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

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.

Actually, I think the reference was to the French Char D2 and the Somua 35, both of which were considerably superior to the Pz II and 1939 version of the Pz III (which was in relatively short supply). Actually a large percentage of the Heer's armor used both in Poland and in France were Czech, the Pz-38(t), which in 1938 might have been the best tank in service.

The Sherman was also, in 1942, the equal of any tank on Earth, while the Lee, despite its flaws, was a notable upgrade to the British forces in the Western Desert, one that was superior to the Afrika Corps tracks. For that matter, the Sherman, in upgunned form, was still a very effective tank as late as the 1973 October War, where it matched up quite favorably with the T-54/55. The weakness in the Sherman when compared to later Reich designs, mainly in the main gun, was more a function of U.S. tactical doctrine than any problem with the vehicle's design.
 

KGBeast

Banned
The problem with military budget cuts does not lie in France but England, in the interwar years France's military budget was already at 32% while Germany's when Hitler came to power never got above 20%, England's at the same time was a measly 15 %, with the massive debts England occurred after WWI it had no stomach for another arms race in Europe and chose austerity measures that crippled it's Navy. There is no way for either country to significantly increase defense spending without unpopular massive taxes that would have driven their leaders out of office or deficit spending that would have driven their economy to ruins.
 
And our tanks?

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

Well, the Tiger wasn't really that great either, especially since they tended to be really hard to make, weren't really useful in a offensive except as a means of achieving a breakthrough (not that Germany would conduct any sweeping offensives after the introduction of the new generation of panzers anyway) and, most importantly, tended to break down a lot.


Of course the Nazis may well not last until 1942 and then it would be moot.

Well, if the nazis fail to conquer France, its very likely there wont be any war between them and the US, as Hitler won't be feeling confident enough to declare war. Furthermore, even failing to conquer France, the war can drag on as Germany gets helped out a lot by the Soviet Union, just as Stalin planned (either that or the German economy collapses). There is also the possibility of Operation Pike, which will add a whole new dimension to the war...

On the other hand, if the nazis do still take down France, I have a hard time seeing anyone defeating them prior to 1944 except as a result of a German political collapse (Hitler dead+civil war)


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.

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.


Exactly. So all this timeline would accomplish is amplifying the advantages France and Britain had, while merely hiding their inherant weaknesses:eek:

Which might still be enough, since Sickle Cut had a very, very low margin of error.

Plus, as OTL showed, allied soldiers became increasingly better at fighting the Germans in France in 1940, getting used to their tactics etc, just like the soviets did, with the exceptions that the French had neither the land to abandon nor the armies to waste that Stalin had.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

I would assume that the Brits would spend more in weapons R&D as well so you might well have better weapons not worse.
 
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.

Exactly, it was largely WWII that got the US out of the depression.
 
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.

I think any change like that would be irrelevant. The problem is the disillusionment of the US with how the Treaty of Versailles developed, the defaults of the Western Allies on war loans, and a reluctance to shed American blood to defend European borders. "Europe's problems are their own" is not an attitude that changes based on some French or British Army saving the US Army's bacon on some battlefield where the US Army was defending France.

There is no reason for the US to fear Germany during that time. The US is firmly convinced the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans protect them from any invasion. Certainly, since Britain and France oppose Germany, Germany would need to defeat them first before the US is threatened at all. It's important to note that US aid to Allies in WWII only really began after France fell, and the US realized it's previous strategy might be flawed, and that the Nazi war machine was much more dangerous than anyone realized. I don't think anything less than that emotional shock could change people's minds.
 
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.

Not a major issue to be honest.

More aircraft means more aircrews which means a better Battle of Britain if France still falls. Alternatively you get the newer designs introduced for service earlier.

With regards to tanks, the earlier Cruisers are more then a Match for the early Panzers with regards to firepower.

With Artillery, as it is the 25 Pounder wasnt introduced until 1940, with the older designs dating from prior to WW1. If anything it might lead to an earlier introduction of the 25 pounder.
 
Top