Suff wrote:Hmmm, I should have put that more directly.
It wasn't so much "lend lease" as Germany was trading with the US companies before and even after the entry of the US into WW2.
Far from the state of play today where US companies can be severely punished for breaking US sanctions, the laws of "non intervention" did not stop companies supplying both sides, more that the US state itself did not supply direct military aid to either side. Had they been serious about non intervention, they would not have allowed US companies to trade through "neutral" countries with Germany.
Also it's useful to note thatHis fellow American, the historian George Herring just as candidly wrote that lend-lease was not actually the most unselfish act in the history of mankind, but rather an act of prudent egotism, with the Americans fully aware of how they could benefit from it.
And that was indeed the case, as lend-lease proved to be an inexhaustible source of wealth for many American corporations. In fact, the United States was the only country in the anti-Hitler coalition to reap significant economic dividends from the war.
In short you are totally right WM. The fact that the UK was the only country to fully repay Lend Lease (Russia insisted on re-negotiating the cost) and the fact that the US companies made significant profits from selling material to Nazi Germany in WW2, does in fact give the UK more right to interfere in the US than the opposite.
In this I believe that Boris is absolutely right that the actions of Obama are driven more by his fathers treatment by the UK than by any "benign" wishes for the UK within the EU.
To me the fact that the UK staying in the EU would significantly benefit the US, therefore they would politically interfere in the UK politics to keep us there, is one of the very best reasons for the UK to leave.
Hoe True.