Alternate WW2 fun and weirdness!

[LordShaithis]

In the spirit of '71 USA vs '91 Iraq, another weird alternate war scenario, this time WW2:

Ok kids, let's toss politics to the wind for the moment and shuffle the two sides in a very weird "what if" scenario: The United States and Nazi Germany versus everyone else of import, namely Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union. Assume the US is ready to start shipping troops to Germany at the outbreak of hostilities.

What do you think? Can this massive eurasian alliance overwhelm the combination of German technology and American industrial might? Or will the American refrain in European bars go from "If it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking German!" to "Thanks to us, you're all speaking German!"

[The Yosemite Bear]

What the american Nazi party won instead of Roosevelt?

[Vympel]

The Imperial Japanse and the Royal Navy, allied? That's a powerful reason to expect that the US would not have an easy time shipping anything to Germany at the outbreak of hostilities.

[The Yosemite Bear]

No shit, with the brits in control of the Middle east, and india, and most of the world's rubber and oil at the time, there goes' Japan's resouce problems....

on the otherhand, could we convince them to ditch the SA's for something more practical like say Lee-Enfields?

[LordShaithis]

Hmm. Assuming the US goes balls-out on shipbuilding, how long until it can reasonably fight the combined RN/IJN? Will there be a Germany left by then?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well. What we have to do is look at the situation analytically.


1. First compare the industrial output of the combined Nazi/American Alliance.
2. Compare the starting military forces of both forces.
3. Strategic holdings in the beginning.

1. Now we have to do the same for the "Allied" forces.

a. Soviet Russia
b. England
c. Japan
d.What about minor powers
I seriously doubt that two countries, Germany (surrounded) and her ally , the United states, thousands of miles away, have a chance at defeating the entire combined military, economic force of all Europe and asia.....


2. What about France? Does their nation still surrender and form teh Vichy government? Does the Dunkirk Evactuation succeed? Does Germany get the French Navy?

3. Germany, Italy, and Japan were never very good allies, so their chances at actually winning the confrontation orginally were severely limited. Unlike the allies, they did not utilize their militaries much in combined actions (spielvogel). They were more vigilante and long ranger. They DID occasionally exchange ideas/tech, but they did not engage in teh massive supporting maneuvers the allies did.

Due to this, one has to factor in how the Japan, Russian, British alliances will fare.

4. Russia will still have a two front war. One against germany in the West, and One against The United States in the East. However, Japan will be a bufferzone, as Russia will not be fighting them. Instead, the Russians could ressuply and coordinate efforts with the Japanese on their islands. I do not know how good the Russian navy is, so I cannot comment. The Japanese Imperial Army COULD use the ressuply, however, and if they get no support from the Russian navy, the Japanese navy is most likely going to go down hard if events unfold nearly the same as in the original Pacific naval battles.

5. The United States would be limited greately due to the lack of British air bases I think. I guess the US might use German air bases...but how would they get there past England? If germany attacks England, they might have a chance. I don't think the US had too many long range air weapons at the start of the war, did they?

6. If Germany Attacks England, and The United States attack England, England will probably lose due to the massive difference in military capability and industrial power. It wouldn't be resupplied by the United states, either, so it woudl be harder to keep up the fight unless resupplied by Russia.

[acesand8s]

I seriously doubt that two countries, Germany (surrounded) and her ally , the United states, thousands of miles away, have a chance at defeating the entire combined military, economic force of all Europe and asia.....

Actually, according to this article, the US and Germany combined would possess ~ 55% of the world's total 'warmaking potential'. In contrast, the UK, France, Italy, Japan, and the USSR would possess only ~ 35%. I'm assuming the neutral powers stay neutral until dragged into the war kicking and screaming.

I wonder, however, how well the US will be able to make use of this potential. The US activated only 90 divisions during the Second World War (plus 6 Marine divisions). If the US was to utilize its vast industrial potential, it needed a large workforce to remain at home and not fight. Some of this need will be reduced here because there will be no Lend Lease. On the other hand, every worker who becomes a soldier is one more man to equip and one less person to work to equip him.

Then there's the question of how the US will move these forces. The USN of 1939 vs. the RN and IJN of 1939 seems pretty one-sided. All of the American battleships were built in the 1920s (the new North Dakota and South Carolina class ships were still under construction, correct?) and it would have only four carriers, Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, and Yorktown, with the smaller Ranger available and the Wasp to be commissioned in mid-1940.

Of course, during the Second World War, the US built something like 20 carriers, nearly a dozen of them being the large Essex class. It built ten battleships, about 50 cruisers, and countless destroyers. I doubt the Japanese and the British would be able to match this construction. Do they have any chance of destroying American shipyards or damaging ships under construction?

A few other questions also appear. How well will Germany be able to stand up to the Red Army? Will Stalin invade through Poland to get to Germany (in which case France probably survives) or will he sit back and let France and Great Britain fight it out with Germany (in which case France probably falls)? If Germany can knock France out of the war and hit the Soviet Union with a Barbarrosa-like blow, I doubt the Allies (UK, USSR, et al) will pull it off. American Lend Lease was vital in supplying the Soviet Union with food and infrastructure to rebuild. Germany may not be able to defeat the Soviet Union completely, but there certaintly won't be a Hammer and Sickle over the Reichstag.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

55% is a lot. But there is more to war than just industry alone. THe US would have to find a way to supply germany and use its airbases.

China,* Poland*, Great Britain*, France*, Australia*, New Zealand*, Canada*, South Africa*, Denmark*, Norway*, Netherlands*, Belgium*, Luxembourg*, Yugoslavia*, Greece*, USSR*, United States*, Brazil*, Mexico*, Egypt, Ethiopia*, Iran, San Marino, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Venezuela

THese were the orginal allies. The asterisks denote those to donated military units and engaged in combat with them.

Population and industrial capacity
Population in 1939 Steel output in tons
UK 47.961.000 13.192.000
France 41.600.000 6.221.000
USSR 190.000.000 18.800.000
USA 132.122.000 51.380.000
Germany (including Austria) 76.008.000 23.329.000

Italy 44.223.000 2.323.000
Japan 71.400.000 5.811.000
In population and in industrial capacity , the allies, even after losing France, were stronger than the axis powers.

http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1939.htm

Well, at least we know generally what type of industrial force we are dealing with here.

Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%

This seems a bit odd, since once the Soviet Union got rolling, Germany could not come close to out-producing the SOviets. Many histories make such a big deal out of the "russian steamroller." How can they have equal ability... I must be overlooking something. Historians also make a note of the massive number of tanks produced by the Union compared to Nazi Germany as if Germany couldn't match it. This article speask to the contrary it seems

[Deathstalker]

Whose side is China on? That can make a big difference. If China is still fighting the Japanese, the Japanese may ask Russia for help, opening a two front war for Russia.

In the Atlantic, England could very well end up starving to death. Before the US started helping, German Uboats ran rampant. Without US intervention, indeed the US helping, England itself more than likely starves, unless the RN can somehow break the blockade.

The Russians and Germans will go at it, and if Hitler could be persuaded by the US government not to do a few stupid things, the Germans could very well emerge victorious. The Russians may be able to hang on, but it will suffer twice as bad without western support.

[acesand8s]

55% is a lot. But there is more to war than just industry alone. THe US would have to find a way to supply germany and use its airbases.

Why use German airbases? How feasible would Iceland be for a base against the UK? What's the weather like there?

Supplying Germany seems like a lost cause until UK and France are defeated, at which point supplying Germany becomes largely unnecessary.

China,* Poland*, Great Britain*, France*, Australia*, New Zealand*, Canada*, South Africa*, Denmark*, Norway*, Netherlands*, Belgium*, Luxembourg*, Yugoslavia*, Greece*, USSR*, United States*, Brazil*, Mexico*, Egypt, Ethiopia*, Iran, San Marino, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Venezuela

THese were the orginal allies. The asterisks denote those to donated military units and engaged in combat with them.

Many of those nations, ex. Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, only entered the war when they were invaded. Most of the American nations only entered the war after the US did so. I think the US in this scenario would be able to exert more influence over them than UK, USSR, et al.

Population and industrial capacity
Population in 1939 Steel output in tons
UK 47.961.000 13.192.000
France 41.600.000 6.221.000
USSR 190.000.000 18.800.000
USA 132.122.000 51.380.000
Germany (including Austria) 76.008.000 23.329.000

Italy 44.223.000 2.323.000
Japan 71.400.000 5.811.000
In population and in industrial capacity , the allies, even after losing France, were stronger than the axis powers.

Indeed, I already posed the question of whether the US would have the population to sustain its military/industrial efforts.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%


This seems a bit odd, since once the Soviet Union got rolling, Germany could not come close to out-producing the SOviets. Many histories make such a big deal out of the "russian steamroller." How can they have equal ability... I must be overlooking something. Historians also make a note of the massive number of tanks produced by the Union compared to Nazi Germany as if Germany couldn't match it. This article speask to the contrary it seems

SOrry for posting this again, but i wrote the same thing above using the edit feature. I do that too often to save space.

I assume the rest of the allied powers are still going to be allied? minor an dmajor except for USA

[Enigma]

Wouldn't U.S. also have to deal with Canada? Unless I am mistaken didn't Canada in WW2 have the third\fourth largest armed forces in the world?

[acesand8s]

Whose side is China on? That can make a big difference. If China is still fighting the Japanese, the Japanese may ask Russia for help, opening a two front war for Russia.

OP only mentions Japan, USSR, UK, France, and Italy in an alliance, so I presume its a neutral fighting Japan. I think China would be in more trouble in this scenario, as by 1939 all the major ports were in Japanese hands and the only route of international supply, the Burma Road, would be in the hands of Japan's ally.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Canada was important in Allied actions in ww2. So was mexico. THis is why i highly doubt the USA and Germany can survive wars on soooooooooo many fronts alone.


The united states could try the stragetgy it used orginally, focusing its power first on one, and then on the other. Taking out the UK then Russia, then Japan? I sitll think russia won't be so easy, since they handed the Germans pretty easily once they got rolling. They vastly outproduced the Germans.

THis, however, could be due to various factors.

[SWPIGWANG]

It doesn't look that bad for the US and German 3vil alliance. In such a war, after Germany take out france, the key lies in defeating the RN and a early German mobilization. The IJN simply isn't a target as there is nothing economically useful the Japanese can capature in the pactific given that they are all already held under different alliances.

Strangling Britain isn't difficult given now much problems mere submarines gave Britain, even with the full support of the US. While the RN did have decent surface warships, the fleet air arm was a joke equipment wise and probably would be defeated. Once Britain is cut off from the empire, each part of the commonwealth can be taken and Britain itself would lose all striking power.

On the east front, if Germany started a early mobilization, there would be parity in tank and aircraft production and numbers. Manpower problems probably have to be dealt with by superior tactics the germans have commonly shown against most Russian formations.

How well will Germany be able to stand up to the Red Army? Will Stalin invade through Poland to get to Germany

Stalin's purges makes a 1939 invasion unrealistic as there simply isn't the leadership capable of using those troops. They might prevent a French invasion by petty much wasting the whole Russian Army.

I do not know how good the Russian navy is,

For one thing, it has the only submarine fleet that lost most ships then it has sunk.

I guess the US might use German air bases...but how would they get there past England?

Germany spend more of its airpower in France while US ships the plane in. After a few month complete airsuperiority should be avaible over france.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some reason I have a feeling F4U would be the primary US fighter in this war.....

[SWPIGWANG]

Canada was important in Allied actions in ww2. So was mexico. THis is why i highly doubt the USA and Germany can survive wars on soooooooooo many fronts alone.

While the US army at 1939 was sad, the Canadian army can't defend against a redneck invasion.

I sitll think russia won't be so easy, since they handed the Germans pretty easily once they got rolling. They vastly outproduced the Germans.

This seems a bit odd, since once the Soviet Union got rolling, Germany could not come close to out-producing the SOviets. Many histories make such a big deal out of the "russian steamroller." How can they have equal ability... I must be overlooking something. Historians also make a note of the massive number of tanks produced by the Union compared to Nazi Germany as if Germany couldn't match it. This article speask to the contrary it seems

The Soviet Union did not "vastly outproduce" Germany once albert speer fully mobilized Germany for war in 1942, rather than wasting resouces making consumer goods. The problem is that by that time Germany is already outnumbered and even at equal production Germany can not hold the front, (remember the n-squared law) while Germany also had a number of other commitments (battle of atlantic, africa, west front) while Russia did not.

Also the number of raw equipment produced can be misleading, as the quality of German equipment is often better (and hence more expensive) like how a panther matchs up to a T-34/85. The super-magical-weapon programs also ate up a lot of German resources that could be better used.

[acesand8s]

Germany 14.4%
USSR 14.0%

This seems a bit odd, since once the Soviet Union got rolling, Germany could not come close to out-producing the SOviets. Many histories make such a big deal out of the "russian steamroller." How can they have equal ability... I must be overlooking something. Historians also make a note of the massive number of tanks produced by the Union compared to Nazi Germany as if Germany couldn't match it. This article speask to the contrary it seems

For most of the war (until Feb. 1943, after the fall of Stalingrad) Germany maintained a healthy production of consumer goods and did not engage in a total war footing. I think that the UK alone was outproducing the Germans in aircraft by 1941. Germany also had to deal with Allied bombing. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, went on a total war footing at the start and had the benefit of Lend Lease (the Allies imported a great deal of food, allowing the Soviets to concentrate a great amount of their resources towards industry than they would have on their own.

Canada was important in Allied actions in ww2. So was mexico. THis is why i highly doubt the USA and Germany can survive wars on soooooooooo many fronts alone.

As Enigma mentioned, Canada had the fourth largest navy numerically by the end of the war. That was true for two reasons: it had a large number of small hulls (DE's, frigates, corvettes) designed to hunt German subs and the US and UK had destroyed the German/Italian/Japanese navies. The Allies would have to station a large army in Canada to save it from the US. I don't think the French would contribute such a force with the Germans next door. The UK only had a few divisions immediately available in 1939. It was also willing to let Australia and NZ face the Japanese alone, rather than releasing their units fighting in North Africa, so I doubt the UK will contribute a large force. I imagine that Canada (or at least the southern part) will fall to the US.

[SWPIGWANG]

For one thing, I don't think GB/IJN have the shipping and escort resources avaible to resupply Canada without losing a bulk of them to the Kreigsmarine/USN/USAAF.

And whatever forces they land would be trivial compared to what the US can rise out of their large populations....

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually, according to this article, the US and Germany combined would possess ~ 55% of the world's total 'warmaking potential'. In contrast, the UK, France, Italy, Japan, and the USSR would possess only ~ 35%. I'm assuming the neutral powers stay neutral until dragged into the war kicking and screaming.

I wonder, however, how well the US will be able to make use of this potential. The US activated only 90 divisions during the Second World War (plus 6 Marine divisions). If the US was to utilize its vast industrial potential, it needed a large workforce to remain at home and not fight. Some of this need will be reduced here because there will be no Lend Lease. On the other hand, every worker who becomes a soldier is one more man to equip and one less person to work to equip him.

It doesn't matter nearly as much as you think. The US economy was never fully mobilized during the war, it retained a huge amount of slack capability and workers that could be put to work on military projects, the US had plans by which an army of over 200 divisions could be fielded but didn't ask for it to be implemented because there was no need. The removal of lend lease is quite a huge boon, the US won't need nearly as large a merchant fleet, which is an enormous saving on its own.

Then there's the question of how the US will move these forces. The USN of 1939 vs. the RN and IJN of 1939 seems pretty one-sided. All of the American battleships were built in the 1920s

No, they where all built before that.

(the new North Dakota and South Carolina class ships were still under construction, correct?)

You've got the names reversed, its the North Carolina and South Dakota classes. The first entered service in 1941, though it took some time to fix vibration problumes.

and it would have only four carriers, Lexington, Saratoga, Enterprise, and Yorktown, with the smaller Ranger available and the Wasp to be commissioned in mid-1940.

And the Hornet in late 1941.

Of course, during the Second World War, the US built something like 20 carriers, nearly a dozen of them being the large Essex class. It built ten battleships, about 50 cruisers, and countless destroyers. I doubt the Japanese and the British would be able to match this construction. Do they have any chance of destroying American shipyards or damaging ships under construction?

Nope. Destroying naval shipyards is hard enough when you can hit them with hundreds of four engine heavy bombers, but that's not an option for the world bloc powers. Early in the war the US will be badly outgunned, but the division of the attacking lfeets and the long range to its shore will give it the time needed to build a new fleet. Launching the 1940 two ocean navy plan a year sooner means a huge US fleet arriving in 1942 with parts in 1941. The rest of the world won't be able to match it.

A few other questions also appear. How well will Germany be able to stand up to the Red Army? Will Stalin invade through Poland to get to Germany (in which case France probably survives) or will he sit back and let France and Great Britain fight it out with Germany (in which case France probably falls)? If Germany can knock France out of the war and hit the Soviet Union with a Barbarrosa-like blow, I doubt the Allies (UK, USSR, et al) will pull it off. American Lend Lease was vital in supplying the Soviet Union with food and infrastructure to rebuild. Germany may not be able to defeat the Soviet Union completely, but there certaintly won't be a Hammer and Sickle over the Reichstag.

Germany can withstand the initial attacks pretty well; the Red Army is just plain fucked up in 1939 and the British and French are still in the early stages of rearmament, but its unlikely it can hold out long enough for US relief to arrive.

What I'd expect from this scenario is the US being contained to its own hemisphere while Germany is crushed, followed by the US's new fleet defeating the threat fleets in detail. Negotiated settlement follows. Even with a fully equipped 200 division US Army, acutally conquering anyone but the UK or Japan would be extremely difficult to pull off and Japan would be fucking hard as shit. Everyone major trading powers economy will be royally fucked after this, that is one certain thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Why use German airbases? How feasible would Iceland be for a base against the UK? What's the weather like there?

Iceland is a good thousand miles from the main industrial centers of the UK. That combine with its quite poor weather would make a bombing offensive from it near impossible. But its unlikely to be an issue, since in the early years of the war the UK if anyone is going to hold those islands, and in the late years of the war if it drags on for long enough the US will have the B-36 which can bomb Europe from the continental US.

Supplying Germany seems like a lost cause until UK and France are defeated, at which point supplying Germany becomes largely unnecessary.

Quite correct. Even if the USN could magically sweep the seas of all enemy shipping, land based bombers would still make supply convoys rather suicidal.

[SWPIGWANG]

Quite correct. Even if the USN could magically sweep the seas of all enemy shipping, land based bombers would still make supply convoys rather suicidal.

Are you refering to Germany having france or not?

Land based long range bombers doesn't seem to be all that effective in stopping convoys as norway never stopped lend lease to Russia, not did all the assets in the med. managed to completely seal off malta. While it is true that the German surface fleet in France got repeated hammered in the original war, with the USAAF joined in, I don't believe the RAF have enough aircraft to sustain any sort of blockade.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't really think the USAAF and the Luftwaffe together would have a problem defeating the British, because numbers and industry are on their side quite a bit. I guess the problem is just getting there in teh first plce and maintaining the supply of men and equipment.

One bad thing is the absense of buffers. While I don't think the axis coudl realistically attack the US mainland, Germany is pretty much locked into its possition from the east and the west. Italy didn't do much, and it probably wouldn't do much now in this scenario but be a cost burdeon like it was orignally.

France will probably fall, if everything goes according to the orginal. England will get bombed, but this time it wont have lend-lease support.

Russians get comp stomped back, but doesn't hitler take massive casualties during the winter campaign which allows the russians to start churning out weapons? How can we factor in the timeframe? Will events take about the same time?

[Pablo Sanchez]

Are you refering to Germany having france or not?

Germany won't be able to take France if the entire world minus the US starts moving against them the moment they declare war on Poland. They'll have to maintain strong forces on the Rhine, in the East, and in the Alps (against Italy). One of the reasons that France fell so easily was the concentration of the entire German army against them. Considering the forces arrayed against him in Europe, Hitler will have to remain on the defensive, and he'll still be losing ground steadily.

[Sea Skimmer]

Are you refering to Germany having france or not?

There's no way Germany will be holding France with the Soviet Union and Uk also at war with it.

Land based long range bombers doesn't seem to be all that effective in stopping convoys as norway never stopped lend lease to Russia, not did all the assets in the med.

Acutally convoys to Russia where stopped after the devastation of PQ-17, much of which was by bombers, and even then the Germans only had about 100 operational aircraft in northern Norway hampered by bad weather and shitty air bases. In the Mediterranean airpower made a long habit of slaughtering both sides convoys. Just look at the size of the Pedestal Convoy's escort and it supporting land based airpower from Malta and the losses it still suffered. A convoy entering the North Sea will be practically surrounded by large well-equipped airbases and in any realistic scenario face at least attacks by submarines and medium weight surface forces.

It is not necessary to stop every last ship, only inflict an unacceptable rate of attrition, doing so against a convoy run from the US to Germany, even with Iceland in the hands of the US would be relatively easy.

managed to completely seal off malta. While it is true that the German surface fleet in France got repeated hammered in the original war, with the USAAF joined in, I don't believe the RAF have enough aircraft to sustain any sort of blockade.

No, they easily do and the USN doesn't have nearly good enough fighters to provide an effective defence, even if it did risk its extremely rare and extremely valuable carrier decks on such a mission. Risking the battleships and cruisers needed to prevent British and French surface forces from simply destroying the convoys on there own is equally unacceptable, the US needs them all to protect its own lines of trade.

[SWPIGWANG]

Are you refering to Germany having france or not?

There's no way Germany will be holding France with the Soviet Union and Uk also at war with it.

I'm not so sure about this, though it is probably true. At 1939, I don't any of the three land powers is capable of effective offensive action against Germany. Instead of going for poland, a lucky attack on france before Russia could crush poland might be possible. Consider the ineffectiveness of the Red army in finland I doubt Stalin can advance rapidly enough to press Germany before it can send its forces back east to block the advance. (replay of WWI and hoping for a luckier west front draw)

I have an low opinion of the Itallian army and would maintain it until I see evidence that they can be anything greater than a bit player.

If Germany fails its gamble at france I guess it would eventually be grinded down, but it should still last a better part of 4 years, which should be enough for USN to shut down RN and much of IJN. Without additional alliances USN can't reinforce Germany however....

Maybe if franco joined the game...... hmmm.....

It is not necessary to stop every last ship, only inflict an unacceptable rate of attrition, doing so against a convoy run from the US to Germany, even with Iceland in the hands of the US would be relatively easy.

No, they easily do and the USN doesn't have nearly good enough fighters to provide an effective defence, even if it did risk its extremely rare and extremely valuable carrier decks on such a mission. Risking the battleships and cruisers needed to prevent British and French surface forces from simply destroying the convoys on there own is equally unacceptable, the US needs them all to protect its own lines of trade.

I'd agree that resupplying from the north sea is probably almost impossible even with norway under German control. However if going though the west french coast ports while hugging spain I doubt the RAF can effectively strike targets that far away, consider they have to flying over much of france without fighter cover.