Roosevelt dies at the end of 1939

nbcman

Donor
Before Britain was broke and when Churchy was trying to rally the public. When broke and putting the war effort on life support, with the US refusing to pick up the pill and shipping losses exceeding construction, things are going to look much more bleak to the rather mercurial Winston....assuming he hasn't gotten a vote of no confidence.
I don't think that the US would refuse to pick up the pill. In March 1940, there was a majority in Gallup polling that would support lending France and the UK money if they were going to lose the war:

MARCH 4 EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 2/8-13/40

Survey #184-K Question #3

If looked as though England and France would lose the war unless we loaned them money to buy war supplies here, would you favor or oppose lending them money?

Favor.............................. 55%

Oppose.............................45%

And a bare majority supported sales of aircraft on credit in May 1940:

MAY 24

EUROPEAN WAR

Interviewing Date 5/16-21/40

Survey #194-K Question #6

If England and France are unable to pay cash for airplanes they buy in this country, do you think we should sell them planes on credit supplied by our Government?

Yes................................ 51%

No................................49%

Plus a wider majority supported purchasing European colonies in June:

JUNE 14

PURCHASE OF ALLIED TERRITORY

Interviewing Date 6/1-6/40

Survey #197-K Question #5

If the Allies need more money for running the war, would you be in favor of the United States and other American republics buying the British, French, and Dutch possessions in the area of the Panama Canal?

Yes................................ 81%

No................................ 19%

So even without Roosevelt or Lend Lease, I believe that there was going to be an increase in aid to the UK based on the sentiments of that time.
 
If the US isn't granting LL, they can't be counting on having them as an ally.

By the same reasoning, at the time when the USA weren't granting even Cash and Carry, the British couldn't hope for Lend Lease, right? And yet.

They may have the USSR on side, but if they cannot afford to send them LL and the US isn't granting the USSR any, then it's a slow roll until they lose.

That assumes the USSR needs Lend Lease to win. Bad assumption.
 

Deleted member 1487

By the same reasoning, at the time when the USA weren't granting even Cash and Carry, the British couldn't hope for Lend Lease, right? And yet.
Pardon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_and_carry_(World_War_II)
Cash and Carry was law since September 21st 1939, so it was very much in effect at the time the speech was given and the Brits were spending so heedlessly that even the US army was selling off their ammunition stocks to them:
https://books.google.com/books?id=xGghoI3Ib2UC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=us+army+sold+ammo+britain+1940&source=bl&ots=YvYLSc2Z6M&sig=R5EHwRhv9xPdnSbynviHctn9UY8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo3_jg4ZXVAhXLTSYKHaNFDw8Q6AEIWDAL#v=onepage&q=us army sold ammo britain 1940&f=false

There was reason to be hopeful of US help in June 1940 when Britain still had money to spend.

That assumes the USSR needs Lend Lease to win. Bad assumption.
Oh they needed LL just not to starve to death:
http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/product_info.php?products_id=807522

I don't think that the US would refuse to pick up the pill. In March 1940, there was a majority in Gallup polling that would support lending France and the UK money if they were going to lose the war:
Lend money WW1 style, not lend equipment free of charge and collateral at a discount. As it was though it took FDR months to convince congress to enact LL, so without a driving force with the political pull of FDR, it is really hard to see LL getting passed. Now loans could theoretically be organized and I could see that happening, but that is something very different than the $50 Billion received via LL and then paid off for 10% of value

And a bare majority supported sales of aircraft on credit in May 1940:
Again what Congress would accept and what the public was barely willing to do in 1 poll are different things. Without a leader like FDR driving the policy, it is hard to see coming to pass like that.

Plus a wider majority supported purchasing European colonies in June:
Again a very different thing than LL and that is one colony.


So even without Roosevelt or Lend Lease, I believe that there was going to be an increase in aid to the UK based on the sentiments of that time.
 
Without Lend-Lease, Britain is starved into armistice by 1942. Germany is free to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union which fails anyway without Lend-Lease. By 1946, the Soviets are marching on Berlin and be in Spain and Italy by 1947. The rest of continental Europe will become satellites and a pro-trading bloc of the Soviet Union part of war time repairs. Communist influence spreads throughout Africa and Southeast Asia. There are fears for decades that the Soviets may one day invade Britain which the Nazis were not able to do earlier.

Sorry but without LL the URSS will be more or less capable of throw the Germans back to the pre-war border at OTL cost, getting not only East Europe but the rest of Europe against an Axis that not only had a just one front but it's not subjected to strategic bombing...it's a little out of the question.
Hell, just getting OTL border put the soviet logistic line to the limit and the nation suffered famine in 46 IRC.
 
Honestly, I doubt that the US will accept the mastery of Europe as a whole by Germany. This would endanger American interests throughout Eurasia. So even if they defeat the USSR, the United States will use mass nuclear weapons against them.
 

Deleted member 1487

Without a close alliance I wonder how far or fast the US goes in developing atomic weapons? How important was the information from the British Tube Alloys project for getting the Manhatten Project started where it did?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_contribution_to_the_Manhattan_Project
The Manhattan Project started over a year before there was a Tube Alloys Project; the MAUD committee investigating if they should start a nuclear project started about the same time as the US project. The US was also well ahead by 1942 and the British couldn't afford to really fund theirs adequately, but did get significant early help from the Brits. Of course Klaus Fuchs was one of the contributing Brits, but also a Soviet agent and leaked critical information they used to help make their own bomb post-war.
 
Top