US avoids/ ends depression with war over Manchuria

[Derek Jackson]

As Paul Krugman points out in OTL the realy end of the depression was the fiscal stimulus known as WW2.

Is there any circumstance under which the US could have gone to war with Japan over its 1931 aggression.

I am assuming an eventual US victory.

Any thoughts?

 

[Nonfiction]

Krugman is wrong

 

[T3h_shammy]

Krugman is wrong

Most people elaborate, or defend the points they make. I will offer my support that World War 2 did in fact end the Great Depression by linking you to this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp29-41.jpg This doesn't even show when America's economy really took off after full-time war production was utilized

 

[David S Poepoe]

As Paul Krugman points out in OTL the realy end of the depression was the fiscal stimulus known as WW2.

Any thoughts?

The only way to end a depression is to kill millions of people? What crazy idea is that?

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

The only way to end a depression is to kill millions of people? What crazy idea is that?

I don't think anyone would necessissarily say that, think of it as trying to wake yourself up in the morning, you can smoke some crack and it will get the job done, but it is hardly the best way to do it.

Back to the point, this could have beneficial effects if butterflies don't get rid of WWII the US would probably be more well prepared for fighting it which in turn could shorten it.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Krugman is wrong

Oh, I'm sorry. And your Nobel Prize in Economics is where, exactly?

The only way to end a depression is to kill millions of people? What crazy idea is that?

Not the War itself, silly, but the massive growth in industry and jobs/job opportunities created by the US entereing World War II.

Frankly, I think a '31 War wouldn't happen. It's way too early and isolationism is still way too entrenched, and nowhere moreso than the Republican Party. And while Nixon may not have given a damn about his Quaker heritage, Herbert Hoover did, and it's extremely unlikely he'll ask Congress to declare war.

A more reasonable POD, IMO, would be the US and Japan going to war in 1937 over the Panay incident. By that point, isolationism in the US basically meant "Keep Us Out of Europe!" whereas the Pacific was seen as America's backyard, and we can't let "teh ev0l sl4ntee-eyed m0nkees" make trouble for us in our own backyard now, can we?

 

[wormyguy]

First off, I'm extremely dubious that a war over Manchuria, of all places, could be sold to the very, very isolationist US people and Congress in 1931, especially considering that the US would be seen as the aggressor.

Secondly, there would be no sudden swell of patriotism as after Pearl Harbor if we handwave this situation into reality, with America as the aggressor. People will not feel like buying vast quantities of war bonds, at or below the rate of inflation, thereby allowing the war effort to be "free." It will cost quite a bit of "real money" and those effects will show through.

 

[GreatScottMarty]

Japan?

I agree with Krugman's theory as well. Is a war with Japan big enough to the trick? The reason America got out of the depression so well was because they were building Tanks, Planes, guns, ammunition, ships, etc not for a one on one fight but a two on one fight. American aid was essential to Russia holding off Barbarossa. So how would a war with Japan compete with that? We aren't going to be building hardly any tanks although plenty of the rest, we aren't going to be basically feeding another country. A lot of the things America did in terms of Logistics and manufacturing were being ramped up by FDR in the late 30s because he knew America was going to be the Arsenal of Democracy and whether the country wanted in he knew we would have to be.

One more question, Japan was interested in war with us UNTIl they were ready correct? So why are they more ready in 37 than in 41?

 

[Larrikin]

Oh, I'm sorry. And your Nobel Prize in Economics is where, exactly?

Not the War itself, silly, but the massive growth in industry and jobs/job opportunities created by the US entereing World War II.

Frankly, I think a '31 War wouldn't happen. It's way too early and isolationism is still way too entrenched, and nowhere moreso than the Republican Party. And while Nixon may not have given a damn about his Quaker heritage, Herbert Hoover did, and it's extremely unlikely he'll ask Congress to declare war.

A more reasonable POD, IMO, would be the US and Japan going to war in 1937 over the Panay incident. By that point, isolationism in the US basically meant "Keep Us Out of Europe!" whereas the Pacific was seen as America's backyard, and we can't let "teh ev0l sl4ntee-eyed m0nkees" make trouble for us in our own backyard now, can we?

Not even by the US entering the War, but the massive influx of hard currency from England and France to purchase war materiels.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

Most people elaborate, or defend the points they make.d

These days, when talking about Krugman, "Krugman's wrong", is more of a truism than a claim.

Anyway, a good place to start is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

And here's an article about what REALLY happened to the US economy during the war:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138

 

[David S Poepoe]

Oh, I'm sorry. And your Nobel Prize in Economics is where, exactly?

Not the War itself, silly, but the massive growth in industry and jobs/job opportunities created by the US entereing World War II.

Then you must be talking about the use of the draft to take care of unemployment. How can the economy recover when the Government is both controlling employment, pay, prices and limiting purchasing options? What probably ended the depression was an end to Government spending and taxation.