U.S. Decides against the Lend Lease Act

You're misinterpreting my post; I never said US dislike of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was the most important factor in Britain choosing to abandon the alliance, just that it was one of the factors under consideration (which you yourself admitted that it was).
 
You're misinterpreting my post; I never said US dislike of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was the most important factor in Britain choosing to abandon the alliance, just that it was one of the factors under consideration (which you yourself admitted that it was).


I must have read more of an emphasis in your post regarding the US' opinion than you intended. Please allow me to apologize.

As you correctly explain, US opinion was one of many factors, but it wasn't even close to being the controlling factor, most heavily weighted factor, or anything of the like.

We should remember that Britain's decision was about renewing the treaty and not about withdrawing from the treaty. In other words, Britain had decided on "No" and was looking for opinions which might change that to a "Yes".
 
Quite so. The only reason US opposition to the alliance even came up is that one of the likely effects of the Anglo-Japanese alliance continuing is a cooling of relations between the US and the UK, which might help explain why the US wouldn't offer Lend-Lease in this TL.

For some reason, I am envisioning a very petulant Uncle Sam responding to British requests for aid by snidely responding "Why don't you ask Japan to help you, since you like them so much?"
 
The only reason US opposition to the alliance even came up is that one of the likely effects of the Anglo-Japanese alliance continuing is a cooling of relations between the US and the UK, which might help explain why the US wouldn't offer Lend-Lease in this TL.


In order to renew the treaty we'll need to juggle things with regards to China, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada also as a "No" from any of them can scuttle renewal too.

For some reason, I am envisioning a very petulant Uncle Sam responding to British requests for aid by snidely responding "Why don't you ask Japan to help you, since you like them so much?"

That's a nice image! :)

While the situation in the Pacific is going to be completely ITTL, the wheels in Europe could still come off; i.e. Nazi/Fascist/Militarist Germany, a new war on the Continent, beat down of France, etc.
 
If the alliance is renewed, then surely it might delay or slow down the Japanese slip into military rule. For one thing, it might impact the outcome of the London Naval Conference.
 
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.:eek::confused::mad:
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.:p

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.:p
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?:confused::confused::confused::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Hyperion

Banned
The Axis Powers do not have the sort of power projection necessary for this to be true.

I believe the discussion on Turkey was that if the British or Soviets where to attempt to cut off supplies from Turkey, then the Turkish government might throw their support to the Axis.

This does not mean a massive German army coming through Turkey, but this could mean the Turkish army going on the offensive, with perhaps two or three German divisions, the equivalient of a corps sized formation, thrown in for show if nothing else.

On paper at any rate, my understanding is that Turkey actually had a fairly good sized army at the time. Though whether or not they would have been a credible fighting force or if they would have fallen apart in their first battle I have no clue.
 
Top