That isn't capitalism, it is highway robbery! Why should Europe pay twice as much for first-line gear as it costs?
The Brits were desperate. They needed ships, & they paid way, way more for old, decrepit junk than the ships were worth, because they had no other options. Then the Liberty ship program was introduced...
I do wonder if the Commonwealth & France couldn't take up some slack. (Was Commonwealth selling of War Bonds exhausted?) What about Argentina? Didn't the Brits have a trade deal with her? Or Spain, which owed something like $100 million: swap debt writeoff for production or, if Spain wanted to stay out, for credit.
US radars would have suffered without the British invented cavity magnetrons I still think the US would have done fine in that area.
Very probably. Nevertheless, don't forget Canadian production of centimetric radars mainly went to the U.S., while RCN corvettes made do with mediocre, obsolete metric sets.


boost the German production because there is no bomber offensive
Not necessarily, by any means.
I believe the traditional way to end that kind of scenario is with the USAF nuking Berlin, or so the search function would reveal.
That appears to be the usual approach. It is by no means the only option.
If we accept Britain must scale back, it means accepting losses in bombers over Germany, & more important in ships, is
simply not an option. So Harris (if he even gets the job) gets smacked down for refusing VLRs & radar to Coastal Command. If the top brass are half-smart, they base 2-3 of squadrons of Stirlings in Newfoundland (for LR A/S patrol) right after L-L is defeated. Convoy losses go
way, way down. Bomber Command is encouraged to find new ways to strike at Germany. Minelaying in rivers is proposed. So is attacking canals. So is attacking railyards. These succeed in crippling shipments of coal to powerplants, as well as deliveries of key components to factories & weapons to the front.
War ends in 1943 with the Red Army not yet across the Vistula.
Postwar, European car manufacturers offer less competition to U.S. makers, since they aren't using all-new tooling & equipment. Detroit continues to build junk 5 more years. Nobody has ever heard of the VW.
In OTL Spring '45, Soviet manpower reserves had run out, as Stalin warned Zhukov and Konev to be careful with casualties because there were no manpower reserves left. It is deep-end Sovietwank to assume that with a much less mechanized and efficient Red Army or a much less plentiful Soviet infantry, the inevitable result of no L-L, the Soviets shall be able to reproduce their dramatic OTL advances of 43-44
This is my biggest problem with all the "no Lend-Lease" arguments. They all seem to depend on the Brits or Sovs, who don't get it, being stupid. Here, we see OTL Stalin warning "be careful" because
he's aware of the problem. Which means even Stalin, not the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to recognizing casualties are an issue, got it. Certainly he would if
production in all sectors was dramatically lower, and certainly he'd
change his approach. Would he continue to demand aggressive & costly attacks? Or would he be more willing to husband troops & tanks? Or more willing to fight on the defensive? Does that consequently mean German losses are actually higher? That German attrition is greater? That German resource expenditure, due to longer fronts & supply lines, is greater? Maybe...
In short, why in the world would the Sovs, or Brits, who don't get Lend-Lease, make no adjustments in their war-fighting?



