How long would it have taken the British Empire and the Soviets to defeat the Nazis alone?

[Michele]

The bulk of German resources, including the Luftwaffe, remain deployed in the East. The Luftwaffe retains air superiority. At Kursk, the Germans were achieving a kill ratio of 6 to 1, and had to call of the offensive at a time when Manstein felt it could be continued to decisive effect, because of Anglo-American landings in Sicily. This particular battle would presumably be butterflied away by the divergent timeline being proposed, but it does show the extent to which American involvement critically changed the outcome in the East.

Not at all. Manstein thought what you say, but he was wrong. As usual for a German general in this war, he had not the slightest idea of how strong the Soviet reserves were, nor was he actually on the verge of breaking into the Soviets' strategic depth. Had more forces remained around and not moved to Italy, they would have been uselessly attrited in attacks, so that the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives would have in all likelihood achieved the same degree of success.
The body count is the consolation prize of German memoirists, but it actually had never been the objective for either side. Cutting off enemy bulges was, with the accompanying POW-count, which is the safe way to destroy enemy units. Additionally, gaining further terrain. The Germans failed, the Soviets succeeded, and they would have succeeded at least to the same degree without an Allied landing in Sicily. In any case, the body count can hardly be a consolation when you fight the Soviet Union.

All that said, there is no reason to believe in this ATL a similar landing does not take place. There are no US troops, but the British have much more manpower.

As to the rest, hardware is seldom a decisive factor. None of the new-fangled gadgets worked as well as promised. Sure, if the Germans were given more time they could perfect them - so could the British, of course, it's not as if they did not have jet engines and proximity fuzes. But anyway, the Soviets were coming, so "more time" is not that long.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not at all. Manstein thought what you say, but he was wrong. As usual for a German general in this war, he had not the slightest idea of how strong the Soviet reserves were, nor was he actually on the verge of breaking into the Soviets' strategic depth. Had more forces remained around and not moved to Italy, they would have been uselessly attrited in attacks, so that the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives would have in all likelihood achieved the same degree of success.

Though success of the kind originally planned for was never possible, the Soviets were burning their armor reserves up at an alarming pace. Before having the chance to attack the planned Soviet counterattacks would hit first, as they were maneuvering their last reserves in place at the time the pull back was ordered. That would be the German advance stalls and probably is pushed back a bit, it also means the Soviets are going to lose their reserves, which will put a crimp on their abilities to attack later on, as they will need even more time to recover and there is likely the chance that a lot of the AFVs that were knocked out won't be recovered. That was just with the OTL forces.

With TTL forces, i.e. a much enhanced air support and potentially increased armor complement without the Tunisian fiasco (not possible without US forces) and the fresh 1st Panzer division not being locked down in Greece (among other forces diverted to garrison the Mediterranean in the lead up to Operation Husky), the Soviets will have a serious problem, especially if their own air force can't weigh in. That's all of course assuming that Stalingrad even happens per OTL without the US in the war (butterflies after all) or is actually pulled off given that the Tunisian campaign is likely not happening ITTL.

 

[Michele]

Rommel won’t be in the same kind of hurry to take Alex regardless if he isn’t mentally counting the days until the US Army lands to his West. The US tanks and other supplies we gave to the British were instrumental as it was in tipping the balance in late ‘42.

Again, in this ATL the British aren't losing tens of thousands of men in Malaya and Singapore, nor committing other tens of thousands in Burma. They can entirely manage the North African Axis force, with or without a landing in Vichy French territory.

As to the US-built war materials, certainly they were very necessary. I don't think, however, that this ATL's non-belligerent status of the USA prevents Lend-Lease. Note that actually, the British had already signed contracts to buy M3 Grants under Cash and Carry back in 1940, even before the first prototype, and the first delivery had reached the British Isles in September 1941 - well before the US entry in war in OTL.

 

[sarahz]

Rommel won’t be in the same kind of hurry to take Alex regardless if he isn’t mentally counting the days until the US Army lands to his West. The US tanks and other supplies we gave to the British were instrumental as it was in tipping the balance in late ‘42.

Expect Egypt to be contested well into ‘43 and Italy and Germany to still have forces in North Africa by ‘44.

The war will end as the players get exhausted. Most likely Germany maintains control over Central Europe, the USSR Eastern Europe and the Anglo-French Western Europe.

really with all the additional fleet air and land units the UK don't need in the far east I am really not sure how the axis does that. Speaking of the Far east if Japan is not in the war I have been thinking about that and it probably cant be done unless there is a POD meaning Japan is less involved in China and thus potentially more pro British, because several (most) ways of doing that require the renewal of the Alliance and a continuation of previous non militarist rational government,. In realistic situations avoiding a pacific war the changes could be so great as to mean Japan is still allied to the UK and thus available to reinforce the UK and free European Forces. The disaster scenario would be if Japan had gone North against the USSR at the same time as Germany, but I cant see it.

 

[Ingsoc]

Again, in this ATL the British aren't losing tens of thousands of men in Malaya and Singapore, nor committing other tens of thousands in Burma. They can entirely manage the North African Axis force, with or without a landing in Vichy French territory.

I think the issue here is people continue to forget just how large Britain's commitment in the Far East was. Around 130,000 Empire/Commonwealth forces were lost during the Malaya/Singapore campaign, before we even consider the enormous concentration of forces in the Burma campaign. Just in terms of forces that were 'local', relatively speaking, around 100,000 men from East and West Africa fought in Burma - they're all free to head to Egypt here.

On top of this with Burma, Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong still standing ITTL and no threat coming from Japan the British can send far more of the Indian Army to Africa than they did IOTL. Closing out Africa and seizing Mediterranean islands isn't the issue - it's what happens after that. For my money it's a landing in Italy and a much slower grind up than was endured IOTL, with Stalin continuing to complain this doesn't count as a real Second Front. Maybe landings in Southern France from Corsica once Germany is really up against it

 

[Bougnas]

Another thing is that without Japan and the US in the war and a more limited LL, Australia will more likely keep forces in the ME as before the Japanese invasion, and without the US being able to send bazillions of aircrafts and tanks, indigenous programs are less likely to be shut down.

Therefore I could expect Australia to deploy a full armored division if not more, equipped with AC 3 and 4 Sentinel tanks and supported by Australian aircrafts to the ME and then the ETO.

Possibly the only timeline where this could happen

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Therefore I could expect Australia to deploy a full armored division if not more, equipped with AC 3 and 4 Sentinel tanks and supported by Australian aircrafts to the ME and then the ETO...

I'd hope they'd bring better kit that Sentinias and Wirraways.

 

[MKD]

We had them licked before the Yanks even worked out what side to be on so absolutely no time at all ;-)

I don't see how, without the industrial might, financial resources and almost endless human resources of the USA, the war can be won by either side. I think it simply grinds to a halt in a long, drawn out, murderous stalemate on the eastern front with increasingly barbarous acts perpetrated by each side until one or the other develops some form of WMD.

The vastness of the Soviet state is for nothing if their industry is smashed and their people dislocated.

 

[Michele]

I don't see how, without the industrial might, financial resources and almost endless human resources of the USA, the war can be won by either side. I think it simply grinds to a halt in a long, drawn out, murderous stalemate on the eastern front with increasingly barbarous acts perpetrated by each side until one or the other develops some form of WMD.

The vastness of the Soviet state is for nothing if their industry is smashed and their people dislocated.

The endless human resources of the USA were useful but not decisive in the European part of the war in OTL, and would be replaced by BCE troops not committed in the Far East in this ATL. The fall of the Japanese military government and the backpedaling of Japanese adventurism abroad that would follow would also mean that many more Soviet forces can be redeployed from Siberia to Europe.

The industrial and financial resources, as well as the raw materials, of the USA are another kettle of fish, and I do hope that even in this ATL Lend Lease would be that nice thing. Sure, some posters above made the point that if there's no US war casualties, Lend Lease will be smaller. That's likely, however I'd like to mention that production for Lend Lease was a boon onto the US industries and economy. It would entirely make sense in this ATL, even regardless of the obvious interest of the USA in curbing the German hegemony over Europe.

 

[Medved]

Even with full US involvement, OTL Britain is starting to run out of manpower by the summer of 1943. With just LL but no active US participation:

The British have to invest a lot more troops and materiel into the NA campaign and invasion of Sicily/Italy. And they will have to shoulder all the losses by themselves. So no invasion of France and slower progress in NA/Italy.

The Germans get spared a LOT of damage caused by US aircraft - their industry and air force is much better off. Some claim that without the USAAF the British have to suspend the bomber campaign by spring 1944.

So pretty much everything depends on the Soviets and the US. If Truman cuts LL in April 1945 then the war ends in late 1945 with the Soviets somewhere in Poland.

If the US gives LL indefinitely the war ends in late 1946 with the Soviets ruling over pretty much 90% of Europe.

Britain and the USSR without US participation and without LL = automatic German victory though.

 

[Michele]

Even with full US involvement, OTL Britain is starting to run out of manpower by the summer of 1943.

Yes. In OTL. I.e. that timeline in which the BCE employed what, a million men against the Japanese. No Japan at war in this timeline - as mentioned only half a dozen times already.

 

[Medved]

Yes. In OTL. I.e. that timeline in which the BCE employed what, a million men against the Japanese. No Japan at war in this timeline - as mentioned only half a dozen times already.

Sure if the British lose no soldiers in SE Asia in the 41-45 period they can send some of them to NA+Europe.

These additional reinforcements however will not replace what the Americans sent to Europe - by far.

Also it does not affect the shrinking manpower in British industry.

 

[Ingsoc]

Sure if the British lose no soldiers in SE Asia in the 41-45 period they can send some of them to NA+Europe.

These additional reinforcements however will not replace what the Americans sent to Europe - by far.

Also it does not affect the shrinking manpower in British industry.

BCE lost ~130,000 in the Malaya/Singapore debacle. And then on top of that around 1,000,000 men were committed to fighting the Japanese. That's a lot of extra manpower right there.

And I'm not arguing, and I don't believe @Michele is arguing, that without US troops WWII continues exactly the same with BCE forces from the Far East making up the US shortfall. I'm saying the extra forces enable Britain to close the Med and launch a slow grind in Italy - possibly landing in Southern France from Corisca once the Soviets reach Poland or somewhere and Germany starts to collapse.

It doesn't to my mind seem you're disagreeing with me, you're just taking the time to tell us that the US was very important to the European theatre in the Second World War?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Though success of the kind originally planned for was never possible, the Soviets were burning their armor reserves up at an alarming pace. Before having the chance to attack the planned Soviet counterattacks would hit first, as they were maneuvering their last reserves in place at the time the pull back was ordered. That would be the German advance stalls and probably is pushed back a bit, it also means the Soviets are going to lose their reserves, which will put a crimp on their abilities to attack later on, as they will need even more time to recover and there is likely the chance that a lot of the AFVs that were knocked out won't be recovered. That was just with the OTL forces.

The Soviets didn’t express much alarm at their armor losses. The reserves the Soviets were dispatching also were hardly their last, otherwise their subsequent offensive at Kharkov wouldn’t have been able to push onto the D’niepr: They had a lot more replacements on hand, as shown by the fact that formations like 5th Guards Tank Army, after being losing 80% of it’s operational AFVs at Prokhorovka, were back most of the way up to it’s full strength within a few days. Some of that were AFVs that were recovered from the battlefield and could be repaired in a few days time (which also makes hash of the claim the Soviets wouldn’t be able to recover their disabled AFVs: they already had OTL), but most of it were from the reserve depots. That the Germans, in their exhausted state, would be able to repulse them represents Wehraboo-esque wishful thinking as not only had the Germans by July 15th reached a state where they would be most vulnerable to such a repulse, the maneuvers for the counterattack were on the flanks of the penetration, where German defenses were struggling to deal with battalion and brigade scale attacks as it was. Additionally, without the dispatch of reinforcements to the north to stem Operation Kutuzov, 11th Guards Army would achieve the breakthrough historically denied to it and effectively cut off the bulk of 9th Army and some of 2nd Army.

Of course, as noted, this is under OTL circumstances. How things would be ATL 1943 are a bit harder to predict.

 

[Medved]

BCE lost ~130,000 in the Malaya/Singapore debacle. And then on top of that around 1,000,000 men were committed to fighting the Japanese. That's a lot of extra manpower right there.

And I'm not arguing, and I don't believe @Michele is arguing, that without US troops WWII continues exactly the same with BCE forces from the Far East making up the US shortfall. I'm saying the extra forces enable Britain to close the Med and launch a slow grind in Italy - possibly landing in Southern France from Corisca once the Soviets reach Poland or somewhere and Germany starts to collapse.

It doesn't to my mind seem you're disagreeing with me, you're just taking the time to tell us that the US was very important to the European theatre in the Second World War?

Japan is still there and the British have to keep some troops in SE Asia just in case. And most of the Indians fighting in Burma would not go to Europe or NA. So while the British can send some troops to the West - it would most likely be less than the Americans invested into NA+Italy.

The rest of the situation and possible outcomes was covered in my post : 19207000

 

[Michele]

What's the likelihood that large "volunteer brigades" and "totally Canadians, eh" turn up to help?

I've thought about this. It depends, I suppose.

If you mean real US volunteers (parading as "Canadians" because of the US law against serving in foreign armed forces), that's entirely a possibility, but I wouldn't bet on large numbers. It's just a hunch, but I'd say you could barely put together a division, maybe two.

If you mean "volunteers" in the sense of the Chinese "volunteer" divisions in Korea, then I say no. Even if the Administration did want war with Nazi Germany, they wouldn't risk something so blatant and rash, and it wouldn't pass muster with the lawmakers anyway.

There is the middle ground, something like the Blackshirt volunteers in the CTV in Spain (as opposed to the regular Regio Esercito units in it). You'd have to create an ad-hoc organization in Canada, and have it indirectly funded by the US Treasury, with such incentives (pay, pensions etc.) as necessary to pump up the numbers. I guess this could be possible and could yield additional manpower, but it strikes me as not an US way of doing things.

One final thing would certainly be done, and we can be certain about that because it was actually done in OTL, even before December 1941: the relieving of British troops from strategic but non-combat positions. The OTL example from before December 1941 is the occupation of Iceland. After 1941, you have the securing and logistical organization of the Persian corridor as a safe LL route to the Soviets, after its occupation by the Anglo-Soviets.
In this ATL, you could have US garrisons being stationed to secure the Iraqi oilfields (Iraq being nominally a neutral country). Once the fighting moves to Libya for good, you could have US garrisons in Egypt (nominally another neutral and independent country). You might have US units deployed to Australian mandates, just to keep an eye on the non-belligerent Japanese, which would free up additional Anzac units.

Also keep in mind that Britain is saving lots of manpower because the Germans have given up the Battle of the Atlantic. That's a massive advantage for the Allies.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The Soviets didn’t express much alarm at their armor losses. The reserves the Soviets were dispatching also were hardly their last, otherwise their subsequent offensive at Kharkov wouldn’t have been able to push onto the D’niepr. They had a lot more replacements on hand, as shown by the fact that formations like 5th Guards Tank Army, after being losing 80% of it’s operational AFVs at Prokhorovka, were back most of the way up to it’s full strength within a few days. Some of that were AFVs that were recovered from the battlefield and could be repaired in a few days time (which also makes hash of the claim the Soviets wouldn’t be able to recover their disabled AFVs: they already had OTL), but most of it were from the reserve depots. That the Germans, in their exhausted state, would be able to repulse them represents Wehraboo-esque wishful thinking as not only had the Germans by July 15th reached a state where they would be most vulnerable to such a repulse, the maneuvers for the counterattack were on the flanks of the penetration, where German defenses were struggling to deal with battalion and brigade scale attacks as it was. Additionally, without the dispatch of reinforcements to the north to stem Operation Kutuzov, 11th Guards Army would achieve the breakthrough historically denied to it and effectively cut off the bulk of 9th Army and some of 2nd Army.

Of course, as noted, this is under OTL circumstances. How things would be ATL 1943 are a bit harder to predict.

Stain was not happy about losses and the local commanders actually hid how bad their losses were. Then of course in the official history the Soviets lied their asses off about what actually happened and how many losses they inflicted and suffered.
It took armored forces, namely 5GTA, that suffered on the southern flank during Citadel several to be nearly rebuilt before resuming the offensive. There is a reason the Soviets simply let the Germans withdraw in peace. Simply having reserve forces assigned to a depleted army doesn't mean that army is suddenly operational again, it needs to train and reorganize before being combat operational again. Which is why there was such a substantial gap between the end of Citadel and the Soviet Belgorod-Kharkov offensive involving 5th GTA.
And Russian historians have even challenged the idea that the Soviets would be able to continue attacking even with their reserves:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518046.2019.1552735?journalCode=fslv20

Zhukov, who had familiarized himself with the situation and the enemy’s and his own forces’ actions in the Prokhorovka region, reached the conclusion that it was necessary to more energetically continue the counter-strike that had begun and hold the enemy’s forces. Facts and an analysis of combat operations in the region of the station from 13 July through 16 July 1943 show that, in reality, a continuation of the counter-strike, as such, did not occur; the Voronezh Front did not have the necessary forces and means for this. The main efforts of the forces, including three corps of 5th Guards Tank Army, were basically directed so as the prevent the defeat of 69th Army’s 48th Rifle Corps Northern Donets interfluve (south of Prokhorovka). Nevertheless, there were attempts to continue the attacks and counter-attacks. In particular, General-Lieutenant A. S. Zhadov’s 5th Guards Army unsuccessfully tried several times to eliminate the bridgehead of the SS Death’s Head [Totenkopf] Motorized Division at the bend of the Psel River and in doing so inflict appreciable losses.

Plus we've been over this in a thread a while back, the Soviet reserves weren't maneuvering on the flanks, they were headed straight at the Panzer Corps to contain them:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...int-vs-over-rated.447405/page-4#post-17300820

What forces came from AG-South to support AG-Center in Orel?

 

[sloreck]

While the USA might, in this scenario, be responsible for the garrisoning of Iceland, and possibly respond to Portuguese "requests" for troops for the Azores, a USA that does not get in to the war in Europe absent PH etc is not going to send large numbers of troops to garrison Iraq or Egypt, or anywhere else. To the extent the US presence in this scenario is going to be increased it would be to increase the troops in the PI and other Pacific islands, as was underway OTL, the Canal Zone, and perhaps a few other spots OF TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE USA! Absent the USA being in the war sending tens of thousands of troops as well as air support to far away places where they are likely to be attacked is simply not politically possible. Protecting US possessions, yes, protecting the colonial possessions of the UK and France - no way. On top of the political reality, this would mean expanding the draft and service limits (only done by one vote OTL) in a peacetime environment as well as equipping and supplying these troops. Of course, there is the thorny issue about who controls these troops now stationed on UK/French territory.

While no active Pacific War means assets used OTL don't need to be sent there, the Japanese are still a threat so you can't simply leave the area with a few rowboats and unarmed bobbies to represent Imperial interests. Yes, you'll certainly get more ANZAC forces in Europe and keep more UK forces there than OTL with no war in the Pacific. Still a major manpower deficit once you start talking about invading Sicily/Corsica/Sardinia, let alone the Italian mainland or France and likewise all the USAAF contributions from late 1942 onwards. I very much doubt the UK will be able to make up the numbers (even just for infantry) by "importing" troops from India. However negative Gandhi and the INC and others were about Indian troops fighting, even against the Japanese on their door step, imagine the agitation if Indian troops are sent in truly massive numbers (compared to OTL) to Europe to die not even to protect India but for "British Imperialism".

Yes, the LL work boosted US employment and was a plus for the economy. However SOMEBODY had to pay for all this industrial activity, and it wasn't the British, French, or Russians. Essentially every bit of LL production was paid for by the US government, subsidized by the US population through taxes, bond drives, and inflation. Since the USA was in the war, and giving allies LL materials from SPAM to aircraft meant that the toll among US forces was decreased, these sacrifices on the part of the US population were pretty universally accepted. With no USA in the war, selling these sorts of sacrifices to a population just emerging from the Depression is not happening and Congress won't vote the money to do so - Congress has the power of the purse, and even FDR can't magic the funds out of thin air. Sure there will be some level of LL, but nothing like OTL. In very simple and personal terms, the housewife willing to give up some of her aluminum cookware to the Boy Scout scrap drive to help build aircraft is willing to do so to provide for her neighbor's son in the USAAF. Is she going to be so willing to do so for some foreigner in the RAF? Don't bet on it...

 

[MKD]

The endless human resources of the USA were useful but not decisive in the European part of the war in OTL, and would be replaced by BCE troops not committed in the Far East in this ATL. The fall of the Japanese military government and the backpedaling of Japanese adventurism abroad that would follow would also mean that many more Soviet forces can be redeployed from Siberia to Europe.

But it isnt just human resources for fighting. It is human resources to work in production, farming, transport, mining, refining, financing etc.

 

[Michele]

While the USA might, in this scenario, be responsible for the garrisoning of Iceland, and possibly respond to Portuguese "requests" for troops for the Azores, a USA that does not get in to the war in Europe absent PH etc is not going to send large numbers of troops to garrison Iraq or Egypt, or anywhere else. To the extent the US presence in this scenario is going to be increased it would be to increase the troops in the PI and other Pacific islands, as was underway OTL, the Canal Zone, and perhaps a few other spots OF TERRITORY BELONGING TO THE USA!

You are aware, of course, that Iceland was not a US possession, a US mandate, or in the Pacific, and that the occupation of it with US troops began while the USA were neutral.

Absent the USA being in the war sending tens of thousands of troops as well as air support to far away places where they are likely to be attacked is simply not politically possible.

You are aware, of course, that in 1941, before December, US armed forces were regularly sent to places where they were very likely to be attacked. That actually did happen in September and October 1941, and in October there were some 100 KIAs, with the USA still neutral.

Protecting US possessions, yes, protecting the colonial possessions of the UK and France - no way. On top of the political reality, this would mean expanding the draft and service limits (only done by one vote OTL) in a peacetime environment as well as equipping and supplying these troops. Of course, there is the thorny issue about who controls these troops now stationed on UK/French territory.

That, of course, depends on how one reads the intention of the Administration at the time. The deployment of US Navy assets to combat zones where they were indeed attacked, the occupation of Iceland, the very novel concept of the "neutrality patrols", the violation of the duties of a neutral, and other similar signs seem to point out the rather evident fact that the US government wanted war. If for some reason Roosevelt cannot get that, then he might well go to some unprecedented "short of war" measures. If you described Lend-Lease as per OTL to an OTL US senator in say 1936, I'd bet he'd say "no way this is going to happen".

While no active Pacific War means assets used OTL don't need to be sent there, the Japanese are still a threat so you can't simply leave the area with a few rowboats and unarmed bobbies to represent Imperial interests. Yes, you'll certainly get more ANZAC forces in Europe and keep more UK forces there than OTL with no war in the Pacific. Still a major manpower deficit once you start talking about invading Sicily/Corsica/Sardinia, let alone the Italian mainland or France and likewise all the USAAF contributions from late 1942 onwards.

The US contribution to Operation Husky was roughly equivalent to the British troops deployed in Malaya and Singapore (and nearly entirely lost to the Japanese), even though qualitatively it was better. The manpower deficit will possibly be felt once one considers Avalanche and Overlord, yes. But then again, as mentioned, in this ATL you will also have lots of Soviet divisions moving from Vladivostok to Kursk. Nobody says the Western and Eastern Allies have to meet along the same OTL line.
As to the air war, dont' forget that there is no Battle of the Atlantic. Coastal Command will really be the poor relations here.

I very much doubt the UK will be able to make up the numbers (even just for infantry) by "importing" troops from India. However negative Gandhi and the INC and others were about Indian troops fighting, even against the Japanese on their door step, imagine the agitation if Indian troops are sent in truly massive numbers (compared to OTL) to Europe to die not even to protect India but for "British Imperialism".

Indian politicians will be unhappy. And...? Also let's not forget that the Indian Army was the largest volunteer force in the war. I think between 2.5 and 3 million men. And nobody "sent" anybody nowhere against their will.

Yes, the LL work boosted US employment and was a plus for the economy. However SOMEBODY had to pay for all this industrial activity, and it wasn't the British, French, or Russians. Essentially every bit of LL production was paid for by the US government, subsidized by the US population through taxes, bond drives, and inflation. Since the USA was in the war, and giving allies LL materials from SPAM to aircraft meant that the toll among US forces was decreased, these sacrifices on the part of the US population were pretty universally accepted. With no USA in the war, selling these sorts of sacrifices...

We must have a different idea of sacrifices. As of now, I own some state securities, and they pay me interests. I don't see that as a sacrifice but as an investment for the future that will be good for my pockets. Certainly, it's state deficit; the state is borrowing from me. It's a policy that was not unknown in the USA in the 1930s. I'm also paying lots of taxes, of course.