What if america never joined the war

It always amazes me that Britain can 'Run out of money' despite a world spanning Trading fleet - that was trading - but Germany (and Aust/Hung) who does not have a world spanning Trading fleet and was being blockaded somehow does not have the same problem (or can somehow ignore the effects of it).

I appreciate that Britain has to retask its industry and build a continental army from scratch but it had largely acheived both by 1916

So can some one explain why Britain is doomed by the lack of US Money while Germany is somehow immune?

My understanding of the situation is that the US loans made things a lot easier for Britain to find the money in order to persecute the war

The main way in which Britain initially raised funds (certainly early in the war) was through the Bank of England leaving the Gold standard and raising Interest Bearing War Loans* + passing a number of acts to prevent 'a run on the banks' ie the Currency and bank Notes act.

Had the US Gov decided to not allow any war loans (ie to pay for US goods, Supplies etc) then I suspect that Britain would have raised further money via the previous means

They were just as likely to eventually default on this as they were the US Loans (as the US government effectively did to their own 'Forth Liberty' War Bonds in 1934).

Now Im not a financial expert but it seems to me that the US Loans were taken because they were there and available and seen as a better alternative at the time.

Had they not been there then the British would have continued to raise the money themselves - and probably been in just as much trouble (as was everyone else) in the early/mid 30s.


*Paid back in 2015!!!!
 
It always amazes me that Britain can 'Run out of money' despite a world spanning Trading fleet - that was trading - but Germany (and Aust/Hung) who does not have a world spanning Trading fleet and was being blockaded somehow does not have the same problem (or can somehow ignore the effects of it).

I appreciate that Britain has to retask its industry and build a continental army from scratch but it had largely acheived both by 1916

So can some one explain why Britain is doomed by the lack of US Money while Germany is somehow immune?

My understanding of the situation is that the US loans made things a lot easier for Britain to find the money in order to persecute the war

The main way in which Britain initially raised funds (certainly early in the war) was through the Bank of England leaving the Gold standard and raising Interest Bearing War Loans* + passing a number of acts to prevent 'a run on the banks' ie the Currency and bank Notes act.

Had the US Gov decided to not allow any war loans (ie to pay for US goods, Supplies etc) then I suspect that Britain would have raised further money via the previous means

They were just as likely to eventually default on this as they were the US Loans (as the US government effectively did to their own 'Forth Liberty' War Bonds in 1934).

Now Im not a financial expert but it seems to me that the US Loans were taken because they were there and available and seen as a better alternative at the time.

Had they not been there then the British would have continued to raise the money themselves - and probably been in just as much trouble (as was everyone else) in the early/mid 30s.


*Paid back in 2015!!!!
Run out of money in the WWI context refers to running out of US dollars and things they can exchange for US dollars. Actually running out of internal currency (Pounds, Franks, Marks, Rubles, Lira etc.) with wartime currency controls is effectively impossible. The Central Powers were blockaded so they could not spend or exchange what they had and had to settle for resources in the territory they control (which through sheer luck had things that the Entente needed to import)

The Entente (as a whole, Britain was a lower percentage) meanwhile got 25+% of their raw materials and supplies from the US. In some categories 80% or more (I believe 100% in one or two types of goods). The quality and quantity of these materials could not be gotten elsewhere. For this the US demanded US dollars be used as payment

By early 1917 the Entente had used all its dollars, exchanged all they were then willing to exchange for dollars, and mortgaged all they were willing to mortgage for loans of US dollars.

Britain could still raise all the Pounds it wanted (and France all the Francs, Italy all the Lira etc.), but as far as buying US goods that did nothing. They had to convert those Pounds to US Dollars, but that will only last awhile before the Pound devalues unless Britain could somehow find slack capacity to export to non belligerent countries. Or Britain could sell or mortgage things they had not done so already, but there are good reasons why they had not done so previously

So in any case the Entente (less Britain, more France and Italy being propped up by Britain) is going to be losing quite a few resources compared to OTL when the UK runs out of US dollars
 
For WWI, the Spring Offensive is probably still defeated. After that the Entente probably just sits there, unable to mount the Hundred Days. Germany continues to starve. It's a recipe for a negotiated peace and a German victory in the East, but French politics might thwart this, by demanding unrealistic terms in the West. That might go nowhere for a while - neither side wanting to mount a major offensive and just trying to play for time - Germany hoping to get the eastern agriculture up and running, the Entente hoping that Germany starves first. Messy.

As I understand it, a USA that is staying out of WWII is one that doesn't allow Cash and Carry and maintains the Neutrality Acts. As such, the UK won't have a dollar crisis because it can't actually spend its dollars quickly enough. It also means that the UK and Dutch keep trading with Japan, so there's no Pacific War. So much less resources go into Bomber Command, which probably isn't a bad thing. The UK very likely goes down the Tube Alloys route while supporting the Soviets. The East could go roughly as OTL until 1943, after which German offensive power is seriously damaged but the Soviets aren't strong enough to punch in the lines as OTL. The war could drag on until 1946-7, at which point the pressure of uranium bombs, Soviet strength and an opportunistic landing in France probably tell.

Plausible?
 
UK makes peace before being beaten

ITTL, its a strict isolationalist USA, so no LL PERIOD.

Isolationist USA can also mean no great concern for China, so no embargo, no war with the US.

So the US as a neutral is still selling to combatant powers? And where is Britain and France getting all the $$$ to pay for all this without LL?
Probably the result of the OP's premise is that UK accepts a "reasonable" peace offer from Hitler sometime between October 1940 and March 1941. I've read there were a few unofficial peace feelers in that period (plus the Hess mission later!!) that Churchill stomped on'. However, had the US been unwilling to support the UK the odds are pretty high that he'd have been overthrown and an armistice agreed. As regards to how "bankrupt" Britain was, it's a matter of definition. The US wouldn't take payments in Sterling but Britain could have still bought food and commodities for Sterling from outside the US - had it been able to ship them to the UK.

After an armistice, it could do that and keep its factories going - indeed perhaps earning Dollars from exports. The US OTOH would have risked a mini-slump as orders for war material from the UK dried up in early 1941. That may have been one of the reasons Roosevelt was keen on Lend-Lease, along with imposing terms that meant the economic break-up of the Empire post-war. Some "High Tories" as well as neo-Nazis still haven't forgiven the US for that. (I'm not in either group BTW)
:rolleyes:

As to what happens post the UK-German armistice, well maybe someone should do a TL (I might do a variant one day) . My guess is Hitler attacks a better-prepared USSR in June 1941 without the distractions of the North African campaign. The probable outcome is similar, the German's stalled before Moscow and in the south, but IMHO they might take Leningrad. The US oil embargo against Japan probably wouldn't happen, as the British, Dutch etc. would have no reason to go along with it.. So no Pearl Harbour and no Pacific War?? As to what happens in the longer war between the Nazis and the Soviets.....

How much of Germany's military resources still have to be kept in the West against a stab in the back by Perfidious Albion is one variable. The most important one is to what extent the Germans would improve their wartime production. The absence of the bombing campaign is a positive but the fundamental structural and organisational flaws are still there - as illustrated by Tooze, The Wages of Destruction. Maybe there'd be a stalemate on the Eastern Front, otherwise the outcome will look like the prelude to Calbear's Anglo-American Nazi War. . Which probably won't be fought as there is no alliance between the British Empire and Commonwealth and the US.
 
For both, it depends on the level of US belligerence. If, in WW1, they don't blatantly support the Entente with loans and trade, Germany probably wins.

But you're talking about WW2. Without LL, I'm inclined to think Britain drops out. It wasn't a matter of bein invade. It was losing all their shipping tonnage. Without US support, they'll be slipping fast, and probably conclude an "honorable peace" with Hitler in late 41/early 42, when everything looked bleak.

Then it becomes just the USSR vs Germany. Now, without LL, the Soviets have a serious problem in 1942. They'll have to face a stronger German army than OTL (no Western front, so a lot more tanks and aircraft and a little more manpower) with far less resources. If Stalin enlists everyone, then nobody can grow food or produce industry, and same with the other two. They aren't going to be able to pump out adequate materials, feed the population, and fight off the Nazis all at once.

And then they won't recover as much as they did IOTL thanks to no American made vehicles.

Still, they hold a large advantage over the Nazis due to how much larger the USSR isisI suspect this war will drag on for a long time, with no clear Victor. If Britain rejoins and supplies the USSR down the road, then they'll probably win eventually.
 
Probably the result of the OP's premise is that UK accepts a "reasonable" peace offer from Hitler sometime between October 1940 and March 1941. I've read there were a few unofficial peace feelers in that period (plus the Hess mission later!!) that Churchill stomped on'.(1)

1) After countless broken treaties signed by the Nazis, Churchill could hardly be criticized for that. IOTL, with FDR, even LOOKING like Hess could be treated seriously would mean an instant cutoff of ALL LL..

After an armistice, it could do that and keep its factories going - indeed perhaps earning Dollars from exports. The US OTOH would have risked a mini-slump as orders for war material from the UK dried up in early 1941.

Indeed, the USA did not truly get out of the Depression until after Pearl Harbor.

That may have been one of the reasons Roosevelt was keen on Lend-Lease, along with imposing terms that meant the economic break-up of the Empire post-war.

The Empire may be thought of nostalgically by some in 2015, but that certainly wasn't the case in the USA pre-1941. The American People wanted to throw a rope to Great Britain, not her Empire.

Some "High Tories"

as well as neo-Nazis

Screw them:mad:,

The "High Tories" might want to take a look at who (however unknowingly) they're sleeping with.

still haven't forgiven the US for that.

I've noticed. More than a few Sun Never Sets types in AH.com. Ironically, when called out on it, they are ignore the poster, or, if American, denounce them as "American Exceptionalists" and precede to list every last American sin going back to the original Jamestown colony. Like listening to your dad list all of your own failings the second you suggest he join Alcoholics Anonymous:rolleyes::p

I'm not with either group, BTW:rolleyes:

We all know perfectly well that you are one of the Good Guys:)
 
Last edited:
Empire and UK

1) After countless broken treaties signed by the Nazis, Churchill could hardly be criticized for that. IOTL, with FDR, even LOOKING like Hess could be treated seriously would mean an instant cutoff of ALL LL..
Yes indeed. Of course, with no LL, the balance of argument shifts at some point towards accepting an armistice/peace. When (indeed if) that happens is the whole point of the WI. i've chosen an early, semi-voluntary, one, Biden&Ceasar thinks a later one when Britain is in a desperate state. KingAugean thinks Britain can hold out and even develop its own nukes - I doubt that but YNK. Each option would see WW2 and the world develop differently, i'll let you judge which you think is more plausible. And which might benefit the US most.

The Empire may be thought of nostalgically by some in 2015, but that certainly wasn't the case in the USA pre-1941. The American People wanted to throw a rope to Great Britain, not her Empire.
Very true, but the snag with that otherwise praiseworthy motive was that it caused later, permanent, damage to the UK economy which reduced its ability to be a worthwhile ally in the Cold war and even now.

Screw them:mad:, the "High Tories" (2) might want to take a look at who they're sleeping with.
I'd rather not, unsavoury habits involving pigs if one can believe Ashcroft. Though in the 1940s maybe the women weren't that degenerate?? :confused:

I've noticed. More than a few Sun Never Sets types in AH.com. Ironically, when called out on it, they are ignore the poster, or, if American, denounce them as "American Exceptionalists" and precede to list ever American sin going back to the original Jamestown colony. Like listening to your dad list all your failing the second you suggest he join Alcoholics Anonymous:rolleyes::p
They make life more interesting though, be dull if AH was left mainly to American Exceptionalists and Nazi fanboys alone. ;)

We all know perfectly well that you are one of the Good Guys:)
Not sure about that, I claim I'm able to be objective by temperament, professional experience and dual nationality (Irish or UK). It might be I'm bi-polar, and swing from pro-Irish (so anti British Empire) to pro-Brit including Empire Loyalist :D
 
Top