The Tizard Mission to the US Great Britain's WW2 war debt

[DogFather]

I first heard about this on a video called WW2 From Above, by the History Channel. The claim was made that this was a very important part of
the Allied war effort. Words to the effect that the plans and blueprints packed into a suitcase was the most important cargo even to get to
the US. I realize GB (Great Britain) was in a fight for her life and Churchill really had no choice. GB needed US industrial capacity to stay in the war.
Still a lot of the technology I would think would have a great commercial value. Churchill must have really trusted FDR. Despite Churchill being
a bit frustrated by FDR's unwillingness to help GB, as much as Churchill had hoped. And even suggesting at one point, that the Royal Navy should go to
Canadian ports. So, as not to fall into Axis hands. But, I think that was after the mission.

Tizard was a British scientist and chairman of the Aeronautical Research Committee. But, Tizard had a lot of different technologies with him on the
mission. I have a feeling it was part of the quid pro quo, between the US GB. Only 10% of the war debt GB had with the US was paid back.
Here is the BBC story about that: BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | What's a little debt between friends?.

I was wondering how much technology flowed the other way? Some I'm sure did. But, how and what, if anyone knows.

 

[s1chris]

Only 10% paid back! Personally I think the Bank of Germany should give you back the other 90% now that it's a stable economic country again.

 

[pattle]

I don't want to descend into argument but this is why America took over from Britain as the most powerful nation in the world. Europe basically destroyed itself by having two highly destructive wars both caused by Germany. The British and French learnt after Napoleon that they would do better by co operating rather than fighting one another and this should have been a lesson well learnt but wasn't. After the war America gave large sums of money to Europe but Britain while having to repay it's wartime debt was only given a loan. I understand that America gave this money to rebuild Europe as the Americans understood that giving this money would buy peace, if the Americans had not have given the money Europe would have stayed in ruins and there would have great political unrest. America paid to build a solid and stable western Europe which was in it's own interest but at the same time it did not want Britain to rival America's power, which is after all understandable because why should they. The days of empire were over anyway, the world had moved on.
Britain and western Europe has turned out to be a pretty good place to live after all so I don't see how anyone can complain. People complain about the state of the economy in the west but when you think about it there are only a few countries in the world without mass poverty and dictatorships etc. Times are hard for people who are out of work or in rubbish jobs that don't pay a living wage, but living in the west is a world away from living in Egypt or Syria. Just think how few countries in the world have democracies.

 

[razor1uk]

I was led to believe we paid off the debt a few years back. ...considering how well the US aero builders have almost monopolised advanced aircraft (to their eventual loss it might seem), they made up the rest of the debt themselves through jobs, workers taxes, allied foreign sales the associated sales induced taxes etc following the 50's Duncan Sandy's (the) Labour (of then) maschinations (spelling?) and the proposed RAF F-111 debacle.

 

[pattle]

The only question I would like to ask is where did America get all it's money from in 1945, when in the 1930's it was broke?

 

[pattle]

Sorry just realised how off topic I have gone. I don't think much technology was imported to Britain from the USA during the war. A lot of the reason for so many British projects heading to America in those years was because Britain didn't have the resources to complete them, America sending projects to Britain would not have made sense.

 

[wiking85]

The only question I would like to ask is where did America get all it's money from in 1945, when in the 1930's it was broke?

It wasn't broke in the 1930's, rather its financial system was locked up in a very similar situation to what we have now. The majority of people had little money, the wealthy had most of it and weren't spending, businesses weren't creating jobs, etc.

Then FDR created the New Deal, which helped to unlocked money in the economy and as a result it began to flow; rearmament in 1940 as well as greater foreign spending (Britain and France) on US goods and services also helped further open up the economy. By 1945 the average US citizen had made quite a bit of money during the war either in a factory job or in military service (plus accumulated benefits in service) and during the war years there was little to spend it on, so it was saved up. So in 1945 there was a bunch of pent up demand from the Depression and War years that exploded when consumer goods began to flow back into the market. Also by 1945 the rest of the world owed the US a bunch of money from Lend-Lease, so the US started getting a flow of money from them.
But the main point is that the US had money throughout the Great Depression, long before the war spending started to aid the US economy. The problem was that the funds were just locked up with people and businesses that weren't spending it because of lack of demand, while there wasn't demand because of lack of spending on things like jobs or goods that create jobs. The US was by far the richest country in the world after WW1 and the 1920s saw it flowing freely, but when the financial system got locked up by a series of factors culminating the in Stock Market Crash of 1929, all that money got locked up, stopped flowing in the market, and the system broke down.

Money from outside sources like Britain and France (among others) was helpful, but wasn't what rescued the US economy. Nor was outside money what restarted the British, French, Japanese, or German economies after the war.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I believe the Tizard mission was vital in certain areas for moving technology development more rapidly than it might otherwise have progessed. I think wiki provides a decent objective statement:

"...a British delegation that visited the United States...in order to obtain the industrial resources to exploit the military potential of the research and development (R&D) work completed by the UK up to the beginning of World War II, but that Britain itself could not exploit due to the immediate requirements of war-related production. "

Radar technology development was perhaps the greatest immediate beneficiary of the mission, but the first meeting was held 31 August, 1940.

The Yorktown received its first air search warning CXAM production radar in September 1940. The USS New York received it prototype XAF radar set, December 1938. Britain wasn't giving away the farm for its survival, it was recognizing the advantage of co-development of the technology.

again wiki:

"At a meeting hosted by NDRC's two-month-old "Microwave Committee" chairman Dr Alfred Loomis[6] at the Wardman Park Hotel on 19 September 1940 the British disclosed the technical details of the Chain Home early warning radar stations. The British thought the Americans did not have anything like this, but found it was virtually identical to the US Navy's longwave CXAM radar. The Americans then described their microwave research done by Loomis and Karl Compton earlier in 1940. The British realised that Bell Telephone Laboratories and General Electric both could contribute a lot to receiver technology. The Americans had shown a Navy experimental shortwave 10-centimetre wavelength radar but had to admit that it had not enough transmitter power and they were at a dead-end. Bowen and Cockcroft then revealed the cavity magnetron, with an amazing power output of about ten kilowatts at 10 centimetres.[6] This disclosure dispelled any tension left between the delegations and things then went smoothly. The magnetron would enable the production radar units small enough to be installed in night-fighters, allow aircraft to locate U-boats and would provide great navigational assistance to bombers. It is considered to be a significant factor in the Allied victory in the Second World War.[5]"

AFAIK, also benefiting by the information sharing protocols implemented by the Tizard mission were radio-navigation, jet engine technology and atom bomb development. All benefited from research that was concurrently being carried out in the US Britain whether directly or indirectly aimed at similar goals. My point is, the sharing was a two way street, which does not diminish the relative contributions of either of the two allies. It was a war wining collaboration of essentially equal-partners. Although, it should be recognized that the war-time combat experience accumulated by Britain was a commodity whose price was beyond measure, even in the odd instance when it lead US manufacturing to follow production paths that may not ultimately have been in its own best interest.

With respect to war time debt, If our allies payed a penny on the dollar, I'd personally consider the 'debt' repaid in a manner exceeding expectations considering their prior and contemporaneous contributions to ridding the world of a great evil.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Let's not forget the enthusiastic buying of "war bonds" ..... allowing US and Canadian governments to recover generous amounts of cash from the working (and grateful) population. Today, Japan gets away with high levels of national debt because Japanese citizens invest in Japanese government bonds. From 1941 to 1945 the entire US GDP was essentially dedicated to the war effort.

 

[pattle]

Wiking85 it is the case in probably every country that a very small percentage of the population hold nearly all the wealth.

 

[fnqvmuch]

The only question I would like to ask is where did America get all it's money from in 1945, when in the 1930's it was broke?

parlous state still much later as noted in that fillum about the Iwo Jima guys touring to sell bonds ...

 

[wiking85]

Wiking85 it is the case in probably every country that a very small percentage of the population hold nearly all the wealth.

Sure, but money can get locked up there and not flow around the economy. Money is like blood for the economy and in a depression scenario the economy is having the equivalent of a heart attack, because the blood (money) isn't flowing around and various parts start shutting down (businesses shedding jobs), leading to cell death (long term unemployment). The problem isn't the lack of money, but rather its lack of movement; I know this is just a rehash of simplistic Keynesianism, but in terms of your question its very much the fact of the matter. Its the inherent flaw in the way that Capitalism was/is organized in the US (among other nations), especially as mechanization reduces the need for human labor through increased efficiency and second/third world labor competes with first world labor in unfair conditions. Periodically and increasingly unless there is strong government intervention capital will pool at the top of the income bracket and will have less and less reason to flow outward, especially in depression conditions unless something forces that money to exit the accounts of the wealth-holders or new wealth is created.

 

[bbear]

The only question I would like to ask is where did America get all it's money from in 1945, when in the 1930's it was broke?

possibly not for further comment here but David M Kennedy wrote 'freedom from fear' around that question, his lecture is on youtube : he does go on a bit so here's a summary

David M. Kennedy on World War II | Humanities Texas


in case that appeals

 

[pattle]

possibly not for further comment here but David M Kennedy wrote 'freedom from fear' around that question, his lecture is on youtube : he does go on a bit so here's a summary

David M. Kennedy on World War II | Humanities Texas


in case that appeals

I am ever so glad that this thread has not descended into argument.