11

Everyone Owes Us

Posted by Herb7734 2 months ago to History
71 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It appears to me, that at one time or another, every advanced nation on earth borrowed from us (USA) at one time or another. Let us take, for example some statistics that I came across while reading about World War 2 recovery act, the lend-lease program, which, by the way has never been paid back: The following to (Guess who?) Russia, alone: For four years we were allies against a common enemy and as a result we shipped 100 million tons of woolen and cotton goods, plus fifteen million pairs of leather boots, four million rubber tires, two thousand railroad locomotives, eleven thousand freight cars, fifteen thousand airplanes, seven thousand tanks, all free. Remember, we have never been at war with Russia even when it was the Soviet Union. There was some humor in all this, when Russia requested condoms, all 18 inches long, America sent over several thousand marked "medium." Trump is right when he asks for others to pay their fair share. We are not only the most generous, but the most taken advantage of. nation in history.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by  $  Suzanne43 2 months ago
    Not to mention all the American lives lost in foreign wars. The world will find it hard to live without the generosity of the American people. But the way we are being crushed by Liberalism, it is about to find out.,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 2 months ago
      You are correct, of course.
      One Nation seems to be appreciative though or at least most of it's conscious people. Australia...many Australians have championed or have come here to help us recover the America we know and love because they realize that the world would be a very different place without us.

      They do this in repayment for our saving their butts in WW2.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tripodics 2 months ago
      While I agreed completely with your comment, I was nevertheless surprised when I clicked on the at the "definition" that appeared when I clicked on the word "Liberalism" [See below] !

      Unfortunately, "liberalism" and "liberal no longer communicate the semantic intent of the writer, since these words have been misappropriated and their meaning usurped: nowadays the word "liberal" no longer means the same as "classical liberal" and similar words are more often understood to refer to various shades of statist kleptocracy (e.g. socialism, progressivism, fascism, Democratic Republics, power to the people, etc.) -- rather than conveying their original meaning (i.e. individual liberty, and its various shades such as libertarianism, objectivism, etc.)

      That is one reason why people Dean Russell and John Hospers suggested using a new word, such as "libertarian", to describe what was once intended by the word "liberal". [See http://www.libertarian.li/liberty/ref... or https://www.meetup.com/it-IT/rlc-83/m... ].

      Here is a definition that popped up:
      1. The quality of being liberal.
      2. Any political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed.
      3. An economic theory in favour of laissez faire and the free market.

      Definitions by Grammarly

      And here is another from Wikipedia:
      Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 2 months ago
    I appreciate that countries need to pay us back...boy do they need to pay...but let me point out that 80% of all German soldiers killed in WW2 were killed by Russians. Now to be fair...the frigging Russians invaded Poland as allies of the Germans in 1939. They are as culpable for starting the war as the Germans...also, It really wasn't our war, the only reason we fought the Germans was because Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on us after Dec 7 and we knew that if he controlled Europe.....we would eventually be next.

    Anyhow.....the only people that ever seem to have appreciated the help of the USA are the Koreans. Everyone else seems prone to bite our hand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months ago
      Plus, FDR wanted desperately to go to the aid of his pal, Winston which is why, even though he knew of Japan's prep to attack Pearl, way back in January of '41. he did nothing about it. He knew it would get us into WW2. which he wanted.(You gentlemen will be so kind as to give up your lives -- from from Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
    Well Russia did lose 10 million troops killed and 15 million wounded on the eastern front to distract the Nazis while the US built up forces to land in France. Not to mention all the Russian losses of equipment and military and civilian property as a result. US bases losses were primarily in Pearl Harbor and a few relatively minor outposts.
    US lost about 400 thousand killed and 600 thousand wounded in the entire war against the Axis both Europe and Pacific theatres.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...

    It could be argued that Russia saved Europe from the Nazis although US support certainly helped them do it. That's what allies do. If the scum in Washington got out of the way, an alliance between Americans and Russians would result in substantial colonies in space in a few decades.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 2 months ago
      Your statistics were the very justification for Lend-Lease which was more Give and Forget. In any case, without the Marshall Plan Europe's recovery would likely have taken 10 years longer, not to mention far more hardship and stress. It was , in the long run, to our advantage creating new viable markets and trading partners. Not to mention the Japanese miracle of recovery. I was a first hand witness to that since I was a participant in the camera biz. trade shows and trade organizations as a board member and officer.First the light industries, then (cameras and electronics) then the heavy industries (cars, etc.) The point is no one could accuse the USA of being anything but generous and helpful in putting the war behind us, especially since by any reckoning we were the aggrieved party.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
      I would strongly suggest you read the history of WW II as penned by Winston Churchill. The Russians were not to be celebrated:

      Russia conspired WITH Germany to take over Finland.

      Russia conspired WITH Germany as the Nazis annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.

      Russia ignored the pleas and warnings of Churchill while Great Britain was under siege during the Battle of Britain.

      Russia refused to come to the aid of the United States in combating Japan, yet insisted on being present at the signing of the surrender.

      Russia actively aided in the establishment of communism in post-war Yugoslavia which led to countless atrocities in the decades afterward.

      When Russian troops were within two days of liberating Warsaw, Polish patriots rebelled against their Nazi occupiers in pitched battles throughout the capital. Instead of rushing to aid the Polish, Staling actually ordered the advance to stop while the Nazis butchered and starved over 1/2 the population of the capital. When the resistance leaders gave themselves up on condition that the Nazis allow food to the rest of the population, they were never seen again. And instead of allowing open and free elections as requested by Great Britain and the US, they installed a puppet government in Warsaw.

      Russia actively tried to install a communist government in Greece. Only British intervention stopped them.

      Russia stole millions in pricely art and artwork that they have never given back.

      During the Bolshevik Revolution (led by Stalin), communists executed an estimated 20 million of their own people.

      Russia never paid a penny to Britain for the aid they were receiving even at great loss - and from their own war material stores - from Great Britain.

      And Stalin was the most ungrateful whiner during the entire war - as documented by his entitled attitude in communications between the Big Three.

      Sorry, but you'll not get one ounce of pity for the Russians during WW II. They could have put tremendous pressure on Hitler and stopped him before he ever got started. Instead, they were complicit. It was only when the tide of war nearly broke them that they finally sided with the Allies, but it wasn't because of shared goals - it was out of survival.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheOldMan 2 months ago
        You forgot Poland. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact initiated the division of Poland. And even when the Red Army was pushing back on the Wehrmacht, they paused before going through Warsaw in order to allow the SS to go on an extermination campaign in Warsaw.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
          Yes, I did forget the original division of Poland between Germany and Russia. The second part was listed in detail.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by TheOldMan 2 months ago
            Correct, I missed your excellent description of the second part. The Reds were happy to let the SS clear out the resistance because they certainly did not want anyone around who knew how to conduct clandestine warfare; they already had their preferred Commies ready to take control of the government.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Eyecu2 2 months ago
        Russia looked out for THEIR own best interest, just as we should have been and should currently be doing. Russia started WWII working with Germany and ended against them ONLY because Germany attacked Russia.
        We America NEED to look out for ourselves and to Hell with any who do not support our agenda. The Liberal Left has a Globalist agenda that is counter to this thinking. Sadly the Republicans are only moderately Left of center on the political spectrum, when they should be moderately Right. To make matters worse they consistently compromise on everything. Now I understand that politics is all about compromise but (and I am quoting someone here but cannot remember who) if you want to kill me I can not compromise with you and let you just kill me a little bit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months ago
          When did I indicate that the Russians were to be celebrated? Stalin came mighty close to Hitler. In some ways worse by killing off millions by starvation. Only Kim Jong un comes close.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Eyecu2 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            I never suggested that you indicated that Russia was to be celebrated. All I meant was that Russia looks out for Russia. Which is exactly what America needs to do. If the events mention above were considered through the lens of time and the position of Russia. Those things were what they believed were in their own best interest. Obviously with our positions as Americans and being several years down the road we see things differently. Heck even Kim Jong un thinks that what he is doing is for the best for N. Korea, of course he believes that he IS N. Korea and that all who live there are there for his benefit.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
        Of course the Russians acted out of survival. So did every other country in Europe (with the exception of Germany.)
        Until FDR orchestrated and allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, America was doing the same thing.
        I have no sympathy for Stalin's actions, but Churchill had his own agenda.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 2 months ago
          It seemed as if each leader was looking out for the benefit of their country except FDR. This beloved Patrician could be called a traitor if he was ever brought before a tribunal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 1 month, 4 weeks ago
            FDR Knew through intercepted communications that Japan was planning an attack on the USA in January of '41 but did nothing about it. Had he let Japan know what he knew, many American lives could have been saved.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 4 weeks ago
              If he knew, he would have ordered the biggest carriers to leave the Harbor.
              This happened, but when?
              If they left as a response to a perceived attack, they would have been placed in
              (or repositioned to) positions to intercept the attack.

              In that case the attack would have succeeded, or failed, or been withdrawn.
              Now if the attack plan was known, the presence of the attack fleet could have been verified.
              The attack being successful or not or halted, the head-in-the-sand isolationism would still
              have been squelched. This was Roosevelt's objective.

              On top of that, there is no reliable evidence of "intercepted communications ..".
              My analysis that what happened is consistent with no plans of an attack being known,
              and inconsistent with what would have happened if attack plans were known.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                Two things going on. 1. The Dem promise of no involvement and saving Britain. .Neither not enough motivation for participation. but an attack where Americans were actually killed a "sneak" attack at that worse than 911 using dive bombers and sinking the Pacific Fleet. talk about motivation!!! The very next day FDR gave his now famous "Day Of Infamy" speech and the USA was in it to win it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                  While not having a high opinion of FDR, I do not think he was that bad,
                  I still think the rumors that he knew are are just made up.

                  Anyway, a little off topic- games played for pleasure are ok.
                  A game of tennis or golf or so on can be played without an intention to win. But to enter a war without intention to win is asking for defeat.
                  so when I read your statement ' .. in it to win it'
                  I thought- Yes!. Why then and not now?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                    Read Stinnett's book, Day of Deceit. It covers most of the evidence. Based on my personal contact with someone with a connection to the admin at the time, the "rumors" are not made up. FDR knew in advance and is responsible for the death of those killed at Pearl Harbor.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                      Thank You.The philosophy of revered men such as Churchill and Roosevelt is the lofty expression of what is good for the majority and the collaterall damage done to innocents doesn't matter. Actually that damage is more significant that the death of a hundred bystanders in the sense that the country's very foundation is based on the individual and the freedom of the individual. . Without that, everything else has no meaning.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Dobrien 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                        To sacrifice 1 American life for a "bigger agenda"
                        Or greater good goes against everything I believe USA should be about. Roosevelt basically was saying I am more important than anyone else's life.
                        If the value and protection of the individual and equal creation was our governments purpose
                        The sky wouldn't even be the limit.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Lucky 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                      "Read Stinnett's book"
                      I prefer the refutation by Admiral Young in-
                      http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnet...
                      Young says that Stinnett gives copious references but when read they demolish the case for prior knowledge and conspiracy.

                      There is also-
                      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_H...
                      Easy to read but not well referenced.
                      An assertion that-
                      " . .incredibly clever and competent conspiratorial leadership would sacrifice a large portion of the Pacific Ocean fleet, at enormous military and economic cost, in order to begin a naval war with an already-aggressive Pacific power. "

                      Now, I was wrong in an assumption about the removal of the three carriers-
                      I now know that then carriers were given much less importance than
                      battleships.
                      That view reversed after Pearl Harbor. (Of course)
                      So if they had knowledge of an attack, top command would then have moved the battleships rather than the carriers.
                      Therefore, the advance knowledge case makes no sense.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 3 weeks ago
                        Consider the source. But you can't because you only read a 16 page critique and accepted it without question, and didn't verify its statements.
                        My contemporary source (now deceased) validated Stinnett's evidence to me. The Admiral has a vested interest in supporting the state. He quotes other officers who have/had the same vested interest. This was a scandal of the period. Then, as now, the administration was careful to write its own history to protect the guilty. I can't prove it to you if you choose to believe the sanitized version of history provided by FDR's fanboys.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 1 month, 4 weeks ago
                    Yes, it is hard to imagine anyone using politics for their own benefit especially to the detriment of others, but I can assure you it's true and a common practice among other politicians.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
          So you would excuse Stalin for an agenda that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people - many of them his own citizens - but criticize Churchill? I'd say you have your priorities skewed.

          Between WW I and WW II, there were largely two countries which determined the fate of Europe: France and Great Britain. Russia was too busy exterminating its own people to pay attention until Finland and then it sided with the Germans. France built the Maginot Line thinking that static defenses would protect it even while Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia fell to the Fascists, then they found that when Holland and Belgium fell so too did their left flank. Great Britain and France engaged in appeasement year after year and even after Central and Eastern Europe were conquered by Hitler's Germany. It was only after France was invaded and capitulated and England threatened with invasion that new leadership (Churchill) came to power and by that time it was all England could to do simply survive the Blitz.

          As to your claims about FDR, while I'm no fan of the man, that's a pretty tall accusation and I would call for some significant research to support your statements.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
            No, merely said that Churchill reports based upon his agenda, just as politicians and historians often have.
            You have to go back to WW1 to have insight into Russia's actions regarding Germany prior to the German invasion of Russia in 1941. Russia had no part in the Versailles treaty and had lost 1.3 million sq miles of its territory, and 50% of its industrial capacity, in its treaty with Germany ending its part in WW1. Russia was ill prepared and unwilling to take on and lose to Germany again until they were invaded by Germany. After that they fought and millions died. England and America are indebted to the Russians as a result.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
              "Russia had no part in the Versailles treaty and had lost 1.3 million sq miles of its territory, and 50% of its industrial capacity, in its treaty with Germany ending its part in WW1."

              Uh, that was because Russia signed a treaty giving that all away. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_... and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_.... Because of the infighting resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution, the Russians couldn't defend their borders nor could they pay the German/Austrian alliance their debts. So they ceded territory in exchange. That's not the fault of the British, French, or Americans nor is anything "due" the Russians for these actions.

              Prior to WW II, Russia had been warned by Churchill directly for years even preceding Churchill's crown appointment as Prime Minister. Churchill warned Stalin that Hitler wouldn't be satisfied because even his own nation (Great Britain) had failed to stand up to Hitler before hostilities broke out. Churchill also warned Stalin that the Fascists had no love for the Communists - a fact even Stalin's own ambassador reported back to him on more than one occasion prior to the 1941 invasion.

              Did the Russian Red Army tie up a majority of Hitler's associated forces on the Eastern Front for much of 1942-1944? Yes. And that was Hitler's decision as much as anything else. Hitler hated communism even more than he hated the British. And if Hitler had left the military to prosecute the war, they very likely would have taken Stalingrad, driven through to Moscow, and ended Russia's participation in the war right there. His decision to attack Stalingrad in winter with supply problems and a force consisting of second-rate troops was a huge military blunder and it cost him the war. It was the very disaster that would have happened to the British if not for the miraculous evacuation at Dunkirk of more than 400,000 of Britain's front-line forces.

              I would also point out the extreme efforts both the US and British went through - with zero compensation - to keep Russia in the war at all. Without the arms and supplies sent by the British at great loss of life and from their own war stockpiles to Archangel, Russian didn't have the equipment or raw materials to prosecute the war. There was also the supply line running through Iran and the Black Sea - again courtesy of the British (with American supplies) - pushing materials through for that portion of the front. British Spitfires and Hurricanes and American Sherman tanks were fighting on Russia's front lines.

              I think the facts very much dispute the notion that Russia is "owed' by either the US or Britain for its efforts in WW II - especially in light of their early behavior in the war to side with the Nazis.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
                No point in continuing a discussion where you don't read what I write, and just create what you want to argue against, all the while contradicting one argument with another. Not worth my time.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
                  You contended that the rest of the world owes Russia for their efforts during WW II. I debunked that argument in great detail. What you wrote was factually inaccurate in many instances. I even provided sources. The truth is what the truth is: that it is inconvenient to your argument/narrative is not my problem.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
                    You debunked nothing. You misunderstood everything I posted and then acknowledge only history of WW1 that supports your argument. Waste of time trying to discuss when you already know it all. Now on ignore,
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months ago
                      If you think you have been misunderstood, then tell me where or how that misunderstanding has been propagated. Don't just call names or complain: do something proactive to further the discussion. Provide me with some facts to show me what I'm missing. Show me how I'm misinterpreting the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Show me how the Russians would have prevailed against the Germans without the supplies from England and America. Show me why Russia's behavior (supporting Hitler) from 1938-1941 can be so easily ignored. Even more, show me why Russia's behavior from 1945-1948 can also be ignored (when Russia was creating the Soviet Bloc).

                      I'm looking at the entire balance sheet - not cherry-picking individual accounts. I invite you to do the same.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months ago
          FDR did not orchestrate or deliberately allow the attack on Pearl Harbor.

          Churchill's "agenda" was the survival of England against the Nazis, trying to get us into the war to help.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months ago
      Us hooking up with Russia to build colonies in
      space?! What a horror!!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
        Why? You think their gangsters are worse than the ones running the US from DC and NY?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months ago
          Of course I do. At least the USA is not a totalitarian state (yet).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 2 months ago
            I understand. If you dropped the DC gang into Moscow with knowledge of Russian language and customs they would do just fine although the competition would be significant.
            However, in my view, it was the USSR that kept the DC gang contained. When the USSR failed the gang was free to oppress the people of the US. A space controlled by the DC gang would be just as bad as one controlled by any other dictator. The only relief is that space is big enough for liberty to continue somewhere, but we have to get started colonizing. Continuing to have petty disagreements with Russia (and others) on Earth wastes the resources that can advance exploration of space and a re-ignition of individual liberty and free markets.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 1 month, 4 weeks ago
        Don't you know that upon entering space all humans become brothers and sisters? Love will permeate those tiny spaces and no one will wind up sabotaging anyone. But be alert just in case that the remote possibility of conflict may happen.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 2 months ago
    I recommend you read "Creature from Jekyll Island"...our own politicians have been complicit in the transfer of wealth out of the U.S. for decades...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 2 months ago
    My father was a Merchant Marine Chief Engineer during WW2 on a number of liberty ships and victory cargo ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean in partial to full convoys. U Boats were hunting them. Those American built ships were loaded with rolling stock, rails and timber to Murmansk, Stalin was able to rebuild the Soviet Union rail lines that were destroyed by the Nazis.
    They owe us big time. Maybe, Putin should be reminded about that part of history of WW2.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rhfinle 2 months ago
    Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard that the only country to come to our aid, since the Revolution, was Mexico, which sent troops in to assist our National Guard after Hurricane Katrina. It makes you wonder who your friends are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo