If the American Industrial Base had been damaged in WW2, how much slower would the global recovery from WW2 be?

If America had fallen into a second civil war and had experienced a level of war similar to Europe or East Asia, how much slower would the global recovery from WW2 have been without American capital rebuilding Japan and Western Europe?
 
A lack of American capital especially after a civil war would likely lead to a global economic depression
 
Would require an entirely different global situation. Impossible to predict

I only posit this question because it occurred to me that North America being the last industrialized area standing really saved the world from having to rebuild from an 1800s level.
 
I only posit this question because it occurred to me that North America being the last industrialized area standing really saved the world from having to rebuild from an 1800s level.
What about Great Britain? Australia? Even India.

But in any case, even Germany or Japan was nowhere close 1800 levels.
 
What about Great Britain? Australia? Even India.

But in any case, even Germany or Japan was nowhere close 1800 levels.
Maybe Great Britain could have done it, though they would have been also dealing with supressing independence movements.

I don't know how industrialized 1940s India was

I doubt Australia has the population or logistics to rebuild Europe
 
Alternate to a civil war would be to have the US sit out the war to the point there no large scale purchasing by the Europeans & no Lend Lease. The US industrial base was crippled by the Great Depression & it was the effective end of the Neutrality Acts, the Cash and Carry policy, that jumpstarted the US economy 1939-1940.

Kleins survey of US industrial mobilization 'A Call to Arms' makes this point when describing the effects of French, British, Belgian, Dutch, ect... purchases early in the war. One example Klien provides is how the US railroads were operating at about 70% of their 1910 peak. The unused capacity in track and rolling stock was largely abandoned & scrapped. From late 1940 into 1948 there was a massive reconstruction of the US railways. Other sectors were rebuilt similarly, and large new sectors like the aircraft industry were created. ie: In 1938 the US had a theoretical capacity of maybe 3000 airframes a year. In 1944 over 105,000 were built. Lacking demand a non participating US sees no huge influx of French and British capitol in 1939-1941 and its industry continues a snails pace recovery from the Depression.
 
Alternate to a civil war would be to have the US sit out the war to the point there no large scale purchasing by the Europeans & no Lend Lease. The US industrial base was crippled by the Great Depression & it was the effective end of the Neutrality Acts, the Cash and Carry policy, that jumpstarted the US economy 1939-1940.

Kleins survey of US industrial mobilization 'A Call to Arms' makes this point when describing the effects of French, British, Belgian, Dutch, ect... purchases early in the war. One example Klien provides is how the US railroads were operating at about 70% of their 1910 peak. The unused capacity in track and rolling stock was largely abandoned & scrapped. From late 1940 into 1948 there was a massive reconstruction of the US railways. Other sectors were rebuilt similarly, and large new sectors like the aircraft industry were created. ie: In 1938 the US had a theoretical capacity of maybe 3000 airframes a year. In 1944 over 105,000 were built. Lacking demand a non participating US sees no huge influx of French and British capitol in 1939-1941 and its industry continues a snails pace recovery from the Depression.
Why wouldn't the Europeans buy from the U.S.? They have hard currency at the beginning and the U.S. has historically sold to Europe so what is the change that stops this. Even if the public didn't want to fight they did want the UK and French to win the war. They were willing to allow the sale of arms and this was the position of the government as well so there needs to be a very good reason not to.
 
Why wouldn't the Europeans buy from the U.S.? They have hard currency at the beginning and the U.S. has historically sold to Europe so what is the change that stops this. Even if the public didn't want to fight they did want the UK and French to win the war. They were willing to allow the sale of arms and this was the position of the government as well so there needs to be a very good reason not to.

Up into 1939 the Nuetrallity Acts prohibited US citizens & business from selling 'war materials' to other nations. During the 1920s & 1930s very little in arms or related items were exported from the US. When Ernest Udet went shopping in the US for aircraft to study he could not purchase the F11C-2 Goshawk dive-bomber. A demilitarized version of the Hawk II was allowed. When Browning wanted to peddle his guns on the global market he had to relocate overseas & collaborated with FN in Belgium. This is one of the reasons the US had a microscopic arms industry in 1938. Nutering the Nuetrality Acts was not inevitable action. It took effort by the Warhawks or interventionists & pro Brit/French individuals to overcome arguments from the antiwar factions, isolationists, and profacisits & get the legislation through Congress.

Companies like Ford & GM were heavily invested in Germany & were reluctant to jeopardize that by selling anything resembling arms to the Allies. As late as 1942 Henry Ford threw a fit when his staff accepted a contract to build Merlin engines for the British. He was able to reject the contract & it went elsewhere. ' Trading with the Enemy' describes how some major US businessmen preferred for political reasons to take German IOUs over French Gold in 1939-1940.
 
Last edited:
Up into 1939 the Nuetrallity Acts prohibited US citizens & business from selling 'war materials' to other nations. During the 1920s & 1930s very little in arms or related items were exported from the US. When Ernest Udet went shopping in the US for aircraft to study he could not purchase the F11C-2 Goshawk dive-bomber. A demilitarized version of the Hawk II was allowed. When Browning wanted to peddle his guns on the global market he had to relocate overseas & collaborated with FN in Belgium. This is one of the reasons the US had a microscopic arms industry in 1938. Nutering the Nuetrality Acts was not inevitable action. It took effort by the Warhawks or interventionists & pro Brit/French individuals to overcome arguments from the antiwar factions, isolationists, and profacisits & get the legislation through Congress.
Yes but 1938 is not 1939 and many people's opinions changed quite quickly once Germany invaded Poland. Once war had actually started the political calculation dramatically changes. If France falls then why wouldn't America change their opinion and political outlook on the world. That is such a dramatic and large event that I couldn't imagine the government not reacting to this.
 
Yes but 1938 is not 1939 and many people's opinions changed quite quickly once Germany invaded Poland. Once war had actually started the political calculation dramatically changes. If France falls then why wouldn't America change their opinion and political outlook on the world. That is such a dramatic and large event that I couldn't imagine the government not reacting to this.
The political calculation changed because enough interventionists & businessmen like Knudsen were in position to get the Neutrality Acts changed, against the opposition of antiwar idealists, profacists, and isolationists. One of the little remembered aspects of Roosevelts policy is that he was not at all in the Warhawk camp until 1939. Earlier in the 1930s he'd ended the Bannana Wars, reduced the Asiatic squadron, supported the Philippines independence, withdrawn the 15th Infantry Regiment from China, Neither were the other presidential candidates in the 1936 & 1940 elections much enamored with intervention in European politics. Isolationism had been a strong current in US policy towards Europe for near two decades. I cant see anything inevitable about the change back to intervention.
 
that jumpstarted the US economy 1939-1940
First, I agree with most of your posts points above, so want to be clear on that. This is more of critique of the quote above.

The quote here, I think is a common misconception of how much the early war helped the US going by unemployment rates and GDP growth and is used often across history and alt history forums/posts.

The rate as of December of those years;
1938 - 19%
1939 - 17.2%
1940 - 14.6 %
1941 - 9.9 %

It must be pointed out that while yes, war orders did spur growth, the bigger drop between 40 and 41 was the Selective Service Act kicking into high gear which only passed in the autumn of 1940, in conjunction with the Two Ocean Navy Act from the summer. Even then, you still had high unemployment and just barely under 10% at end of '41. So in reality, the War did not do that much until the US was forced to take things seriously after the fall of France and even then the lag time only picked up steam over a year later.

1935 thru 1937 all had higher rates of GDP growth than 1939-40. However, it most certainly pops in 1941, again coinciding with the Selective Service Act (aka Peace time raft) and the military build up post fall of France.

It's almost certain that without the Fall of France, you don't get the Two Ocean Navy Act, at least not at the same level. You definitely don't get the draft. You might get Congress pushing a military expansion and up recruiting of Volunteers but not the draft. So take away those things, you might still end with a much lower US industrial output.

Source for my info here; https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506
 
Top