World War 2

[johnmacadam]

During WW1, the british used their foreign currency reserves to loan their allies money to fight the war. After ww1 all sides were financially exhausted and the British never required their allies to repay, on the grounds that they did not have the money, even though they suffered the worst financial losses of all the allies. After ww2, the US was alone among the allies in not being broke, in fact they emerged financially stronger. They required repayment from the British almost immediately. Loans were which finally paid off in 2007. It took 62 years to repay. The requirement to repay the americans was part of the financial problems which meant it was years before rationing was ended in Britain, well into the 1950s.
The bankrupt nature of Britain and the US requirement for repayment mean the British were not just a threat to the US in post war years, but were forced to withdraw from their empire(not necessarily a bad thing), but effectively on terms dictated to by the US. For example when the British couldn't afford to assist Greece, the US stepped as part of the Truman doctrine.

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

[Thorne]

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

Well it seems that the worm has turned and the US financial dominance is coming to a close. But with "outstanding" contributions such as "American Idol", "Survivor" and "The Simpsons" we should remain near the top culturally!

[gagged_Louise]

During WW1, the british used their foreign currency reserves to loan their allies money to fight the war. After ww1 all sides were financially exhausted and the British never required their allies to repay, on the grounds that they did not have the money, even though they suffered the worst financial losses of all the allies. After ww2, the US was alone among the allies in not being broke, in fact they emerged financially stronger. They required repayment from the British almost immediately. Loans were which finally paid off in 2007. It took 62 years to repay. The requirement to repay the americans was part of the financial problems which meant it was years before rationing was ended in Britain, well into the 1950s.
The bankrupt nature of Britain and the US requirement for repayment mean the British were not just a threat to the US in post war years, but were forced to withdraw from their empire(not necessarily a bad thing), but effectively on terms dictated to by the US. For example when the British couldn't afford to assist Greece, the US stepped as part of the Truman doctrine.

What I'm saying is that the US used the war to destroy not just their enemies, but weaken their allies and make themselves dominant in the post war period. They extended their dominance from the Americas to the whole world.

Interesting, I've heard it the other way around: that the US wrote off a substantial part of the debts its allies had incurred during WW2, because it was obvious they could not be fully repaid. In any case, inflation during the decades after WW2 would have eaten up a huge part of the debts. And the US did organize the Marshall Aid Program, which helped rebuild Britain and Western Europe and never had any requirements of refunding.

You're right though that the war did mean the US established itself as a Superpower in the Old World, and that cooperation with Britain and France (de Gaulle's Free French Forces) wasn't always as smooth as it may look in retrospect. But the British Empire had never fully recovered from the First World War - it was bigger in 1930 than twenty years before and had better communications, but it was weaker, less cohesive, less sure of itself, less rich in terms of what the Empire brought to Britain (counting off what it cost to keep the whole thing going).

[Thorne]

I would imagine that both stories have some element of truth in them. The European politicians could have used the story of the US calling in it's debts as an excuse for their failure to deal with the post war inflation, while the US politicians could blame the write-off of the debt for the same reasons.

There are two sides to every story, of course, and history is always subject to interpretation. In the US, Patton was a military genius who struggled against every other general on the Allied side in order to gain recognition and Montgomery was a posturing fool, while the British praise Montgomery for his remarkable achievements while denigrating Patton as a boor.

The truth is that both sides are partially right. Patton was a boor, but a great soldier. Montgomery was rather caught up in his own mystique, but was also a great soldier. They both were critical to the war effort. And both sides are probably partially right about the war debts.