Possibly the Liberty Ship programme ( if it exists ittl) might not be as ruinously expensive ( and as disadvantageous to Britain's future prospects) as it was OTL?
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 3
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
American factories and shipyards are conveniently out of range of anything except the sneakiest of U-boats (if coastal) or Axis spies/saboteurs (if the US authorities are so incompetent as to be unable to capture them). Factories and shipyards in the UK are for the most part potentially in range of German bombers.
To some extent having some stuff built/manufactured abroad and running the risk of importing it past the U-boat gauntlet makes sense (and the US is the most industrially developed non-Axis country, so attractive on those grounds), and that's before going into manpower issues...
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Anglo American relations are at best fraught and complex at the best of times, and have been since before the American rebellion, against their lawful King. And have remained so up until the present day, ranging from cordial to down right hostile, and have seen one war, 1812, and numerous occasions when the two sides had come very close to another conflict, such as the Trent affair during the American Civil War. After WWI, which according to many Americans they had won, having been dragged into it by the nefarious British. The British failed to pay their debts, and were bulling the poor Germans, and refused to allow American corporations unfettered access to their markets. The WWI American President established an international organisation to try to deal with possible conflicts, The League of Nations, which the American Congress and Senate refused to join. During the inter war period the American government particularly in the Southern states, began to enact some racist laws, which to a large extent were followed in the majority of big cities even in the north. And then came the Wall Street crash, which resulted in a depression, when in an attempt to protect American jobs, America imposed tariffs and duties on imports. And then got upset when other nations followed suit, in an attempt to protect their own citizens jobs. A particular bug bear of the American establishment was the British system of Imperial Preference, which according to them wasn’t fair, and was denying them their rightful ability to export goods and exploit British markets.
Things only got worse during the thirties, as various American nutters proposed invading Canada to liberate it, and the USN, held war games in which they planned for war against Britain and the various nations of the British Empire, War Plan, Red, Ruby, Claret, Maroon , etc. And they did all this, without thinking about what the British might make of it, and there was a constant stream of articles in the US press, condemning Britain for failing to pay off the war loans. With the rise to power of various authoritarian regimes in a number of European countries, especially Germany and Italy, not only were there large vocal supporters of them. But also a rising call for America to withdraw from international affairs and isolate itself from the rest of the world, particularly to avoid all entanglements with Britain, who was bound to drag them into a war, that they were better off staying out of. An increasing number of neutrality acts were enacted to prevent the British in particular from buying weapons or gaining credit, in the event of a war breaking out. The more extreme measures that some called for, were a ban on American companies that had facilities in foreign nations, being able to produce goods that could be used to prosecute a war. A prime example would be Ford US could face prosecution if it allowed Ford UK, to produce goods for the British war effort.
By the outbreak of the war, it was illegal for American companies to sell arms to any foreign nation, and American financial institutions couldn’t extend loans for arms purchases. The British Government who had only a limited amount of dollars or gold, basically made every effort to avoid buying things from America, which seriously upset a number of powerful American businessmen, who had expected massive orders from Britain at the outbreak of war. America was heading into another mini depression by 1938, as the new deal wasn’t the success that many thought it was, it did in some ways contribute to the very slow economic recovery in the US. American oil companies were hit with a double whammy, as the British brought their oil requirements from anywhere other than America, and by the imposition of a blockade on German, prevented them from buying oil from America. The blockade wasn’t just on German, Britain imposed quotas on all the European nations, on a vast range of goods, whether the goods came from Britain or the rest of the world. Thus Denmark, couldn’t import ten times the amount of oil or rubber that it had pre war, and sell the excess onto Germany, these restrictions applied to virtually every country in Europe, except France which as Britain’s ally got an exception.
Gradually the US relaxed the various Neutrality Acts, and enacted regulations that while on the face of it were strictly neutral and applied to all equally, basically favoured the British and the French. This was typified by the Cash and Carry Act, which while on the face of it was applied neutrality to all, favoured the French and especially the British. The basis of the act was simple, nations could buy whatever they wanted, but had to pay for it in cash and transport it away in their own ships. Now given that the Germans started the war with virtually no foreign exchange to hand, and no German ship stood a snowball’s chance in hell, of transiting the Atlantic and collecting a cargo, and then returning to Germany. While the British had the cash/gold to hand, and they were perfectly able to send a British registered ship to the US and collect their goods, and then escort them back to Britain. Britain at first was very careful only ordering goods from America that it couldn’t get elsewhere either cheaper or on credit. So Argentina beef and grain, not American, Venezuelan or Mexican oil not American, Egyptian cotton not American, though the additives to add to the petrol and improve its octane rating did come from America. If the British couldn’t source it from within the Empire or Commonwealth, they would try anywhere other than America first, as they could get credit or do a deal, and didn’t have to spend US dollars. It was only after the fall of France, and having spent virtually every last dollar they had and rapidly running out of gold, that America instituted Lend Lease, with all its onerous conditions from the British point of view.
RR.
Things only got worse during the thirties, as various American nutters proposed invading Canada to liberate it, and the USN, held war games in which they planned for war against Britain and the various nations of the British Empire, War Plan, Red, Ruby, Claret, Maroon , etc. And they did all this, without thinking about what the British might make of it, and there was a constant stream of articles in the US press, condemning Britain for failing to pay off the war loans. With the rise to power of various authoritarian regimes in a number of European countries, especially Germany and Italy, not only were there large vocal supporters of them. But also a rising call for America to withdraw from international affairs and isolate itself from the rest of the world, particularly to avoid all entanglements with Britain, who was bound to drag them into a war, that they were better off staying out of. An increasing number of neutrality acts were enacted to prevent the British in particular from buying weapons or gaining credit, in the event of a war breaking out. The more extreme measures that some called for, were a ban on American companies that had facilities in foreign nations, being able to produce goods that could be used to prosecute a war. A prime example would be Ford US could face prosecution if it allowed Ford UK, to produce goods for the British war effort.
By the outbreak of the war, it was illegal for American companies to sell arms to any foreign nation, and American financial institutions couldn’t extend loans for arms purchases. The British Government who had only a limited amount of dollars or gold, basically made every effort to avoid buying things from America, which seriously upset a number of powerful American businessmen, who had expected massive orders from Britain at the outbreak of war. America was heading into another mini depression by 1938, as the new deal wasn’t the success that many thought it was, it did in some ways contribute to the very slow economic recovery in the US. American oil companies were hit with a double whammy, as the British brought their oil requirements from anywhere other than America, and by the imposition of a blockade on German, prevented them from buying oil from America. The blockade wasn’t just on German, Britain imposed quotas on all the European nations, on a vast range of goods, whether the goods came from Britain or the rest of the world. Thus Denmark, couldn’t import ten times the amount of oil or rubber that it had pre war, and sell the excess onto Germany, these restrictions applied to virtually every country in Europe, except France which as Britain’s ally got an exception.
Gradually the US relaxed the various Neutrality Acts, and enacted regulations that while on the face of it were strictly neutral and applied to all equally, basically favoured the British and the French. This was typified by the Cash and Carry Act, which while on the face of it was applied neutrality to all, favoured the French and especially the British. The basis of the act was simple, nations could buy whatever they wanted, but had to pay for it in cash and transport it away in their own ships. Now given that the Germans started the war with virtually no foreign exchange to hand, and no German ship stood a snowball’s chance in hell, of transiting the Atlantic and collecting a cargo, and then returning to Germany. While the British had the cash/gold to hand, and they were perfectly able to send a British registered ship to the US and collect their goods, and then escort them back to Britain. Britain at first was very careful only ordering goods from America that it couldn’t get elsewhere either cheaper or on credit. So Argentina beef and grain, not American, Venezuelan or Mexican oil not American, Egyptian cotton not American, though the additives to add to the petrol and improve its octane rating did come from America. If the British couldn’t source it from within the Empire or Commonwealth, they would try anywhere other than America first, as they could get credit or do a deal, and didn’t have to spend US dollars. It was only after the fall of France, and having spent virtually every last dollar they had and rapidly running out of gold, that America instituted Lend Lease, with all its onerous conditions from the British point of view.
RR.
Last edited:
Then what's your projection RampRat for the way British Economics and debts will go compared to OTL?
I mean less steel and manpower has been lost compared to OTL at sea and on the ground with radically different North Africa, Crete and Far East as well as changes for Greece and the Fall of France.
I mean less steel and manpower has been lost compared to OTL at sea and on the ground with radically different North Africa, Crete and Far East as well as changes for Greece and the Fall of France.
You can split the 1945 Labour governments spending into three buckets, first of all you have the classic welfare state spending on pensions, disability benefit, school places etc. which was both very popular and maybe economically beneficial in the medium term (increased school attendance, less need for people to exit the workforce to be unpaid carers etc.).
You then had areas where state investment crowded out private investment, this was primarily in building council houses where the state borrowed money to build houses that probably would have been built privately but with a strong dose of social engineering. The net result of this was unpleasant council estates and a higher debt to GDP ratio, it's hard to regard that as anything other than a dead loss.
Finally you had the nationalisations which effectively recycled private capital, i.e. giving the previous, private owners of hospitals, the steel industry, coal mines etc. gilts in exchange for their shares. Ignoring the fact that the state then mismanaged these industries into the ground that might not have been harmful except confiscatory taxation for social engineering reasons then taxed those people very heavily, massively shrinking the pool of private capital in the UK economy as people moved what the could abroad and had the remainder taxed away. Which in turn meant that in the 1950's and 60's as the rest of the world boomed on the back of private investments Britain didn't.
The individual elements of the 1945 Labour program weren't economically disastrous, the cumulative effect of the whole was.
That's quite a sweeping statement about the council houses built in the 40s and 50s, I'd say they are some of the UKs most well sized housing stock and a good council estate is a great place to live and grow up. Most of them had lots of amenities with well designed out public areas.
The abominations forced on the country buy well meaning councils and corruption in the 60s, 70s and 80s is another matter almost all of the later council stock was poorly built and the planning was awful with far too many alleyways and walkways that encourage crime.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Sir I will consider this question, however I do have a minor concern, this is not my Timeline, and I wouldn’t want to make any comments that could be said to be binding on the author. It is after all his vision of the world that has to take precedence, and I wouldn’t want him to be constrained by anything I might postulate. And the end of the war is as yet a long way away, and in the words of the old TV series Stingray, “ Anything could happen in the next half hour.” After all Winston could die in an accident or be killed by a bomb/V1/V2, FDR might die sooner and thus the Yalta conference might be attended by Harry S Truman, who having been subjected to a serious dose of Stalin and not so distrustful of Winston, or deadicated to the destruction of the British Empire, might pursue a slightly different policy post war. Give me some time to contemplate what I believe will be the results, based on the general Timeline, without significant changes to the political landscape.
RR.
The more relevant question is why even if the safety factor was a thing why it was not focused on the empire instead and basicly bribe the empire instead with the money to be honest. Honestly , canada was very underused and could have used alot of usa corporations help here and india + the aussies were a real option altough india might not make super much sense considering they were really leaving after ww2 even if things were managed alot better but i think it would be possible to have alot better relations afterwards. South africa aswell maybe .
People are really forgetting that the americans sucked almost all of the money and assets out of the british they could before they switched to lend lease and that was still loans . When i read abit deeper what lend lease was for the british atleast and what they did before im abit astonished why the uk/usa relations are so good and then there is the nukes issue wich forced the brits to do a expensive weapons program wich they didnt budget for.
People are really forgetting that the americans sucked almost all of the money and assets out of the british they could before they switched to lend lease and that was still loans . When i read abit deeper what lend lease was for the british atleast and what they did before im abit astonished why the uk/usa relations are so good and then there is the nukes issue wich forced the brits to do a expensive weapons program wich they didnt budget for.
The council estates started in this period were generally better designed then their successors but the quality of individual houses was dreadful, partially because of the rationing of building materials. If you look at house prices 1930's built stock is the most valuable nowadays, 1940's some of the least.
The 1940s stuff was rushed, but hey, when you're 4 million houses short, you do what you have to. It's quite possible the original idea had been 'We need houses now. Doesn't matter if they're not that good, we can replace them later with better-built stuff.' And then they never got replaced when they were supposed to.
That was the original idea and politically it makes perfect sense. But economically it's irrational as you've sunk a large amount of money into low quality houses which are either going to have to be expensively torn down and replaced or retrofitted. In the political context of 1940's Britain as lot of decisions that in the long run had serious negative consequences were unavoidable, a shorter, less damaging war should ease some of those pressures. It's hard to see the V1 campaign doing much damage in this TL for example. By the time it's ready for use there will be allied troops occupying the launching sites.
What's more economically problematic? Hundreds of thousands or millions without housing now? Or a big replacement bill down the road? Britain will owe substantially less money in the post-war period, but I really can't see the war in Europe being much shorter, as the American buildup, and production of landing craft will still delay any landing in France until 1944.
Now I don't think things would be changed that much on the European front in this regards....but considering the condition on the Far East... I do wonder if there is a freight shipbuilding capacity available at the colonies (presumeably at Surabaya or Singapore) at this time...which could focus building ship that is made to travel through the waters of the Far East....?
Yeah...I should have properly arranged my words....since my actual question was supposed to be
That being said...perhaps even if all of the docks both Surabaya and Singapore docks are available and suitable for shipbuilding...(which is probably wouldn't due to those docks being focusing on repair works IIRC) the likelihood of it reducing the demand (and thus) the number of Amercan-built liberty ships (being build) would be reduced.... (presumably it would be 2710 that would be planned and 2650 being built ITTL at least)?
It would be useful to examine what shipbuilding capacity is available in the dominions, particularly Australia and Canada.
There weren't homeless encampments in the parks of British cities in 1945, just a lot of people staying with relatives or living in Nissan huts and economically speaking it's much better to have someone remain in a Nissan hut for an extra year or two if the house they leave it for is properly built.
I suspect we'll see a 1943 invasion of France in this TL. With Rhodes having been conquered the only target left in the Mediterranean is Sicily so that it can be fully opened up to shipping and I suspect we'll see that happen later in 1942. At that point it's either spend 1943 doing nothing or invade France, the Americans will be as eager as OTL and the British will be both more confident and also much less able to argue that the Med needs to be wrapped up first.
I'm pretty sure you're not putting up two million units of good-quality housing a year, so it might be half-a-decade in huts or living with family.
1943 is risky, as they won't be able to put as many troops ashore, so they might well bog down a bit.