Hindsight 202: USA if the British had gone belly up in 1941

[Hans]

Assuming a change of government in Britain and a negotiated peace.

1. Would the Japanese and Americans still clash?

2. Would the Germans still go for the Soviets?

3. Other possibilities?

[Firefly]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

[dalem]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

Seriously, I think we stay out the European part of the war, USSR falls to Germany (I know, a WHOLE different thread), and we focus on the Pacific theater, posibly even to the point of occupying part of mainland China.

A caveat is that I am assuming that the USA would exert the same amount of gross effort in the Pacific theater as we did in both the PTO and ETO in WWII, which is not necessarily a safe assumption.

-dale

[ October 23, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[togi]

1. yes

2. No

3. I think the war would have been finished in Western side..

Best Regards..

Tolga..

[Siege]

1. Most definitely YES.

Remember, Japan had already begun their war in 1935 with the first invasions of China. They had been planning an attack on the US for decades. Having one less combatant to fight against would have only moved up their timetable.

2. Absolutely!

See above regarding Japan vs. US. Hitler expected to invade Russia if the UK was still in the war or not. The fact he DID attack with Britan still a threat shows he was ready to attack in any situation.

3. Other Possibilities?

I believe that US Troops would have been dispatched almost immediately to the UK upon a German invasion. More importantly, the US Fleet would have still been intact and would have been able to contribute to the naval disruption of the resupply and reinforcement of the German troops.

Most likely the invasion would have been an utter failure, with Russia jumping west while the opportunity presented itself.

-Hans

[dalem]

Originally posted by Siege:

3. Other Possibilities?

I believe that US Troops would have been dispatched almost immediately to the UK upon a German invasion. More importantly, the US Fleet would have still been intact and would have been able to contribute to the naval disruption of the resupply and reinforcement of the German troops.

Most likely the invasion would have been an utter failure, with Russia jumping west while the opportunity presented itself.

-Hans

- If UK makes terms with Hitler's Germany, why would we (USA) send troops to the UK?

- USSR wasn't "jumping west" with anything but a congratulatory bottle of Vodka for awhile. Remember her army was in the midst of a deep and debilitating reorganization and probably wouldn't have been ready for anything offensive, were that part of Stalin's plans, until 1943.

-dale

[...................................]

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

3. It all depends on the Royal Navy. If Hitler inherits it intact and can add the German, Japanese, Italian and French to it then the USA must do something desperate and quick. It would have been spectacular one way or the other

Ps. Shouldn't we be talking about 1940 instead of 1941? The Brits weren't likely to give up once another great power (Russia) had joined the war.

[ October 23, 2003, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

[Sanok]

There was a show on the History Channel a few days ago called The Samurai and the Swastika. It said that both Germany and Japan had planned Operation Orient, the joint invasion of Russia. However, when Japan lost the Batle of Midway, the US became a threat to them they never expected to face. Because they didn't want to fight a two-front war, they did not invade Russia with Germany as they were expected to do.

If Britain had been defeated, the US would have been able to send more forces into the Pacific. Of course, this would also have created the possible threat of some sort of Axis incursion to the US east coast.

I'm thinking, the US wouldn't have been as involved in the Western Front and Germany would be ruling most of Europe to this day.

[bboyle]

Originally posted by Sanok:

There was a show on the History Channel a few days ago called The Samurai and the Swastika. It said that both Germany and Japan had planned Operation Orient, the joint invasion of Russia. However, when Japan lost the Batle of Midway, the US became a threat to them they never expected to face. Because they didn't want to fight a two-front war, they did not invade Russia with Germany as they were expected to do.

If Britain had been defeated, the US would have been able to send more forces into the Pacific. Of course, this would also have created the possible threat of some sort of Axis incursion to the US east coast.

I'm thinking, the US wouldn't have been as involved in the Western Front and Germany would be ruling most of Europe to this day.

I think the result would have been much like that posited in "Fatherland". The Cold War would have been fought between Germany and the US with the wild card being the survival of active military resistance in the Soviet Union. For Germany to decisively help the Japanese seems to me to be somewhat of a stretch. The US would inherit at least part of the British Fleet and would be able to beat Japan, reinforce and defend China, support whatever rump state that was left of Russia and then to top it off would have gotten nukes first. Finally, in this fantasy football version of the ensuing stalemate, who do you think would have been best able to marshall allies, create proxy forces and appeal to subject peoples best...the overtly racist Nazis or the democratic United States? I'd give the Nazi's twenty or so years before the whole thing fell in on them.

[Ant]

I remember reading that the main reason the Japanese never took on the Russians is bacause of the pre-war border clash between the two nations in which Zhukov gave the Japanese a beating.

http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/japanese_empire/altjap/sjw.htm

[BigDork]

Originally posted by Ant:

I remember reading that the main reason the Japanese never took on the Russians is bacause of the pre-war border clash between the two nations in which Zhukov gave the Japanese a beating.

http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/japanese_empire/altjap/sjw.htm

Of course Russia wasn't involved in a war against Germany at the time.

I think the big deciding factor if Germany had taken all of Europe would be who got the A bomb first. Without it Germany wouldn't be able to invade the US. The logistics for such an invasion would be too hard having to support it across the ocean. Same for the US. If we tried to land in Nazi Britian it would be an all or nothing thing. If the troops got beaten back then it would have been very hard to try again.

But if you can nuke a few cities first and clear the way then it would be a different story for either side. Of course you'd be sending your troops through radioactive land but the dangers weren't really known at that time.

[Ant]

Originally posted by BigDork:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:

I remember reading that the main reason the Japanese never took on the Russians is bacause of the pre-war border clash between the two nations in which Zhukov gave the Japanese a beating.

http://www.angelfire.com/gundam/japanese_empire/altjap/sjw.htm

Of course Russia wasn't involved in a war against Germany at the time. </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Hans:

Assuming a change of government in Britain and a negotiated peace.

1. Would the Japanese and Americans still clash?

2. Would the Germans still go for the Soviets?

3. Other possibilities?

1. Dunno. but Japan considered the US to be a top threat to its expansion plans in SE Asia. So I guess it is a "Yes"

2. "Der Lebensraum liegt im Osten" (Mein Kampf, A. Hitler). The West was never the target of Hitler. It just got in the way after he invaded Poland. Neither the French nor the Brits are "Untermenschen (sub-humans)" in Hitler's eyes that are to be destroyed or used as slaves. The Brits do count as "Herrenmenschen", he would have preferred to have them as Allies.

Ultimate goal: Extinct all sub-humans and rule the world with the "Herrenmenschen". You need lots of those to rule the world!

He envisions a Germanic state consisting of workers and farmers (and prison-guards for the slaves). Academics or universities are not that important.

So women are encouraged to give birth to many children to increase the population. Orders are awarded to women who give birth to several children. Grandma got one with 8 children, and there was one for even more children. Programs were started before the war. Imagine all generations twice the size of their predecesors. Population doubled after 50 years, then again every 25 years.

You need some room for all these people!

Hilter wants the vast spaces in Eastern Europe for the Germanic race (after all the Germanic tribes came from there before the middle ages).

Hitler's logic:

There is only one solution to this problem: War.

If won, it results in more land and slavery for the so-called sub-humans.

(Disclaimer. I don't share any of Hitler's views. If any of the above sentences is written in a way that could stir the idea I would support any of Hitler's views, this sentence is not as it was intended. Blame it on my bad English.

If you wonder why I write this disclaimer:

a) I'm German,

I don't want to be accused of certain things in this forum

c) There are some laws over here. While I am not a friend of these laws (laws don't change people, education does), I support the ideas why those laws were made (yet IMHO can't achieve) and don't want to spread or stir racial hatred in any form.)

Gruß

Joachim

[ October 24, 2003, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]

[dalem]

Is there any serious basis for thinking Hitler was interested in clashing with America directly - i.e. try to invade? I mean sure, it fits with his expansionist nut dreams, but invade across the Atlantic? With no nearby launching point? In the 1940s?

That's one heck of a "what if?" I think.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Gerhardt Weinberg thinks so. He mentions a couple of times that Hitler wanted to build a high seas fleet in order to carry the war to America. Its construction was an on again, off again affair depending on how the war in Europe was going. When the war looked close to ending favorably, he ordered the building of ships to proceed. When it went more problematically, he would put it on hold. Finally, he canceled it altogether.

With the benefit of hindsight and the Anglo-American experience of projecting armies across oceans, it's pretty clear that the navy Hitler envisioned to carry out his intercontinental ambitions would have proven inadequate for the job. But then, it seems to me that in the end, all Hitler's ambitions outstripped his means.

Michael

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Gerhardt Weinberg thinks so. He mentions a couple of times that Hitler wanted to build a high seas fleet in order to carry the war to America. Its construction was an on again, off again affair depending on how the war in Europe was going. When the war looked close to ending favorably, he ordered the building of ships to proceed. When it went more problematically, he would put it on hold. Finally, he canceled it altogether.

With the benefit of hindsight and the Anglo-American experience of projecting armies across oceans, it's pretty clear that the navy Hitler envisioned to carry out his intercontinental ambitions would have proven inadequate for the job. But then, it seems to me that in the end, all Hitler's ambitions outstripped his means.

Michael

That's fascinating. Any particular book by Weinberg I could pick up to learn about this?

-dale

[kgsan]

Originally posted by dalem:

Is there any serious basis for thinking Hitler was interested in clashing with America directly - i.e. try to invade? I mean sure, it fits with his expansionist nut dreams, but invade across the Atlantic? With no nearby launching point? In the 1940s?

That's one heck of a "what if?" I think.

-dale

I recall one of my professors in college, Holger Herwig, referring to Hitler's general plans for developing the "Z" fleet for invasion of the U.S. sometime after his conquest of Europe was completed. If I am remembering correctly, I think Prof Herwig referrd to discussions on this matter given in Hitler's regular after-dinner speeches/monologues/rants which were transcribed and may have been collected and published at some point.

[Siege]

I am not so sure that Russia wouldn't have taken the offensive if they saw the right opportunity. Remember, they did invade Finland as a pre-emptive measure to posture themselves better for a war with Germany. They did perform miserably in Finland, but it's not like Comrade Stalin cared very much about the costs involved.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Siege:

I am not so sure that Russia wouldn't have taken the offensive if they saw the right opportunity. Remember, they did invade Finland as a pre-emptive measure to posture themselves better for a war with Germany. They did perform miserably in Finland, but it's not like Comrade Stalin cared very much about the costs involved.

Uncle Joe was a calculating paranoiac. Attacking West before he felt ready wouldn't have fit very well with his plans of securing borders.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Gerhardt Weinberg thinks so. He mentions a couple of times that Hitler wanted to build a high seas fleet in order to carry the war to America. Its construction was an on again, off again affair depending on how the war in Europe was going. When the war looked close to ending favorably, he ordered the building of ships to proceed. When it went more problematically, he would put it on hold. Finally, he canceled it altogether.

With the benefit of hindsight and the Anglo-American experience of projecting armies across oceans, it's pretty clear that the navy Hitler envisioned to carry out his intercontinental ambitions would have proven inadequate for the job. But then, it seems to me that in the end, all Hitler's ambitions outstripped his means.

That's fascinating. Any particular book by Weinberg I could pick up to learn about this?</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Siege:

I am not so sure that Russia wouldn't have taken the offensive if they saw the right opportunity. Remember, they did invade Finland as a pre-emptive measure to posture themselves better for a war with Germany.

Even more to the point was the rather less costly occupation of the Baltic nations. Imagine the Wehrmacht beginning from Lithuania, which was the original plan.

Michael

[Other Means]

i think there's a difference between knocking the commonwealth out of the war & invading. i think the former was possible while the latter very improbable.

and if the British Isles aren't invaded they, and the RN, act as a barrier to the USA. it's possible that the commonwealth would have sued for peace if the USA hadn't come into the war (another topic maybe) or the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost. but i think they wouldn't have stayed out once the USA had given their backing. so no Z fleet. and if it had come to it, i think the RN would have relocated to the US.

i think Barbarossa would have gone forward & it think it would have succeeded. at least to the point where they control eastern Europe. if they are given a couple of years there to entrench, i don't think any Soviet counter would have worked. especially as the Soviets used so many "bonus troops" from their liberated ("liberated") areas to fuel their next advance. a better German response to the first Soviet counters means that they don't capture as much ground, cannot get more troops and cannot develop their operational art as well.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Other Means:

and if the British Isles aren't invaded they, and the RN, act as a barrier to the USA.

Convince me. My take on it is that if for any reason the US declares against Germany, Britain comes back into the war unless the Germans have occupied the country.

Michael

[dalem]

I thought the original hypothetical from Hans is:

Assuming a change of government in Britain and a negotiated peace.

Given that, I have to leave the UK out of further conflict. Without the UK still fighting, I simply can't see the U.S. sending a single soldier to European shores or to England, even after a Pearl Harbor.

-dale

[Other Means]

Michael, isn't that what i said?