Any World War II thread where the war lasts longer, the UK makes more or the UK makes better (because its more expensive) means the UK has to pay for it by increased taxation or borrowing. In the latter case means a larger National Debt, which in turn means more interest to pay, which has to be paid for by cutting spending, higher taxation and/or more borrowing.NOMYRRUC'S observation that if the RN would end up numerous new units if the war continued, raises an interesting issue for me--the economic results to the UK. While the RN might be stronger in the short run if Japan held out, the UK as a whole might have lost in the wrong run, at least financially.
The UK would have gone further in debt to pay for the ships and after the war probably would have even less money to pay for operating these ships. The plans to retake and Singapore and Malaya would have been even more expensive for the UK.
These expenses would be offset to some extent by scrapping older ships in the fleet--though this savings would have been fairly minimal relative to the cost of retaking Singapore and Malaya and the cost of the new units. A more important benefit is that (though less likely outcome) is that the UK economy might have less post war shock from demobilization, as it might not have such an abrupt transition from war-footing to a post war economy. Also, the July 1945 election which was swept Labour into power in a landslide, might affect the degree of UK commitment in the Pacific. Labour was committed to improving the civilian economy and might not be as invested in further massive mitlitary operations in the Far East as Churchill had been--but I would have to know more about UK politics and economics at the time before I would feel comfortable in offering more in this direction.
That's not to say the US would not be worse financially by war lasting longer. It's just the US could afford it better because of the bigger economy and less war damage. As to war fatigue, the people US had not suffered deprivations to anywhere clear to the same degree as the people UK. Further, I think it's safe to say that the US had a far greater animosity towards Japan because of Pearl Harbor (and, to a lesser extent, Bataan).
So, ceteris paribus, while initially the UK would end up with a better fleet, it may well end up further in debt and as a result even further worse off financially post-war. While, the economic results of the war going longer are a bit off-topic, I think it would be an interesting topic on its own. The post-war hardships that the UK experience (and the far worse deprivation the rest of Europe suffered) are seldom discussed on this board. After all, the economic effects of war and defense spending needs to be considered in AH.
Also if the war lasts longer there are more casualties, which reduces the size of the labour force and more disabled to look after.
As it happens I've got a spreadsheet for British Government expenditure from 1902-03 to 1970-71. Here's the relevant expenditure for 1934-35 to 1959-60.
Revenue Expenditure Surplus/ Defecit As % of Revenue Total National Debt Service As % of Expenditure Total Defence Expenditure As % of Expenditure National Debt at 31st March in each year Relevant Events
1934-35 804.6 797.1 7.6 1% 224.0 28% 113.9 14.3% 1935 7,902.4 Start of Deficiency Programme
1935-36 844.8 841.8 2.9 0% 224.0 27% 136.9 16.3% 1936 7,901.6
1936-37 896.6 902.2 -5.6 -1% 224.0 25% 186.1 20.6% 1937 7,909.9 Start of Rearmament Programme
1937-38 948.7 919.9 28.8 3% 226.8 25% 197.3 21.4% 1938 8,149.0
1938-39 1,006.2 1,018.9 -12.7 -1% 230.0 23% 254.4 25.0% 1939 8,301.1
1939-40 1,132.2 1,408.2 -276.0 -24% 230.0 16% 626.4 44.5% 1940 7,899.2
1940-41 1,495.3 3,970.7 -2,475.4 -166% 229.9 6% 3,220.0 81.1% 1941 10,366.4 First Full Year of World War II
1941-42 2,174.6 4,876.3 -2,701.7 -124% 257.2 5% 4,085.0 83.8% 1942 13,041.0
1942-43 2,922.4 5,739.9 -2,817.5 -96% 325.0 6% 4,840.0 84.3% 1943 15,822.6
1943-44 3,149.2 5,909.3 -2,760.1 -88% 375.0 6% 4,950.0 83.8% 1944 18,562.2
1944-45 3,354.7 6,179.5 -2,824.8 -84% 420.1 7% 5,125.0 82.9% 1945 21,365.9 Last Full Year of World War II
1945-46 3,401.2 5,601.1 -2,199.9 -65% 465.0 8% 4,410.0 78.7% 1946 23,636.6
1946-47 3,622.7 4,191.9 -569.2 -16% 498.8 12% 1,653.4 39.4% 1947 25,630.7
1947-48 4,011.3 3,376.0 635.3 16% 525.0 16% 853.9 25.3% 1948 25,620.8
1948-49 4,168.0 3,337.0 831.0 20% 500.0 15% 753.2 22.6% 1949 25,167.6 1948-49 Defence Cuts
1949-50 4,098.0 3,549.3 548.7 13% 490.9 14% 740.7 20.9% 1950 25,802.3
1950-51 4,157.2 3,436.7 720.5 17% 497.2 14% 777.4 22.6% 1951 25,921.6
1951-52 4,629.0 4,249.2 379.8 8% 541.0 13% 1,110.2 26.1% 1952 25,890.5 1951 Rearmament Programme
1952-53 4,653.8 4,565.7 88.1 2% 611.6 13% 1,403.7 30.7% 1953 26,051.2
1953-54 4,606.0 4,512.4 93.6 2% 615.4 14% 1,364.5 30.2% 1954 26,887.9
1954-55 4,986.7 4,553.5 433.2 9% 605.8 13% 1,435.9 31.5% 1955 27,233.8 1954 Defence Review
1955-56 5,160.4 4,763.3 397.1 8% 674.3 14% 1,404.9 29.5% 1956 27,320.0
1956-57 5,462.4 5,172.7 289.7 5% 747.6 14% 1,525.1 29.5% 1957 27,268.7
1957-58 6,578.7 5,255.7 1,323.0 20% 703.5 13% 1,429.7 27.2% 1958 27,473.5 1957 Defence Review
1958-59 5,850.1 5,472.9 377.2 6% 700.8 13% 1,467.7 26.8% 1959 27,598.6
1959-60 6,015.6 5,629.0 386.6 6% 653.4 12% 1,475.7 26.2% 1960 27,936.7