Wendel Wilkie dies before 1940 election, no Lend-Lease to Britain

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if Wendel Wilkie died in 1939 and wasn't around to come out of no where and take the GOP nomination in 1940 and help FDR create the coalition that was able to build toward intervention? I'm just listening to a political history podcast by John Dickerson about the 1940 election and he's making the case that intervention, including Lend-Lease was only possible due to Wendel Wilkie leading an interventionalist wing of the GOP out into public prominence and helped FDR build a pro-intervention coalition that he hadn't thought possible before Wilkie got traction. So what if Wilkie isn't around and Dewey gets the GOP nomination and runs a 1940 campaign against the idea of intervention, which then means come 1941 FDR is not able to build a coalition around helping Britain, so Lend-Lease can't pass in 1941? In fact would an isolationist like Dewey make an issue out of FDR's Destroyers for Bases Agreement and force FDR to take a much less supportive position in 1940 of Britain? Can FDR get it later or would Britain exit the war in the meantime over financial issues? Would US politics shift enough to get into the war at all or would the GOP-Democratic divide be such that US entry is delayed due to say not being able to organize the ABCD Line against Japan, thus delaying the Japanese attacks on the US and UK?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think this has the impact Dickerson think it does. Dewey adopted a non-interventionist stance because the campaign began before the Fall of France. When that happened, momentum shifted to Willkie because he was in favor of supporting Britain (but not intervening). During the actual campaign, Willkie opposed actual intervention as opposed to just aiding Britain. Dewey, of course, later became an interventionist, but so did most Americans over the next few years.

In a scenario where Dewey is the nominee, he likely adjusts his position to be more in favor of support. Too many Republicans wanted that as the Fall of France changed everything. Most of Dewey's own base of support in the GOP are precisely the people who changed over to Willkie (unlike Taft's base which was isolationist and stayed with him). To keep them on board, Dewey will evolve once the true campaign begins.

If Willkie is not the leader of the supporting the Allies, then other Republicans will step up to the plate and push Dewey (or if Dewey resists, they take the lead within the Republican Party). There is Henry Stimson who actually became FDR's secretary of War. Fiorella La Guardia was the Republican mayor of New York and would be another candidate. Ernest W. Gibson was a Vermont Republican who became the head of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. These were the people who made Willkie the nominee, and they will still be around if Willkie is not.

Dickerson is simply assigning too much personal importance to Wendell Willkie. There will be others who take up his slack.
 

Deleted member 1487

I don't think this has the impact Dickerson think it does. Dewey adopted a non-interventionist stance because the campaign began before the Fall of France. When that happened, momentum shifted to Willkie because he was in favor of supporting Britain (but not intervening). During the actual campaign, Willkie opposed actual intervention as opposed to just aiding Britain. Dewey, of course, later became an interventionist, but so did most Americans over the next few years.

In a scenario where Dewey is the nominee, he likely adjusts his position to be more in favor of support. Too many Republicans wanted that as the Fall of France changed everything. Most of Dewey's own base of support in the GOP are precisely the people who changed over to Willkie (unlike Taft's base which was isolationist and stayed with him). To keep them on board, Dewey will evolve once the true campaign begins.

If Willkie is not the leader of the supporting the Allies, then other Republicans will step up to the plate and push Dewey (or if Dewey resists, they take the lead within the Republican Party). There is Henry Stimson who actually became FDR's secretary of War. Fiorella La Guardia was the Republican mayor of New York and would be another candidate. Ernest W. Gibson was a Vermont Republican who became the head of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. These were the people who made Willkie the nominee, and they will still be around if Willkie is not.

Dickerson is simply assigning too much personal importance to Wendell Willkie. There will be others who take up his slack.

Wilkie got a lot of trouble from the isolationists during the general election campaign, would Dewey really avoid attacking FDR on trying to get the US into the war through is policies of support (Destroyers for Bases)? I wasn't aware that Dewey shifted his stance until after the US entered the war. Without an interventionist candidate on the GOP side it seems likely to me that the GOP would take a more strident anti-intervention stance in the general to keep their base happy and attack FDR's administration's positions on the war, which would keep the GOP congressional caucuses from supporting FDR's moves to help Britain. Without Wilkie around to reveal the deep support for intervention in the GOP, which was a surprise at the convention when Wilkie showed up as the Dark Horse, having not actually even campaigned in the primary, and swept it after the first several votes, it seems likely that in this age before significant political polling that Dewey would assume there was much broader isolationist support than their was and campaign on that. AFAIK the only politician really using political polling at the time was FDR.

As to someone else other than Wilkie popping up, no one did historically. All Wilkie did was let it be known he'd be willing to be a compromise candidate if the GOP convention deadlocked on a nominee and to EVERYONE's surprise the convention dumped all the candidates that ran for Wilkie. There was no indication that a former Democrat like Wilkie or really any interventionist candidate had a shot in the GOP until the convention. So I don't think any of the GOP options you name would even toss their hats in the ring for the convention as a compromise candidate like Wilkie did. In fact none of the guys you mention even had much of a national following at the time; Wilkie had prominence and recognition by the GOP for his very public falling out with FDR and exit from the Democratic party and entree into the GOP. He was more liberal than anyone in the GOP at the time, a true Progressive Republican, and no one really thought he or any interventionist/Progressive had a shot.
 
We will possibly disagree about the long term impact of no Lend Lease, but why would this POD lead to its absence? Unless the assumption is that Roosevelt loses the election or chooses not to implement LL or an equivalent.

I suppose in that circumstance the UK has to husband its resources and fight a more defensive war. Unless or until it can arrange a "white peace". Either scenario might butterfly the Pacific War. Especially as the U.S. Government might not embargo oil supply to Japan. Barbarossa would still fail but the Eastern Front would probably be stalemated or maybe the Nazis could defeat the Siviets?

What would the U.S. do in the late 1940s faced with a triumphant Nazi Gernany, Japan still trying to conquer China and a still economically and militarily strong British Empire? None of which are allies and only the British a friendly neutral.
 

Deleted member 1487

We will possibly disagree about the long term impact of no Lend Lease, but why would this POD lead to its absence? Unless the assumption is that Roosevelt loses the election or chooses not to implement LL or an equivalent.

I suppose in that circumstance the UK has to husband its resources and fight a more defensive war. Unless or until it can arrange a "white peace". Either scenario might butterfly the Pacific War. Especially as the U.S. Government might not embargo oil supply to Japan. Barbarossa would still fail but the Eastern Front would probably be stalemated or maybe the Nazis could defeat the Siviets?

What would the U.S. do in the late 1940s faced with a triumphant Nazi Gernany, Japan still trying to conquer China and a still economically and militarily strong British Empire? None of which are allies and only the British a friendly neutral.
IOTL it seems that it's passage was the result of bi-partisan agreement on it. Wilkie effectively revealed the interventionist wing of the GOP and ran on that platform, refusing to attack FDR on any efforts he did to support Britain. Dewey on the other hand, who likely would have been the nominee without Wilkie as the alternative, would have run on isolationism and attacked FDR over the Destroyers for Bases deal and made it politically toxic for FDR to intervene in the war in Europe by aiding Britain with free equipment or giving them sweet heart deals. So IOTL when LL was announced that was in significant part due to Wilkie tamping down the isolationists in his party and denying them a national voice; Dewey on the other hand would have given air to their opinions and rallied that side of the argument. Even in victory FDR wouldn't have found political allies due to the whipping up of anti-interventionalist opinion during the general election. IOTL Wilkie made the political scene a dialogue about how much to intervene, not whether we should at all.

Instead the Isolationists, most vocally championed by Robert Taft, wanted to spend on the military to ensure US security; that seemed to be something everyone in the US agreed on. So the US not intervening with LL would probably mean major spending on the military and a peace time draft, which will yield economic benefits.

Germany stalemated in the East and left with a hostile Britain, even if one beset by finance issues, would not really be what I'd call triumphant; it would certainly control much of Europe and have hobbled the USSR, but it would be contained in Europe by an endless conflict in the East and a Britain hostile to it and perhaps aiding the USSR in small ways.

Japan will still have the major problem of China. Japan just cannot digest China and the endless conflict there will bleed them out over the long term even without LL or foreign intervention. China won't be able to kick them out, but the war will drain Japan and leave her fixated and unable to intervene much anywhere else. Britain probably won't be that financially strong and the Empire will be falling apart; India was ready to go in 1942:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_Movement
The Empire would unravel, just more slowly than IOTL thanks to MUCH better British finances (though still short on foreign exchange due to effectively spending it all in 1940 IOTL) and no Japanese invasion of the Asian/Pacific holdings undermining British legitimacy there.

Largely the US would be a powerhouse economically, never having spend as nearly as much ITTL (though without the benefits like educating huge numbers of men via the GI Bill, but also military service). It would have free reign outside of Axis dominated areas in Asia and Europe and probably would still have some trade with the Axis powers due to their need for US raw materials among other things. Obviously it is not a good world in which the Axis powers are still around to massacre people en mass, but OTL Cold War isn't happening, nor is Europe and much of Asia wrecked by the war (outside of China and Russia that is). It is certainly an interesting world in the Chinese sense.
 
IOTL it seems that it's passage was the result of bi-partisan agreement on it. Wilkie effectively revealed the interventionist wing of the GOP and ran on that platform, refusing to attack FDR on any efforts he did to support Britain. Dewey on the other hand, who likely would have been the nominee without Wilkie as the alternative, would have run on isolationism and attacked FDR over the Destroyers for Bases deal and made it politically toxic for FDR to intervene in the war in Europe by aiding Britain with free equipment or giving them sweet heart deals. So IOTL when LL was announced that was in significant part due to Wilkie tamping down the isolationists in his party and denying them a national voice; Dewey on the other hand would have given air to their opinions and rallied that side of the argument. Even in victory FDR wouldn't have found political allies due to the whipping up of anti-interventionalist opinion during the general election. IOTL Wilkie made the political scene a dialogue about how much to intervene, not whether we should at all.

Instead the Isolationists, most vocally championed by Robert Taft, wanted to spend on the military to ensure US security; that seemed to be something everyone in the US agreed on. So the US not intervening with LL would probably mean major spending on the military and a peace time draft, which will yield economic benefits.

Germany stalemated in the East and left with a hostile Britain, even if one beset by finance issues, would not really be what I'd call triumphant; it would certainly control much of Europe and have hobbled the USSR, but it would be contained in Europe by an endless conflict in the East and a Britain hostile to it and perhaps aiding the USSR in small ways.

Japan will still have the major problem of China. Japan just cannot digest China and the endless conflict there will bleed them out over the long term even without LL or foreign intervention. China won't be able to kick them out, but the war will drain Japan and leave her fixated and unable to intervene much anywhere else. Britain probably won't be that financially strong and the Empire will be falling apart; India was ready to go in 1942:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_Movement
The Empire would unravel, just more slowly than IOTL thanks to MUCH better British finances (though still short on foreign exchange due to effectively spending it all in 1940 IOTL) and no Japanese invasion of the Asian/Pacific holdings undermining British legitimacy there.

Largely the US would be a powerhouse economically, never having spend as nearly as much ITTL (though without the benefits like educating huge numbers of men via the GI Bill, but also military service). It would have free reign outside of Axis dominated areas in Asia and Europe and probably would still have some trade with the Axis powers due to their need for US raw materials among other things. Obviously it is not a good world in which the Axis powers are still around to massacre people en mass, but OTL Cold War isn't happening, nor is Europe and much of Asia wrecked by the war (outside of China and Russia that is). It is certainly an interesting world in the Chinese sense.
An interesting scenario, and not ASB. India might still be kept within the British economic system as a Dominion though, or as a friend and ally even when fully independent. Formal and legal control by the UK over colonies would slowly diminish but without Britain being forced by LL to open their markets to the U.S. there would still be an economic and military entity called " the British Commonwealth*". How trade, commerce and diplomacy would develop in this multipolar and very ideologically divided world would be interesting to work out! How long before Nazi Germany seeks to conquer Britain or force it to ally with it versus the U.S.?

*i could see Canada drifting into the U.S. economic orbit while remaining culturally "British".
 

Deleted member 1487

An interesting scenario, and not ASB. India might still be kept within the British economic system as a Dominion though, or as a friend and ally even when fully independent. Formal and legal control by the UK over colonies would slowly diminish but without Britain being forced by LL to open their markets to the U.S. there would still be an economic and military entity called " the British Commonwealth*". How trade, commerce and diplomacy would develop in this multipolar and very ideologically divided world would be interesting to work out! How long before Nazi Germany seeks to conquer Britain or force it to ally with it versus the U.S.?

*i could see Canada drifting into the U.S. economic orbit while remaining culturally "British".
Yes Canada probably would. Isn't India still part of the Commonwealth? It would still be associated, but an independent power and not necessarily an ally. India was furious about being forced into WW2 by the Colonial administration without consulting the Indian National Congress, so I don't see an alliance being in the works after WW2 ends. IIRC they didn't have one IOTL after independence.
Hitler wasn't interested in breaking up the British Empire or invading England, he wanted them as an ally or at very least a neutral power. He was furious with Churchill keeping Britain in the war for that reason. If the war with Britain ends for financial reasons (Britain really couldn't continue on past 1942 for that reason) then probably never unless Britain restarted the war. Germany would just leverage trade with the continent to try and control Britain.
 
As to someone else other than Wilkie popping up, no one did historically. All Wilkie did was let it be known he'd be willing to be a compromise candidate if the GOP convention deadlocked on a nominee and to EVERYONE's surprise the convention dumped all the candidates that ran for Wilkie. There was no indication that a former Democrat like Wilkie or really any interventionist candidate had a shot in the GOP until the convention. So I don't think any of the GOP options you name would even toss their hats in the ring for the convention as a compromise candidate like Wilkie did. In fact none of the guys you mention even had much of a national following at the time; Wilkie had prominence and recognition by the GOP for his very public falling out with FDR and exit from the Democratic party and entree into the GOP. He was more liberal than anyone in the GOP at the time, a true Progressive Republican, and no one really thought he or any interventionist/Progressive had a shot.

I didn't mention any of those Republicans as possible Presidential nominees. I gave them as examples of Republicans who would be leaders in public opinion to give bipartisan support to Lend Lease and other aid to the Allies.

You are also ignoring that it was Dewey's own supporters and delegates who abandoned him for Willkie precisely because of the aid issue. In this scenario, they will stills upport Dewey, but they will be pushing him heavily to change his stance as a result of the changes in the international situation. Taft's base doesn't change - they remained isolationists. Dewey's base did - and he will need to address that.

You are saying the situation will remain static when we all know that it was very dynamic and changing. There is every reason to believe the bipartisan support for aid to the Allies will be almost the same as IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

I didn't mention any of those Republicans as possible Presidential nominees. I gave them as examples of Republicans who would be leaders in public opinion to give bipartisan support to Lend Lease and other aid to the Allies.

You are also ignoring that it was Dewey's own supporters and delegates who abandoned him for Willkie precisely because of the aid issue. In this scenario, they will stills upport Dewey, but they will be pushing him heavily to change his stance as a result of the changes in the international situation. Taft's base doesn't change - they remained isolationists. Dewey's base did - and he will need to address that.

You are saying the situation will remain static when we all know that it was very dynamic and changing. There is every reason to believe the bipartisan support for aid to the Allies will be almost the same as IOTL.
Sure, they'd somewhat undermine their nominee, but they'd be considered fringe and isolated candidates. There is also the issue of the head of the party setting the tone for the debate in a way minor figures like those couldn't, especially in the media. You're right that Dewey's people abandoned him when there was an alternative that gave voice to their thoughts, no one else was there to do. They didn't abandon him early though, it took several rounds before Wilkie showed up in the ballots and then took it from the other guys as he built momentum with his message. Without a figure like Wilkie though at the convention the isolationists are the only voice there. Once he is the nominee the party will fall in line even if they aren't fully in agreement with Dewey. Now, I'm not saying he won't lose, FDR is going to be extremely hard to beat, but despite the public view on the support issue the isolationists will have a champion pushing their narrative in the media, which was lacking IOTL, and convince some of the public that were interventionists IOTL. When both political candidates were on the same side on the intervention issue it changes public discourse and even party thinking on an issue; when they are opposed parties and the public become more strident on their positions. Its likely that Dewey can change the GOPers that weren't isolationists or at least could go either way to a more limited intervention position. For example Dewey was interested in supporting Cash and Carry and letting the British have surplus equipment (which means he'll probably be okay with Destroyers for Bases), but will most certainly be against Lend-Lease or things like that and argue against giving the Brits free stuff and things that the US needs to rearm. Likely Dewey's case will be that FDR is undermining US rearmament by giving things away to the Brits, which will set the terms of debate around what comes first: aid for Britain or rearming the US. IOTL it was aiding Britain first, rearming 2nd. ITTL Dewey could drive the debate in the other direction and make finding GOP congressmen to agree to Lend-Lease impossible due to their voters' opinions. So its just as likely that Dewey changes his supporters as they change him.

You may be right that support for LL will still be there, I'm just suggesting that perhaps with a different political conversation without Wilkie agreeing with FDR nearly completely that things may well be different ITTL.
 
Yes Canada probably would. Isn't India still part of the Commonwealth? It would still be associated, but an independent power and not necessarily an ally. India was furious about being forced into WW2 by the Colonial administration without consulting the Indian National Congress, so I don't see an alliance being in the works after WW2 ends. IIRC they didn't have one IOTL after independence.
Hitler wasn't interested in breaking up the British Empire or invading England, he wanted them as an ally or at very least a neutral power. He was furious with Churchill keeping Britain in the war for that reason. If the war with Britain ends for financial reasons (Britain really couldn't continue on past 1942 for that reason) then probably never unless Britain restarted the war. Germany would just leverage trade with the continent to try and control Britain.
By British economic system I meant the Imperial Preference tariff structure and the sterling zone. Military alliance would be an extra, nice to have but not essential. Faced with a threat to either (but from whom?) an alliance could be arranged later. The Commonwealth today is just a cultural block of generally friendly countries though this probably also has a minor effect on trade ties.

Having the Commonwealth remain as an economic entity helps British trade and would keep it more independent economically of a Nazi dominated European New Order - I was going to say European Union but that would be an untrue slur on the modern entity. I wonder how isolationist in trade terms the U.S. would be ITTL. The UK would trade mainly with the Commonwealth, Europe and Latin America, all in Sterling. The US economy would still be the strongest in the world and potentially have the largest military but what's its leverage in global politics if WW2 sort of fizzles out in 1941-2 leaving the British Empire still standing, albeit weakened, and Nazi Germany dominating Europe? Plus Japan still trying to dominate China but not cut off from SE Asian resources.
 

Deleted member 1487

By British economic system I meant the Imperial Preference tariff structure and the sterling zone. Military alliance would be an extra, nice to have but not essential. Faced with a threat to either (but from whom?) an alliance could be arranged later. The Commonwealth today is just a cultural block of generally friendly countries though this probably also has a minor effect on trade ties.

Having the Commonwealth remain as an economic entity helps British trade and would keep it more independent economically of a Nazi dominated European New Order - I was going to say European Union but that would be an untrue slur on the modern entity. I wonder how isolationist in trade terms the U.S. would be ITTL. The UK would trade mainly with the Commonwealth, Europe and Latin America, all in Sterling. The US economy would still be the strongest in the world and potentially have the largest military but what's its leverage in global politics if WW2 sort of fizzles out in 1941-2 leaving the British Empire still standing, albeit weakened, and Nazi Germany dominating Europe? Plus Japan still trying to dominate China but not cut off from SE Asian resources.
Clearly the US won't be nearly as influential globally as it was in 1945 and beyond ITTL due to not having economic leverage over Europe and Asia unless it applies sanctions, but the loss f European trade would be be very painful once British purchasing and US military rearmament tapers off.
 
Clearly the US won't be nearly as influential globally as it was in 1945 and beyond ITTL due to not having economic leverage over Europe and Asia unless it applies sanctions, but the loss f European trade would be be very painful once British purchasing and US military rearmament tapers off.
Is that painful to the US or UK? I think it likely both will trade with Nazi Europe but the volumes will be lower than pre-Great Depression due to tariff barriers, with the US trade also subdued by dollar shortages in both Europe and British Commonwealth. Basically the US will be reliant on internal rather than external demand and once the Keynesian impact of its military expansion wears off its growth rate will drop below OTL levels. Might even go back into recession if fiscal Hawks have their way. Though economies globally will be less buoyant than post-war OTL without the reconstruction efforts and liberalization of trade. Growth might be more sustainable though?

Is this the kind of scenario you envisage.
 

Deleted member 1487

Is that painful to the US or UK? I think it likely both will trade with Nazi Europe but the volumes will be lower than pre-Great Depression due to tariff barriers, with the US trade also subdued by dollar shortages in both Europe and British Commonwealth. Basically the US will be reliant on internal rather than external demand and once the Keynesian impact of its military expansion wears off its growth rate will drop below OTL levels. Might even go back into recession if fiscal Hawks have their way. Though economies globally will be less buoyant than post-war OTL without the reconstruction efforts and liberalization of trade. Growth might be more sustainable though?

Is this the kind of scenario you envisage.
For Britain losing European trade will be devastating. For the US losing European trade will cost them over 25% of GDP, pretty painful. Of course losing US and British trade will hurt Germany/Europe too quite a bit. The US can offset the loss of European trade a bit with taking over part of German/European trade in Latin America, but the Latin America needs to export it's raw materials and the US doesn't need them in the same way (oil specifically). Overall though the global GDP would go down due to the destruction of productive areas (China, Russia) and reduced global trade. Germany would have the make work programs of the Nazi Keynesian projects and on going conflict with Russia, plus the building up of captured areas as colonial and resource extraction zones. That would be the result of Britain exiting the war due to no LL IMHO.

Now the question is whether LL is really MIA without Wilkie helping crowd out the Isolationists in his party in the 1940 campaign and thereafter or whether it would just be delayed. Its nearly impossible to imagine Dewey beating FDR and FDR wants intervention, even if he's got to fight Isolationism that much harder. It may just be that LL takes 6 months more to pass and what are the consequences of that?
 
For Britain losing European trade will be devastating. For the US losing European trade will cost them over 25% of GDP, pretty painful. Of course losing US and British trade will hurt Germany/Europe too quite a bit. The US can offset the loss of European trade a bit with taking over part of German/European trade in Latin America, but the Latin America needs to export it's raw materials and the US doesn't need them in the same way (oil specifically). Overall though the global GDP would go down due to the destruction of productive areas (China, Russia) and reduced global trade. Germany would have the make work programs of the Nazi Keynesian projects and on going conflict with Russia, plus the building up of captured areas as colonial and resource extraction zones. That would be the result of Britain exiting the war due to no LL IMHO.

Now the question is whether LL is really MIA without Wilkie helping crowd out the Isolationists in his party in the 1940 campaign and thereafter or whether it would just be delayed. Its nearly impossible to imagine Dewey beating FDR and FDR wants intervention, even if he's got to fight Isolationism that much harder. It may just be that LL takes 6 months more to pass and what are the consequences of that?
I'll get back later with a more detailed response - RL. Losing trade withe Europe - is that in the pre-armistice period or post armistice/cold peace we have been discussing? Financially or with respect to potential output?

Certainly it didn't devastate the UK in 1940-41, before Lend-Lease kicked in. AFAICT imports from Europe accounted for about a third of the total for the UK in the late 1930s, with another third coming from the Empire and a third from the rest of the world. I'll get better figures someday!. Europe was less significant for exports. The only foodstuffs where Nazi-dominated Europe accounted for more than half of the total were bacon and eggs - hence the obsession with powdered eggs iOTL. Butter was an other significant import. Cereals and beef/lamb came from the New World, either US or Empire. British agricultural output rose sharply as grassland was converted to arable farming. The other main problems were iron ore and paper products. Shipments from the US/Canada needed obviously or else factories established where the Empire had iron ore and coal. Australia??

The absence of lend lease would adversely affect British imports and war-making ability. Probably by enough to make it wise to seek a compromise peace in 1941 or 1942 - which is why the Roosevelt administration wanted to grant it of course. But the economy would not be devastated, that phrase should be reserved for countries like Germany in 1945! And once there is a tenuous peace, trade patterns will resume. In fact, assuming a reasonable peace (BIG assumption), the British and imperial economies would be in better shape than in 1945.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'll get back later with a more detailed response - RL. Losing trade withe Europe - is that in the pre-armistice period or post armistice/cold peace we have been discussing? Financially or with respect to potential output?

Certainly it didn't devastate the UK in 1940-41, before Lend-Lease kicked in. AFAICT imports from Europe accounted for about a third of the total for the UK in the late 1930s, with another third coming from the Empire and a third from the rest of the world. I'll get better figures someday!. Europe was less significant for exports. The only foodstuffs where Nazi-dominated Europe accounted for more than half of the total were bacon and eggs - hence the obsession with powdered eggs iOTL. Butter was an other significant import. Cereals and beef/lamb came from the New World, either US or Empire. British agricultural output rose sharply as grassland was converted to arable farming. The other main problems were iron ore and paper products. Shipments from the US/Canada needed obviously or else factories established where the Empire had iron ore and coal. Australia??

The absence of lend lease would adversely affect British imports and war-making ability. Probably by enough to make it wise to seek a compromise peace in 1941 or 1942 - which is why the Roosevelt administration wanted to grant it of course. But the economy would not be devastated, that phrase should be reserved for countries like Germany in 1945! And once there is a tenuous peace, trade patterns will resume. In fact, assuming a reasonable peace (BIG assumption), the British and imperial economies would be in better shape than in 1945.
In terms of trade the economic problems weren't experienced during the war due to military spending that absorbed not just the entire national productive capacity and labor force, but also forced an expansion of it via US LL resources creating an economic boom, but one that went away once the war ended and left Britain in huge debt and forced rationing into the early 1950s. Once the war is over the lack of trade will hurt, assuming that trade doesn't resume. The continent was a major market for British coal in the 1930s for instance. So for everyone the lack of trade once the shooting stops will cause the problems. If Hitler cuts off Britain from trading with the continent Britain can find some other places to export to, but Europe was a major destination for their exports. Imports too can be sourced elsewhere, albeit at a higher price; remember post-WW2 the lack of German trade was hurting both France and Britain, which is a major reason the de-industrialization program was cancelled. Pre-WW2 Germany and Britain were fiercely competing for export markets in the Balkans in the Baltic states, neither of which would likely be available to Britain ITTL even if just due to tariffs.
 
Sure, they'd somewhat undermine their nominee, but they'd be considered fringe and isolated candidates.

AGAIN, they are not candidates. Neither are people like Henry Stimson and Fiorella La Guardia "isolated" or "fringe" members of the Republican Party. La Guardia is mayor of New York City and thus the equivalent to a governor in many respects, and a major power broker in New York State. Stimson was a major figure in the Republican Party serving as Taft's secretary of War and Hoover's Secretary of State. He was an elder statesman of the party. If the pro-aide Republicans in general were "fringe" or "isolated" they would never have had the votes to nominate Willkie in the first place. They represent a substantial part of the party, and essentially are the party on the east and west coasts. Many more examples are going to be found. I just mentioned those two because they were the most prominent in my mind.

Nor are they going to "undermine" Dewey. They will push him to be more in favor of aid behind the scenes during the election. The Republican Convention convened from June 24-28. The Battle of France had occurred only on May 10, and the French armistice was just on June 22. Everyone was still reeling from those facts and adjusting their stance. After the convention, the mood of the party (especially Dewey's base in the party) and the nation will begin shifting. Not to intervention, but definitely to support for Britain. And to make sure America is prepared in case it is attacked. I don't think Dewey will fight this, although he may not seek to get ahead of it. Then again, even Willkie seemed to backtrack a little in his campaign in order to distinguish between himself and FDR better on the issue.

Furthermore, AFTER the election is over they'd be completely free to publicly support aide for the Allies. Without Willkie, some other figurehead or leader is going to be found. Hell, Stimson became FDR's secretary of war on July 10, 1940 before the election was even over. At most, the emerging bipartisan consensus will be slightly delayed, but not significantly so in my opinion. The Battle of Britain will give the British both American sympathy (because of the bombing of London and other cities) and proof that Britain can defeat Germany so that American aide won't fall into German hands. IOTL, Lend Lease passes in March 1941. It probably does the same in this. Very few Republicans IOTL voted for Lend Lease anyway, and their votes for the most part are not needed (FDR needs just 1 Republican vote in the Senate, otherwise the Democrats provide everything he needs). The ones who vote in favor IOTL will probably vote in favor ITTL anyway.
 
Once the war is over the lack of trade will hurt, assuming that trade doesn't resume. The continent was a major market for British coal in the 1930s for instance. So for everyone the lack of trade once the shooting stops will cause the problems. If Hitler cuts off Britain from trading with the continent Britain can find some other places to export to, but Europe was a major destination for their exports. Imports too can be sourced elsewhere, albeit at a higher price; remember post-WW2 the lack of German trade was hurting both France and Britain, which is a major reason the de-industrialization program was cancelled. Pre-WW2 Germany and Britain were fiercely competing for export markets in the Balkans in the Baltic states, neither of which would likely be available to Britain ITTL even if just due to tariffs.
Once the war is over, trade will resume, albeit probably at well below 1929 levels, due, as you say, to tariff barriers, which cut both ways of course. I would expect to some degree that trade would be regulated, not quite barter but with state organisations playing a role in allocating scarce foreign exchange. And the UK would have its imperial markets partly closed to foreign competition, US or German/French. So the Uk would want to import timber for coal mining, eggs and bacon. Germany will want to buy rubber, oil etc. which can be supplied from UK colonies and the Middle East. Which won't be dominated by US companies if it has not joined the war. Also remember that the UK nearly always ran trade deficits, where it scored was on invisibles. Dominating the world's shipping and marine insurance for instance. it also had substantial net earnings from assets abroad, even post-1945 when it had been forced by Lend-Lease to divest itself of US assets at fire sale prices.

Economic trends in this scenario won't match post-1945 OTL. The US won't be the dominant exporter of consumer goods or capital goods or know how. Its firms and products will be highly competitive - benefits of automation and large single market - but tariff barriers and shortage of USD will push countries to buying domestic or sterling zone products with easier funding. One thing that may also hinder US exports is that so many countries in Latin america and Europe had defaulted on bonds/loans from US sources during the 1930s. Credit for imports from the US won't be easy for them.
 
What if Wendel Wilkie died in 1939 and wasn't around to come out of no where and take the GOP nomination in 1940 and help FDR create the coalition that was able to build toward intervention? I'm just listening to a political history podcast by John Dickerson about the 1940 election and he's making the case that intervention, including Lend-Lease was only possible due to Wendel Wilkie leading an interventionalist wing of the GOP out into public prominence and helped FDR build a pro-intervention coalition that he hadn't thought possible before Wilkie got traction. So what if Wilkie isn't around and Dewey gets the GOP nomination and runs a 1940 campaign against the idea of intervention, which then means come 1941 FDR is not able to build a coalition around helping Britain, so Lend-Lease can't pass in 1941? In fact would an isolationist like Dewey make an issue out of FDR's Destroyers for Bases Agreement and force FDR to take a much less supportive position in 1940 of Britain? Can FDR get it later or would Britain exit the war in the meantime over financial issues? Would US politics shift enough to get into the war at all or would the GOP-Democratic divide be such that US entry is delayed due to say not being able to organize the ABCD Line against Japan, thus delaying the Japanese attacks on the US and UK?
The Democrats controlled the US congress. FDR doesn't need the GOP to pass Lend-Lease. The same is true for the other measures implemented. And of course if Dewey runs on an entirely isolationist platform, he likely would lose by an even greater margin to Roosevelt and drag the rest of the GOP down with him.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Democrats controlled the US congress. FDR doesn't need the GOP to pass Lend-Lease. The same is true for the other measures implemented. And of course if Dewey runs on an entirely isolationist platform, he likely would lose by an even greater margin to Roosevelt and drag the rest of the GOP down with him.
Some Democrats represented Isolationist districts, so having a full throated advocate for that position running on that idea could make their political lives tougher.
 
Top