Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US never enters WWII

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by tsar View Post
    The problem is, is that Britain couldn’t afford a higher cost, or any cost after 1940. That is why Lend-Lease came about because Britain was broke.
    Indeed.

    Originally posted by Tyramon
    I am also quite aware of the economic condition of the UK, however something tells me there would be something worked out if not by the governments than by the business interests. There would be simply too much money to be made even if it was deferred money.
    Which was what Lend-Lease effectively was. It may have helped the UK enormously (and the USSR of course but that's beside the point on this specific issue) but with the US economy sluggish and world trade even worse it made sense to help fund the British war effort this way. The US could have carried on in a totally isolationist fashion but would have been much poorer as a result. One can make a similar argument for Marshall Aid.
    Signing out.

    Comment


    • #47
      And they could do a lend/lease scenario, and even offer it to Germany which of course again they couldn't actually deliver to because of the British Blockade.

      So we end up supplying the British and anyone not blockaded.

      Comment


      • #48
        Reading back through all this & mulling over the same thread on different web sites I come back to the same conclusions. To avoid complete bankruptcy Britian has to scale back its war operations . Priority items like defending Egypt, and securing the Atlantic sea lanes would be accomplished. Offensive actions would be small & incremental. Things like detaching the various colonies from Vichy France. Elminating German influence & connections in South America, and slowly pushing ahead on atomic weapons development, ect....

        The same would apply to the USSR. Its industrial production, composition of its military forces, and combat methods would have to be adjusted. A slower affordable pace would be necessary for a while and leaders who understood conservation or resources would be necessary.

        Consider that it took Britian over fifteen years to supress revolutionary/Bonapartist France. In the case of WWII a decade to defeat Germany does not sound unreasonable.

        Comment


        • #49
          We get problems of 'war weariness' don't we. The British have to endure severer rationing, longer periods of German bombing, less 'Good News' as the kind of minor successful operations that helped buoy up morale get scaled back etc. The Napoleonic Wars may have lasted longer overall but there were never the kind of issues the British would have faced in WW2 had US assistance never been available. I'm not arguing that Britain would have lost but winning the war would have been very difficult. In the end Europe would have been dominated by a tyrannous regime that suppressed free thought no matter what the result. For some this may not necessarily have been a bad thing but for the British it would certainly have been if they had continued the fight.
          Signing out.

          Comment


          • #50
            I think part of my issue is that I have a hard time thinking that the US could completely stay out of the war. Every scenario i can think of eventually has the US enter the war at some point which means that while the date may fluctuate the US is still getting involved.

            I tried to think of what could be done to assure the US stays out of the war, and I came up with two essential things. First that Japan does not attack the US or any of its interests. Second is Germany would have to completely curtail the Battle of the Atlantic.

            If you take that into account then the UK is not having ration as much if at all in certain areas and makes all the more reason for the US to sell arms to the Allies which then does add them by happenstance to the overall war effort.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Tyramon View Post
              I think part of my issue is that I have a hard time thinking that the US could completely stay out of the war. Every scenario i can think of eventually has the US enter the war at some point which means that while the date may fluctuate the US is still getting involved.
              That's the problem with 'What If?'s, when we examine them rationally it's often hard to see why what actually happened wouldn't happen.
              I tried to think of what could be done to assure the US stays out of the war, and I came up with two essential things. First that Japan does not attack the US or any of its interests. Second is Germany would have to completely curtail the Battle of the Atlantic.
              The former is possible, the latter unlikely. However, the strict application of the Neutrality Laws and a redirection of US trade might avoid any kind of casus belli in the Atlantic. Let's not forget that there are US economic interests in Germany and depending on how the war is perceived to be progressing it's possible that the incumbent administration would decide to stay neutral and thus protect them.
              Signing out.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                We get problems of 'war weariness' don't we. ....
                Yes that one of several reason why the Brits cant put on the full court press. Even in the lower intensity war/s of the Revolutionary-Napoleonic period the budget got a bit into the red ink and the fleet had a unforunate mass disciplinary infraction. Who knows? Perhaps as in the Napolieonic wars a intermission or two would be called, only to have fighting break out again in the next year. In the long run I suspect the weaknesses of nazi leadership and policys would turn the whole Third Reich thing into a unworkable mess sometime after 1945.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Tyramon View Post
                  I think part of my issue is that I have a hard time thinking that the US could completely stay out of the war. Every scenario i can think of eventually has the US enter the war at some point which means that while the date may fluctuate the US is still getting involved.
                  Ain't that the truth. The US just has to get involved in all sectors of the planet as a great bastion for freedom and social justice, plus the ideal way to spend taxpayer's moola.

                  But the real truth, here in New England, is that without Japan attacking Pearl Harbor we wouldn't have any Subarus... which are made from the scrap metal of all those ships they sank, and which have good Japanese-tech heaters for our cold New England winters.
                  Alanus

                  "We're all the same inside," Jackie Chan

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                    Yes that one of several reason why the Brits cant put on the full court press. Even in the lower intensity war/s of the Revolutionary-Napoleonic period the budget got a bit into the red ink and the fleet had a unforunate mass disciplinary infraction.
                    Aye, and if rationing got severe enough the problems of disease due to malnourishment might have led to social unrest as it did in Germany during WW1.

                    In the long run I suspect the weaknesses of nazi leadership and policys would turn the whole Third Reich thing into a unworkable mess sometime after 1945.
                    The Nazi regime could not have survived a peace for too long as the imbalances of their economic policy would have led to chaos as consumer demand vastly outstripped supply.
                    Signing out.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                      Aye, and if rationing got severe enough the problems of disease due to malnourishment might have led to social unrest as it did in Germany during WW1.
                      yes the trick is to guess correctly where & when to back down so those conditions are not created.


                      [/QUOTE]
                      The Nazi regime could not have survived a peace for too long as the imbalances of their economic policy would have led to chaos as consumer demand vastly outstripped supply.[/QUOTE]

                      I was thinking more of the other 85% of nazi Europes population, those who would have little hope of the benefits of German National Socialism. How are their attitudes going to evolve as the nazi favorites prosper & the Gestapo expands into every town?

                      A related question concerns the condition of technical skills in industry. Aside from the losses of skilled industrial workers in combat in the East 1941-43 there was the larger issue of a decline in university level education that started before the war. Exactly how much did the expulsion of Jews, Communists, Socialists, and other undesireables from the German technical Universities and research institutions affect longer term industrial growth and sustainment?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                        yes the trick is to guess correctly where & when to back down so those conditions are not created.
                        Which wouldn't have been easy.
                        I was thinking more of the other 85% of nazi Europes population, those who would have little hope of the benefits of German National Socialism. How are their attitudes going to evolve as the nazi favorites prosper & the Gestapo expands into every town?
                        Well, in Western Europe we know there was unrest as food quantities and quality dropped. In the East the populace were allowed to starve and there doesn't seem to have been much they could do about it. Had the war continued at a stalemate for several more years much of Poland and Western Russia would have become a wasteland.

                        A related question concerns the condition of technical skills in industry. Aside from the losses of skilled industrial workers in combat in the East 1941-43 there was the larger issue of a decline in university level education that started before the war. Exactly how much did the expulsion of Jews, Communists, Socialists, and other undesireables from the German technical Universities and research institutions affect longer term industrial growth and sustainment?
                        In the immediate decade I don't see it making a huge difference. If the Nazis prevail then the prospects would be poor unless their academics were allowed contact with foreign universities and some exchange of ideas was permitted. Ideologically dictated academic research works though, but only in limited areas. Things like CERN could never happen because it's too theoretical.The Nazis might have put the first man on the moon but would never have developed anything like the Internet.
                        Signing out.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Full Monty View Post
                          In the immediate decade I don't see it making a huge difference. If the Nazis prevail then the prospects would be poor unless their academics were allowed contact with foreign universities and some exchange of ideas was permitted. Ideologically dictated academic research works though, but only in limited areas. Things like CERN could never happen because it's too theoretical.The Nazis might have put the first man on the moon but would never have developed anything like the Internet.
                          I suspect it makes a difference much sooner. The changes in productivity due to the replacement of 1930s paid labor, particularly skilled labor, with less motivated conscripted labor and later the 'slave' labor appear in a downward trend by 1943. I'm skeptical a peacetime economic boom would reverse that considering nazi methods and policys. Without a true peace, but instead war at a lower level, I see the same trend of declining productivity and stagnation continuing and spreading upwards.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X