Why was it?

I have been under the impression that the terms of Lend-Lease, especially with Britain due to the uncertain politics, required that those materials be paid for at some later date ... if they survived. With the anti-war, anti-Churchill Labour Govt led by Clement Attlee in power after July 1945, not only were they intent on erasing all aspects of the war, but it seems likely that by immediately destroying the American weapons, they likely could claim they had no debt.

I do know that the US bases, machinery, supplies and material were confiscated as soon as possible by the Socialistic Labour party minions, and parceled out to their supporters. Many accounts of the era indicate the black market became much more active post war than during the conflict under the extreme rationing that lasted well into the '50s, and imbedded many consumption taxes onto the citizens which endure to this day.

We were in Europe in the '50s, and rationing was rampant for food, clothing, petrol and rubber even then. Many Brits were wearing GI uniforms as their working clothes ... from all the services.

fannum said:

I have been under the impression that the terms of Lend-Lease, especially with Britain due to the uncertain politics, required that those materials be paid for at some later date ... if they survived. With the anti-war, anti-Churchill Labour Govt led by Clement Attlee in power after July 1945, not only were they intent on erasing all aspects of the war, but it seems likely that by immediately destroying the American weapons, they likely could claim they had no debt.

I do know that the US bases, machinery, supplies and material were confiscated as soon as possible by the Socialistic Labour party minions, and parceled out to their supporters. Many accounts of the era indicate the black market became much more active post war than during the conflict under the extreme rationing that lasted well into the '50s, and imbedded many consumption taxes onto the citizens which endure to this day.

We were in Europe in the '50s, and rationing was rampant for food, clothing, petrol and rubber even then. Many Brits were wearing GI uniforms as their working clothes ... from all the services.

Click to expand...

fannum said:

I have been under the impression that the terms of Lend-Lease, especially with Britain due to the uncertain politics, required that those materials be paid for at some later date ... if they survived. With the anti-war, anti-Churchill Labour Govt led by Clement Attlee in power after July 1945, not only were they intent on erasing all aspects of the war, but it seems likely that by immediately destroying the American weapons, they likely could claim they had no debt.

I do know that the US bases, machinery, supplies and material were confiscated as soon as possible by the Socialistic Labour party minions, and parceled out to their supporters. Many accounts of the era indicate the black market became much more active post war than during the conflict under the extreme rationing that lasted well into the '50s, and imbedded many consumption taxes onto the citizens which endure to this day.

We were in Europe in the '50s, and rationing was rampant for food, clothing, petrol and rubber even then. Many Brits were wearing GI uniforms as their working clothes ... from all the services.

Click to expand...

The arrangement was that all surviving lend lease material was to be returned to US control or destroyed. By October 1945 pretty much all the British army Sherman tanks were given back and naval aeroplanes dumped at sea for example.

Once the material including general stores was delivered to US bases it became a US decision what they would do with them. If retained by Britain it was at a cheap rate but paid in dollars. The US had sucked up all the British US dollar holdings long before the US was forced to enter the war. As much as possible was given back to US ownership or destroyed as the US preferred. The US could then decide if it would have it scrapped, thrown away, returned to the US or given to allies. When the US sold stuff off it was mostly at public sales and cheaply so much clothing etc. was bought in large batches by surplus dealers who then sold them off to the public.

The democratically elected (by a landslide) British Labour government did not confiscate any US property. It retained and paid for some crucial items but as few as possible as it needed any dollar resources to try feeding the population. Which was a difficult thing to do at the time. Hence the reduction in civilian rations to below wartime levels. Bread, for example, was never rationed during the war but was post war.

Of course assorted US bases in Britain which had been used by US forces such as airbases were given back but the land had always been in British ownership. Hence assorted US airfields in Britain were always RAF owned*. Thus RAF Lakenheath etc.

Any subsequent sales of the land and retained US kit was by public sale and the proceeds passed on to the Treasury as part of the government income. To 'parcel the out to their supporters' would be an illegal and criminal action. Clement Attlee was a serving officer in the Great War as a Major doing his duty to King and Country and a honourable and modest man. In the midst of all this and world events the government followed through with it's determination to establish a free at point of use public health system paid for through taxation whereby medical care was given against the need of the patient not their wealth. I have never voted Labour but staunchly support their achievement in this. Even if it was at first a Liberal party policy.

The US had records of what was supplied and whether it was used up in wartime service as did Britain. The bill was agreed between the governments and continued to be paid off into the 21st century and only recently completed.

I am sure that black market 'spivs' etc. were as active in the period as petty criminals have always been but not a major issue.

In summary, the wind up of lend lease to Britain was overall planned and carried out remarkably quickly without illegal nor questionable practices. There were difference of opinion in the accounts between the respective government of course but agreed through negotiation and a payment plan agreed.

*edit. The cost of building these many airfields with their runways, hangers, assorted buildings, quarters, fuel stores, bomb stores main services, drainage etc. was part of the largest British financed and built civil engineering project ever in Britain to date. Much of this infrastructure was simply returned to farmland and brought no returns to offset the capital and running costs.

Thank you, Yulzari, and for background, my observations are based mostly on personal experience and recollection.

My Dad was a staff grade AF officer in '51, sent to Paris on Ike's SHAPE/SHAEF staff, and for the next five years, he traveled Europe and N. Africa establishing aviation supply bases, most of which wound up supporting NATO. We were based out of Chateauroux and Ramstein, and he worked in England, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Libya. His counterparts came from Allied countries, and toward the end of the tour, Germany and Italy.

A few years later, first as a traveling CAP cadet, then as a glider pilot, then as a Naval Aviator and sports car racing participant, and finally as a Cambridge Fellow, I made many UK/Euro visits through the '90s and frequently hosted many Brit friends in our US homes, especially 25 years in the DC area. My account is heavily sprinkled with opinions of the RAF officers and civilians we socialized with (some even later in their US assignments) and my personal observations, as a lot of my hobby activities involved former WWII airfields in England. They were especially vociferous about the questionable rationing, excessive government controls, and effectively nationalization of major aspects. I especially recall our RAF friends wearing their WWII uniforms that were mended and threadbare as there were restrictions on cotton and wool.

One key point is that both my personal observations and the opinions of the UK citizens I encountered were not as rosy as Yulzari's opinions regarding the efficiency, motivation, and corruption of the Labour government, and this was frequently reinforced by reports in Stars and Stripes regarding bottlenecks and complications. Most of all, in the snap election of '51, Labour was cast aside in virtually all parts of the Isles, the exceptions being the pockets of manufacturing and labor unions. Churchill's return quickly phased out rationing and was very popular among all I dealt with for at least two decades. ('51 election, with Churchill Conservatives in blue)

fannum said:

Thank you, Yulzari, and for background, my observations are based mostly on personal experience and recollection.

My Dad was a staff grade AF officer in '51, sent to Paris on Ike's SHAPE/SHAEF staff, and for the next five years, he traveled Europe and N. Africa establishing aviation supply bases, most of which wound up supporting NATO. We were based out of Chateauroux and Ramstein, and he worked in England, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and Libya. His counterparts came from Allied countries, and toward the end of the tour, Germany and Italy.

A few years later, first as a traveling CAP cadet, then as a glider pilot, then as a Naval Aviator and sports car racing participant, and finally as a Cambridge Fellow, I made many UK/Euro visits through the '90s and frequently hosted many Brit friends in our US homes, especially 25 years in the DC area. My account is heavily sprinkled with opinions of the RAF officers and civilians we socialized with (some even later in their US assignments) and my personal observations, as a lot of my hobby activities involved former WWII airfields in England. They were especially vociferous about the questionable rationing, excessive government controls, and effectively nationalization of major aspects. I especially recall our RAF friends wearing their WWII uniforms that were mended and threadbare as there were restrictions on cotton and wool.

One key point is that both my personal observations and the opinions of the UK citizens I encountered were not as rosy as Yulzari's opinions regarding the efficiency, motivation, and corruption of the Labour government, and this was frequently reinforced by reports in Stars and Stripes regarding bottlenecks and complications. Most of all, in the snap election of '51, Labour was cast aside in virtually all parts of the Isles, the exceptions being the pockets of manufacturing and labor unions. Churchill's return quickly phased out rationing and was very popular among all I dealt with for at least two decades. ('51 election, with Churchill Conservatives in blue)
View attachment 816567

Click to expand...

I have no doubts that your view is founded upon personal experience and I am no Labour supporter, having voted Liberal* all my life. The Labour government of the day is open to question on competence but the motivation was clear and, whilst personal corruption did exist as it always will in any situation of course, it was not significant.

The motivation was to create a more equitable society and bring strategic industry and services into public control. The country had become perforce a planned economy as an all but total war economy and a ruined commercial economy. The controls made use of the planned economy situation to make as much of the economy etc. as possible into a unified plan. As to whether the decisions were wise or no is another matter. In one term in office it made fundamental changes to the benefit of the people. Rationing continued under the Conservatives but the ongoing progress of the economy allowed them to carry on progressively removing rationing which had already begun. It is surprising how few Labour changes were reversed by the Conservatives and they were in turn replaced by Labour for 12 years.

However it is well outside the remit of the forum to argue about the post war national politics of the United Kingdom so I will not go further and we can return to normal programming.

* for American members of the forum I should explain that the Liberal in the Liberal party is not the same meaning as in the American political lexicon. It's rationale is not to adhere to a political theory but to decide upon matters as is best for each matter and not to manage industry and services etc. but to act as the referee to ensure a level playing field and a dignified safety net for members of society. Hence it's introduction of an old age pension and an advocacy for a national health service, universal education and disability and unemployment support. Leaving industry etc. to find its own way. The Liberal party was founded upon the Whig party and was often termed the Radical party in the 19th century. A leader in parliamentary reform, abolition of slavery, women's votes and free trade.

yulzari said:

I have no doubts that your view is founded upon personal experience and I am no Labour supporter, having voted Liberal* all my life. The Labour government of the day is open to question on competence but the motivation was clear and, whilst personal corruption did exist as it always will in any situation of course, it was not significant.

The motivation was to create a more equitable society and bring strategic industry and services into public control. The country had become perforce a planned economy as an all but total war economy and a ruined commercial economy. The controls made use of the planned economy situation to make as much of the economy etc. as possible into a unified plan. As to whether the decisions were wise or no is another matter. In one term in office it made fundamental changes to the benefit of the people. Rationing continued under the Conservatives but the ongoing progress of the economy allowed them to carry on progressively removing rationing which had already begun. It is surprising how few Labour changes were reversed by the Conservatives and they were in turn replaced by Labour for 12 years.

However it is well outside the remit of the forum to argue about the post war national politics of the United Kingdom so I will not go further and we can return to normal programming.

* for American members of the forum I should explain that the Liberal in the Liberal party is not the same meaning as in the American political lexicon. It's rationale is not to adhere to a political theory but to decide upon matters as is best for each matter and not to manage industry and services etc. but to act as the referee to ensure a level playing field and a dignified safety net for members of society. Hence it's introduction of an old age pension and an advocacy for a national health service, universal education and disability and unemployment support. Leaving industry etc. to find its own way. The Liberal party was founded upon the Whig party and was often termed the Radical party in the 19th century. A leader in parliamentary reform, abolition of slavery, women's votes and free trade.

Click to expand...

yulzari said:

I have no doubts that your view is founded upon personal experience and I am no Labour supporter, having voted Liberal* all my life. The Labour government of the day is open to question on competence but the motivation was clear and, whilst personal corruption did exist as it always will in any situation of course, it was not significant.

The motivation was to create a more equitable society and bring strategic industry and services into public control. The country had become perforce a planned economy as an all but total war economy and a ruined commercial economy. The controls made use of the planned economy situation to make as much of the economy etc. as possible into a unified plan. As to whether the decisions were wise or no is another matter. In one term in office it made fundamental changes to the benefit of the people. Rationing continued under the Conservatives but the ongoing progress of the economy allowed them to carry on progressively removing rationing which had already begun. It is surprising how few Labour changes were reversed by the Conservatives and they were in turn replaced by Labour for 12 years.

However it is well outside the remit of the forum to argue about the post war national politics of the United Kingdom so I will not go further and we can return to normal programming.

* for American members of the forum I should explain that the Liberal in the Liberal party is not the same meaning as in the American political lexicon. It's rationale is not to adhere to a political theory but to decide upon matters as is best for each matter and not to manage industry and services etc. but to act as the referee to ensure a level playing field and a dignified safety net for members of society. Hence it's introduction of an old age pension and an advocacy for a national health service, universal education and disability and unemployment support. Leaving industry etc. to find its own way. The Liberal party was founded upon the Whig party and was often termed the Radical party in the 19th century. A leader in parliamentary reform, abolition of slavery, women's votes and free trade.

Click to expand...

Thank you, and I really appreciate your input.
I'll be the first to admit my input is likely biased, being derived from readings of Churchill, Truman, Eisenhower and Marshall and not Atlee or his cohorts. My father's and my associates were largely military and later techno/aerospace/auto oriented, and less likely to be strong Labour advocates, although in that early period, their opinions were echoed by the civilians I interacted with.
In the '80s when I took my Cambridge Fellowship, I read history ... related to the development of the Germanic states into a sole entity in the 19th century. So again, not a well-rounded view of UK politics. However, perhaps most of faculty and those in other Colleges (I was in Kings) and I had lively discussions at the perpetual wine tastings that kept me well fed and entertained.
I agree that we're pushing the limits of this free ranging forum, and will let it all go ... not in disagreement, but an enjoyable exchange of experiences and education.
Live long and prosper!!

Of interest to this thread is that the RAF disposed of its Liberators (and other types) in the CBI by leaving them in India in a massive scrapyard, having been struck off charge in 1946, and these, or at least 36 went into service with the Indian Air Force. After the Indians finished with them in 1968 most were subsequently scrapped but a few escaped and became museum aircraft. There's One in India, two in the US - one at Pima and I think Kermit Weeks has/had one, one at the RAF Museum and one in Canada, delivered by air.

The RAF Museum's ex-IAF, ex-RAF Lend-Lease Liberator. Note the notice on the side stating it was presented to the RAF Museum by the Indian Air Force.

RAFM 192