AHC/WI: Britain won world war 1 without becoming heavily indebted

If by "second to none" you mean the Royal navy, you are correct. The US hadn't solved the dispersion problems of its triples, and the 14" guns of the Standards all had different versions, making gunnery that much harder. The US had no scouting wing: either it used the armored cruisers (the Big 10, I believe) with coal and a big silhouette, or the Lexington class, which had very little armor. The South Dakota class was obsolescent; solid for 1916, but the Great War put them on hold, and the designs were never updated. The British would have some problems, as all the battleship classes had different speeds, but since their battlecruisers had speed and armor, they would repeat Jutland and find the enemy first. Finally, the G3 class would have had 7" of deck armor; unheard of at that time. I bet the RN would have built the first 4, then build another 2-4 in late 1920's, depending on how far along when the GD hits. 1930's USN vs Rn, closer (have to go to work, no time to figure out), combination of the WT and USN solving some of the above mentioned problems.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
If by "second to none" you mean the Royal navy, you are correct. The US hadn't solved the dispersion problems of its triples, and the 14" guns of the Standards all had different versions, making gunnery that much harder. The US had no scouting wing: either it used the armored cruisers (the Big 10, I believe) with coal and a big silhouette, or the Lexington class, which had very little armor. The South Dakota class was obsolescent; solid for 1916, but the Great War put them on hold, and the designs were never updated. The British would have some problems, as all the battleship classes had different speeds, but since their battlecruisers had speed and armor, they would repeat Jutland and find the enemy first. Finally, the G3 class would have had 7" of deck armor; unheard of at that time. I bet the RN would have built the first 4, then build another 2-4 in late 1920's, depending on how far along when the GD hits. 1930's USN vs Rn, closer (have to go to work, no time to figure out), combination of the WT and USN solving some of the above mentioned problems.
The problem is that the US could financially afford one more program like that. Only the Congress can prevent this. And I am not sure Britain could afford 8 ships like that (even 8 G3s) plus cruisers and aircraft carriers (which would be very likely to be bigger than things like Eagles or Follies) given its postwar financial and economic conditions.

Besides, you might have to agree that Britain would save a lot of money if it was already a major producers of magnetos, ball bearings, drugs, dye or optics before the war, since they would not have to build new factories from scratch to manufacture these things.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
Britain ''wasted'' lots of money in carrying out its own Second Industrial Revolution during the ww1 (which the US and Germany had done 20 years ago XDXD). I said waste because if they had sizable new industries, these money would have been saved.
 
Britain ''wasted'' lots of money in carrying out its own Second Industrial Revolution during the ww1 (which the US and Germany had done 20 years ago XDXD). I said waste because if they had sizable new industries, these money would have been saved.

How could it have been "saved" if it was already spent? What might not have been invested/spent instead whenever you would think would have been the time to invest?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
How could it have been "saved" if it was already spent? What might not have been invested/spent instead whenever you would think would have been the time to invest?
Let's take an example. British optic industry were negligible before 1914. Then, when the war began, the government had to spend money (let's say, 1m pounds) to build several new optic factories from scratch. Now, if these factories were already operating before the war, then you can use that 1 million for other purposes.
 
Let's take an example. British optic industry were negligible before 1914. Then, when the war began, the government had to spend money (let's say, 1m pounds) to build several new optic factories from scratch. Now, if these factories were already operating before the war, then you can use that 1 million for other purposes.

Yes but x amount of that was already spent, so what didn't get that money before that period of time? How much do you think the UK would save building it in 1900 than 1914?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Yes but x amount of that was already spent, so what didn't get that money before that period of time? How much do you think the UK would save building it in 1900 than 1914?
They can generate revenues during 14 years of peacetime via exports, while imports from Germany would be reduced. And finally, they would not suffer from optic shortage
 
They can generate revenues during 14 years of peacetime via exports, while imports from Germany would be reduced. And finally, they would not suffer from optic shortage

But there clearly wasn't any demand at that period for what you are suggesting, so you need to have a POD to make the UK industrial base change it's views, invest in these plants (and not in something else), then compete with Germany (where it can or not) and then know that they will face an optic shortage.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But there clearly wasn't any demand at that period for what you are suggesting, so you need to have a POD to make the UK industrial base change it's views, invest in these plants (and not in something else), then compete with Germany (where it can or not) and then know that they will face an optic shortage.
Well, thats why I said that I have realized that Britain could not win the war without being heavily indebted with a POD in 1914, it must be from 1900, or 1910 at most.

Btw, optics are used in labs.
 

Delta Force

Banned
In that case, OTL Britain remained a net creditor after WW1 - problem solved! Lets go home...

Britain risked becoming 'technically' bankrupt during WW1 when it was unable to meet ongoing US expenses due to liquidity issues, but remained a net creditor throughout.

The United Kingdom's war spending was close to Germany's and France's was close to Austria-Hungary, and both those countries self-financed. It seems the British and French could have financed them without going too far into debt with the United States, especially since they have colonies to sell them to.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The United Kingdom's war spending was close to Germany's and France's was close to Austria-Hungary, and both those countries self-financed. It seems the British and French could have financed them without going too far into debt with the United States, especially since they have colonies to sell them to.
Because Germany was excluded from international capital markets, and they were also more willing to accept high inflation. British society would not allow their government to rip them off.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Because Germany was excluded from international capital markets, and they were also more willing to accept high inflation. British society would not allow their government to rip them off.

So once again, rationing and borderline nationalization of industries is an acceptable wartime expedient, but not inflation?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, IOTL by late 1917, the US had to keep the Entente afloat by unsecured loans. It seems that we will need a POD even before 1900 to make Britain and its European allies winning the war on its own even in economic and financial aspects.
 

hipper

Banned
Well, IOTL by late 1917, the US had to keep the Entente afloat by unsecured loans. It seems that we will need a POD even before 1900 to make Britain and its European allies winning the war on its own even in economic and financial aspects.

The unsecured loans were to enable the Entente to purchase American goods. Without these loans they would have had to forgo American supply i.e. Make do with less stuff which is what the Germans did.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The unsecured loans were to enable the Entente to purchase American goods. Without these loans they would have had to forgo American supply i.e. Make do with less stuff which is what the Germans did.
What if Britain had a stronger industrial base and thus was more self-sufficient and less dependent on American supply?
 

hipper

Banned
What if Britain had a stronger industrial base and thus was more self-sufficient and less dependent on American supply?

The point about American industry was that it existed.
Britain could use it Germany could not.
There are no rational circumstances in which the UK would not use American industry or supply for the war. Whatever the size of British industry.

It's a very simple point you seem unable to grasp.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The point about American industry was that it existed.
Britain could use it Germany could not.
There are no rational circumstances in which the UK would not use American industry or supply for the war. Whatever the size of British industry.

It's a very simple point you seem unable to grasp.
Well, of course they would use, but they could keep an eye on their reserves and ability to pay in hard currency/assets instead of spending frantically. They could reduce imports in rifles, small arm ammo, explosives, steel or machine tool and limit import goods to just oil and food, if their industrial base was stronger so that it could produce a surplus in these goods without having to reduce output in other things like tanks or planes. Just ask one question, why should they import steel if their output was 14-16 mil tons (IOTL British steel output was only 8 mil) while they only consume say, 12 mil tons? A similar question could be applied to rifles and ammo.
 
Top