DBWI: America participated in the Second World War

The UK can use maritime superiority to win the Battle of the Atlantic, albeit with higher losses and more time, and if the war goes on long enough reoccupy Crete, the Aegean Islands and probably Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. North Africa will finally go against the Germans, what happens in Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco is fuzzier and depends on Free France vs Vichy. If they wish Britain/Free French will end up controlling French possessions everywhere else, although the Japanese might take Indochina and some Pacific Islands. Peninsular Italy is not happening, Norway is a maybe but unlikely.

Absent the manpower and industry of the USA the UK/Commonwealth, even absent the Pacific War, is not going back to the continent. Absent LL, just relying on what gets there via cash and carry, the USSR has major issues. With only night bombing, more of the Luftwaffe is going to be on the Eastern Front and the Soviet aviation is now handicapped by fewer aircraft and very little high octane gasoline, making the war in the air pretty much in favor of the Germans. Absent the HUGE amount of railway equipment that LL sent (locomotives, rolling stock, rails) the factories are going to have make that rather than tanks - if they don't have adequate rail service their logistics are totally screwed. Trucks, don't go there. The UK/Commonwealth cannot make up this deficit, partly perhaps, but only partly and don't forget they have no LL either.
 
OOC:

If you look at Kennedy's estimates of Total Warmaking Capacity in 1937 among the big 7 countries:

United States - 41.7%
Germany - 14.4%
Soviet Union - 14%
United Kingdom - 10.2%
France - 4.2%
Japan - 3.5%
Italy - 2.5%


UK + USSR = is 24.2%
Germany + Italy is 16.7%

UK does not include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. France is probably split between Axis and Allies due to Vichy collaboration.

-snip-

TLDR, UK + USSR would probably defeat the Soviets without the US.

So, how much of the USSR's warmaking capacity did the Germans overrun in 1941.? This kind of arithmetic works only if you're talking about a video game - actually not even there as most games have a system to re-calculate points based on territory that changes hands. It completely ignores the slight issue that Germany after Barbarossa holds most of the USSR's most fertile food-producing areas, and that without american food sent to the USSR it will be facing mass starvation. Also, US trucks largely facilitated the massive late-war victories of the Red Army, which again don't happen as the Soviets now lack the mobility they need to take advantage of breakthroughs. Also without the Americans the British are not getting sucessful landings on the Continent. Your "Peace of Lisbon" situation is fanciful at best.
 

Deleted member 1487

So, how much of the USSR's warmaking capacity did the Germans overrun in 1941.? This kind of arithmetic works only if you're talking about a video game - actually not even there as most games have a system to re-calculate points based on territory that changes hands. It completely ignores the slight issue that Germany after Barbarossa holds most of the USSR's most fertile food-producing areas, and that without american food sent to the USSR it will be facing mass starvation. Also, US trucks largely facilitated the massive late-war victories of the Red Army, which again don't happen as the Soviets now lack the mobility they need to take advantage of breakthroughs. Also without the Americans the British are not getting sucessful landings on the Continent. Your "Peace of Lisbon" situation is fanciful at best.
IIRC probably something close to 40% in 1941 and then another 5-10% in 1942. But you also have to add in occupied Europe, not just France and Italy, though diminished due to the blockade. The USSR also gets the value of L-L as does the UK.
Of course these numbers are for 1937, i.e. before Germany took Austria+Czechoslovakia and then later Poland. Nor does it account for the growth in war making potential through investments that happened after this. So it heavily under counts Axis war potential in Europe as of say 1941.

Here is the source for those Kennedy numbers and how he calculates them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Great_Powers
Measures of strength in the 20th century (pages 199–203) use population size, urbanization rates, Bairoch's per capita levels of industrialization, iron and steel production, energy consumption (measured in millions of metric tons of coal equivalent), and total industrial output of the powers (measured against Britain's 1900 figure of 100), to gauge the strength of the various great powers.

Kennedy also emphasizes productivity increase, based on systematic interventions, which led to economic growth and prosperity for great powers in the 20th century.

I have no idea how he rates the USSR so highly then other than by weighting their population heavily in the stats and accepting official Soviet numbers as accurate, which post-Soviet Russian economists have proven false. But given that this book was released in 1987 and was then written before that it is hard to fault Kennedy for not knowing the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without US involvement the Eastern Front probably stalemates, with the Reich being unable to fully accomplish its goals, and the Soviets not having the capacity to push the Germans back in any serious way. Someone previously posted data on just how much Lend-Lease helped the Soviets, and while I can't recall exact numbers it basically showed that US industrial aid was what kept the Soviet Union from starvation and logistical collapse. If the Germans are more successful on any of the fronts in the East then things will be worse from the perspective of Stalin moving more industrial and human resources behind the Urals, which will disrupt production, at least temporarily. Thing would probably end up a bit like the Fatherland universe, with a slightly larger Soviet state.

The Western Front is also going to depend on how much leeway the US will give the UK. Obviously Germany in this scenario will be unable to attack US flagged vessels, but if the US doesn't sign over escorts to the UK or something, they're in for a hard time. If the UK really seems to be on its own I wouldn't be surprised if there's a much larger peace movement, also depending on how the BoB goes.
 
Getting back to the OP

From 1941-1949, the American President was Burton K. Wheeler, who was a staunch isolationist. His policies led to America not participating in the Second World War, and as such Germany overran most of Continental Europe and forced Britain to make peace with it.

...and going with the nazi dominated Europe theme.
... leading to the 50-year "Frozen War" between Germany and the US. ...

The Century previous to nazi domination the US depended heavily on trade with industrial Europe. Typically across any decade 60% or better of US import/export trade was with Europe. Between nazi efforts to create a autarky, fighting a trade war with the US, and general mismanagement the post war trade between the US and Europe never recovered to half of what it had been in 1938. This extended the Great Depression of the US far into the 1940s, the five year era some folks refer to as the "Second Depression" due to the post war slump from the cessation of selling war goods to the Brits and their Allies. During the 1930s the US economy fell to approximately 75% or a bit less of its 1900-1925 peak. This continued stagnation & the failure of the Wheelerites and other isolationist groups to deal with the radically altered global economy is what lost them the 1948 election, Congress, and most state legislatures. The policies of the Republicans, and the 'New Democrats of the 1950s painfully but successfully realigned the US economy away from the nazi dystopia in Europe and to a more balanced global economy. The industrialization of Latin America and the Pacific Rim in the 1950s, 60s, & 70s were kickstarted by this purposeful realignment and deliberate investment policy. There was opposition to all this, from the Germanophiles, the residual isolationists, claims of socialism, Britianophobes, and arguments about "Neo Colonialism. Whatever the case the "New Dealers" succeeded, and US economy restarted growth after nearly two decades of stagnation, unemployment fell to 19th Century levels, and immigration of the best and the brightest from around the globe resumed.

If the US had Allied with Britain and enabled Churchills dream of restoring popular democracy to Europe, the the US economy would have retained its traditional alignment with Europe, and it may have recovered a decade or more earlier. Depends on his fast the nazis were defeated and how damaged Europes economy was. But what every the case it probably would have been better than US unemployment not returning to preDepression levels until 1954.
 
Top