Lend Lease and U.S. entrance into the war delayed

America suffers a far worse economic double dip in the late 30s with the jobless rates climbing to near 30% before dropping back down. The GOP in the 38 election does much better and Americans in general become more isolationist then OTL.

FDR wins re-election by a very slim margin in 1940 and due to economic pressure and greater isolationist feelings he doesn't really start to put the sqeeze on Japan until early 1942. In June of that year Japan decides to attack the U.S. fleet. America enters the war against Japan, but no German DoW on the US yet because of the lack of Lend Lease aid to their enemies at that point in time. In August of 1942 the U.S. Congess passes Lend Lease and provides it to nations fighting the Axis and after several sea battles in the Atlantic Germany declares war on the US in December of 1942.

How damaging would such a delayed Lend Lease and U.S. enterence into the war be to the overall Allied war effort?
 
Last edited:
jmc247 said:
due to economic pressure and greater isolationist feelings he doesn't really start to put the sqeeze on Japan until early 1942.
And he doesn't see Britain in trouble why? Doesn't respond to Winston's request to "frighten" Japan why?
jmc247 said:
lack of Lend Lease aid
With worse economic conditions, so even greater reason to export to Britain to create U.S. jobs?:confused::confused:
 

Hoist40

Banned
With worse economic conditions, so even greater reason to export to Britain to create U.S. jobs?:confused::confused:

But lend lease money comes from the US taxpayer so if you want to go into debt to increase jobs with US taxpayer money then just buy weapons for the US military or do other infrastructure jobs in the US.

You don’t have to give stuff to the British to create jobs in the US. Now if the British want to buy stuff then that is a different story. Maybe they could sell some of their overseas possessions to pay for it. US Bermuda Islands?
 

Deleted member 1487

America suffers a far worse economic double dip in the late 30s with the jobless rates climbing to near 30% before dropping back down. The GOP in the 38 election does much better and Americans in general become more isolationist then OTL.

FDR wins re-election by a very slim margin in 1940 and due to economic pressure and greater isolationist feelings he doesn't really start to put the sqeeze on Japan until early 1942. In June of that year Japan decides to attack the U.S. fleet. America enters the war against Japan, but no German DoW on the US yet because of the lack of Lend Lease aid to their enemies at that point in time. In August of 1942 the U.S. Congess passes Lend Lease and provides it to nations fighting the Axis and after several sea battles in the Atlantic Germany declares war on the US in December of 1942.

How damaging would such a delayed Lend Lease and U.S. enterence into the war be to the overall Allied war effort?

The US would be very well prepared for the war, as when the US passed the rearmament bill in 1940 they actually delayed arming in favor of Lend-Lease for the British and later Soviets, so it badly slowed US build up. In fact US stocks were raided, resold to companies, who in return resold it at a profit to the British. So not only was rearmament delayed, the US military sold off its inadequate stores to help the Allies. Without things like that then the US military is armed to the teeth in 1942 and it would be suicide for anyone, let along the Japanese, to attack the US. The would mean the British probably have to call it quits without LL, as they were pretty much out of foreign exchange by 1941. The Soviets would still be in the war and would get LL, but be further behind and probably much worse off without the British in the war passing on supplies to them from July on and the US from October.

When (if) the Japanese attack the US, which makes no sense if they've waited until nearly 1943, the Germans would not declare war, because the British have quit for lack of money, so the Germans would have their hands full fighting the Soviets and probably buying from the US.

The Japanese IMHO would attack on time in 1941, because they still think the US is getting ready to attack them, which, without LL, it will really look like it, because the US has not been giving away all of their rearmament arms. Instead of the US getting stronger by the day and the Japanese are terrified of waiting too long. Of course with the British dropping out of the war in early/mid 1941 due to lack of money, the Japanese can now trade with Europe, which in turn can trade with the rest of the world, enabling the Japanese to avoid the US blockade. Transshipments that is. So the US not offering LL would mean the US probably doesn't enter the war at all, as the British would bow out and the Japanese don't need to worry about attacking anyone in Asia but China, as the European Axis can now help the Japanese circumvent the blockade. Also the British would do everything they could to placate the Japanese once they have run out of money and realize that fighting yet again, this time in Asia, is too much for their treasury. But without the blockade biting as hard, the Japanese keep focusing on China and Britain doesn't matter to the Japanese, who need every man fighting in China, instead of a Pacific campaign sideshow.
 
But lend lease money comes from the US taxpayer so if you want to go into debt to increase jobs with US taxpayer money then just buy weapons for the US military or do other infrastructure jobs in the US.

You don’t have to give stuff to the British to create jobs in the US. Now if the British want to buy stuff then that is a different story. Maybe they could sell some of their overseas possessions to pay for it. US Bermuda Islands?
We Brits paid a pretty penny for war goods thank you very much ... first buying goods under cash and carry terms wiping out our meagre gold reserves and then paying for lend lease goods plus interest right up until the end of 2006.

I often wonder though who paid for the Soviet lend lease ....
 

Hoist40

Banned
We Brits paid a pretty penny for war goods thank you very much ... first buying goods under cash and carry terms wiping out our meagre gold reserves and then paying for lend lease goods plus interest right up until the end of 2006.

The British paid nothing for Lend Lease supplies received and used during the war. They also paid nothing for any Lend Lease supplies destroyed or returned to the USA after the war. Lend Lease equipment that the British kept after the war was discounted 90% and then sold to the British using a special low interest loan that the British found such a good deal that they postponed repaying the loan.

So the US taxpayers paid for all this except the supplies Britain kept after the war and then the US taxpayers paid for 90% of that and also paid to subsidize the loan given out. Plus a lot of the debt was actually a loan which had nothing to do with Lend Lease and was given to the new Labour government after the war.

As to pre-Lend Lease purchases, the US military declared equipment to be surplus which was then sold at discount prices to a middle man and then sold to the British. The only things sold at full price was British purchases from private companies, and the British themselves have a long history of profiting from arms sales to warring parties.

I often wonder though who paid for the Soviet lend lease ....

Don't know about this, I will have to put it on my list to look up. Though they probably just declared that all the supplies and equipment was destroyed during or after WW2 and so was free
 
Last edited:
We Brits paid a pretty penny for war goods thank you very much ... first buying goods under cash and carry terms wiping out our meagre gold reserves and then paying for lend lease goods plus interest right up until the end of 2006.

I often wonder though who paid for the Soviet lend lease ....

I read a book on the decline of British power recently by an obvious British nationalist. He seemed to believe that Churchill thought too highly on a Special Relationship from the increasingly Irish, German, and Italian United States. The author also said that he was looking out to much for short term gains instead of looking on how to keep some of the profitable parts of the Empire together without having to use so much of their inadequate industry and soldiers to supply it. Still, the British were some of the only people to stop military spending and to try to shrink their armed forces after WWI, so it is to be expected that they try and buy things they do not have the factories or specialists to produce. I also recall some silly sounding arguement about the British letting Americans use too many of their bases in the western Atlantic when all it did was free up ships for the Brits to use when the Americans took over policing everything up to Ireland. I do like the British, of course. Even their food.
 
Top