No Pacific Theater in WW2: Effects on Europe?

Okay, let's assume that there's no Pacific Theater in WW2, but America joins the European War in March when Germany sinks a destroyer off the coast of New York.

What happens to the European Theater?
 
More American troops and materiel available earlier could lead to moderately quicker victory. I don't think we'd see the same degree of mobilisation and popular willingness to sacrifice in the States without Pearl Harbour, though, so it's not going to be a simple case of subtracting the numbers from the Pacific and adding them in the ETO.

Worst-case scenario: US forces in large numbery by spring '42.

Successful North African campaign in mid-42

Landings in France by spring '43

Resignation of Eisenhower over defeat of landing force through inadequate training and equipment in mid-43

Once-bitten SHAEF decides to invade through Italy and Norway.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Resignation of Eisenhower over defeat of landing force through inadequate training and equipment in mid-43
Would a landing in mid-43 fail though? At that point, the Germans hadn't yet built significant coastal defenses, and even in OTL the only place where the invasion forces suffered significant casualties was at Omaha Beach--the other four landings went more or less according to plan, despite enemy fire and rough weather.

Now I won't go too far on a limb about that, I'm sure there are people in here who know their history of WW2 inside and out.
 
Would a landing in mid-43 fail though? At that point, the Germans hadn't yet built significant coastal defenses, and even in OTL the only place where the invasion forces suffered significant casualties was at Omaha Beach--the other four landings went more or less according to plan, despite enemy fire and rough weather.

Now I won't go too far on a limb about that, I'm sure there are people in here who know their history of WW2 inside and out.

I'm not sure at all it would have to, but given the lessons the Allies had to learn the hard way in the Pacific, in North Africa, Italy and Southern France, it has a reasonably good chance of failing IMO. The German troops that year are still sitting in the middle of a much better-functioning infrastructure, have more resources at their disposal and while their own equipment is just beginning to seriously degrade, especially that of the US troops is still going through teething troubles. I wouldn't want to run that risk, personally.
 
Would a landing in mid-43 fail though? At that point, the Germans hadn't yet built significant coastal defenses, and even in OTL the only place where the invasion forces suffered significant casualties was at Omaha Beach--the other four landings went more or less according to plan, despite enemy fire and rough weather.

Now I won't go too far on a limb about that, I'm sure there are people in here who know their history of WW2 inside and out.

possible failure but not necessary. You have Torch-like landings but no Husky-like. Some lessons are learned but can't be tested again.
 
after germany is waxed, the allies insist the U.S. assist in "liberating" colonies in asia from the Japaneses
 
1943 is before the massed bombing campaigns designed to destroy the transport network, and by making them defend and defend and defend wear down the Luftwaffe, so if the Allies invade Europe in 1943 they have the two-fold problem of more mobile, faster response German units, and an uncowed Luftwaffe which can at the very least cover and support the counter-strikes, even if it can't usefully attack the landing beaches

In addition, without the disasters in Russia of mid 1944, Germany can redeploy more units to the West to cope with the emergency - OTL they lost something like 28 divisions soon after the landing and were hard on the defensive in the East. True, 1943 would see Kursk perhaps come at the same time as the landings, but this could be advantageous for the Germans - if the landings come before their full deployment, they might resume the defensive and cancel the rest of Zitadelle

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
1943 is before the massed bombing campaigns designed to destroy the transport network, and by making them defend and defend and defend wear down the Luftwaffe, so if the Allies invade Europe in 1943 they have the two-fold problem of more mobile, faster response German units, and an uncowed Luftwaffe which can at the very least cover and support the counter-strikes, even if it can't usefully attack the landing beaches

In addition, without the disasters in Russia of mid 1944, Germany can redeploy more units to the West to cope with the emergency - OTL they lost something like 28 divisions soon after the landing and were hard on the defensive in the East. True, 1943 would see Kursk perhaps come at the same time as the landings, but this could be advantageous for the Germans - if the landings come before their full deployment, they might resume the defensive and cancel the rest of Zitadelle

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Bagration was after Overlord. In fact it was timed to vaguely coincide with Overlord but launched a bit later to see if Wallies would succeed or not.
 
Okay, let's assume that there's no Pacific Theater in WW2, but America joins the European War in March when Germany sinks a destroyer off the coast of New York.

What happens to the European Theater?

Is it related to the "The Legacy of Sun Yat-sen" TL?
 
A few possibilities to consider.

If the USA entered the war in March (1941?), would this impact the Wally/Soviet alliance? Is it possible that with full US participation this early the Churchill government would be less motivated to nurture the Soviet alliance or provide material assistance? If the Wallies believed they were able to win the war against Germany without Soviet assistance, would the grand alliance survive even until the end of the war? If the USSR and Wallies were simply co-belligerents fighting the same enemy and not true allies, could this increase the potential for violent conflict between the two as the war drew to a close.

Left to its own devices, Japan would either conclude its war with China sucessfully or still be engaged in a major land war on the Asian continent. I am presuming "no pacific theatre" means the Japanese have not invaded western colonies and forced the US and UK to respond, so Indochina, Indonesia, Singapore, the Phillipines, etc are not in Japanese hands. Possibly the European war will end with Japan ruling a largely subjugated China and in a very powerful position, militarily and diplomatically. They would be the dominant naval power in the western pacific and a major Asian land power. They would be in a position to threaten both the USSR and Wally interests in the pacific, and probably in a hostile relationship with both. If a hot or cold war develops between the Wallies and USSR, Japan could seek to gain further influence or advantage by aligning itself with one or the other. For their part, I could see the Wallies seeking alliance with Japan to provide and "eastern" front to threaten the USSR, much as china served that role in the late 1970's
 
Top