Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I can say compound interest, can you?Can we bill Russia for them now?
Seriously? Why would Britain want a bunch of totally obsolete fighters back after the war? The allies already didn't know what to do with all the equipment they had, it was going to cost them a ton of money to dispose of it all. They were bulldozing heaps of brand new aircraft into pits and throwing them into the sea, because they needed every ship they had to transport the soldiers home, and they had way, way more tanks and planes and vessels than they needed or could man. They were discarding modern fighters, they would not have been happy to have the Soviets clogging up the ports trying to unload a bunch of useless old fighters and equipment that they would then have to ship and store somewhere and find time to cut up and dispose of. And it wouldn't have made the USSR happy to have to pay to ship them all, that's expensive, and pointless, and as far as they were concerned, all the equipment we were sending them was in recompense for the fact that they were doing all the actual fighting for several years. They felt that the least we could do is send them some planes and tanks while they fought 3/4 of the Wehrmacht and their allies. It would not ease political relations for us to then demand they send all stuff we "loaned" them back. Literally the only reason we called it a "loan" is because we couldn't say we were giving it to them for free.Okay, under Lend Lease they could have just given them back at the end of the war, but instead.....
I recall reading that when British forces encountered Soviet forces in the north of Norway late in WW2 they noted they had brought along P-39's still in their shipping crates.
That was an option given to them, whether the donor nations wanted the old stuff or not. Instead, after the USSR collapsed Russia did pay back some money for the equipment they had been given.Why would Britain want a bunch of totally obsolete fighters back after the war?
The writing is more than a little prejudicial. That was the deal with lend lease, destroy them or pay for them at 10% of the book value or return them. o one wanted to return them and by 1945 a knackered Hurricane, even at 10% of the book cost was no bargain at all.Seriously? Why would Britain want a bunch of totally obsolete fighters back after the war? The allies already didn't know what to do with all the equipment they had, it was going to cost them a ton of money to dispose of it all. They were bulldozing heaps of brand new aircraft into pits and throwing them into the sea, because they needed every ship they had to transport the soldiers home, and they had way, way more tanks and planes and vessels than they needed or could man. They were discarding modern fighters, they would not have been happy to have the Soviets clogging up the ports trying to unload a bunch of useless old fighters and equipment that they would then have to ship and store somewhere and find time to cut up and dispose of. And it wouldn't have made the USSR happy to have to pay to ship them all, that's expensive, and pointless, and as far as they were concerned, all the equipment we were sending them was in recompense for the fact that they were doing all the actual fighting for several years. They felt that the least we could do is send them some planes and tanks while they fought 3/4 of the Wehrmacht and their allies. It would not ease political relations for us to then demand they send all stuff we "loaned" them back. Literally the only reason we called it a "loan" is because we couldn't say we were giving it to them for free.
And of course none of them would still exist it they had been sent back.