This whole comment skirts around the issues i mention in my comment while also garnishing it with praise for tangential acts the US did during the war.
Yes the US were rather generous DURING the war. My comment never says otherwise, but its the Post-war actions of the US that I mention. You even try to gloss over this with your line
The combined food board stopped in 1946, which certainly didn’t help, but the Labour government
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
The UK (but more especially France) spent more time repressing the German economy post-war
Almost like Germany was the agressor and loser of a horiffic war and decimated UK industry in the process or something.
Then there was the Marshall Plan
Which is you read your own link:
which means an increase in GDP growth of less than half a percent.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
Or to start the conversation that had the US joined the war earlier there would not be as much of a need to rebuild these countries.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
Basically, your view is quite biased and aims to paint the US as charitable saints instead of war profiteers.
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
The US didn’t withdraw food support - it was just reorganized and curtailed somewhat. In terms of the Labour government’s culpability, there were a variety of worker’s strikes - including dock workers - that resulted in tons of meat and fish going bad. The Labour government eventually ordered the Army to break the strike.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
No - the loans were issued then. The lend-lease was basically entirely forgiven. The loans always had a 5 year grace period.
The UK was bankrupt. You got loans from the US, Canada and others that you wish were gifts to stay afloat. At absurdly good rates - and additional aid in rebuilding from the Marshall plan.
you’ll see did basically nothing.
A half percent of GDP growth. It was 3% of the GDP of the countries. Did nothing is highly debatable.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Probably not the reason you had to ration in 1953 still, and I’m not sure what betrayal you’re referring to.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
This was netted out from the lend-lease that was forgiven. You also got to keep all the equipment for rebuilding.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Do you have examples of this?
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
You make it sound like the UK was bankrupt because of their own mismanagement. They were basically repelling an invasion for years while being the USA’s stepping stone into the European theatre.
Acting like it’s noble to build up the country of the destroyed enemy, but not assist the ravaged ally in the same way is really odd.
We did assist that ravaged ally after, with an emergency loan with a very low interest rate, and the UK was the largest beneficiary of the Marshall plan dollars.
France was #2.
I don’t know where this revisionist animosity is coming from, but it’s not reflected in reality.
This whole comment skirts around the issues i mention in my comment while also garnishing it with praise for tangential acts the US did during the war.
Yes the US were rather generous DURING the war. My comment never says otherwise, but its the Post-war actions of the US that I mention. You even try to gloss over this with your line
which goes straight into some classic whattaboutism that you dont even directly describe, just trying to throw the blame to the labour government to diminish the impact of the US withdrawing food support.
And then on top of withdrawing that support they wanted repayments for loans started immediately after the war and had to coerced into a 5 year grace period so the UK could attempt to gather up the funds.
Almost like Germany was the agressor and loser of a horiffic war and decimated UK industry in the process or something.
Which is you read your own link:
you’ll see did basically nothing.
Then thats not even going over things like the US betrayal on technology sharing, specifically on nuclear programs and jet technology.
Or to cover the reverse lend lease project.
Or to start the conversation that had the US joined the war earlier there would not be as much of a need to rebuild these countries.
Or had the US not spent the early 20th century undermining the UK at every turn, the UK would have been in a much better position financially at the start of the war.
Or about how post war the US used its financial power over its European allies to dictate their foreign policy to the benefit of the US.
Basically, your view is quite biased and aims to paint the US as charitable saints instead of war profiteers.
The US didn’t withdraw food support - it was just reorganized and curtailed somewhat. In terms of the Labour government’s culpability, there were a variety of worker’s strikes - including dock workers - that resulted in tons of meat and fish going bad. The Labour government eventually ordered the Army to break the strike.
https://pasttense.co.uk/2017/01/08/today-in-londons-transport-history-100s-of-drivers-in-road-haulage-strike-1947/
No - the loans were issued then. The lend-lease was basically entirely forgiven. The loans always had a 5 year grace period.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-nazi.4042453.html
The UK was bankrupt. You got loans from the US, Canada and others that you wish were gifts to stay afloat. At absurdly good rates - and additional aid in rebuilding from the Marshall plan.
A half percent of GDP growth. It was 3% of the GDP of the countries. Did nothing is highly debatable.
Probably not the reason you had to ration in 1953 still, and I’m not sure what betrayal you’re referring to.
This was netted out from the lend-lease that was forgiven. You also got to keep all the equipment for rebuilding.
Do you have examples of this?
Do you have examples of this?
You make it sound like the UK was bankrupt because of their own mismanagement. They were basically repelling an invasion for years while being the USA’s stepping stone into the European theatre.
Acting like it’s noble to build up the country of the destroyed enemy, but not assist the ravaged ally in the same way is really odd.
We did assist that ravaged ally after, with an emergency loan with a very low interest rate, and the UK was the largest beneficiary of the Marshall plan dollars.
France was #2.
I don’t know where this revisionist animosity is coming from, but it’s not reflected in reality.