Did the US save Europe in WW2?

[syscom3]

The scenario is for the US and Germany to NOT declare war on each other after the Pearl Harbor attack. It was Germany that declared war first, and if they hadnt, it was quite plausable the US would not have intervened to any high degree, the war in Europe.

and:

1) Japan was going to attack the US one way or another, isolationist or no isolationist president. They had to destroy the Pacific fleet at hawaii and secure the sea lanes in SE Asia by removing the US from the PI. Both had to happen and no scenario can ignore that, unless you go really far off topic.

2) It doesnt matter how FDR convinced conrgress to pass his rearming programs, just the fact he did. You place too much emphysis on the isolationists after the outbreak of the war. Once the bombs dropped on Pearl, they changed their tune in a hurry. The only change to my scenario if the buildup hadnt occured, would be the USN delaying their Pacific offensives by a year or so.

 

[Freebird]

The scenario is for the US and Germany to NOT declare war on each other after the Pearl Harbor attack. It was Germany that declared war first, and if they hadnt, it was quite plausable the US would not have intervened to any high degree, the war in Europe.

and:

1) Japan was going to attack the US one way or another, isolationist or no isolationist president. They had to destroy the Pacific fleet at hawaii and secure the sea lanes in SE Asia by removing the US from the PI. Both had to happen and no scenario can ignore that, unless you go really far off topic.

If the US embargos the oil after Japan attacks China (as historical) then I agree it would lead to war.

2) It doesnt matter how FDR convinced conrgress to pass his rearming programs, just the fact he did. You place too much emphysis on the isolationists after the outbreak of the war. Once the bombs dropped on Pearl, they changed their tune in a hurry. The only change to my scenario if the buildup hadnt occured, would be the USN delaying their Pacific offensives by a year or so.

Sorry, there was a misunderstanding, I was replying to Drgondog's scenario IF an isolationist had taken over after the 1940 election which would have changed everything.

Your scenario is quite different. So let me ask you...

US Policy is "Cash Carry" but no lend-lease, correct?

Does the US guarantee Dutch possessions in the far east? (ie East Indies, in return for the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan)

What would the US policy re U-boats be?

 

[syscom3]

US Policy is "Cash Carry" but no lend-lease, correct?

There would be a good ammount of outright aid given to the Commonwealth simply because Hitler WAS the biggest threat. It wouldnt have been unlimited, but it sure would have been plenty. Not enought to make a difference for an invasion of France though.

Does the US guarantee Dutch possessions in the far east? (ie East Indies, in return for the Dutch refusing to sell oil to Japan)

Things unfold in Asia just as they did in real life.

What would the US policy re U-boats be?

A semi-belligerent condition existed prior to Pearl harbor, and it would be even more belligerent afterwards. My estimation is the US would declare the western Atlantic and the Gulf as a "nazi free zone" and tell germany that their U-Boats would be attacked without arning if found in those waters.

 

[Freebird]

Ok, so basically your scenario is "Pacific first", if Germany does not declare war on the USA. There are some interesting possibilities in this scenario then, I am assuming that you mean it would begin on Dec 8 1941, just after "Pearl Harbour", and tha attack on the Phillipines. Correct?

I do think the Allies could have done more in the Pacific, both Britain the US should have been more realistic in the "Germany first" plan, that it would take a 1 1/2 years for the US to get really geared up for war. The whole plan for "Sledgehammer" was totally unrealistic and "Bolero" was not a pressing need as the Pacific defence.

 

[Divplaksnis]

I think that US save Europe because if USA would not help UK then Nazi would occupait it and then take over all Europe.

 

[syscom3]

I do think the Allies could have done more in the Pacific, both Britain the US should have been more realistic in the "Germany first" plan, that it would take a 1 1/2 years for the US to get really geared up for war. The whole plan for "Sledgehammer" was totally unrealistic and "Bolero" was not a pressing need as the Pacific defence.

There really want a lot more the allies could have done in the PTO and CBI even without material and men going to the ETO/MTO.

The Pacific was foremost a logistics war, and untill bases and ports could be developed, nothing was going to happen sooner

 

[Freebird]

"Pacific First" scenario

There really want a lot more the allies could have done in the PTO and CBI even without material and men going to the ETO/MTO.

The Pacific was foremost a logistics war, and untill bases and ports could be developed, nothing was going to happen sooner

I'm not so sure I agree... I think part of the problem was the choice to fight from the East/South East direction, meaning that the US had to take and build up bases in Samoa, Solomons, etc, which also used up the inadequate shipping. If you were to contemplate a "Pacific first" effort I think that approaching from Dutch E Indies/Burma/Australia would be more logical. I would think that with better effort the Allies could hold on to Java/Sumatra or at least make a much more determined fight, instead of letting the Japanese establish themselves. If the US had used 6 or 7 carriers in the Pacific + 2 or 3 British ones, in addition to other fleet elements, they would outnumber the Japanese. With the advantage of defensive land-based aircraft and the "Magic" decoding why could the Allies not have put up a better fight? The US was not in a much better position at "Midway" the new carriers would be another year in coming.

I think that even if the US/UK were to lose a few carriers, as long as they sunk about equal #'s of Japanese then it would be in the Allies favor, as they can out-build Japan.

Syscom, if you were in command (Adm. King! LoL) in the "Pacific First" scenario and were given the directive "stop the Japanese advance, destroy their fleet/army/AF as soon as possible", what would your strategy be?

 

[Freebird]

With all due respect to Mr Kenney: Probably the finest book ever written about the oil industry is by Daniel Yergin, "The Prize." It should be required reading in Washington, if anyone there can read. Regarding the Battle of the Atlantic, " the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war. The Battle of the Atlantic could not have been won if the US had not been in the war. "Almost all of the Allies' needs for 100-octane fuel had to be met by American production-almost 90 per cent of the total by 1944." The Allies consumed 7 billion barrels of oil during WW2, 6 billion of those barrels came from the US. Most of the tankers that transported that oil across the seas were built in the US. Aside from weapons, food, raw materials and fighting men, does anyone suppose that the Allies without the US could have won the war with only 1 billion barrels of oil. Malta could not have survived to become the launching pad for AC to sever Rommels supply lines without gasoline from the US. Remember the SS Ohio? Where does one think the fuel came from to power Monty's tanks,(many of them made in the US) at El Alamein. It is unrealistic to believe that the Allies could have won the war in Europe without the US.

Renrich, the figure of 6 out of 7 million barrels is about 85%, the US did not have 85% of the world oil reserves in 1941-1945, not even half. The figure for oil consumption only refers to the "Allies" ie UK US, not Soviet. It does not include the oil used in Russia. The main reason that the US % is so high is because the US supply is the closest to Europe, and the UK US had got themselves into such a desperate shipping situation by 1943 that they did not have enough ships to make the longer "round the Cape" voyage for the Persian Gulf oil. My figures have the British "Avgas" refinery capacity at about 85,000 gal/day, but this does not include the East Indies refineries. Also part of the amount supplied to Britain was an exchange for British petroleum from Persia sent to Russia. It was not a very difficult to increase the amount of Avgas produced, the only problem was shipping. The UK Commonwealth never had a shortage of oil or refinery capacity, it was always the amount of shipping that was the limiting factor.

That is why I wrote earlier that the British must use the African/Arabian rail systems to move petroleum (and troops, supplies other raw materials) between the Persian Gulf, India S. Africa to the West African ports, (Lagos, Accra, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Douala, Libreville), thus cutting a 13,000 mile ship's journey to 4,500 miles, which would use only about 1/3 of the shipping on this critical route. It would also save about 2 or 3 months transit time.

 

[syscom3]

I'm not so sure I agree... I think part of the problem was the choice to fight from the East/South East direction, meaning that the US had to take and build up bases in Samoa, Solomons, etc, which also used up the inadequate shipping. If you were to contemplate a "Pacific first" effort I think that approaching from Dutch E Indies/Burma/Australia would be more logical.

That looks good on a map, but the reality is they are so far from the US and UK, it was literally "the other side of the world" when it came to a long long long supply line. It was difficult enough to supply the troops in 1944, let alone in 1942 or 1943 building up for an offensive with no aircraft carriers or airbases close to the Japanese.

I would think that with better effort the Allies could hold on to Java/Sumatra or at least make a much more determined fight, instead of letting the Japanese establish themselves.

And just what do you think the allied forces do during those horrible 6 months at the start of the war. The allies fought with courage and determination but were steamrollered by superior Japanese strategy and tactics.

If the US had used 6 or 7 carriers in the Pacific + 2 or 3 British ones, in addition to other fleet elements, they would outnumber the Japanese.

The US had three in the Pacific with two called in from the Atlantic, leaving only one carrier (the Wasp) available. Plus factor in at least two carriers in port at any given time due to battle damage or refit/supply. The Brits had nothing available in the real war, and would have nothing to offer in this scenario.

With the advantage of defensive land-based aircraft and the "Magic" decoding why could the Allies not have put up a better fight? The US was not in a much better position at "Midway" the new carriers would be another year in coming.

You call Midway and Guadalcanal a less than decisive fight?

I think that even if the US/UK were to lose a few carriers, as long as they sunk about equal #'s of Japanese then it would be in the Allies favor, as they can out-build Japan.

As it actually happened. The US lost four in 1942, added several in 1943 and another dozen in 1944. And that was for fleet carriers.

Syscom, if you were in command (Adm. King! LoL) in the "Pacific First" scenario and were given the directive "stop the Japanese advance, destroy their fleet/army/AF as soon as possible", what would your strategy be?

1st: The sea lanes to Australia were vital and had to be defended at all cost.
2nd: Preserve the carrier forces to defend Hawaii and go on attack as an opportunity arose.
3rd: Contain the Japanese forces at Rabaul
4th: As heavy bombers become available to the AAF, begin systematically attacking the oil refineries of the NEI.

And this is how it did unfold, except for #4.

 

[Freebird]

Pacific First scenario

That looks good on a map, but the reality is they are so far from the US and UK, it was literally "the other side of the world" when it came to a long long long supply line. It was difficult enough to supply the troops in 1944, let alone in 1942 or 1943 building up for an offensive with no aircraft carriers or airbases close to the Japanese.

The support capacity airbases were better in Java/Malaya/India/Australia than were in Solomons/Gilberts/Marshalls

And just what do you think the allied forces do during those horrible 6 months at the start of the war. The allies fought with courage and determination but were steamrollered by superior Japanese strategy and tactics.

Yes I don't disagree that they fought courageously, but I'm thinking more could be done with "ABDA", it should have had an American commander, not Wavell.

The Japanese only had 11 divisions available for Malaya/Java/Borneo/Philippines!

The US had three in the Pacific with two called in from the Atlantic, leaving only one carrier (the Wasp) available. Plus factor in at least two carriers in port at any given time due to battle damage or refit/supply. The Brits had nothing available in the real war, and would have nothing to offer in this scenario.

Yes the British did, they had 3 fleet carriers!!! The HMS Formidable HMS Indomitable were both available in the Indian Ocean in early 1942, + the smaller HMS Hermes.

You call Midway and Guadalcanal a less than decisive fight?

I was talking about the first 5 months of the war.

 

[pbfoot]

That is why I wrote earlier that the British must use the African/Arabian rail systems to move petroleum (and troops, supplies other raw materials) between the Persian Gulf, India S. Africa to the West African ports, (Lagos, Accra, Port Harcourt, Calabar, Douala, Libreville), thus cutting a 13,000 mile ship's journey to 4,500 miles, which would use only about 1/3 of the shipping on this critical route. It would also save about 2 or 3 months transit time.

The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few months

 

[Freebird]

The time spent to build this railway you said would take a couple of months , just imagine the volume of shipping req'd to move the rolling stock , track , coal , turntables , maintainence spares personally I think it's a fools fantasy and it would require an effort the equal of the manhattan project . Its easy to draw lines on a map but laying track is a whole new game the Japanese had trouble putting a short track 400km in Burma yet you have plans to cross the second biggest continent in a few months

Pb The British already have at the beginning WWII a fully functioning standard rail system in Egypt/Palestine, with (as of 1935) 642 locomotives; 1,579 passenger carriages 14,339 cargo wagons. (box, flat tank) There is also coal, water, yards, turntables etc as well as adequate maintainance facilities.
In WWII coal was mined in S. Africa India

Railways In the Nile Valley

There is a similar system functioning in Nigeria, the only "missing link" is about 800 miles across central Chad (temperate savannah, not desert or jungle.) The only reason that the railway had not been built before is because it's French territory, but as of Aug 1940 is in Free french Control.

The amount of shipping that would be used to bring some construction equiptment extra rolling stock is a small fraction of the millions of tons constantly tied up on the "round the Cape route"

The Japanese had trouble building the railway in Burma

1.) because it is some of the worst possible terrain to build a railway, very rugged, jungle with numerous rivers.

2.) they were short of labour (so had to use prisoners)

3.) they did not have adequate construction materials, as it was so far from Japan and by summer 1942 when they were building the railway, Japan was in crisis (after Midway etc), almost all resources were desperatly needed for the Navy Pacific defence.

You are not going to compare Japanese construction ability to the Americans now are you?

Moltke wrote the axiom that an army cannot operate more than 60 miles from the railway, although by WWII with trucks available that might be around 200 miles. In WWII every nation made use of railways, can you imagine the Germans maintaining their armies at Stalingrad by shipping supplies from Vienna by barge down the Danube, along the Black Sea and then up the Don river?

The Germans captured over 22,000 miles of Russian (broad guage) railway, most of it double-tracked and a good potion of it had been destroyed. The German Army (a model of efficiency!) had planned for this and their railway engineers converted all the captured rail within 18 - 20 working months.

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

The US UK did in fact upgrade the rail link to Russia by late 1942, it was (finally) realized that it was far more efficient and avoided the disasterous Murmansk route.

There is simply not enough shipping to continue the wasteful "round the Cape" route, especially if (as in Bill's scenario) Petroleum will have to be brought from the Iraq/Persian oilfields to replace embargoed US oil.

 

[pbfoot]

I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal

 

[Rich46yo]

I believe the scenario should not take as obvious that the USA would have risked much to send meaningful supplies to the Soviets if the US wasnt directly involved in the war. There were far more commie haters in the US then Nazi haters. I dont think that should be assumed at all. Most of all with the fact that supply to the Soviets would have been more dangerous.

England is different. With the Brits we had history and alliances. I dont find it incompatible with the scenario the assumption Yank supply would have always been available to the Brits.

Another thing. Communist Ideology preached communism would eventually inherit the world. But to do that it first had to survive. And in the limitations of this scenario I would say it was very possible Stalin would have made a peace with Hitler once the Soviets achieved enough militarily to ensure survival, and, once Hitler saw that victory in the east of was impossible. Both were pragmatists after all.

Especially since Stalin considered a separate peace with Germany even with American involvement.

 

[Glider]

I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal

Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking

 

[pbfoot]

Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking

trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base.
The railway ties would alone require a huge investment of men and equipment>
To move the track further south in Africa and your making multiple (lost count at 50) river crossings. I believe the canal would almost be as easy

 

[Freebird]

US Isolationist scenario

I don't really think you understand the complexity of a railroad .So now we have to bring coal in from South Africa and India this requires ships , where the hell is the water for the steam engine coming from in the savanah it's very arid , next you'll require electricity for the signals and switching followed closely by people to run it not 1 or 2 but thousands of skilled trades that will require accomadations rations etc . I'm quite sure every port in West Africa would have to expanded to accomodate influx of shipping. I think it would be easier to build a canal

actually I know quite a bit about railways, kind of a hobby. 8) In WWII coal was mined in S. Africa, India Nigeria, which had extensive fields. the coal used in the middle east was brought by ship, after the railway is completed it can come directly from Nigeria. Water would not be a problem, the sources would be Lake Chad the Nile river. The switching, maintainance and administration etc. would be run from Nigeria Egypt/Sudan which have well organized functioning systems. Yes the ports in W. Africa would have to handle a larger amount of shipping, but there are 12 suitable ports available, 5 in Nigeria, 2 in Cameroons, 2 in Gabon 3 in the Gold Coast (Togo). The red Sea ports are overloaded bringing in material for the desert army, they would have trouble handling more volume (oil) as well.

Remember, in this scenario the US brings back the neutrality laws in Jan 1941, which will preciptitate a huge petroleum crisis for the British. The round trip for a tanker from the US gulf coast to the UK is 6 to 8 weeks, including loading time. The UK can use fuel from Aruba Curacao, but they cannot supply enough, some must be brought from the Persian Gulf. The UK simply does not have enough shipping for the 4 month round-trip from the Persian Gulf.
In late 1940, the UK ( Allies) have about 21 million tons of shipping, about 5 million tons each of oil tankers, bulk (coal, iron, bauxite, rubber, ores etc), food (grain, rice, meat etc), and general freight (used for ammunition, trucks, war supplies etc). If the UK has 2.5 million tons of ships transporting 1.5 million tons/month of oil from the Carribbean, and about 0.5 million tons transporting fuel to Australia, NZ etc, they would still need about 0.6 - 0.7 million tons/month from Iraq/Persia to arrive in Canada/UK. The UK simply does not have 3 or 4 million tons of tankers to do this! However if they had 6,000 rail tank cars on the African system they could transport 750,000 tons/month to the W. African ports, which would then only use about 1.0 million tons of shipping to transport to Liverpool or Halifax.

The other advantage is that bulk cargo (coal/ore etc) can be loaded for shipment to the UK, and supplies to the desert army can be offloaded in the Nigerian ports, saving more shipping from going "round the cape". Every possible way to avoid shipping by water must be used!

" the Battle of the Atlantic became even more dangerous in the second half of 1942." This was well after the US was in the war. " In mid December,(1942) Churchill was told there was only about 2-months supply of fuel oil for ships in Britain." "By the spring of 1943, British oil stocks were at their lowest levels yet." "In March, the U-boats sank 108 ships." These quotes are to point out that these low points were well after the US entered the war."

As Renrich points out, even with US help, the UK ran short of shipping in late 1942/early 1943, only by diverting ships from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic were they able to cope. One of the consequences of this was that Britain was unable to ship enough food to India Bangladesh in 1943, contributing to the million+ who died from famine. It is critical that the British get their shipping/supply lines under control right away, or else they will end up out of gas out of food!

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[syscom3]

...Remember, in this scenario the US brings back the neutrality laws in Jan 1941....

I never said there was going to be any neutrality laws

Only that the US and Germany did not declare war on each other in Dec 1941.

 

[Freebird]

Some fair comments but I think its worth remembering that although a large number of people would be needed to make a Railroad the technology is petty easy. Plus the UK did have a lot of experience in building railroads across the empire as it was then, and would have known how to cover the issues.
A canal is a much bigger undertaking

Exactly right Glider, the British developed railways in all the colonies, it was part of the economic development.

trained manpower would be at a premium . Thats pretty brutal terrain . I studied the National Geographic atlas I have and its not that easy. The northern route he proposes across Chad would be brutal there are elevations up to 4000 feet and to avoid them its crossing long stetches of desert , laying track in the desert would very tough as you would have to bring in the ballast for the sleepers let alone digging it out so you have a good base.

The central route is on the elevated central plain, its high but there are no mountains, its mostly flat savannah scrubland, like "Darfur" (the railway would pass through darfur) Timber for sleepers is from Kenya, Cameroons Gold Coast. Southern Sudan has quarries for rock ballast, that's where the ballast for the Egyptian system came from.

The railway ties would alone require a huge investment of men and equipment>
To move the track further south in Africa and your making multiple (lost count at 50) river crossings. I believe the canal would almost be as easy

The Central route crosses only 2 major rivers, the Nile the Chari, both of which already have bridges built, otherwise there are only a few small "wadi's" (dry rivers). Anyways bridge building is not impossible!

The manpower would only require about 5 - 10% skilled engineers surveyors to be brought from UK, Canada or S. Africa.

The rest of the labour would be these guys below.

(Sorry, very un-PC of me, but we gotta win the war somehow!)

 

[Freebird]

I never said there was going to be any neutrality laws

Only that the US and Germany did not declare war on each other in Dec 1941.

Syscom I'm going to have to split the thread I think, I'm answering questions on two different scenario's, 1.) Bill's "Isolationist" scenario 2.) your "Pacific First" scenario.

In any event I think it would be prudent to use the rail link in your "Pacific First" scenario, assuming that the US still plans to send aid to Russia to keep them in the war against Germany. Also I think supplying the US Pacific fleet operating in the Coral Sea/Java Sea via India Australia would be far easier by rail to Madras or Calcutta, than the cross-pacific route to Sydney, it's over 8,000 miles. Unless the US wants to wait for over a year for enough shipping to be built they have to look at shortening the supply lines.