Great Depression is even more devastating for the U.S.

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.
 
What about having Hoover, Curtis, and Stimson be involved in an unfortunate accident, leaving one Andrew Mellon as President?
That would basically have the same effect that I brought up if Frank Lowden became President. It works just as well from a practical point of view to have Mellon as President, but from a plausibility point of view, it's much easier to kill Hoover in the Boxer Rebellion and have Lowden become the Republican nominee. Killing off someone important at the height of their power in an accident, several people especially, always seemed like kind of a lame PoD to me.
 
Keep the Nuetrality Acts in place into 1940 & a more isolationist government. Hence a smaller influx of European capitol, France & Britain may make a peace with Germany absent any support from the US (probably near ASB), and later a war between Germany & the USSR, perhaps with France rejoining with the USSR.

The Japan/China war turns into a slow motion train wreck.

1950 rolls around with the 1940s economically trashed by a series of indecisive pointless wars, Facist economic incompetency dominating much of Europe, US isolationism, Japan and China having fought each other to bankruptcy....
 

Anchises

Banned
That would basically have the same effect that I brought up if Frank Lowden became President. It works just as well from a practical point of view to have Mellon as President, but from a plausibility point of view, it's much easier to kill Hoover in the Boxer Rebellion and have Lowden become the Republican nominee. Killing off someone important at the height of their power in an accident, several people especially, always seemed like kind of a lame PoD to me.

I agree. Using real world events where the people you want to kill were in danger seems like a more elegant solution.

Keep the Nuetrality Acts in place into 1940 & a more isolationist government. Hence a smaller influx of European capitol, France & Britain may make a peace with Germany absent any support from the US (probably near ASB), and later a war between Germany & the USSR, perhaps with France rejoining with the USSR.

Yeah I am going to do something similar. The USA might provide aid but if GB and the third Reich sign an armistice after the Fall of France that isn't decisive.

In my TL France is going to suffer something similiar to the Treaty of Versailles.

The Japan/China war turns into a slow motion train wreck.

I am looking into a way to stop the economic sanctions (they happened in 1940/1941 if I am not mistaken). Not signing the Tripartite Pact, not moving into Indochina and not walking out of the Second London Naval Disarmament Conference (because the Army has won political primacy) might do the trick. Of course this is not going to change the fact that Japan is going to be broke sooner or later but the U.S. resources keep flowing a little longer.

1950 rolls around with the 1940s economically trashed by a series of indecisive pointless wars, Facist economic incompetency dominating much of Europe, US isolationism, Japan and China having fought each other to bankruptcy....

Sounds about right for what I am trying to achieve.
 
Hoover gets reelected in 1932 due to party splits, Zangara gets him in '33. Huey Long as the successful dem candidate in '36 in a nation that's got low-level insurgency going on. Long as an American Peron means the US's economic recovery, or to be proper lack of follows an Argentine trajectory.

This isn't even factoring in the whole "Soviet Union runs most of Eurasia type of thing" after the war.
 

Anchises

Banned
Hoover gets reelected in 1932 due to party splits, Zangara gets him in '33. Huey Long as the successful dem candidate in '36 in a nation that's got low-level insurgency going on. Long as an American Peron means the US's economic recovery, or to be proper lack of follows an Argentine trajectory.

This isn't even factoring in the whole "Soviet Union runs most of Eurasia type of thing" after the war.

That is a good idea as well! I do think that President Hoover wouldn't be reelected without a big fat ASB though. Long as a U.S. president would be absolutely disastrous for the country! That would be truly dystopian...

Well you either have the Soviets or the Nazis (or both!) running the show so you have a choice between shit, real shit and disastrous shit.
 
FDR dies from polio so nobody's around to paper over party splits. Hoover wins thanks to the Electoral college and things go to hell from there.

A fresh circle of hell would be of course in the various colonies of the UK/France that the USSR inherits when an extended *WWII leads to both of them undergoing revolution. Gandhi will be preaching nonviolence in Siberia for.. not very long given how his outfits weren't really cold weather ready.
 
Thanks!

This forum is really great to brainstorm ideas!

You're welcome, and yes it is. FAR to much for some of us who really should get to writing something instead of "helping" ;)

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.

The problem is in a large scale conflicts tend to rather 'focus' nations and populations which tends to mean they will do put up with more internally than normal. In the case of a "WWII" analog as suggested Nazi Germany, Britain and France are all going to consider it a 'matter of surival' and pretty much spend and do whatever is needed to 'win' either "right now" or "very soon" which means England, even if it manages "peace" with the Nazi's is going to be ramping up for round two. And they'll probably turn to the US to produce the materials or actively support the effort. Actual neutrality (and it would sound like something Long would do) in Europe and less 'success' in China for Japan, (cuts the legs out from under the China Lobby which drove the sanctions, i wonder if trying to bit off more than they can chew with the USSR would have that effect?) means even if nations start pushing the demand for American manufacturing they may not use it to jump-start the recovery. If it looks like American industry might not be able to respond fast enough, (and a Paron-analog Long may in fact hinder that process trying to 'help') there will be less incentive to push money their way.

And while Long may in fact be a disaster overall keep in mind that American politics has some checks-and-balances in it. An opostitianal Congress could keep things log-jammed for a good long time.

- 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...

Again Long trying to push a radical "Share-the-Wealth" and failing while trying to centralize and control production... Throw in a low-level insurgency, racial violence, high crime rates and getting the economy turned around will take forever. (Wait, that sounds familiar somehow... :p )

- Italy and Japan pursuing their anachronistic imperial dreams in a world that is rapidly overtaking them in every possible aspect.

Japan is pretty straight forward, Italy on the other hand was pretty progressive but not really logistically or economically capable of supporting an "Empire" overseas. I can see it.

-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).

Considering how their economy was initially based on plunder and promises I can see it NOT being easy or straight forward. However if they take France and leave England in peace then the latter are going to be pushing for a re-match before the 40s are out.

-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.

More the latter rather than the former I'd think as Japan won't be able to push another conflict if China is a worse mess than OTL. Italy will represent a second-tier threat to England and possibly, (with no direct German support maybe?) one England can 'deal with' as a run up to a second go at the Nazi's?

-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.

And looking to settle Japan's hash would go a long way towards getting themselves back into shape without provoking Germany again... Yet :) A "three-way" conflict in China perhaps?

So after the (overdramatic) cineastic pitch for my idea:

Elevator-pitch for the movie ;)

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.

ACW-2=American Civil War 2nd Edition yes :) Really Tractor Tank's are useless against any type of "real" military BUT I can see, (but you don't have to use them I just happen to like the idea :) ) them being bought for the US military as 'place-holders' for the 'moment' while tank technology develops in Europe during the first round of the "Next Great War". The military won't like it of course but a politician with a 'vision' of selling massive amounts to second tier nations, (it's both a Tanks AND a Tractor! Scare your enemies by day and plow fields and dig ditches by night!) while the US military 'learns' tank tactics with them. then they go to "police" and internal security forces to fight the afore mentioned insurgency?

Randy
 

Anchises

Banned
You're welcome, and yes it is. FAR to much for some of us who really should get to writing something instead of "helping" ;)



The problem is in a large scale conflicts tend to rather 'focus' nations and populations which tends to mean they will do put up with more internally than normal. In the case of a "WWII" analog as suggested Nazi Germany, Britain and France are all going to consider it a 'matter of surival' and pretty much spend and do whatever is needed to 'win' either "right now" or "very soon" which means England, even if it manages "peace" with the Nazi's is going to be ramping up for round two. And they'll probably turn to the US to produce the materials or actively support the effort. Actual neutrality (and it would sound like something Long would do) in Europe and less 'success' in China for Japan, (cuts the legs out from under the China Lobby which drove the sanctions, i wonder if trying to bit off more than they can chew with the USSR would have that effect?) means even if nations start pushing the demand for American manufacturing they may not use it to jump-start the recovery. If it looks like American industry might not be able to respond fast enough, (and a Paron-analog Long may in fact hinder that process trying to 'help') there will be less incentive to push money their way.

And while Long may in fact be a disaster overall keep in mind that American politics has some checks-and-balances in it. An opostitianal Congress could keep things log-jammed for a good long time.



Again Long trying to push a radical "Share-the-Wealth" and failing while trying to centralize and control production... Throw in a low-level insurgency, racial violence, high crime rates and getting the economy turned around will take forever. (Wait, that sounds familiar somehow... :p )



Japan is pretty straight forward, Italy on the other hand was pretty progressive but not really logistically or economically capable of supporting an "Empire" overseas. I can see it.



Considering how their economy was initially based on plunder and promises I can see it NOT being easy or straight forward. However if they take France and leave England in peace then the latter are going to be pushing for a re-match before the 40s are out.



More the latter rather than the former I'd think as Japan won't be able to push another conflict if China is a worse mess than OTL. Italy will represent a second-tier threat to England and possibly, (with no direct German support maybe?) one England can 'deal with' as a run up to a second go at the Nazi's?



And looking to settle Japan's hash would go a long way towards getting themselves back into shape without provoking Germany again... Yet :) A "three-way" conflict in China perhaps?



Elevator-pitch for the movie ;)



ACW-2=American Civil War 2nd Edition yes :) Really Tractor Tank's are useless against any type of "real" military BUT I can see, (but you don't have to use them I just happen to like the idea :) ) them being bought for the US military as 'place-holders' for the 'moment' while tank technology develops in Europe during the first round of the "Next Great War". The military won't like it of course but a politician with a 'vision' of selling massive amounts to second tier nations, (it's both a Tanks AND a Tractor! Scare your enemies by day and plow fields and dig ditches by night!) while the US military 'learns' tank tactics with them. then they go to "police" and internal security forces to fight the afore mentioned insurgency?

Randy

Thanks for your great feedback and your help!

I hope I am not stopping you from writing your own timeline :D.

Huey Long trying to implement a radical "Share your wealth" programm completely wrecking the Economy sounds really great. Especially coupled with a low level insurgency/high crime and a congress hellbent on delaying everything. Damn now I have to rewrite my America PoD a little.

The idea that Khalkin Ghol might escalate more than OTL is great. It weakens the Soviets and explains why Japan makes even less progress in China than OTL.

Well for Italy I actually imagined getting bogged down on the Balkans trying to build the New Imperium Romanum but getting their teeth kicked in by GB might be great to (of course there is no Axis ITTL, just some loose bilateral agreements).

Well GB might be to busy with India and the ME to start a new round with Germany in 1948/49. I think containment would be the order of the day for a while longer (a-bombs won't be a thing in this world at least till the late 50s probably) so there could be conventional action in the 50s.

The SU getting involved in the Sino-Japanese war after the bitter peace has a lot of potential...

And the Disston tank is Great! I think it would be a very revealing picture if National Guards use these things to stop riots. I am definetly going to use them!
 
Thanks for your great feedback and your help!

You're welcome, glad I can be of any assistance :)

I hope I am not stopping you from writing your own timeline :D

Uhm, sure, no, yes, YES you are this is all YOUR fault! Obviously I'd be writing a fascinating and well loved time line if it weren't for you meddling kids I'd have gotten away with... Opps, channeling my "Scooby Doo villain" there sorry ;)

No I got no one to blame but myself on that score so "helping" is at least, well, helping.

And the Disston tank is Great! I think it would be a very revealing picture if National Guards use these things to stop riots. I am definetly going to use them!

I've created a monster! :) Keep in mind how much those things are going to tear up the streets of a city as well. Ain't NO ONE going to be happy :)

Randy
 
...
Well for Italy I actually imagined getting bogged down on the Balkans trying to build the New Imperium Romanum but getting their teeth kicked in by GB might be great to (of course there is no Axis ITTL, just some loose bilateral agreements).

...

There need not be a war for Italy to get its teeth kicked in. Fascist economic policy was to invest in this putative empire even if the choice was poor. Between bad investment strategy & corruption the Italian economy takes a hit comparable to losing a couple more colonial wars.

This particular outcome can apply to a number of other nations. You have already applied the 'Irrational Actor' to economic development in the US. There are several other candidates where little needs to change in the 1930s to obtain poor economic results in the 1930s.
 
Top