England and Germany Unite.

Yep, me too. I scanned right past it. Good thing it wasn't a snake....

 

As "Wolfy" pointed out, your economic figures are not quite accurate, in fact they are simply wrong. Nor are your unemployment numbers anywhere near representative of the truth. By 1941 unemployment had been reduced by 40% from its 1933 total, in spite of new workers coming into the system and the population growing by more than 9 million. In 1933 unemployment stood at 24.75%, by 1940 at 14.45%, and by 1941 it was at 9.66%. There was a single year "blurp" up into the 18% level (1938) but that was in response to the mis-guided reduction in government spending in 1937, which FDR corrected immediately before the first fiscal quarter of 1939.

This unemployment pecentage shrunk while the American labor force increased from 51,840,000 in 1933 to 57,530,000 in 1941 (before women and minority workers were included into the war effort). So there are 6 million more people in the work force, and fewer of them are unemployed.

See:

The Depression in the United States

Now, since this next text isn’t my own, I will point out it is from a fellow poster (mekozak) over at the now lame THC forum:

Even if the Full power of both France and the Soviet Union were added to that of Germany, the US would still have a greater economic "war making potential". Please see the analysis competed by Hillman in his section of the book The World in 1939 which is a part of the "Survey of International Affairs" series edited by the eminent British historian Arnold Toynbee. Hillman's methodology was to break down manufacturing capacity (not output) into heavy and light industry. Heavy industry was assumed to be infinitely transferable to war production. This includes things like steel and aluminum production, heavy construction & shipbuilding. Light industry included things like food processing, clothes manufacturing, and many of the other ancillary industries that had the potential to support war industry. Taking the full heavy industry and half of the light industry (given his assumptions that not all light industry could be redirected to war production), Hillman thus compared the production abilities of the various powers in arriving at his assumptions for war making potential (WMP).

This analysis was also used by Kennedy in his famous book, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers which was an economic comparison of warring nations from about the year 1500. By comparison the major powers had the following military potential relationship as a percentage of the world's military power prior to the initiation of the conflict:

US 41.7%
Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%
UK 10.2%
France 4.2%
Japan 3.5%
Italy 2.5%

Even the UK alone with the US provides a margin of over 50% of the world's military potential. As for the US, consider that the 41.7% only represents the pre-war WMP and not the additional investment driven growth added to the economy (the rest being the latent capacity in the system). Germany plus the USSR plus France plus Italy total little over 35%, which is still less than 85% of US war potential. The US economy could have expanded further with respect to military production. Consumer goods increased at the same time that war material burgeoned. The growth of the economy was due in part to expansion of production into available capacity plus investment into new capacity. This (by the way) is the first and only time in world history that one nation could claim such a predominant production position.

This predominance allowed the US to truly develop a combined force approach that allowed it to interdict in any littoral area anywhere in the world with a logistical support train that would ultimately supply the soldiers with whatever was required for victory. The US had far and away the greatest income per worker of any industrialized state. It is the spare national income, especially in wartime where investment is so predominant (in war bonds etc.) that determines how well an economy can go on a war footing. The Germans didn't have as much income (per worker) as either the UK or especially the US and were thus much slower in their ability to invest in new capacity (and also because of their internal perspective didn't think anybody else could either).

(myself again) Here is a quote from General Marshall on the extent of what the US supplied just to our allies: "the dollar value of the arms alone turned over to our Allies would equip 588 armored divisions, or 2000 infantry divisions". Historically, the US Army managed to raise and more-or-less maintain 89 divisions of their own as well. Even though when that pre-war War Making Potential was first compiled in 1939, the US was struggling with a slowly lessening depression that had actually curtailed its economic strength.

Though that economic strength of America was not obvious, the latent power (the essence of the Hillman study) still showed the magnitude of difference between the US and any of the European powers, and nearly any imagined combining of them, or Japanese and any of the European powers. The US was a relatively isolated, safe, continental power with a relatively "rich" (compared to other nations), and well educated population. At best, only small sections, or parts of European nations could claim the same.

 

had edward of windsor gotten enough support, maybe. perhaps his american wife would have convinced the americans to join as well. hehe.

 

This is not in the spirit of a "What If". This a straight out statement without explaination of background.

1, How does King Edward VIII regain absolute power in 1939.

2, Construct a senario on how King Edward VIII comes to sign a treaty with Germany over the ridding of communism.

3, How does King Edward VIII convince Hitler to stop his POGRAM on the JEWS after his continual stance after MEIN KAMPF.

4, How does Britain and Germany defeat the Soviet Union.

5, How does Poland survive, your explaination on this would be entertaining.

6, You indicate a united Europe. A united Europe would only come at the expence of freedoms and under the hegemony of Nazism period.

7, You devalue the USA in such as insofaras the USA at that period of time was the largest exporter of crude oil. (if anyone can correct me on this please do so).

8, Even in the depth of a so called depression the USA would never concede her Western Pacific territories without military intervention.
So how is the USA forced to cede her Western Pacific territories to Japan in a non military matter.

9, Your last comment is just straight out foolish in the extreme.

v.R

 

Sorry fore bringing up and old threade.

I had a thuoghte here!

If briton joined withe germany,would America follow suit??? (meaning thate America wuolde also jion the germans)After all,thee American president at thee time of ww2,had alwayes had planed to side withe briton.

 

Now that's a reasonable question, Heidi.
For the sake of argument, let's say that England and Germany did become partners (which I personally don't think can happen because of the still living veterans of World War I), it seems to me that the situation in the US would strengthen the isolationist movement there. Of course, I maybe wrong. For those with other ideas, post it so we can explore the possibilities together.

 

May i ask? What does isolationist mean?
Do you mean that more Americans would like to see America to join briton and germany?

Actually,i agree,i think this could end up a interesting debate (not in a bad way of cause)

 

Why would Germany possibly stop two of it's main aims, the conquest of Poland and the destruction of the Jews?

 

I got it now! Thanks! I have trouble with professional words.

 

Who would be on the other side then?

 

Why even bother responding? I think its evident where your stance is and in which direction this thread is going to go.


Goebbels would be proud.

 

America and USSR! Apparently by other members that's all you need to win the war!

 

Well, if you can believe the economist Paul Kennedy, who wrote "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers", an economic interpretation of WW II, that's more than enough to win WW II. Kennedy compares the war-making potential of the worlds military powers in 1937 (when the Axis had already begun to rearm, but the US was still struggling with the results of the Great Depression) and finds that the USSR and the US combined commanded 55.7% of the world's war-making potential. The Axis (with the UK added) held only 30.6%. Once the US geared up for military production, the gap would, of course, be much wider.

This is a silly scenario because it ignores the political realities of the time, but that aside, the Axis still gets crushed in the end.

 

If you are meaning before ww2?
I have recall that before America join the war and just join the war,that America was not ready for war and still needed British aid (briton needed America aid of cause)and was not fully motorised at all,just were not strong enough! Also Russia was not strong either,they needed aid aswell.

If you are talking about 19145 on wards after ww2,i see where you are comming from with USSR and America being stronger than the Axis and Briton.
After ww2,power shifts towards the Americans and USSR,when USSR and America gain alot of germany military and weapons that help make the both countries superpower and of cause making USA the super power of the world.

Going back to 1945 and on wards, yes USSR and America would kick Britons and germanys buttocks!

 

Heidi, I think what DA means is that the US had a big industrial capacity even before the start of WWII.
A major segment of the the American industrial capacity was dormant, stagnant or underutilized at that time.
It's true that America wasn't ready for war. In fact, the US Army was (if I remember correctly) ranked 19th in the world, behind Portugal but ahead of Bulgaria, in 1936. Only the US Navy had real striking power at that time.
And that means that even if the US Army still hadn't fully mobilized, the USSR army is there, while the US Navy would be in place to handle things at sea.

And DA, I know it's a silly scenario, meaning it's highly unlikely to have ever happened.

 

Industrial! I know what that means,yes usa did have a big one of those! Even the German generals that visited America before ww2 begain ,mention this to Hitler and trying to warn hitler about Usa power in Industrial.(i watch a program on this,see i do watch military things)
I belive America reach her super power after ww2 though not during ww2.

 

Paul Kennedy's book was using data from 1937-1939, well before the war even got going on a limited scale in Poland. By the end of 1941, the war making potential of the US had grown even further. Our Army was limited by law to just over 125,000 enlisted men, and a few thousand soldiers. We were 12th in standing Army strength, but second/equal to the Royal Navy in the same time period. Our AAC (Air Corps) was pretty pitiful, but our naval air wing was decent compared to other naval air arms of the time. Only Japan had the better of us in that area, and we were just about on a par with the RN.

The war making potential is hard for some to get their "heads wrapped" around, but it means both existing but dormant production capability, as well as how much of our production could be "diverted" to war without impacting our civilian production needs. As the largest oil producing nation in the world (until the late sixties), we didn't ration gasoline to save gasoline. Oddly enough it was rationed to save tires! When the Japanese closed off the latex from the French Indo-China area, we went on a crash course of synthetic rubber experimentation. America discovered some which are still being used today, although it turned out that the German style Buna rubber was the better system for vehicle tires.

 

Yes,USA industrial was huge ,you have admitted that the USA army was quite limited!
Which means America did not have the man power during ww2(man power means alot) causing America not being fully protentral until after ww2.
Not having the man-power to work all of you're weapons and equitment let America down!Germany did have it all man power and all,and it proves you need a stable army and stable airforce and stable navy to be super.
Which America was missing a powerful army at the time.
But things do change for the best don't they!

I am trying to say that germany was super at the start of the war and America was super after ww2.

 

That "limited by law" standing army was however supplimented by a great number of National Guard divisions, as well as reservists who could be called up in case of war. This also ignores the fact that America instituted its first peace-time draft in 1940, and inducted another few million men into the service.

I and others were only speaking of our professional and "standing" army. Those men whose job was in the service.