>>>>>>The US also chose to fight the Nazis because they realised that a Nazi victory in Europe would leave them dangerously isolated. Intelligent foresight to fight a devastating war in someone elses country rather than a few years later in your own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I acknkowledge that we arguably should have gotten involved earlier than we did - but you Brits still benefited from our actions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not denying that. I'm saying that US entry into World War 2 was not based on altruism. Interestingly there's been a few opinon pieces in the press here recently about World War 2 saying it was a disaster for the UK and we should have stayed out of it.
>>>>
>>>>Where did Kevin write that it was? Whatever the reasons for the U.S. entering the war, does not change the effect it had.
>>>
>>>From Kevin "The U.S. saved Europe from sheer totalitarian rule".
>>
>>That doesn't have the same meaning as your interpretation. He wrote about an effect. He never mentioned altruism. You put your meaning to his words which suggests you have a chip on your shoulder.
>
>Yes like most people I have a chip of sorts. :-)
>
>Can we have our gold and naval bases back now ?

Why? Are we asking for:

$31 billion lend-lease supplies to Britain,
50 Navy Destroyers (for the land and naval bases)
7,411 aircraft,
5,128 tanks,
4,932 antitank weapons,
4,005 machine guns,
9 torpedo boats,
4 submarines,
and 14 minesweepers

In December 1940, Churchill warned Roosevelt that the British were no longer able to pay for supplies. On December 17, President Roosevelt proposed a new initiative that would be known as Lend-Lease. The United States would provide Great Britain with the supplies it needed to fight Germany, but would not insist upon being paid immediately

Instead, the United States would "lend" the supplies to the British, deferring payment. When payment eventually did take place, the emphasis would not be on payment in dollars. The tensions and instability engendered by inter-allied war debts in the 1920s and 1930s had demonstrated that it was unreasonable to expect that virtually bankrupt European nations would be able to pay for every item they had purchased from the United States. Instead, payment would primarily take the form of a "consideration" granted by Britain to the United States. After many months of negotiation, the United States and Britain agreed, in Article VII of the Lend-Lease agreement they signed, that this consideration would primarily consist of joint action directed towards the creation of a liberalized international economic order in the postwar world.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwii/81508.htm

Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill despised the action later, it certainly helped to format the economics after the war. The Anglo-American loan came about after the war when the lend-lease stopped and the U.S. sold the supplies to the UK at 10 cents on the dollar.

And then there is the debate in the House of Lords in 2002:

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us."


I think that 10 cents on the dollar shows that the UK got the better of the deal...