Question about US power.

B-E-A-Utiful...

The United States had the industrial, agricultural, oil making capabilities. Also, they were geographically isolated and were able to be safe, there was never a real fear of the Germans or Japanese marching across the states. Because of this, the United States was able to produce vast amounts of equipment, fuel and personnel; not to mention that they were able to advance the current products without fear of their labs or factories being touched by bombers.

If geography alone was the cause of American advantages, then the Soviets should have been able to crush the Germans readily in 1941 and without American aid due to Soviet geographical advantages.
 
Another one for EU team

Turing + Konrad Zuze in the same team
Bletchley Park teams to solve US codes
US don't get any ENIGMA machine....


Question - Position of Canada ?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As this thread has evolved from a rather basic question to a consideration of specific tactical considerations, the lack of context seems to have been lost in the churn. The lack of a POD creates a near impossible chasm that prevents a real analysis of the potential.

Among the critical issues that are not addressed and have huge effect (unless one runs off to ASBdom and just makes it “happen”) on the real answer to the OP are:

  • Did Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand side with the “Mother country”? Short of an almost unimaginable change, it is impossible to see Australia or New Zealand siding with Japan. Canada is less clear, although regional realities would be a serious consideration to Canada; choosing to be at least neutral instead of making itself a battleground as the only land frontier between the two opponents.
  • What did the South American states, especially Brazil chose to do? Brazil is an enormous resource, with Brazil’s natural resources the U.S. becomes far more capable of almost infinite production than without her.
  • The discussion regarding submarines is something of “non-issue”. U.S. boats would have little opportunity to strangle an UK that had easy access to the resources of Europe. Operation of USN boats in the Med would be difficult, at best. The same is true of the hypothetical Alliance’s boats in the Western Hemisphere. After a “Happy Time’ similar to OTL the coastal waters of the U.S. would rapidly become lethal to enemy submarines.
Without these basic questions being answered the entire debate has no anchor.
 
As this thread has evolved from a rather basic question to a consideration of specific tactical considerations, the lack of context seems to have been lost in the churn. The lack of a POD creates a near impossible chasm that prevents a real analysis of the potential.

Among the critical issues that are not addressed and have huge effect (unless one runs off to ASBdom and just makes it “happen”) on the real answer to the OP are:

  • Did Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand side with the “Mother country”? Short of an almost unimaginable change, it is impossible to see Australia or New Zealand siding with Japan. Canada is less clear, although regional realities would be a serious consideration to Canada; choosing to be at least neutral instead of making itself a battleground as the only land frontier between the two opponents.

  • What did the South American states, especially Brazil chose to do? Brazil is an enormous resource, with Brazil’s natural resources the U.S. becomes far more capable of almost infinite production than without her.

  • The discussion regarding submarines is something of “non-issue”. U.S. boats would have little opportunity to strangle an UK that had easy access to the resources of Europe. Operation of USN boats in the Med would be difficult, at best. The same is true of the hypothetical Alliance’s boats in the Western Hemisphere. After a “Happy Time’ similar to OTL the coastal waters of the U.S. would rapidly become lethal to enemy submarines.
Without these basic questions being answered the entire debate has no anchor.

3 really good questions.....

- The only way i see UK+FR to ally to GR / Jp is that both Gr AND Jp have very different governments.... LOL - USA have to also have a very very different one for this war to be possible....
This also Gr and Jp good guys is the only thing that turn possible to Aus + Nz to join...
For that - POD as to be at minimum 1937.... 1940 is too late


- South America is a wild guess - depend of the changes of government - see 1st question

- True - but for a time fun to speculate
 
I must admit I have real difficulty in seeing Britain giving up the Empire just to spite the USA. Why?? Whats in it for them??

Allying with Germany (just lost a million men fighting for them)?
France (just lost a millionm men supporting them to litle long term result)
Japan (who have been casting lustful eyes on the Far East possesions for rather a long time)


Now if the USA is even more annoying than it was in OTL I can see the Empire sitting back and smirking while the Axis + France attack them, but I really cannot justify WHY they would join in (unless of course they do an Italy..:) And if they did, I'd think them more likely to join the USA than the Axis

In fact, the best option for Britain is to implement their classical continental strategy on a wide scale, and make sure all the other parties wear themselves out. While building up their forces, and making s**tloads of money selling to everyone....

Now if it turned out to be economic warfare, thats a different matter. But its actually rather difficult to have an economic war in the 20's-30's against either the USA or the Empire, they are both simply far too self-contained for it to work properly.

I simply cant get this to make sense even with a 1918 POD. The other powers, yes. Allied with them (as long as Germany isnt quite so nuts about the Jews et al) against Russia, THAT I can see. But the USA? Nah, just leave them alone in glorious isolation while the rest of the world trundles on without them. There simply isnt anything that benefits the Empire (and remember, we are talking the Empire here, not Britain...) that makes it anything like worthwhile.

Oh, one other thing on the wonders of US production...:)

First, be very very careful of GDP figures. The USA was a very high cost area indeed. Best is to compare the output of various basic and non-basic military and industrial commodities. A lot of the figures tend to be lazy and just take costs.

Second, one of the reasons the USA could have such a high production was that (relatively) they had small armed forces. Thus could throw men at industrial problems. They could do this because the Pacific war was basically a naval/air war, and in the rest of the world they had the Russians and the British to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Now if they are fighting the coalition mentioned, they are outnumbered around 5:2 (even if we ignore India). So they simply cant do this, unless war is restricted to a naval/air campaign. Which means they arent going to have as high a production, because some of the men are in uniform, not the factories.
 
3 really good questions.....

- The only way i see UK+FR to ally to GR / Jp is that both Gr AND Jp have very different governments.... LOL - USA have to also have a very very different one for this war to be possible....
This also Gr and Jp good guys is the only thing that turn possible to Aus + Nz to join...
For that - POD as to be at minimum 1937.... 1940 is too late


- South America is a wild guess - depend of the changes of government - see 1st question

- True - but for a time fun to speculate

I do agree with you, in fact the PoD has to be before 1930 I think.

Now if Germany comes out of the depression with a reasonable government (and spends its bile on the evil Russians), and Japan decides Manchuria is enough (and again spits on the evil communists), we have a possible (not likely, but possible) basis of an alliance. But it would be aimed at Russia, not the USA.

The USA has to do something stupid enough to make everyone think they are backing Russia (unlikely, but US politicians are certainly stupid enough on OTL information :), but it would take a real effort to get the USA to be attacked first. Attacking Russia first is so much more sensible, after all with the MN, KM, part of the RN in european waters, and RN + IJN in the pacific, the USN isnt going to do much damage (especially if it strays into air power range).

Maybe the USA attacking Canada might do it? The Empire would go ballistic, France is going to be upset at least (the country that came to our aid in 1914...), and the others can show mutual support (knowing this means the British will come with them to Moscow later). Of course this also means the USA has to have a much stronger army, and this will be difficult given the USA postion on this (at least, to make it strong enough to roll over Canada before support arrives, while keeping enough back in case of coastal raids and such)
 
Yep, but i just love to see a reasonable possible POD that generate this option ....
Someone that writes way better than me for sure......

The only one that is near is the one from rast......A Shift in Priorities
 
3 really good questions.....

- The only way i see UK+FR to ally to GR / Jp is that both Gr AND Jp have very different governments.... LOL - USA have to also have a very very different one for this war to be possible....

Or the UK and France end up with radically different governments.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The U.S. attacking Canada in the '30s will require a POD that utterly changes the face of the World. Once you get there, all bets are off.
I do agree with you, in fact the PoD has to be before 1930 I think.

Now if Germany comes out of the depression with a reasonable government (and spends its bile on the evil Russians), and Japan decides Manchuria is enough (and again spits on the evil communists), we have a possible (not likely, but possible) basis of an alliance. But it would be aimed at Russia, not the USA.

The USA has to do something stupid enough to make everyone think they are backing Russia (unlikely, but US politicians are certainly stupid enough on OTL information :), but it would take a real effort to get the USA to be attacked first. Attacking Russia first is so much more sensible, after all with the MN, KM, part of the RN in european waters, and RN + IJN in the pacific, the USN isnt going to do much damage (especially if it strays into air power range).

Maybe the USA attacking Canada might do it? The Empire would go ballistic, France is going to be upset at least (the country that came to our aid in 1914...), and the others can show mutual support (knowing this means the British will come with them to Moscow later). Of course this also means the USA has to have a much stronger army, and this will be difficult given the USA postion on this (at least, to make it strong enough to roll over Canada before support arrives, while keeping enough back in case of coastal raids and such)
 
Another interesting point is that much of the British Empire's "warmaking potential" lies in Canada and Australia. Canada, if not outright overrun, would certainly be a major battleground and wouldn't be producing much with the US wrecking Canada's industrial centers. As for Australia, the point has already been well-made re: America's ability to interdict sea lanes.

I think the important point is this: at no point given the stated coalition is the US at risk of being invaded (raids from Canada aside). However, from Day 1 of the war, large parts of the Coalition's periphery are at risk of invasion/interdiction, and after a few years, even their core territory is at risk. Japan would certainly be starved into submission, and while this isn't possible to do to Britain/Europe, after 3-4 years of war the US would easily capable of forcing Japan, Australia, and Canada out of the war, and would have global sea superiority along with heavy bomber superiority - basically, the US would be talking about AWPD-1 on steroids.

Oh, and by the way - we're forgetting about two strong points. China was strongly supported politically by the United States, and would certainly be even more heavily courted. While the US couldn't ship in Lend Lease, at the same time, the IJA would still be tied down in China fighting an unwinnable war.

Even more importantly, don't you think the Soviet Union would be heavily courted by the United States? It would be very easy to make a realpolitik case to Stalin, based both on reality and his fears - ie, after the Coalition beats the United States, what's to stop them from marching East? Historically, every member of the Coalition has invaded Russia - Napoleon, the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, and WW1. This would be absolutely crushing to the the Coalition, and almost certainly the most likely outcome. The end of the war would result in Soviet occupation of Central and Western Europe, US domination of the Pacific/Oceania/North America, Indian independence, and the continued existence of Great Britain as little more than a US puppet state.

So, yes, for reasons industrial, political, technological, and military, the US is an unbeatable power in this scenario.
 
Second, one of the reasons the USA could have such a high production was that (relatively) they had small armed forces. Thus could throw men at industrial problems. They could do this because the Pacific war was basically a naval/air war, and in the rest of the world they had the Russians and the British to do a lot of the heavy lifting for them. Now if they are fighting the coalition mentioned, they are outnumbered around 5:2 (even if we ignore India). So they simply cant do this, unless war is restricted to a naval/air campaign. Which means they arent going to have as high a production, because some of the men are in uniform, not the factories.

Say what? There are so many things wrong with this post I'm tempted to just do a facepalm and move on. However...

In 1939, when the US Army was smaller than Portugal's, the US also had minimal industrial production compared to, say, 1944, when the US had the 5th largest army in the world (after Soviet Union, Germany, China, and India), by far the most mobile, and arguably the most capable.

As for the British doing the "heavy lifting", you are aware that the British Army maxed out at IIRC 27 divisions? The US had more than double that number in the ETO alone, even excluding Italy. While it's true that the British had a larger quantity of ground forces in being in the ETO up until early 1944, they were hardly doing the "heavy lifting". The US was side by side with them in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, and if the British had more divisions in combat at the beginning, this rapidly changed.

The US also supported a far larger Army Air Force as compared to the RAF - and in fact, by 1943, if anyone was doing the heavy lifting with regards to air power, it was the USAAF.

Finally, while you are right that the US would have to divert more personnel from production to the military, the US also had two largely untapped population pools - women and blacks. In such a global war, I see no reason why women and blacks wouldn't be utilized far more in both industry and the military than they were historically.
 
So they simply cant do this, unless war is restricted to a naval/air campaign. Which means they arent going to have as high a production, because some of the men are in uniform, not the factories.

By nature of geography, wouldn't this hypothetical war be limited to a naval/air campaign? For the first couple of years, at least...
 
Another interesting point is that much of the British Empire's "warmaking potential" lies in Canada and Australia. Canada, if not outright overrun, would certainly be a major battleground and wouldn't be producing much with the US wrecking Canada's industrial centers. As for Australia, the point has already been well-made re: America's ability to interdict sea lanes.

I think the important point is this: at no point given the stated coalition is the US at risk of being invaded (raids from Canada aside). However, from Day 1 of the war, large parts of the Coalition's periphery are at risk of invasion/interdiction, and after a few years, even their core territory is at risk. Japan would certainly be starved into submission, and while this isn't possible to do to Britain/Europe, after 3-4 years of war the US would easily capable of forcing Japan, Australia, and Canada out of the war, and would have global sea superiority along with heavy bomber superiority - basically, the US would be talking about AWPD-1 on steroids.

Oh, and by the way - we're forgetting about two strong points. China was strongly supported politically by the United States, and would certainly be even more heavily courted. While the US couldn't ship in Lend Lease, at the same time, the IJA would still be tied down in China fighting an unwinnable war.

Even more importantly, don't you think the Soviet Union would be heavily courted by the United States? It would be very easy to make a realpolitik case to Stalin, based both on reality and his fears - ie, after the Coalition beats the United States, what's to stop them from marching East? Historically, every member of the Coalition has invaded Russia - Napoleon, the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War, and WW1. This would be absolutely crushing to the the Coalition, and almost certainly the most likely outcome. The end of the war would result in Soviet occupation of Central and Western Europe, US domination of the Pacific/Oceania/North America, Indian independence, and the continued existence of Great Britain as little more than a US puppet state.

So, yes, for reasons industrial, political, technological, and military, the US is an unbeatable power in this scenario.


Until mid 1942 - or 1943 USA as no Army to talk about.... - ditto Air Force and until that date USNavy is no way in the same league of the adversary....

So - until 1942 - say 1939 to 1942 - the other side as more or less free reign.
If they are allies - Ger as no invaded Fr and most probably not Nor.
So, say in the OTL date Ger+UK+Fr attack USSR - Ger as 30+ divisions (the ones in occupied territory + DAK) and as not loss planes in the BoF and in the BoB - so as also about 2000 + planes (add also the ones that are in NA...).
If UK+FR bombard Baku from Siria as is planed in OTL - USSR is in trouble.
If they also do a Norway campaign in Murmansk.....
Add the fact that if no risk of Gr bombing - but risk of USA attack - The UK military industry is not placed in Canada and Australia.....

And if you add the RAF to the LW the USSAF - that don't have any bases in EU - is no way superior....

As i write before, Cold War easy - but difficult Hot War.....
 
Until mid 1942 - or 1943 USA as no Army to talk about.... - ditto Air Force and until that date USNavy is no way in the same league of the adversary....


This statement assumes (and a huge, huge assumption). That whatever TL ends up with this split of the world DOES NOT CHANGE the armament program of the USA (or anyone else for that matter).

The question was about potential NOT how that potential is used. You can't assume major changes in the government and alliance structure of the world but also assume that one of the players does not change...:eek:

In order to actually figure out something beyond potential power levels we would need to figure out a POD and go from there, making changes to all of the players to match what the POD caused the OTHER players to do. Without that level of detail it is impossible to state what actual level of military forces a country - any country - in the new TL would have.
 
Yes, I made that assumption - only change the political parameters and not the military / production ones.....
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, I made that assumption - only change the political parameters and not the military / production ones.....

Which is the real difficulty. You change one and you change the other. As an example you can look at how the U.S. Congress reacted once it believed that their was an actual threat in June of 1940 after France fell. The military that crushed Japan and the production capacity that supplied the free world were all mobilized by the heretofor Isolationist Congress.

There is more than a kernel of truth to the "best friend and worst enemy" meme.
 
my 2 cents Answer to the OP

Aproximately in WW2 could a coalition of Britain, France, Japan and Germany (not USSR) have been stronger than the US in terms of military power? Or the US in full mobilization is just too strong to be stopped?

Just wanted to check the power of the US in comparison to the rest...


From reading through all the posts so far, the most intelligent thing that has been said (repeatedly) is that The POD has to be early and probably pre-1900. This in turn makes the OTL figures less reliable...

...but not unusable. If there is an "answer" to the OP's question, it would be that a war is entirely Feasible without ASBs. One just needs to write an entertaining and modestly detailed story from a sufficiently early POD. The US has enormous potential industrial and geographic advantages, but everyone seems to agree that it was never omnipotent. At least not until 1944 :rolleyes:.

Would it be difficult to draw up a scenario for your coalition? Yes, but it would be fun to try.

Would the war be primarily naval and aerial? That seems to be a yes.

Would Canada be generally screwed? :p That also seems to be a yes.

Would there be a picture a la the Worldwar books with Hitler, Churchill, de Gaulle, Mussolini, and Hirohito meeting around the war room over a map of North America? :p:rolleyes:

Nope.... the butterfly effect would change a lot of the important names and faces.

Lastly, I'm fairly certain there is at least one story around here with a scenario not too far off from this. For example," A Red Dawn: American Revolution and Rebirth" is a sequel TL about a communist USA that is not liked by any of the potential coalition members of the OP's question. I bring this up to show one radical scenario (with a POD in like 1895) that could potentially lead to a pan-European war against the USA. (btw, in the TL I mention, such a war doesn't happen).
 
So one needs to construct a situation where the European powers line up against the U.S.A. before anyone can do any hard and fast analysis.

So I am going to try and make a reasonable one with a Post-1900 point of departure. Wish me luck.:D

So Germany never resumes unrestricted submarine warfare, as a result the U.S.A. stays neutral in WWI. Because the U.S. is neutral, Wilson cuts of loans to the U.K. and France in 1916. This results in a war of mutual exhaustion.

Every European economy is now completely trashed. No one has the strength to prevent the rise of Communism in Russia, and a general fear of Communism spreads throughout Europe. This fear is accompanied by a strong stabbed in the back sentiment in all major European nations. In the UK and France, this sentiment is built along the lines of "We would have won if the Americans hadn't cut us off." In Germany this sentiment is built along the lines of "We would have won if our leaders hadn't called it quits when they did."

The great depression hits hard, and the economic devastation that happened in Germany is now a Europe wide phenomenon.

Il Duce creates Fascism and rises to power in Italy. Fear of Communism leads to the rise of something similar to Nazism in Germany. France becomes an Integralist state. In the UK, a founder of a Fascist party attempts to imitate Mussolini's march on Rome, and to their great surprise, they succeed.

So now we have all of the major European players under some form of Fascist/Integralist ideology. Now all we need to do is find a way for them to focus there rage against the U.S.A. instead of the U.S.S.R., or find a way for them to be at war with the U.S. before they start a war with the U.S.S.R. An alliance with Japan and an American-Japanese flashpoint over China/The Philippines?
 
So one needs to construct a situation where the European powers line up against the U.S.A. before anyone can do any hard and fast analysis.

Or just have them ignore the analysis. Hitler didn't think Pittsburgh and Detroit were sleepy hamlets, he just thought it would take a long time for the US to mobilize because they were soft and liked their luxuries too much.

It is easy enough to say "so the US builds 80 times as many cars as we do. So what? We're building tanks. Their cars aren't a threat."

For that matter, even a fairly good intelligence analyst is quite likely to skip right past something called "Food Machinery Corporation" or the "Pullman Car Company" when estimating potential armored vehicle production. :-}
 
Top