Could the US have conquered Europe immediately following WW2?

Would a dastardly Soviet attack be sufficient reason for the Western Allies to get ready for a rumble? If Stalin went insane and ordered such an attack, would his subordinates have followed through or would there have been a mutiny as with the American Unthinkable?

I think the Russians would do it, but I don't think Stalins that stupid. As for the OP I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell.
 
While I can't speak for the specifics, I'd imagine that the bulk of the USN is in the wrong ocean though. Not much naval action happening in the Atlantic in '45, after all.

Much of which would be lost in the first few days, seeing as they are in French and British territory.

Frankly, it's dubious that the US Army would even be able to reach the coast: the bulk of their combat forces are eastward, facing towards the Soviets, and turning all of those millions of men around, especially as deispirited (unwanted war and being encircled does not do good for morale) as they are and having to engage large Soviet forces to their front as well as British forces on either flank, isn't an easy task. Especially with a good chunk of it's command structure (how many SHAEF staffers were British again?), support services (which are again largely in France), and all of their air support being torn out. Most likely is that the Euroforces (for lack of a better word) manage to force them to surrender where they are.

All of this is dependent on how much preparation the Americans put into this and how far back said preparation goes. The other side of the coin is that there would have been no way for them to hide this from the British and Soviet intelligence services. In all likelihood once Moscow and London come to the unshakable conclusion that America is indeed about to go off the deep end, they would promptly crap themselves and start working on a collaborative plan, probably one involving preemptive action.
 
In regards to the original OP question: The US, going alone, surrounded by an array of enemies, in a foreign (hostile) land an ocean away from their homeland (with long vulnerable supply lines). The US is certainly the most powerful country on Earth in 1945, but this scenario is just a disaster in the making.

A more interesting idea is the US tries to cut a deal with Russia to split Europe between the two and then never releases France and turns on the UK and the former Free French forces. Now assuming their is a pact with the Soviets saying they wont intervene then this is certainly a campaign the US can win.

Politically its hard (well really impossible) to make this happen but militarily I think the US should be able to win this. The French army actually did nearly come to blows with the US army at the end of WW2, when French forces in Germany were ordered to turn over their positions to the US. De Gaulle not wanting to give up German territory ordered the French forces to hold their ground and fire on the Americans if they tried to remove them. Since the French army was mainly supplied with US equipment Eisenhower threatened De Gaulle to cut off all supplies to French troops and then remove them. This shows how dependent Frances forces were on American equipment and supplies. The British have several armies both in the South and the North but one of their 2 armies in the British 21st Army group is the 1st Canadian Army. I sincerely doubt the Canadians would allow their army to be deployed in a battle with the US given the repercussions this would for the safety of their homeland. So against the 6 US armies in Europe you have a couple British Armies (2nd and 8th) and a French Army (1st) which was heavily dependent on the US Army for equipment and supplies. After Western Europe is pacified England can be blockaded by the USN until it surrenders.


PS: Quote on Western Allied vs. Soviet troop and tank numbers (this shows why making a deal with the Soviets would be necessary before attacking the British and the French):

"The Soviet numerical superiority in relation to the Western Allies was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe."

David Reynolds (2006). From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 376. ISBN 978-0-19-928411-5.
 
All of this is dependent on how much preparation the Americans put into this and how far back said preparation goes.

True.

The other side of the coin is that there would have been no way for them to hide this from the British and Soviet intelligence services.
Not just that, but how is Eisenhower going to prevent from one of the innumerable British staff officers at SHAEF (including a number of important direct subordinates who handle some of the details we are talking about) from stumbling across it in the normal state of doing business at headquarters? That basically makes surprise impossible even if we assume total lack of assets on the part of MI5 and the NKVD.

In all likelihood once Moscow and London come to the unshakable conclusion that America is indeed about to go off the deep end, they would promptly crap themselves and start working on a collaborative plan, probably one involving preemptive action.
Well, if not for the fact that we were ASBishly discounting the political problems for the discussion of purely academic military issues, I would say they could just release the information and all the evidence to the media and let the court of American public opinion do the rest. :p
 
Plus with America's nuclear monopoly... they could win the long war on GDP and nukes.

I keep seeing nukes brought up in this thread. But although the problems with using them have also been mentioned, no-one suggesting the nukes seems to have noticed!
Let me just point out again that there are grave doubts about how practical it would be to employ the nukes, leaving aside the question of how many there are to use. The difficulty comes down to delivering them. In a US vs Europe scenario the closest place the B-29s can take off from is probably Iceland, which is hardly ideal. They then have to penetrate what is arguably the best-trained and most experienced air-defence network in the world, against aircraft that are well-suited for intercepting them. I don't like their chances of successfully delivering their payload.

tumblr_n5o1c2YrjJ1tp42tfo1_500.jpg
 
B-36s will take several solid years to deploy in adequate enough numbers, though, allowing the Euroforces (with the entirety of Europe and much of Asia under their control) to build up a intercept force and move ahead with their own nuclear weapons program.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Not as long as the US holds a sizable enclave in Western Europe. Even for transatlantic bombing missions such a scenario doubtlessly would have accelerated the deployment of these:

Convair_B-36_Peacemaker.jpg


Er, question.

Let's say you're a commander in the USAAF in this TL. Your forces hold significant quantities of Spain.

How do you nuke somewhere?

Because step one is getting the bomb to Spain. Step two is getting the B-36 to takeoff with the bomb... step three is getting the B-36 to altitude. This means circling for most of a day.
Step four is that you now have to hit the target... and remember, the British know about the B-36 prototype and have been doing their own ultra-high-altitude research in the form of the Wellington high altitude prototype years ago.

At any point if you're hit by a sweep, the bomb goes down. If it's salvage fused, it goes off.



Also, it's probably 1948. (The B-36 had First Flight in late 1946).
 
B-36s will take several solid years to deploy in adequate enough numbers, though, allowing the Euroforces (with the entirety of Europe and much of Asia under their control) to build up a intercept force and move ahead with their own nuclear weapons program.

partly that was due to budget cuts and a nasty political fight, but it was a hideously complex machine as well, and complexity always means plenty of bugs
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The thing with the B-36 is that it was deprioritized and then reprioritized before the PoD. So it's actually not got much more deployment speed to squeeze out - the first version of the OTL deployed one is delivered in late 1948.

This was due to delivery delayed by the company intended to deliver them.
 
Er, question.

Let's say you're a commander in the USAAF in this TL. Your forces hold significant quantities of Spain.

How do you nuke somewhere?

Because step one is getting the bomb to Spain. Step two is getting the B-36 to takeoff with the bomb... step three is getting the B-36 to altitude. This means circling for most of a day.
Step four is that you now have to hit the target... and remember, the British know about the B-36 prototype and have been doing their own ultra-high-altitude research in the form of the Wellington high altitude prototype years ago.

At any point if you're hit by a sweep, the bomb goes down. If it's salvage fused, it goes off.



Also, it's probably 1948. (The B-36 had First Flight in late 1946).

to be fair, that isn't what he said by any stretch. You are presuming it is.

A reasonable operational plan would be to base fighters out of Spain and in the Azores, with that base also holding tankers (which the US developed around the same time as the B36, showing up operationally early 50s). A more likely bomber that would show up in numbers would be the B50, which is basically just an improved B29.

If the US, for whatever ASB reason that this situation developed, found itself in a war in Europe against the Europeans, one would assume that the money issues that slowed development of the tankers and B36s until the Korean War started would be eliminated. The Truman Administration really slashed the budget after 1945 and did not spend money until the North Koreans were entering Seoul. Which is one of the reasons the US had such a hard time in Korea for the first couple of years. No money was spent on training and development dollars are hard fought politically between the Air Force and Navy, while the Army got practically none during this period.

So one would assume no budget cuts happen in the middle of ASB World War III

also, Iceland and the Azores are both places that put B29s and B50s well within their combat range of all of the UK, Spain, and most of France and Norway. Of course they would require significant defenses, so most likely you would see shuttle bombing. The aircraft is based on the US East Coat, flies to the Azores or Iceland, refuels, flies to target, bombs, and returns home the same way. Terribly inefficient, but easier than trying to defend advanced bases from certain attack

one other thing... the B50 was part of Strategic Air Command in the early 50s, and from what I have found, missions were assumed to be one way when attacking the Soviet Union (ouch!) and the crew were supposed to escape and evade after (yeah good luck with that in the Siberian tundra). In other words, and from what I have read, the crews didn't expect lengthy lives once World War III began. But hey, that will teach those commies
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
Incidentally, the Yak-23 could hit a higher altitude than the B-36. It's going to be in trouble against an IADS with access to the Yak-23.

(Sure, that's not really going to be around before 1949, but hey, acceleration is doable... heck, the Gloster Meteor topped out only 200 m below the B-36J.)
 
I keep seeing nukes brought up in this thread. But although the problems with using them have also been mentioned, no-one suggesting the nukes seems to have noticed!
Let me just point out again that there are grave doubts about how practical it would be to employ the nukes, leaving aside the question of how many there are to use. The difficulty comes down to delivering them. In a US vs Europe scenario the closest place the B-29s can take off from is probably Iceland, which is hardly ideal. They then have to penetrate what is arguably the best-trained and most experienced air-defence network in the world, against aircraft that are well-suited for intercepting them. I don't like their chances of successfully delivering their payload.

tumblr_n5o1c2YrjJ1tp42tfo1_500.jpg

If that was the US plan wouldn't the B 46's be ready. With the damage what will they eat Europe was below the GC at several times.
 
B-36s will take several solid years to deploy in adequate enough numbers, though, allowing the Euroforces (with the entirety of Europe and much of Asia under their control) to build up a intercept force and move ahead with their own nuclear weapons program.

I the US had plans to keep the war going those planes would be ready. How much bomb weight would the biggest Carrier launched plane carry.
 
If that was the US plan wouldn't the B 46's be ready.

Take another look at the OP. It specifies a POD immediately after VE Day 1945. So I'm sure they will be ready eventually... maybe by 1946, when the first prototype flew IOTL. As others have pointed out the B-36 was already a high priority, it might not be possible to shave much off that time. If we are assuming the US will have aircraft equivalent to those which entered service in 1949, then presumably the same is true of the other combatants and we're back where we started.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not as long as the US holds a sizable enclave in Western Europe. Even for transatlantic bombing missions such a scenario doubtlessly would have accelerated the deployment of these:

Convair_B-36_Peacemaker.jpg

Speed it?

In 1958 it was still a massive pile of...

Well, it was already being worked on with a wartime fervor.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I keep seeing nukes brought up in this thread. But although the problems with using them have also been mentioned, no-one suggesting the nukes seems to have noticed!
Let me just point out again that there are grave doubts about how practical it would be to employ the nukes, leaving aside the question of how many there are to use. The difficulty comes down to delivering them. In a US vs Europe scenario the closest place the B-29s can take off from is probably Iceland, which is hardly ideal. They then have to penetrate what is arguably the best-trained and most experienced air-defence network in the world, against aircraft that are well-suited for intercepting them. I don't like their chances of successfully delivering their payload.

tumblr_n5o1c2YrjJ1tp42tfo1_500.jpg

Uh....

Might want to read back a couple pages.
 
Take another look at the OP. It specifies a POD immediately after VE Day 1945. So I'm sure they will be ready eventually... maybe by 1946, when the first prototype flew IOTL. As others have pointed out the B-36 was already a high priority, it might not be possible to shave much off that time. If we are assuming the US will have aircraft equivalent to those which entered service in 1949, then presumably the same is true of the other combatants and we're back where we started.

I agree that we were wreck fixed.
 
Stalin attacking is the only thing that would do it... question is, why would he? That is the hard part when you are doing a POD.
you would need a very paranoid and highly suspicious Stalin suffering from his version of PTSD to inflame his mind that the Western Alliance, whom he probably suspected that they waited too long to create the second front in order to bleed both Russian and German forces to weaken them so that they could take advantage of Russia's depleted forces to drive them out of East Europe and deprive them of their spoils of war that it would better to attack the West when they are unwary and unprepare for his preemptive strike against a perceived western strike at the Soviets just like the Germans did in 41....
Maybe.
 
Top