BlairWitch749
Banned
france already spent enormous sums on national defense, and had a much larger tank and artillery park than germany
france already spent enormous sums on national defense, and had a much larger tank and artillery park than germany
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.
And probably resulting in even more ex-French weapons and vehicles getting into German hands.Exactly. So all this timeline would accomplish is amplifying the advantages France and Britain had, while merely hiding their inherant weaknesses![]()
And our tanks?
Compared to the Tiger the Serman and the Sherridan and the Lee and Grant tanks were bad jokes, Homie.
Of course the Nazis may well not last until 1942 and then it would be moot.
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.
Exactly. So all this timeline would accomplish is amplifying the advantages France and Britain had, while merely hiding their inherant weaknesses![]()
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?
This is practically impossible as it requires hindsight that was impossible to exist in the 1930s.
Not only was the US in the midst of depression, there was a deeply entrenched anti-war sentiment. The American people believed that the US got suckered into a war (WWI) that had nothing to do with them. They felt the Western Allies were ungrateful and deadbeats for not paying back their war debts. They thought that the armaments industry were run by "merchants of death" who manipulated countries into war for their own profits. And they didn't see why defending French of British colonial empires was in the interest of America. They certainly didn't think whatever the current borders in Europe were was any of America's business.
The US had a very long distrust of large, standing armies. Increased in US defense spending won't happen unless the US itself feels threatened. And since the US has the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to protect it from invasion, it will take a lot to convince the US it needed to increase spending. Furthermore, since the defense of America begins at sea, the bulk of any such spending will be spent on the Navy, not the Army.
You would need PODs going back to 1919, maybe 1917 or earlier, to create a different ending of WWI that wouldn't cause the US to feel betrayed or used, and keep the US involved in European affairs. That would be the only thing that might convince the US to invest more in its army. Any POD by the mid twenties is probably too far late.
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.
Or that it will stimulate the economy by creating jobs jobs and raising consumption, which increases production, which increases income, which increases consumption etc..
Keynesian multiplier tends to work rather well when used to haul an economy out of a depression and make use of all the slack it has in it.
Germany does somewhat better in WWI, perhaps? Maybe good enough that the Brits and French have to bail the US Army out of some terrible scrape. That might contribute to pro-Allied feeling and a greater fear of Germany.
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.