AHC: Make the Allies win World War II, without the USA fighting Germany or Italy

[Drunkrobot]

POD is isolationist Prez, so the US would still be selling oil to Japan.

Ah. Well, just because the path to war is avoided at that point (France falls, Japan takes FIC, US embargoes Japan) doesn't mean that Japan would sit out the war. For example, the British could call the Army of India and more of the Eastern Fleet to Europe, and Japan takes the moment of weakness to seize some land, a Japan-US war could happen that way. Maybe if they try to take Borneo from the Dutch to ease off on imports, in a boneheaded attempt to grab an overwhelming material advantage over the Chinese and finish them off, that could snatch in the US. You could bet your life that Churchill and Stalin would want to see the US go to war with Japan, if only to distract Japan so they could bring more stuff to bare against the Germans.

But, whatever, let's say that Japan doesn't declare war on anybody and just focuses on China. The Sino-Japanese war goes either way, with Japan annexing more of China and collapsing Chiang Kai-shek's regime, or Japan gives up, keeps what they've managed to grab, and the rest of China splits into civil war between the Nationalists and Communists.

The Japanese Empire would include Korea, Manchuria, several ports along the Chinese Coast and French Indochina, as well as various Pacific Islands. Facing them would be the United States coming to the conclusion of various naval expansion programs, using the Philippines, Pearl Harbor and the Caribbean as bases. The US Army would be much smaller than OTL, given that it would only need to defend the mainland and a few colonies, the US Navy doing most of the work for them. The US Air Force likely won't exist, but an independent Air Force might be created out of what was then the Army Air Corps from observation of the war in Europe. Should Germany occupy France and stretch the war beyond 1945, then it's almost certain that a victorious Britain and Soviet Union would have the advantage in strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems (missiles and bombers). It would take one almighty fuck-up for the Allies to hand over their technology to the Americans, so the US would have to make their own Bomb if they wanted it.

Speaking of which, Dr. Strangelove might be a very different film. A Russian Bomber crew is sent to nuke the United States by their crazy General who has 'uncovered' the Capitalist conspiracy to sabotage our precious bodily fluids, while a load of Anglo-Soviet leaders and Generals try to stop them.

"Have you ever seen a cappie drink water, Comrade Mandrake?"

 

[pattersonautobody]

Ah. Well, just because the path to war is avoided at that point (France falls, Japan takes FIC, US embargoes Japan) doesn't mean that Japan would sit out the war. For example, the British could call the Army of India and more of the Eastern Fleet to Europe, and Japan takes the moment of weakness to seize some land, a Japan-US war could happen that way. Maybe if they try to take Borneo from the Dutch to ease off on imports, in a boneheaded attempt to grab an overwhelming material advantage over the Chinese and finish them off, that could snatch in the US. You could bet your life that Churchill and Stalin would want to see the US go to war with Japan, if only to distract Japan so they could bring more stuff to bare against the Germans.

But, whatever, let's say that Japan doesn't declare war on anybody and just focuses on China. The Sino-Japanese war goes either way, with Japan annexing more of China and collapsing Chiang Kai-shek's regime, or Japan gives up, keeps what they've managed to grab, and the rest of China splits into civil war between the Nationalists and Communists.

The Japanese Empire would include Korea, Manchuria, several ports along the Chinese Coast and French Indochina, as well as various Pacific Islands. Facing them would be the United States coming to the conclusion of various naval expansion programs, using the Philippines, Pearl Harbor and the Caribbean as bases. The US Army would be much smaller than OTL, given that it would only need to defend the mainland and a few colonies, the US Navy doing most of the work for them. The US Air Force likely won't exist, but an independent Air Force might be created out of what was then the Army Air Corps from observation of the war in Europe. Should Germany occupy France and stretch the war beyond 1945, then it's almost certain that a victorious Britain and Soviet Union would have the advantage in strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems (missiles and bombers). It would take one almighty fuck-up for the Allies to hand over their technology to the Americans, so the US would have to make their own Bomb if they wanted it.

Speaking of which, Dr. Strangelove might be a very different film. A Russian Bomber crew is sent to nuke the United States by their crazy General who has 'uncovered' the Capitalist conspiracy to sabotage our precious bodily fluids, while a load of Anglo-Soviet leaders and Generals try to stop them.

"Have you ever seen a cappie drink water, Comrade Mandrake?"

Shenanigans. The B32 was already in the works and the US had some of its own rocketeers of note. If Britain develops the bomb first, which even still the US will do due to resources and such, they will lack delivery systems to reach the US and back. The US can reach London and back, no problem!

If the US so decided, they can let the whole world blow each other up and sit back and make money selling to both the Japanese and the Allies. It is good for the world that it did not play out this way, but the US had no realistic national security interests at stake until they were attacked.

 

[Drunkrobot]

Shenanigans. The B32 was already in the works and the US had some of its own rocketeers of note. If Britain develops the bomb first, which even still the US will do due to resources and such, they will lack delivery systems to reach the US and back. The US can reach London and back, no problem!

If that is the case by the end of the war, it wouldn't be ten years later. OTL Britain managed to produce the V-Bombers, which while not having the sheer scale of the American Nuclear Deterrent, was still capable of 'getting through'. When the US and Canada tried to test their air defence system, they asked Britain to 'nuke' several cities. A squadron of Vulcans managed to dive into American airspace and get into position to drop their bombs. In terms of missiles, Britain managed to develop a rocket program successful enough to launch a satellite on it's own, meaning they could've had their own ICBM's if they wanted to, and I don't really need to explain what the Soviets managed to achieve.

One thing to note: Canada is allied to Britain. The Brits could, if they asked the Canadians nicely, just develop a giant gun and use a nuke as a shell, park it on the US-Canadian border, and it would have the range to hit something valuable.

 

[pattersonautobody]

If that is the case by the end of the war, it wouldn't be ten years later...

When does this war supposedly end that Britain develops its own bomb?

...OTL Britain managed to produce the V-Bombers...

They did not come into service until 1958, so the US would have both the bomb and effective delivery systems far before then.

Further, the longer any nation fights WW2, the more backwards their technology will be in the end. War is destructive and hurts economies. It might push a few things quicker, but delay everything else much later.

One thing to note: Canada is allied to Britain. The Brits could, if they asked the Canadians nicely, just develop a giant gun and use a nuke as a shell, park it on the US-Canadian border, and it would have the range to hit something valuable.

1. If Britain actually defeats the Nazis.
2. If Britain actually positions themselves against US interests instead of becoming their puppet in a proxy war against the USSR.
3. If US intelligence caught wind of any program like that, they would Nuke the UK, invade Canada, and etc.

In all probability, a WW2 that drags on with the US staying out entirely turns the US into the sole super-duper power, as their economy will simply crush their adversaries, which would likely be invested in Naval and Air Power.

 

[Drunkrobot]

When does this war supposedly end that Britain develops its own bomb?

The challenge of the post is that the Allies (most likely including Britain) finishes WWII in total victory, without direct intervention by the US. Several people have noted that should the war move past 1945, then it's likely that the Allies might need the Bomb to finish the Nazis off, either as a completely Commonwealth program or as Anglo-French/Anglo-Soviet Project. Sure, if they don't get the Bomb, then the whole point is moot, but it is a solid possibility that it will be developed and used to end the war.

They did not come into service until 1958, so the US would have both the bomb and effective delivery systems far before then.

Further, the longer any nation fights WW2, the more backwards their technology will be in the end. War is destructive and hurts economies. It might push a few things quicker, but delay everything else much later.

Aeronautical Engineering and RADAR being two of those few ways that technology would be pushed ahead. Britain in particular would and did focus on air power, as that was one of the few ways a country with a traditionally small army could hurt Germany during the majority of the war.

Also, in the scenario of a US/UK Cold War such as this one, the Americans are going to be hard pressed to actually guarantee hitting a British city for a long time. Britain was leading the world in both RADAR and military aircraft at the time (even more so if there is no Tizard Mission, which may or may not occur if an isolationist President is elected), how is an American bomber going to cross the Atlantic and drop a bomb without any sort of response by the RAF?

1. If Britain actually defeats the Nazis.

Like I said beforehand, this is a requirement of the AHC.

2. If Britain actually positions themselves against US interests instead of becoming their puppet in a proxy war against the USSR.

While an actively hostile UK is unlikely, it is certainly possible (especially if Churchill was to be voted out after the end of the war) that relations would gravitate more towards the USSR than towards the US. All the average Brit knows is that there were Soviet boys going off and getting killed fighting the Nazis, and the most the Americans did was sell them stuff so that they killed more Nazis as they died. That is not a good image for the Americans.

3. If US intelligence caught wind of any program like that, they would Nuke the UK, invade Canada, and etc.

'Canadian Nuclear Cannon' was just a crazy idea I had to show just how close Canada was to the US. If there was an actual Cold War between the two, and Canada was firmly in the British camp, it's more likely Canada would have MRBM/IRBM silos up in the North, promising nuclear hellfire if the US crossed the border. Basically, a Cuban Missile Crisis. Whether they eventually get removed, stay in place, or we end up destroying the world over it, is anyone's guess.

Yes, I am aware that Canada and the United States destroying each other in nuclear war is possibly the craziest thing I've ever conceived of. I'm just playing by the rules I've set up.

In all probability, a WW2 that drags on with the US staying out entirely turns the US into the sole super-duper power, as their economy will simply crush their adversaries, which would likely be invested in Naval and Air Power.

World War II was the US's chance to become that superpower. By the definitions of the AHC, they don't take that chance, and at best build up the military-industrial complex needed to destroy Japan, if that. Actual influence might not extend beyond the Americas (Canada aside, obviously). If I was America, and I was feeling sensible, then offering some big loans to the Allies to reconstruct themselves and avoid bad blood (thanks for destroying Nazism, here's some money so you don't implode and stop buying our stuff) would be on the to-do list.

My last few posts where making the assumption that there would be a Cold War between the United Kingdom/Soviet Union and the United States, which on the face of it is a very unlikely timeline that I mentioned more for Rule of Cool than anything. Indeed, it isn't necessary for there to be a Cold War at all.

 

[pattersonautobody]

I still don't understand with what resources Britain develops ICBMs and Transcontinetnal bombers if WW2 stretches out long enough to develop an A-Bomb. They would be totally broke and lagging behind many technologies such as transcontinental aircraft and missiles for years. WHy? Because they would need neither to win the war, but they would need tanks and radar.

So, the US would be the only power in the world which would likely invest in transcontinental offensive capabilities, plus have the GDP to do it faster and better. I could see Japan entering the US sphere of influence and Britain can be buddy-buddy with the USSR or more likely, beg the US for an alliance. If GB became Finlandized, the US would likely develop their own bomb to be deployed with a B32. It would probably be done by the late 40s or early 50s. GB, like the USSR, would be on the wrong end of a proxy war they could not afford. With Japanese influence in Asia, it is even possible the US would avoid actually getting their hands dirty projecting their power in Asia. As for Europe or Africa, that would be hands off and a non-issue anyway.

 

[rubix]

Whenever Britain develops the first batch of nuclear bombs would they give Germany the chance to surrender before they use them?

 

[Deckhand]

This got wierd fast, but as much as i would like to see Canada with Nukes.

France holds in 1940 and Germany is done by 1941.

 

[Aber]

I still don't understand with what resources Britain develops ICBMs and Transcontinetnal bombers if WW2 stretches out long enough to develop an A-Bomb. They would be totally broke and lagging behind many technologies such as transcontinental aircraft and missiles for years. WHy? Because they would need neither to win the war, but they would need tanks and radar.

The specification for Britain's first jet nuclear capable bomber was drawn up in June 1945; it doesn't need transcontinental range as Britain has useful bases around the world.

 

[Fenwick]

If Italy joins against Germany in 1940 ("Hey Mussolini want the Balkans? And... here British somalia. Go fight Hitler!" or some such things playing on Italian greed) then certainly the Allies win.

 

[Drunkrobot]

I still don't understand with what resources Britain develops ICBMs and Transcontinetnal bombers if WW2 stretches out long enough to develop an A-Bomb. They would be totally broke and lagging behind many technologies such as transcontinental aircraft and missiles for years. WHy? Because they would need neither to win the war, but they would need tanks and radar.

So, the US would be the only power in the world which would likely invest in transcontinental offensive capabilities, plus have the GDP to do it faster and better. I could see Japan entering the US sphere of influence and Britain can be buddy-buddy with the USSR or more likely, beg the US for an alliance. If GB became Finlandized, the US would likely develop their own bomb to be deployed with a B32. It would probably be done by the late 40s or early 50s. GB, like the USSR, would be on the wrong end of a proxy war they could not afford. With Japanese influence in Asia, it is even possible the US would avoid actually getting their hands dirty projecting their power in Asia. As for Europe or Africa, that would be hands off and a non-issue anyway.

You're basing the idea of American supremacy on it's ability to drop a bomb on a major British or Soviet city from either the American Mainland or a base in the Far East (no bases in Western Europe in TTL), via B-32. What is it about a B-32 that makes it utterly invincible to Anglo-Soviet defence that would, by this time, have an unrivaled experience in defending their air space? How long is the journey from America to Britain, 4000-5000 km? Is nobody in Chain Home going to notice the massive bomber wing coming straight at the UK? Is not a single RAF squadron, made up of modern aircraft, one of the few fruits of Britain's struggle in the war, going to be scrambled to, y'know, shoot them down? Isn't the same going to be true of the Soviet Union, what with a modern RADAR system and advanced aircraft technologies being two of the things the UK was in a position to help them with?

Like I said, an isolationist United States wouldn't be interested in destroying either the UK or the USSR, minimising defence spending for the benefit of social policy being really the cornerstone of the argument. Sending loans over to keep the post-war economies afloat would be in their best interests, as they almost certainly wouldn't be hostile.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Is not a single RAF squadron, made up of modern aircraft, one of the few fruits of Britain's struggle in the war, going to be scrambled to, y'know, shoot them down?

In the beginning, no power possessed aircraft able to operate at the altitude of the B32 and then subsequent aircraft.

The point is the US can project power when other nations would not have the capability for some time.

Like I said, an isolationist United States wouldn't be interested in destroying either the UK or the USSR, minimising defence spending for the benefit of social policy being really the cornerstone of the argument.

Yet, Boeing would still be coming up with transcontinental jet technology because there were civilian applications. Further, the sheer barbarity of the war is going to elicit a US build-up, as it did OTL.

 

[Alex1guy]

Wouldn't it be easier to make France hold the line instead of the US going Isolationist (which seems pretty unlikely)?

 

[Drunkrobot]

Wouldn't it be easier to make France hold the line instead of the US going Isolationist (which seems pretty unlikely)?

Yes, that would make World War II simply The Great War: Episode II - The Reich Strikes Back, which would minimise the suffering and plight inflicted on the world by quite a tad.

There were many, many things that could have been done slightly differently to mean that the Germans hit a stalemate when invading France. However, while making it so that France and Britain stop the Germans and then slowly grind towards Berlin to punch Hitler in the face is indeed totally fine, 'hard mode' for this challenge involves France being knocked out, at least out of Metropolitan France.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Anything that results in Barbarossa self-destructing at or west of the Pskov-Smolensk-Denieper line will do the job, as it means the overwhelming majority of Soviet economic and manpower losses suffered IOTL 1941-1942 simply do not happen. That means lend-lease goes from "extremely important" to merely "a nice thing to have, but not necessary."

 

[Drunkrobot]

If Italy joins against Germany in 1940 ("Hey Mussolini want the Balkans? And... here British somalia. Go fight Hitler!" or some such things playing on Italian greed) then certainly the Allies win.

You want the Italians on our side?!

Really, in the early stages of the war, Mussolini and Hitler were judged to be about as bad as each other, Mussolini being slightly better in that he didn't talk as much about stamping entire demographics out of society and (for a while) didn't fight the Allies. He knew to not go to war until France was knocked out, so France staying on their toes would be enough to avoid Italy joining in. 'Hard mode' means Italy is fighting Britain, for the same reason.

I wonder what would have happened had Hitler not sent the Afrika Korps. That could really have been his first big mistake, allowing the British to drive the Italians out of North Africa, help secure the Med and (possibly) convince the Vichy regime in Algeria/Tunisia to rejoin the Allies. The Greek Campaign could also have been handled better, keeping at least part of Greece free and contributing to the Allies.

 

[Fenwick]

You want the Italians on our side?!

Really, in the early stages of the war, Mussolini and Hitler were judged to be about as bad as each other, Mussolini being slightly better in that he didn't talk as much about stamping entire demographics out of society and (for a while) didn't fight the Allies. He knew to not go to war until France was knocked out, so France staying on their toes would be enough to avoid Italy joining in. 'Hard mode' means Italy is fighting Britain, for the same reason.

I wonder what would have happened had Hitler not sent the Afrika Korps. That could really have been his first big mistake, allowing the British to drive the Italians out of North Africa, help secure the Med and (possibly) convince the Vichy regime in Algeria/Tunisia to rejoin the Allies. The Greek Campaign could also have been handled better, keeping at least part of Greece free and contributing to the Allies.

How many divisions must be withdrawn and redirected to cover Austrian front lines? Italian forces joining France grants a level of raw human bodies the nation needed. The italian economic joins in with UK and France. The italian navy joins the RN and FN.

While we paint Italy as the most vile of soldiers imagined we must recall they were a world power, with an army, and an indsutry geared to war.

 

[Drunkrobot]

How many divisions must be withdrawn and redirected to cover Austrian front lines? Italian forces joining France grants a level of raw human bodies the nation needed. The italian economic joins in with UK and France. The italian navy joins the RN and FN.

While we paint Italy as the most vile of soldiers imagined we must recall they were a world power, with an army, and an indsutry geared to war.

Aye, aye, I only like to rib the fine Italians.

It would be a strange alliance, two capitalist democracies, one fascist state and (possibly) a communist state. But, then again, it took the greatest colonial power, the greatest capitalist state and the greatest communist state to beat the Germans IOTL.

 

[Fenwick]

Aye, aye, I only like to rib the fine Italians.

It would be a strange alliance, two capitalist democracies, one fascist state and (possibly) a communist state. But, then again, it took the greatest colonial power, the greatest capitalist state and the greatest communist state to beat the Germans IOTL.

If Italy joins then fighting Russia may never come about because the single directed focus of the German assault is ruined. Likewise Mussolini joining removes Africa from the war as a place to send forces.

Likewise Italian airpower is added in to UK and French airpower. With Italy taking up the slack those fighter planes Churchill did not want to send to France now should be sent in to help out.

Sure this is still the germans tactical abilities but now the two front war returns. A front in france is joined by one in the Austrian alps. it makes a really fine positions for a slogging war and not a blitzkrieg.

 

[idonotlikeusernames]

Without the USA as heavily invested in the game as it was OTL could the Brits somehow get India to commit more to the war effort. If it is at all doable a fully mobilized India will mean the Allies can win any war of attrition, should it come to that.