PDA

View Full Version : OT Document Friday: US Perceptions on the Cusp of China's First Nuke Test


Natedogg
02-05-2010, 10:29 AM
Document Friday: “Reducing the Psychological Impact of the First Chinese Communist Nuclear Explosion”

Despite denials and tepid gestures towards a UN-brokered nuclear compromise, American officials remain concerned that the Islamic of Republic Iran is on the cusp of creating an atomic weapon. But as this week’s hot doc shows, the United States has been in a similarly precarious situation before. In 1956 –after years of developing nuclear technology under the guise of peaceful research– the People’s Republic of China announced its intention to develop a nuclear weapon. According to this declassified State Department doc, “Anticipatory Action Pending Chinese Communist Demonstration of a Nuclear Capability,” US policy makers anticipated a Chinese nuclear detonation as early as 1961. This explosion, they feared, would “contribute to feeling that communism is the wave of the future and that Communist China is, or soon will become, too powerful to resist.”

Rest (with a big twist) and actual document here:
http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/document-friday-reducing-the-psychological-impact-of-the-first-chinese-communist-nuclear-explosion-2/

Chris
02-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Interesting read.

supermanhr9
02-05-2010, 01:49 PM
I hate this stuff, it makes me think too much if the end is actually coming soon.

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 02:54 PM
Thx Chris.

SuperMan, on the bright side we can be thankful that the risk to humanity was several orders of magnitude greater during the Cold War than it is now.

IMO, the Soviet Union (and Com China) were Krang and Shredder while Al Queda reminds me of Beebop and Rocksteady.

Kids my age tend to forget that. ;)

bpc
02-05-2010, 03:22 PM
Scary times indeed. Think of a car-bomb x a million. Then recall 9/11. It can happen.

There are those out there that would like to see all of us dead. Don't forget that when people choose to bitch about our ability to difuse radical factions unless you are willing to pick up a gun and defend our freedom when the time calls for it.

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 03:30 PM
Scary times indeed. Think of a car-bomb x a million. Then recall 9/11. It can happen.

There are those out there that would like to see all of us dead. Don't forget that when people choose to b**** about our ability to difuse radical factions unless you are willing to pick up a gun and defend our freedom when the time calls for it.

Not to be crass, but I've heard an international security expert say that a nuclear attack "would make 9-11 look like a walk in the park." And then imagine that upon to hundreds of US cities hit simultaneously (as the Soviet's SIOP called for).

Check this out for examples of the power of nukes.

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html?formAction=297&contentId=367

24champ
02-05-2010, 03:40 PM
I don't think the United States is a big target as people think. Israel will probably get hit with a nuke before we ever do.

DenverBrit
02-05-2010, 03:50 PM
If Iran nukes Israel, they won't be around long enough to 'pop' open the champagne.

MAD is still the rule when a nuclear power attacks another nuclear power.



MAD=Mutually Assured Destruction...... not the magazine. ;)

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 03:51 PM
I don't think the United States is a big target as people think. Israel will probably get hit with a nuke before we ever do.

I agree. But that wasn't the case during the Cold War.

And one nuke (detonated by a terrorist group, say) is terrible, but the complete Soviet (or US) arsenal would destroy the world.

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 03:52 PM
If Iran nukes Israel, they won't be around long enough to 'pop' open the champagne.

MAD is still the rule when a nuclear power attacks another nuclear power.

:welcome:

24champ
02-05-2010, 03:54 PM
I agree. But that wasn't the case during the Cold War.

And one nuke (detonated by a terrorist group, say) is terrible, but the complete Soviet (or US) arsenal would destroy the world.

Interesting stuff to say the least. I am a History buff, so that was a great read.

Is that your blog by the way?

bpc
02-05-2010, 03:55 PM
I don't think the United States is a big target as people think. Israel will probably get hit with a nuke before we ever do.

Yep. Make no mistake though, there are enemies at our doors. I think there are several behind the scene parties that are in cahoots together. I don't trust Cuba and Venezuela. China and Russia's MO is veiled behind their walls and are very suspicious to me. North Korea and Iran are led by radical extremist with itchy trigger fingers and a "cause" to lead the world into WW3.

Tread carefully.

DenverBrit
02-05-2010, 03:55 PM
Interesting stuff to say the least. I am a History buff, so that was a great read.

Is that your blog by the way?

I missed the connection. Kudos! :wave:

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 03:57 PM
Interesting stuff to say the least. I am a History buff, so that was a great read.

Is that your blog by the way?

Yeah... Well, its the National Security Archive's blog. And that's who I wrote it for.

Natedogg
02-05-2010, 03:58 PM
Yep. Make no mistake though, there are enemies at our doors. I think there are several behind the scene parties that are in cahoots together. I don't trust Cuba and Venezuela. China and Russia's MO is veiled behind their walls and are very suspicious to me. North Korea and Iran are led by radical extremist with itchy trigger fingers and a "cause" to lead the world into WW3.

Tread carefully.

I don't think the situation is quite as dire as you present it. But hey, vigilance never hurt.... as long as it doesn't turn into xenophobia.

bpc
02-05-2010, 04:00 PM
I wouldn't say dire is the right word. Suspicious is more like it. There are many situations that have raised flags in my mind. China and Russia's view and support of Iran and North Korea being at the fore-front there.

BroncoMan4ever
02-05-2010, 04:09 PM
all this bull**** with all these countries developing nukes is annoying. makes me wonder why immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why America didn't just go about conquering the rest of the world. plain and simple get in line or get blown right off the face of the earth.

it has been that way all through history. the army or country with the bigger better weapons always took over as much of the world as possible. America is the only empire to never do that, when they were the only nes with the worlds most dangerous weapon

Archer81
02-05-2010, 06:23 PM
all this bull**** with all these countries developing nukes is annoying. makes me wonder why immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why America didn't just go about conquering the rest of the world. plain and simple get in line or get blown right off the face of the earth.

it has been that way all through history. the army or country with the bigger better weapons always took over as much of the world as possible. America is the only empire to never do that, when they were the only nes with the worlds most dangerous weapon


I am still trying to figure out how a country with tapped massive oil reserves needs nuclear energy. What are the odds the Israelis and Iranians not engage in some exchange?

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-05-2010, 06:24 PM
I wouldn't say dire is the right word. Suspicious is more like it. There are many situations that have raised flags in my mind. China and Russia's view and support of Iran and North Korea being at the fore-front there.


Dont forget Venezuela.


:Broncos:

DenverBrit
02-05-2010, 06:26 PM
I am still trying to figure out how a country with tapped massive oil reserves needs nuclear energy. What are the odds the Israelis and Iranians not engage in some exchange?

:Broncos:

The Arab nations would love to see that happen. Two birds with one stone.

Archer81
02-05-2010, 06:28 PM
The Arab nations would love to see that happen. Two birds with one stone.


Exactly.


:Broncos:

bpc
02-05-2010, 08:00 PM
I am still trying to figure out how a country with tapped massive oil reserves needs nuclear energy. What are the odds the Israelis and Iranians not engage in some exchange?

:Broncos:

I think Israeli takes out Iran before they have a chance to be taken out first.

Many Iranians understand this to be true as well, which is why the administration furthering the nuclear program is facing so much unrest from the rest of their society among many other issues.

WolfpackGuy
02-05-2010, 08:15 PM
all this bull**** with all these countries developing nukes is annoying. makes me wonder why immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why America didn't just go about conquering the rest of the world.


They should've AT LEAST forced the Soviets back to their territory at the end of WWII.

Archer81
02-05-2010, 11:13 PM
I think Israeli takes out Iran before they have a chance to be taken out first.

Many Iranians understand this to be true as well, which is why the administration furthering the nuclear program is facing so much unrest from the rest of their society among many other issues.


Israel can take out Iran, but how many first strikes can Israel take? Its a country the size of Delaware.


:Broncos:

Archer81
02-05-2010, 11:15 PM
They should've AT LEAST forced the Soviets back to their territory at the end of WWII.


Yalta was a horrible agreement. The US-UK-Canadian forces could have met the Soviets in Poland. Iron curtain would have gone through Warsaw instead of Berlin, and maybe the Soviets collapse before 1991.


:Broncos:

bpc
02-06-2010, 05:26 AM
Israel can take out Iran, but how many first strikes can Israel take? Its a country the size of Delaware.


:Broncos:

You're right, it would be one and done for Israel but they understand that if they don't pull the trigger, somebody else will first.

DenverBrit
02-06-2010, 07:04 AM
They should've AT LEAST forced the Soviets back to their territory at the end of WWII.

It would have taken nothing less than an Atomic bomb to do so.

Wasn't going to happen.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:09 AM
They should've AT LEAST forced the Soviets back to their territory at the end of WWII.

Tough case to make, when the Soviets lost 20 million men and the US lost 400,000.

At the Tehran confrence, when the outcome of the war was still somewhat up in the air, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin signed an agreement stating that Eastern Europe was would be in "the Soviet sphere" after WW2.

And yes, the Soviet army was strong enough to beat ours conventionally. We would have had to use the nukes.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:12 AM
You're right, it would be one and done for Israel but they understand that if they don't pull the trigger, somebody else will first.

Fair point, but the interesting thing is nuclear weapons have a habit of sobering leaders up. China for example, was the most outspoken, radical communist country on earth. It even broke with the Soviet Union because it was too "deviationist" ie didn't want war with the West. After all the tough talk, it gets the nuke, cools down, and before too long Mao and Nixon are having milk and cookies.

WolfpackGuy
02-06-2010, 08:28 AM
Tough case to make, when the Soviets lost 20 million men and the US lost 400,000.

At the Tehran confrence, when the outcome of the war was still somewhat up in the air, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin signed an agreement stating that Eastern Europe was would be in "the Soviet sphere" after WW2.

And yes, the Soviet army was strong enough to beat ours conventionally. We would have had to use the nukes.

Agreed, the US Army alone might not have prevailed, but I believe the Allied army could've done the job. Hell, I think the Germans would've joined the Allied side if given the choice and means. The Germans biggest fear was of the Russians. When things started really going bad in the east, they couldn't leave the front fast enough in hopes of being captured by the western powers. Also remember that the Allies supplied HUGE amounts of war materiel to the Russians during the war. Cut that off, and who knows what would've happened, but good thing the Soviets didn't have the bomb for another few years.

TotallyScrewed
02-06-2010, 08:35 AM
Tough case to make, when the Soviets lost 20 million men and the US lost 400,000.

At the Tehran confrence, when the outcome of the war was still somewhat up in the air, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin signed an agreement stating that Eastern Europe was would be in "the Soviet sphere" after WW2.

And yes, the Soviet army was strong enough to beat ours conventionally. We would have had to use the nukes.

People seem to forget how terrible the war was not only for the soldiers but everybody. Nobody wanted to extend the war even a single day. That's why the nukes were used on Japan. End the war now! Everyone was just happy to be finished and try to get back to living normal lives.

And life after WW2 was good. The US had everything and money too. Even if they had used nukes to push the Soviets back or more likely to destroy their military, playing cop around the world wouldn't have been a pleasant or peaceful thing...see any other dynasty. Occupation is a bitch.

Meck77
02-06-2010, 08:38 AM
It's all about the holy land. Just a matter of time. It's comforting to know our tax dollars go towards Israeli nukes that will eventually be the end of us.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:39 AM
People seem to forget how terrible the war was not only for the soldiers but everybody. Nobody wanted to extend the war even a single day. That's why the nukes were used on Japan. End the war now! Everyone was just happy to be finished and try to get back to living normal lives.

And life after WW2 was good. The US had everything and money too. Even if they had used nukes to push the Soviets back or more likely to destroy their military, playing cop around the world wouldn't have been a pleasant or peaceful thing...see any other dynasty. Occupation is a b****.

Check.

TotallyScrewed
02-06-2010, 08:42 AM
Fair point, but the interesting thing is nuclear weapons have a habit of sobering leaders up. China for example, was the most outspoken, radical communist country on earth. It even broke with the Soviet Union because it was too "deviationist" ie didn't want war with the West. After all the tough talk, it gets the nuke, cools down, and before too long Mao and Nixon are having milk and cookies.

Isreal isn't in the habit of waiting to receive the "first strike". The US posturing is more of a security dog...nosing around, barking but takes awhile before it's off the leash.

Archer81
02-06-2010, 08:44 AM
Fair point, but the interesting thing is nuclear weapons have a habit of sobering leaders up. China for example, was the most outspoken, radical communist country on earth. It even broke with the Soviet Union because it was too "deviationist" ie didn't want war with the West. After all the tough talk, it gets the nuke, cools down, and before too long Mao and Nixon are having milk and cookies.


I dont see anyone in Israel or anyone in Iran sitting down to have cookies and hang out.


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 08:46 AM
I wouldn't say dire is the right word. Suspicious is more like it. There are many situations that have raised flags in my mind. China and Russia's view and support of Iran and North Korea being at the fore-front there.

North Korea is a wildcard. They were the Soviet's client state for a long time, a card the USSR played against China. China and Russia still try to control NK, but NK has outgrown both of them because NK now has nuclear capability.

NK can reach Beijing easily with their missile technology, China can no longer control them as they once did. Why? Because the USSR/Russia protected NK from Chinese control after WWII, through the Korean Conflict, in the Cold War years, and especially after the USSR/Chinese split.

It's important to note that the USSR/Russia has had a common border with North Korea since WWII.

How it's all gonna turn out I don't know, but Russia and China created the demon in North Korea, and now they can't control it.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:47 AM
Isreal isn't in the habit of waiting to receive the "first strike". The US posturing is more of a security dog...nosing around, barking but takes awhile before it's off the leash.

The US does respect and put faith in the Non Proliferation Treaty more than Israel does, true.

But even Israel has gone on the record saying "it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east."

(Of course they purposefully do not define what "introduce" means.)

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:48 AM
I dont see anyone in Israel or anyone in Iran sitting down to have cookies and hang out.


:Broncos:

Thats the point. Nuclear powers make strange bedfellows. Nixon's visit to China was a complete shock.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 08:51 AM
North Korea is a wildcard. They were the Soviet's client state for a long time, a card the USSR played against China. China and Russia still try to control NK, but NK has outgrown both of them because NK now has nuclear capability.

NK can reach Beijing easily with their missile technology, China can no longer control them as they once did. Why? Because the USSR/Russia protected NK from Chinese control after WWII, through the Korean Conflict, in the Cold War years, and especially after the USSR/Chinese split.

It's important to note that the USSR/Russia has had a common border with North Korea since WWII.

How it's all gonna turn out I don't know, but Russia and China created the demon in North Korea, and now they can't control it.

Good point. But currently China provides N. Korea with over 80 percent of its energy. If it stopped giving NK welfare, the Kim regime would collapse. Problem is, China favors a bad state on its border more than a collapsed state.

WolfpackGuy
02-06-2010, 08:52 AM
I dont see anyone in Israel or anyone in Iran sitting down to have cookies and hang out.


LOL

Yeah, really.

I think a lot of the Arab/Persian hubris comes from the avoiding the social and economic problems of their own countries by redirecting it into hatred of Israel and the west.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 08:58 AM
all this bull**** with all these countries developing nukes is annoying. makes me wonder why immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, why America didn't just go about conquering the rest of the world. plain and simple get in line or get blown right off the face of the earth.

it has been that way all through history. the army or country with the bigger better weapons always took over as much of the world as possible. America is the only empire to never do that, when they were the only nes with the worlds most dangerous weapon

There was thousands of factors that prevented that scenario from happening. One important factor was the US populace was sick and tired of war after 2 million US military killed and 10 million more maimed. Most of the US populace didn't even want to be involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor.

If the USA was a dictatorship in 1945 maybe we would have pressed our advantage, but the politicians that made the decisions had to face election. We could have attacked the USSR and driven them back to their original borders, but the consensus was to pull out of Europe altogether, get our boys back home.

TotallyScrewed
02-06-2010, 09:09 AM
The US does respect and put faith in the Non Proliferation Treaty more than Israel does, true.

But even Israel has gone on the record saying "it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the middle east."

(Of course they purposefully do not define what "introduce" means.)

Point taken but by 'first strike" I didn't mean nukes...I meant any sort of hostile action. Isreal isn't known for sitting back and waiting...waiting patiently...hoping for UN pressure...

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 09:12 AM
Point taken but by 'first strike" I didn't mean nukes...I meant any sort of hostile action. Isreal isn't known for sitting back and waiting...waiting patiently...hoping for UN pressure...

Definitely. They like their preemptive wars.

Archer81
02-06-2010, 09:19 AM
There was thousands of factors that prevented that scenario from happening. One important factor was the US populace was sick and tired of war after 2 million US military killed and 10 million more maimed. Most of the US populace didn't even want to be involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor.

If the USA was a dictatorship in 1945 maybe we would have pressed our advantage, but the politicians that made the decisions had to face election. We could have attacked the USSR and driven them back to their original borders, but the consensus was to pull out of Europe altogether, get our boys back home.


To date, the costliest war in terms of lives in US history was the Civil War, with over 600,000 deaths. WW2 was a bloody conflict, but far fewer Americans died in that war than 2 mil.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-06-2010, 09:20 AM
Definitely. They like their preemptive wars.


Consider the alternative. Israel learned a hard lesson from the 6 day war. Do not let your enemies gather on your borders. Take them out before they even get to that point.

:Broncos:

DenverBrit
02-06-2010, 09:34 AM
There was thousands of factors that prevented that scenario from happening. One important factor was the US populace was sick and tired of war after 2 million US military killed and 10 million more maimed. Most of the US populace didn't even want to be involved in WWII until Pearl Harbor.

If the USA was a dictatorship in 1945 maybe we would have pressed our advantage, but the politicians that made the decisions had to face election. We could have attacked the USSR and driven them back to their original borders, but the consensus was to pull out of Europe altogether, get our boys back home.

It was actually 418, 5000 US military deaths.

Here's a chart of all casualties by country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

TotallyScrewed
02-06-2010, 09:54 AM
Yeah... Well, its the National Security Archive's blog. And that's who I wrote it for.

That was a good read. I encourage everyone to take a couple of minutes.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 10:12 AM
To date, the costliest war in terms of lives in US history was the Civil War, with over 600,000 deaths. WW2 was a bloody conflict, but far fewer Americans died in that war than 2 mil.

:Broncos:

I screwed that one up for sure.

The point was not many people wanted to prolong WWII.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 10:12 AM
That was a good read. I encourage everyone to take a couple of minutes.

Thanks. ;D

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 10:18 AM
Good point. But currently China provides N. Korea with over 80 percent of its energy. If it stopped giving NK welfare, the Kim regime would collapse. Problem is, China favors a bad state on its border more than a collapsed state.

Russia can provide NK energy. NK plays Russia and China. Attacks Japan and the US to gain glee points.

NK plays the US against China and Russia also. All three are courting NK.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 10:43 AM
I blame the whole mess on the Mongols, Ginghis and all his offspring.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 11:07 AM
Tough case to make, when the Soviets lost 20 million men and the US lost 400,000.

At the Tehran confrence, when the outcome of the war was still somewhat up in the air, FDR, Churchill, and Stalin signed an agreement stating that Eastern Europe was would be in "the Soviet sphere" after WW2.

And yes, the Soviet army was strong enough to beat ours conventionally. We would have had to use the nukes.

We sent so much war materiel over to them in WWII. I remember someone telling me the slang word used for "truck" in Russian during WWII was "Studebaker".

This is from Wikipedia - "Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available" . . . . .

The Brits and the US Merchant Marine lost hundreds of ship trying to ship war materiel into Murmansk and Archangel the Soviet Arctic ports in WWII.

Of course, the Soviets had to pay in gold bullion, and that's something that has stuck in their craw for a long time.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 11:13 AM
Russia can provide NK energy. NK plays Russia and China. Attacks Japan and the US to gain glee points.

NK plays the US against China and Russia also. All three are courting NK.

Not so much courting as afraid of a failed state on their border. NK doesn't have anything Russia and China want.

Found the link, China in particular, literally powers North Korea by supplying 90 percent of energy. It's propping it up rather than courting it. Doubtful Russia would give NK free (or greatly reduced) energy. It has recently stopped doing so to Belarus.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/11097/chinanorth_korea_relationship.html
http://www.worldbank.org/html/prddr/trans/marapr98/pgs21-23.htm

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 11:15 AM
We sent so much war materiel over to them in WWII. I remember someone telling me the slang word used for "truck" in Russian during WWII was "Studebaker".

This is from Wikipedia - "Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available" . . . . .

The Brits and the US Merchant Marine lost hundreds of ship trying to ship war materiel into Murmansk and Archangel the Soviet Arctic ports in WWII.

Of course, the Soviets had to pay in gold bullion, and that's something that has stuck in their craw for a long time.

I have a T Shirt with a picture from the USSR during WW2 praising the awesomeness of Harley Davidson Motorcycles. Lenin and Stalin smiling behind. Pry my favorite shirt. I'll try and find a pick.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 11:19 AM
http://www.russianlegacy.com/catalog/images/soviet_collection/t-shirts/img/T-SHIRT015.thumb.jpgsmall, but thats the shirt

bpc
02-06-2010, 11:25 AM
North Korea is a wildcard. They were the Soviet's client state for a long time, a card the USSR played against China. China and Russia still try to control NK, but NK has outgrown both of them because NK now has nuclear capability.

NK can reach Beijing easily with their missile technology, China can no longer control them as they once did. Why? Because the USSR/Russia protected NK from Chinese control after WWII, through the Korean Conflict, in the Cold War years, and especially after the USSR/Chinese split.

It's important to note that the USSR/Russia has had a common border with North Korea since WWII.

How it's all gonna turn out I don't know, but Russia and China created the demon in North Korea, and now they can't control it.

I think they could control them. They just don't want to. And that's why i'm suspicious of them. If USSR and China isolated NK, they would be screwed. They'd rot sitting on a pile of nukes.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 11:31 AM
I think they could control them. They just don't want to. And that's why i'm suspicious of them. If USSR and China isolated NK, they would be screwed. They'd rot sitting on a pile of nukes.

Yep. And BTW, you guys inspired me.... Watching Dr. Strangelove right now.

Requiem
02-06-2010, 11:47 AM
Death estimates are almost never correct anyways. Imagine the bodies from all countries involved that still have never been found. Especially in regards to the Civil War.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 12:06 PM
I have a T Shirt with a picture from the USSR during WW2 praising the awesomeness of Harley Davidson Motorcycles. Lenin and Stalin smiling behind. Pry my favorite shirt. I'll try and find a pick.

I never heard about HD's being sent to the Soviet's, but I don't doubt it a bit. We and the Brits sent them every little thing from boots to xylophones. I've seen some manifests of the convoys that went into Murmansk and Archangel, and the goods shipped covered everything. Food, clothing, entertainment, anything you can imagine as well as war materiel. Again, the Soviets had to pay in gold bullion, and that has stuck in their craw since then. They pass along stories same as we do.

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just presenting history as it was. I've heard both sides of the story, and I'm presenting both sides of the story. The US and the Brits sacrificed a lot to allow the Soviets to survive, but someone got that gold bullion. Those merchant ships didn't leave Murmansk and Archangel empty.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 12:15 PM
I never heard about HD's being sent to the Soviet's, but I don't doubt it a bit. We and the Brits sent them every little thing from boots to xylophones. I've seen some manifests of the convoys that went into Murmansk and Archangel, and the goods shipped covered everything. Food, clothing, entertainment, anything you can imagine as well as war materiel. Again, the Soviets had to pay in gold bullion, and that has stuck in their craw since then. They pass along stories same as we do.

I'm not taking a side here, I'm just presenting history as it was. I've heard both sides of the story, and I'm presenting both sides of the story. The US and the Brits sacrificed a lot to allow the Soviets to survive, but someone got that gold bullion. Those merchant ships didn't leave Murmansk and Archangel empty.

Russians paid in gold at first. Then the rest was given on loans. (I forget off the top of my head if these were forgiven or not)

From wikipedia:

American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

* "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
* first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
* second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
* third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
* fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 12:16 PM
I think they could control them. They just don't want to. And that's why i'm suspicious of them. If USSR and China isolated NK, they would be screwed. They'd rot sitting on a pile of nukes.

Oh, China and Russia would love to be able to control NK now, but it's too late. I remember reading somewhere about 5 years ago it took China amassing something like six armored divisions on their border to get NK into basic discussions aoout their nuclear program.

I hear all this stuff about NK is hurting, but NK seems to survive. Why? Because here's this tiny country fighting to stay independent, and they have three superpowers fighting each other to court NK as a client state.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Russians paid in gold at first. Then the rest was given on loans. (I forget off the top of my head if these were forgiven or not)

From wikipedia:

American deliveries to the Soviet Union can be divided into the following phases:

* "pre Lend-lease" 22 June 1941 to 30 September 1941 (paid for in gold)
* first protocol period from 1 October 1941 to 30 June 1942 (signed 1 October 1941)
* second protocol period from 1 July 1942 to 30 June 1943 (signed 6 October 1942)
* third protocol period from 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1944 (signed 19 October 1943)
* fourth protocol period from 1 July 1944, (signed 17 April 1945), formally ended 12 May 1945 but deliveries continued for the duration of the war with Japan (which the Soviet Union entered on the 8 August 1945) under the "Milepost" agreement until 2 September 1945 when Japan capitulated. On 20 September 1945 all Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union was terminated.

That's very interesting. I haven't delved into it that much, but I'm a little skeptical about "forgiving the loans". Particularly where the Brits are concerned, they lost a lot of ships and men protecting those Murmansk and Archangel convoys. That whole aspect of WWII is lacking in historical publications that I know of, I'd like to see more.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 12:35 PM
Just did some digging around... Stalin said to FDR that the USSR would not repay lend lease as they "paid in blood." FDR never brought the issue back up.

Natedogg
02-06-2010, 12:40 PM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071203085817AAifnPc

You would think that, with all the accountants around, there would be universally accepted $ figures for Lend-Lease, and for the repayments made. Not so, it seems. I have come across significantly different $ numbers to those in the first answer to this question. Maybe “creative accounting” isn’t so new after all. Here is what I have: -

[1] Amount of aid provided by USA. (see link 1 below)

Lend-Lease to USSR: $11 billion.

Lend-Lease to Britain (including Commonwealth): $31 billion

The amount provided to USSR is not wildly different to that in the first answer; but regarding Britain, the difference is enormous.

- - - - -

General notes about repayments: -

• The US concluded various “reverse Lend-Lease” agreements with recipient nations (for example Britain and Australia). The meaning was that these nations could work off part of the L-L debts owing to the US, by providing supplies and services to US forces stationed in their countries during WW2. That doesn’t mean just beer and sandwiches. It would also include “rent free” leases on airfields, army bases, port facilities, etc. For the British Commonwealth particularly, this brought a major reduction in the $ balance owed to the USA.[/B]

• However, the first answer is incorrect in stating that the United States cancelled all lend-lease debts except that of the U.S.S.R. See [3] below for British repayments.


[B][2] Repayment by USSR / Russia.

According to a New York Times article, in 1947 the U.S. asked the Soviet Union to pay $1.3 billion as settlement of its Lend-Lease debt. The Soviet Union made a counter-offer to repay just $170 million.

No repayment at all actually occurred until the Soviets agreed in 1972 to pay $722 million in installments through to 2001. The first Soviet “repayment” installment actually took the form of a deal to buy $750 million in grain from the U.S. But most of the debt remained unpaid when the USSR ceased to exist.

The Russian Federation inherited the debt from the Soviet Union. In the year 2000, the Russian Federation acknowledged $600 million as still owed to the USA from WW2 L-L accounts. (See “Paris Club” link at 2 below.)
[3] Repayment by Britain

Contrary to the information in the first answer, Britain and the USA reached a post-WW2 settlement regarding L-L, under which Britain had to repay $5.2 billion, plus interest at 2% per year.

Britain did repay this entire amount to the US, gradually and with great difficulty. For example: -

NY Times, January 1, 1955: “Britain Reduces Debt $137,845,431; Payment to U. S. Is Made on Post-World War II Account -- $4.58 Billion Still Owed.”

The final payment ($83 million) from Britain to the USA was made on December 31st, 2006. (see link 3 below)
Source(s):

[1] http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/lendle… (http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/lendlease.html)

[2] http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports… (http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/economics/econ-72.cfm?&CFID=14786900&CFTOKEN=2020905)

[3] http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/The_UK_a… (http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/The_UK_announces_it_s_last_payment_of_WW2_debt_to_ the_USA/)

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 01:23 PM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071203085817AAifnPc

You would think that, with all the accountants around, there would be universally accepted $ figures for Lend-Lease, and for the repayments made. Not so, it seems. I have come across significantly different $ numbers to those in the first answer to this question. Maybe “creative accounting” isn’t so new after all. Here is what I have: -

[1] Amount of aid provided by USA. (see link 1 below)

Lend-Lease to USSR: $11 billion.

Lend-Lease to Britain (including Commonwealth): $31 billion

The amount provided to USSR is not wildly different to that in the first answer; but regarding Britain, the difference is enormous.

- - - - -

General notes about repayments: -

• The US concluded various “reverse Lend-Lease” agreements with recipient nations (for example Britain and Australia). The meaning was that these nations could work off part of the L-L debts owing to the US, by providing supplies and services to US forces stationed in their countries during WW2. That doesn’t mean just beer and sandwiches. It would also include “rent free” leases on airfields, army bases, port facilities, etc. For the British Commonwealth particularly, this brought a major reduction in the $ balance owed to the USA.[/B]

• However, the first answer is incorrect in stating that the United States cancelled all lend-lease debts except that of the U.S.S.R. See [3] below for British repayments.


[B][2] Repayment by USSR / Russia.

According to a New York Times article, in 1947 the U.S. asked the Soviet Union to pay $1.3 billion as settlement of its Lend-Lease debt. The Soviet Union made a counter-offer to repay just $170 million.

No repayment at all actually occurred until the Soviets agreed in 1972 to pay $722 million in installments through to 2001. The first Soviet “repayment” installment actually took the form of a deal to buy $750 million in grain from the U.S. But most of the debt remained unpaid when the USSR ceased to exist.

The Russian Federation inherited the debt from the Soviet Union. In the year 2000, the Russian Federation acknowledged $600 million as still owed to the USA from WW2 L-L accounts. (See “Paris Club” link at 2 below.)
[3] Repayment by Britain

Contrary to the information in the first answer, Britain and the USA reached a post-WW2 settlement regarding L-L, under which Britain had to repay $5.2 billion, plus interest at 2% per year.

Britain did repay this entire amount to the US, gradually and with great difficulty. For example: -

NY Times, January 1, 1955: “Britain Reduces Debt $137,845,431; Payment to U. S. Is Made on Post-World War II Account -- $4.58 Billion Still Owed.”

The final payment ($83 million) from Britain to the USA was made on December 31st, 2006. (see link 3 below)
Source(s):

[1] http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/lendle… (http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/lendlease.html)

[2] http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports… (http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/economics/econ-72.cfm?&CFID=14786900&CFTOKEN=2020905)

[3] http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/The_UK_a… (http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/The_UK_announces_it_s_last_payment_of_WW2_debt_to_ the_USA/)

Good research. So the USSR/Russian Federation never payed it back, and it took 50 years for the British Empire to pay it back.

So, $42 billion in L-L by US accounting, and we got back about $5.2 billion? All of it from the Brits? Dang, war is hell. We held the Brits balls for their debt until 2005 for the final payment of $83 million?

And the Soviets haven't paid us crap? Ok, I guess they paid in blood. Signing that non-aggression pact with Adolph Hitler so he could annex Poland was no big deal I guess. Taking Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, half of Germany, making them slaves didn't mean anything I guess.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 01:33 PM
It's all about the holy land. Just a matter of time. It's comforting to know our tax dollars go towards Israeli nukes that will eventually be the end of us.

Back at it again I see. There's one single nation in that region - Israel - that stands for freedom and an open society, and you figure they're the cancer.

bpc
02-06-2010, 01:41 PM
Oh, China and Russia would love to be able to control NK now, but it's too late. I remember reading somewhere about 5 years ago it took China amassing something like six armored divisions on their border to get NK into basic discussions aoout their nuclear program.

I hear all this stuff about NK is hurting, but NK seems to survive. Why? Because here's this tiny country fighting to stay independent, and they have three superpowers fighting each other to court NK as a client state.

Like cochroaches. ;)

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 01:43 PM
LOL

Yeah, really.

I think a lot of the Arab/Persian hubris comes from the avoiding the social and economic problems of their own countries by redirecting it into hatred of Israel and the west.

True.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 02:08 PM
Like cochroaches. ;)

I don't know about a coackroach comparison, but Koreans and Turks are people you don't want to f around with too much.

Meck77
02-06-2010, 02:21 PM
Back at it again I see. There's one single nation in that region - Israel - that stands for freedom and an open society, and you figure they're the cancer.

I guess you've never taken the time to read Bin Laden's declaration of war on America. Twist it all you want. 9-11 was a direct result of the US going into Iraq to defend Israel from Saddam. Plain and simple. Israel could have handled Saddam. Instead they sucked us into their war.

Distort it all you want from here.

We have enough problems at home in America. I could give a rats ass about the holy land.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 02:28 PM
I guess you've never taken the time to read Bin Laden's declaration of war on America. Twist it all you want. 9-11 was a direct result of the US going into Iraq to defend Israel from Saddam. Plain and simple. Israel could have handled Saddam. Instead they sucked us into their war.

Distort it all you want from here.

We have enough problems at home in America. I could give a rats ass about the holy land.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), states that there can only be a certain quota of Jews allowed in Palestine (Israel). All Jews above that quota must be killed, expelled, or basically made slaves.

Meck77
02-06-2010, 02:31 PM
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), states that there can only be a certain quota of Jews allowed in Palestine (Israel). All Jews above that quota must be killed, expelled, or basically made slaves.

I really don't care. Why should I? I can only do so much and worry about my own nation right now.

There are hungry and homeless people dieing across our country. There are murders and crime ridden cities that could use more funding to help Americans. Millions of people have lost their jobs! Our government is raising taxes on us across the board yet we ship billions and billions to Israel and their citizens. For what?

I'm tired of watching the news and seeing our boys sent home in boxes. Israel can handle their own problems.

If you are jewish that's great. You might consider getting your ass on the front lines instead of sending another American.

ColoNavy
02-06-2010, 02:45 PM
If you want scary, read the new book out "One Second After" about and EMP nuclear explosion over the US

Archer81
02-06-2010, 04:09 PM
Good research. So the USSR/Russian Federation never payed it back, and it took 50 years for the British Empire to pay it back.

So, $42 billion in L-L by US accounting, and we got back about $5.2 billion? All of it from the Brits? Dang, war is hell. We held the Brits balls for their debt until 2005 for the final payment of $83 million?

And the Soviets haven't paid us crap? Ok, I guess they paid in blood. Signing that non-aggression pact with Adolph Hitler so he could annex Poland was no big deal I guess. Taking Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, half of Germany, making them slaves didn't mean anything I guess.


FDR was warned several times by Churchill that trusting Stalin after the war to live up to his word would be a mistake. FDR eventually tuned Churchill out.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-06-2010, 04:11 PM
I really don't care. Why should I? I can only do so much and worry about my own nation right now.

There are hungry and homeless people dieing across our country. There are murders and crime ridden cities that could use more funding to help Americans. Millions of people have lost their jobs! Our government is raising taxes on us across the board yet we ship billions and billions to Israel and their citizens. For what?

I'm tired of watching the news and seeing our boys sent home in boxes. Israel can handle their own problems.

If you are jewish that's great. You might consider getting your ass on the front lines instead of sending another American.


We also send money to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, half of Europe, South Korea and Taiwan. The Israeli relationship is overblown and quite often a source of nonsense, considering how much economic and military aid we give other nations around the world.

:Broncos:

Archer81
02-06-2010, 04:13 PM
Back at it again I see. There's one single nation in that region - Israel - that stands for freedom and an open society, and you figure they're the cancer.


Its easier to believe a nation of 6 million Jews is capable of oppressing 200 million arabs I guess.


:Broncos:

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 04:21 PM
I really don't care. Why should I? I can only do so much and worry about my own nation right now.

There are hungry and homeless people dieing across our country. There are murders and crime ridden cities that could use more funding to help Americans. Millions of people have lost their jobs! Our government is raising taxes on us across the board yet we ship billions and billions to Israel and their citizens. For what?

I'm tired of watching the news and seeing our boys sent home in boxes. Israel can handle their own problems.

If you are jewish that's great. You might consider getting your ass on the front lines instead of sending another American.

We've been at it for a long time over the same issue. I like the Israelis, you don't. We ship billions to the Israelis because they try to be nice people despite being surrounded by hateful people that want to destroy them simply because they are Jews.

If you are jewish that's great. You might consider getting your ass on the front lines instead of sending another American That statement illustrates your position. You think only a Jew should help a Jew.

I don't like a minority getting bullied, that's why I support the Jews. The Jews are not awful people, they try to be tolerant. The Arabs aren't awful people either, there's a minority among the Arabs/Muslims/Persians that are pretty awful and murderous.

The object is to neutralize the murderous Arabs/Muslims/Persians.

WolfpackGuy
02-06-2010, 05:34 PM
The Israelis aren't totally without fault in their situation.

"God's People" pretty much just barged on in and plopped themselves down in the Palestine.

Cito Pelon
02-06-2010, 05:53 PM
Its easier to believe a nation of 6 million Jews is capable of oppressing 200 million arabs I guess.


:Broncos:

I guess so. :spit:

The way I look at it is the Jews know how to fight, the Arabs not so much.