American Recovery without the Nazis: Faster, Slower, the Same?

Do you think that the large group of soldiers demobilised at the end of the war opened up a large pool of of disciplined labour which would be useful to the economy?

As well as increased development of production techniques for faster and more efficient production, which would undoubtedly help in providing cheaper consumer goods and increasing living standards.
 
Blochead is right, its in the 40s that the BIG difference is coming for a peacfull Europe. No tens of millions dead, no bombed out citys and millions not wearing Uniform make a difference. And all that mony (and forced labour) spent on something nicer like roads or schools.


I'm not so sure; even in the 30s, rearmament took up a lot of money in, say, Germany; as a result it took up a lot of slack in the late 30s in the rest of Europe, as you note later on. Plus you have the formation of a very autarchic German state, moreso than its neighbors.
 
I'm not so sure; even in the 30s, rearmament took up a lot of money in, say, Germany; as a result it took up a lot of slack in the late 30s in the rest of Europe, as you note later on. Plus you have the formation of a very autarchic German state, moreso than its neighbors.

Ah I just read the latest uppdate in your Gustav Stresemann Survives thread. The Europe whitout Nazism and whit peace are going so different that new things get weird.

In 36 some rearmarment happend in europe whit the remilitarization of the Rhur. 37 some more whit the Spanish Civil war. 38 it was anschluss time and Munich agreement, more rearmarment. 39... well its war but its the phoney war so nothing much happen except more rearmarment. And during 33 to 39 Germany turns into a rearming comanndo economy.

So yes this is going to be wastly different for Europe, but mostly for Germany. This affects US economy but in a negative way whit less arms trade. The european Economy 36-40 is subject to the differences but I don't se huge amount of American consumer goods going to Europ when Germany, England and France can, and will, produce it instead of guns and tanks.
 
Do you think that the large group of soldiers demobilised at the end of the war opened up a large pool of of disciplined labour which would be useful to the economy?

As would they who died in the war. As would the soldiers be if they did productiv work instead of fighting the war.
 
As would they who died in the war. As would the soldiers be if they did productiv work instead of fighting the war.

As I said disciplined work force, as in efficient, as well as the ingrained skills from their military training. Many of them may have learned useful skills they could take into civvy street, i.e engineering, mechanics, security, trained medics as well, tons of others.

I believe there was a program, don't remember what it was called, that agreed to give them a college education before or after service. I may be wrong though on both counts...

Do you think the American economy would be able to utilise all of its manpower if it did not go to war?
 
As I said disciplined work force, as in efficient, as well as the ingrained skills from their military training. Many of them may have learned useful skills they could take into civvy street, i.e engineering, mechanics, security, trained medics as well, tons of others.

So the real problem are those undisiplined civilians?
 
Workforce training is always a good idea fore any economy. The more people whit advanced skills in your economy the more types of works they can do. And no economist can predict what kind of innovations they come up whit.
However starting a war to train your workforce strikes me as stupid to the point of absurd. Fore one unionized ex soldiers is excellent thugs to enforce strikes and ex soldier organizations is the basis of right wing groups. Fore second starting a skilled workers training program is much less expansive than having a large standing army. This kind of programs is not uncommon in countries that have strong unions and strong education. The new deal might transform to a program to train more skilled workers but the American economy in the 30s doesn’t really have a lack of skilled workers, it has a lack of places to work.
 
Workforce training is always a good idea fore any economy. The more people whit advanced skills in your economy the more types of works they can do. And no economist can predict what kind of innovations they come up whit.
However starting a war to train your workforce strikes me as stupid to the point of absurd. Fore one unionized ex soldiers is excellent thugs to enforce strikes and ex soldier organizations is the basis of right wing groups. Fore second starting a skilled workers training program is much less expansive than having a large standing army. This kind of programs is not uncommon in countries that have strong unions and strong education. The new deal might transform to a program to train more skilled workers but the American economy in the 30s doesn’t really have a lack of skilled workers, it has a lack of places to work.

Okay. I don't think America entered the war to train their work force though....

And its WITH! Not whit!
 
Okay. I don't think America entered the war to train their work force though....

I don't think that either. But unskilled Women labour takes up all the space of men leaving the labour pool during WWII in USA. So some sort of skilled labor training program were instituted to train the Women.

And its WITH! Not whit!

I don't spell I guess, english (or spelling) is not my strongest area. Sory
 
USA and the amercian school of economics

The American schools of economics or the “national system” were established by Henry Charles Carey and draw on Alexander Hamilton work in the young American republic. Henry Clay mint the expression”the American system” of the school.
It dominated American economical politics from independence to WWII whit a total domination after ACW. It rejects class struggle and emphasize on building up a strong domestic economy thru high protective tariffs and investments in the infrastructure. It’s based on the mercantile ideas and is the theoretical base the “new deal” draws upon.

WWII makes a dramatic difference in American economy and life. 1933 the national dept of the GNP were 3% 1938 it were the same whit five years of new deal. 1944 it were 40% of the GNP. 12 million men served in US army (navy etc) but the workforce in USA grew by 10 million to 1944 from 1938. Unemployment was reduced from 19% 1938 to less than 2% 1944.

Stop and imagine what the war means for the average American. The wage is more stabile and higher income (people moving from low paying jobs to wage regulated better paying jobs) decrease the level of income inequality. The gap between rich and poor narrowed dramatically in the area of nutrition, because food rationing and price controls provided a reasonably priced diet to everyone. Large families whit one income in the 30s had four or more incomes in the 40s (2 adults and 2 adult children 50% female-male gives 2 women salaries from war industry, 1 male salary from war industry and 1 soldier salary from the army). Whit nothing to spend it on savings were accumulated in war bonds and in the bank, making investment money more readily available driving down the interest.

After WWII USA is the largest economy in the world, not bombed to pieces, whit the marshal plan and Bretton Woods system they jumpstart the international economy but is one of the few country’s Europe (and the world) can by much needed consumer goods and machine parts from.

No Nazis, no WWII, makes all of this go away. There is no other need for the America to changes its political economy than unemployment and week growth. New deal is no great fiscal stimuli to the economy and there is not enough saving going in to the banks to lower the rents anytime soon. It’s a grim situation no war in Europe is going to stage US economy out of.
 
WWII makes a dramatic difference in American economy and life. 1933 the national dept of the GNP were 3% 1938 it were the same whit five years of new deal. 1944 it were 40% of the GNP. 12 million men served in US army (navy etc) but the workforce in USA grew by 10 million to 1944 from 1938. Unemployment was reduced from 19% 1938 to less than 2% 1944.

Do you mean national debt in the first part?

All this is true, but I'm not sure it means what you're thinking it does.

The gap between rich and poor narrowed dramatically in the area of nutrition, because food rationing and price controls provided a reasonably priced diet to everyone.

Why wouldn't they have had this beforehand? The government didn't give rations out, after all.

After WWII USA is the largest economy in the world, not bombed to pieces, whit the marshal plan and Bretton Woods system they jumpstart the international economy but is one of the few country’s Europe (and the world) can by much needed consumer goods and machine parts from.

On the other hand, it's not like the Europeans have much to buy stuff with. Certainly they have less money than they would if there was no WW2.

No Nazis, no WWII, makes all of this go away. There is no other need for the America to changes its political economy than unemployment and week growth.

"Between 1933 and 1937 real GNP in the United States grew at an average rate of over 8 percent per year; between 1938 and, 1941 it grew over 10 percent per year.""

What Ended the Great Depression?
Author(s): Christina D. Romer
Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Dec., 1992), pp. 757-784

Meanwhile, unemployment, corrected to include workers in government jobs as employed workers, is down to around 10%.
 
Last edited:

burmafrd

Banned
By 1939 the defense building started. It increased tremendously by 1941.
At the same time other areas of the economy were put on the back burner. the unemployment rate virtually disapeared. Multiple earners in the family and with jobs that were more then menial low wage.
There is no doubt the New Deal jumpstarted the economy but there is also no question that it was running out of gas by the late 30's. The increased defense spending (as well as building for other countries like England) took up the slack and then supercharged the whole economy.
When building a military like we did, there is so much involved: huge numbers of large bases are constructed, so the construction industry is massively expanded; and everything involved as well. Roads, railroads, airports, just about the whole infrastructure is added to. Sewers, water lines, power lines, power plants. The list goes on and on. Then there is of course the whole Manhatten project which literally built new cities.
Shipbuilding exploded and everything involved with that.

The real question is what would have happened without WW2 after 1938? Just how would the economy have done?
 
Do you mean national debt in the first part?
Yes I do.

All this is true, but I'm not sure it means what you're thinking it does.

So more investments in american industry and more people working dosen't make american economy to grow?

Why wouldn't they have had this beforehand? The government didn't give rations out, after all.

No, or no not to the majorety, but they don't give rich peopel bigger rations either. Black market exists but for the majorety everyone have the exact same level of food as the ration alows.

On the other hand, it's not like the Europeans have much to buy stuff with. Certainly they have less money than they would if there was no WW2.

Europe have Marshal money from USA and Loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

"Between 1933 and 1937 real GNP in the United States grew at an average rate of over 8 percent per year; between 1938 and, 1941 it grew over 10 percent per year.""

What Ended the Great Depression?
Author(s): Christina D. Romer
Source: The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 52, No. 4, (Dec., 1992), pp. 757-784

Meanwhile, unemployment, corrected to include workers in government jobs as employed workers, is down to around 10%.

what is "real" GNP? I always find that funny... (its inflation secured I know) But to be serious GDP (its the same thing as GNP) drop totaly whit nearly 25% 29 to 33. A 8% yearly growth 33 to 37 makes it up not add to the total making a u (or a v) in the GDP chart. 38 is a 3%is drop in the GDP and that whit European armarments orders coming in. I can't see how there would be 10% growth a year whitout the war but the GDP recovery of the depression hit I can se.
 
So more investments in american industry and more people working dosen't make american economy to grow?

Sure, it does. But unemployment was already on the decline by 1937; the economy had already begun recovering. So IMO saying that it did recover does not, IMO, prove that recovery wouldn't have been possible otherwise.

No, or no not to the majorety, but they don't give rich peopel bigger rations either. Black market exists but for the majorety everyone have the exact same level of food as the ration alows.

So, rations reduce consumption? Hardly seems conducive to development, no?

Europe have Marshal money from USA and Loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

But sans the war, then, this money would be available for investment in the US. (Assuming it still exists).

38 is a 3%is drop in the GDP and that whit European armarments orders coming in.

Hrmm.
 
Sure, it does. But unemployment was already on the decline by 1937; the economy had already begun recovering. So IMO saying that it did recover does not, IMO, prove that recovery wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
I dint say it wouldn’t happen, I state that supercharge growth of American economy from the war is not going to happen and the “recovery” will take a longer frame of time than OTL. Unemployment did rise between 37 and 38, a decline in the economy did occur. The actual recovery of the 29 to 33 fall happened 33 to 37 but the years of 29 to 37 is growth less and that “recovery” happened OTL during 38 to 44 whit a supercharge growth after the war. 29 to 39 is the lost eyars in American economy.




So, rations reduce consumption? Hardly seems conducive to development, no?
Reduced consumption can actually help the economy by making moderate families save money to invest and makes a surplus investment capital in the bank system. But in the context of the era it makes to ease class tension and lessen the feeling of large gaps between the middleclass and the working class. It served to make the nation have a feeling of equality and equal opportunity. Also the ration improves nutritional health for the poorest during the depression. Social factors make impact on economy as much as monetary factors and the rationings made American workers more acceptable to limitations of the American unions, limitations that affect the 40s and 50s.




But sans the war, then, this money would be available for investment in the US. (Assuming it still exists).
No part of this money was currency printed whit support of the gold reserves that were confiscated from Italy and Germany and other parts were outright new printed dollars. Whit European economy smashed to pieces US dollar were the only currency that could be trusted to hold its value. Bretton Woods guaranteed the exchange rate saving many currency’s from outright hyper inflation. The introduction of this “new” money made the monetary system work again, and that’s why no inflation happened. You could call it reconstruction money replacing the old currency and whit price controls and wages it works.
 
Top