Let’s suppose that sometime in the late 1930’s the US adopted a balanced budget amendment similar to the ones proposed today, namely that Congress is barred from spending more than 103% of revenues in any given year. Some of the current proposals allow for additional spending if Congress can get enough votes for it- for the purposes of this question let’s assume that they either can’t get the votes or there simply is no such provision.
No matter what horrors are threatened by the Axis, the US values sticking to the budget plan above all else such that spending never exceeds revenue by more than 3%. Would the outcome of the war have been different? How would post-war circumstances have unfolded?
After Peal Harbor, they would have all the consent they needed. Even if we assume otherwise, they’d go ahead and spend the money, likely tying the case up in Court until the war ended and the point was moot.
I might be wrong (no expert on this) but BBA’s I’ve seen proposed include things like the ability to suspend it in case of war or other major disaster - sometimes automatic suspension, without the need for Congress or the President to specifically act.
America is permanently crippled, before and after the war. Although the more likely scenario is that your stipulation doesn’t hold and they repeal or ignore the BBA. But if it does hold, then America never becomes a superpower and is an economic backwater indefinitely. The Cold War is a matter of the Soviet Union versus Europe, basically; America doesn’t really matter, it’s too weak and poor.
Or a smart politician (like FDR, or his economist John Maynard Keynes) cooks the books to meet the technical requirements of the law, but still allow the needed spending to win the war.
FDR already did something like that.
Republicans had passed ‘Neutrality Acts’ that prohibited the US from giving help to the Allies, requiring payment in advance for all war materials sold to them. So FDR used the “Destroyers for Bases” Agreement which gave US destroyers to Britain in exchange for 99-year leases to bases on various British lands. This was alleged to be an equal trade on the books, so not a violation of the Neutrality Acts. But these bases were not in fact of long-term value to the US; some were never used at all, most were closed within 10 years, all within 55 years.
After that came the Lend-Lease Act, which loaned war materials to the Allies, to be returned or paid back after the war.
Lots of similar deals could have been done, that would, on paper, keep within the letter of a balanced budget amendment: set a value on the British Crown Jewels (they’re typically listed as worth $300 to $600 million), and then rent them to the US. Typical rate for renting jewelry is 3.5% to 5% of the value as a daily rate. Even if a long-term rental is cheaper, you could still record this with a high value, so equivalent to a large amount of war material sent to the Allies, while still showing no expenditure and keeping a balanced budget.
My supposition would be that without deficit spending there would have been no American military buildup in the thirties. Without that buildup, there would have been no supplies to send to other countries in the early years of the war. And without naval expansion, the United States would have been unable to challenge Japan in Asia. So no Pearl Harbor because why would Japan bother bombing a naval base that didn’t have a navy?
So when World War II started, the United States would have essentially been like Brazil or Mexico or Argentina - Germany and Japan would have been aware these countries existed but they wouldn’t be in a position to have any influence on the course of the war. They would have figured the war would be decided in Europe and Asia and then afterwards they could decide what to do with the Americas.
Star Trek treated this subject in one of the original series episodes, “The City on the Edge of Forever”. A depression-era operator of a rescue mission for the homeless rises to become a noted pacifist figure, who then convinces FDR to stay out of the war. The Nazis win; the whole course of history is changed; the United Federation of Planets never existed; and Kirk and a few others are stranded on a far-off planet of ruins with a smart-ass deranged time machine.
(And, P.S.: I nominate that episode for the all-time best Star Trek show, at least of the original series.)
Maybe. What kind of condition would they be after WWII without American aid to help them beat the Nazis? I don’t really see the Nazis winning long term - they both bit off more than they could chew and their economic & politcal system was fundamentally flawed. But I do see WWII being even longer and more destructive, with the USSR being a lot more damaged afterward. I suspect that there wouldn’t be any superpowers for quite some time.
the US’ standing army at the start of the war would have consisted of around 3 infantry divisions and maybe 5 more in reserve. it’s naval strength would of course have been zapped at pearl but barring a big jump in budget, it would have built up its carrier force with supporting cruisers and destroyers. with that, it would have focused on regaining lost territory from japan. even with a balanced budget, US arms production would still tell heavily against japan.
the only question is whether or not UK, russia and some commonwealth countries have defeated germany had the US sent only 5 divisions in its expeditionary force for europe. we know the answer is probably ‘yes’ but it would have taken a bit longer than 6 years.
How? In the middle of what would most likely be a continuing Great Depression (since the government would be unable to do anything to stop it) and without the ability to go into debt, how would it pay for that?
I agree with others in that every flavor of BBA that I have seen accounts for disaster provisions like war. What a BBA tries to prevent is running deficits during normal times.
So, while I understand it is your OP and your alternate history, its such an outlandish one as to make speculation fruitless. It would be almost like asking, “If, after Pearl Harbor, instead of declaring war on Japan, what if FDR firebombed Pittsburgh?”
No politician in the country would sign on and stick with a suicide pact.
The main contribution the US made to the Soviet Union was Lend-Lease. As far as actual military operations go, I think it about 50 divisions that the western Allies tied up in North Africa, Italy and France. The real fighting was done by the Russians, but I think with out the money and equipment we gave them, it would have been a long, long ugly war. It would’ve taken a lot longer for the US to mobilize (no significant deficit-spending on the military until 1942), and all of the assistance given to other countries would’ve been too expensive until Pearl Harbor.
