WI: No Lend Lease

[History Learner]

The United States and British Bankruptcy, 1944-1945: Responsibilities Deferred by George C. Herring, Jr, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Jun., 1971), pp. 260-280:

Officials of the British Treasury first requested American aid for reconstruction in mid-1944 when they began to appreciate the magnitude of the economic crisis that lay ahead. Since 1940, the United Kingdom had abandoned prudence to mobilize all resources against Germany. By 1944, she had accumulated external liabilities almost five times her prewar totals. The liquidation of most of her foreign assets and the loss of her export trade left her without means to service her debts and to pay for the imports upon which the British Isles depended. Economists estimated in late 1944 that Britain would enter the peace with her liabilities fifteen times greater than her available reserves and would incur an annual deficit of ?1 billion in the first three years after the war.'​

 

[ATP]

PoD: Zangara successfully kills FDR in 1933, resulting in a Garner Presidency until 1940 followed by Huey Long in that year. With Garner a lame duck and Long having no interest in the European war, no Lend Lease comes to pass and the U.S. maintains a strict Cash and Carry policy. Without Lend Lease, what are the effects on World War II?

German Europe.Soviets would fall in 1942 or 1943 even with Hitler idiocy helping them,England made peace.And they would built aryan united Europe on polish/and other slavic nations/ corpses.
Which,being socialist,would go bancrupt just like soviet union.

Japan Empire in Asia and Pacyfic.Which could survive.USA - would remain free,but that is all.I bet,that germans in some moment would take over few South American countries,Chile or Argentina.Which only made them bankrupt themselves faster.

 

[Atarlost]

PoD: Zangara successfully kills FDR in 1933, resulting in a Garner Presidency until 1940 followed by Huey Long in that year. With Garner a lame duck and Long having no interest in the European war, no Lend Lease comes to pass and the U.S. maintains a strict Cash and Carry policy. Without Lend Lease, what are the effects on World War II?

I have two problems with this PoD leading to this premise.
1) Huey Long was assassinated by someone upset about redistricting malfeasance in 1935 and if this was averted (why does it follow from the PoD?) we don't know he wouldn't turn interventionist with the German invasion of the USSR like so many other socialists. I think it very likely that with Long or anyone that takes up his political legacy after his death in the presidency lend lease is only delayed by about six months. Actually, I'm not sure Huey Long wouldn't have been Bernied out of the nomination and him running on a third party ticket means he throws the 1940 election to Wendel Willke unless the latter is also butterflied.

2) Cash and Carry was also pushed by Roosevelt. A 1933 removal of Roosevelt probably means the US maintains an arms embargo on all belligerents unless Garner also pushes strongly for false neutrality in favor of the UK and France.

 

[stevep]

I have two problems with this PoD leading to this premise.
1) Huey Long was assassinated by someone upset about redistricting malfeasance in 1935 and if this was averted (why does it follow from the PoD?) we don't know he wouldn't turn interventionist with the German invasion of the USSR like so many other socialists. I think it very likely that with Long or anyone that takes up his political legacy after his death in the presidency lend lease is only delayed by about six months. Actually, I'm not sure Huey Long wouldn't have been Bernied out of the nomination and him running on a third party ticket means he throws the 1940 election to Wendel Willke unless the latter is also butterflied.

2) Cash and Carry was also pushed by Roosevelt. A 1933 removal of Roosevelt probably means the US maintains an arms embargo on all belligerents unless Garner also pushes strongly for false neutrality in favor of the UK and France.

From what I've read Long was a major isolationist. I think his response to the idea that Japan threatened US interests in the Philippines was to give the colony its independence. If he did survive his assassination attempt, which is a decent possibility given it was ~2 years after the PoD, and becomes President, which is probably less likely, I suspect he wouldn't be interested in anything outside the Americas.

I suspect that if Garner had replaced an assassinated Roosevelt then he's probably a 1 term President and you could well see Long standing against him in 36 leading to a Republican victory which is likely to be bad for the US.

 

[Atarlost]

From what I've read Long was a major isolationist. I think his response to the idea that Japan threatened US interests in the Philippines was to give the colony its independence. If he did survive his assassination attempt, which is a decent possibility given it was ~2 years after the PoD, and becomes President, which is probably less likely, I suspect he wouldn't be interested in anything outside the Americas.

As far left as Long was his administration would have been working for Moscow even if he himself wasn't. No one else would be willing to work with him. There is no chance of Long getting a major party nomination. He was to the left of Bernie Sanders when the party was way farther to the right. He must run on a third party ticket. If his cabinet couldn't turn him towards intervention and he couldn't be blackmailed he would have been assassinated when his isolationism became too inconvenient to Stalin to wait on further attempts at persuasion or blackmail.

But it doesn't matter, because if you accept a failed Long assassination due to butterflies you may as well say the lack of Lend Lease doesn't matter because any of the dozen attempts to assassinate or depose Adolf Hitler between 1933 and 1939 would have surely succeeded with butterflies. It's not like Long was lax about his security and could tighten it more after a successful Roosevelt assassination. He had multiple armed guards accompanying him when he was killed.

I suspect that if Garner had replaced an assassinated Roosevelt then he's probably a 1 term President and you could well see Long standing against him in 36 leading to a Republican victory which is likely to be bad for the US.

This assumes that the 1929 recession was special and could only be weathered by Roosevelt, but the economy was recovering in 1934 and the May 1937 recession is both after Garner's reelection would have been decided and possibly caused by the fiscal stresses of the Second New Deal that Garner opposed. In 1936 Garner gets the same (probably unearned) credit for the (probably natural) economic recovery that FDR did and coasts to reelection unless Long is alive to act as a spoiler. A stock market crash under Hoover and a recovery under Garner is not a recipe for a Republican being elected in 1936. If the 1937 recession does still happen it's a recipe for a Republican in 1940, but Republican convention delegates in 1940 were not willing to nominate an isolationist to the point that they nominated someone who hadn't actually run in any primary.

It also assumes that the interwar Republican Party is the caricature Democrat propaganda paints them as, but when you look at the actual candidates they're not. In 1936 Garner is running against Alf Landon unless something upsets the Republican convention. Alf Landon might have been an isolationist in 1936, but he was a proponent of aid to the UK and France in 1939. The other serious contender was William Borah, but the party establishment undertook great effort to ensure a brokered convention in which he would lose and I don't think that changes. Other potential nominees were Frank Knox (definitely interventionist), Frederick Steiwer (died before the war but was interventionist in WWI to the point of resigning a state senate seat to join the army), and former president Hoover (isolationist, but I doubt that given his baggage he would have been the party establishment's second pick).

Congress passed lend-lease in March 1941 when it had banned loans to belligerents in 1936 because isolationists, both in congress and among the voters in intervening elections, changed their minds. Roosevelt took advantage of this, but he did not cause it. Adolf Hitler did.

 

[stevep]

As far left as Long was his administration would have been working for Moscow even if he himself wasn't. No one else would be willing to work with him. There is no chance of Long getting a major party nomination. He was to the left of Bernie Sanders when the party was way farther to the right. He must run on a third party ticket. If his cabinet couldn't turn him towards intervention and he couldn't be blackmailed he would have been assassinated when his isolationism became too inconvenient to Stalin to wait on further attempts at persuasion or blackmail.

Well that's stretching a hell of a lot. Imaging that Stalin had that much influence in the US in this time period. Especially since as you yourself point out Long wasn't exactly casual about his security.

But it doesn't matter, because if you accept a failed Long assassination due to butterflies you may as well say the lack of Lend Lease doesn't matter because any of the dozen attempts to assassinate or depose Adolf Hitler between 1933 and 1939 would have surely succeeded with butterflies. It's not like Long was lax about his security and could tighten it more after a successful Roosevelt assassination. He had multiple armed guards accompanying him when he was killed.

Definitely a possibility that if Roosevelt dies butterflies might mean Hitler also does. However its not certain and even if he does once the Nazis are in power how would you remove them? Other than possibly by a military coup which might make an even more dangerous revanchist Germany because its not lead by total lunatics.

As you say Long took great care about his security so seeing him survive is a decent possibility.

This assumes that the 1929 recession was special and could only be weathered by Roosevelt, but the economy was recovering in 1934 and the May 1937 recession is both after Garner's reelection would have been decided and possibly caused by the fiscal stresses of the Second New Deal that Garner opposed. In 1936 Garner gets the same (probably unearned) credit for the (probably natural) economic recovery that FDR did and coasts to reelection unless Long is alive to act as a spoiler. A stock market crash under Hoover and a recovery under Garner is not a recipe for a Republican being elected in 1936. If the 1937 recession does still happen it's a recipe for a Republican in 1940, but Republican convention delegates in 1940 were not willing to nominate an isolationist to the point that they nominated someone who hadn't actually run in any primary.

It also assumes that the interwar Republican Party is the caricature Democrat propaganda paints them as, but when you look at the actual candidates they're not. In 1936 Garner is running against Alf Landon unless something upsets the Republican convention. Alf Landon might have been an isolationist in 1936, but he was a proponent of aid to the UK and France in 1939. The other serious contender was William Borah, but the party establishment undertook great effort to ensure a brokered convention in which he would lose and I don't think that changes. Other potential nominees were Frank Knox (definitely interventionist), Frederick Steiwer (died before the war but was interventionist in WWI to the point of resigning a state senate seat to join the army), and former president Hoover (isolationist, but I doubt that given his baggage he would have been the party establishment's second pick).

Congress passed lend-lease in March 1941 when it had banned loans to belligerents in 1936 because isolationists, both in congress and among the voters in intervening elections, changed their minds. Roosevelt took advantage of this, but he did not cause it. Adolf Hitler did.

Did Garner have the same commitment to radical reform to initially avoid the banking collapse and then the programmes to get people back to work? If not the US is likely to languish in the same deep depression that it had for the last 3+ years which is likely to be bad for his re-election. If he does take steps to tackle the issues then yes he's likely to be re-elected in 1936.

I think your assuming that I was saying a Republican would be bad for the US in 1936 because they would be isolationist. Wrong. I was fearing they would be the sort of laissiz faire supporter that allowed the depression to get as deep and last as long as it did OTL. Which is far more likely to send things crashing down again.

 

[Atarlost]

As you say Long took great care about his security so seeing him survive is a decent possibility.

Long already took great care with his security. His survival as a consequence of that security thus does not follow from the divergence point. It is a second divergence point.

Did Garner have the same commitment to radical reform to initially avoid the banking collapse and then the programmes to get people back to work? If not the US is likely to languish in the same deep depression that it had for the last 3+ years which is likely to be bad for his re-election. If he does take steps to tackle the issues then yes he's likely to be re-elected in 1936.

There were short cyclic recessions throughout the 19th and first decades of the 20th century. The "Great Depression" was deeper than most but not all and would have ended as they all did without government interference.

 

[Chiron]

There were short cyclic recessions throughout the 19th and first decades of the 20th century. The "Great Depression" was deeper than most but not all and would have ended as they all did without government interference.

Yes after an even worse Dust Bowl, 2 million deaths from famine and Malaria outbreaks, and a popular revolt.

As badly mismanaged as the New Deal was, it stopped the Dust Bowl, prevented Malaria outbreaks, a popular revolt, and massively expanded public infrastructure that allowed America to become a super power and win WW2.

A nation is only as strong as its infrastructure and industrial base is developed. A nation that forgets that as the US did starting with Reagan, will see its strength decline and eventually suffer a catastrophic systemic collapse which the US is currently in.

No New Deal, equals a weaker America unable to successfully support the Allies and barely able to fight Japan.

 

[stevep]

Long already took great care with his security. His survival as a consequence of that security thus does not follow from the divergence point. It is a second divergence point.

Actually its not. That you have such a big change in 1933 means just about everything happening afterwards is potentially up in the air. Long could still die in an assassination event, or simply walk under a bus, catch a fatal illness etc. Or he could survive any and all of those. Given his security, which might have been tightened after a successful assassination of FDR and that with somewhat better/earlier medical care he might have survived anyway OTL its far from certain he will die in exactly the same way as OTL.

Even if he did there is the issue that without the measures taken by Roosevelt - and assuming that Garner doesn't follow a similar path - someone with a similar set of ideas could emerge. No act occurs in a vacuum so that's a possibility. Of course in that case they might not be the hard line isolationist that Long seems to have been.

There were short cyclic recessions throughout the 19th and first decades of the 20th century. The "Great Depression" was deeper than most but not all and would have ended as they all did without government interference.

That is your opinion but others, including myself differ. The Great Depression would of course have ended eventually without Roosevelt, eventually but what when and what state the US would be in is a matter of serious concern. Its likely to have been much longer and caused more economic, social and human suffering and a lot of unrest. It might not get as bad as Chiron suggests, or it could be a lot worse but its very unlikely to be good for the US.

 

[Atarlost]

Actually its not. That you have such a big change in 1933 means just about everything happening afterwards is potentially up in the air. Long could still die in an assassination event, or simply walk under a bus, catch a fatal illness etc. Or he could survive any and all of those. Given his security, which might have been tightened after a successful assassination of FDR and that with somewhat better/earlier medical care he might have survived anyway OTL its far from certain he will die in exactly the same way as OTL.

If you take such a view than any Alternate History exercise is moot. When are applying arbitrary changes down the timeline under the umbrella of butterflies you are no longer doing an honest "what if" extrapolation and are now playing "but it's not technically impossible."

 

[stevep]

If you take such a view than any Alternate History exercise is moot. When are applying arbitrary changes down the timeline under the umbrella of butterflies you are no longer doing an honest "what if" extrapolation and are now playing "but it's not technically impossible."

So your response seems to be if X happened after the PoD date OTL it must also happen in the ATL, regardless of the size and impact of the PoD. To argue such and that you won't allow anyone to say "Ah but, this might not happen" means there is no actual debate/discussion as to the validity of the resulting TL. That makes any such exercise far more moot than anything I've said.

To say that something - in this case Long dying as OTL - will definitely happen 2 years after such a large PoD - your basically putting a large butterfly net around everything that led to his shooting and the failure to avoid or survive it.

 

[History Learner]

I have two problems with this PoD leading to this premise.
1) Huey Long was assassinated by someone upset about redistricting malfeasance in 1935 and if this was averted (why does it follow from the PoD?) we don't know he wouldn't turn interventionist with the German invasion of the USSR like so many other socialists. I think it very likely that with Long or anyone that takes up his political legacy after his death in the presidency lend lease is only delayed by about six months. Actually, I'm not sure Huey Long wouldn't have been Bernied out of the nomination and him running on a third party ticket means he throws the 1940 election to Wendel Willke unless the latter is also butterflied.

Long wasn't a Socialist, for one, and as for "how" you've changed everything from February of 1933 on in politics for the United States. Let us say that, for example, the day Long was shot historically he's actually been called for a meeting with President Garner over a Senate Bill or instead Long is giving a speech before Congress, etc. Lots of ways to avoid it.

2) Cash and Carry was also pushed by Roosevelt. A 1933 removal of Roosevelt probably means the US maintains an arms embargo on all belligerents unless Garner also pushes strongly for false neutrality in favor of the UK and France.

I suspect Cash and Carry would still come; it was politically popular and was seen as a way to revive American manufacturing. The real split came in regards to effectively giving away equipment for free, which was what Lend Lease ended up being.

 

[WolfBear]

@History Learner I have a question for you: Do you believe that the Germans still use the Sickle-Cut Plan against France in May 1940 if there is no Mechelen Incident in January 1940?

 

[stevep]

Long wasn't a Socialist, for one, and as for "how" you've changed everything from February of 1933 on in politics for the United States. Let us say that, for example, the day Long was shot historically he's actually been called for a meeting with President Garner over a Senate Bill or instead Long is giving a speech before Congress, etc. Lots of ways to avoid it.



I suspect Cash and Carry would still come; it was politically popular and was seen as a way to revive American manufacturing. The real split came in regards to effectively giving away equipment for free, which was what Lend Lease ended up being.

Not the case. Britain finally paid off its L-L bill in 2015 IIRC. Some of the items came for free, or at least with other ways of paying for them but a lot still had to be paid for. By other ways I meant restrictions on British exports, free basing for US units later in the war - which I have seen argued cost Britain more than the US paid for all the goods sent to Britain under L-L and the like. I know Britain still had to pay for units it kept after the end of the conflict - which since they were bought in preference for British goods for logistical reasons was a lot - and not clear what the situation was for items such as food and oil that were consumed during the conflict.