Talk:Lend-Lease/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

“Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022”

I am the opinion that content regarding this proposed U.S. act, as added in recent edits, [1] is off-topic for this article, which describes one specific agreement, during one specific historical period. I think there is very likely going to be sufficient coverage of the new act to justify a stand-alone article on the subject, and if such an article is created, the only necessary mention of it here might be in a disambiguation note. Meanwhile, I think that it would be more appropriate not to discuss the act here at all, and instead find a place in an existing article covering the Ukraine-Russia war: the United States and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article would seem to me to be the most appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. An article on "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022" would be the obvious thing and probably a link in the "See also" section and a disambiguation note in this article. Shimbo (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Also agreed, and I've removed the section. A "See also" link might be warranted, but it is otherwise off topic for a WW II article CAVincent (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Although I can see your point, this is currently the only article called "Lend-Lease", and there is no article on the recent act. Until there is, deleting the section seems premature. (Hohum ^@) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

How about moving the text to the United States and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, if there's some reason not to create a "Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022" article?

The 2022 Act really has nothing to do with WW2 Lend-lease, other than referencing the words "Lend-Lease" and there's no reference in this article to the dozens of other countries the USA has given arms to. South Vietnam and Afghanistan for just two examples.

If people feel there's a broader concept of lend-lease of which WW2 Lend-Lease is one example, and aid to Ukraine is another, then maybe a separate broader article would be warranted called something like Lend-Lease (concept). Shimbo (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the other occasions were through a lend-lease act. (Hohum ^@) 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What is a 'lend-lease act' though? The WW2 military aid program was enabled through legislation formally entitled 'An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States'. Anyway, this article is about the WW2 program, and no sources have been provided to indicate that there is any sort of broader concept of 'lend-lease', distinct from other forms of military aid. One article, one topic. I suggest that rather than arguing the point, someone should create a new article on the 2022 Act - finding sources to demonstrate its notability shouldn't be difficult. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know: Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 now exists and someone has added a disambiguation note and a see also to this article pointing to it. Shimbo (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I've moved the text about the 2022 act that was previously in this article over to Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act of 2022 Shimbo (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Tizard Mission

Surely the technological advances made by British scientists and offered to the United States by the Tizard Mission in exchange for financial and industrial help deserve a mention? For instance, the official historian of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, James Phinney Baxter III, wrote: "When the members of the Tizard Mission brought the cavity magnetron to America in 1940, they carried the most valuable cargo ever brought to our shores." Yet apparently none of this intellectual property counted against the British debt to the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabzilla (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The British gave the US the information for nothing while the war was on-going, no fees for using the information or patents was payable. Once the war had ended such fees then became payable for further US use from that point on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The Tizard Mission has nothing to do with Lend-Lease 73.151.157.60 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Who payed the bill?

The main article states "A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007 prices) worth of supplies were shipped"... Is it known how these billions were financed? Who gave the money to pay the bills? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.227.128.90 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The American tax payer paid for the items ordered under Lend-Lease. 73.151.157.60 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The American taxpayers. 71.101.133.40 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't in cash, it was the cash value of the supplies given. As it was in the posession of the United States Federal Government before it was transferred to countries through Lend-Lease, then it can be safely assumed that the money through with the US government acquired said supplies would be through US taxpayer dollars. Also, it's "paid," not "payed." Nottheking (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)