it was not up to Britain to make the decision. If France had gone into Germany in 1939, Britain would only have been able to support it in air and sea.
The British Army would have been a good supporting unit but the French Army would always been the main driving force so it would have been up to them if the invasion of Germany would have happened or not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I do not disagree with this statement but it should be realised that it was not up to Britain to make the decision. If France had gone into Germany in 1939, Britain would only have been able to support it in air and sea.
> The British Army would have been a good supporting unit but the French Army would always been the main driving force so it would have been up to them if the invasion of Germany would have happened or not.



Agreed


----------



## Haztoys (Oct 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> _"And being called dumb ..Thats nothing ..One of my first few post PlanD called me F#$%khead or [email protected]#$kstane ..LOL...So dumb was light.."_
> 
> Did I ? At least you didn't get put off the site.



I did stop me coming to the site .. ..Over that and a a$$ kicking about some info I had read about the agreement the Israeli agreed at the start of them becoming a country..That a$$ handing was by Erich..But I could not find the info again..But last month I did find the info on what I was trying to say..Once I get my copyer fixed ..I'm going to mail a copy to Erich and see what he thinks about it..And I'm a bad speller and that realy does not go over well here..

Its all good ..Not complaning about it..Not at all..I realy injoy the differant point of view from around the world..And its scary what were not told and the twisted up info we are..And my best freind is for Britain..He's from Leeds..And F#%$K is a verb in England..I've come to see..LOL..PlanD I'm realy impressed with your armor ,tank and ground war info..

Its nice to just be a student in a forum some times.. I play in some car and bike forums and I have all the info ..So its nice to just learn some time ..Sorry if I have gone off topic..


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2007)

God, they all talk through their noses in Leeds !  It's not far from me, about a hours drive. 

I apologise if I may have driven you from the site in anyway...I don't remember calling you anything ..oh well, I forget things in a pico-second normally.

And thanks, I'm always aiming to learn more...I have a serious problem with wanting to know about warfare from all eras - and studying aerospace engineering at the same time.


----------



## Instal (Nov 3, 2007)

Haztoys said:


> Mr Instal..You have not been around here to long..Theres some old boys who REALY know there history ..And DerAdler is one of them.. FlyBoyJ and PlanD also..And if you come across "strong willed" ..As you "did"..You best know your facts and history..Because they will carpet bomb you..They realy pride them selves on the facts..And you even got me into it..And I do not do that ..I use to "think" that I knew about war history and all...Until I came here..And if you read my posts ...I will ask why on stuff and bring a small peace of info to a post..But sit back and learn around hear most days..So if your sure on your facts and want to charge the gunners nest ..Do so ..But you may get cut to peaces..
> 
> And being called dumb ..Thats nothing ..One of my first few post PlanD called me F#$%khead or [email protected]#$kstane ..LOL...So dumb was light..
> 
> And you didn't even try to torpedo my last post..???..And I'm ez to sink..A few of these guys realy know there stuff ...Your going to need a little more armor if your going to play these are the "facts"...



If you were sitting beside me when I typed "would you quit calling me dumb" you would have seen a smile on my face. I certainly did not intend to infer that I was being slighted. Sometimes it is difficult to type with the intended inflection. I guess I better use more smilies Haztoys you are absolutely right when you say there are allot of guys here that really know thier history however if you read my post I said "I may have my facts wrong here so slam away". Are you suggesting that if I do not have all the facts about a particular topic that I should not write any posts? I do not know much about forums and as you pointed out I am pretty new around here but wouldn't that make for a pretty boring forum? And no offense but if I want to brush up on my history I'll read a book.


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 3, 2007)

Instal said:


> If you were sitting beside me when I typed "would you quit calling me dumb" you would have seen a smile on my face. I certainly did not intend to infer that I was being slighted. Sometimes it is difficult to type with the intended inflection. I guess I better use more smilies Haztoys you are absolutely right when you say there are allot of guys here that really know thier history however if you read my post I said "I may have my facts wrong here so slam away". Are you suggesting that if I do not have all the facts about a particular topic that I should not write any posts? I do not know much about forums and as you pointed out I am pretty new around here but wouldn't that make for a pretty boring forum? And no offense but if I want to brush up on my history I'll read a book.



"I" never called you dumb ..Some others may have... But not me ...One thing I did say and do know ..Is if you come across as some thing is "fact" around here...It better be "fact"...Is all I was getting at.. I made a post today in the "Japan Nuke" thread and was not sure as to my info ..So I made sure it came across as a question and not a statement of fact...Its all good ..I had a rough start here myself..And now I see that the guys around here just do not want this forum to end up a bloody wikipedia..Is what here try to do..So hang out and injoy the forum...There a good bunch of guys ... They just come across as a pack of rabid dogs at times..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 3, 2007)

I'll have you know I had all my shots!


----------



## Haztoys (Nov 3, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I'll have you know I had all my shots!



   ...Uncle you got me on that one ...LOL...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 4, 2007)

Aw come on Joe, your Bark is worse than your bite...

....most of the time!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Aw come on Joe, your Bark is worse than your bite...
> 
> ....most of the time!


----------



## Kilroy (Nov 5, 2007)

Instal said:


> The last thing I want to do with the following comments is to cast disparaging remarks to my friends south of the border but I have allways wondered about Britain owing money to the U.S. for WW2. I personally find it reprehensible that Britain would owe anyone anything for carrying the fight to the Nazi's particularly when the US had it's head in the sand. Profiting from someone who is fighting that kind of evil is just wrong. The British people suffered greatly from the war they should not be made to continue to suffer because they did the right thing. And ya ya ya I know they weren't the only ones to suffer.


Well if Britain and France had just stood up to Hitler in the thirties when they had the chance, the war in Europe might never have happened. At least as far as the Germans are concerned, the Russians on the other hand


----------



## Instal (Nov 5, 2007)

You are correct but that is 20/20 heind sight. No one wanted another war after loosing so many in WW1 but it happened. Had Churchill been PM instead of Chamberlain WW2 would quite possibly have been avoided.


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 10, 2007)

I think as England being a future Ally to the US prior and during early part of WW2 is beholding to pay of the Debt to the US via Lend Lease. I will put it to a simplier terms. Say for example the US was a banking institution and England as a potential home builder borrowed money from the Bank this case being the USA. But Germany was trying to inhibit the purchase of the property that home buyer England was trying to purchase. France was also involved in the final purchasse by England but was stalling for reasons of her own. So England in desperation ended up seeking a cash advancements on building supplies from the Bank US but signed a promisiary note in this case Lend Lease to help fund Englands in her quest and repayment of debt was set at an Interest rate and over long period of time. But not all stockholders of US Bank (citizens) were happy about that England Home owner was granted a special loan by the US Bank President and members of the executive board and that the US Bank Stockholders didn't want to get involved in a England France German squabble over which the US Bank stockholders saw as none of their business. As it turned out the loan was approved England was abled to fund the necassary requirements she needed. France got over run by and occupied by a re energized Germany along with rest of Europe with the help of the Italians in some measure and England had to stand alone with her Commonwealth friends holding up brick work and panelling. Until the US Bank got actually involved in the whole building process directly by means of a Japanese take over bid elsewhere in the Pacific and Asia. But in this that the Bank US still was owed money from original debt England had signed previously in the intrim and at the interest rates set. And that US Bank Stockholder and investors had to have return on capital invested in first place with England when the building process was finally completed

I know I am trivializing Lend Lease with England and the US but looking at it as in business way of thinking and at a different angle the Debt being Lend Lease has to be repaid. You don't expect banks to lend money then forget the debt later when its inconvient to the borrower and hope the debt is forgiven later. I will have to side with the Americans on this one. US Tax Payers then and even now can't be expected to foot the bill. I hope what I have written makes sense at what I am trying to say on this debate


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> I know I am trivializing Lend Lease with England and the US but looking at it as in business way of thinking and at a different angle the Debt being Lend Lease has to be repaid. You don't expect banks to lend money then forget the debt later when its inconvient to the borrower and hope the debt is forgiven later. I will have to side with the Americans on this one. US Tax Payers then and even now can't be expected to foot the bill. I hope what I have written makes sense at what I am trying to say on this debate



You do realise I hope, that the bill has been repaid in full.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

Nice way to put it Emac!


----------



## Emac44 (Nov 10, 2007)

Glider said:


> You do realise I hope, that the bill has been repaid in full.



Yes I do Glider and I was using it as an example to the way I was thinking. And Adler I tried very hard not to trivialize the debate. And Glider I know it broke England for years and for many years I favoured that England didn't have to repay the debt until I began listening to the other side of the debate and realized US Citizens had to bare the cost until debt was paid. I thought long and hard about it Lend Lease and put different angles on it. And even though my sympathy laid with the British and Lend Lease etc. I came to realise there are no free lunches in this world and debts have to be repaid. Sorry Glider


----------



## Glider (Nov 10, 2007)

If the French are making good noises to Bush maybe he will raise the issue of what France owes the USA. 

Somehow I don't see that happening.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 10, 2007)

Glider said:


> If the French are making good noises to Bush maybe he will raise the issue of what France owes the USA.
> 
> Somehow I don't see that happening.



Well, before this descends into a predictable, "lets bash the French" thread, by the end of WWII, outstanding French debt (prewar purchases plus
lend-lease minus reverse lend-lease plus other loans) stood at some
$2bn. The Blum-Byrnes agreements (which you can look up for more detail)
wrote off the outstanding debt and added a new US loan instead. When De Gaulle became President in 1958, he insisted on financial
stabilization and in particular he wanted outstanding debts to the US
repaid, which was done in 1963. In short, The US felt that French participation in the defense of Europe against the Red Menace during the Cold War was better than a France struggling economically to repay war debts in full. 

So on the one hand, France repaid its debt 40 years ago, but on the
other hand the amount to be repaid was far less than that owed by
Britain, so this doesn't really compare.


----------



## Hobilar (Nov 10, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> I know I am trivializing Lend Lease with England and the US but looking at it as in business way of thinking and at a different angle the Debt being Lend Lease has to be repaid. You don't expect banks to lend money then forget the debt later when its inconvient to the borrower and hope the debt is forgiven later. I will have to side with the Americans on this one. US Tax Payers then and even now can't be expected to foot the bill. I hope what I have written makes sense at what I am trying to say on this debate



Lets not forget that £300 Billion in Gold Bullion was shipped to the United States from Great Britain so that it would not fall into NAZI hands should the country be invaded. This plus other valuable assets more than compensated for British purchases during the war (mainly food, fuel and raw materials).

The idea that Great Britain owed money to the United States at the end of the war is utterly ludicrous. Great Britain had more than sufficient assets to pay for U.S. supplies.

The problem was that immediately hostilities ended, the Wall Street Bankers *DEMANDED* their money in cash. This money however was needed for the rebuilding of the British economy to a Peace-time situation (eg repairing damage cause by the enemy, modernizing industry, funding those matters that had been neglected because of the war such as the railways, hospitals and schools).

Hundreds of thousands of men were also returning home from the fighting services-All requiring homes and jobs.

Faced with this the Attlee Government was forced to appeal to the United States for financial assistance. An appeal that was initially refused by the Americans (though they later relented and allowed a financial loan (not nearly enough to cover requirements)). It was *This loan* that has recently been repaid (Not as many of todays Americans would suggest for Lend-Lease purchases).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> Lets not forget that £300 Billion in Gold Bullion was shipped to the United States from Great Britain so that it would not fall into NAZI hands should the country be invaded. This plus other valuable assets more than compensated for British purchases during the war (mainly food, fuel and raw materials).
> 
> The idea that Great Britain owed money to the United States at the end of the war is utterly ludicrous. Great Britain had more than sufficient assets to pay for U.S. supplies.
> 
> ...



As the money was rightfully demanded. If it had not been so as others have suggested it would have been the US citizen paying for it. That is not right.


----------



## Instal (Nov 10, 2007)

Hobilar said:


> Lets not forget that £300 Billion in Gold Bullion was shipped to the United States from Great Britain so that it would not fall into NAZI hands should the country be invaded. This plus other valuable assets more than compensated for British purchases during the war (mainly food, fuel and raw materials).
> 
> The idea that Great Britain owed money to the United States at the end of the war is utterly ludicrous. Great Britain had more than sufficient assets to pay for U.S. supplies.
> 
> ...



Hoilbar, was that $300 Billion kept by the U.S. or sent back?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2007)

No that 300 Billion went to paying off the debt.


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2007)

the money was not sent to the US it was sent to canada where it was stored in the Sun Life Building in Montreal


----------



## Instal (Nov 10, 2007)

And from there was it paid to the U.S. over time?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 10, 2007)

I don't know about the repayment but the Sun Life building was the depository for the Brit for the Crown Jewels and the Gold Bullion from Bank of england . The story of them putting on board ship (fast Cruisers)is fascinating guys were bunked on gold bullion . They dropped a case and gold coins were rolling all over


----------



## Instal (Nov 10, 2007)

You can bet not all those coins ended up back in the box! I am interested to know what happened to this money because it relates to an earlier post where I say that Britain ceased to be a World power and the U.S. became one partly because of Britain having to purchase so much from the U.S. during 39 - 41. I asked my Dad once "how did Great Britain loose it's dominance in the world?" He answered "we had the great misfoutune of winning two world wars"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Either way it was not the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to carry the burdon financially for other nations. Anyones debts should be paid in full...


----------



## Instal (Nov 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Either way it was not the responsibility of the citizens of the United States to carry the burdon financially for other nations. Anyones debts should be paid in full...



"carry the burdon" I think this is where my opinion differs from most on this topic. It seems the general opinion in the States, even after all this time is that it was not thier war. This confuses me. Where freedom and human rights are concerned it shouldn't matter if the problem country is on your border or across the ocean, it is the duty of all of us to do something about it. I am sure that given the choice the good people of the U.S. would choose to live in a world without Hitler. Without Great Britain this would not have been possible. Today western countries (primarily the U.S.) give millions perhaps billions in aid to countries to sway them toward democracy and human rights. From 39 - 41 Britain was volunteering to fight for these causes against the most powerful opponent of these values the world has ever seen. Not only were they willing to exhaust thier own financial resources they were willing to fight and die for them as well. Thier homes and places of work were bombed, thier country was left in financial ruin. Who is carying the burden? And just what do they get in return? Years of debt payment and to stand by and watch vanquished countries recieve assistance in rebuilding while in thier own country they can't buy a stick of butter. My parents (including my father who is X -R.A.F.) left England after the war not because they wanted to but because they saw little hope for a good life. Once again I say that this debt should never have existed. Moreover I think the free world owes the people of Great Britain an enormous debt of gratitude for seeing Natziism for the evil that it was and taking the fight to them while all around them either collapsed or did nothing.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2007)

Instal said:


> "carry the burdon" I think this is where my opinion differs from most on this topic. It seems the general opinion in the States, even after all this time is that it was not thier war. This confuses me. Where freedom and human rights are concerned it shouldn't matter if the problem country is on your border or across the ocean, it is the duty of all of us to do something about it. I am sure that given the choice the good people of the U.S. would choose to live in a world without Hitler. Without Great Britain this would not have been possible.


What you say is reasonable but the good people of the US (and I think I could speak for most) would not want to be told that they have to pay an extra 5 or 10% on their income tax to cover the burden of a "freebee" to the UK - it's that simple. If the shoe was on the other foot do you think the Average British citizen would of wanted to give billions of dollars away despite the cause?


Instal said:


> Today western countries (primarily the U.S.) give millions perhaps billions in aid to countries to sway them toward democracy and human rights.


There's always a price for that generocity


Instal said:


> "
> From 39 - 41 Britain was volunteering to fight for these causes against the most powerful opponent of these values the world has ever seen. Not only were they willing to exhaust thier own financial resources they were willing to fight and die for them as well. Thier homes and places of work were bombed, thier country was left in financial ruin. Who is carying the burden? And just what do they get in return? Years of debt payment and to stand by and watch vanquished countries recieve assistance in rebuilding while in thier own country they can't buy a stick of butter.


I think you have a very limited view of how armaments are procured and delivered, especially during WW2 - as pointed out in many cases the US government had to first pay the contractor for lend lease contracts - then you had some situations where the "foreign government" unilaterally approached a US contractor for a product - a prime example of that was the initial purchase of the Hudson.



Instal said:


> "
> My parents (including my father who is X -R.A.F.) left England after the war not because they wanted to but because they saw little hope for a good life. Once again I say that this debt should never have existed. Moreover I think the free world owes the people of Great Britain an enormous debt of gratitude for seeing Natziism for the evil that it was and taking the fight to them while all around them either collapsed or did nothing.


Great Britain would of been a lot better after the war with it did not embrace many "socialistic" programs that eventually killed her ability to stimulate her economy and that burden was taken on by the people.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Instal said:


> "carry the burdon" I think this is where my opinion differs from most on this topic. It seems the general opinion in the States, even after all this time is that it was not thier war. This confuses me. Where freedom and human rights are concerned it shouldn't matter if the problem country is on your border or across the ocean,



Negative.

Why do you think the US has to be the World Police? Why was it wrong for the United States to stay out of a European Regional conflict that at the time did not have anything to do with us.

We did not know about the Death Camps at the time. In 1939 it was a regional conflict and it was the duty of England and France to take care of there own problems.

I dont understand why you dont understand that?

Using your logic the Canadians and the English should have been in Vietnam with us. Is that not true? Wasn't Vietnam about protecting the Democratic south from the Oppressive Communist North? Was it not about Freedom and Human Rights then?

Come on now, think about it...



Instal said:


> it is the duty of all of us to do something about it.



Again read above. Why was Canada and England not in Vietnam then? Why is Canada not in Africa fighting for the Freedom of those countries? 

Again I am asking this because it is based off your logic. Logic that you have come up with in your own words.



Instal said:


> I am sure that given the choice the good people of the U.S. would choose to live in a world without Hitler.



Agreed but how does it make it the responsibility of US Tax Payers to pay for the war efforts of another country? US tax payers were allready paying more and more money to fund the US War effort once we came in the war and we are also supposed to pay for the English one as well?

Come on now? That is not right and you know it....



Instal said:


> Without Great Britain this would not have been possible.



And without the materials from the US it would not have been possible....

It is a two way street here. 



Instal said:


> Today western countries (primarily the U.S.) give millions perhaps billions in aid to countries to sway them toward democracy and human rights. From 39 - 41 Britain was volunteering to fight for these causes against the most powerful opponent of these values the world has ever seen. Not only were they willing to exhaust thier own financial resources they were willing to fight and die for them as well. Thier homes and places of work were bombed, thier country was left in financial ruin. Who is carying the burden?



You make it seem as though England was the only country fighting. Got news for you they were not. Up until 1941 it was not the fight of the US. I dont care if you want to understand this or not, but you will just have to get over it.

Again it was not the responsibiliy of US Citizens to pay for Englands war effort, especially after the US entered the war.



Instal said:


> And just what do they get in return? Years of debt payment



Why should it come out of my pocket or the pocket of any other US citizen. We had to pay for own war effort.

Jesus Christ I sound like a Broken Record. Is it that hard to understand?



Instal said:


> and to stand by and watch vanquished countries recieve assistance in rebuilding while in thier own country they can't buy a stick of butter.



And if those countries were not assisted they would have fallen to communism or we would have a repeat again. That is how WW2 all got started because of the way the victors of WW1 handled the reparations.

I think you need to learn a bit more about history and why things happened the way they did and maybe you will understand this.



Instal said:


> My parents (including my father who is X -R.A.F.) left England after the war not because they wanted to but because they saw little hope for a good life.



I am sorry to hear that. However explain to me how that is the problem of the US Government and the US citizens.

That is why you are missing the big picture.



Instal said:


> Once again I say that this debt should never have existed.



Once again I say you are wrong....



Instal said:


> Moreover I think the free world owes the people of Great Britain an enormous debt of gratitude for seeing Natziism for the evil that it was and taking the fight to them while all around them either collapsed or did nothing.



 

I am sorry but that is the funniest thing I have heard.

I am not one of those people that think the US won the war by themselves because they did not. It was an allied effort.

However I think England needs to thank the US for:

1. Giving the aid to England to allow them to carry on a war.

2. Joining the war because frankly England could not have done it without the US. That is a fact.

*Seriously man you need to learn your WW2 history because you are letting your emotions get in the way of facts.*


*Now my English friends and members of this forum. I do not actually believe that England is in debt of grattitude to the United States at all. I think you all know my true feelings about the subject of England and the US and how they were allies together in this war.

I however had to say what I did because of this post.

Again I think you all know my feelings on the subject and I do not wish to offend any of you.*


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 11, 2007)

I agree the money should be paid back even with interest


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Thankyou. I really dont understand why it is so hard for some people to understand.

That is how the world works. Emac explained it the best when he likened it to a business.

Also as was stated the products and war materials that went to England during the Lend Lease had to be paid somehow to even be made in the first place. So the US government pays the companies and factories to build the stuff and then someone still has to pay it back.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 11, 2007)

Here's an example of how the system worked then and today;

Canada bought 18 Auroras back in 1978, a very large expenditure. To assist in that sale the US government agree in a "offset," a percentage of the Aurora's construction was moved to Canada - it turned out about 45% of the Aurora/ Orion was built in Canada between 1979 and 1990. I know there were similar situations involving trading equipment for bases and guaranteeing low interest loans to buy armaments. Bottom line everybody got something out of the situation but in the terms of loans, they shoud be paid back with interest regardless of situation...


----------



## mkloby (Nov 11, 2007)

I agree Chris.

Instal - I thought back on page 1 you were reacting emotionally, not rationally to the issue. Parts of me agree with some of the things you have said, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that the US taxpayer should have been asked to shoulder the costs.

British decline was not caused by repayment of these debts. It was far more deep than that, and not the subject of this thread.

Also, if you speaking of the Marshall Plan above when you spoke of conquered nations receiving aid, the UK was not excluded either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I agree Chris.
> 
> Instal - I thought back on page 1 you were reacting emotionally, not rationally to the issue. Parts of me agree with some of the things you have said, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that the US taxpayer should have been asked to shoulder the costs.
> 
> ...



 Its not rocket science.

In all actuallity that is where he needs to learn more about what he talking about anyhow. England recieved the largest amount of aid under the Marschall Plan.

Lets see total amount in aid given:

England: 3,297,000,000
France: 2,296,000,000
Germany: 1,448,000,000
Italy: 1,204,000,000
Belgium and Netherlands: 777,000,000

I will not list every single country.

So again Instal for you to say that England was not being helped out after the war to rebuild is very wrong as well.

Did the United States have to help with this? No they did not but they chose to because a Rebuilt Europe and Stable and not Communist was a benefit to the United States.

Should this aid have to be repaid? 

Ofcourse it should and it was rightfully repaid.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is how WW2 all got started because of the way the victors of WW1 handled the reparations.



If you mean the UK, FR, _and_ the USA, then yes I would aggree with you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Who were the victors of WW1?

UK, France, _and_ the USA......

Why would I not include the USA in the list of victors?


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Who were the victors of WW1?
> 
> UK, France, _and_ the USA......
> 
> Why would I not include the USA in the list of victors?



I was looking for a little clarification. Afterall, we're speaking of war reparations/debt repayments to the US, correct?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

My comment about the victors and WW1 and being one of the causes that led to WW2 has to do with the way the victors handled the reparations after WW1.

It helped fuel the political environment in Germany in the 1930s that helped the NSDP rise to power.

Was it the only cause of WW2 or the dircect cause? No but it was a factor that helped lead to the 2nd World War.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> My comment about the victors and WW1 and being one of the causes that led to WW2 has to do with the way the victors handled the reparations after WW1.
> 
> It helped fuel the political environment in Germany in the 1930s that helped the NSDP rise to power.
> 
> Was it the only cause of WW2 or the dircect cause? No but it was a factor that helped lead to the 2nd World War.



....and I agree absolutely.


----------



## Instal (Nov 11, 2007)

I personally think that the U.S. is owed a debt of gratitude for thier part as well but not to the exclusion of anyone else as you would have it. I am of the opinion that we should have been there in Viet Nam, better yet the allies should have continued the fight into Russia as Stalin was very near the evil tyrant that Hitler was then there would have been no Viet Nam. As far as learning my WW2 history I have never professed to be in posession of all the facts, that is why I find this forum so interesting. I have however learned and researched as time has allowed. With all due respect I invite correction when my knowledge is lacking but my opinion is my own.


----------



## Instal (Nov 11, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I agree Chris.
> 
> Instal - I thought back on page 1 you were reacting emotionally, not rationally to the issue. Parts of me agree with some of the things you have said, but I haven't seen anything to make me think that the US taxpayer should have been asked to shoulder the costs.
> 
> ...



Thank you mkloby, I was not aware that the U.K. recieved any assistance post war. I realise that there were more factors involved in the decline of the U.K.'s financial situation however repayment of war debts must have been a contributing factor.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2007)

Instal said:


> I personally think that the U.S. is owed a debt of gratitude for thier part as well but not to the exclusion of anyone else as you would have it.



Did I say that? No, I did not. Please dont put words in my mouth. 

If I recall I even said that it was a complete Allied effort. The US could not have done without her allies England, Canada, Australia, Russia, etc.. but England and the rest of the allies could not have done it without the US either.

You are the one that said the rest of the world should pay gratitude to England for fighting Germany. I am sorry but England was not the only one fighting Germany.



Instal said:


> I am of the opinion that we should have been there in Viet Nam,



That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I personally dont think they should have been there. To me it was not there war.



Instal said:


> better yet the allies should have continued the fight into Russia as Stalin was very near the evil tyrant that Hitler was then there would have been no Viet Nam.



I will not agree nor disagree on this. I do however think that is a discussion for a different thread.



Instal said:


> As far as learning my WW2 history I have never professed to be in posession of all the facts, that is why I find this forum so interesting. I have however learned and researched as time has allowed. With all due respect I invite correction when my knowledge is lacking but my opinion is my own.



Then I challenge you to learn more on this subject. 

Please dont take me wrong when I say this because I am not trying to insult you but I think your views on this very topic you are thinking without rational and letting your emotion get in the way of facts and what truely happened historically and why they happened that way.



Instal said:


> Thank you mkloby, I was not aware that the U.K. recieved any assistance post war. I realise that there were more factors involved in the decline of the U.K.'s financial situation however repayment of war debts must have been a contributing factor.



I dont know if you saw what I posted about aid under the Marschall Plan to help rebuild western europe and that England recieved the most aid so I will post the numbers again.

The top 5 recievers of aid from the US post WW2: 

England: 3,297,000,000
France: 2,296,000,000
Germany: 1,448,000,000
Italy: 1,204,000,000
Belgium and Netherlands: 777,000,000


----------



## Freebird (Nov 15, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Heads in the sand? The real sin during that period was the way Britain and France sat on their asses for 8 months after Germany rolled through Poland.


 SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!
The British French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France. Why should the British French be held responsible for the defence of Poland? They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests. Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?


----------



## mkloby (Nov 15, 2007)

freebird said:


> SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!
> The British French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France. Why should the British French be held responsible for the defence of Poland? They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests. Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?



Regardless of whether you think the US should or should not have intervened, the case is not even remotely close to the relationship between Poland and the UK and France. Just out of curiosity Freebird - when did the US pledge that they would enter a European war to defend any democracy????

Correct me if I'm wrong - but didn't both the UK and France have alliances with Poland in case they were attacked by Germany? Mutual assistance!? Hardly.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 15, 2007)

The UK did not have as close an alliance with the poles that France did. The UK alliance with Poland did not specifically state that the UK would be obligated to invade Germany, and they were not capable of landing in Poland. They warned Germany that an attack on Poland would lead to war, and they declared war. The US did not pledge to help any democracy or defend against Fascism, you can judge that any way you like.

My point was that to expect that the British to pursue the war in any particular way is not for any other nation to decide. I did not understand where the "Sin" came from. The British lived up to the agreement, which did not call for any specific remedy, and Poland was eventually liberated from the Nazi's

Mutual assistance, what exactly do you think the British could have done? (remember that the French were the larger allied army and refused to leave the "Magiot line") Parachute 10 UK divisions into Warsaw?


----------



## mkloby (Nov 15, 2007)

freebird said:


> The UK did not have as close an alliance with the poles that France did. The UK alliance with Poland did not specifically state that the UK would be obligated to invade Germany, and they were not capable of landing in Poland. They warned Germany that an attack on Poland would lead to war, and they declared war. The US did not pledge to help any democracy or defend against Fascism, you can judge that any way you like.
> 
> My point was that to expect that the British to pursue the war in any particular way is not for any other nation to decide. I did not understand where the "Sin" came from. The British lived up to the agreement, which did not call for any specific remedy, and Poland was eventually liberated from the Nazi's
> 
> Mutual assistance, what exactly do you think the British could have done? (remember that the French were the larger allied army and refused to leave the "Magiot line") Parachute 10 UK divisions into Warsaw?



The British and the French in 1939 had FAR different capabilities. I wasn't supposing the British launch a major ground offensive into Germany. However, France was certainly capable of launching an offensive into western Germany, and Britain would have been able to support such an operation.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 15, 2007)

You are right about that, the French were capable, unfortunately many of them had lost the will to fight. And they did not have strong political or military leadership either. It was a bit brazen for Chamberlain to "draw a line in the sand" so to speak, when Britain did not have a large army, but it was a bluff Hitler called it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> SIN? The US sat on its @$$ during this period too!



Was it the United State's war at that point?

NO! It was a European Regional conflict.



freebird said:


> The British French high command did not think that an attack into Germany would be successful, so the were building up their forces (especially air!) preparing for the expected attack on France.



Whole lot of good that did them! 

If the French and British governments had not followed a policy of appeasement, none of it would have ever happened anyhow.



freebird said:


> Why should the British French be held responsible for the defence of Poland?



Because they guaranteed the independence of Poland prior to the invasion. They chose to give an ultimatum to Germany to withdraw from Poland. 

Did the United States do this? No because it was at that point a regional European conflict and remained so until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on the United States.

Ever heard of the *Franco-Polish Military Alliance*

France guaranteed she would grant Poland military credit in case of a war between Poland and Germany. It also stated that it would start minor air and land offensive immediatly *and to start a major offensive with 15 days after the declaration of war.*

France declared war on Germany on *Sept 3, 1939*.

Now for the *United Kingdom*.

On March 30, 1939, the government of the United Kingdom pledged to defend Poland, in the event of a German attack, and Romania in case of other threats. The British “guarantee” of Poland was only of Polish independence, and pointly excluded Polish territorial integrity. 

"This declaration was further amended in April, when Poland's minister of foreign affairs Colonel Józef Beck met with Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax. In the aftermath of the talks, a mutual assistance treaty was signed. On August 25 the Polish-British Common Defence Pact was signed as an annex to Polish-French alliance. Like the “guarantee” of March 30, the Anglo-Polish alliance committed Britain only to the defence of Polish independence. It was clearly aimed against German aggression. In case of war, United Kingdom was to start hostilities as soon as possible; initially helping Poland with air raids against the German war industry, and joining the struggle on land as soon as the British Expeditionary Corps arrived in France. In addition, a military credit was granted and armament was to reach Polish or Romanian ports in early autumn.

However, both British and French governments had other plans than fulfilling the treaties with Poland. On May 4, 1939, a meeting was held in Paris, at which it was decided that the fate of Poland depends on the final outcome of the war, which will depend on our ability to defeat Germany rather than to aid Poland at the beginning. Poland's government was not notified of this decision, and the Polish–British talks in London were continued. A full military alliance treaty was ready to be signed on August 22, but His Majesty's Government postponed the signing until August 25, 1939."
Western betrayal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



freebird said:


> They did declare war, yes, but they are under no "obligation" to pursue war other than how they see fit, in their own national interests.



Read above...



freebird said:


> Why should the US not also be responsible for protecting a fellow democracy?



Read above again....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> You are right about that, the French were capable, unfortunately many of them had lost the will to fight. And they did not have strong political or military leadership either. It was a bit brazen for Chamberlain to "draw a line in the sand" so to speak, when Britain did not have a large army, but it was a bluff Hitler called it.



And how is that the fault of the United States?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2007)

Freebird, your arguments are a the reverse of many who today are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You said the US should of stood up to Nazism and Fascism - so we attack countries who did nothing to us except rattle their sabers? Some argue today that the war on terror (especially in Iraq) was being fought to prevent radical Islam from growing, but those against it have always maintained that there was no reason to go into Iraq. Wouldn't the US been accused of entering a conflict for no reason in 1939 just as we are being accused today?

Bottom line is the European War didn't concern the US in 1939 but we still helped in the form of Lend Lease that eventually affected our neutrality and sovereignty. So with that said "loaning" the materials of the trade to our allies were more than justified. At the end of it all (and as stated earlier) we didn't ask for a dime back from the Marshal Plan, and I rarely see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Arsenal - you have good points in your post, but nothing to sustain the notion that the French couldn't have launched a successful invasion.



Did you actually read anything I wrote? Those were but a few of the more important reasons why the French could not have launched a successful invasion. Perhaps their Saar offensive should have pressed harder, or deeper, maybe relieve some pressure on Poland, who knows? I feel I've pointed out some hard facts before and at the beginning of the war to explain why the French were unable to do much of anything. 




mkloby said:


> Now how in God's name can you say that French officer's didn't seem to care about their troops????



While the French 1st Armee and Maginot Line troops were fairly well looked after and well treated (and well respected too), the same cannot be said for the reserve and Class B troops holding the crucial Ardennes sector. They were the weakest elements of the whole army, treated most poorly, and ill-equipped. There is plethora of written evidence of French troops complaining that their officers were nowhere to be seen. Indeed, during the Phoney War training was neglected, leaves were disrupted, food was often left for the troops to forage or barter with local farmers, boredom and even cabin-fever set in some cases, all while their Lt. or Cpt. was resting comfortably in the town hotels having nice dinners going to the theatre. This kind of officer-soldier disconnect is exemplified by the French CnC Gamelin who posted himself in a huge and dreary chateau located in Vincennes. He was far from the front and shut from the outside world except for the occassional courrier on motorcycles that would deliver news and send orders. Again, NO RADIOS! 

It's also worth keeping in mind the highly political nature of the troops themselves, who were often at odds over eachother in their treatment. At the height of the Phoney War, there was a genuine fear among the lower-medium ranks of repeat of the 1917 mutiny because of communistic inspired dissent.



mkloby said:


> Come on - no basis for saying regardless of what someone wrote in a book.



I think I've discovered the crux of the problem. Thanks for spelling it out.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> and I rarely see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity.




This is simply not true, and I think you know that. Most Europeans are plainly aware that post-war recovery would have been extremely difficult or even impossible without the Marshall Plan. In a way, I would argue that it WAS paid off too, by simply preventing western Europe from falling into political and economical chaos and not adopting a Stalinist communists ideals. Wasn't that afterall, one of the main goals for the success of the Marshall Plan? As for the war debts, lend lease and reverse lend lease with re-loans and etc., I think that subject has been fairly well covered here already.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 16, 2007)

_"(Then Colonel Charles de Gaulle had published 2 books considered somewhat avant-garde among contemporary military thinkers, and which also made him many enemies. Few people will acknowledge that Guderian actually pinched a few ideas from de Gaulle's book "The Edge of the Sword" for his own "Achtung Panzer")."_

These people who don't acknowledge de Gaulle most likely haven't read _Achtung Panzer_ because Guderian clearly mentions de Gaulle, and the French and British leadership in armoured tactics during the 1920s. 

_"French troops were almost immediately caught in minefields and mine detecting equipment was not to be found. Also, the further they went into Germany, the closer they came to the Seigfreid Line. Again, contrary to popular opinion, this line was not abandoned and it's artillery was fully manned and operational."_

Read _Panzer Battles_ by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin and you'll discover what the Seigfreid Line was really like. The German propaganda machine had a great effect on the French strategy; they seemed to believe it was actually a strong defensive line when the Germans knew all along it was poorly manned and even less well built. 

I do have to say the post was good but as mkloby stated it gives no real reason for a lack of French invasion in 1939 when the Wehrmacht and its armour was in Poland. The failings of French equipment and planning are all a failing of the French military and a failing of France. The strategy of France should have been one based around fighting on her own for the cases where she didn't have allies, instead of basing the war strategy around allied efforts.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2007)

plan_D said:


> These people who don't acknowledge de Gaulle most likely haven't read _Achtung Panzer_ because Guderian clearly mentions de Gaulle, and the French and British leadership in armoured tactics during the 1920s.



I would agree. 



plan_D said:


> Read _Panzer Battles_ by Maj. Gen. von Mellenthin and you'll discover what the Seigfreid Line was really like. The German propaganda machine had a great effect on the French strategy; they seemed to believe it was actually a strong defensive line when the Germans knew all along it was poorly manned and even less well built.



I have this book and read it several times. It is a good book. However, isn't this what I already said, about French intel believing it was fully manned? They, nor the British knew that skeleton crews remained and that the full weight of German armor was in Poland. Given their poor intel, it is understandable why they didn't advance any further. We seem to agree on this.




plan_D said:


> I do have to say the post was good but as mkloby stated it gives no real reason for a lack of French invasion in 1939 when the Wehrmacht and its armour was in Poland. The failings of French equipment and planning are all a failing of the French military and a failing of France. The strategy of France should have been one based around fighting on her own for the cases where she didn't have allies, instead of basing the war strategy around allied efforts.



Again, I point to the fact that French military thinking knew since even before WW 1 that they could not possibly win a major conflict coming from the east without large numbers of allies/allied troops. Yes, I agree they had major failings, but what I'm trying to say is that under their circumstances it is easy for us today using 20/20 hindsight to clearly see these failings and thus pass judgement on what went wrong and why. To fully appreciate those difficulties, we must imagine ourselves in their shoes with the knowledge they had.

I appreciate you thoughts on the matter.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 16, 2007)

I agree in the sense that France was in a bad situation internally in 1939. 

Blame must rest on the French administration through the pre-war years, however, as they failed to prepare France for a war. To me it seems bizarre that France would take a line of thought that puts them at a disadvantage against any European power - after all, through the centuries France had been a major player in European politics through force. 

I don't see where the belief came from that they could not defeat Germany on their own. France should have been in a position to defeat Germany in 1939, and even in 1940... it's not so much an attack on France but an attack on its government for failing their own nation in preparation for defence. 

I recognise the French would not have been aware of the lack of ability in the Western Wall - but I've never seen any far stretch of effort on the French behalf to gain more information on German positions.


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I agree in the sense that France was in a bad situation internally in 1939.
> 
> Blame must rest on the French administration through the pre-war years, however, as they failed to prepare France for a war. To me it seems bizarre that France would take a line of thought that puts them at a disadvantage against any European power - after all, through the centuries France had been a major player in European politics through force.



Absolutely, the French inter-war governments must bear the larger burden of blame for this. That is a good point, though I do not believe they would have intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage vis-a-vis Germany or anyone else. Thats the problem about winning a war (WW 1), it gives the victors a sense that what they had done before was the way to do it, therefore there was no reason to believe it couldn't work again. 



plan_D said:


> I don't see where the belief came from that they could not defeat Germany on their own. France should have been in a position to defeat Germany in 1939, and even in 1940... it's not so much an attack on France but an attack on its government for failing their own nation in preparation for defence.



This pre-WW 1 study was based a lot on the geographical weakness of France, and they saw it as the tip of a funnel through which enemies could come pouring through, and the fact that at the time of the study, Alsace and Lorraine were firmly in German hands, was another great disadvantage. For the French, the biggest threat came from the east, though at the same time it had overseas colonies to protect. This required a large navy. Every franc spent on the ships was one franc less for the army. Lastly, the common belief that Germany would again attack through the lowlands was pretty much ingrained by the time WW 2 came around, as it was the best grounds to move large armies, and always has been.



plan_D said:


> I recognise the French would not have been aware of the lack of ability in the Western Wall - but I've never seen any far stretch of effort on the French behalf to gain more information on German positions.



Very true. Of all the areas of French intel, perhaps the one that was most reliable was the airforce which kept up a constant stream of reports, much of which would be confirmed via other reports. Yet, Gamelin and his gang wouldn't listen. If anything, I think that had French PM Reynaud been able to sack Gamelin, things could have had a different outcome. Reynaud was certainly a more forward think politician and he hated Gamelin, but unfortunately Gamelin had too many friends in high places, so Reynaud was thwarted. It wasn't until things became irreversibly bad that Gamelin was botted and in came Weygand, who wasn't much better. 

In all, the French were forced to correct bad mistakes with other bad mistakes. Much of it caused by themselves when the war started, but I would also say that they found themselves with their hands tied on the world diplomatic front during the interwar years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 16, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> This is simply not true, and I think you know that. Most Europeans are plainly aware that post-war recovery would have been extremely difficult or even impossible without the Marshall Plan. In a way, I would argue that it WAS paid off too, by simply preventing western Europe from falling into political and economical chaos and not adopting a Stalinist communists ideals. Wasn't that afterall, one of the main goals for the success of the Marshall Plan? As for the war debts, lend lease and reverse lend lease with re-loans and etc., I think that subject has been fairly well covered here already.


Notice my choice of words...

"and I *rarely* see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity."

From what you describe I agree 100%, but let's face it, there are many in the European continent a lot less grateful....


----------



## mkloby (Nov 16, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Did you actually read anything I wrote? Those were but a few of the more important reasons why the French could not have launched a successful invasion. Perhaps their Saar offensive should have pressed harder, or deeper, maybe relieve some pressure on Poland, who knows? I feel I've pointed out some hard facts before and at the beginning of the war to explain why the French were unable to do much of anything.


I read your entire post. Again - some very good points regarding hardships facing the French, but there was nothing that supported that they were unable to launch an offensive. Poor senior leadership does not equate with being unable to lauch an offensive operation. If our MEF failed to launch an operation based upon that logic - heads would be rolling.



Arsenal VG-33 said:


> While the French 1st Armee and Maginot Line troops were fairly well looked after and well treated (and well respected too), the same cannot be said for the reserve and Class B troops holding the crucial Ardennes sector. They were the weakest elements of the whole army, treated most poorly, and ill-equipped. There is plethora of written evidence of French troops complaining that their officers were nowhere to be seen. Indeed, during the Phoney War training was neglected, leaves were disrupted, food was often left for the troops to forage or barter with local farmers, boredom and even cabin-fever set in some cases, all while their Lt. or Cpt. was resting comfortably in the town hotels having nice dinners going to the theatre. This kind of officer-soldier disconnect is exemplified by the French CnC Gamelin who posted himself in a huge and dreary chateau located in Vincennes. He was far from the front and shut from the outside world except for the occassional courrier on motorcycles that would deliver news and send orders. Again, NO RADIOS!


I was speaking specifically about the part about many of there officers seemed to not care about the troops. I don't think you, or anyone else, is qualified to make such a generalization, even if there is writing by troops that stated such things. We're talking about thousands of men here.




Arsenal VG-33 said:


> I think I've discovered the crux of the problem. Thanks for spelling it out.


Not sure what you mean by that. I wasn't disparaging those accounts, but rather commenting on the use of these (which is a small number of men in the whole scheme of things) to draw such a brash generalization on the judgment of character of the corps of officers.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 16, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Freebird, your arguments are a the reverse of many who today are against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You said the US should of stood up to Nazism and Fascism - so we attack countries who did nothing to us except rattle their sabers? Some argue today that the war on terror (especially in Iraq) was being fought to prevent radical Islam from growing, but those against it have always maintained that there was no reason to go into Iraq. Wouldn't the US been accused of entering a conflict for no reason in 1939 just as we are being accused today?
> 
> Bottom line is the European War didn't concern the US in 1939 but we still helped in the form of Lend Lease that eventually affected our neutrality and sovereignty. So with that said "loaning" the materials of the trade to our allies were more than justified. At the end of it all (and as stated earlier) we didn't ask for a dime back from the Marshal Plan, and I rarely see those who got assistance through that plan actually thank the US for their generosity.



If the US had intervened in 1939 it would not have been against sabre-rattling, it would be after the Nazi's invaded a sovereign country. However, as you and other correctly point out they were not obligated. I do not agree with many who say the US should not have done anything in Iraq, I just take issue with the plans for post-war Iraq, which were very poor (or absent!)


----------



## Freebird (Nov 16, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Was it the United State's war at that point?
> 
> NO! It was a European Regional conflict.
> 
> ...



*I guess the French can say that the "Saar" offensive fulfilled their "15 day clause"*


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Nov 16, 2007)

freebird said:


> *I guess the French can say that the "Saar" offensive fulfilled their "15 day clause"*




Hardly. By the time they pulled out, the French had realized fully well that the Saarland adventure was a futile offensive. If anything, they were smacked with the harsh realities of discovering that their armies and especially their doctrines were sorely out of date, and unfortunately for them, there were no quick fixes to be found, at least not in time for May 1940.


Moderator: is it possible to create a new Blitz 1940 thread and move these last 2-3 pages of relevant postings to it? The debt discussion seems to have run it's course and the thread has gone way off topic. Just wondering...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2007)

freebird said:


> *I guess the French can say that the "Saar" offensive fulfilled their "15 day clause"*



I will get back to this post when I get back after the weekend.

The only thing I will say now is again that it was not the Responsibility of the US in 1939 to do anything at all. If it was anyones responsibility it was Britian and France and the rest of Europe.

So the arguement that US sat on there ass holds zero weight.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2007)

Arsenal VG-33 said:


> Moderator: is it possible to create a new Blitz 1940 thread and move these last 2-3 pages of relevant postings to it? The debt discussion seems to have run it's course and the thread has gone way off topic. Just wondering...



I can do so but it will have to wait until I get back from Stuttgart this weekend. I am only on for a very short time at the moment.


----------

