America rearms after Hitler takes all of Czechoslovakia

What if the US begins rearming early, just after Czechoslovakia? The reason given is to discourage Hitler from eventually attacking the US. The war department gets a 20% larger budget for 1938 then in OTL.
 

Redbeard

Banned
As long as the US material and units stay on the American side of the pond it really doesn't matter much. But it would of course be interesting if the planes in OTL scheduled to arrive in France in June 1940 or later arrives in time to be operational when the German attack start 10th of May 1940.

If that changes the war we would have a very different world today, but if it doesn't I could see a disaster looming: the stronger US Army by 1942 has the US Generals insist on attacking mainland Europe in 1942. Despite their greater number they still lack any experience and they are even less willing to listen - the result is a huge defeat - Dieppe x 20. The war goes on, but with US focus being shifted to the Pacific. Hitler can focus entirely on the east front for a couple of years. At Kursk he achieves an almost breakthrough but inflicts heavy casualties on the Red Army. The Soviets still launch a number of offensives after that, but take casualties to a degree effectively leaving the Red Army without offensive capacity by mid 1944. General Vlasov recieve an increasing number of Soviet deserters and in the German HQ they seriously start to talk about a new 1917...

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
This idea likely would result in FDR getting the boot in the next election, due to his promise not to get Americans involved in a foreign war. Not much reason to re-arm, unless of course you want a war to start. Considering FDR's provocative actions in OTL, and his re-arming perhaps either he loses the nomination or a Republican is in the White House earlier. In 1940, Wendell Wilkie becomes US President, Pearl happens as per OTL, and then even crazier stuff happens thereafter.

Wilkie may choose to follow strict neutrality with Germany and focus on Japan, and thereby perhaps doom both the USSR and England to a defeat.
 
A 20% increase? The US Army had less than 150,000 men in 1938 including Philipine units considered part of the US Army. Nor was it very well equipped. Possibly a 20% increase means that the US actually has one or two infantry divisions(no armor) ready for frontline combat.

How about a more substantial expansion prior to conscription in 1940? Perhaps fielding all of ten infantry divisions prepared for combat or @280,000 men total plus support and other units(@350,000 total).
 
This idea likely would result in FDR getting the boot in the next election, due to his promise not to get Americans involved in a foreign war. Not much reason to re-arm, unless of course you want a war to start. Considering FDR's provocative actions in OTL, and his re-arming perhaps either he loses the nomination or a Republican is in the White House earlier. In 1940, Wendell Wilkie becomes US President, Pearl happens as per OTL, and then even crazier stuff happens thereafter.

1937: Not only does Japan not apologize for the Panay Incident, it publically warns America that its interests and citizens in East Asia are there at the sufference of Japan.

I doubt this goes over well.
 
The success of such a move would depend on what the money was used for, Increasing the size of the army is fine, but would you just build the tanks and aircraft currently available? Having more inferior weapons available when war breaks out might actually hurt the army. Congress might insist that they use the weapons they have already paid for rather than spending more to build new ones.

Now, if the money were spent on new weapons projects, and the army gets better tanks, fighters, and bombers a year earlier and in bigger numbers...
 
The success of such a move would depend on what the money was used for, Increasing the size of the army is fine, but would you just build the tanks and aircraft currently available? Having more inferior weapons available when war breaks out might actually hurt the army. Congress might insist that they use the weapons they have already paid for rather than spending more to build new ones.

Now, if the money were spent on new weapons projects, and the army gets better tanks, fighters, and bombers a year earlier and in bigger numbers...

Finally somebody brought that up. US tank designes were pieces of shit on tracks, to put it mildly. US would be saddled with them when the war starts.

Though large numbers of tanks can aid US armored doctrine, which was crappy, to put it mildly. More tanks to go around requires more officers and that can produce some good thinkers.
 

sanusoi

Banned
I have to disagree with you. The US tank designs in OTl were ahead of their time. The aim was to bulid tansk can could be mass produced and repaired quickly like the T-34.
 
Why exactly is this even happening? A standing army of 300,000 men would require nearly triple the defense budget so a 20% jump is barely going to be noticed.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
If you look at the 1938 - 41 period you will find that the U.S. did increase defense spending by more than 20% each year. As an example the Department of the Navy budgets for the period:

1935 $346,296,000
1936 $489,005,000
1937 $529,059,000
1938 $524,772,000
1939 $673,792,000
1940 $1,137,608,000
1941 $4,465,684,000

As you can see, starting with the 1936 Budget (1938 being an exception due to treaty limitations) the increases are (Budget year) to budget year 1936 41.12%, 1937 8.19%, 1939 28.4%, 1940 68.83%, 1941 (the final pre-war year) 292.55% followed by 373% in 1942, the first war year. The 1941 Navy Budget is almost a 13-fold increase over 1935.

The Department of War budget went up in a similar fashion (unfortunately my data sources for the War Department are not as well laid out as the Navy's), especially starting in 1938 forward. In 1935 the U.S. Army finally reached a long desired strength of 165,000, (active duty), in 1937`authorized strength, including the National Guard was up to 400K (Protective Mobilization Plan of 1937); in 1940 authorized strength was 227K active and 235K NG. By mid 1941 the Army reached manpower totals, including the now mobilized Guard of 1.5 million (a nine-fold increase from 1935).

Sources for the above are the Department of the Army & Navy historical document sites on the 'net.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Finally somebody brought that up. US tank designes were pieces of shit on tracks, to put it mildly. US would be saddled with them when the war starts.

Though large numbers of tanks can aid US armored doctrine, which was crappy, to put it mildly. More tanks to go around requires more officers and that can produce some good thinkers.


This is absolutely untrue.

American tanks were, once the money was released and building was allowed to begin, as well designed, if not better designed, than any in the world. The Panzers of the initial war years (especially if the Czech designed Panzer 35(t) &38(t) are excluded) were decidedly inferior to both the M 3 (Lee-Grant )& the M-4 Sherman. Even the early version of the Panzer IV was poorly matched against the American designs of the 1941-43 era. American tanks were as survivable as any of the German designs of the era and had similar reliability and were easier to repair, with most repairs falling into the "crew can complete" category.

American tanks did not evolve in the same direction as German and Soviet designs. History has shown that the German/Soviet tank as tank killer philosphy was a better system than the American dedicated tank killer system. This does not make the Sherman a bad tank, it does make the powers that be idiots for not upgunning the M4 at the same time as the Germans upgunned the Panzer IV.

You can, to a degree, claim that American tanks in 1944 were inferior to their German/Soviet counterparts, assuming you expect them to do the same duties that the Soviets & Wermacht expected their armor to perform. However, since the Sherman wasn't supposed to engage in tank on tank even this comparison is unfair. In it's designed role, infantry support, the Sherman and it's variants were the equal of any tank in the war.

American strategic thinking might have been stupid (although this is somewhat hard to demonstrate given the way that the U.S. forces in the ETO rolled up the German Army in France and the Low Countries), but the vehicles were excellent in their assigned role.
 
If you look at the 1938 - 41 period you will find that the U.S. did increase defense spending by more than 20% each year. As an example the Department of the Navy budgets for the period:

1935 $346,296,000
1936 $489,005,000
1937 $529,059,000
1938 $524,772,000
1939 $673,792,000
1940 $1,137,608,000
1941 $4,465,684,000

As you can see, starting with the 1936 Budget (1938 being an exception due to treaty limitations) the increases are (Budget year) to budget year 1936 41.12%, 1937 8.19%, 1939 28.4%, 1940 68.83%, 1941 (the final pre-war year) 292.55% followed by 373% in 1942, the first war year. The 1941 Navy Budget is almost a 13-fold increase over 1935.

The Department of War budget went up in a similar fashion (unfortunately my data sources for the War Department are not as well laid out as the Navy's), especially starting in 1938 forward. In 1935 the U.S. Army finally reached a long desired strength of 165,000, (active duty), in 1937`authorized strength, including the National Guard was up to 400K (Protective Mobilization Plan of 1937); in 1940 authorized strength was 227K active and 235K NG. By mid 1941 the Army reached manpower totals, including the now mobilized Guard of 1.5 million (a nine-fold increase from 1935).

Sources for the above are the Department of the Army & Navy historical document sites on the 'net.

It is a 20% jump on OTL budget which makes it a total jump of about 19%. Increase following years likewise.
 
Last edited:
Wilkie may choose to follow strict neutrality with Germany and focus on Japan, and thereby perhaps doom both the USSR and England to a defeat.

It'll be hard to pursue a policy of strict neutrality against Germany considering they declared war on the US as soon as the US declared war on Japan.
 
This idea likely would result in FDR getting the boot in the next election, due to his promise not to get Americans involved in a foreign war. Not much reason to re-arm, unless of course you want a war to start. Considering FDR's provocative actions in OTL, and his re-arming perhaps either he loses the nomination or a Republican is in the White House earlier. In 1940, Wendell Wilkie becomes US President, Pearl happens as per OTL, and then even crazier stuff happens thereafter.

Wilkie may choose to follow strict neutrality with Germany and focus on Japan, and thereby perhaps doom both the USSR and England to a defeat.

The other reason to rearm is to prevent someone jumping you, which would be the arguement.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is a 20% jump on OTL budget which makes it a total jump of about 19%. Increase following years likewise.

Considering the actual budget jumps in 1939, 40 & 41 it is questionable if an extra 20% could have been spent, particularly in 1940 & 41, when production was as high it could get without shifting to a full "war-time" economy. The only way that productivities of 1942-44 were possible was by effectively making nothing for the consumer market and rationing more or less everything for the civilian sector (e.g. Singer stopped making sewing machines for non-war production work and converted plants to making arms).

In 1940 the spigot was turned to full open, with the Navy & War Departments have effectively a blank check & in 1941 the spigot was turned into a pressurized fire hose of money aimed at the military.
 
It'll be hard to pursue a policy of strict neutrality against Germany considering they declared war on the US as soon as the US declared war on Japan.

To the 3 or 4 people who made this argument: A little less reason for Hitler to do so, without the USA engaging in an undeclared war, I would think.

To Johnrankins: That philosophy didn't work well before then, and it sure wouldn't then. The USA had a powerful isolationist movement. FDR re-arming and putting the economy on a war footing would have given isolationism a shot in the arm.
 
My father and mothe stated to me when I was young most american wished the Europeans would kill themselfs off . They did not want to fight a war in europe again ,
 
I have to disagree with you. The US tank designs in OTl were ahead of their time. The aim was to bulid tansk can could be mass produced and repaired quickly like the T-34.

I should have said pre-WW2 (though I did say US will be saddled with them when the war starts). However even M4 wasn't all that it was cranked up to be. easy to produce and reliable but not well armed and not well protected. And designed to fight war of 1940 in flawed doctrine.

Its evolution, as was pointed out, was halted which meant that in 1944 it was outmatched by German tanks. Even the maligned Brit designers were able to predict that Germany will field something cats-like and developed their tanks accordingly. Though doctrine and logistics had a lot to do with that
 
Manpower was one thing but equipment, particularly heavy weapons and tanks, was still sorely lacking after Pearl Harbor.

Vinegar Joe Stillwell's description of a war scare a few months before December 7th put US forces able to fight for Los Angeles as four battalions and six tanks.

Of course, if FDR convinces Congress to go for broke and field a decent expeditionary force of 12 divisions while dramatically building the navy up to the 5:5:3 treaty limitations why...Hitler may wish Japan a hearty farewell and finish off the USSR and UK while the US is in the Pacific.
 
Top