Talk:Lend-Lease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lend-Lease bill[edit]

I remember seeing something about lend-lease now having been recently paid off in full? But I can't find any reference to this atm. Does anyone else remember this? Morwen - Talk 18:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I too thought that but according to the one source I could find it won't be paid off till 2006. adamsan 20:32, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I have ventured to make two changes:
I have deleted the reference to lend-lease being known as lease-lend in the UK - as a Briton I have never heard this, and anyone looking at Roy Jenkins's recent biography of Churchill or at the contemporary Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War will see that they both use the term 'lend-lease'.
I have removed the reference to lend-lease having started at the beginning of the war. I suspect that Americans sometimes forget that the war was over a third of the way through by the time they (thankfully) entered it; and lend-lease came in - at the critical height of the Battle of the Atlantic - in May 1941, getting on for two years after the outbreak of war.
Mark O'Sullivan 16:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The book 1940: Myth & Reality by Clive Ponting suggests that the numbering of the bill (HR 1776) was deliberately meant as an affront to the British. Anyone confirm that? Cromis 00:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)



Important Question[edit]

One thing that is exceptionally nagging here...is whether the United States asked the Soviets to pay them back? I mean OVER ONE BILLION Dollars in machines and equipment is an excessive amount of money especially during the Second World War when the international economy had just barely recovered from the Great Depression. Did the Soviets ever pay back the US? I don't thik they would considering what went on during the cold war, but I think its an exceptionally important question that doesn't seem to be answered, although it is obviously hinted at.--Persianlor

I suspect the Soviet (and perhaps now Russian, Ukrainian etc) response might be something along the lines of reminding the rest of us how many casualties they took when they were fighting virtually alone in 1941-43. Also, this 'aid' was very much in the interests of the USA. The huge economic demand for heavy industrial output is precisely what ended the great depression....so this was a boon to the USA. DMorpheus 17:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It was always understood there would be no repayments for Soviet goods. Note that Britain also supplied large amounts of munitions to Russia free. Rjensen 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, according to my source, the opposite was true, and the Soviet Union worked out a payment agreement with the United States in 1972. My source is the Columbia Encyclopedia.--Ggbroad 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
So did the Soviets pay back the US back after the war?Seansmccullough (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes slowly, though they made a large final settlement in the 70's when they needed to import food from the West due to a famine. WatcherZero (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Date Discrepancy[edit]

The introduction and the article state that Lend-Lease ended on 1945-09-02. The introduction states that this date was V-J Day, but the V-J Day article clearly states that V-J Day was 1945-08-15, nearly a month earlier. If Lend-Lease aid was ended "suddenly," as I have read in many places, this date discrepacy needs to be corrected. When did it end, September 2, or August 15? An explanation and/or correction needs to be made. -Iamthealchemist 21:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Correlli Barnett in the The Lost Victory he says: In the event, it was just a week later, on 21 August, that President Truman announced the ending of Lend-Lease. - p. 4. Some websites also claim the same date as the immediate ending of Lend-Lease [1], [2], [3].--Johnbull 22:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the announcement of the ending may not be the actual ending. For example, items which were already in transit may have been delivered a few days later. I changed the text of the article from ending "on" VJ day to "soon after". StuRat 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point and thanks. I think this clears the issue up, and the article reads much better with the revision. I was originally drawn to this issue when I was trying to find a date for the announcement of the end of Lend-Lease because the history text I had on hand (Jackson J. Spielvogel, Western Civilization, Comprehensive vol. 5th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth Learning, 2003.) states, "From the perspective of the Soviets, the United States' termination of Lend-Lease aid before the war was over and its failure to respond to the Soviet request for a $6 billion loan for reconstruction exposed the Western desire to keep the Soviet state weak" (page 798, my emphasis). Spielvogel cites this as one reason for the deterioration of Western/Soviet relations leading to the Cold War. The date was omitted in the text (which I am finding could be because the text is erroneous), even though the date would have indicated much about the decision. Coming after the war had ended, the decision did not necssary carry a negative message, as Spielvogel seems to argue. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? -Iamthealchemist 20:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Soviets forced several European countries to denounce Marshall's plan participation. Poor SU, always a victim. Xx236 13:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call not getting free stuff from the US as an "act of aggression". StuRat 04:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The date for New Zealand termination was December 1945 (see my External Link to the official war history "War Economy") in the article, although New Zealand was actually in credit for 1944-55, with "Reverse Lend-lease" items. PS The USSR was offered participation in the Marshall Plan (though there were conditions for particiption) too! Hugo999 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Support of mass crimes[edit]

The NKVD obtained part of Lend-Lease equipment. E.g. US trucks were used to deport hundreds of thousands of Chechens and Ingush. Xx236 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, but the americans did not gaved the russians the trucks with the condition that they should ethnic cleanse the soviet union. Therefore, what you say makes no sense, my guess is that they would had used any other truck at the time. I dont mean to be mean here, but the russians did knew how to build their own trucks...


Citation of source[edit]

The fact tag was removed from the 'significance' section on July 15. I am citing David Glantz and Jonathan House, When Titams Clashed, ISBN 0-7006-0717X, p. 150. DMorpheus 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Gift, not to be Repaid[edit]

I removed this claim on the following grounds: regardless of the precise terms of repayment, I think that the word "gift" is probably misleading. Lend-Lease was sent to the US Congress, debated by the US Congress, and subsequently passed by the US Congress on the assumption that while it gave the President broad powers to sell, transfer, exchange, lease, or lend military hardware to Great Britain (and subsequently any power engaged against the Axis states) that it was not to be understood as a "gift", that is, military hardware would subsequently be paid for or returned. Moreover, it's certainly true that Roosevelt himself took his pound of flesh in exchange for the Act. I quote David M. Kennedy, "Freedom from Fear", p. 473. "...to counter isolationist criticism, Roosevelt reasoned, Britain must be seen to have exhausted all its dollar resources before receiving American aid. The administration made a particular point of requiring Britain to use her remaining dollar reserves to finance the capital costs of the plant expansion necessary to service her future war orders...Roosevelt seized some British assets and compelled the sale of others" (goes on to describe British South African gold reserves picked up by a US destroyer, Britain's American securities sold off in New York, Churchill's assertion that with Lend-Lease, "we are not only to be skinned, buy flayed to the bone."

I could be wrong about this, but that is my reading of the sources that I have at hand. --Ggbroad 14:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my own comments above, the actual text of the act states that repayment was to be "in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory." So this would suggest that some manner of repayment was anticipated, though admittedly the wording gives rather broad latitude to the President in this regard. --Ggbroad 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That wording allows almost any interpretation. A satisfactory indirect benefit could be as simple as continuing good diplomatic relations after the war. I don't know enough about the topic to say what did turn out to be satisfactory. WLD 14:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The "repayment" was a technicality required by US domestic politics before Pearl Harbor. At first repayments came in the "lease" part whereby Britain gave the US Navy leases (access) to British ports. Later it was in-kind services (like the "rent" for air bases the US used in England.) Finally the "lease" part was dropped and so was the "lend" part. Note that when LL was abruptly ended in summer 1945, a huge amount of goods were in transit. These were landed in Britain and the British agreed to pay cash for them (at a heavily discounted price.) That explains the payment details in the article (which I think should be dropped). Rjensen 15:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now the opening statement goes to the other extreme, and claims that Lend-Lease was given in return for land for military bases. This is at best a vast oversimplification, and at worst simply untrue. Russia received massive Lend-Lease but denied requests by the U.S. to base aircraft on Russian territory.

Confusion about some figures[edit]

The article states: "The value of the items to be lent were not to exceed $1,300,000,000 in total. Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain on 30 October 1941." And yet the total value reached $50 billion. Moreover, according to my source (Kennedy's "Freedom From Fear" p. 474) Congress appropriated $7 billion for aid to Britain initially.--Ggbroad 15:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


"Lease terminology"[edit]

The article states: "During the war Britain did lease some small naval bases to the U.S., hence the "lease" terminology." I do not believe this is correct - the act was not called "Lend-Lease" because Congress predicted some future lease of British bases, it was because under its terms military equipment would be leased to the UK and other Allies. Ggbroad 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


The solution for handling Churchill's request for destroyers and establishing a pattern for providing additional aid for the British came from outside the administration. The Century Group, which was a division within William Allen White's Committee to Defend America, suggested a simple formula of exchanging ships for bases. The United States would lend the destroyers to the British in exchange for leases to strategic bases in the Atlantic needed for the defense of shipping routes. The quid pro quo nature of the deal appealed to Roosevelt and made him confident that Congress would find it acceptable. Secretary of State Cordell Hull signed the agreement on September 2, 1940. This original "lend-lease" arrangement not only solved an immediate problem, it provided both the inspiration and the name for the massive foreign aid program that would follow.Brocky44 07:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WIKISOURCE LINK[edit]

I added a link to the lend lease Acts that are over on Wikisource.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 02:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the precise discount and amount of the loan/debt?[edit]

The article gives two values on the discount given on the sale of goods in transit. In the section Finances, it says:

(Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a 75% discount, or $650 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.)

and in the section Repayment, it says:

These items were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out over 50 years at 2% interest,

Which is correct? In addition, the actual size of the loan/debt is stated by Hansard to be £1,075 million, which doesn't agree with the statement in the Finance section of $650 million. By the way, I've re-added the Hansard quotations back in, as they are good primary sources. WLDtalk|edits 15:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As of 2007-03-28 the article is still inconsistent. Hansard is pretty much a primary source, so should be correct: the figures given elsewhere do not appear to have solid sources and should probably be amended or removed. WLDtalk|edits 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
the question is whether all the details about the repayment are especially important in dealing with a WW2 program. A couple sentences should cover this--without worrying about the day of the week the cheque was written. Rjensen 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That's your view of what should be in the article. It is not necessarily shared by everyone. Note that the issue remains - the precise size of the debt is not clear from the article, and that at least should be accurately portrayed, which is currently not the case. The quotations from Hansard (the document of record for British Parliamentary proceedings) give a solid source for both the size of the debt and the repayment terms, which are not detailed elsewhere, and which have been subject to considerable misunderstanding and misapprehension. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper (please read that essay). Rather than deleting well-sourced text, there's a good case to be made that perhaps it should be moved into a separate, more detailed article. My view, which is different to yours (obviously) is that the additional detail on the loan should be in this article. I see no case for deleting it, and a possible argument for inclusion in a separate article. It would be useful if you would quote an excerpt from Kindleberger showing the figures, and possibly determine Kindleberger's sources. WLDtalk|edits 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If the issue is so important put it in a separate article. Wiki editors have to make judgments about the balance of treatment in an article: what is the optimum balance for users? Normally we do not use long excerpts from Hansard --we just summarize them and link. A separate article is the easiest solution. Mty point is that this was tidying up after the Lend Lease program ended.--it's basically a different issue. Rjensen 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your judgement and mine are different. Getting the facts right as to the size of the debt is important for the article's credibility, and having the two values of: '75% discount' and 'about 10 cents on the dollar' is not acceptable. The Hansard quotations are a good way of providing an attested overview of the repayment terms, which were, and are the subject of great confusion. Repeatedly deleting well-sourced text is not a good way of improving articles. I have refrained from deleting text that is not well sourced in the hope that it will either be improved or properly sourced. From the context given in the article, it appears that Kindleberger is incorrect, and that needs sorting out. I'll request again that you excerpt the relevant passage from Kindleberger - not necessarily in the article, the talk page is fine, and we can investigate and resolve the discrepency. WLDtalk|edits 10:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

locomotives[edit]

"For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war." Well, that´s the biggest nonsense I´ve ever read. Germany built more than 6,000 type 52 locos between 42 and 45 and the much larger USSR can get anlong with just 2,000 new locos? In a war that results in the loss of much rolling stock and causes god-knows-how-much additional traffic? I don´t know how this number got in the article, but it´s just absurd. Markus Becker02 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

R.J. Overy's Russia's War states that Soviet output of locomotives was "just 92" (p197). I think we should find an additional scholarly source and then correct the figure. So, 20 appears to be wrong. But it's not that wrong.--Ggbroad 14:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if only 20 locomotives were produced by Russia during the war or not, like you say the low number seems a little hard to swallow. I have read however that there were about 14,000 locomotives in Russia after WW1 so one should also take into account how many locos Russia may of built and imported during the inter war years and how many they may of had at the start of WW2. Brocky44 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

92 is also absurd. The distances are way too huge to get along with so few new locos. The distance from the polish border to the Ural is the same as the one from the Spanish-French border to eastern Poland and the really huge part of the USSR is east and south of the Ural. By comparing the size of the territory one can conclude they had to make even more locos than Germany. Just to replace the peacetime wear and tear would require the production of thousands of new locomotives over the years. As far as the number of locos at the start of the war is concerned it has to be a lot bigger than in 1914, because of the massive industrialisation during the inter war years. Industrialisation means transportation and than meant the railroad, even in non communist countries. Unless someone can come up with a figure that makes sense or get confirmation from a russian scource we better don´t refer to locomotives at all. Markus Becker02 16:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


I understand that you beieve, intuitively, that it's absurd that only 92 locomotives were produced in the Soviet Union during the Second World War. I think, however, that you may be seriously underestimating the damage the war inflicted on Soviet industry and the extent to which the Soviets relied on Lend-Lease for certain kinds of aid. In any case, I've cited a source by a very highly esteemed historian of the Second World War who has said that only 92 were produced and, moreover, his source is a Russian one: B. Sokolov's "Lend Lease in Soviet Military Efforts" which appeared in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies in 1994. I've changed the article to say 92. Before the figure is removed, it is - according to Wikipedia rules - up to you to provide a reliable source countering those claims.--Ggbroad 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to follow up on my own comments above, I just checked John Barber and Mark Harrison's excellent The Soviet Home Front 1941-1945. Harrison is certainly the top English-language scholar of the Soviet economy. Anyway, Barber and Harrison don't mention locomotive production specifically, but they do mention that "daily shipments of railway freight fell to one-third of prewar level." (p185). So, more and more the picture adds up. --Ggbroad 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I just sent some email to a few russian universities. Let´s see if they come up with something. Markus Becker02 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone wishes to mention that only 92 locomotives were built in USSR for entire war, it is noteworthy to first find figures for how much it allready had before the war, so that lend lease does not look so significant (which it wasn't). Otherwise it looks like USSR was supplied almost all locomotives by USA, which is not true.99.231.63.253 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov, January 2.

Then please add those figures, but please do not remove cited facts that help place the info in perspective. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet pre-war stock of Locomotives was 25,000-30,000 (depends on source) and they had 600,000 rail cars. The 2000 LL Locos and 11000 railcars were not even shipped until mid 1944 and thus they had little effect on Soviet rail movements.

Lend Lease - A Final Nail in Britain's Coffin[edit]

Although the U.S. would like the Lend lease plan to be considered the benevolent act of a concerned friend of Britain, in reality it was a shrewd business deal that was designed purely for the defence of the U.S. In the years leading to the war, and even more so in the early stages of the war, Britain was virtually transferring all her accumulated wealth, dollars and gold to the U.S. because of its need for machinery ,tools, etc. which the British could not produce themselves, either quickly or in sufficient quantities. The U.S made no attempt to alleviate Britain's difficulties and in fact saw it as a golden opportunity to humble British power.

When Britain was down to her last few million dollars (and because owing to previous agreements forced on her by the U.S. regarding the quantity and type of naval ships Britain could produce, Britain was extremely short of warships), the U.S. government offered her 50 outdated, mothballed ships. In return for this "generosity" she demanded territory from Britain that would be very useful to her. The U.S. knew that Britain was desparate but this didn't stop her trying to "screw" every last cent out of her. Britain managed to save some face by offering the territory for U.S. use if she she wanted to do so. Under the terms of Lend Lease Britain was not allowed to export any similar item to those goods that comprised any part of the lease plan. American inspectors were based in Britain to carefully scrutinise this arrangement. No such restrictions were placed on the soviets. It was better for America to arm British and Empire troops to fight than to send American boys to their deaths in a European war.

Thus Britain became a warrior satelite of the U.S., her power and influence effectively destroyed forever, somethig which satisfied a long-held ambition of the U.S. Britain mistakenly believed the U.S. shared feelings of kinship with her when in reality the U.S. merely saw her as a rival to be bested whenever possible. The U.S. emerged from WW2 immensly wealthier and more powerful whereas Britain was permanently broken and reliant on American goodwill, which after the war was not in great abundance toward her.≈≈≈≈81.145.240.81 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see somebody's been reading Correlli Barnett. :)--Johnbull (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we can analyze states within the framework of competition and selfishness. It's not really something to get passionate about, however. 70.144.90.132 (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The truth about Britain's coffin[edit]

The above entry is a very interesting read and that is about it. It is one very disturbed point of view. If you read your history and apparently this guy has not. The US basically gave this material at $0.10/ on the USD value 1945, you must be joking when you state the US had another motive, they could and did have the right to ask for full payment but didn't. Do you know anyhting about interest rates?? at 2%, this was a gift. As for the territory, you view is again wrong. The US didn't demand anything. Britian offerd a long lease on territories close to the US for Defense, these included Caribbean, Newfoundland and Bermuda, all of which were given back, but during the time the bases were active, these facilities provided defense, security and income to these island nations. During the War ,It gave the right to America, to build and hold bases there for defence and for the protection of the convoys heading to Britian. Britian, did not have the ships, aircraft or man power to protect these islands. You got somthing for nothing and it the US worked for it. You must also understand, that Britian declared war on Germany, not having the money to back up there word and or intent. Please try understand you cannot compare the Britain to the Soviets, ( Britain 31 billion and USSR 11 billion) Britain also was not in a position to tie dowm 4,000,000 Germans on the eastern front and lose over 20 millions of its own people, during the war. As for the good will, the lend lease was not the first time the US had to bail out Britian. As for the time, Britain had just been defeated in France and they had just left all there equipment on the beaches in Dunkirk, which they did not have the money to replace. So I would asked that in relation to the history of this event, please know you facts, before writting a very distorted view of a very benevolent nation. As for Britain, you cannot blame the US for Britains money problems, as it was there choice. Finally,Read up on the loan the US gave Britian during World War I, as all payments were stopped in 1934 and have never been repayed. on todays value it is also in the billions.Jacob805 (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless i have missed something, there is no mention of the length of time the USA has access to British Bases? Is it to be in perpetuity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by High king of ireland (talkcontribs) 02:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Germany's Moral Liability for Repayment[edit]

Just a naive thought: As the UK's Lend Lease debt was solely incurred to fight German tyranny, should the repayment of this debt ultimately be borne by Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.132.223 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they tried that after World War I. It didn't quite work out too well. --71.172.37.93 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make it a bad idea, just an unsuccessful one. Xyl 54 (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ethically yes, probably, but they never will. Harland1 (t/c) 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the premise of the question.Historian932 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition in US?[edit]

The Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act article has the following intriguing statement "By March 1956, it was being said in Washington, D.C. that the amount of correspondence on the bill exceeded anything seen since the previous high-water mark of public controversy, the Lend-Lease Act of 1941". This controversy does not seem to be discussed here, which seems an omission. 84.92.241.186 (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Aid to USSR[edit]

I've come across the statement elsewhere that about half of all the lend-lease aid to the USSR went from the US west coast via Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian railway. Does anyone know anything about this? It seems surprising, given that the US was at war with Japan for most of that time; American ships would have had trouble on the journey, surely? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

From Collins Atlas of World War II edited by John Keegan (2006) ISBN 10:0-00-721465-0 on Convoys to the USSR: in 1943 “the important American convoys to Russia via the North Pacific and Bering Strait to Nikolayevsk were maintained”. The map shows Soviet & US/Soviet convoys from the American West Coast to Alaska and to Vladivostock, Nikolayevsk & Sovetskaya Gavan]]. Nikolayevsk-on-Amur does not have a rail connection, so I suppose material would have gone by ship to Vladivostock (the Baikal Amur Mainline to Sovetskaya Gavan was completed post-war).
I have added links to the “Voice of Russia” website re Lend-Lease. Hugo999 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
I found a book (Comrades in Arms by Jean Beaumont) with some detail on this. Apparently after Dec 1941, as Japan and the Soviet Union weren’t at war with each other ( and wanted to keep it that way) the Japanese didn’t interdict soviet vessels on this route, though some were sunk unintentionally and the Japanese seemed to have searched them for contraband/war materiel, so only food and raw materials were transported. And only soviet ships could be used; a plan to use US ships under the Soviet flag came to nothing. Also the route only got into high gear after the end of the Aleutian campaign in 1943.
In addition, Brian Garfield’s book The 1000 Mile War describes the air ferry route to Siberia via Alaska.
Xyl 54 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The transportation of the lend-lease aid to the USSR through the Pacific route is also discussed in the memoirs of Anastas Mikoyan:
The goods were transported on Soviet vessels. They were occasional detained by Japan, but as the USSR and Japan were not at war, they were not seized.

Lend Lease versus Destroyers for Bases Deal[edit]

This article states in the introduction that the British gave the USA bases in return for lend lease, however in the main body of the article it says this was actually the earlier, separate Destroyers for Bases deal. One of these statements (the introduction or the main body) is wrong it seems. I'm pretty sure it is the introduction. --Shimbo (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quantities of goods delivered to Soviet Union[edit]

Why has the detailed table of US deliveries to the USSR been removed? It's still present in the Russian article, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.59.81.56 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Intro sentence[edit]

'This program is not seen as a decisive step away from American non-interventionism since the end of World War I and towards international involvement'. Is this really meant to be in the negative? I would have thought that it would be seen as a decisive step. Harland1 (t/c) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Far more money for today's dollar[edit]

The article claims that the dollars are 14 more than in 1945.I don't agree.Then a brent of oil had price low than US$1 and an onze of gold had a price of less than US$40.Today a brent of oil costs more than US$130 and an onze of gold is more than US$1,200.We must also remember that gas, diesel oil,etc. were under then under rationing in United States.Land-lease gave more than 395,000 trucks to former Soviet Union, between 1941 and 1945.The american help for England, former Soviet Union would be to hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money. Agre22 (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)agre22

Who payed the bill?[edit]

The main article states "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped"... Is it known how these billions were financed? Who gave the money to pay the bills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.128.90 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


The American taxpayers. 71.101.133.40 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in cash, it was the cash value of the supplies given. As it was in the posession of the United States Federal Government before it was transferred to countries through Lend-Lease, then it can be safely assumed that the money through with the US government acquired said supplies would be through US taxpayer dollars. Also, it's "paid," not "payed." Nottheking (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Trucks[edit]

The statement "Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built." is completely false. USSR even during the war built more trucks itself than it got from LL. It also ignores the more than a million trucks it started the war with as well as the thousands it captured from the Germans. The correct phrasing should be that nearly 2/3s out of trucks at the frontlines were U.S.-built. This was because they were newer models which made them better able to handle offroad or poor roads as well as being a bit more reliable overall. Away from the frontlines however USSR had 4-5 times as many trucks again as in the frontline and those were almost entirely not LL models. 217.208.225.55 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Policy really changed by Hitler?[edit]

Isn't it a little overdramatic to state that:

"Hitler recognized this and consequently had his submarines attack US ships such as the SS Robin Moor, an unarmed merchant steamship destroyed by a German U-boat on 21 May, 1941 outside of the war zone."

Is there any direct evidence that Hitler himself personally ordered a change in policy? (as opposed to, for example, a simple case of misidentification by the submerged u-boat? If this really was a sea-change in policy [no pun intended] there would have dozens if not hundreds of such incidents throughout 1941 i would think, based on the number of transport ships and German submarines in the Atlantic. Also the fact that this attack was predated by an American destroyer on a German submarine calls this narrative into question (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II):

"The first time Americans engaged in hostile action after September 1, 1939 was on April 10, 1941, when the destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat that had just sunk a Dutch freighter. The Niblack was picking up survivors of the freighter when it detected the U-boat preparing to attack. The Niblack attacked with depth charges and drove off the U-boat. There were no casualties onboard the Niblack or the U-boat."

Iow, at least one German u-boat had already been attacked by a U.S. warship. Does this automatically mean that FDR ordered his navy to wage war on Germany?Historian932 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor background history[edit]

This is an article about Lend Lease --it is not the place for speculation about World War II. in particular it is not the place for bad history -- such claims as "the people of Great Britain were alone in their struggle against Nazi Germany." That of course is false, as the people of Canada, Australia and other dominions were in the war against Germany too. Industry in the United States was supplying the British war effort. The problem by early 1941 was that the British were running out of money to pay for their war supplies, something had to be done on the financial side. Canada in fact gave a gift of $1,000,000,000. The United States set up a financial program--Lend lease--to continue the shipment of war supplies that had already begun, along with other arrangements such as destroyers-for-bases, the provided war supplies without the use of British money. Rjensen (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if my most recent contribution to this article, which contains factual material supported by solid references, was not immediately edited to the point of near removal. The paragraph with which it was replaced is certainly more concise but in my view a little dry as a consequence. The purpose of the Historical Background section I created was to provide readers with a sense of why the Lend Lease law was proposed and why both President Roosevelt and the American people were sympathic to the idea of providing material aid to Great Britain. I really don't think that giving some factual background about what the British were up against during the "Battle of Britain" can be considered a "Pro-British" POV. ColonelDavy (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Colonel Davy

Facts, Not Speculation or Bad History[edit]

Nothing I have presented in the Historical Background section can be accurately termed "speculation." It is a fact that the Luftwaffe bombed London and other English cities. It is also a fact that the RAF was credited by Churchill as the only thing that held off a German invasion. The Churchill quote is factual as well. It is also a fact that President Roosevelt and most Americans were sympathetic to the British. This is hardly speculation so I don't see how it can be cast as "bad history." It is true that I originally erred in not including the fact that the Commonwealth nations were assisting the British but it is also true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., were not being bombed by the Luftwaffe. That is what I meant by "struggling alone." ColonelDavy (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)ColDavy

it is a fact that Lend lease came long after the Battle of Britain was won and had little to do with it, so we drop that stuff. to include it would falsely suggest that LL was a response to that. It was not. It was a response to the British financial difficulties. At the time of the Blitz, the Americans were selling large quantities of war supplies to the British. it is bad Wikipedia policy to make these long-winded assertions with no reliable sources. It is bad history to not mention the isolationist movement in the United States. it is biased history to present the history of the lend lease solely from the perspective of London in 1940, rather than London and Washington (and Berlin and Ottawa) in 1941.Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I concur and agree that the earlier edits emphasize the British background, in contravenance of WP:WEIGHT. The introduction of a different citation and referencing system also needs attention. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

Characterizing my contribution as speculation and bad history is not the sort of constructive criticism I thought I could expect from my fellow contributors. It is true that Lend-Lease did not start until after the so-called "Battle of Britain" was over in October 1940 but the law was proposed and passed by Congress during the subsequent "Blitz," which lasted well into 1941. As for the supposed "weight" of the section, I think we need to remember that we are talking about verifiable events that occurred in Britain, not British opinions about what happened. I did retain most of the paragraph that mentions American isolationsists. I have also cited the NYTimes for my mention of American preparations for war. I really don't understand how this contravenes any WP rules. ColonelDavy (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

Wikipedia rules require reliance on secondary sources -- reliable sources of bound by serious scholars. None of them have been used by ColonelDavy. He did not look at any books in American history. LL was a financial program, that enabled American factories to continue to sell their production to Britain after that country was virtually broke and could no longer pay for its urgent needs. American business was already selling war supplies during the blitz-- and supposed sympathy for the hard-pressed victims of the German air assault played a very minor role in the decisions of corporations and banks to fund the shipment of war supplies. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You may do what you like with this section. I don't really care any more. ColonelDavy (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

You have to understand that writing an encyclopedic article can't be written in a "pop" style; stick to connected, supported statements. The idea that Britain was being pounded by Luftwaffe attacks, subjected to a U-boat campaign and that it stood alone against the Nazi hordes, is just not factually correct and smacks of sensationalism. I have to agree with Rjensen in his concerns that the paragraph has to be revised. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk: For the sake of conciseness, I have already edited the paragraph to take out the parts that you and Professor Jensen deem "sensationalist." But I have to say that I am thoroughly astonished by your claim that the Luftwaffe's bombing of England, the German U-Boat campaign against Great Britain, and so on is not factually correct. I don't know where you learned history but how you hold that well-documented facts such as these are neither connected nor supported by evidence is beyond my comprehension. I have seen for myself some of the World War II bomb damage that still remains on buildings in London. Are you also a Holocaust denier? ColonelDavy (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that the details of the bombing or U-boat war are not factually correct, it's just that adding the obvious is unnecessary. BTW, 10 books, hundreds of academic articles published, editor of a magazine on the subject of aviation, 17 films and the appointment as an Air Force Historian, your credentials again? FWiW, don't throw around accusations, you are already in breach of WP:CIVIL. Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk: Your credentials are impressive but in your previous statement you very clearly said: "The idea that Britain was being pounded by Luftwaffe attacks, subjected to a U-boat campaign and that it stood alone against the Nazi hordes, is just not factually correct and smacks of sensationalism." Now you are saying that you didn't say that. I see now that it was you and not me, who took out the parts about London being bombed, etc. but that's okay, although I disagree with your position that these facts are obvious to all Wikipedia readers. Many young people, not just scholars like yourself, rely on this site. They may not be as informed as you. As for my credentials, I am a college history professor with a Ph.D. in Transatlantic Studies who may not be able to match your list of accomplishments but I am no fool either. BTW, I did not accuse you of anything. I merely asked a question. In any event, as I said in my message last night, I am growing weary of this exchange so you won't be hearing any more from me after this, at least not on this topic. In closing I would just like to add a suggestion: In future, instead of making assumptions and pompously attacking another contributor, why not try to be more tactful and offer some suggestions for rewording in a positive tone? In short, it is not what you and Professor Jensen have said but the unfriendly way you said it that I have found a little hard to take. ColonelDavy (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)ColonelDavy

How specific do you want to go, the Luftwaffe undertook an extensive bombing campaign of British capital cities that essentially ended in September 1940, followed by interdictor raids in the months following and leading up to the V-1/V-2 "terror" campaigns. Using the terminology of "pounded" was the contentious issue. Britain and other nations including Canada and the United States were the targets of the U-boat "wolf packs" on the high seas, although the intention as you stated was to starve the United Kingdom by denying needed supplies by seagoing vessels. Stating that Britain was essentially alone is fine but it was not the only combatant nation facing Nazi Germany in 1940–1941 as many other occupied nations continued with governments-in-exile. Introducing the old canard of "only a question" is tantamount of an accusation and how did the holocaust became entangled in any of these discussions? Both Professor Jensen and I have not made any accusations and had been tacitly undertaking a discourse, outlining concerns of content as much as style. You applied the WP:BOLD stratagem, received some criticism, wherein the WP:BRD was invoked. The article did not suffer from a review nor attention by three interested parties and if you take your leave, bear in mind, I bear you no ill will. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Having read through the Lend-Lease article and talk page to inform myself on a subject about which I had no detailed knowledge, I hesitate to intrude in this rather hotly argued section, but I was puzzled by Bzuk's assertion above that "(the) bombing campaign of British cities essentially ended in September 1940". The German bombing up to that point was essentially a daylight campaign against RAF Fighter Command's airfields in an attempt to neutralise FC before the planned invasion of Britain. When German losses became too great, they switched to first daylight then night terror/strategic bombing of cities throughout the United Kingdom, this finally tailing off by June 1941. It is true that to say that Britain did not stand alone while supported by other British Empire countries, but the British homeland did bear the brunt of German attacks until the Germans turned their attentions to the Mediterranean area and to the USSR.Mabzilla (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Tizard Mission[edit]

Surely the technological advances made by British scientists and offered to the United States by the Tizard Mission in exchange for financial and industrial help deserve a mention? For instance, the official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores." Yet apparently none of this intellectual property counted against the British debt to the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabzilla (talkcontribs) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Shipped to France"[edit]

I think the lede may need a little clarification. Given that France was under Axis occupation/Vichy control at the time of the start of lend-lease, our lede seems somewhat confusing. Was lend-lease matériel delivered to free-French forces, or was it delivered to France after liberation, or both? Perhaps someone with access to the relevant sources and/or the knowledge to find them can clear this up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

yes, it was Free France and I changed it. Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada[edit]

Why does Canada take up 10+ paragraphs in this article? It's not even mentioned in the opening, unlike China, which is then never mentioned again. And the article specifically says "Canada did not use a term like "lend lease" but it did give Britain gifts totaling $3.5 billion during the war". So, why the crap is it being discussed in an article called (a term exactly like) "lend lease"? Is there a line in the arachnid article stating "lobsters do not have 8 legs but they do have 10"? It seems like Canada had nothing to do with Lend-lease but someone felt excluded and shoe-horned Canada into the article. Thedoorhinge (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Canada had a major program that was quite similar in function. It is the functionality in terms of historical events, rather than the terminology, that is important.Rjensen (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems odd to me that Canada is given its own section when it did not participate in Lend-lease. This is not to say Canadian aid was unimportant, but dedicating an entire section on top of paragraphs about return lend-lease (which again, Canada did not participate in) seems unneeded and confusing. --Level3Sentry (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
the Canadian program could not be called "lend lease" for political reasons, but it operated in very similar manner and was a key part of the Allied effort. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to expand the current Canadian aid section. Canada paid cash for American equipment, so that shoehorned text under 'Reverse Lend-lease' isn't just confusing but factually inaccurate. There were neither loans nor leases involving the US. --Level3Sentry (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Canada did participate in Lend Lease under The Hyde Park Declaration. The problem arose that under the early and pre war economic model Canada purchased tools from the US to manufacture goods for the UK they were paid in British Pounds which they could then convert in to US Dollars. This ensured a two way balance of payments flow. However when Lend Lease kicked off with a buy only in USA dollars clause British currency was being diverted to the USA bypassing Canada and so they wernt receiving enough foreign currency to pay for the imports from the USA required to support their own wartime and domestic manufacturing needs. This Declaration allowed US financing to be used for the purchase of Canadian manufactured supplies for the UK and committed the USA to buying $200-300m of Canadian manufactured arms to even out the balance of payments.

http://wartimecanada.ca/sites/default/files/documents/WLMK.HydePark.1941.pdf WatcherZero (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the article could do better at explaining the collaborative nature of the Hyde Park Declaration and the political reasons Canada could not accept Lend-lease. Also, if the scope of the article is to include the Canol project should equal space not be given to the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, or other significant projects facilitated by Canadian aid?
"Because of its close relationship with the United States, however, Canada could not accept lend-lease without jeopardizing its national sovereignty to a politically unacceptable degree. The problem was side-stepped through the Hyde Park Declaration, announced jointly by the Canadian Prime Minister and the President of the United States on 20 April 1941. Its general purpose was to promote economic collaboration between the two countries in the realm of defence and to provide additional assistance to the United Kingdom in doing so. Through its provisions American goods and materials imported by Canada but intended ultimately for use by Great Britain could be brought across the border under the Lend-Lease Act. This interlocking of American lend-lease and Canadian aid to the United Kingdom considerably eased Canada’s balance of payments, without threatening her sovereignty."[1] --Level3Sentry (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Value of materials[edit]

added table of values of US aid translated from German wikipedia

The Soviets[edit]

US and UK didn't control the usage of deliverd goods, some of which weren't used (a tire plant) and some of them were used by NKVD to committ crimes against humanity Chechnya (Russo-Chechen Conflict, 1800-2000: A Deadly Embrace). In 1945 some of the goods constructed post-war imperialistic power of the SU.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose to add NKVD used Studebaker trucks from Lend-Lease during the expulsion of Chechen and Ingush people during which tens of thousands died. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
not a good idea. It's irrelevant to this article. Rjensen (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, you decide here. But why? Becasue you don't like US help for Soviet genocides?Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The FDR's agenda was - Let's deliver everything they want and don't ask any questions.
How were the Soviet engineers trained to serve foreign hardware? Did they obtain manuals in English or Russian? Were there any contacts with the Soviets possible?Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The US goal was to defeat Germany. It did not send observers to watch every truck or check the contents of material printed on Lend Lease mimeograph machines or written using Lend Lease pens. Rjensen (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Termination[edit]

Finding it surprising the end of this lend lease program is not included. I've seen references to its sudden end (by Truman) yet not the reasons / background for the end. If it's provided elsewhere, perhaps reference to that location at least could be added? Meanom (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC) Meanom (I rarely edit - so any errors on my part likely due to inexperience. TIA)

link to my user page (as it isn't yet showing as a live link): —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hatch, F.J. (1983). Aerodrome of Democracy - Canada and the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan 1939-1945 (PDF). Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Centre. pp. 82–83. ISBN 0-660-11443-7. Retrieved 1 September 2016.