Lend Lease for Britain

[Freebird]

The question is how much historical production would have to fall if american raw materials , machinery and technology were not available through LL. Do you understand what that means in the middle of a war?
Britain would be unable to continue.
Guess he didn't know that you could easily turn the commonwealth into a self sustained autarchic block...in the middle of a war....

The context of this question was whether the Dominions had the capacity to pay cash for US armaments. As it turned out, it was cheaper and more efficient to use US equipment to win the war, than embark on a program of greater home production.

. Your original position on this was that without Lend Lease Britain was sunk, not that without any US production what would be the outcome. US production cannot be factored out of the global industrial equation.

So, unless the US was going to disappear off the face of the earth, or we were cut off by blockade from the US, the situation you are describing was never going to happen.

Now, you are also implying that we were dependant in our immediate war industries for components from the US. So in relaity, in answer to your question about what would happen to our war production if we were threatened with a cutoff from the US, it goes up actually

I would never deny that viewed from the overall duration, the british benefitted greatly in their war effort by having LL. It was cheaper to use LL equipment in many cases.
The original argument that led to this whole fraccus was that without "US Charity" Britain could not continue to fight and would be forced to surrender.

we are asked "well what would you do if there was no allied production. Without any US production, clearly the allies are in a world of hurt, but exactly how there would be no US production, or how the parameters of the argument all of a sudden could be changed to that have not been explained. '

Well I'll put forward the parameters to clarify the discussion, if there is no objection?


Here's how it might occur.
On Nov 5 of 1940 FDR loses the election and control of Congress to the isolationists led by Senator Nye the "America First" committee.

The incoming group promises to re-introduce strict neutrality laws, to "avoid entanglements in foreign wars".

* No armaments, ammunition, warships, aircraft or fuel may be sold to either side
* No loans of any kind may be made
* No American vessel may transport any soldiers or war materials for a belligerent
* US vessels may not carry passengers or materials of any kind into a war zone.
* Allied Axis warships or ships carrying arms or ammunition may not transit Panama
* The draft legislation of Oct 1940 is immediately repealed
* No further armaments contracts for the USN or USAF will be approved

They promise to introduce the legislation on Jan 1 1941, when they take office.
No contracts to produce war material may be entered after that time.
Any materials already paid for must leave by Mar 1, 1941, at which time export will be prohibited.



So the question is, how would the Commonwealth react, and how would things change.

 

[michaelmaltby]

Senator Nye and the America First committee's legislation takes effect - January 1, 1941 - but American companies in Germany (and occupied France) are building trucks for the Nazis and GM and Ford Canada (as subsidiaries of US companies) are allowed by Congress to continue their activities in Canada and Australia (Holden).

In December, 1940 Canadian war production isn't even at full stride yet - and with the exception of the Packard Merlin, nothing Canada is building is to US specifications - all is focused on Commonweath standards - .303 calibre rifles and MG's - Hurricanes, Ansons, Lysanders - Lancs and Mosquitos to follow in 1941.

But Senator Nye's legislation is overtaken in 11 months by Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941) and Hilter declares war on the USA (per historical record). No neutrality for the US. Britain and the Commonwealth are very little affected by America's 11 months of neutrality and the USA is slower ramping up wartime production than it was in the real world scenario. Atomic Bomb isn't delivered to Japan until January,
1946.

MM

 

[Freebird]

how much historical production would have to fall if no american raw materials

OK, first up - Raw materials.


In 1941 the British, Dutch Allies (non US!) was almost entirely self sufficient, and held close to a monopoly on several commodities such as rubber, tin, nickel, cocao etc.

The British Commonwealth was not a primary producer in Potash, Sulfer or Molybdenum, although significant amounts of the latter two were obtained through secondary extration during petroleum refining and copper/tungsten ore processing.

Germany was a world leader in Potash export (used for fertilizer etc) from mineral salt deposits. The Commonwealth would have to go back to the older method of producing Potash through burning wood.
(Now if we can only think of a Commonwealth country with lots of trees )


Figures taken from the ww2total chart.
"British Empire" also includes Dutch, Belgian Free French assets.
Strategic raw materials and oil production, Second World War

 

[Freebird]

Senator Nye and the America First committee's legislation takes effect - January 1, 1941 - but American companies in Germany (and occupied France) are building trucks for the Nazis

correct

and GM and Ford Canada (as subsidiaries of US companies) are allowed by Congress to continue their activities in Canada and Australia (Holden).

US Congress has no control over anything produced in Canada.

But Senator Nye's legislation is overtaken in 11 months by Pearl Harbour (December 7, 1941) and Hilter declares war on the USA (per historical record). No neutrality for the US. Britain and the Commonwealth are very little affected by America's 11 months of neutrality and the USA is slower ramping up wartime production than it was in the real world scenario.

Nope! No Pearl Harbour, and no Japanese attack.

Let's put this one to rest right now.
Japan' leadership agreed to go to war with the allies ONLY as a last resort if they couldn't get Dutch British oil ( raw materials.)

Britiain Netherlands only agreed to impose the embargo as requested by the US, because FDR guaranteed US support in event of war.

While the very attractive Madame Chiang came to America to bat her eyes drum up US support for China, she held no appeal to Churchill (unless she was bringing him a bottle of brandy )

Britain had no interest in helping China, as they had some ongoing border disagreements in Asia (Nepal, Burma, Hong Kong etc)
(They had in fact closed down the Burma road during the summer/fall of 1940 at the request of Japan)

Frankly, for the Commonwealth having Japan China engaged in a protracted, mutually destructive war is probably the most desirable outcome.

Churchill will quite happily "throw China under the bus" without batting an eye.

So the Anglo-Dutch will sell oil supplies from Malaya/DEI to Japan, allowing them to concentrate on their conquest of China.

No embargo = no Pacific war in 1941 or 1942.

 

[tomo pauk]

Developed into a very informative thread. Many thanks.

 

[buffnut453]

Britain had no interest in helping China

Sorry, Freebird, but that's not correct. Even through the end of 1941, the UK provided more financial support to the Chinese Nationalists than any other country, including the US. I have a source for this but can't get to it until next week.

Frankly, for the Commonwealth having Japan China engaged in a protracted, mutually destructive war is probably the most desirable outcome.

I will entirely agree with the above statement.

Churchill will quite happily "throw China under the bus" without batting an eye.

So the Anglo-Dutch will sell oil supplies from Malaya/DEI to Japan, allowing them to concentrate on their conquest of China.

No embargo = no Pacific war in 1941 or 1942.

If US policy became totally isolationist, then that would likely also extend to not exporting fuel and vital raw materials to other combatants, to include China and Japan. The net result would have been no US support for China but, equally, no fuel or iron ore for Japan which would inevitably have led Japan towards the "Southern Advance". Under those conditions, I don't see the British Commonwealth collaborating with the Dutch to sell vital raw materials to the country that may be attacking the allies' interests.

 

[parsifal]

My figures for production of strategic materials are different , will post up some statistics tonite, but show British empire output of certain strategic materials as considerably higher....particulalry iron and steel outputs.

One area that I dont agree with is that Japan would not enter the war. They entered the war, because they were being denied exports, and access to liquid assets. The only way they might stay out, but still unlikley, was if the british empire ignored the trade embargoes and continued to sell oil to the Japanese. But I doubt that would change anything. Australia continued to sell large amounts of iron ore to the Japanese right up until the outbreak of hostilities, and all they did was shoot it back at us ("pig iron Bob" a reference to premier Menzies sale of this material to an unfiendly nation)

If there was no Lend Lease, and the US withdraws from world markets in so many areas, then I predict many nations would increase their mobilzation arrangements to make up the shortfall. And Britains share of world export trade increases, instead oif the world driving around in Chevs and Cadillacs, they would buy Morris and Austins. With better acces to world markets, Britain cash flow issues improve.

However, without access to even cash and carry, not only woulf US balance of payments take a big hit, as their exports shrink to almost nothing, but Allied war production is also going to take a hit as well. Whilst I do not believe Britain would collapse...in fact I think they would do better in some respects....an atmosphere of non-co-operation is a bad thing for everyone. There would be no Tizard commission, no rapid mobilzation of US industries. What US production there was would be poured into domestic needs, which makes the US stronger at wars outbreak, but slower to take off in 1942.

In the crucial area of nuclear research, US progress gets held back by at least a year, as Britain witholds its knowledge (part of the tizard commission). Whilst the allies develop centimetric radars, and develop VT fuses, US development is left behind. Ther is no marriage of the Merlin to the P-51, or at least it is delayed. These are just some of the more obvious consequences.

In Austtralia we would not be abale to import any engines from the US, but we could, I think increase our home production of engines built under licence. If not there would be a delay of about 3-6 months as we converted those factories to the production of British engines....nbot as good (sorry guys) but with tight centraloized govt control inecitable. One thing that wouldnt happen, is that output would be allowed to suffer. We would find a way, of that I am sure.

There would unquestionably be dislocation for the allies caused by the non-signing of Lend Lease. I dont see Churchill allowing this to stand for too long, and I dont see it remaining popular in the US for too long as their military development, and standards of living begin to take a hit by their withdrawal from the world. As the Germans extend their operational areas, and the US starts to take losses in the Atlantic, unpoularity of the policy would, I think develop into outright revolt. I would think that by November 1941, isolationism would have had its day, but that probably measns the war is extended to some time in 1946

 

[Njaco]

I agree with Buffnut. If things went as supposed, I can't see an American public agree to continue to ship supplies to an aggressor like Japan and not someone like the UK. Don't think it would last long.

 

[Freebird]

Sorry, Freebird, but that's not correct. Even through the end of 1941, the UK provided more financial support to the Chinese Nationalists than any other country, including the US. I have a source for this but can't get to it until next week.

I'll be interested to see that. I would suspect that this was mostly in the second half of 1941 after Lend-Lease was passed, when the US FDR taking the lead against Japanese aggression.
I certainly can't see them extending much help from July - Oct 1940 after they've shut down the Burma road.
Nor will financial help do much good at the beginning of 1941, without the ability to buy US armaments.

If US policy became totally isolationist, then that would likely also extend to not exporting fuel and vital raw materials to other combatants, to include China and Japan. The net result would have been no US support for China but, equally, no fuel or iron ore for Japan which would inevitably have led Japan towards the "Southern Advance". Under those conditions, I don't see the British Commonwealth collaborating with the Dutch to sell vital raw materials to the country that may be attacking the allies' interests.

I can't see the UK trying to "go it alone" with an embargo against Japan in the beginning of 1941, especially as the UK is opposed by a Nazi-Soviet alliance.
An arms embargo would also hurt China more than Japan.
Nor can I see an oil embargo being effective without US leadership, as Japan can still buy oil on the open market (from Mexico or Venezuela)

 

[Freebird]

I agree with Buffnut. If things went as supposed, I can't see an American public agree to continue to ship supplies to an aggressor like Japan and not someone like the UK. Don't think it would last long.

No, the US (in Jan 1941 in this hypothetical) would go back to the neutrality act of 1939, no arms for any combatant nation.
The situation would indeed be likely to end - in Nov 1942 - as the neutrality act kills the economic recovery, while other nations economies ar boosted.

One area that I dont agree with is that Japan would not enter the war. They entered the war, because they were being denied exports, and access to liquid assets.

Remember, that was only after July 1941.
The US might refuse to sell oil if it was determined to be a "war material", but there was no provision in the neutrality acts to freeze assets

The only way they might stay out, but still unlikley, was if the british empire ignored the trade embargoes and continued to sell oil to the Japanese.

There is no trade embargo - the us just stops selling arms to china and oil to japan.
Remember that in 1937 Japan got about 80% of it's oil from the US. Oil prices were also at an all -time low, down to 15 or 20 cents a barrell IIRC
But by 1940 FDR had put pressure on US suppliers not to sell to Japan - who now got about 60% from other countries.
I believe that Britain the Dutch had continued selling oil to Japan until July 1941.

But I doubt that would change anything. Australia continued to sell large amounts of iron ore to the Japanese right up until the outbreak of hostilities, and all they did was shoot it back at us ("pig iron Bob" a reference to premier Menzies sale of this material to an unfiendly nation)

The records of the Imperial Japanese conference in Sept 1941 show very clearly that they were prepared to cancel hostilities as late as Nov 1941 - provided they got oil.

If there was no Lend Lease, and the US withdraws from world markets in so many areas, then I predict many nations would increase their mobilzation arrangements to make up the shortfall. And Britains share of world export trade increases, instead oif the world driving around in Chevs and Cadillacs, they would buy Morris and Austins. With better acces to world markets, Britain cash flow issues improve.

However, without access to even cash and carry, not only woulf US balance of payments take a big hit, as their exports shrink to almost nothing, but Allied war production is also going to take a hit as well. Whilst I do not believe Britain would collapse...in fact I think they would do better in some respects....an atmosphere of non-co-operation is a bad thing for everyone. What US production there was would be poured into domestic needs, which makes the US stronger at wars outbreak, but slower to take off in 1942.

Indeed you are correct, the wartime boom would boost other countries, not the US.

There would be no Tizard commission, no rapid mobilzation of US industries.
In the crucial area of nuclear research, US progress gets held back by at least a year, as Britain witholds its knowledge (part of the tizard commission). Whilst the allies develop centimetric radars, and develop VT fuses, US development is left behind.

Ah, no the mission was in Sept-Oct 1940, so Britain has already given away the magnetron other goodies - for nothing.

Ther is no marriage of the Merlin to the P-51, or at least it is delayed.

Not by the USA at least.

In Austtralia we would not be abale to import any engines from the US, but we could, I think increase our home production of engines built under licence. If not there would be a delay of about 3-6 months as we converted those factories to the production of British engines....

No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)"



MM

 

[Mustang nut]

Well I'll put forward the parameters to clarify the discussion, if there is no objection?


Here's how it might occur.
On Nov 5 of 1940 FDR loses the election and control of Congress to the isolationists led by Senator Nye the "America First" committee.

The incoming group promises to re-introduce strict neutrality laws, to "avoid entanglements in foreign wars".

* No armaments, ammunition, warships, aircraft or fuel may be sold to either side
* No loans of any kind may be made
* No American vessel may transport any soldiers or war materials for a belligerent
* US vessels may not carry passengers or materials of any kind into a war zone.
* Allied Axis warships or ships carrying arms or ammunition may not transit Panama
* The draft legislation of Oct 1940 is immediately repealed
* No further armaments contracts for the USN or USAF will be approved

They promise to introduce the legislation on Jan 1 1941, when they take office.
No contracts to produce war material may be entered after that time.
Any materials already paid for must leave by Mar 1, 1941, at which time export will be prohibited.
So the question is, how would the Commonwealth react, and how would things change.

Britain immediately follows Lloyd georges suggestion that they use the BoB to make peace with Germany.

Churchill is replaced for his pro American stance + handing technology to America for no return.

Britain enters the axis and supports germanys invasion of the soviet union with airpower and oil.
All technology given to America is given to Germany and Japan.
The new allies focus on the A bomb rocket and jet research.
Japan is given a free hand in China and support.
Canada joins the axis as America not ramping up arms procurement causes recession and vulnerability.
British German and Italian submarines and surface fleets assist Japan at Pearl harbour to protect axis sphere from Nuclear threat.
Britain Gets Africa and Middle east and India
Germany Gets Europe and Soviet union up to China
Japan gets China and eastern soviet union pacific rim.

new dark age commences.

I am not being serious at all, but some people did want to use the BoB to make peace with Adolf.

 

[parsifal]

strains of that book "SS GB"

 

[Freebird]

".... No restrictions on Commonwealth use of US designs, but no new tech could be shared (IMO)"



MM

They don't really have any choice.
Pratt Whitney Canada produces engines for CW aircraft.
Fairchild Canada is making Hampden bombers.
Boeing Canada spent million in 1938 to build a new factory.
Fleet Aircraft (Consolidated) is building trainers.


If the US Congress told them to close down Britain would just expropriate the factories.

The US armaments industry is already howling mad, as Congress is about to kill hundreds of millions dollars of contracts.
At least they will be earning some decent royalties from the Canadian subsidiaries operations.

No carry = no cash.

Britain immediately follows Lloyd georges suggestion that they use the BoB to make peace with Germany.

Churchill is replaced for his pro American stance + handing technology to America for no return.

Japan is given a free hand in China and support.

I am not being serious at all, but some people did want to use the BoB to make peace with Adolf.

At this point it's a bit too late for that.
We could make some kind of deal with Germany, but we will not surrender to the Italians!
At this point, peace would be at very poor terms, would probably involve surrendering territory to the Vichy, and ceding British Somaliland to Italy.

And to be fair, Churchill was against the Tizard "giveaways" without asking for anything in return, however the details wouldn't be made public anyways.


I think everyone here needs to take a step back (into 1940 ) and look at it from that POV
That news item is not nearly as huge in Nov 1940 as it is to us sitting here in 2011.
Remember, in 1940 the US wasn't thought of as a world superpower, it didn't have a huge army, air force, or shipping fleet, and was still in economic doldrums.
It would undoubtedly be a big disappointment for Churchill, but the UK has many other options.

The British need for aircraft is not as urgent as the French were earlier in the year, as the UK (under Beaverbrook's direction) have seen a drastic increase in production, and have the winter to build up.

The US has also changed it's position multiple times, so the UK might assume that it wasn't set in stone for more than a year or two.

1.) The 1935/1936 Neutrality forbade arms sales or loans to belligerents
2.) However the 1937 act allowed "Cash Carry"
3.) The 1939 version eliminated the "Cash Carry" option
4.) Nov 1939 the Cash Carry provision was put back in.
5.) Finally in Mar 1941 the whole thing was cancelled.

This isn't going to be front page news to the British public, it only means that orders for aircraft etc delivered in a year or so later will go elsewhere.


So what are the "Times" headlines in Nov 1940, say from 6 - 12 November?

1.) The destruction in London during the "Blitz" continues, Nov is one of the heaviest months

2.) The British Mediterranean fleet delivers a crushing blow to the Regia Marina, at Taranto. (Nov 11/12)

3.) Western Desert Force stops the Italian advance, and both sides dig in.

4.) After a sharp repulse in the "Battle of Dakar" in Sept, the Free French turn the tables, the Vichy loses control of central Africa in the "Battle of Gabon"

5.) Battle of the Atlantic continues, U-boats adopt "wolf pack" tactics and maul several convoys.

6.) German raiders on the loose - Adm. Scheer sinks 5 merchants and the "Jervis Bay"

7.) Canadian 2nd division arrives in the UK

8.) Skirmishing continues in East Africa, British ANZAC naval forces repulse Italian DD sub attacks on the convoys in the Red Sea.

9.) Winter gales in the channel, the immediate threat of a German invasion is passed

 

[michaelmaltby]

I think that's a very thorough analysis, Freebird. I agree that you have to see it in the context of the times.

MM

 

[Mustang nut]

At this point it's a bit too late for that.

on 28 August 1940 Lloyd George drafted a memorandum advocating peace negotiations with Germanyusing the reprieve won by the RAF as a means to get better terms.

As you said you must look at the actual situation at the time which changed day by day.

Britain had the choice of joining Hitler, surrender a negotiated peace or continued beligerance. I dont think anyone considered the former but the next two were possibilities depending how you viewed the battle of the Atlantic etc.

 

[parsifal]

It took a few days for me to consider the implications of this scenario. Though not apparent its fundamentally different from Ctrians theory. Ctrian was basically arguing that Britain could not survive without Lend Lease, and (by extension) that the US was the sole source of military production that made any difference to the allied fortunes. Clearly I do not agree with that basic position.

What this hypothetical is asking, is what would happen if the Len Lease Act were not enacted. By extension, I suppose we also need to spend some time on what would happen if the US remained neutral, and Japan also did not enter the war. By extension from that, was Britain, the Commonwealth and the USSR alone capable of defeating Nazi Germany???

Leaving aside the Russians for a minute, whilst I would argue until the cows came home that Britain had the capacity to survive indefinately from Germany, she did not have the means to defeat her. Puyt as eloquently as I can, Britain was the instrument of Allied survival, but the US was the instrument of victory. Without the US onboard, there could be no thought of defeating the Germans.

The Soviets are a whole other kettle of fish. Very difficult to determine if they could beat the Germans more or less on their own. They could call on their far eastern armies to a much greater extent, and the British are far more likley to send their armies to the East, for direct co-operation, since the possibility of a second front in Normandy would recede rapidly without American help. A strong possibility would be landings in Italy by a wholly British/CW force. Further , with no Far eastern threat, close to 48 additional Divs are potentially available to the Allies, roughly 25 Indian, 4 East and West African, 1 or 2 Burmese, 1-2 Malayan, about 10 or so Australian, 2 British, and 3 NZ. This might lead to possibilities in the Balkans.

The problem is, the germans are also going to be stronger, and the Allied formations will be susceptible to manpower losses. They may be able to keep the germans busy, essentially, whilst the Russian overrun Europe.

So my gut feeeling from this is that the Russians will come out of this as the sole power in control of Europe. Britain will not be happy about that. They will have exchanged one form of European tyrrany with another.....

 

[Mustang nut]

So my gut feeeling from this is that the Russians will come out of this as the sole power in control of Europe. Britain will not be happy about that. They will have exchanged one form of European tyrrany with another.....

Thats a strong possibility but its also possible that without lend lease the Eastern front could drag on for years ending in a stalemate like Iran Iraq. If the US doesnt re arm I think Japan would eventually get china and Pearl Harbour would still happen. Military regimes tend to keep expanding until they are stopped.

 

[Shortround6]

Something to look at is steel production. Germany was a very distant second in steel production but it still, after 1941, could out produce Britain, Canada and the Soviet Union put together although not by much. After the German 1941 advances Russian Steel production dropped to 1/3-1/4 of German Steel production. If the British are not fighting the Russians are going to run out of material at some point.

The US was the real game changer. US steel production was as much or more than the rest of the Allies AND the Axis put together.

 

[Lighthunmust]

I think a protracted stalemate is a likely scenario with a possibility of an eventual Russian European Hegemony. This of course flies right out the window if any of the belligerents develop the ability make and delivery nuclear weapons significantly faster than the others. The question is who would do this significantly sooner. My bet is the British would be first to have the capability because all the european physicists that came to America would be inclined to aid the U.K. The problem is the U.S.S.R. had an excellent espionage system in Britain and would probably develop the Bomb even faster than they did with the aid of espionage in the U.S. The Russians may have gotten there fast enough to make it insignificant as to who got there first.