Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The worlds second strongest navy (vanity)

Posted on 05/29/2012 2:10:46 AM PDT by moonshot925

What do you think?

The Royal Navy and French Navy are similar in size.

Royal Navy (4 SSBNs, 7 SSNs, 4 assault ships, 7 guided missile destroyers, 13 frigates and 24 patrol vessels and 170 aircraft)

French Navy (4 SSBN, 6 SSNs, 1 CVN, 4 assault ships, 12 frigates, 16 patrol vessels and 208 aircraft)

The French Navy has a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Also take the Russian Navy, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force and People's Liberation Army Navy into consideration.


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 05/29/2012 2:10:59 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

The PLAN. If not now, then 2-3 years from now. Royal Navy heading into the toilet. Hard to believe it was the world’s strongest navy for hundreds of years. Also, do you realize how large & well-equipped the Canadian forces (Army, Air Force and Navy) were in World War II?


2 posted on 05/29/2012 2:25:36 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What’s hard to believe? When we had the world’s largest navy we also had an empire funding it that included a full quarter of the world’s land surface and a full third of the world’s population. During WW2 our American Allies did everything they could to ensure that when the war ended, as much of our remaining empire as possible was gone and so now we are back to being a small island with 60m people.

Howabout you try funding the US navy only using the eastern seaboard and see if you still get to buy everything you want?


3 posted on 05/29/2012 2:39:06 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
After that sequestered half trillion is taken out of the defense budget the USN may be 2nd.

Both pubbies and dems voted for the damn thing (though none of the pubs from MY state did)!

4 posted on 05/29/2012 2:40:12 AM PDT by Happy Rain ("If an Evil be politically correct--none dare call it Evil.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There is no logical reason for Canada to have a large powerful army.

The US won’t let anyone else attack Canada, for obvious reasons.

For even more obvious reasons, if the US ever decided to attack Canada, no conceivable Canadian force could do much to even slow it down.

So what would be the point of having a powerful Canadian military?


5 posted on 05/29/2012 2:40:23 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

That was done under the guise of ending colonialism and neo-colonialism, something your Fabian/Laborites had no problem with, as I’m sure you know. We were then under FDR and his wife, the closest thing to Fabians we’ve ever had, until today. Those decisions were made at the SIS Building, Thames House and the Royal Institute for International Affairs as much as they were at Foggy Bottom, San Francisco and the Harold Pratt House. It’s now known that both governments were infested with communist agents and sympathizers, including the vice president before Mr. Truman, Henry Wallace.


6 posted on 05/29/2012 2:59:24 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
For even more obvious reasons, if the US ever decided to attack Canada, no conceivable Canadian force could do much to even slow it down.

Winter.

It's a force to be reckoned with at that latitude, especially from Alberta to Manitoba.

But I'm not sure why the US would conceivably want to attack Canada, unless it had been invaded and the invaders were posing a threat.

7 posted on 05/29/2012 3:05:24 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I wouldn’t put the PLAN up there just yet. I think SSNs are the key to a powerful navy, because they are the vessels that will kill the other side’s ships. The Astute class coming into service now is the most advanced in the world, and most importantly, the most stealthy. The Chinese SSNs are by many accounts very noisy in comparison and would not survive as long in a real shooting war...


8 posted on 05/29/2012 3:18:58 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Doesn’t the PLAN have some quiet diesels?


9 posted on 05/29/2012 3:20:10 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe; Sherman Logan

Also, the Americans would be facing the mother of all insurgencies in a vast landscape with a citizenry were gun ownership is almost as common as it is in the US....


10 posted on 05/29/2012 3:21:06 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They don’t use pump-jet propulsion, so the only way they can stay quiet is by not moving. Their sonars are based on early 90s technology. Not great when faced with opponents that can move faster and more quietly and with more advanced sonar tech...


11 posted on 05/29/2012 3:31:12 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan
Also, the Americans would be facing the mother of all insurgencies in a vast landscape with a citizenry were gun ownership is almost as common as it is in the US....

And some of them are exceedingly good with them.

About half of my wife's kinfolk were up there when the governments settled on their border, and there are still considerable numbers on both sides. Being able to shoot well is a family tradition (on both sides of the family).

12 posted on 05/29/2012 3:32:26 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Demographically, Canada is shaped much like Chile, except running east/west along the US border in a band only a few hundred miles wide. Almost nobody lives in the frozen North.


13 posted on 05/29/2012 3:33:52 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Oh yes, I know exactly why it was done and by whom, but it doesn’t change the fact that what we could afford when we had the largest empire the world had ever seen, we can’t afford now.

Considering we’ve had 13 years of financially disastrous labour government to recover from, it’s amazing we’re bringing into service some of the world’s most expensive and advanced naval hardware such as the Daring class, Astute class and the Elizabeth class carriers, both of which it appears will now go straight into service with the F35B on.

Personally I think we’re doing pretty well to be fifth most powerful in the world currently and I expect military spending to increase again once we have a Conservative government in place of the current coalition one and our deficit is reduced significantly.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

And at least we do use our forces, unlike many european countries who do nothing or send token support.


14 posted on 05/29/2012 3:36:16 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
We have knifolk as far north as Yellowknife. Far enough...

We get enough of the cold weather in North Dakota...

15 posted on 05/29/2012 3:38:26 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Vast but empty. Almost nobody lives in most of the country.

http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif


16 posted on 05/29/2012 3:39:21 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

Technically, we are richer in absolute terms than we were when we had an empire and could certainly afford more. However, we have come far from the days when the public cried ‘we want eight and we won’t wait’. Spending on defence is not a vote winner and the budget is shaped accordingly....


17 posted on 05/29/2012 3:55:04 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The PLAN. If not now, then 2-3 years from now. Royal Navy heading into the toilet. Hard to believe it was the world’s strongest navy for hundreds of years. Also, do you realize how large & well-equipped the Canadian forces (Army, Air Force and Navy) were in World War II?

Canada was fighting Hitler for TWO YEARS before the US was sneak-attacked into WWII.

18 posted on 05/29/2012 4:13:44 AM PDT by Does so (....... Justice Scalia just turned 78 .........==8-O ............They don't think ... they PLOT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’m not so sure. The PLAN is not very good in the feilds of logistic support, technology and training. It has 1 aircraft carrier, 15 destroyers, 50 figates, 50 SSKs, 9 SSNs and no SSBNs. The DOD estimates that 5 Type 094 are under construction.

I think Taiwan and Japan have stronger navies than China.


19 posted on 05/29/2012 4:38:24 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

“During WW2 our American Allies did everything they could to ensure that when the war ended, as much of our remaining empire as possible was gone and so now we are back to being a small island with 60m people.”

We lended you $31.4 Billion from March 1941 to August 1945 under Lend-lease. This is during a time when your GDP was $30 Billion in 1939.

35 American escort carriers were transfered from the US Navy to the Royal Navy from November 1942 to August 1944. Bririan only produced 6 escort carriers during the entire war.

We lended another $3.3 Billion to you from 1947 to 1951 to rebuild. Why did we lend you money during a time of need? Was it a mistake?


20 posted on 05/29/2012 4:38:30 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

We could easily deafeat Canada.

Canada only has 35 million people. The USA has 314 million.

80% of the Canadaina population lives within 60 miles of the US border.


21 posted on 05/29/2012 5:14:28 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

Leaving aside SSBNs, and aircraft carriers (and the French CV capability is pretty limited) it’s the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, hands-down - it’s not even close.


22 posted on 05/29/2012 5:35:39 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Because at the current direction America is going Canada will soon be on it’s own.

JB


23 posted on 05/29/2012 5:48:27 AM PDT by thatjoeguy ( Hulk... SMASH!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
I’m not so sure. The PLAN is not very good in the feilds of logistic support, technology and training. It has 1 aircraft carrier, 15 destroyers, 50 figates, 50 SSKs, 9 SSNs and no SSBNs. The DOD estimates that 5 Type 094 are under construction. I think Taiwan and Japan have stronger navies than China.

First of all, Taiwan does not have a stronger navy than China. Not even close. The current Taiwanese navy couldn't really stand up against the current Chinese navy (and against what the Chinese are currently building for the future it is even more of a joke comparison). The Taiwanese are fielding obsolete submarines because no country is willing to sell them modern D-E boats, and their current strategy is to rely on fast-attack missile boats armed with supersonic missiles to try and buy a day or three.

By the way China does have SSBNs. It has had one Jia class in service since 1981, and 2 or 3 of the new Jin class boats since 2010.

As for the PLAN not being good in logistics I think it is important to note that a prudent service prepares not only for what the probable enemy is capable of now, but also what the probable enemy will be capable of in the future. The Chinese, a scant 10 years ago, wouldn't have been able to do an amphibious assault against Taiwan. They couldn't be able to replenish at sea, or perform missions far away from home base. The Jia I was referring to above (there were originally two, and one apparently/allegedly was lost) was not even leaving base. In the last 5 years the Chinese have jumped leagues from where they used to be, and they are currently engaged in anti-piracy duties (read: training missions) far from base.

Anyways, to answer your original question, pound for pound the Japanese Navy is the second strongest after the US. Sure, it may not have the number of vessels the French, Brits, Russians and/or Chinese have; and they also do not have any vessels that are nuclear powered or carry nuclear weapons; but their vessels are quite advanced. The South Koreans also have some advanced vessels (their AEGIS class is arguably the 'best'), but they don't have the numbers of the Japanese. My number two in terms of pound for pound would be Japan, while my number two overall for now would be the French (like the Brits, but far more likely to use their weapons compared to the Brits, contrary to all the silly and dated 'wussy French' tripe one finds).

However, the clear future number two is easy ...China. By 2025.

24 posted on 05/29/2012 6:31:58 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

JH ping.


25 posted on 05/29/2012 6:46:11 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

the PLAN is still primarily a coastal defense navy given a 300nm coastal zone. this means their ships are supported by land-based aircraft and ground-based SSMs. while they are weak in blue water power projection, this combination makes for a serious defensive position.


26 posted on 05/29/2012 7:24:28 AM PDT by bravo whiskey (If the little things really bother you, maybe it's because the big things are going well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bravo whiskey

Exactly. From such a base they can progressively expand their envelop.


27 posted on 05/29/2012 7:37:32 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

The Taiwan Navy is good but not better than China. My mistake.

However, i think the South Korean Navy is stronger than the Chinese Navy due to advanced American missiles and radars.

2 Sejong the Great class destroyers and 4 more planned
•1 x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
•1 x 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
•1 x RAM Block 1 CIWS
•4 x 4 SSM-700K Hae Sung anti-ship missiles
•80-cell Mk 41 VLS SM-2 Block IIIB/IV
•48-cell K-VLS 32 x Hyunmoo III land attack cruise missiles
•16 x K-ASROC Red Shark in (VLS)
•2 x 3 K745 LW Blue Shark torpedoes

6 Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class destroyers
•1 x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun
•1 x 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
•32-cell Mk 41 VLS SM-2 Block IIIA
•8 x Harpoon anti-ship missiles

3 Gwanggaeto the Great class destroyers
• 1 × OTO Melara 127 mm (5 inch)/54 gun
• 2 × Signaal 30 mm Goalkeeper CIWS
• 2 × quadruple Harpoon missile canisters
• 1 × Mk.48 mod2 VLS with 16 RIM-7P Sea Sparrow missiles
• 2 × triple 324 mm (12.8 in) torpedo tubes (Mark 46 torpedoes)

9 Ulsan class frigates
•8 x Harpoon (2 quadruple launchers) Anti-Ship Missile
•6 x 324 mm Blue Shark torpedo (2 triple tubes)
•2 x Otobreda 76 mm/56 Gun
•3 x Otobreda 40 mm/70 (2 twin) compact CIWS


28 posted on 05/29/2012 8:01:06 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

The Swiss Navy.....never defeated in battle.


29 posted on 05/29/2012 8:16:06 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

The US Navy is more powerful than all the worlds Navies combined.


30 posted on 05/29/2012 8:21:14 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va; moonshot925
The US Navy is more powerful than all the worlds Navies combined.

Depending on how technical one wants to be, the 11-12 most powerful navies in the world are American. The 'second place' competition is actually for number 14 or 15. That's the blessing you as Americans have - it is up to you to maintain that deep legacy or watch it waste away.

31 posted on 05/29/2012 10:08:01 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
My number two in terms of pound for pound would be Japan, while my number two overall for now would be the French (like the Brits, but far more likely to use their weapons compared to the Brits, contrary to all the silly and dated 'wussy French' tripe one finds).

My second stage comparison (after numbers of ships in each class) of: "where is the weakness?" downrates the French on the basis of anti air warfare capabilities.

Only 4 ships, and only two of them state of the art (the 2 others being effectively Charles F Adams equivalents). That's not an effective force.

To answer the original questiom, my "Who's got the ships" spreadsheet says there are 3 second level navies (PRC, Russia, Japan), and on the basis of technological level, I'd have to give the Silver to Japan, despite being the smallest of the three, no SSNs, and only being a Self Defence Force, not a Navy.

32 posted on 05/29/2012 11:06:40 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Was the world better off with Imperialism? I believe it was. In Africa average life for a male was 55 years—now its 35. The idea that ending the great Empires would usher in a new era of democracy hasn’t panned out—only replaced colonial administrators with tin horn dictators.


33 posted on 05/29/2012 11:20:04 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; Smokin' Joe; Sherman Logan

I’m not convinced that Canada has the depth of the warrior spirit that America has. It seems to me that Canada depends on it’s tiny percentage of warriors to give it glory and a token defense, but that it is just barely large enough to maintain an illusion.

Texas produces about 20% or 25% percent more military personnel annually than the entire nation of Canada does.


34 posted on 05/29/2012 11:49:29 AM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP now goes for it's Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925
I think you underestimate their grit.

Don't confuse military superiority with the ability to defeat someone. We have been through that before.

The people who live out in the boonies would be a lot more labor intensive than the city folks.

All silliness aside, considering we import more oil from Canada than the Saudis, I think it is to our mutual benefit to keep things friendly.

35 posted on 05/29/2012 12:43:48 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

A few summers ago I was on a small day cruise heading from Seattle to Victoria.

As we pulled into the harbor it was announced that on the starboard side, a “GU-11 was about to land on a Canadian carrier”.

Heading to the other side I remember thinking: Canada doesn’t have any carriers!

I got there just in time to see a seaGULL join the rest of the flock on a piece of driftwood floating in the water.


36 posted on 05/29/2012 3:04:14 PM PDT by proudpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Having looked at the figures, I can’t quite see how we are ‘richer in absolute terms and could certainly afford more’.

Our current deficit is greater than all our previous deficits added together.


37 posted on 05/30/2012 2:59:06 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

“We lended you $31.4 Billion from March 1941 to August 1945 under Lend-lease. This is during a time when your GDP was $30 Billion in 1939.

35 American escort carriers were transfered from the US Navy to the Royal Navy from November 1942 to August 1944. Bririan only produced 6 escort carriers during the entire war.

We lended another $3.3 Billion to you from 1947 to 1951 to rebuild. Why did we lend you money during a time of need? Was it a mistake?”

Of course it wasn’t a mistake. The US loaned that money and sent that equipment so we could fight our common enemy. It was in America’s interest that we kept fighting and it was a loan, not a gift which we have now repaid with interest. Likewise the UK sent gold and Spitfires to Russia so they could keep fighting, but like you, we did so because it was in our interest to do so.


38 posted on 05/30/2012 3:05:34 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

Our per capita income (including purchasing power) is higher the reason for the deficit is because of ridiculous levels of welfare spending, which wasn’t the case back in the day. If we weren’t paying so much money to bribe the poorer end of the electorate (and even the better off, who cannot perceive the amount being robbed from them in taxes compared to how much they are receiving in benefits and healthcare), we would have plenty of money to spend on defending the realm and its interests...


39 posted on 05/30/2012 4:19:44 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan

Indeed, but we are paying off all that welfare spending, so we can’t afford more for defence. I’d prefer it to be different, but it isn’t.


40 posted on 05/30/2012 4:23:07 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

If we had genuine austerity, it would be possible. The wealth and the means of wealth creation is there, it is just accounted for by other things. An overdrawn millionaire still has access to more cash than a solvent working joe...


41 posted on 05/30/2012 4:36:42 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

Lend-lease was a GIFT and I will explain why.

$31.4 Billion of euipment and materials were sent to the UK from the USA under Lend-lease from 11 March 1941 to 29 August 1945. After the war it was decided that the UK would pay some loans to the USA at a 2% interst rate. From 29 August 1945 to 29 December 2006 a toal of $7.5 was paid from the UK to USA inculding interest. The UK only paid for 23% of what it recivied. The rest was written off by USA.


42 posted on 05/30/2012 5:26:13 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

“Lend-lease was a GIFT and I will explain why.”

Lend-lease wasn’t a gift and I will explain why. When lend-lease started Britain stood alone fighting the Nazis whilst America shrugged it’s shoulders and said ‘nothing to do with us that european war’. You gave us equipment to fight when you would not. British soldiers paid for that equipment in blood. When you did join the war, you sent us more equipment so we could fight and help you win the war. Just the same when we sent tanks and fighter aircraft to Russia, we didn’t get paid for them, but the Russian soldiers who died killing our enemies paid for the equipment in blood.

Much as we appreciated that equipment, it was sent to help the US, the fact that it also helped the UK was secondary, just as when we’ve done it for other countries.

The little clue that proves this to be fact is the full title of the act that was signed into law on March 11th 1941, “An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States”. Not to help our allies, but to defend the US. There’s nothing at all wrong with that, but please don’t try to spin it into anything else.

The cash was paid back in full with interest in 2006.


43 posted on 05/30/2012 6:29:12 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

“British soldiers paid for that equipment in blood”

Yes but the US Army paid in blood as well. In November 1944 there were 2.6 million American troops on the western front and 0.95 million British/Canadian troops. That means 73% of the allied troops on western front in November 1944 were American.

“The cash was paid back in full with interest in 2006”

Like I said, only 23% of it was paid back from the UK. The rest was written off.


44 posted on 05/30/2012 9:11:34 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

“Yes but the US Army paid in blood as well. In November 1944 there were 2.6 million American troops on the western front and 0.95 million British/Canadian troops. That means 73% of the allied troops on western front in November 1944 were American.”

I never suggested anything else, nonetheless lend-lease was created to defend America, not Britain. Between 1939 and December 1941 pretty much 100% of the troops were British and commonwealth. . . . . .

“Like I said, only 23% of it was paid back from the UK. The rest was written off.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215847.stm


45 posted on 05/31/2012 2:20:52 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Caulkhead

“I never suggested anything else, nonetheless lend-lease was created to defend America, not Britain. Between 1939 and December 1941 pretty much 100% of the troops were British and commonwealth. . . . . .”

You are right about that. After the fall of France the UK and Canada were alone and defended fought the Battle of Britian. However the United States was not really neutral before Pearl Parbor.

On March 11 1941 FDR created lease-lease to give materials and equipment to the UK and China.

On June 14 1941 FDR ceased all German and Italian assets in US banks.

On October 23 1941 USS Reuben James was sunk by U-552 killing 115 American sailors.

What don’t you understand? $31.4 Billion worth of equipment and materials was given to the UK in WW2. $7.5 Billion was paid back over 612 years. That is only 23%. Alsol, the Marshall Plan debt and WW1 debts were never paid back.


46 posted on 05/31/2012 3:18:58 AM PDT by moonshot925
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: moonshot925

“What don’t you understand? $31.4 Billion worth of equipment and materials was given to the UK in WW2. $7.5 Billion was paid back over 612 years. That is only 23%. Alsol, the Marshall Plan debt and WW1 debts were never paid back.”

They were given so we could fight for America. Read the title of the act. You don’t give a man a shovel when he offers to clear the snow off your drive and expect him to buy the shovel as well do you? You sent the tools we did the dirty work.

The cash was a loan and that was paid back.


47 posted on 06/01/2012 3:56:23 AM PDT by Caulkhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson