What if the Western Allies increased their defense budgets by 50% above OTL 1933-1939

What if the West took Hitler seriously and upped their defense spending so it was 50% higher than OTL? Can the Nazis beat France?
 

mowque

Banned
They had plenty of money, spending wasn't really an issue (well, a little in Britain). France spent more then it could already. Besides, the West Allies already had more tanks, planes (and better ones) then the Nazis.
 
They had plenty of money, spending wasn't really an issue (well, a little in Britain). France spent more then it could already. Besides, the West Allies already had more tanks, planes (and better ones) then the Nazis.

The US had a smaller army than GREECE at one point in the 30s. The Western Allies definitely could have used more fighters as dive bombers hurt France a lot. They had greater numbers but the quality was debatable.
 
They had plenty of money, spending wasn't really an issue (well, a little in Britain). France spent more then it could already. Besides, the West Allies already had more tanks, planes (and better ones) then the Nazis.
No Moque we really didn't in fact for most of the 1930's the Proffesional U.S> Army numbered about 120,000 men at arms.

And our tanks?

Compared to the Tiger the Serman and the Sherridan and the Lee and Grant tanks were bad jokes, Homie.
 

mowque

Banned
No Moque we really didn't in fact for most of the 1930's the Proffesional U.S> Army numbered about 120,000 men at arms.

And our tanks?

Compared to the Tiger the Serman and the Sherridan and the Lee and Grant tanks were bad jokes, Homie.

USA wasn't in the Western Allies, in 1933-39. That would be France, UK and maybe Belgium and such if you were feeling generous.
 
USA wasn't in the Western Allies, in 1933-39. That would be France, UK and maybe Belgium and such if you were feeling generous.

I was speaking long term. I included the USA as it did fight against the Nazis starting in 1942 and was a Western Ally. Its spending soared starting in 1940 anyways. I picked that period because it was between the Hitler was made chancellor and WWII breaks out. Of course the Nazis may well not last until 1942 and then it would be moot.
 
I was speaking long term. I included the USA as it did fight against the Nazis starting in 1942 and was a Western Ally. Its spending soared starting in 1940 anyways. I picked that period because it was between the Hitler was made chancellor and WWII breaks out. Of course the Nazis may well not last until 1942 and then it would be moot.
The real question is how do you convince the AMerican public at large to give a crap about Hitler at all outside of the minority that sort of liked him and the smaller minoritythat hated him?
 
The real question is how do you convince the AMerican public at large to give a crap about Hitler at all outside of the minority that sort of liked him and the smaller minoritythat hated him?

Actually there was a large number that hated him pretty early but it was considered a European problem. The question isn't how to get Americans to hate him but to hate him ENOUGH to be willing to spend much more money on defense. Maybe Hitler is a bit more obvious in not really being interested in peace?
 
Actually there was a large number that hated him pretty early but it was considered a European problem. The question isn't how to get Americans to hate him but to hate him ENOUGH to be willing to spend much more money on defense. Maybe Hitler is a bit more obvious in not really being interested in peace?
The only way he could be less obvious about not wanting peace is if he changed his name to "FickAmerikaners Von JewKiller.
 

Japhy

Banned
For England though its a few years later, you can topple Baldwin in the aftermath of the Hoare-Laval Plan for Ethiopia coming to the public. With a few decisive nudges (Churchill coming back to Parliment at the right moment) you can oust Baldwin and bring in a Goverment led by Austen Chamberlain which pushes though a greater military buildup.
 
A key problem is that the economic and social ravages of the Depression, alongside the same aftermath of WW1 made it pretty hard to justify massive long term investment into military spending and production.

In the Commonwealth's case, not only does the UK need to find a way to sell such a policy to the people, but so do all the self governing Dominions. That is a pretty big ask
 
What if the West took Hitler seriously and upped their defense spending so it was 50% higher than OTL? Can the Nazis beat France?

A lot of misconceptions in the question.

Firstly, Hitler wasn't seen as a military threat until earliest 1935 (when he publicly declared that Germany would rearm), more likely 1936 when Germany introduced conscription and remilitarised the Rheinland.

Secondly, at least the British did up their defense spending after 1936. The defence budget as part of BNP doubled every year until 1940. I think that a lot of countries did the same, but by then Germany had some years head start.

Thirdly, as pointed out, large amount of money don't mean it would be used on smart projects. France invested a lot in the Maginot line as late as 1940, which was meningless. A bigger defence budget could mean even more defensive works that the Germans will go around.

The WAllies lost in 1940 due to
a) bad diplomacy - not getting an alliance with Belgium (and maybe Netherlands)
b) bad basic judgment - abandon all plans to rush into the Netherlands
c) bad tactics ,

not due to lack of money (at least not primary).
 

Sior

Banned
For England though its a few years later, you can topple Baldwin in the aftermath of the Hoare-Laval Plan for Ethiopia coming to the public. With a few decisive nudges (Churchill coming back to Parliment at the right moment) you can oust Baldwin and bring in a Goverment led by Austen Chamberlain which pushes though a greater military buildup.

The trouble with rearming sooner is that Britain would be well armed with more obsolete tanks, aircraft and artillery than IOTL which the Treasury and Nuffield will insist are fit for use and we can’t afford more until these wear out or are destroyed.
 
and with all sudden increase in spending, whether public or private, there is a high possibility that money will be mis-spent or mis-allocated.

There are after all only so many scientists, designers, factories, bases or the like a
 
Top