Anchises
Banned
Carl Schwamberger wrote:
Anchises wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is how the US defined "isolationism" itself. The key factor was the idea of not involving US military power into any 'outside' conflicts. However "non-outside" intervention was highly likely if it would prevent interference with US trade and markets. US "isolationist" politicians SUPPORTED the military build in the US beginning in the mid-30s because they were convinced that the worsening world situation would in fact interfere with US trade and markets so a 'stronger' and more modern military was required. Similarly trade embargoes and tariffs tended to hurt more than help and were used as 'targeted' economic measures such as Japan over China.
A more peaceful, (or vastly lower grade 'conflicts') world would hurt the US as there were a lot of various efforts during the 30s to "export" cheap arms to stimulate US industry to "cash-in" on increasing world conflict. Further it would reduce the seeming 'need' for increased military spending and costly new-builds in favor of lower cost, (but ultimiatly less capable) "upgrades" and "interim" equipment.
(One of the elements I miss about ACW-2 discussions is how much more likely things like the Disston Tractor Tank (http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/disston-tractor-tank/) as such 'cheap' alternatives are vastly easier to make despite being vastly inferior to any "real" tank, but as the Navy and to some extent the Army Air Force was considered the primary defensive and power projection services the Army and USMC could have been told to 'make-do' with such equipment until the 'next generation' equipment was ready for manufacture. Which of course would be pushed back to 'tomorrow' over and over again)
The problem is in an world where Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan as per OTL exists even the most delusional strict "Isolationist" politician can't deny reality past about 1935 and with other nations scrambling to re-arm even 'inferior' US manufacturing is going to sell well and jump start the economy. And the only way the US "stays out" is if there are no threats to "our" markets and trade which isn't likely in a global war situation. We may manage to stay "neutral" (See "Stupid Luck and Happenstance" https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/stupid-luck-and-happenstance.405746/) but frankly that will still have the same effect on the economy. And along with that the need to ensure that the markets and trade is "protected" will drive American re-armament as well.
I'd once thought of a less BSC Nazi (and less raciest) Germany organizing a "Warsaw Pact" anti-communist organization that devolves into a low grade conflict with the USSR while France and England drift apart in who supports whom. Japan continues in the Chinese quagmire but with assured US oil and scrap metal sees no need to expand into conflict with the European states and occasional clashes with the USSR. And while the US is making 'money' from said supplies it's not comparable to OTL and there is far less 'threat' beyond the area of China. (Have to find a way to defang the China lobby though) Oil, scrap metal, food and tractors will be the major US export.
But couple the "lower profile conflict" world with The Lethargic Let's political suggestions and I can see the US economy not being really 'recovered' till the early 1950s possibly. Especially as the 're-collapse' of 37/38 would coincide IIRC with a severe recession as Japan runs out of money due to the China conflict. Throw in some trade-deals, land reforms and better harvests in Europe which would reduce the demand for American food exports around the same time...
Randy
Thanks!
This forum is really great to brainstorm ideas!
Well my problem is that I want large scale conflict (at least to a degree). One of my "core ideas" is to explore a multipolar Cold War. And I think a "WW2 equivalent" as a historical turning point is a necessity.
- A United States that isn't able to leverage its economic and military strength as well as OTL and is forced to navigate a world shaped by totalitarians and reactionaries while only slowly realizing the huge potential it could unfold...
- Italy and Japan pursuing their anachronistic imperial dreams in a world that is rapidly overtaking them in every possible aspect.
-A third Reich that was (somewhat) victorius with their deeply fascist strategy of enforcing their dominance with unbelievable violence. Now they have their "Empire" (ruins and corpses in the East, and plundered economies in the West). The task of creating something stable and prospering (for the people the Nazis deem worthy in their twisted ideology) is an even greater task than winning the war. (The NSDAP is going to experience some large butterflies as well to allow more ruthless pragmatism of the Stalin variety).
-A British Empire that preserved strength and global influence by pulling out of another "continental quagmire" (from their perspective). Now they have the monumental tasks of containing the Nazi butchers riding high on their victory and of keeping the Empire together despite the fact that the "Colonial subjects" suddenly demand self determination. Japan and Italy showing interest in British Colonial possesions isn't helping either.
-A Soviet Union that has experienced tremendous loss of territory, treasure and lives. They have better relations with the "West" and much more "ideological flexibility" than OTL. Moscow is a ruin after the Germans retreated to the new negotiated borders but with Stalin dead and with new "friends" in the West the SU is still a force to be reckoned with.
So after the (overdramatic) cineastic pitch for my idea:
I want a USA that employs the Disston Tractor Tank without an ACW 2 (American Civil War ?) and that still has major economic problems despite the fact that most of Europe is rearming and the world is slowly sliding towards another world war.
Your remarks about a certain inevitability of economic recovery in case of a new World War make a LOT of sense.
So now I am tasked with creating a WW2 situation where the USA is relatively convinced that their markets are still somewhat save.
And to create a situation where the Capital influx into the USA is smaller.
So assuming the Brits sign a peace deal in 1940 they wouldn't buy as much severly reducing the capital flow.
In Japan the Army is able to win the power struggle with the Navy and Japans plan is expansion into the Soviet Union. Being bogged down in China (and a severe recession in 1937/1938) and TTLs Khalkin Gol prevents this grandiose plans mostly. So the Pacific is more stable than OTL.
This should at least reduce the positive effects on the US economy.
-Less military buildup because Asia/the Pacific is stable.
-Cash influx from GB stops much sooner than OTL.