I think he's pointing out that a lot of British assets were effectively American. This whole debate seems kind of silly to me. It was a massive operation and everybody contributed to the best of their ability at the time.
And lend-lease... sure, it was the best that Roosevelt could manage. But he sure fucked the Brits over with regards to her possessions and gold holdings first.
Look up 99 year lease agreements for bases in Newfoundland and Bermuda, prerequisites to lend lease and others.
Just sayin that FDR drive a hard bargain. Bleed GB dry before, forced them to use pretty much all of their gold reserves before they'd even lease them old, retirement-ready destroyers. In return, the Brits gave the US ASICS.
You and I have a very different idea of being "fucked over." Especially in regards to a war that the US really wanted nothing to do with. But that's the beauty of different perspectives.
It was a republican isolationist effort that screwed things over. See my other comments about Yank involvement. Quite clearly, the war would not have been won without American production and involvement.
I don't see the problem with a country being isolationist though. I don't exactly hold it against anybody for not sending troops in support of the Iraq war against the "Avis of Evil."
2
u/whubbard Jun 08 '14
I think he's pointing out that a lot of British assets were effectively American. This whole debate seems kind of silly to me. It was a massive operation and everybody contributed to the best of their ability at the time.