Nationalist/Fascist America vs The World

[Legofan4]

The otl embargo was for oil and steel I believe which were important for Japan's continued war with China.

By the mid thirties hasnt Japan already backed out of the naval treaties anyway if so it would not seem out of place for the US to do likewise to at least match Japan. By the mid thirties almost the entire world is suffering through the effects of the great depression and I could see any government that promises and kinda delivers on a relief from this as being at least semi popular.

 

[British Republic]

It would after Boston, Providence, NYC, Newark, Philadelphia, Dover, Baltimore, Annapolis, Washington, Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, St. Augustine, Miami, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Mobile, Biloxi, New Orléans, Houston, Galveston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, and every other American city close to the sea has been shelled into rubble and the ones within 500 miles or so bombed into rubble. Heck the RN and Co. would likely be able to force the St. Lawrence and take control of the Great Lakes. Good-bye Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth...

And that's before the Brits and their allies get the Bomb. Which they'll definitely get before the Yanks due to the aforementioned blockade and bombardment of cities anywhere near the ocean.

No, the RN would have come in like a juggernaut and ripped the USN to shreds the moment any United States declared an intention to invade Canada and go all nutso on the New World. They wouldn't have dared do anything other than immediately go for the throat.

There is just one question, you do realise that the USN would be the size it was in OTL (at the peak in WW2), you also have to realise that Britain not have Lend-Lease (compared to OTL), still have debts with the United States and needs to fight Germany, Japan and their allies in WW2 in Europe, Asia and Africa, all the while defend Britain and its Empire from Germany, Japan and its allies.

How will the RN be able to do such a mission in the first place?

 

[British Republic]

Not once much of said capacity and much of the workforce for making use of said capacity lies in ruins.

Also remember that ships cannot be built instantly, and any ships the USA tried to build would be destroyed by RN bombardment a few days at most into construction.

How will it be able to launch such a attack when its armed forces don't have Lend-Lease, needs to fight Germany, Japan and their allies in WW2 in Europe, Asia and Africa, all the while defend Britain and its Empire from Germany, Japan and its allies.

And if does such a mission, it would face the US Armed Forces (at its OTL peak size in WW2) who only have to invade Canada and defend the Atlantic and Pacific borders...

 

[British Republic]

And I suppose this opinion is backed up with a thorough familiarity with the comparative naval strength and capability of the respective nations, an intuitive grasp of the implications of relative ship-building capacities, and a clear understanding of how their naval organizations mesh on the open ocean?

Because, as far as I understand, it took the US less than five years to go from just about equal to the RN in size to being larger than all other navies on the planet combined.

People in this topic seem to be drastically under-estimating what the US was in the early 20th century. The American military industrial complex was able to supply the war effort of the entire UN during WWII and still build up a military force of its own equal to or greater than that of any of its allies (excepting the Red Army itself), and this was with a US that never militarized to the degree the Germans or the Soviets did, not even to the degree the French or the British did.

A US that goes full bore military conquest mode like OTL Germany (or worse, considering even the Nazis didn't begin fully militarizing their economy until late in the war) would be a beast of a war machine the likes of which the world has never seen. An army larger than the Red Army at the height of its Bagration formidability, a navy larger than that of the rest of the planet, an air force able to establish and maintain total air dominance over the entire North American continent against all possible comers, and the logistic and industrial means to keep all this well supplied and growing.

There was never a point at which the US could have conquered the whole world all on its lonesome. No nation has ever been at that point. However, there was also never a point at which any theoretical combination of powers could have defeated the US in the Western Hemisphere after WWI.

EDIT: Also, there was no point in the post-WWI era where the Royal Navy had any significant size advantage over the US Navy. Especially in the latter part of this era, the USN was actually larger. The way naval warfare operates, the Royal Navy, even with the assistance of the French and the Italians, is not going to be able to realistically attain naval superiority in US coastal waters. Between the huge distance involved in operating across the Atlantic (and, once the US takes Halifax, there are no western hemisphere ports capable of sustaining a major Eurasian naval force that aren't American), the infrastructural benefits of operating in home waters, and the presence of land-based fighters and guns, any RN admiral that proposed a plan to try would be cashiered and forced into retirement in an instant, as it would be obvious he has begun to go senile and can no longer rationally execute his duties to the Crown.

You make a lot of good points in relation to the potential industrial and military strength of the United States, you also have to factor Britain having no lend-lease, having to deal with and defend itself against Germany, Italy and their allies in Europe, Asia and Africa and the fact they still have they WW1 debts in relation to the United States.

Also considering that this ATL US would state that they would consider Canada as US States and its people as Americans, as well as the possibility (thanks to similar social-economic condition) that a similar government might also be in power in Ottawa as well, Canada (or the English-Speakers of European origin) might not be to hard to annex...

It does no need to have a war against the rest of the world, it just needs to annex North America, Central America and the Caribbean in several stages and place South America under its economic and military control while the states in question remain normally independent (as long as they remain loyal to Washington)

 

[British Republic]

my thoughts exactly. You can't really say "No because the RN" when it comes to the world of 1940. The USN, combined with land based air would be a very different creature in the Western hemisphere, though, yes, the RN could make a definite stand. Also, yes, the U.S. can replace an entire fleet if it has to, look at production statistics to prove it.

Now, holding mexico and Latin America through military occupation is impossible. But pride in the RN doesn't make it possible for it to blockade the entire american coastline and reduce several huge cities to rubble.

There would not be a military occupation of Latin America, there would be co-opting of the European and mixed-race origin people in Latin America and a “American Co-Prosperity Sphere” (ACPS) covering South America, basically they are economically tied to the United States (a economic/customs union inn other words) and maybe a defence alliance as well, also as long they don't ally with anyone outside the America's or try and “stab America in the back”, they can do what they want without interference from Washington.

Mexico and Central America would be possible, more do if they co-opt the European and mixed-race origin people in the region...

 

[British Republic]

All of South America is a challenge, no doubt, but this has more to do with the huge distances involved and the relative lack of infrastructural development in large parts of the continent. Mexico and Central America are more than possible and definitively desirable. Mexico had a much smaller population in the early 20th century than it does today (it went through a massive demographic boom in the middle of the century) and was comparatively much poorer.

However, Mexico and Central America will share some of the problems of the rest of Latin America, namely large distances and under-development. It will be expensive in blood and treasure to take and hold the two areas, although, strategically, would be very desirable. Taking and holding the rest of Latin America and Brazil would take extraordinary dedication on the part of the American people, getting into ASB levels of devotion to this hypothetical totalitarian government. Subjecting as much as possible of South America to pro-American dictatorships is much more realistic.

South America would end up (with the co-opting of the European and mixed-race origin people) as part of a American Co-Prosperity Sphere” (ACPS) covering South America, basically they are economically tied to the United States (a economic/customs union inn other words) and maybe a defence alliance as well, also as long they don't ally with anyone outside the America's or try and “stab America in the back”, they can do what they want without interference from Washington.

I agree that Mexico and Central America would be possible to annex into the US itself although it would take a lot of effort...

 

[British Republic]

Realistically, I think the US could hold Canada and most of Mexico, but Mexico and Canada would have significant partisan activity.

The Western allies would have to decide which devil to live with, the US, the USSR,or the Nazis. They'd probably pick the Nazis.

Considering that this ATL US would state that they would consider Canada as US States and its people as Americans, as well as the possibility (thanks to similar social-economic condition) that a similar government might also be in power in Ottawa as well, Canada (or the English-Speakers of European origin) might not be to hard to annex...

Co-opting the European and mixed-race origin people in Mexico would also help as well...

The only significant rebel activity would come from Socialists and Communists from all 3 countries...

This ATL US would take a isolationist position in relation to affairs in Europe, Asia and Africa, so it would avoid direct support of any side in WW2, however with no lend-lease for either the UK or the USSR, the Axis powers would have a advantage, although unless they do the actions (pre-war) they do in TLNF TL, they will still find it hard to win and there is a good chance they will fail...

 

[British Republic]

OP specified the 20s & 30s, not 1940.

As it happens, there are specific shipbuilding facilities which are very difficult to shell without sailing through mine belts and coastal artillery ranges, IIRC - like the Philadelphia Navy Yards - that would make it very expensive to interdict construction.

Not 1940, but rather this government would come to power in the mid-30s, by the latter 30s, the US Military should be close to (if not at the level) its peak levels (in OTL during WW2) by then...

 

[British Republic]

One of the most over-looked factor here is the reaction of the Canadian-Latin american-European-British. The majority of the poster seem to assume they would watch idle a USA transforming into a war-hungry juggernaut.

I think that if the US begin such military build-up, other nations would do the same. The British would be the first one, possibly (no matter the Washington treaty) asking each dominion to boost/build a consequent fleet, build incredible amount of fort on the Canadian border/leave great forces there and, one of the most overlook point, prepare the Indian Raj army to be up to part with the British standard.

I don't know if its true, but i read some where that they could field more than 100 Indian divisions. Of course it would mean severe industrial boost and lots of surplus build up before the war but if the British (and I think its one of the most important point) are willing to go to war against USA they could achieve these conditions and force the US to fight a war they weren't prepared to fight.

The Washington Navy Treaty would be dead as soon as Japan leaves in OTL in 1936, maybe even earlier due to to butterflies, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are unlikely to consider America a threat (in the first 2, Japan is the main issue), in the case of Britain they will not have Lend Lease and also have to deal with Germany, Japan and its allies...

In the case of Canada, Washington would not consider the Canadians the enemy (since they mostly of European origin and are culturally close to Americans, at least the English-Speaking ones are), rather as “Americans living under British tyranny”, so the Americans can make clear that if they take control of Canada, they will treat the Canadians as as if where Americans (or European origin), so they will become US States as well as they take control, while it would be more authoritarian, I doubt if many would be willing to go against the United States.

The French Canadians might object to this, but since they would become a US State, they would be no worse than OTL in the 1930s, unless they where left-wing...

Also considering that the same social-economic conditions in America would also apply to Canada, we might also see a political party inspired by the Nationalists-Fascists in America take power, who would almost certainly want close ties with America to help each other develop their economies out of the Depression.

Lastly, Britain stills owns money to America due to the legacy of WW1, to Britain would have its hands partly tied financially (they would not have Lend Lease compared to OTL)

 

[sarahz]

The US mobilized more men into the US military for WWII than lived in Canada at the time. A US that mobilized and militarized to the degree that Nazi Germany did in the 30's would be able to hit a 1:1 ratio of armed soldiers to Canadian citizens in occupying.

Now, it wouldn't actually do this (it's neither necessary nor possible if this *USA is trying to hold down the rest of the Americas, too), but it demonstrates the sheer disparity under question here.

If by 'some time' you mean anything but a few weeks until the end of major hostilities, you're wrong.

yes but could the us do that? The POD sort of assumes that things have gone really badly economically for the USA in order to get a fascist government. Rearmrament might help with recovery of course, but a USA on bad terms with GB and France would have relatively little foreign trade.Also whatever the superiority of numbers of US forces against Canada/ the empire they would have very little combat experience and be committed to seizing a significant number of urban areas in street fighting and holding down a truly massive acreage.
perhaps not quite as easy as all that.
Finally with the US comnitted to this course i dont think they would have the capital to suply Hitlers rearmrament programme and thus directly cause WW2 as the USA did OTl