WI: United States Remains Completely Neutral In World War II?

What if Franklin D. Roosevelt did was he was supposed to as president and didn't involve the United States whatsoever in the events before or during World War II. This means no Lend-Lease Act, embargoes on the Japanese, or otherwise foreign aid overseas to the future Allied powers?
 
Axis win.

Leaving aside the whether or not this is plausible, let me elaborate.

No lend lease means Britain have to drop out for lack of resources to throw at the Germans, especially if they keep up the costly and ineffective bombing runs over Germany. With no American destroyer escorts, no American supplies getting over, there will only be a much reduced flow of supplies coming over from the Empire, and with a much more limited escort. If the Germans are as successful as they are in OTL then next to nothing should be reaching England. Japan will go nuts and will be be hanging around with no objective when they finished conquering so either the Chinese or the Indians get hammered by them, while also stretching Britain thin even more.

In Africa Rommel probably organizes a tough defence in Libya and dare the British to attack them. The Soviets already turned the tide when lend lease showed up but now they won't have the resources to push on to Germany proper and will get bogged down very bloodily, and will start to suffer manpower shortage when Britian sues for peace, so either they will get pushed back as well or a cease fire is negotiated. Britian rush research in Tube Alloys for Nukes, and the Axis "win".
 
If this means the Axis win, & that is not necessarily the automatic outcome, it has long term economic consequnces for the US. Through 1914 the US benefited from the relative free trade with Europe, that was large part of the foundation of US growth. Post 1918 trade was subject to increasing restrictions but not to a catastrophic level, & nothing close to the restriction brought on by the war 1914-1918 or 1939-45. Through the 20th Century roughly 60% of US manufatored goods, agricultural products, and raw materials were exported, the bulk of that going to Europe 1900 through 1950.

So what is the bad thing? Both Japans leaders & the Facists in Europe were very insular economically, some had bought off on the idea of autarky or related concepts, thus imposing policies that restricted trade & cut US businessmen from markets they had profited from. The other half of this was the relative incompetence and corruption of the 'business' or economic leaders of the Axis nations. Many were politicians or thugs with little business experience. The peace time economies they attempted to run were significantly less productive. Less for everyone includung the US merchants still doing business in Axsi controled territory. There were still so with significant trade in Axis nations. ie: the Ford factories in Germany, DuPonts partnership with IG Farben (Analine Dye), Davis Oil a US registered company that was financed by the Reichs Bank.

A Axis dominated Asia & Europe is likely to contiue this same dysfunction set of economic policies. The long range implication is US exports do not recover to early 20th Century, or possiblly even Depression era levels. The only possible growth region is Latin America, & the US track record there had been mixed for political reasons. Further, the economies there were fairly small & for the next decade had low growth potiential. So, the short version is the US economy remains at late 1930s levels into the 1940s & has a long term growth rate far below that of the 1940s or 50s.

To Digress
Leaving Roosevelt aside its clear this was one of the motivations of the warhawks. By August 1939 a increaing number of business men saw that Japanese economic policy in Asia, specifically China, Manchuria, Korea, Formosa as unprofitable to them. What trade they still had went through Japanese middlemen. This group was becoming increasingly invovled in the China Lobby. There was a similar dynamic for those with or of former European connections. Even if whatever president does not lead the warhawks they will still be active. Somehow in the current narrative for WWII the nazi fanbois have lost sight of the reality of US politics the last US peace years, 1939-41. It was a bit more complicated that the simplistc 'Isolationist Citizenry vs the villan Roosevelt'.
 
Is this a serious discussion of possible alternative developments or an attempt to give too much credit to the US? If there's no Lend-Lease then the first consequence is that there's no war against Japan. The Japanese went to war solely because of the US-led embargo, and if Britain's getting nothing from America then they won't join the embargo and will supply Japan with oil and steel in exchange for Japanese-built escorts, merchant ships and possibly VLR aircraft. This will allow Japan to continue pouring blood and treasure into an abortive attempt to conquer China. The absence of war in the Far East would more than counter-balance the loss of Lend-Lease.

Secondly, the British would not lose millions of tons of merchant shipping in Paukenschlag due to US incompetence.

Thirdly, the British would save huge amounts of money spent on ridiculously-overpriced US equipment and this could be used to expand production in Canada, Australia and elsewhere in the Empire.

In OTL it was the outbreak of war with Japan that saved Rommel after his defeat in Operation Crusader, and without the diversion of ships, troops and aircraft to the Far East, it is perfectly possible that the war in North Africa could have been finished by mid-1942 (not certain but possible).
 
Is this a serious discussion of possible alternative developments or an attempt to give too much credit to the US?

short of saying it single handely won the war,its not really possible to give it too much credit.
hell,you make it sound as if the USA was anchor tied to the mighty british,which delayed its glorious victory
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Franklin D. Roosevelt did was he was supposed to as president and didn't involve the United States whatsoever in the events before or during World War II. This means no Lend-Lease Act, embargoes on the Japanese, or otherwise foreign aid overseas to the future Allied powers?
It isn't the President's job to keep the U.S. completely neutral. It is his RESPONSIBILITY to serve the People and protect the Constitution against ALL enemies, FOREIGN and domestic. Sometimes that means being an actual, Honest-to-God leader and moving the country in the right direction. FDR was, IMO, exactly right in the way he viewed the Reich and Imperial Japan. He saw them as long term existential threats to the Untied States.
 
Japan...an existential threat to America? While I pride myself on being a Japanese patriot, but there is no way short of utter ASB that Japan was an existential threat to America. Germany maybe, but it would require an utter genius - so borderline ASB - in Berlin to pull it off.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think it would result in an axis win in Europe, for sure. Africa was largely won without American aid and if there's no lend-lease, it would delay as opposed to prevent the Commonwealth victory. Lend lease allowed the allies to win in '43-'44 when they were on the offensive, before that it was largely a moral boost to the cause. In those later years a quarter of British munitions were lend-lease. That's without the boots on the ground contribution the Americans made to victory. The USSR would be doomed without lend-lease and a USSR out of the war probably means no Overlord or comparable operation.

I don't see America staying neutral in the Pacific though, there's too much chance the Japanese would do something to start a conflict. Would a Pacific-only US war be feasible?

Thirdly, the British would save huge amounts of money spent on ridiculously-overpriced US equipment and this could be used to expand production in Canada, Australia and elsewhere in the Empire.

What money?

In general the aid was free, although some hardware (such as ships) were returned after the war. In return, the U.S. was given leases on army and naval bases in Allied territory during the war... In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth.

I don't know how good your maths is, but that's $24.6 billion we got for free. Explain to me how buying the equivalent amount of equipment from this as-yet-unraveled source, that OTL didn't help the Commonwealth war effort, would be more cost effective?
 
What money?

This could be a reference to the huge outflow of money from Britain pre Lend-Lease that left Britain all but bankrupt by early 1941 in buying American war supplies at the inevitable market price of a sellers market. Pre 1939 Britain owned a significant proportion of US industry by way of investments in the companies. This was all but wiped out by the British government using these assets in a 'fire sale' (to use a US term) to get US currency to pay for them. It was this bankruptcy that prompted Lend-Lease as the USA had bled Britain of almost all of it's hard foreign currency in spending upon Britain's defence. There was a certain anti British current in American society at the time that relished emptying Britain's coffers and my mother saw and heard such things as everyday remarks around her as she worked for the Americans in North Africa as a Master Sergeant in the US Army (for security reasons).

Without Lend-Lease the US arms industry was going to face a sudden end to it's employment boom and Britain would be unable to do more than defend itself and operate on land nowhere else than North Africa. Europe was doomed to stay under German rule and the Soviet Union would be hard pressed to do much more than retain land from the Ural foothills east. Even with Lend-Lease Britain had to make the gamble that Japan would not act fast and hard in SE Asia in order to concentrate resources in Britain and the Middle East.

If you doubt the bankruptcy remember that, after victory was gained in 1945 and the end of Lend-Lease, the food rations in Britain were reduced to below wartime levels and, without a US loan, would have been even further reduced. The last food rationing ended after 1953. Rationing allocated the opportunity to buy food. It did not (small children, service personnel and the pregnant excepted) supply the actual food and the prices of basic foodstuffs made it difficult for the poorest to reach ration levels and actual malnutrition was noted in these cases. An irony was that Axis prisoners of war in Britain received a higher ration of food than the civilian population as the Geneva Convention meant that they had to receive the same levels as British service personnel. When working on parole (e.g. on farms) if were invited for a meal by locals they would need to bring some of their POW rations with them to improve a family meal.

The debts from the US Cash and Carry policy pre lend-lease and the immediate post war loan were paid off in 2006. The WW1 debt paid off in 2015. To be fair the interest rates were low and repayments had occasional holidays.
 
Last edited:

All Rounder

Gone Fishin'
What if Franklin D. Roosevelt did was he was supposed to as president and didn't involve the United States whatsoever in the events before or during World War II. This means no Lend-Lease Act, embargoes on the Japanese, or otherwise foreign aid overseas to the future Allied powers?

Impossible, some form of aid would be given to the Allies unless a coup opposing this occurred and was successful, Japan would also have to not attack Hawaii and go no further than Indonesia. And if all this didn't occur for some strange reason, you are looking at a world very similar to what is described in the novel Fatherland where Germany and the U.S are in a Cold War.
 
USA can only maintain military neutrality. Economically it had substantial investments in both Britain and Germany so it will choose de facto choose a side favoring one side with loans and sales of weapons, supplies and raw materials and writing off the investments in the other. Historically it chose Britain going finally all-in.

Axis side will not be able to reach decisive victory in the eastern front even if Soviets will not receive lend-lease, Stalin was prepared to slaughter every man woman and child in resisting, so Germany will be maintaining huge army in russia, this is possible only if they capture caucasus oil. Using Stetson-Harrison method, I'd estimate that war will continue until 1946-47, then Nazi regime will implode leaving behind huge mess.
 
What if Franklin D. Roosevelt did was he was supposed to as president and didn't involve the United States whatsoever in the events before or during World War II. This means no Lend-Lease Act, embargoes on the Japanese, or otherwise foreign aid overseas to the future Allied powers?
considering the plans the Nazis had for Eastern Europe and the Japanese for China, I'd say history would roundly condemn us for not helping out...
 
Japan...an existential threat to America? While I pride myself on being a Japanese patriot, but there is no way short of utter ASB that Japan was an existential threat to America. Germany maybe, but it would require an utter genius - so borderline ASB - in Berlin to pull it off.

The Axis treaties meant that they couldn't be regarded as individual states.
 
It isn't the President's job to keep the U.S. completely neutral. It is his RESPONSIBILITY to serve the People and protect the Constitution against ALL enemies, FOREIGN and domestic. Sometimes that means being an actual, Honest-to-God leader and moving the country in the right direction. FDR was, IMO, exactly right in the way he viewed the Reich and Imperial Japan. He saw them as long term existential threats to the Untied States.

Its also worth noting that both FDR and Wilkie were both very pro British Support (indeed Wilkie was 'ultimately' nominated by his party due to being the only Republican Candidate with these views) - so regardless of who won in Nov 1940 the US was going to support the British with all aid "Short of Declaring War" - and this in the face of potential lost votes from the minority Isolationist camp

Britain and the USA had and have much in common beyond a shared language

As far as 'Saving money by not buying US' - not sure where else we could buy stuff from - maybe if the UK and France had started rearming properly 4 years earlier the military industries of both nations might have entered 1939 at near 1942 levels and not needed to buy US Tanks/planes/aircraft and overpriced SMGs but had they done so - WW2 might not have started at all (there is a lesson there somewhere)

Sadly the Austerity measures in place at the time and the 20 odd years of peace made it very difficult, if not practicably impossible for 'responsible' democratic capitalist governments of the day to make the unpopular decision to cut spending on stuff in order to increase the military budget for a war that may never happen - a Military dictatorship on the other hand had few issues with such increases in military spending.....

I for one am quite happy that the USA is a friend and ally of the UK then as now

As to the OPs flawed premise - the USA was not Switzerland and had a vested interest and moral obligation regarding the goings on outside of its borders - had FDR followed the path of isolation then he would have failed in his job.

The US President and government does not need a Crystal ball to see that a Nazi dominated Europe and a Japanese dominated 'Far East and Western Pacific' and an increasingly aggressive USSR would be worse for the USA than the Status Quo
 
Top