American defeat in World War II

I am working on a scenario where the Allies lost the war in Europe but 'won' in the Pacific. The one thing that I have yet to deal with is what happened to America, which would have probably become a third theatre of the war in my scenario. I have something that I think is reasonable for the rest of the world, but not America. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? I want something perfectly reasonable to explain the disintegration of the Untied States following a joint but very pyrrhic victory alongside the British vs Japan and utter defeat in Europe and possibly in the Americas.
 
I don't think the war would reach American Soil, at least not mainland. Hawaii mabey, but not continental. If you wan't an Allied victory in the Pacific and Allied defeate in Europe, it is quite simple, have Japan not join the Axis. When and If Japan attacks Pearl Harbor,(or a Pearl Harbor type situation) they attack the U.S. alone. Germany doesn't declare war on America. You would also wan't the Battle of Britain to go more badly for the British, you don't have to have Sea Lion succede, you just have to have to break the British moral and have them give up. You can have America wage war with Japan in the Pacific with the Japanese, eventually using the Atomic bomb, and forcing Japans surrender.

I don't see much likely ness in war coming to American soil, unless Britain decides to join the Nazi's and fight against the U.S., which I find highly unlikely.

If you really want an American defeat, then you should have it be in Europe, with them having failed invasions, and eventually giving up, kind of like what happened in Fatherland after the failed invasion of Normandy.
 
Do you think America being under relentless attack by u-boats and the fruits of an actually successful Amerika bomber project would be unreasonable?
 

Typo

Banned
US air defense rips apart the Amerika bombers, U-boats will be damaging, but not fatally, US after all, does not need trade with Europe to survive.

The success of either or both leading to US breaking apart if kinda ASBish, but then again I"m of the opinion that the US breaking apart by WWII in general is ASBish.
 
US air defense rips apart the Amerika bombers, U-boats will be damaging, but not fatally, US after all, does not need trade with Europe to survive.

The success of either or both leading to US breaking apart if kinda ASBish, but then again I"m of the opinion that the US breaking apart by WWII in general is ASBish.

Could they handle HO-16s though? The HO-16 is essentially what Jack Northrop ripped off to make the original stealth bomber.
 

Typo

Banned
Germany had -a lot- of those "modern" looking weapons on the drawing board or in prototype stage, but were impractical with 1940s level technology.

That been said Germany would need to have a huge number of those to have a decisive impact, much much more than the number of bombers the RAF and USAAF had in Europe OTL. Even then, without nuclear weapons, strategic bombing will not win a war, let along collapsing the US, this is assuming the US is unable to produce a viable interceptor against such a bomber (which is kinda inplausible).

So essentially, they would need to produce something that was possible maybe 30 years later, they need to ramp up their production to have a noticable effect, and above all, they need a good reason to do this. A Germany which holds most of Europe and Russia will probably agree to some form of peace rather than fight a war which they've already won.
 

Typo

Banned
So?

I think you are confusing between a Stealth bomber and a flying wing made partially out of wood for that effect. Flying wings for military purposes were not really practical until computerized fly-by-wire systems.

But the underlying point is that WWII demonstrated that airpower by itself cannot be decisive without nuclear weapons.
 
So?

I think you are confusing between a Stealth bomber and a flying wing made partially out of wood for that effect. Flying wings for military purposes were not really practical until computerized fly-by-wire systems.

But the underlying point is that WWII demonstrated that airpower by itself cannot be decisive without nuclear weapons.

The B-35 and YB-49 actually flew, all of this before 1950. They had only one major flaw: you couldn't stall them. It would have taken men dying, but they could have found all of these problems, just like the USAF found the whole stalling thing RL.
 
The difference between ETO and PTO for US is that in PTO Us acted more or less alone or in so superior position everything was their call. In ETO this wasn't so so if critical Wallied players act differently US could be forced out by acts not under their control.

However we also have to define what exactly is US loss in WW2 ETO. If Britain makes peace with Germany after US entry and US is forced out that is in fact loss for US but not defeat. US gov't could then blame British for whole mess and focus on Pacific, eventually making peace with Germany. After all victorious Germany and US have no real spheres of influence overlap, if ETO is victory for US US would just as likely return to isolationism, Europe wise. But then again, that, as always, depends on exactly how, why and when Germany wins WW2.

If Britain makes peace with Germany before US entry then US is not involved and as such can't loose the war it's not involved in.
 
The B-35 and YB-49 actually flew, all of this before 1950. They had only one major flaw: you couldn't stall them. It would have taken men dying, but they could have found all of these problems, just like the USAF found the whole stalling thing RL.

Yes, they flew as prototypes. And the designers never worked out the design flaws, so they were supersceded by conventional bombers, and forgotten until the '80s when the inherent stealth was considered an asset and when fly-by-wire systems were avalible to make the concept practical.
 
The only prospect for the war carrying over to South America would be if Nazi Germany get a credible ally in the continent. Perhaps Germany defeats the British early with a larger U-boot fleet and gets their Central/South American colonies as indemnity. Say Honduras, Guiana, Falklands, etc. Germany may then find allies in the region (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina?). The result would be an inevitable conflict with the US.
 
Could they handle HO-16s though? The HO-16 is essentially what Jack Northrop ripped off to make the original stealth bomber.

Actually there were several individuals and companies working on the idea of the flying wing. Technically, in the end one can say that the Horton's ripped off the Wright Brothers. The first Wright Flyer is a flying wing.
 
The only prospect for the war carrying over to South America would be if Nazi Germany get a credible ally in the continent. Perhaps Germany defeats the British early with a larger U-boot fleet and gets their Central/South American colonies as indemnity. Say Honduras, Guiana, Falklands, etc. Germany may then find allies in the region (Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina?). The result would be an inevitable conflict with the US.

Having Germany get Britain's colonies in the Americas could bring about war between the USA and Germany. The only British colony I can see the USA not being concerned with is the Falklands; too far away to be a threat to the USA or her interests. The other colonies, and French and Dutch colonies, would likely see US intervention to stop a German takeover. Even before US entry into WW-2, there were plans to seize Vichy French islands in the Carribbean.

Newfoundland and the French islands off of Maine would be a certain "Hell No!" from the USA.

In the past, territorial transfer between two nations has been a reason for a third nation to go to war.
 
Flying Wing =/= Stealth. Flying Wing baaad. You need computer control or you will have them crashing and going out of control very often. Its a very unstable design. And while first Northrop bomber prototypes flew after the war, Northrop had fighter designs at the start of the war or in late '30es, I'm not certain and cba checking.

And no, there wont be a Silverbird (Sanger's sub orbital) nor A9 or A10 ICBM. Silbervogel would take billions to design and build with today's tech, and maybe even then it wouldnt even work, it certainly wouldn't be worth the money. As for ICBMs, both superpowers were giving their full effort in peace time, and got results only at end of '50es. Wont happen for Germany in '40es, there is 0 chance.
 
I am working on a scenario where the Allies lost the war in Europe but 'won' in the Pacific. The one thing that I have yet to deal with is what happened to America, which would have probably become a third theatre of the war in my scenario. I have something that I think is reasonable for the rest of the world, but not America. Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? I want something perfectly reasonable to explain the disintegration of the Untied States following a joint but very pyrrhic victory alongside the British vs Japan and utter defeat in Europe and possibly in the Americas.

jorbian

I'm not sure there is a reasonable alternative that gives the approach you want, at least as far as internal disintegration. Might be possible but I think highly unlikely.

Could possibly get the result you want with say a fairly quick 41/42 collapse of Russia. Even with heavy losses and a big occupation army required that frees up a hell of a lot of German resources and makes their defeat a lot more difficult and costly.

If you could also slip in something that makes the western allies co-operate less closely. Hence less co-operation and more mistrust. Most noticably to delay the a bomb a bit.

You might well that way have a US invasion of Japan. Possibly occurring earlier because the US has committed more forces to the Pacific - either because of differences with Britain and/or the fact it will need huge forces to take on Germany. Without a Russian threat or B-29 campaign - because the a/c is not developed by the time the invasion occurs, Japan could put up a hell of a fight. Will go down with horrendous losses but the US could lose a lot of forces in the campaign. Possibly also need a large force occupying Japan and parts of its empire.

Once this is out of the way or possibly before you get some almighty clashes in Europe as the allies seek to break into Fortress Europe. They are defeated after very heavy losses and coupled with say V attacks and new subs seriously threatening the Atlantic supply line Britain is forced to make a separate peace. Mutual recrimination between Britain and the US. The latter then admits defeat itself in terms of it being impossible to carry the war to Germany and comes to terms. [For this you very likely need the bomb to be delayed considerably].

After this you might see internal disputes in the US. Some right wingers arguing for closer links with the Nazis while others complain about the liberals who didn't go far enough to win the war. Left wingers similar complain it was the fault of big business who are too busy making profits to continue the struggle for democracy. Reports of Nazi massacres in the east angering many of the minorities from those areas. Possibly also some racial tension with the blacks as some argue for more equal treatment. [If a black group, rightly or wrongly had been implicated in a military failure somewhere you might see racism elements arguing with some sympathy for Nazi views on race]. Also possibly disagreement over relations with Britain and Canada.

Basically the US fights for several bloody years with a couple of million military deaths and a huge expansion of the military, resulting in a large occupation army needed in the Pacific, possibly including trying to keep the communists down in China and clear failure in Europe. Mush bickering and casting of blame. Even then at the worse you might get something like the background to Starship Trooper - although that's pretty grim.

Steve
 
Top