20th C. Anglo American War: How Much does The US economy contract?

[Vylon Disigma]

Hi, was wondering how much the economy would contract if the United States entered in to war with the British Empire ~ 1930. They are likely the largest economies in the world and likely trade with each other a great deal, so there is likely to be a great deal of economic fall out.

In in my specific scenario productive parts of the US are occupied and the panama canal has been disabled. I was not exactly sure exactly the effect of the occupation and fighting in these areas to the general economy. I know that while only 7% of france occupied in the great war the war it had a disproportionate effect on the french economy, and was wondering what effect this occupation would have on the US.

To explain the map briefly


Red : British Alliance
Diagonal Stripes : British (or allied) Occupation
Grey : US & Allies
Horizontal Stripes : US (or allied) Occupation

The map is of the state of the war after front lines have settled into more or less immovable positions. New York and New England, Buffalo and Detroit are going to be occupied for likely over a year, exception is chicago which is unlikely to stay occupied for more than a few months. Alaska after its brief invasion is also yet to be fully liberated.


(p.s. Japan is also at war with the USA &, as I’m sure u can see there was no ww1 in this timeline)

 

[Amadeus]

Why would the US and Britain go to war in 1930, when US isolationism was at its height? At any rate, the massive amounts of federal spending needed for war mobilization could provide an initial stimulus to the depressed economy. However, America would quickly lose the war and the US economy could completely collapse. Given how tenuous the political situation was in the 1930's, this defeat could spark an outright rebellion against Hoover or send America spinning into another civil war or revolution.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

@Amadeus I deliberately left out the cause of the war, because i didn't think is was relevant to the question necessarily, but to be brief; Japan and the US are at war when a dogger bank type incident occurs around the southern cape of South america accidentally bringing the two counties to war.

also why do you say america would quickly lose the war?

 

[Amadeus]

@Amadeus I deliberately left out the cause of the war, because i didn't think is was relevant to the question necessarily, but to be brief; Japan and the US are at war when a dogger bank type incident occurs around the southern cape of South america accidentally bringing the two counties to war.

also why do you say america would quickly lose the war?

Because the US military was smaller than that of Portugal in the 1930's. If they fight Britain, they'll have to fight Canada too. So they'll be fighting a northern front, and defending an Eastern front on the Atlantic at the same time. That's while the economy is devastated and federal resources and stretched far and wide enforcing Prohibition. And that's not even considering the fierce isolationist backlash Hoover would receive if he tries to go to war. Britain's economy and military were stronger than the US and it has an even greater geographical advantage. They have Canada to the North, and they dominate the Atlantic. So America would do poorly very quickly and most Americans would want to sue for peace in order fix the economy.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

That's really interesting, and quite persuasive. simultaneously I think you are the first person to suggest that the war is a likely british victory. You definitely capture the minds of the british in this timeline really well. Why do you think so many believe that the US can continue to fight for so long?

 

[Luminous]

Because the US military was smaller than that of Portugal in the 1930's. If they fight Britain, they'll have to fight Canada too. So they'll be fighting a northern front, and defending an Eastern front on the Atlantic at the same time. That's while the economy is devastated and federal resources and stretched far and wide enforcing Prohibition. And that's not even considering the fierce isolationist backlash Hoover would receive if he tries to go to war. Britain's economy and military were stronger than the US and it has an even greater geographical advantage. They have Canada to the North, and they dominate the Atlantic. So America would do poorly very quickly and most Americans would want to sue for peace in order fix the economy.

It's basically the chicken and egg question. Why was America's military small? It faced no imminent threat from its neighboring countries. Wars do not erupt from nowhere; there is some sort of leadup to the war, so there is time for preparation and expansion.

To get US at war with the British Empire without any leadup (a day of peace followed immediately by war out of nowhere) to have the minimal force levels pictured, you basically need an ASB to cause it. Else, American buildup/preparation/etc.

Also, I'm not sure they'd dominate the Atlantic in total - they have to sail across the Atlantic to wage war against the US, putting their own vessels on longer supply lines than American ones.

 

[Philip]

The terrain of New England is not conducive for a rapidly advancing invasion.

Because the US military was smaller than that of Portugal in the 1930's. If they fight Britain, they'll have to fight Canada too.

Is the US blind to the coming war? Twiddling their collective thumbs while the UK mobilizes?

 

[Vylon Disigma]

The terrain of New England is not conducive for a rapidly advancing invasion.

Is the US blind to the coming war? Twiddling their collective thumbs while the UK mobilizes?

The US in not blind to the coming war war but is absolutely taken by surprise by what seem to them unprovoked sneak attacks. The situation depicted in the map is the results of a one or two blunders, a few unfortunate events which ll happen at unlucky times.

 

[Luminous]

no ww1

Which basically makes this a blank slate? What about the Mexican Intervention with Pershing? US Naval Construction (which, of course, absent WW1, would have been finished earlier with larger forces, though short on destroyers et al as always). The depression won't even occur at the same time, so it's really hard to say anything as we don't know the events that lead to the US getting to this position.

Of course, sans WW1, you have the German High Seas Fleet still in existence, which means that the British will have to keep a sizable chunk of their navy at home just to ward off any funny ideas about the Germans expanding their own influence.

absolutely taken by surprise by what seem to them unprovoked sneak attacks.

Why do the other sides not think they were unprovoked? The US was getting to uppity or something? Did they cut off the Japanese oil and steel again? Imagine the German reaction... "The British have thrown away hundreds of thousands of soldiers on a crusade against the Americans for no reason"

Either way, US will have a very easy time shifting to the war economy, as the government has been given all the political capital in the world to enact the means to build up their war production.

-

Regardless, the US and the UK are now at war with their #1 trading partners, so both economies immediately dip. Merchant marines of both nations either transfer to other flags or are sunk/interned. The majority of American production was in the Rust Belt - the British Alliance has captured some high population areas and major shipyards, which has an impact, but aside from Detroit, they haven't taken anything major.

And, also, they are having to deal with patrolling the occupied land.

-

Heck, for that matter, what is even the objective of the war? Why are the British bothering with invading their best trading partner? And why do they feel that their surprise attack is in the right?

Edit: I ask this as the type of war does matter quite a lot - is this a scorched earth take no prisoners? Or is this supposed to be a "simple" intervention that is trying to extract concessions, but not damage their best trade partner.

 

[CalBear]

Because the US military was smaller than that of Portugal in the 1930's. If they fight Britain, they'll have to fight Canada too. So they'll be fighting a northern front, and defending an Eastern front on the Atlantic at the same time. That's while the economy is devastated and federal resources and stretched far and wide enforcing Prohibition. And that's not even considering the fierce isolationist backlash Hoover would receive if he tries to go to war. Britain's economy and military were stronger than the US and it has an even greater geographical advantage. They have Canada to the North, and they dominate the Atlantic. So America would do poorly very quickly and most Americans would want to sue for peace in order fix the economy.

The issue with this is that the U.S. had an army smaller than Portugal's because it wasn't fighting anyone and the only real prospects for fighting would be "police actions" in Central America. If there was a different set of circumstances, like a war with Japan, the U.S. demonstrated on multiple occasions that it can put millions of men into the ranks PDQ (in 1916 the U.S. Army counted 108K troops under arms, by 1918 it was 2.4M; in 1939 the U.S. Army had a ration strength of 189K, in 1941 ration strength was 1.4M, by 1943 it was ~7M.

All the suppositions related to this scenario depend on things that are no longer in the mix. There would be no "isolationism" since it was a direct result of entirely unsatisfactory conclusion of WW I (which the OP has stated never occurred).

BTW: The U.S. economy GDP (PPP) was about 230% larger than the UK's in OTL 1913 (UK $224,618M, U.S. $517,383M expressed in 1990 International Dollars) *source Contours of the World Economy, 1–2030 AD by Madison 2007*

 

[History Learner]

There is no realistic chance Britain could occupy the cities listed in general, nevermind for over a year.

 

[marathag]

It's basically the chicken and egg question. Why was America's military small? It faced no imminent threat from its neighboring countries. Wars do not erupt from nowhere; there is some sort of leadup to the war, so there is time for preparation and expansion.

1930 US Manpower

Army 139,378

USN 96,890

USMC 19,380


1939 US manpower

Army 189,839

USN 125,202

USMC 19,432



1940

Army 269,023

USN 160,997

USMC 28,345



1941

Army 1,462,315

USN 284,427

USMC 54,359


Now 'Army' means Regular Army, not National Guard and Reserves. Guard was around 180,000 during the interwar, and around 400,000 in Reserves, one of the reasons why numbers jumped so high going from 1940 to 1941

 

[Vylon Disigma]

@Luminous Sorry For the late reply, was asleep.


Essentially as I think I had said earlier, the war as it stands, was caused by two incident, both the US considers aggressive sneak attacks. On the first, the japanese attack on the Panama canal (similar to the great pacific war) their impression is wholly correct.


On the second, british naval ambush around the southern cape it is not.

The actual situation is that, after the start of the war with japan the US moves a section of their Atlantic Fleet west toward the pacific. The British still a part of the anglo-japanese alliance Move a section of their pacific fleet east so if war with the US occurs then they have the naval resources to fight the US and deter germany. However these two fleets see each other at the southern cape, the US naval commander, under the foggy conditions, believes that they are japanese ships ready for an ambush and fire upon the british fleet by mistake. The resulting battle leave few of the US sailors alive, but the general impression of the altercation is the a combined force of british and japanese ships were sitting in ambush, and attacked them. The british impression is that the US Attacked them and show no intention of calling off the war.



The war with britain is a big surprise to the USA but not something they did not plan for necessarily.

There is no realistic chance Britain could occupy the cities listed in general, nevermind for over a year.

The situation is a result of the situation before the war. While there was no ww1 there was a third boer war which ends shortly before the US war with japan begins. The british having mobilized ~ 450 thousand men at decide no to de-mobilise them quickly. Meanwhile the US had been mobilizing since the war with japan started. this is when the war starts

Before the british forces arrived the US had Conquered new brunswick and most of canada between it and the st lawrence river. However the british army that arrived was much larger than the US force in the north east at the time. A sickle cut like operation occurs where an advance of british troops from around the lake ontario region toward the sea an NYC. Neer half of the US army forces (~80,000 man) that were in the North east are stuck. From that point on the the british spend most of their time cleaning up new england and new york state. Once that is complete the british in the north east an attempt to take Michigan and Chicago is made but, the us having mobilized significantly, the operation fails leaving a number of british forces hangin out in chicago. Forces are for now quite balanced in the north eastern front.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

1930 US Manpower

Army 139,378

USN 96,890

USMC 19,380


1939 US manpower

Army 189,839

USN 125,202

USMC 19,432



1940

Army 269,023

USN 160,997

USMC 28,345



1941

Army 1,462,315

USN 284,427

USMC 54,359


Now 'Army' means Regular Army, not National Guard and Reserves. Guard was around 180,000 during the interwar, and around 400,000 in Reserves, one of the reasons why numbers jumped so high going from 1940 to 1941

What is your source for "Reserves" here? I'm aware of the 60,000 to 80,000 Army Reserve officers, but would like to read up on the organization and finance of the other reserves described.

 

[Vylon Disigma]

@marathag How does this compare to British army expansion in ww1?

 

[dmg86]

And the US wouldn't notice Canada getting ready for war?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

And the US wouldn't notice Canada getting ready for war?

No, the US is entirely distracted by the Marines fighting Sandinistas in Nicaragua.

 

[marathag]

What is your source for "Reserves" here? I'm aware of the 60,000 to 80,000 Army Reserve officers, but would like to read up on the organization and finance of the other reserves described.

Factoids I wrote down, but with these I didn't write the original source. I Also had listed that there were 27 planned Organized Reserve Divisions, that were authorized for full complement of officers, but almost no enlisted. My notes have no more than 6000 Enlisted were ever in the Reserves in the '30s, but had 128,000 Officers, most as unpaid volunteers. There wasn't much funding, these were mostly Paper units, made to be filled out quickly in Wartime

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Thats more or less what I have. I think the 128,000 was a authorized or notional strength for the reserve divisions officer cadre. The number usually given in secondary sources ranges from 60,000 to 80,000. @ 2500 officers per division 60k = 24 divisions. 128k = 50. The reserve officers did receive a stipend when activated for training. That was rare in the Depression years. Like the National Guard the budget of this reserve was slashed to near nothing. What it was in the 1920s I don't know, but for political reasons the NG received a fair amount of cash for training in the 1920s. What I don't see in the secondary sources is a allowance for corps and army HQ officers, or independant combat & combat support units, or service units. 27 Reserve divisions = 67k+ men, which leaves a hefty allowance for filling out Regular Army, and corps/army overhead.

OTL the mobilization sequence from mid 1940 saw the Reserve officers/enlisted called up in the first few months. They were redistributed to existing units, the new armored divisions being formed, the Air Corps, Service forces, schools as students, and schools as instructors or administrative staff. The activation of the infantry divisions associated with the reserve or Army of the US started in March 1942 with the activation of the 77th, 82d, & 90th Divisions. The cadres for those were probably started preparation 5-6 months earlier. On activation the manpower and equipment were close to 100% & unit training started. Training as a division was approximately 12 months, tho some did better and some worse. The common practice was to draw cadre for a new activation from existing units, both as individuals and enmass by splitting the existing unit. ie: The 24th & 25th Div were formed by splitting the old Hawaiian Division & filling out with NG, reserve officers, early volunteers, and draftees.

Activated earlier were: 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th Division Inf 1940. 24th, 25th Div Inf 1941 2d Cav 1941, 1st, 2d Armored Div 1940. 3d, 4th, 5th Armored Div 1941. The first four were considered Regular Army & the cadres were initially RA officers and NCOs drawn in from secondary tasks, like the CCC. Ditto for the first two armored divisions, which drew part of their cadre from dissolving the experimental mechanized 7th Cav Brigade.

 

[Asami]

Such a situation would never arise. Without Alien Space Bats to turn the United States into a collective of drooling idiots, or mismanagement of the front so badly that it would make the Italian army look like masterful strategists, the US would have commenced a build up of their armed forces long before.

Even in the 1920s and 1930s, Britain would not have been able to defend Canada for long--would Canada have been a drain on American resources? Very likely, but there's grave doubt that they would've been able to be little more than a minor headache. This isn't 1778 or 1812--the United States aren't a bunch of podunk militia men in tattered uniforms, they're a professional army with a much shorter supply chain than the British.

No WWI means no isolationism, and a still relatively strong Mittelmächte--this puts Britain's geopolitical position into dire straits as now they have to throw the RN at the USN and hope the Yanks don't score some good hits. The Hochseeflotte is going to be very interested in how Britain's navy fares, and seek the exploit such losses.