Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[Udet]

Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.

In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".

By the way, can you tell me what the difference between your participation and mine here is? Are yours opinions only? Or evidence perhaps? Please let me know.

Was my mentioning of Operation Torch, which among several things featured ~35,000 troops (3rd and 9th Infantry, 2nd Armored) and their equipment transported DIRECTLY from the USA, that is without touching the British bench, as clear indication of the Naval capabilities of the USA just an opinion or evidence?

You believe that with the US absent then Torch happens as it did?

Go back in this thread and read the summary i made of Royal Navy´s losses prior to the end of 1941, and tell me if this loss rate could have been sustained or made up for if the USA says a big "No" to the war. (Oh i was forgetting, would that summary also be considered "opinion" by your rigorious standards...or evidence?)


The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad? What about Kharkov and Kursk in 1943? (Is this an opinion or evidence?)

Yes, the soviets were producing large numbers of tanks, planes and artillery...but you are not going to compare the training program of, say, the VVS with that of the USAF are you?

No USA in Europe, no 8th, 9th 15th Air Forces...therefore the bulk of the Luftwaffe remains in the East, as opposed to the significant re-deployment of Jagdgeschwadern that took place during the second half of 1943 and 1944, when a significant number of fighter squadrons were brought west to attempt dealing with the USAF operations.

Supplies shipped to Nigeria? I am not sure of the potential of the Royal Navy in this regard...without the USA involved, i do not know if they can take care of the whole business on their own.


Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aeria cover.


You are suggesting the size of the Flak and Radar systems of the air defence of the Reich had the same size in terms of men and material committed observed for 1942 than it did for late 1943 and throughout 1944?

Are so sure that with -again and again- 8th, 9th and 15th AF´s absent, the RAF has the potential to pound German industry and civilians with the same intensity consequence of the presence of both RAF and USAF? No Super Free Bird...no USAF and the RAF has to some real nasty choices to make...continue bombing only at night -which would be odd for it would imply a direct benefit to the Germans-, or a combination of both daylight and nocturne raids...can they keep up with producing enough fighters, bombers and ships?

 

[syscom3]

Udet, the Brits were on the offensive in Africa after El Alamein, and would have eventually beat the Germans (in Africa), simply because the KM and Italians could not supply their forces. Even if the Torch never came off, the Commonwealth was in a position of getting stronger, qualitatively and quantitativly as compared to the Axis forces in the Med.

As for the LW contribution in Russia.... it was still another story of too little and too late. The Russian AF was simply going to beat the LW with numbers alone. The LW was not going to influence the campaigns in any menaingfull way.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aeria cover.

I didn't know the Americans supplied convoy escorts for the Halifax - UK route. Afiak it was the Canadians in the west and the Brits in the east.

The Americans were hard pressed to escort the convoys in their own waters.

British controlled merchant shipping over 1,600 GRT (number/in thousands of gross tons)
3Sep39 2,999/17,784
30Sep40 3,75721,373
30Sep41 3,608/20,552
31Dec41 3,616/20,693

Thus, despite the 'success' of the U-Boat force in 1940 (relative to its performance in 1941 and 1942) it had no appreciable effect in reducing the size of the British merchant fleet.

Numbers of ships arriving and losses in North Atlantic convoys inbound to Britain (ships arriving/losses)
1939 700/5 (7.1%)
1940 5,434/133 ((2.5%)
1941 5,923/153 (2.6%)
1942 4,798/80 (1.7%)
1943 5,667/87 (1.5%)
1944 7,410/8 (0.1%)

 

[Glider]

The German AA guns and radars would have had to stay in place to defend against the night bombers. So yes they would would have had to increase during the war as time progressed.
As the war progressed the ability of the British to bomb smaller targets also improved. They didn't but thats one of those decisions that would have had to be made.

 

[drgondog]

Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.

In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".

By the way, can you tell me what the difference between your participation and mine here is? Are yours opinions only? Or evidence perhaps? Please let me know.

Was my mentioning of Operation Torch, which among several things featured ~35,000 troops (3rd and 9th Infantry, 2nd Armored) and their equipment transported DIRECTLY from the USA, that is without touching the British bench, as clear indication of the Naval capabilities of the USA just an opinion or evidence?

Absent US involvement what stops Germans for reinforcing Rommel, or just as importantly what frees Brit and Commonwealth troops up for continent.

You believe that with the US absent then Torch happens as it did?

I sure don't

Go back in this thread and read the summary i made of Royal Navy´s losses prior to the end of 1941, and tell me if this loss rate could have been sustained or made up for if the USA says a big "No" to the war. (Oh i was forgetting, would that summary also be considered "opinion" by your rigorious standards...or evidence?)

My concerns are 1943 if the Battle of the Atlantic does not stop from an accelerating tonnage loss is concerned. Does Britain have the means to continue feeding itself. I haven't seen definitive proof that Commonwaelth stops U-Boat attrition of supplies to UK - absent US supplying food, material, surface fleet and merchant fleet from its own inventory


The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad? What about Kharkov and Kursk in 1943? (Is this an opinion or evidence?)

Germans still on offensive, Lend Lease to Russia has accelerated, 8th AF in huge build up drawing increasing inventory from Russia, Allies with US land in Sicily, etc, etc - but no US? how Commonwealth threaten Italy and a southern approach to Germany?

Yes, the soviets were producing large numbers of tanks, planes and artillery...but you are not going to compare the training program of, say, the VVS with that of the USAF are you?

No USA in Europe, no 8th, 9th 15th Air Forces...therefore the bulk of the Luftwaffe remains in the East, as opposed to the significant re-deployment of Jagdgeschwadern that took place during the second half of 1943 and 1944, when a significant number of fighter squadrons were brought west to attempt dealing with the USAF operations.

JG2 and JG26 do just fine on Kanal Front - no invasion there, no daily pressure on Luftwaffe day fighters, NJG's free to concentrate on RAF w/o being re-deployed (and wholesale destroyed) to stop 8th AF deep penetrations

Supplies shipped to Nigeria? I am not sure of the potential of the Royal Navy in this regard...without the USA involved, i do not know if they can take care of the whole business on their own.

All depends on how they balance U-Boat threat in Atlantic, U-Boat threat in Med, surface fleet in Scandinavia and Baltic, etc and what Japan is doing if they avoid war with US

Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aeria cover.

Nor a foregone conclusion that financing for oil, equipment and food anything but cash and carry versus buy on credit?

You are suggesting the size of the Flak and Radar systems of the air defence of the Reich had the same size in terms of men and material committed observed for 1942 than it did for late 1943 and throughout 1944?

Flak and Radar to cover the cooriders and provide layered early warning might be same - but strength of Luftflotte Reich may not be required re;day fighters and those resources allocated to east.

Are so sure that with -again and again- 8th, 9th and 15th AF´s absent, the RAF has the potential to pound German industry and civilians with the same intensity consequence of the presence of both RAF and USAF? No Super Free Bird...no USAF and the RAF has to some real nasty choices to make...continue bombing only at night -which would be odd for it would imply a direct benefit to the Germans-, or a combination of both daylight and nocturne raids...can they keep up with producing enough fighters, bombers and ships?

Stopping night bombing seems intrinsically easier because no real night escort existed to sweep German night fighters - RAF depended on spreading the LW thin, chaff and deception. USAAF was a Blugeon - here is all of me - stop me if you can... and the Germans came close until the Mustang in a single stoke made the Reich's T/E night fighters obsolete in daylight ops, then systematically dismantled the day s/e fighters until the 262 arrived - way too late and too few to matter.

One of the greatest unheralded contributions to the RAF by 8th FC is sytematic destruction of specially equipped and trained night fighters all over Germany - in the air and on the ground... from February 1944 through the end of the war. As an example, when the 355th made a deep penetration fighter sweep on April 5, 1944 (in snowstorms all around Munich) they destroyed 51 and damaged 80+ - mostly twin engine D 217s, Me 110s, Ju 88s. You can argue the numbers but on the night of April 6 the resistance to RAF in the SE would have been far less.

I tend to agree all of Udets points even if the outcome is unknowable. I for one am glad the past is what it was.

 

[Freebird]

Ok just to clear things up a bit. Bill's original question was IF the USA was completely neutral, could the British survive. (and presumably prevent the USSR from falling) I am suggesting that they could, if they made adjustments to the war strategy to reflect the lack of US help. The scenario assumes that Hitler and Tojo are still directing the Axis war strategy, with their strategy unchanged except for the US absence. So that Hitler invades the Balkans in April 6 1941 and Russia on June 22 (So Japan does not enter the war in Dec 1941, as they did so only because negotiations failed in July - Oct 1941)

The biggest problem of course is the shipping lost to U-boats. Glider already mentioned the first key element, using long range aircraft to cover the "Iceland Gap" This, together with the cancelling of the Murmansk convoys, would more than compensate for the loss of the 50 US destroyers. The second part I wrote is the reduction of the # of convoy routes, and the use of rail to move supplies to Russia Egypt.

Really? Not that i really need to present any evidence for it is all out there by the tons for you to grab it.

In reality, i do not really care too much if my participation within the thread has taken place in the form of "opinion".

By the way, can you tell me what the difference between your participation and mine here is? Are yours opinions only? Or evidence perhaps? Please let me know.

Most of this thread is opinions, some if someone claims "facts" or "evidence they should be able to name sources. We both have "opinions" the difference is that I don't dismiss yours as "rubbish" or claim that my opinions are "not subject to doubt"

Was my mentioning of Operation Torch, which among several things featured ~35,000 troops (3rd and 9th Infantry, 2nd Armored) and their equipment transported DIRECTLY from the USA, that is without touching the British bench, as clear indication of the Naval capabilities of the USA just an opinion or evidence? You believe that with the US absent then Torch happens as it did?

The British had enough troops to do "Torch" alone, American participation was needed mainly for political reasons, as they had been waiting for almost a year to enter combat. The US had 6 divisions in "Torch", instead the British could have used the 4 Canadian divisions already waiting in England (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th Armoured) as well as the British 18th division (sent in Nov 1941 to Malaysia because of the Japanese threat) as well as the reformed Highland division (after the original was captured in France)

Go back in this thread and read the summary i made of Royal Navy´s losses prior to the end of 1941, and tell me if this loss rate could have been sustained or made up for if the USA says a big "No" to the war. (Oh i was forgetting, would that summary also be considered "opinion" by your rigorious standards...or evidence?)

No the Summary is "evidence", its historical fact.

So lets go over your "Summary" The Germans managed to sink 3 British Battleships/Battlecruisers from 1939 - 1942, The HMS Royal Oak was sunk in 1939, the HMS Barham was sunk by U-boat on Nov 25 1941, and the HMS Hood was sunk by the Bismark in May 1941. The British commisioned 5 new Battleships, King George V in 1940, Duke of York Prince of Wales in 1941, HMS Anson HMS Howe by Aug of 1942. The British also took control of 2 French Battleships (Paris Courbet) in 1940. From Sept 1939 - Dec 1940 the British lost 2 fleet carriers (Courageous Glorious) and comissioned 2 (Illustrious Formidable) The British lost the HMS Ark Royal in Nov 1941, commisioned fleet carriers HMS Victorious in May 1941 HMS Indomitable in Oct 1941, The British lost 3 escort carriers 1941 -1942 (HMS Audacity Dec '41, HMS Eagle Aug '42 HMS Avenger Nov '42 - total of 41 aircraft cap. on the 3 ships) From 1941 - 1942 they commisioned 10 escort carriers, average 15 aircraft each. They also launched fleet carrier HMS Unicorn in Nov 1941, and had 2 more Implacable class building.

So after accounting for German sinkings, by the end of 1942 the British had 4 more Battleships, 1 more fleet carrier, 6 more escort carriers than they had in Sept 1939.

Remember that in this scenario the Japanese are not embargoed by the USA, which was the reason for entering the war in Dec 1941. They ONLY declared war because of the critical oil shortage. Otherwise they would prefer to consolidate their gains in China in 1941.

So the Repulse, Prince of Wales escort carrier Hermes would not be lost. (Dec '41 - April '42)

The Germans were on the offensive until Stalingrad? What about Kharkov and Kursk in 1943? (Is this an opinion or evidence?)

The Germans were on a Strategic retreat They retreated from Stalingrad, Rostov etc. in early 1943. They tried a counterattack at Kursk, they were routed by the Russians, failed to re-capture Kursk, and proceeded to lose Orel, Kharkov, Zaprozhe, Poltava, Smolensk etc, etc. within the next few months. They didn't GAIN any ground in 1943, only loss retreat.

Yes, the soviets were producing large numbers of tanks, planes and artillery...but you are not going to compare the training program of, say, the VVS with that of the USAF are you?

No, the Russians stressed quantity over quality

No USA in Europe, no 8th, 9th 15th Air Forces...therefore the bulk of the Luftwaffe remains in the East, as opposed to the significant re-deployment of Jagdgeschwadern that took place during the second half of 1943 and 1944, when a significant number of fighter squadrons were brought west to attempt dealing with the USAF operations.

Ok how many fighter squadrons did the LW have in mid 1942, what % were on the western front? ow many squadrons did they have by the end of 1943 and what % were in the west? I don't deny that the Germans will have more air power in the east by the end of 1943, it will slow down the Russian advance but it won't reverse it. That's my opinion of course, you obviously disagree, others will make up their own minds.

Supplies shipped to Nigeria? I am not sure of the potential of the Royal Navy in this regard...without the USA involved, i do not know if they can take care of the whole business on their own.

Of course they can, they shipped all the supplies on British ships, with British escort for the Western Desert armies completely around the Cape which took 3 to 4 times more shipping than from Halifax to Nigeria.

The Americans were unprepared for submarine warfare and had their own problems dealing with U-boats (ever heard of the "Happy time"? - 2 million tons lost 1942) their shipping was completely used up moving US troops to Britain the Pacific

Yes, Canadian production would be much higher but is the Royal Navy powerful enough to ensure sea lines remain "reasonably" safe and open to maintain Great Britain´s ability to continue waging the war? The U.S. will not be in the Atlantic escorting convoys and providing essential aerial cover.

Yes, because the US production for the British army was sent to the UK on BRITISH SHIPS, so if its produced in US or Canada it doesn't make a difference. As posted previously, by shortening the shipping routes using more long range aircraft to patrol the Atlantic, the British could easily compensate for US neutrality.

You are suggesting the size of the Flak and Radar systems of the air defence of the Reich had the same size in terms of men and material committed observed for 1942 than it did for late 1943 and throughout 1944?

Are so sure that with -again and again- 8th, 9th and 15th AF´s absent, the RAF has the potential to pound German industry and civilians with the same intensity consequence of the presence of both RAF and USAF? No Super Free Bird...no USAF and the RAF has to some real nasty choices to make...continue bombing only at night -which would be odd for it would imply a direct benefit to the Germans-, or a combination of both daylight and nocturne raids...can they keep up with producing enough fighters, bombers and ships?

Nobody can be "so sure" what the effect of extra aircraft in the east would be, its only guesswork. As I have said before, the Germans would be able to use more aircraft in the east, but by mid 1943 (when the US bombing really begins to have a sizable effect) it is too late to turn things around in Russia.

 

[Udet]

Just a clarification, but i am sure that was only a typing mistake, the HMS Hood was sunk in 1941 -prior to the entrance of the USA into the war as i´ve been stating-.

But what of all those battleships who took severe battle damage duirng the referred period of time that went on "diabled list" for some time?

For some mora data regarding Jagdgeschwadern involved in Defence of the Reich from mid 1943 and throughout 1944 you can check this discussion we had here a long time ago:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/reichsverteidigung-1375.html

 

[Freebird]

Just a clarification, but i am sure that was only a typing mistake, the HMS Hood was sunk in 1941 -prior to the entrance of the USA into the war as i´ve been stating-.

But what of all those battleships who took severe battle damage duirng the referred period of time that went on "diabled list" for some time?

Yes that was a typo! oops. All the Battleships would have been available at the end of 41' except for Queen Elizabeth Valiant, both badly damaged by the Italian (frogmen) commandos at Alexandria, Egypt Dec '41. (Valiant's repairs took 8 months, Q.E.'s took 18.) If the Japanese are not involved in 1942, the British probably would send Repulse P. of Wales to the Med to replace them. The 2 Carriers damaged (Illustrious Formidable) in the Greek fiasco were both repaired ready by Nov 1941

For some mora data regarding Jagdgeschwadern involved in Defence of the Reich from mid 1943 and throughout 1944 you can check this discussion we had here a long time ago:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/reichsverteidigung-1375.html

Udet thanks for the thread info. I should just clarify this I'm saying that there would be a GOOD chance that the Russians could beat Germany, but how the end game would work out for the British is another matter.
Assume that if in my hypothesis the British do support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The British Victory would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to end the war AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia.

***edited for clarification***

I don't think the US UK have ANY chance of beating Germany if Russia is not in the war.

(Until one side builds the A-bomb of course!)

And if the UK is not in the war, I don't think Russia can survive past the spring of '42, long before the US can offer any real help. (I don't think they could get any significant amount of supplies to Russia without British help) With Russia knocked out, the US faces Japan Germany, a stalemate is probably the best they could hope for.

For the British to succeed with USA neutral it assumes that the British recognise in 1940 the limitations that they have with no US help and plan accordingly. The British had a very nasty habit of leaving their Tanks, Artillery equipment all over the place (Dunkirk, Greece, Tobruk, Singapore etc.) It was not so much of a problem with US help. If they don't send ground troops to Greece the whole situation in N. Africa changes.


As I said earlier it makes the most sense to use the rail system instead of having your ships make a 4 or 5 month round-trip to Egypt via the Cape. Can you imagine if the US had to ship material from NY to LA via Panama? Or if Germany had to ship supplies reinforcements to Russia via the Med Black sea?

My theory was that they can stay in the war and supply Russia until the end of '42, but by mid '43 the lack of US help begins to take its toll on the Soviets, especially without the US airforce. I don't think the Germans could turn the war around to beat the Soviets, I think it's more likely that Russia would be able to win (although much more slowly) or there possibley would be a stalemate in Poland/Ukraine, with neither side strong enough to push the other back.

I think the British putting so many resources into the heavy bombing campaign was a big mistake, especially in 1941.

Here's another thought, if Germany had better strategic planning, some of my points might be VITAL for the Allies to win, even WITH USA in the war.

Just out of interest Udet, (or anyone else) what do you think were the 5 or 6 biggest mistakes that Hitler made in planning the war?

I figured the Allies would have had much more trouble if:

1. The Germans started the big U-boat build up much earlier.
2. They recruited anti-Soviet troops partisans in the Ukraine
3. They started Barbarossa at about early April '41 not late June. (maybe send only 10 - 12 divisions to the Balkans)
4. They realized the importance of capturing Suez/Persia put more effort
5. They planned with Japan the attack against Russia, if the Japanese didn't have a treaty with Russia, the Soviets couldn't have used the far-east troops in the winter of '41-'42

 

[drgondog]

Ok just to clear things up a bit. Bill's original question was IF the USA was completely neutral, could the British survive. (and presumably prevent the USSR from falling) I am suggesting that they could, if they made adjustments to the war strategy to reflect the lack of US help. The scenario assumes that Hitler and Tojo are still directing the Axis war strategy, with their strategy unchanged except for the US absence. So that Hitler invades the Balkans in April 6 1941 and Russia on June 22 (So Japan does not enter the war in Dec 1941, as they did so only because negotiations failed in July - Oct 1941)

QUOTE]

Freebird - I don't really take any of this discussion as 'improbable' or unfeasible. I think you and Glider and Plan_D have arrived at some good points. But if US stayed entirely Neutral - and btw I mean strictly neutral, neither supplying the Axis or Allies in any way - and Japan does enter the war but bypasses American territory and attacks Great Britain's interests, then the Brit navy is probably defeated in Pacific... as starters.

In my opinion that exposes the Middle East as sole supply of sufficient petroleum and only Canada as a supplier of food and manufactured goods from the Americas. As magnificent a country as Canada is and was, that isn't a lot of the necessary 'stuff' to add to Britain's other capabilities.

In my opinion the Middle East is subject to two major potential thrusts at that point and I still question ability of Britain to defeat Germany and Britain had they co-ordinated resources to attack Egypt and Suez.

It is all speculation, but I haven't seen any convincing scenarios which enables Britain to sustain and defeat any such pressure from both Japan and Germany and Italy in that area. It was a close thing as it was in real life.

The figure I read in the past that suggested GB needed 1,000,000 tons per day of supplies still nags at me - particularly if Japanese submarine fleet combines with German and Italian... and Japanes Carrier Battle groups show up in Atlantic.

Just a different set of operating conditions but in my question - If US guaranteed to stay Neutral unless America itself is attacked - let's say a miracle occurred and Roosevelt LOST the 1940 election.

So, under my strict neutrality scenario as I describe it above I remain unconvinced that Commonwealth survives. This isn't a wish for America to be loved, nor is it a posture of American superiority.

I simply believe that the war was too close to being either 'lost' (in context of defeating Japan by 1946-1947) in 1943, before we had fully ramped up in the US. Even if the Japanese had been lucky enough to catch the Carriers in port and pursued the third wave to take out our sub bases and POL - Oahu and Hawaii would have been toast. It would have taken a long time to regain that foothold in the Pacific.

We could have done nothing to protect Australia - SW Pacific gone. No Midway, no Guadalcanal, no defeat of Japs in new Guinea.

Had that simple set of circumstances occurred it is probable that the US adopts a Japan First philosophy relative to channeling our assets. Germany becomes less important when we lose American ALL strongholds in Pacific.

I could still make a case for the Allies winning - but when you change two outcomes - namely Carriers out/subs destroyed at Pearl the road to Japan must be at least a year or more longer, maybe much more - and a lot less resources go to Europe at least until we get Hawaii back. Admiral King was not the only one on Joint Chiefs who felt Japan First as the circumstances existed on December 7.

Back to the thesis. If US does not a.) lift a finger, b.) sell one ford automobile, c.) one drop of oil, d.) ship anything to the East as a Neutral..and agrees a non-agression treaty with Japan.. unfold your thoughts from there? Remember this is a what if that never happened than god - but it represents the ultimate 'what if US stays out"??

Regards,

Bill

Then you

 

[Glider]

Freebird - I don't really take any of this discussion as 'improbable' or unfeasible. I think you and Glider and Plan_D have arrived at some good points. But if US stayed entirely Neutral - and btw I mean strictly neutral, neither supplying the Axis or Allies in any way - and Japan does enter the war but bypasses American territory and attacks Great Britain's interests, then the Brit navy is probably defeated in Pacific... as starters.

I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses.
Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.
If the worst came to the worst, then as I mentioned in my earlier postings, the British would have had to take the decision to abandon our areas in the far east and concentrate everything on the Atlantic and the Middle east.

In my opinion the Middle East is subject to two major potential thrusts at that point and I still question ability of Britain to defeat Germany and Britain had they co-ordinated resources to attack Egypt and Suez.

Its certainly a risk and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who said that had Germany concentrated on the Middle East instead of Russia they sttod an excellent chance of winning the war but they didn't. Germany spared everything it could to support the Desert war whilst attacking Russia. The British would have been able to supply more resources to the Middle East had they not been forced to fight in the Far East.

It is all speculation, but I haven't seen any convincing scenarios which enables Britain to sustain and defeat any such pressure from both Japan and Germany and Italy in that area. It was a close thing as it was in real life.

Close I agree, but we did hold the Middle East with admittadly the material support of the USA but I believe that we would have won without this help. The Lee Grants probably made the biggest difference. However additional resources would have made at least as big a difference.

The figure I read in the past that suggested GB needed 1,000,000 tons per day of supplies still nags at me - particularly if Japanese submarine fleet combines with German and Italian... and Japanes Carrier Battle groups show up in Atlantic.

Japans submarines never achieved much and I doubt that they would have made a huge difference. The Carrier groups would have been a killer blow without doubt, but its a long way from Japan to the Atlantic and where are their bases, their support and infrastructure?
Would the Japanese leave themselves almost totally defenceless? I don't think so.

So, under my strict neutrality scenario as I describe it above I remain unconvinced that Commonwealth survives. This isn't a wish for America to be loved, nor is it a posture of American superiority.

In brief the British hold out, Canada builds up its production as it did safe from attack. The longer the war goes on the Germans will still be bled white by the Russians and the Commonwealth slowly builds up its strength.

Back to the thesis. If US does not a.) lift a finger, b.) sell one ford automobile, c.) one drop of oil, d.) ship anything to the East as a Neutral..and agrees a non-agression treaty with Japan.. unfold your thoughts from there? Remember this is a what if that never happened than god - but it represents the ultimate 'what if US stays out"??

If the USA agrees a non agression pact with Japan then, the Japanese wouldn't have attacked the British for the reasons listed earlier, i.e. they had other priorities,

 

[drgondog]

If Japan knows we stay neutral (i.e don't fuss about China or invasion of Indo China) - they go for the oil in Indonesia and Britain is a 'blocker'.

We agree that our viewpoints are different and that's ok... but the scenario of Japan NOT attcking Indonesia and scooping up Dutch oil is as unlikely as us staying neutral..

Having started with the strictly neutral thesis however, gives Japan that option.

Oil was their number one priority and steel was second in the glorious expansion of the Empire.

I imagine a dialogue between Germany and japan could have been initiated to arrive at mutual interests in Eastern Russia in exchange for a little help in the Indian Ocean/Suez area - and oh, by the way let's split up Africa if you can help in the Atlantic.

We (Germany) will control from just east of Moscow to North Africa, you (Japan) can have Pacific and Siberia plus what ever you can take and hold in China.

None of these are impossible scenarios of collaboration. No more impossible than US staying out of the war

 

[Freebird]

Freebird - I don't really take any of this discussion as 'improbable' or unfeasible. I think you and Glider and Plan_D have arrived at some good points. But if US stayed entirely Neutral - and btw I mean strictly neutral, neither supplying the Axis or Allies in any way - and Japan does enter the war but bypasses American territory and attacks Great Britain's interests, then the Brit navy is probably defeated in Pacific... as starters.

Just a different set of operating conditions but in my question - If US guaranteed to stay Neutral unless America itself is attacked - let's say a miracle occurred and Roosevelt LOST the 1940 election.

So, under my strict neutrality scenario as I describe it above I remain unconvinced that Commonwealth survives. This isn't a wish for America to be loved, nor is it a posture of American superiority.

Certainly. Just as my position that the UK could tip the balance against Germany is NOT a boast that "We didn't need the USA" but more like "what the hell would we have done if you wern't there"![/B]

I simply believe that the war was too close to being either 'lost' (in context of defeating Japan by 1946-1947) in 1943, before we had fully ramped up in the US. Even if the Japanese had been lucky enough to catch the Carriers in port and pursued the third wave to take out our sub bases and POL - Oahu and Hawaii would have been toast. It would have taken a long time to regain that foothold in the Pacific.

We could have done nothing to protect Australia - SW Pacific gone. No Midway, no Guadalcanal, no defeat of Japs in new Guinea.

Had that simple set of circumstances occurred it is probable that the US adopts a Japan First philosophy relative to channeling our assets. Germany becomes less important when we lose American ALL strongholds in Pacific.

I could still make a case for the Allies winning - but when you change two outcomes - namely Carriers out/subs destroyed at Pearl the road to Japan must be at least a year or more longer, maybe much more - and a lot less resources go to Europe at least until we get Hawaii back. Admiral King was not the only one on Joint Chiefs who felt Japan First as the circumstances existed on December 7.

Back to the thesis. If US does not a.) lift a finger, b.) sell one ford automobile, c.) one drop of oil, d.) ship anything to the East as a Neutral..and agrees a non-agression treaty with Japan.. unfold your thoughts from there? Remember this is a what if that never happened than god - but it represents the ultimate 'what if US stays out"??

Regards,

Bill

Then you

Ok I will post some theories on Shipping, Torch, Med, Airwar 1943-44 etc, later today {Sorry this J.O.B. thingy keeps interfering with more interesting stuff LOL!}

Also another point- Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for anything approaching a British Victory would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.


About Japan, Glider is exactly correct, Japan's LAST option was for war with USA in 1942, they wanted to finish China first, at least 12 - 18 months work. I have an excellent book "70 days to Singapore", by Stanley Falk USAF historian. He quotes Japanese sources on the Imperial conference of July 1941 deciding that because of the crippling sanctions, war with US UK was the only option. However, they were prepared to call off the attacks as late as Nov 1941, if agreement could be reached with the Dutch. (who because of US pressure refused to sell oil to Japan)

I find it hard to believe that the US could have a treaty with Japan, considering its interest in the Philippines. A more likely scenario is that the US would simply declare that it would stay out of foreign wars (ie Europe, China etc.) But EVEN IF the US had a treaty with Japan, I don't think they would trust the USA not to change its mind, the Japanese conference decided that they couldn't risk attacking Dutch British territories with the US sitting on Japan's supply line (ie. B-17s etc in Manila) I posted earlier, even in the unlikely event that Japan DID decide to attack Malaya/ Dutch E.I., it would not be until Dec 1942 at the very earliest (remember no pressure for oil) which would be AFTER the Nov 1942 congress elections. They couldn't risk an anti-Japanese faction taking control reversing policy.

The one BIG consequence of this policy however is that say by 1944 the Japanese would, or be well on the way defeating China, which would bring them into later conflict with Russia. (Assuming that Russia is on its way to defeating Germany.)

Just to clarify, I'm assuming that you mean we "Alter history" in 1940, (say the isolationists win a vote in congress.) So that any aircraft already ordered paid for by Britain or France before the war would be delivered, (ie DB-7s etc) but if you postulate total neutrality then no further sales would be allowed after war breaks out. (ie they cancel the "Cash carry policy). I don't think they could take payment and not deliver the goods already ordered, could they? We'll sue! LOL I don't think we can go back any farther than 1940, because otherwise we would change the outcome of the BoF or BoB. Assume that the BoF BoB takes place as historical, in 1940. The British do not get the 50 destroyers or "Roosevelt's care package" of July 1940. (guns, ammo etc.) Is that about what you mean?

 

[Glider]

If Japan knows we stay neutral (i.e don't fuss about China or invasion of Indo China) - they go for the oil in Indonesia and Britain is a 'blocker'.

We agree that our viewpoints are different and that's ok... but the scenario of Japan NOT attcking Indonesia and scooping up Dutch oil is as unlikely as us staying neutral..

Having started with the strictly neutral thesis however, gives Japan that option.

Oil was their number one priority and steel was second in the glorious expansion of the Empire.

I imagine a dialogue between Germany and japan could have been initiated to arrive at mutual interests in Eastern Russia in exchange for a little help in the Indian Ocean/Suez area - and oh, by the way let's split up Africa if you can help in the Atlantic.

We (Germany) will control from just east of Moscow to North Africa, you (Japan) can have Pacific and Siberia plus what ever you can take and hold in China.

None of these are impossible scenarios of collaboration. No more impossible than US staying out of the war

I believe tht the key decision/event is 'Does the USA embago oil'?
If they do, then there is no non agression pact and Japan attacks.
If they don't, then Japan doesn't need to attack the British/Dutch and the British concentrate on the Middle East/Atlantic.

 

[drgondog]

Also another point- Suppose as in my hypothesis the British DO support Russia enough to tip the balance in the east. The only way for anything approaching a British Victory would depend on Germany coming to an agreement to a truce with Britain AFTER they have lost the Eastern war but BEFORE Germany is occupied by Russia. Very tricky to say the least.
The British might make an offer to moderate, intelligent, German Generals ie (Rommel, Guderian, Manstien) something like this: Arrest the top Nazi's (Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Eichmann etc) for trial, then and ONLY THEN the UK would consider a truce with a new German Government, with the Germans moving back to approx. their 1914 borders. And yes this would be considered a double-cross by Stalin, but I don't know if Russia would continue the war if they got their territory back Britain is no longer fighting + the Japanese are threatening in the East. the only real acceptable outcome for the UK (absent of US involvement) is a stalemate between Germany Russia, total domination of the continent by Russia is almost as bad as by Germany. This would be a continuation of Britain's 19th century "Continental policy" of preventing any one power from dominating all of Europe.

An interesting insight and I agree the political 'balance of power' doctrine for all Euro leaders would lead to these type considerations


About Japan, Glider is exactly correct, Japan's LAST option was for war with USA in 1942, they wanted to finish China first, at least 12 - 18 months work. I have an excellent book "70 days to Singapore", by Stanley Falk USAF historian. He quotes Japanese sources on the Imperial conference of July 1941 deciding that because of the crippling sanctions, war with US UK was the only option. However, they were prepared to call off the attacks as late as Nov 1941, if agreement could be reached with the Dutch. (who because of US pressure refused to sell oil to Japan)

I find it hard to believe that the US could have a treaty with Japan, considering its interest in the Philippines. A more likely scenario is that the US would simply declare that it would stay out of foreign wars (ie Europe, China etc.) But EVEN IF the US had a treaty with Japan, I don't think they would trust the USA not to change its mind, the Japanese conference decided that they couldn't risk attacking Dutch British territories with the US sitting on Japan's supply line (ie. B-17s etc in Manila) I posted earlier, even in the unlikely event that Japan DID decide to attack Malaya/ Dutch E.I., it would not be until Dec 1942 at the very earliest (remember no pressure for oil) which would be AFTER the Nov 1942 congress elections. They couldn't risk an anti-Japanese faction taking control reversing policy.

Here again reality creeps into the discussion vis a vis threat scenarios that Japan must consider absent a treaty with US.

The one BIG consequence of this policy however is that say by 1944 the Japanese would, or be well on the way defeating China, which would bring them into later conflict with Russia. (Assuming that Russia is on its way to defeating Germany.)

Absent our involvement in German and Japanese affairs and no reason to suppose otherwise (we didn't declare war on Japan for China, nor Indo China, we didn't declare war of germany or Italy despite their attacks on Poland/Ethipia/Britain/France - a Neutrality pact with a 1940 election booting Roosevelt out is 'possible'

Given a 'possible' lessening of the US as a threat to Japanese interests, then Japan could have engaged in a planning proposal dialogue w/Germany well before barbarossa.. and possibly engae Russia at same time. If not, those resources dedicated to Indonesia and Wake and the Phillipines are available to boot Brits out of Indonesia and put the Imperial Fleet in western Indian Ocean.. so picj June 1941 as a possible collaboration date with mutual interests between Germany and Japan.

Just to clarify, I'm assuming that you mean we "Alter history" in 1940, (say the isolationists win a vote in congress.) So that any aircraft already ordered paid for by Britain or France before the war would be delivered, (ie DB-7s etc) but if you postulate total neutrality then no further sales would be allowed after war breaks out. (ie they cancel the "Cash carry policy). I don't think they could take payment and not deliver the goods already ordered, could they? We'll sue! LOL I don't think we can go back any farther than 1940, because otherwise we would change the outcome of the BoF or BoB. Assume that the BoF BoB takes place as historical, in 1940. The British do not get the 50 destroyers or "Roosevelt's care package" of July 1940. (guns, ammo etc.) Is that about what you mean?

I would say that any aircraft shipped before innauguration in January 21, 1941would be shipped and that new Prez stops all future shipments as a belligerent act similar to WWI that ultimately brought us into a 'european war'.

In that context I think Britain does get the 50 destroyers, but none of the Mustangs, Liberators, P-40s, Bostons, Grant tanks (as sorry as they were) etc that flowed out in early 1941 through Pearl Harbor.

I do imagine that our build up would continue at th same furious pace bcause we may have had even some common sense, but you never know - Clinton for example stopped the Reagan/Bush build up and cut our forcs by 50%.

It has been intresting to speculate on the alternate universes.

 

[Freebird]

I think the major divergence of opinion is what happens with Japan. If the USA is strictly neutral, then in my opinion Japan wouldn't attack as they wouldn't have been forced into a corner re oil and scrap metal which the USA embargoed. As a result, the British wouldn't have had any losses.
Japan may have been party to agreements with Germany and Italy but they didn't declare war on Britain when Germany did, or when the Italians did. The Japanese only declared war on the British, when they attacked the USA. There was no reason for Japan to attack Britain, their main preocupation was consolidating their grip on China.
If the worst came to the worst, then as I mentioned in my earlier postings, the British would have had to take the decision to abandon our areas in the far east and concentrate everything on the Atlantic and the Middle east.


Its certainly a risk and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who said that had Germany concentrated on the Middle East instead of Russia they stood an excellent chance of winning the war but they didn't. Germany spared everything it could to support the Desert war whilst attacking Russia. The British would have been able to supply more resources to the Middle East had they not been forced to fight in the Far East.

If the USA agrees a non agression pact with Japan then, the Japanese wouldn't have attacked the British for the reasons listed earlier, i.e. they had other priorities,

Glider is correct, Japan's first priorities in '41 '42 are on the mainland. l think there is a danger for UK in Malaya, but I think only from mid 1943 or later. (absent oil embargo) The Japanese objectives were 1.) China 2.) Russian Far East 3.) S. China Sea island groups (Philippines, Borneo etc.)

You are correct about the danger to the Soviet Far East though, more Japanese troops in Manchuria would prevent the Soviets from bringing troops to the west. One of the major key points for the British is the (mis) handling of the Med theatre, Spring 1941. It was a very close decision, whether to send troops to Greece, I would hope that the lack of vehicles tanks from the US would make the UK cancel the thought of sending the troops to Greece, as the Greeks didn't really even want the UK troops. (UK lost 150+ tanks 8,000 vehicles in Greece!) If the UK makes the correct choice, they keep up the pressure in Libya, they could clean it up by the end of 1941. (Rommel arrives in Mar '41, the loss of UK troops to Greece allows him to push them back) As to your question about re-inforcing Rommel, the Axis had a hard time in the 2nd half of '41, because of Malta's interference with Italian convoys. Not much German air power was available to attack Malta, as it mostly went east for Barbarossa. This is part of the reason that Auchinleck was able to force Rommel to retreat at "Crusader" (Nov 41) because Rommel's fuel supply was short after so many Italian tankers were hit during the summer. It's only in the beginning of '42 that Hitler sends the LW to neutralize Malta, then the Africa Korps begins to push back against the British

The British should however send the NZ division to Crete, with 30-40 tanks + more guns aircraft they can beat off the German parachute attack. With Crete in British control, Hitler would be forced to pull perhaps 4 - 6 divisions from Barbarossa, to guard against the British attempting a landing in Greece. (Hitler was always paranoid about Greece Norway) Assuming that the British can send a few hundred more aircraft to Russia in the fall 1941, along with the missing 4 - 6 divisions, this should come close to neutralizing the threat from Japan.

Another thing to consider is that if the USA and Britain were not planning joint strategy, the situation at Singapore would change as well. It was the British plan to hold Singapore as a base for future operations with the US against Japan. With the US neutral, as Glider said, the UK might not sacrifice the Eastern fleet to try to save Singapore. (Malaya's value as a source for rubber is not as important, because by this time the UK/Allies contol the Belgian supply in the Congo) And remember that even if the US treaty with Japan is written in Blood they still can't count on it holding up after Nov 1942.

 

[Freebird]

I would say that any aircraft shipped before innauguration in January 21, 1941would be shipped and that new Prez stops all future shipments as a belligerent act similar to WWI that ultimately brought us into a 'european war'.

In that context I think Britain does get the 50 destroyers, but none of the Mustangs, Liberators, P-40s, Bostons, Grant tanks (as sorry as they were) etc that flowed out in early 1941 through Pearl Harbor.

I do imagine that our build up would continue at th same furious pace bcause we may have had even some common sense, but you never know - Clinton for example stopped the Reagan/Bush build up and cut our forcs by 50%.

It has been intresting to speculate on the alternate universes.

Canada actually had an aircraft company that was a licencee of North American. (making "Texan" trainers, called "Harvard" in Canada)

Assuming that an ardently "isolationist" President congress are elected in 1940, the British would have to tell Kindelburger that he will need to produce the Mustang in Canada, or licence it there to be built. Since Kindelburger had approached the British in early 1940 because he needed business for his company, I bet he would't be too adverse to opening a plant in Canada, especially since they had put all of that effort into the Mustang development. ( keeps all of his employees working) The Mustang prototype first flew in Oct 1940 as I understand. If he wants to make Mitchell's in Canada too that would be just fine!

And we promise there will be no visa hassles at the border LOL!
(Hey this Green card looks fake to me, eh Chico?)

 

[drgondog]

Canada actually had an aircraft company that was a licencee of North American. (making "Texan" trainers, called "Harvard" in Canada)

Assuming that an ardently "isolationist" President congress are elected in 1940, the British would have to tell Kindelburger that he will need to produce the Mustang in Canada, or licence it there to be built. Since Kindelburger had approached the British in early 1940 because he needed business for his company, I bet he would't be too adverse to opening a plant in Canada, especially since they had put all of that effort into the Mustang development. ( keeps all of his employees working) The Mustang prototype first flew in Oct 1940 as I understand. If he wants to make Mitchell's in Canada too that would be just fine!

Cute Freebird - and would have been a nice scenario but the Mustang was proposed to Brits to consider a new and better design than the P-40 and in less time than it would take to set up the P-40 production that the RAF wished NAA to do...

If this was real life - the Mustang would have been built as if Roosevelt was going to continue - but the dwatted Repub new guy would have forbade tooling, etc to flow to Canada, had such a thing been proposed after Jan 21, 1941..

just assume this clown was Admiral Kings ugly brother who did not like the Brits with even more intensity! Thankfully there are more WWI vets in Senate and Congress that don't like the Germans and neutral on Japan - but they also remember Japan was our ally in WWI

And we promise there will be no visa hassles at the border LOL!
(Hey this Green card looks fake to me, eh Chico?)

LOL - just say I am glad this reality is not part of my universe..

I DO recall the Kaiser tried to con Mexico into attacking US in WWI in exchange for Texas, California and Border States... so maybe Green Card check is still on?

 

[Freebird]

Anyways Bill, I'll continue with my theory on the 12 ideas.

#6. Commonwealth production would have to be increased to make up for U.S. neutrality

Canadian, Australian, S. African New Zealand all had manufacturing capacity that was not used in the war, as the huge US production supplied enough for all of the Allies. Examples such as the Sentinal tank Wirraway from Australia, Ram Grizzly tank in Canada are examples of Commonwealth projects that were started but ultimately not needed because of the huge US manufacturing capabilities


About the Mustang....
Yes I assume that no parts, tools etc. could be exported from the USA, but I don't think he could prevent US citizens from leaving the country? Basically a few weeks after North American demonstrates the Mustang, King's evil twin (LOL!) wins the election, {Stimson or Sen. Nye would also fit the bill!} and both the British Kindelburger realize their deal is about to be torpedoed, as presumably the pres elect is promising to ban weapon sales etc. Kindelburger would probably prefer to produce the fighter at a subsidiary plant in Canada, rather than lose the business, as he didn't know at this point if the USAAF would buy any of his aircraft, either the Mustang or Mitchell. He would also realize that if he didn't produce it for the British, their technical experts who had evaluated the designs prototypes would go back to London design very similar aircraft with similar features. (copyright infringment? Sue me! LOL!) Even if he couldn't take any tools or parts, his staff technical plans could escape to Canada before I-day. (Inauguration)

** {We could make this into a movie, Kindelburger staff loading up their Studebaker with blueprints fleeing across the 49th parallel to save the free world! LOL. Keystone Kops pursuing of course!}**

The Montreal plant that was already making Texans (Harvards) would be re-tooled to make the new fighter, no tools or parts from USA.

Regardless, unless Kindelburger staff are locked up (4th amendment?? ) the canadian subsidiary could produce the aircraft. If all else fails, they would be able to produce the Spit V etc instead. Commonwealth production would have to fill the lend-lease gap to Russia if the US is neutral, for vehicles, tanks, ammunition, supplies etc. The Canadian plants could also tool up to produce engines as well, I believe the only reason they didn't produce many is because of the huge US capacity.

Actually quite a few US companies had plants in Canada prior to 1941, Boeing had a plant in Vancouver, Fairchild had a plant in Montreal, GM Ford as well, leading to some interesting problems, as there was a huge flow between the 2 countries, and still is today.

Canada had become one of the world's leading automobile manufacturers in the 1920s, owing to the presence of branch-plants of American automakers in Ontario. In 1938, Canada's automotive industry ranked fourth in the world in the output of passenger car and trucks, even though a large part of its productive capacity remained idle because of the Depression. During the war, this industry was put to good use, building all manner of war materiel, aircraft vehicles, in fact Canada became the second largest (next to the United States) producer of wheeled vehicles during the war. Canada's output of nearly 800,000 trucks, for instance, exceeded the combined total truck production of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Rivals Ford Canada and General Motors of Canada pooled their engineering design teams to produce a standardised vehicle amenable to mass production, the Canadian Military Pattern (CMP) truck, which served throughout the British Commonwealth. Approximately half of the British Army's transport requirements were supplied from Canadian manufacturers. The British Official History referred to these vehicles as Canada's most important contribution to Allied victory.

In addition, Canada produced its own medium tank, the Ram tank. Approximately 16,000 aircraft, including Hurricane fighters, Avro Lancaster and De Havilland Mosquito bombers, were built in Canada. In addition, by the end of 1944, Canadian shipyards had launched naval ships, such as destroyers, frigates, corvettes, and some 345 merchant vessels. But perhaps no Canadian contribution to the Allied war effort was so vital as that made by the metals industries: half of Allied aluminium and ninety percent of Allied nickel was supplied by Canadian sources during the war.

 

[pbfoot]

Freebird you make it sound so easy Canada built aircraft but the quality of the aircraft we built up until the middle of 42 was a far lower standard then the norm .We were learning how to build aircraft and it was a very steep learning curve .

 

[Freebird]

Freebird you make it sound so easy Canada built aircraft but the quality of the aircraft we built up until the middle of 42 was a far lower standard then the norm .We were learning how to build aircraft and it was a very steep learning curve .

I was actually thinking that Britain would supply almost all of the aircraft until '42 anyways, Canada's main contribution would be trucks tanks, in Bill's scenario if the US went completely neutral after BoB (late 1940) it would take 12 - 18 months for Canada get up to speed making new aircraft. What was the problem with Canadian aircraft manufacturing? Was the problem with all Canadian aircraft, ie. Mossie, Hurricane, Lanc, Hampden, Blenheim (Bolingbroke), or just certain types?