Different program than Lend-Lease

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Besides the Lend-Lease program there were other proposals on the table for aiding Britain in 1941, one of which was proposed by the GOP saying that Britain would get a $5 Billion one time grant that had to be spent in the US and Cash and Carry otherwise applied. Assuming that was the policy the US went with in 1941 instead of LL, with the funds available from March 1941 on and the US still maintaining its security zone, how does that impact British war planning?
 
Does it matter that its one time grant ?

After you have done it once it will be easier next time, it will be another one in a few months when the 5 B$ runs out and then after PH it becomes an unlimited rolling grant....
 

Deleted member 1487

Does it matter that its one time grant ?

After you have done it once it will be easier next time, it will be another one in a few months when the 5 B$ runs out and then after PH it becomes an unlimited rolling grant....
Yes, because that is effectively saying there is a limit to support use it wisely; IOTL the UK/CW got over $30 Billion in LL that was unlimited and told you can have all you need until we win the war, whereas ITTL its just $5 Billion, good luck.
 
Yes, because that is effectively saying there is a limit to support use it wisely; IOTL the UK/CW got over $30 Billion in LL that was unlimited and told you can have all you need until we win the war, whereas ITTL its just $5 Billion, good luck.

Except it is likely to be rolled over, particularly after PH. jsb is right here, once PH happens, at the latest, there will be grants every few months. After all the US public would rather spend money than US lives.
 

Deleted member 1487

Except it is likely to be rolled over, particularly after PH. jsb is right here, once PH happens, at the latest, there will be grants every few months. After all the US public would rather spend money than US lives.
Eventually yes, but the Brits don't know that in March
 
Ultimately the US sent Britain some 500 billion in lend-lease... so, uh, obviously it isn't something that is going to last for very long.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ultimately the US sent Britain some 500 billion in lend-lease... so, uh, obviously it isn't something that is going to last for very long.
A little bit of a misstatement there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $656 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies.
$5 Billion is about 17% of OTL number to Britain.
 

hipper

Banned
Yes, because that is effectively saying there is a limit to support use it wisely; IOTL the UK/CW got over $30 Billion in LL that was unlimited and told you can have all you need until we win the war, whereas ITTL its just $5 Billion, good luck.

It's an interesting question in OTL church ills strategy was to spend money on everything they needed hoping that the U.S. Would come through with unsecured loans so he might see this loan as the start of this process.

If however this was seen as a one time offer and Britain went on a dollar conservation policy then interesting choices would be made, the scope of Britains purchases of American aircraft would diminish considerably and the taking over of French orders would mostly cease.

Probably historical purchases of artillery and small arms would go ahead along with investment in increasing American shipbuilding capacity. Armoured vehicle purchases and direct purchase of ships would be another priority.

More British investment in Canadian assembly plants using US parts (pay the workers in sterling which saves Dollars)

Reserve a lot of the cash for purchases of U.S. Raw materials Oil, and food. and Ship repair for RN ships.

Interesting

Regards Hipper
 
Yes, because that is effectively saying there is a limit to support use it wisely; IOTL the UK/CW got over $30 Billion in LL that was unlimited and told you can have all you need until we win the war, whereas ITTL its just $5 Billion, good luck.

But will GB not view it as a short term electoral work around by Roosevelt ? They will anticipate that they can get more later after all once a neutral starts down the slope of helping one side they generally keep helping that side until they get dragged in.

Any LL grant (even 5B$) is evidence that US doesn't want GB to lose the war (and that they are not really neutral) so they will probably keep helping with more as that will not change down the line.
 
But will GB not view it as a short term electoral work around by Roosevelt ? They will anticipate that they can get more later after all once a neutral starts down the slope of helping one side they generally keep helping that side until they get dragged in.

Any LL grant (even 5B$) is evidence that US doesn't want GB to lose the war (and that they are not really neutral) so they will probably keep helping with more as that will not change down the line.

In the long run it greatly increases GB economy after the war. Grants don't have to be paid back like loans. The US economy is slightly weaker as it isn't being paid back.
 
Top