DEPLETED RESOURCES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 225, 22 September 1945, Page 5

DEPLETED RESOURCES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

COMPARISON WITH AMERICA GLOOMY PICTURE PRESENTED IN AN APPEAL FOR AID Recd. 9.55 p.m. New York, Sept. 21. Lord Halifax and Lord Keynes (the mission sent from the United Kingdom to Washington to talk over the suspension of Lend-Lease assistance and what alternatives will arise therefrom) have presented American financial officials with a gloomy statistical account of the depletion of Britain’s resources during the war, claiming that Britain’s relative contribution to the Axis defeat was considerably greater than America’s, says the New York Times’ Washington correspondent. British statistical documents in the possession of the correspondent state —taking into consideration the different size and

resources of the two countries: Firstly, Britain’s total casualties were two and three-quarter limes the United States, and the killed and missing three and a-half times greater. Secondly, British servicemen contributed twice as many years as American servicemen. Thirdly, Britain had threefold the deterioration of domestic capital, plants, equipment and non-war industries. Fourthly, Britain has 35 times greater foreign investments. Fifthly, she had had 50 per cent, greater war expenditures. It is not known whether the Americans accept the British statistics, but there is little doubt that strong sympathy towards the general British thesis exists within the Administration. American officials involved in the current negotiations ?.re impressed with the fact that the British did not arrive in the manner of a supplicant, with hat in hand, but rather ns a people proud of the cause for which they stripped lheir country’s resources, thus appealing for aid as* a matter of justice.

Statistics purport to demonstrate three basic British claims in support of an appeal for assistance. Firstly Britain, taking into consideration her resources, contributed con sidcrably more to the Axis defeat than the United States. Secondly, in terms of wear and tear on capital equipment, her contribution was vastly greater. Thirdly, while quantitatively the United States Lend-Lease was substantial! v greater than Britain’s mutual aid. li e United States contribution was nog. J-'le in its effect on America’s ec .'(my, while mutual aid had a conble effect on Britain’s economy. Snme American officials, viewing the presentation as based on an partnership concept, feel it connn argument for proposals b'regarded in some quarters— U *. r nco the British Commonwealth y. - a very special kind of partnershin /? t ''/-I effort toward the defer-* of * ■’r Commonwealth countries . as Canada has already done,

e‘f’. -"ncel all, or part of. the blocked r eeling balances which had piled up In London to their accounts. It is pointed out that Canada made a gift of her aid to Britain, whereas other ■parts of the Commonwealth permitted balances representing British external debt, to accumulate in London. Since these blocked balances represent, foi the most part, the cost of supplies needed .by Britain to prosecute the war. it ic argued that Australia. New Zealand and others might at least cancel some of this indebtedness, thus providing a partial solution to the key problem of current anglo-American negotiations, namely, how to translate a fair part of the blocked balances into dollars, or other non-steriing purchasing power.