Recovery from the Great Depression without WW2?

This is challenging, since most of what caused WW2 is linked directly to the Depression itself. But let's say that somehow, even after the Great Depression is triggered in 1929, a major world war is nonetheless averted. Lots of PODs may be necessary to prevent war, of course. Let's say no Hitler (maybe he's killed in action on the Western Front), and from there a surviving Weimar Republic in Germany (though that still leaves the issue of preventing a Depression-suffering Germany from swinging to the other extreme and going Communist).


In addition, maybe in Japan, the February 26 Incident ends in a total failure, with all of the Japanese government officials surviving their assassinations (in particular, considering the economic issues discussed here, Finance Minister Korekiyo Takahashi, whose policies for recovery included cuts in military spending), thereby hindering the rise of nationalist militarism in Japan, and therefore, hostilities with the United States and other powers.

And let's just hope that this doesn't instead lead to the (already unlikely) scenario of a "C&C: Red Alert" situation with the Soviet Union.

With all this said, if there is no war, and therefore, no stimulation and reductions in unemployment via large-scale militarization, no economic mobilization around total war economies, and no postwar rebuilding, how long does it take for countries throughout the world to completely recover from the Depression? How long until the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Weimar Germany, Japan, and everywhere else reach something resembling pre-1929 rates of employment, wages, and economic growth? How can they get there? And what will global geopolitics and culture look like during and at the end of such a recovery?

I think we would have recovered but it would have been slower. some areas were improving like the dust bowl era had stopped. A combination of better farming practices and the end to the doughts. New industriesd were being developed around things like electricity and better roads which needed more cars.

So yes I think we would have recovered.

VidaLaVida said:

This is directly to the Depression itself. But let's say that somehow, even after the Great Depression is triggered in 1929, a major world war is nonetheless averted. Lots of PODs may be necessary to prevent war, of course. Let's say no Hitler (maybe he's killed in action on the Western Front), and from there a surviving Weimar Republic in Germany (though that still leaves the issue of preventing a Depression-suffering Germany from swinging to the other extreme and going Communist).


In addition, maybe in Japan, the February 26 Incident ends in a total failure, with all of the Japanese government officials surviving their assassinations (in particular, considering the economic issues discussed here, Finance Minister challenging, given that so much of what caused World War 2 is traced Korekiyo Takahashi, whose policies for recovery included cuts in military spending), thereby hindering the rise of nationalist militarism in Japan, and therefore, hostilities with the United States and other powers.

And let's just hope that this doesn't instead lead to the (already unlikely) scenario of a "C&C: Red Alert" situation with the Soviet Union.

With all this said, if there is no war, and therefore, no stimulation and reductions in unemployment via large-scale militarization, no economic mobilization around total war economies, and no postwar rebuilding, how long does it take for countries throughout the world to completely recover from the Depression? How long until the United States, Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Weimar Germany, Japan, and everywhere else reach something resembling pre-1929 rates of employment, wages, and economic growth? How can they get there? And what will global geopolitics and culture look like during and at the end of such a recovery?

Click to expand...

Regarding Japan specifically, I think one could make the argument that it might be better for Imperial Japan if this first incident is worse. If you have Imperial Troops firing on one other, or if one of the servents of the Imperial Household is murdered, that might shock the government into a decisive crackdown. It would be hard, because you are dealing with a lot of "true believers", but if you show that the ideology simply won't be tolerated, I think you can fight it. The important thing is that the Emperor is clear in his condemnation, instead of trying to stay aloof from politics. If you make the Ultranationalts seem "unpatriotic", then that cuts out of lot of their base.

Of course cutting military spending (through reducing the number of divisions, ideally) is a good idea. It will save money for Japan and also reduce somewhat the power of the Militarists. Anything that reduces the power of their block is a good idea, as even after their takeover they were really just primus inter pares among the power blocks, in my view.

However, you can't really discredit an ideology that way. Ultimately what is needed is a massive land reform. At this time period, the majority of Japanese still make their living as farmers. Most of these people had tiny, unproductive farms, and lived in desperate poverty. They were easy pray for the Militarists. Their creed of mystic ultranationalism gave them everything they wanted. It gave them a sense of pride and purpose, merely for being Japanese. It gave them a role to play in this glorious future, as soldiers. It made people who had felt unimportant all their lives next to the gentry feel like they were more important, like samurai. (There is a reason second-line soldiers, like cooks and drivers, were issued bayonets by the IJA. Everyone knew they would probably never use it, but being issued a blade was highly symbolic.) It promised to solve real issues, like Japan's relative poverty, and the widespread corruption in government. Also important, although less political, was that it played into the distrust of rural types of the new modern Western-influenced urban people. All of that was tied up into a neat little package by ultranationalism. If that still holds true, then Japan is still at risk.

That's why land reform is needed. If the large landholdings of the rich (the zaibatsu-owning families, and their ilk) are broken up and given away, then all of a sudden farmers can make a living. It doesn't have to be a great living, but as long as they aren't desperate, then they won't be so suspectible to extremism. It will help the economy, too. Instead of being so reliant on exporting, all these farmers who suddenly have disposable income can be your market. It will be quite a challenge getting something like that passed, but that is the only way I can see to eliminate the support base of the Militarists.

Also, the US should never pass the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff. Or, if it must past, let it be what HH wanted:. something that only applies to agricultural goods. After that passed (and the round of retaliations that followed), world trade fell by two-thirds IIRC. Even though it lasted only a short while, it did a lot to make the Great Depression longer. It also helped add to extremism. Laid-off factory workers, whether in Germany of Japan, were a lot more likely to listen to extremists. The facotry-ownering Junkers or Zaibatsu families, too, were much less likely to throw their lot in with Militarists or Nazis if they could still make a good living in industry. But when industry is already dying before your eyes, you might be willing to try something crazy. At least the Nazi/Militarist military spending brings in some orders, they though.

Sorry if I focused too much on politics. However, the politics and the economics of the period are very intertwinned, I think.

There certainly would have been recovery, tho it would have had a very different character without WWII. In the US and globally there would have been far less 'new' industrial plant built in the 1940 & 1950s. Absent war the severe destruction Europe and parts of Japan would not have occured, leaving the old industrial plant intact. In the US the massive & incrediblly rapid construction of manufactoring capacity would not have happened in the 1940s.

Investment in new technologies, like petroleum powered transport & motors, electronic communications, aircraft, automobiles would have continued & led in asorbing labor & investment capitol. Mature industries like railroads and coal use would have modernized, but not have used capitol investment & new labor at the same rate as during their largest expansion in the latter 19th & early 20th Century.

Agricultural mechanization would have continued, perhaps even faster in the 1940s than in OTL. In the US and much of Europe more than half the population had already migrated from rural farm labor to urban industrial labor. That trend would have been just as fast or faster without the distortion of WWII.

In the US Roosevelt may not win a third term & certainly not a fourth. In Britain Churchill would fade away into retirement, a obscure politician whos role in the Gallipoli affair a footnote in the history books. With the general economic recovery into the 1950 the appeal of Facism fades, particulary where its statist or "corpratist" features interfere with the free market & economic recovery. Tho some Facist governments will prove more adept than others and claim responsibility for the slowly rising prosperity.

With economic recovery the empires will not disband in the 1950s-60s, but would undergo alterations to deal with evolving economic 'technology'. Revolutions would occur within the empires at a lower level.

mcdo said:

the US should never pass the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff. Or, if it must past, let it be what HH wanted:. something that only applies to agricultural goods.

Click to expand...

That would be really good IMO. I do wonder, tho, if FDR's New Deal measures, by inflating wages but not impacting production, made things worse, instead of better.

I also think the mania for balanced budgets, which led to the '37-8 income tax increase & provoked the "little Depression" (& made the big one longer...), needs to be addressed.

That said, IMO, absent a major war, it could be into the '50s before the economy recovers to 1928 levels. Bear in mind, the Dow didn't recover to its pre-Crash high until 1954--& that's after the war, the Baby Boom, & the postwar spending spree.

You've probably got serious demographic issues at play: many fewer kids born, many, many fewer homes & cars & other things bought for a very long time...

Coincidentally, this has the benefit of slowing sprawl.

It has the drawback of, probably, worsening race relations. Does this lead to the *Watts, *Harlem, & *Detroit Riots in the '50s, instead? Does this mean Detroit is a shell by the '70s? (Or does less sprawl help prevent it?)

Carl Schwamberger said:

Investment in new technologies, like petroleum powered transport & motors, electronic communications, aircraft, automobiles would have continued & led in asorbing labor & investment capitol.

Click to expand...

It seems likely the jet airliner would be delayed by as much as a decade, with the Connie & B.314 (or Sunderland) taking the long-range routes.

Carl Schwamberger said:

Mature industries like railroads and coal use would have modernized

Click to expand...

It seems likely, also, the trend to dieselization would be slower, without USG investment in diesel for sub engines.

Without the War, ISTM the migration of blacks to places like Detroit would be lessened, & the move to Sun Belt cities/states, too. That has benefits for U.S. consumption of fresh water going into the '80s.

Carl Schwamberger said:

In the US Roosevelt may not win a third term & certainly not a fourth. In Britain Churchill would fade away into retirement

Click to expand...

Agree on both. Especially if FDR still passes the tax increase that leads to a "little Depression" in '37-8.