The Lend-Lease Act in World War II

The Lend-Lease Act in World War II The Lend-Lease Act, formally known as the An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States, was passed March 11, 1941. Championed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the legislation allowed military aid and supplies to be offered other nations. Passed before the United States entered World War II, the Lend-Lease Program effectively ended American neutrality and offered a means for directly supporting Britains war against Germany and Chinas conflict with Japan. Following the American entry into World War II, Lend-Lease was expanded to include the Soviet Union. During the course of the conflict, around $50.1 billion worth of materials were supplied on the premise that it would be paid for or returned. Background With the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the United States assumed a neutral stance. As Nazi Germany began winning a long string of victories in Europe, the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt began seeking ways to aid Great Britain while remaining free of the conflict. Initially constrained by the Neutrality Acts which limited arms sales to cash and carry purchases by belligerents, Roosevelt declared large amounts of American weapons and ammunition surplus and authorized their shipment to Britain in mid-1940. He also entered into negotiations with Prime Minister Winston Churchill to secure leases for naval bases and airfields in British possessions across the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic coast of Canada. These talks ultimately produced the Destroyers for Bases Agreement in September 1940. This agreement saw 50 surplus American destroyers transferred to the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy in exchange for rent-free, 99-year leases on various military installations. Though they succeeded in repelling the Germans during the Battle of Britain, the British remained hard-pressed by the enemy on multiple fronts. Royal Navy and U.S. Navy sailors inspect depth charges aboard Wickes-class destroyers, in 1940 before their transfer to the Royal Navy. Library of Congress The Lend-Lease Act of 1941 Seeking to move the nation towards a more active role in the conflict, Roosevelt wished to provide Britain with all possible aid short of war. As such, British warships were permitted to make repairs in American ports and training facilities for British servicemen were constructed in the U.S. To ease Britains shortage of war materials, Roosevelt pushed for the creation of the Lend-Lease Program. Officially titled An Act Further to Promote the Defense of the United States, the Lend-Lease Act was signed into law on March 11, 1941. This act empowered the president to sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article. In effect, it allowed Roosevelt to authorize the transfer of military materials to Britain with the understanding that they would ultimately be paid for or returned if they were not destroyed. To administer the program, Roosevelt created the Office of Lend-Lease Administration under the leadership of former steel industry executive Edward R. Stettinius. In selling the program to a skeptical and still somewhat isolationist American public, Roosevelt compared it to loaning a hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. What do I do in such a crisis? the president asked the press. I dont say... Neighbor, my garden hose cost me $15; you have to pay me $15 for it - I dont want $15 - I want my garden hose back after the fire is over. In April, he expanded the program by offering lend-lease aid to China for their war against the Japanese. Taking swift advantage of the program, the British received over $1 billion in aid through October 1941. An American light tank is unloaded at a central ordnance depot in England, part of a lend-lease shipment from the United States. Library of Congress Effects of Lend-Lease Lend-Lease continued after the American entry into the war following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. As the American military mobilized for war, Lend-Lease materials in the form of vehicles, aircraft, weapons, etc. were shipped to other Allied nations who were actively fighting the Axis Powers. With the alliance of the United States and the Soviet Union in 1942, the program was expanded to allow their participation with large amounts of supplies passing through the Arctic Convoys, Persian Corridor, and the Alaska-Siberia Air Route. As the war progressed, most of the Allied nations proved capable of manufacturing sufficient frontline weapons for their troops, however, this led to a drastic reduction in the production other needed items. Materials from Lend-Lease filled this void in the form of munitions, food, transport aircraft, trucks, and rolling stock. The Red Army, in particular, took advantage of the program and by wars end, approximately two-thirds of its trucks were American-built Dodges and Studebakers. Also, the Soviets received around 2,000 locomotives for supplying its forces at the front. Reverse Lend-Lease While Lend-Lease generally saw goods being provided to the Allies, a Reverse Lend-Lease scheme also existed where goods and services were given to the United States. As American forces began arriving in Europe, Britain provided material assistance such as the use of Supermarine Spitfire fighters. Additionally, Commonwealth nations often provided food, bases, and other logistical support. Other Lead-Lease items included patrol boats and De Havilland Mosquito aircraft. Through the course of the war, the United States received around $7.8 billion in Reverse Lend-Lease aid with $6.8 of it coming from Britain and the Commonwealth nations. End of Lend-Lease A critical program for winning the war, Lend-Lease came to an abrupt end with its conclusion. As Britain needed to retain much of the Lend-Lease equipment for postwar use, the Anglo-American Loan was signed through which the British agreed to purchase the items for approximately ten cents on the dollar. The total value of the loan was around  £1,075 million. The final payment on the loan was made in 2006. All told, Lend-Lease provided $50.1 billion worth of supplies to the Allies during the conflict, with $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6 billion to China.

Ski Resorts and Their Impact on the Environment

Ski Resorts and Their Impact on the Environment Alpine skiing and snowboarding are great ways to spend time in the mountains relatively safely during the most unforgiving season of the year. In order to be able to offer this, ski resorts rely on a complex and energy-demanding infrastructure, with scores of employees and heavy use of water. The environmental costs associated with resort skiing come in multiple dimensions, and so do the solutions. Disturbance to Wildlife Alpine habitats above the tree line are already threatened by global climate change, and disturbance from skiers is one more stressor. These disturbances can come from scaring wildlife or harming their habitat by damaging vegetation and compacting soils. Ptarmigan (a type of grouse adapted to snowy habitats) in Scottish ski areas declined over several decades from collisions with lift cables and other wires, and from losing nests to crows, which had become common at the resorts. Deforestation, Land Use Change In North American ski resorts, most of the skiable terrain is located in forested areas, requiring a large amount of clear-cutting to create ski trails. The resulting fragmented landscape negatively impacts habitat quality for many bird and mammal species. One study revealed that in the forest remnants left between slopes, bird diversity is reduced due to a negative edge effect. There, wind, light, and disturbance levels increase near the open slopes, reducing habitat quality. A recent expansion of a ski resort in Breckenridge, Colorado, prompted concerns that it would damage Canada lynx habitat. A deal with a local conservation group was achieved when the developer invested in lynx habitat protection elsewhere in the region. Water Use As a result of global climate change, most ski areas experience winters of increasingly shorter duration, with more frequent thawing periods. To maintain services to their clients, ski areas must make artificial snow to have good coverage on the slopes as well as around the lift bases and lodges. Artificial snow is made by mixing large volumes of water and high-pressure air. The demands for water can be very high, requiring pumping from surrounding lakes, rivers, or purpose-built artificial ponds. Modern snowmaking equipment can easily require 100 gallons of water per minute for each snow gun, and resorts can have dozens or even hundreds in operation. At Wachusett Mountain Ski Area, a modest-size resort in Massachusetts, snowmaking can pull as much as 4,200 gallons of water a minute. Fossil Fuel Energy Resort skiing is an energy-intensive operation, relying on fossil fuels, producing greenhouse gases, and contributing to global warming. Ski lifts usually run on electricity, and operating a single ski lift for a month requires about the same energy needed to power 3.8 households for a year. To maintain the surface of the snow on the ski runs, a resort deploys nightly a fleet of trail groomers each operating on about 5 gallons of diesel per hour and producing carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions. A complete estimate of the greenhouse gases emitted in association with resort skiing would need to include those produced by skiers driving or flying to the mountains. Ironically, climate change is affecting most ski regions. As global atmospheric temperatures go up, snowpacks are thinning, and the ski seasons are getting shorter. Solutions and Alternatives? Many ski resorts have made substantial efforts to minimize their environmental impacts. Solar panels, wind turbines, and small hydro turbines have been deployed to supply renewable energy. Improved waste management and composting programs have been implemented, and green building technologies have been employed. Forest management efforts have been planned to improve wildlife habitat. It is now possible for skiers to gather information about a resort’s sustainability efforts and make informed consumer decisions. Where to start? The National Ski Area Association gives out yearly awards to the resorts with outstanding environmental performances. Alternatively, Nordic (or cross-country) skiing provides opportunities to enjoy the snow with a much lighter impact on land and water resources. Some Nordic skiing resorts do, however, make use of snowmaking technology and fossil-fueled powered trail grooming equipment. An increasing number of outdoor enthusiasts seek snowy slopes by practicing lower-impact forms of skiing. These backcountry skiers and snowboarders use specialized equipment that allows them to make their way up the mountain on their own power, and then to ski down natural terrain that has not been logged or groomed. These skiers have to be self-sufficient and able to mitigate a multitude of mountain-related safety risks. The learning curve is steep, but backcountry skiing has a lighter environmental impact than resort skiing. Alpine areas are very sensitive, though, and no activity there is impact free: a study in the Alps found that black grouse showed elevated stress levels when frequently disturbed by backcountry skiers and snowboarders, with direct consequences on reproduction and survival. Sources Alettaz et al. 2007. Spreading Free-riding Snow Sports Represent a Novel Serious Threat for Wildlife.Laiolo and Rolando. 2005. Forest Bird Diversity and Ski Runs: A Case of Negative Edge Effect.MNN. 2014. Snowmakers Are Saving Ski Resorts†¦For Now.Wipf et al. 2005. Effects of Ski Piste Preparation on Alpine Vegetation.