|
Post by bauple58 on Dec 14, 2020 14:44:51 GMT 12
Greeting from the west I am an Australian post graduate history student researching the reconversion (i.e. scrapping) of surplus U.S. military aircraft following the Second World War. Since the United States supplied some 30,000 military aircraft to its allies (New Zealand included) my dissertation must necessarily also address this off-shore dimension of the reconversion. To this end, I would be interested in hearing from any forum members who can help with answering the following: i. Why did New Zealand elect to repatriate its front line aircraft when its Pacific allies chose at the end of the war to either abandon or hand back some of their Lend Lease aircraft to local U.S. theater commanders? ii. Did New Zealand always intend scrapping its surplus Lend Lease aircraft (and was simply awaiting the formal U.S.-N.Z. settlement of July 1946) or, did some other event(s) cause the scrapping of these aircraft? iii. Where will I find an authoritative source for RNZAF aircraft strengths during and following the Second World War? iv. What was the total number of Lend Lease aircraft delivered to the RNZAF, and the numbers remaining at the war's end? v. Was James Larsen exporting the secondary aluminium recovered at his Rukuhia foundry (or was he selling this domestically)? vi. Where will I find an aggregate cost for New Zealand's Lend Lease aircraft? vii. I am particularly wanting to understand why there were never any political or public debates preceding or following the destruction of these aircraft, a few half-hearted comments from individual opposition members being all that I can find (e.g. Henry Morton (Waitemata), Parliamentary Debates, H.R., vol.272, 28 November 1945, 164). Any assistance on these counts would be most appreciated. Thank you Mark Clayton
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Dec 14, 2020 19:06:30 GMT 12
Some previous discussion which may reveal some helpful information on RNZAF lend-lease aircraft at this link - Here
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 17, 2020 11:23:09 GMT 12
I would also add that there are some excellent articles on the operation of the various Lend-Lease ("Mutual Aid") programmes on the internet, but also, rather predictably, some not-so-good ones! I don't think the Wikipedia one is up to much, but if I can find the site of the one good one I did find, will post it on here - but it wasn't that hard to find! Also the joint official statement by the representatives of the USA and NZ Governments, easily found on Papers Past website in New Zealand, should be studied closely too. The date of this announcement was approximately August 1946. David D
|
|
|
Post by bauple58 on Dec 17, 2020 16:13:42 GMT 12
Thanks both
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Dec 18, 2020 11:24:58 GMT 12
Just located date the settlement of the USA/NZ Mutual Aid agreement was announced in New Zealand - it was 11th July 1946, and was also simultaneously (probably on 10th July) announced in Washington, although I doubt that it would have raised much of a ripple in Washington at the time. David D
|
|
|
Post by bauple58 on Dec 29, 2020 16:06:27 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by bauple58 on Jan 9, 2021 15:11:34 GMT 12
Having repeatedly re-read the 1946 “Lend-Lease Settlement Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States of America (https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1946-I.2.1.2.10) I have to conclude that the U.S. never did (back in 1946) and still hasn't relinquished title to the Lend-Lease aircraft it supplied New Zealand. Following are the relevant clauses:
3. (a) The Government of New Zealand hereby acquires, and shall be deemed to have acquired as of September 2, 1945, full title, without qualification as to disposition or use, to all lend-lease articles in the possession of the Government of New Zealand, its agents or transferees, on September 2, 1945, and not subsequently returned to the Government of the United States, other than lend-lease articles which on that date were in the possession of the Armed Forces of the Government of New Zealand.
5. (a) The Government of the United States, with respect to lend-lease articles, and the Government of New Zealand, with respect to reciprocal aid articles, reserve a right to recapture, at any time after September 1, 1945, any such articles other than those to which title is passed pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof, which are now in the possession of the Armed Forces of the other Government
I would be interested to hear from others here if I have interpreted this correctly?
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 10, 2021 11:18:27 GMT 12
Think we need a lawyer here! Cannot make out the sense of that Clause 3 (a), which seems to be saying that those items in the possession of the NZ Govt and those in possession of the NZ Govt's armed forces are to be treated very differently. Is this attempting to differentiate the large numbers of US Army/Marine Corps motor vehicles left in NZ awaiting overhauls from all other equipment allocated specifically to the NZ armed forces? It is also notable (in the full text of conditions supplied by bauple58) that "combat" type aircraft (and all weapons of all descriptions, including ammunition and spare parts) were treated quite differently to transport and other non-combat types (perhaps including trainers?) If either NZ Govt or American govt suddenly decided (as of now) to ask for "their" respective "lend-lease articles" back again, they will only be disappointed. David D
|
|
|
Post by tbf2504 on Jan 10, 2021 13:33:32 GMT 12
David, some years ago when researching this vary subject in the archives files, I can recall reading something along the lines that "all surviving combat aircraft had to be returned, or reduced to scrap, exetp for a small number for NZ's immediate post-war defence (the Corsairs, Mustangs, catalinas, and venturas) Training and transport aircraft could be retained as they were considered to be "non-threatening" to the US (I think it was in one of the air files dealing with the Interim Air Force policy)
|
|
|
Post by bauple58 on Jan 13, 2021 14:55:00 GMT 12
A legal interpretation would be welcome. Not surprisingly, the Australian Lend-Lease Settlement Agreement almost perfectly mirrors the New Zealand Agreement, section 3(a) from the latter aligning almost word for word with the following section 4(a) from the Australian Agreement... 4. (a) The Commonwealth of Australia hereby acquires, and shall be deemed to have acquired as of September 2, 1945, full title, without qualification as to disposition or use, to all lend-lease articles in the possession of the Commonwealth of Australia, its agents or distributees, on September 2, 1945, and not subsequently returned to the Government of the United States, other than lend-lease articles on that date .in the possession of the armed forces of the Commonwealth of Australia (vide www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/b-au-ust000005-0164.pdf). Retaining title to these surplus aircraft would have given the U.S. a degree of arms control during the immediate post-war years when the global geo-political landscape was expected to undergo significant readjustment. It would have also afforded a measure of protection for both the aircraft manufacturing sector (the largest employer in the U.S.) and the strategically important light metal industries. Both sectors were financially vulnerable during the reconversion period when it was feared rapid defence contract cancellations and defence plant closures might lead to spirally unemployment.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jan 14, 2021 10:33:43 GMT 12
Yes, the retention of the types named for either brief or long periods is interesting, and was obviously of value to both USA, as well as NZ in that "reasonable" arms control could be exercised by the Americans, and NZ could use American equipment to advantage as it was impossible for RNZAF to obtain any other new fighter aircraft at short notice, to undertake the obligation to supply a Japanese occupation squadron. It is noticeable that the RNZAF had a requirement for a postwar multi-engine strike squadron, preferably to be equipped with a British-type aircraft (the Mosquito, ordered in 1946), which is why the Venturas were disposed of as soon as possible in 1946/48, although I doubt the Americans were too worried about them. The Americans also OKed the request to use the FG-1D Corsairs for the Japan obligation, although the P-51Ds were briefly considered but found to be impracticable considering the narrow window of opportunity then available. Same with Catalinas, and few remaining TBF (Avengers) and Hudsons, all of which would have been considered largely obsolete anyway. Quite a degree of pragmatism seems to have been in play during this period of unsettled world relations, although among the great powers it was understood that the general "calm" (there were plenty of disgruntled and/or oppressed types not satisfied with the outcome of the recent war), would not last forever. David D
|
|