Lease Summary: Fill & Download for Free

if you want to save money in the long run buy the car, never lease it. If you are ok spending some extra thousands of $ every few yrs for driving newer cars then go for leasing. summary is -- Leasing is fun its for thrill, and buying is for saving money. Which means buying will be thrill only once when the car is new and not after 3 yrs but your payments would be done and the car is yours forever. On the other hand leasing will be fun every 3 yrs and you get to try different cars but then again leasing is a horrible waste of money so it all depends on whats ur background and how much can you afford.

Oh, much more so! The shows don’t reveal the continuing legal education classes (Wow! It’s a PowerPoint presentation!) or the time spent sitting in court waiting for your case to be called. You don’t get to see the thrill of reviewing a draft commercial lease, or formatting and citechecking a motion for summary judgment. There’s also the high drama of time entry and reviewing bills.And some of us get the truly mega-glamorous jobs: staring at screen after screen of the Internal Revenue Code, making sure that all the steps of a captive insurance arrangement meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and coordinating our work with the client’s internal accountants and outside auditors!Think Game of Thrones, without the dragons, direwolves, the Wall, magic, nudity, sex, violence, drama, betrayal, love, or hate; just the stuff about the Iron Bank, only less exciting.

If subsequently secured, German seizure of the Caucasus oil fields would have been a major, perhaps near-lethal, threat to the USSR. (See: Visions of Azerbaijan Magazine ::: Baku Oil in Decisive Battles of World War II and Azerbaijan in World War II.This would have been true, even if the Soviets had managed to destroy some, or most of the production capacity during their retreat (as Saddam did in the Iraq War) - thereby denying Hitler of the use of much / most of this Soviet oil.But, look at the whole board.Strategic control of the Caspian Sea, arguably, was far more important. Such control - again, if secured - would have potentially won WWII for the Germans. The Caspian Sea served for oil transport, from Soviet crude oil and petroleum products production in South Russia / the Caucasus, but more importantly, also for Lend-Lease transport, via the Persian Corridor.Look carefully at the routes presented, on these 3 following maps.And -And:The Lend Lease routes via the Persian Corridor either went:by road / rail, west of the Caspian Sea, orby ship, north, across the Caspian Sea.(An observant reader might question - why not just transport the Land Lease supplies, alternatively, through the Persian Corridor, but then east of the Caspian Sea - through Turkmenistan. I leave discussion of this possibility for others - but then the infrastructure was neither available, nor developmentable - therefore, it was never a practical backup in the event of the loss of the historical Persian Corridor transport route.)The Persian Corridor was the second largest Lend Lease tonnage supply, but that supply was much, much closer to the actual Eastern Front lines - the Pacific route needed transport across the entire, single pathway, trans-Siberian RR, which was much longer, and shared with Stalin’s other, more massive additional needs for cross-Asian transport. Furthermore, the Persian Corridor became the only viable, all-weather route to be developed to supply Soviet needs. (See: Engines of the Red Army in WW2).According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war (See: Lend-Lease):On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar, and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.In summary, Germany securing the oil fields might have become a very serious loss to the Soviets, but Germany securing strategic control of the Caspian Sea, and therefore the Persian Corridor, would have been the coup de grâce to Stalin (my humble opinion).