How would the U.S. react if Hitler launched USW up to US east coast from July 1940?

How would the U.S. react if Hitler launched USW up to US east coast from July 1940?

  • a) US declares full war as soon as this pattern becomes apparent, 6 weeks, mid-August

    Votes: 32 62.7%
  • b) US begins undeclared naval war instantly, but doesn't commit air or ground forces earlier than

    Votes: 19 37.3%
  • c) US doesn't do anything other than coastal and near shores defense for many months

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    51

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Hitler launched unrestricted submarine warfare across the Atlantic attacking all potential Britain bound merchantmen worth a torpedo in their sites from July 1940. IE, this means rules of engagement as loose as those adopted in December 1941 after declaring war on the US. Only he doesn't declare war, just justifies it as part of the war forced on him by Britain, or maybe just doing it and not acknowledging it.

How does the U.S. react?

a) Declaring war on Germany as soon as the pattern becomes apparent, committing to alliance with Britain and assuming US air, naval and ground forces will be employed against Germany as they become available. So basically US declares war within six weeks.

b) Beginning undeclared naval war against U-Boats, and aiding Britain, but not declaring war or working to engage air or ground forces any earlier than OTL.

c) US doesn't do anything other than coastal and near shore defense for several months, before any consensus is reached for further steps.

Hitler does it because he thinks unrestricted warfare is the reliable way to get Britain, and with France fallen, there's no place for an American Army to land.
 
In early 1942 the surge of submarines to the US east coast was accomplished entirely with Type IX boats. There were too few of anything else that could make the trip and still have patrol time. IIRC there were 12 boats in the January surge and 9 more in the February surge. What did Germany have in 1940 that could do effective patrols in the 'Neutrality Exclusion zone?
 
It's basically impossible.
There were eight type IX commissioned and of these eight, 3 remained in service by the time of the POD. The other five had been lost in action prior to July 1940. There were a further 4 type IXB in commission by the time specified, however only two of these were (and only just) cleared for active service; the other two were still working up. A growing number of type IXB were coming on stream as production ramped-up, but mounting any credible, persistent offensive prior to the summer of 1941 would be unsustainable. Given proper logistic support elements in position (as was seen historically), the type VII U-boat could take part in such an operation. The problem with this is that at this early point where France is not even fully conquered, the supply ships required would have to run the RN's gauntlet to break out into their operational areas and to return for replenishment themselves.
It is also worth pointing out that fully supporting U-Boat operations such as these from French ports in July of 1940 is not possible. With considerable challenges met and overcome, the Germans were able to begin providing basic replenishment during July. That is a completely different thing, and far from the infrastructure and the logistics system that was in place by the time Paukenschlag was launched.

Not to mention the fact that it was completely out of the question that Hitler would ever endorse such an idea...
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@everyone: when is the earliest point when German force structure as it existed in OTL could have supported a surge campaign into the Western Hemisphere?

@iron - of those five type IX boats lost by July 1940, what different options do the Germans have if two or three of those boats have instead survived? Could some of those boats have survived without curtailing ops much? Would a more conservative optempo by those boats between sep 1939 and July 1940 have changed the ground campaign in Norway or the west to Germany’s detriment?
 

nbcman

Donor
If Germany declared US territorial waters to be a war zone, then Germany has almost de facto declared war on the US. So the US Neutrality Patrols would be immediately authorized to attack any vessel threatening an escorted vessel plus the mothballed escort ships that were recalled to service in 1941 would be readied in 1940. However, Germany couldn't keep more than 1 or 2 boats on station in 1940 so it would be a foolish declaration by Germany to increase sub defenses in the Atlantic in 1940 at best or to bring the US in the war over a year early at worst.
 
How would a postwar world play out though if FDR can't sanction an alliance with the UK in congress b/c isolationism? Do you end up with a tripolar cold war?

And with the US fleet more heavily deployed to the Atlantic, how might Japan respond?
 
Well, the US would be on a war footing. The Philippines, Guam, Wake, and Pearl Harbor are heavily reinforced and alert. If the US actually goes to war in 1940, we could see an earlier Torch potentially. And with Germany's lack of submarines relative to early 1942 we could see the Battle of the Atlantic won a year earlier.
 
I'm not seeing a down side for the Allies yet.

Well, the US would be on a war footing. ...

Also leads to resolution of the 'peace time' problems of industrial mobilization 1939-41. Getting to the system implemented in 1942 a couple years earlier means more of everything sooner. That is the US has the Army and air forces of 1944 in 1943. While there are limits on accelerating big ship construction, smaller simpler craft like Liberty and Victory class cargo ships, LST & LCM, ect... would be ramped up to 1944 levels in 1943. 14,000 Allied aircraft operating from the UK in June 1943 is a game changer.
 
@everyone: when is the earliest point when German force structure as it existed in OTL could have supported a surge campaign into the Western Hemisphere?

@iron - of those five type IX boats lost by July 1940, what different options do the Germans have if two or three of those boats have instead survived? Could some of those boats have survived without curtailing ops much? Would a more conservative optempo by those boats between sep 1939 and July 1940 have changed the ground campaign in Norway or the west to Germany’s detriment?
Judging by the historical developments, I would guess that by March/April of 1941 there would be sufficient assets for establishment of a limited presence on the Eastern seaboard of the US. This would however only amount to a couple of boats on station at any one time, unless the further step of forward provisioning (food/fuel/torpedoes) was undertaken in conjunction with this operation.
As with regards to the early losses of Type IX boats, two were lost to mining (U-40/U-44) and the remaining three to depth charge attacks. Given the limited number of ocean going assets (28 boats in all) held by the KM's U-Boat force at the outbreak of hostilities, holding back the 8 Type IX boats would have a dramatic effect on the operational tempo. There were only 18 Type VII (10-A/8-B) operational and two Type IA. The balance of the fleet (24) were Type II coastal boats.
Whether this would have produced ramifications for the land battles is dubious at best but it would have had a crippling effect on the early submarine offensive. As it was, Donitz was already painfully handicapped by the limited forces he had to hand on 3/9/39.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How would a postwar world play out though if FDR can't sanction an alliance with the UK in congress b/c isolationism? Do you end up with a tripolar cold war?

And with the US fleet more heavily deployed to the Atlantic, how might Japan respond?

What were the 3 Cold War “poles” you had in mind, and why?
 
I'm not seeing a down side for the Allies yet.



Also leads to resolution of the 'peace time' problems of industrial mobilization 1939-41. Getting to the system implemented in 1942 a couple years earlier means more of everything sooner. That is the US has the Army and air forces of 1944 in 1943. While there are limits on accelerating big ship construction, smaller simpler craft like Liberty and Victory class cargo ships, LST & LCM, ect... would be ramped up to 1944 levels in 1943. 14,000 Allied aircraft operating from the UK in June 1943 is a game changer.

Liberty ships in particular are incredibly easy to build in quantity, and utilize shipyard-built reciprocating engines so they aren't held up by lack of reduction gears. That many Liberty Ships would make any losses much easier to absorb; you can build them faster than the enemy can sink them
 

Geon

Donor
This was essentially what FDR and Churchill were hoping Hitler would eventually do. They hoped he would start such a campaign which would allow FDR to declare war.
 
What were the 3 Cold War “poles” you had in mind, and why?

UK doesn't win the war with a tight US Ally, and the lack of cooperation means that the line between Western and Soviet spheres is farther west, possibly the Rhine. Thus Britain is much, much more reluctant to decolonize and therefore remains a genuine superpower for much longer.

Germany has effectively declared war on the United States, why would Congress not authorize an alliance?

I mean, they didn't in WWI. Congress might authorize a formal declaration of war treating the UK as a cobelligerent rather than an ally much like the prior conflict. Then from there once some distrust emerges it can begin to fester...

Also, would a war breaking out in 1940 have some impact on the 1940 election? Could an isolationist backlash cost Roosevelt the presidency?
 
Also, would a war breaking out in 1940 have some impact on the 1940 election? Could an isolationist backlash cost Roosevelt the presidency?
No. Germany is attacking the United States in its own waters, or at the very least (considering their capacity) trying to do so, which amounts to the same thing. Clearly defensive war.

Also, Wendell Wilkie was not an isolationist, and he is the straight up best candidate for the Republicans. The factors leading to his nomination, not wanting an isolationist in particular, not only are still there, but will be even stronger. Most likely Wilkie still loses by about the same margin, maybe a little more due to a rally around the flag situation. Kinda sad since Wilkie is one of those great people who likely would have made a great president, much like Adlai Stevenson, he just wasn't there at the right time.

As for Alliance, its not like Congress officially authorized one anyway, not in the manner you seem to be looking at. The closest was the Atlantic Charter, which was a policy statement rather than a formal treaty. I guess the Declaration by the United Nations would sorta fit, but that wouldn't be something Congress would reject regardless.

Things like the Combined Chiefs of Staff are purely military matters, and therefore also not something Congress would be likely to look at too closely, and if they tried Roosevelt could point out the need for cooperation with the British to keep the Atlantic clear of submarines.

Once the country is at war it is much easier for this kind of thing to be done as well.

Honestly the biggest impact would be no Pearl Harbor to rally the population early, but the unprovoked German attacks in American waters would still serve as a rallying point. And the Two-Ocean Navy Act actually being used would seriously impact Japan's ability to wage war in the Pacific, especially as the war will provide Roosevelt the perfect excuse to embargo (unofficially, at first) Japan a full year early.
 
I'm not seeing a down side for the Allies yet.



Also leads to resolution of the 'peace time' problems of industrial mobilization 1939-41. Getting to the system implemented in 1942 a couple years earlier means more of everything sooner. That is the US has the Army and air forces of 1944 in 1943. While there are limits on accelerating big ship construction, smaller simpler craft like Liberty and Victory class cargo ships, LST & LCM, ect... would be ramped up to 1944 levels in 1943. 14,000 Allied aircraft operating from the UK in June 1943 is a game changer.

Liberty ships in particular are incredibly easy to build in quantity, and utilize shipyard-built reciprocating engines so they aren't held up by lack of reduction gears. That many Liberty Ships would make any losses much easier to absorb; you can build them faster than the enemy can sink them.

The value of the Victory ship, is that in addition to being slightly larger, and better built, they're considerably faster. The Lentz and diesel powered variants were good for 15kn and the turbine variant 17kn- for reference, a Type VII u-boat was good for ~17.5kn surfaced and a Type IX ~18.
 
Last edited:
In early 1942 the surge of submarines to the US east coast was accomplished entirely with Type IX boats.

IIRC some VIIs participated, by filling diving tanks as well as bunkers with fuel--a practice which "horrified" Donitz.

IIRC there were 12 boats in the January surge

The first wave, in January '42 consisted of just 5 IXs--including U-123, U-109 and U-125.
 
Also, wasn't there a covenant among the Pan-American group (whatever it was called) that an attack inside the exclusion zone would be treated as an act of war against all member states? How would this change the picture?

Might Brazil and/or Argentina play a bigger role if they built up their navies more?
 

nbcman

Donor
Also, wasn't there a covenant among the Pan-American group (whatever it was called) that an attack inside the exclusion zone would be treated as an act of war against all member states? How would this change the picture?

Might Brazil and/or Argentina play a bigger role if they built up their navies more?
For the most part, yes. It would have been viewed as an act of 'aggression' not necessarily war. The Havana Meeting in July 1940 declared the following:

(a) Resolution on the Peaceful solution of conflicts (2)

Whereas:

In behalf of the closest possible unity of the continent, it is imperative that differences existing between some of the American nations be settled,

The Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics

Resolves:

To recommend to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union that it organize, in the American capital deemed most suitable for the purpose, a committee composed of representatives of five countries, which shall have the duty of keeping constant vigilance to insure that states between which any dispute exists or may arise, of any nature whatsoever, may solve it as quickly as possible, and of suggesting, without detriment to the methods adopted by the parties or to the procedures which they may agree upon, the measures and steps which may be conducive to a settlement.

The committee shall submit a report to each meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs and to each international conference of American states regarding the status of such conflicts and the steps which may have been taken to bring about a solution.

(b) Declaration on Reciprocal Assistance and Cooperation for the Defense of the Nations of the Americas (3)

The Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics

Declares:

That any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty or the political independence of an American state shall be considered as an act of aggression against the states which sign this declaration.

In case acts of aggression are committed or should there be reason to believe that an act of aggression is being prepared by a non-American nation against the integrity or inviolability of the territory, the sovereignty or the political independence of an American nation, the nations signatory to the present declaration will consult among themselves in order to agree upon the measure it may be advisable to take.

All the signatory nations, or two or more of them, according to circumstances, shall proceed to negotiate the necessary complementary agreements so as to organize cooperation for defense and the assistance that they shall lend each other in the event of aggressions such as those referred to in this declaration.
 
Also, wasn't there a covenant among the Pan-American group (whatever it was called) that an attack inside the exclusion zone would be treated as an act of war against all member states? How would this change the picture?

Might Brazil and/or Argentina play a bigger role if they built up their navies more?

Both Brazil & Argentina had some strong pro German or pro Facist groups. Then there was a anti US sentiment among a portion of the voters or leaders in Latin America. No guarantee many of the these nations would automatically or swiftly join in a war with Germany. Too much internal division on the matter.
 
Top