Ask and you shall receive:"Miller, Jeffrey" wrote:Do you have a link on that. The financial side of the war is the only thing I'm not able to find.... Didn't we have a resident expert on the WWs on this list? Hey, are you out there?Actually, IIRC (having recently read Rise & Fall of the 3rd Reich) the program was run at a loss, financially speaking.-----Original Message----- From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 02:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: UK dossier on IraqJon Gabriel wrote:By what I understand of your reasoning, the US should have waited until it was directly attacked by Germany before entering WWII ....Eh... as far as I know that is exactly what the US did, it minded it's own borders. They did some supplying to the Brittish before they entered but undoubtably made a neat profit in the process.
Lend-lease was created in March 1941 because by that time, Great Britain and the other Allies were running out of funds with which to purchase weapons and other assistance from the U.S. Nearly 51 billion US (1940's dollars) was dispensed to over 40 countries including the Soviet Union (after Hitler attacked.)
That translates to over 600 billion in 1994 dollars (the date of my reference book).
As for running at a loss, several countries provided the U.S. with what was called reverse lend-lease, goods, equipment, and in the case of Great Britain, naval bases. The approximate value of this was about 10 billion, which leaves a deficit of 41 billion. It is important to remember that nearly all the money involved was spent in the U.S. Still, Lend-Lease was as Churchill put it, the most unselfish act of any country in history.
john
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
