XLII wrote:
Alright, so in more detail:
You claim that, with no more input than a recon flight and a vague feeling of meh, the USA will engage in a spending spree to surpass the european allies in military technology. I strongly contest that. Also, where in the timeline is the German Empire expanding to South America beyond an accidental fashion?
While I too find the idea rather nonsensical that the US would go on a 'spree' to regain parity due to possible considerations of 'inadequacy' vis-à-vis the German and/or European military the plain fact is historically it is what the US does when faced with parity issues. We panic, we spend tons of money to regain ground and up until the end of WWII OTL we usually then let things drift till the NEXT time it happens.
As you say to whit:
-The "recon" flight has revealed that the rumored, (it you think Jack has not been sending 'reports' home you missed the various groups he 'works' for and what his family and those groups put him in the situation he's in for) German weapons development has significantly outpaced both the US and for that matter most of the rest of the world. This will NOT generate a "meh" reaction in Washington. In general this only confirms the "trend" that has been reported by numerous military and intelligence assets available. Congress would not have balked at the cost this is a national priority.
-We don’t know, (because PM has never gone that deep into developments outside of Germany) exactly what the status of various technologies are in the US so we can speculate from OTL developments and programs but I caution anyone from taking that too far. For one NACA was established in 1915 and the POD is not until 1916 which means that unless there was a major butterfly the PREMIER aeronautics research and development establishment in the world for the rest of the century is already up and running and despite budget crunches from the depression it kept careful and very detailed tabs on developments in the rest of the world. This has 'butterflies' that I don’t think you, (or PM actually) have properly considered. (See below)
-There is direct evidence gained and reported by OTHER sources that indicate that the US requires a major military re-investment and this has come from multiple sources in the US military, industry, and intelligence. In order to STAY "safely isolated" but still capable of "ensuring free trade" the US will require to spend major money on it's military and this is not a item that will be 'questioned' in Washington at this point in time. The "recon" flight is only the final nail in the coffin of arguing against this spending not the 'trigger'.
To whit:
•These are the late 1940ies without OTL WW2◦This means first and foremost, the US were never a direct participant in the war. Furthermore, they were never attacked. Even more, they profited from the war. Thereby maintaining and strengthening isolationist sentiment.
But TTL there is also less 'distraction' from being a direct participant and a requirement that US arms and military supplies are falling rapidly behind the participants. This directly impacts the ability of the US to sell arms and armaments to the participants and would automatically drive design and innovation both for sale to participants and to the US itself. This directly means that things like the B-29 will be accelerated as will new weapons and technology. Unlike OTL development of both defensive, (radar for example) and offensive (turbofan jet engines) will likely be accelerated. Especially as information on such technology makes it way back to the US. Direct participation in WWII in many cases was the direct cause of several advanced technologies to be SLOWED in development in favor of less-advanced but faster deployment of 'standard' technologies.
◦We also lack OTLs CIA (and its black budgets) and the military-industrial complex (and its lobbying power). Therefore, the budget for military arms has to be approved by Congress.
OSS actually, and arguably they were a LOT more capable than the CIA which 'replaced' them. They had a more realistic assessment of their strengths and weakness and a lot less hubris over their capabilities. And contrary to popular belief the so called 'military-industrial complex' has existed since blacksmiths made armor and swords and is in no way a 'modern' thing. Companies in the US made everything from guns to battleships and would continue to do so TTL and IN doing so would be required to "keep up" with developments outside the US. This in turn feeds back to 'lobbying' Congress to defray the costs of such R&D by buying that equipment for the US as well as allowing its sale to others. (Note I'm not sure what you are attempting to imply with the last bit but Congress has ALWAYS been the approving authority for the military budget. Always. And though they DO tend to be conservative they also tend to panic easily when confronted with evidence of a significant capability gap)
◦The same Congress which has been historically reluctant to spend on anything beyond the navy or proven technology.
Historically they will spend what they need to spend when they think they need to spend it. Historically this is most often done when they either become 'panicked' over supposed 'gaps' or when they are convinced by the military that such spending is required. Note that historically the latter is BEFORE the US is nominally directly involved in a conflict, while the former is WHEN the US becomes involved directly. In TTL the military has plenty of evidence that the US is falling significantly behind in certain areas and Congress will not hesitate to spend the money needed to correct this.
Given the circumstances of TTL Congress would have authorized significantly increased spending sometime after Spain as we did OTL since the evidence clearly supports the US is falling behind.
•The USA has no reason to see the German Empire as a hostile power◦As per Word of Author on the prevailing sentiment of the POTUS-to-be:
◾Peabody-Martini said: ↑
And at any rate they were definitely showing signs of a guilty conscience. This was unbelievable. They were this worried about the potential actions of a relatively benign rival power like the Germans? What did they think would happen if the Soviets had won?
"Hostile" no but worrying as German influence has expanded greatly and to an extent where it both interferes with common US trade and presents a danger to US interests. (A note that Trumann is noted to be running in an election but probably NOT for POTUS as he was a very 'compromise' candidate OTL and very unlikely to be as popular TTL without the Truman Committee. Even if such a committee is set up TTL it's likely the notoriety and public exposure will be less than OTL. AND it was his internal, {political} exposure that brought him to be nominated for VP in OTL and in TTL he's less likely to be in such a position. He CAN run but unless he's the "last-man-standing" after the more higher profile politicians are brought down by scandal, and even then he's not likely to be the first choice of his party, it's not likely he'd win)
Having 'won' WWI the German Empire has been expanding its influence over Europe to the point where its "historic" enemies of France and England have become "allies" further is has expanded that influence into China, and Asia and looks to be poised to remove Japan as a counter influence in the Pacific. While this does open some doors for the US in fact the US must now consider that should they do nothing then German will in fact 'surround' them with influence which will effect US trade and prestige. While the USSR was arguably 'worse' the fact remains that no US politician, (and the military certainly won't) can afford to trust that Germany will remain 'relatively benign' and must act accordingly.
◦The Monroe Doctrine specifies only that interference in South American politics is a no-no, not having friendly relations with a state down there.
Any reading of the Monroe Doctrine shows this to be unsupported by either US action or policy. "Friendly" relations does not extend to arms and military aid both of which Germany is pursuing. Further the Germany has directly operated to REDUCE US influence in South America which IS against the common interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine as it reduces the US's ability to influence politics. No there is no way the US will allow this to stand. They can't as it again puts pressure on US trade and control. Further it should be obvious that prior German efforts have reduced due to the war, (they can't afford to spread that thin) so the US has in all likelihood re-developed its influence and will be VERY wary of any attempts by the Germans to return.
◦The Europeans have neither want or will to start a war or confrontation with the US, as there is nothing (material or immaterial) to be gained.
This works both ways as the US does not want war with Europe either. Keep in mind that no matter what Europe thinks the US has considered itself a 'Great Power' since the late 1890s, (and in fact this was the view held by the other "Great Powers" at the time) and the outcome of TTL's WWI would not change that much. Even when espousing significant 'isolationism' no one in the US or Europe doubted that the US was willing and able to project power to protect or defend any of its interests around the world. PM has suggested that the US has less interests in this TL but not so much that would not require and expend effort and money to maintain parity with the OTHER Great Powers.
The US is going to be seen a War Profiteer in this war but that won't be enough to make them a pariah or anything as some have suggested. They won't have the reputation or influence came after WWII OTL but unless the US were to suddenly try and jump in to actively defend Japan or the USSR at this late stage, (pretty ASB under the circumstances) there will be no reason for direct conflict. However the 'status quo' is going to be gone and the US must, (and will) step up its influence efforts to prevent Germany from filling the gaps left over. And they won't be alone as both France and Britain will do so as well.
•Therefore, there is neither need nor want for the USA to be some sort of international superpower. Why spend money on guns when it is better spent on butter.
Not a "superpower" no but it MUST remain among the "Great Powers" will all that implies. You spend money on guns to ensure your butter supply and the US will NOT let Germany become such a "superpower" if they can at all prevent it. And frankly neither Britain nor France can afford to have Germany become such a super power so I would expect that after this war is over that Germany will find both of them drifting away from them in order to prevent such an outcome.
Normally, I'd consider the argument settled at this point. Any wishing on your side for the US to confront and defeat (ha!) the Europeans is not well founded. To reiterate, neither side has want or will to engage the other. Therefore, they'll probably draw lines in the Atlantic and Pacific to mark the territories where each power is allowed to do business without interference from the other.
For the most part your right but as I noted a German dominated Europe would not be acceptable to either England or France let alone the US and frankly no such 'lines' of influence have every really worked in the real world. It does seem that PM is setting up a future US/German conflict or cold war but that remains to be seen. OTL the US was in fact losing markets in Europe prior to WWII and it would make sense this trend would continue TTL given the circumstances but that does not mean the US is not going to try and regain those markets and its influence in both Europe and Asia. (Let alone South America) Technologically and industrially the US was a very firm competitor on the open market and having sold supplies and goods to belligerents on both sides is not going to cause much concern over the long term as the DID supply everyone up to and including a great deal of obviously 'humanitarian' supplies as the story noted. Business and companies making 'deals' and supporting the losers isn't going to be more than a flash in the pan media wise for anyone if it did happen. (And as some characters in story have noted throwing the NKVD files open to the world would be a serious mistake on the Germans part and will win them no friends or support which is rather obvious. And before anyone thinks it would work if they 'only' release the parts that are damaging to another nation, like the US it doesn't work that way because it would be rather obvious the did NOT release something else in the process and what might that be?)
But, seeing as you got a hard-on for US SUPREMACY, we'll go the distance. This is two sided:
•First, the US isn't the economical powerhouse you seem to believe it to be. It is powerful, but not powerful enough to hold the next five powers hostage. Instead, if they decide they don't like being bullied, the US will suffer a recession. After all, the money must flow.
Actually it probably IS since it has been steadily recovering from the Depression AND selling to all side in the current war. This is one reason it would use that money to significantly modernize its military while expanding trade into areas of the conflict it could reach. I have seen no indication that the US is 'bullying' anyone but it has and will push as hard as it can to expand where it can. Frankly I expect Germany has lost much of the influence it had prior to the war in South America as that would be a US priority.
You are correct that there is little chance of a direct US "supremacy" as there was OTL after WWII but it is highly unlikely that German "supremacy" would go unchallenged TTL and that the US will be one of the challengers is given. What might not be so clear is that England will be another, (recall that Fleming recruited Jack both as an asset AND to keep a conduit open with the US) as will France.
•Second, even if - for some unfathomable reason - the US decides it needs to match the European powers there are some extra factors to consider, which make this both harder and far, far more expensive than OTL◦As you yourself admitted:
ejpsan said: ↑
This is where my father's background comes in, he trained in New Mexico for nuclear weapons and he was lectured by some of the same scientists who were part of the Manhattan Project and my father told me that they already had the science down they just need to get the math and engineering in place so they could make the bombs work correctly.
This is the expensive part. The extremely expensive part. Every half-competent physics major knows in theory how to build an a-bomb. They just have to get the math and engineering right.◾Meaning the lack of Tizard, Nazi Scientists and refugees really, really drives the cost up
This did not stop anyone who felt it was NECESSRY to acquire the 'bomb' once it became known. This doesn't support the argument you think you are making. When it becomes a 'requirement' money and resources will be found and frankly the US has a history of doing just that. Once it is known that Germany has developed, (and from the story it does not look as if they are pursuing it as actively and the US did OTL so it may in fact be quite a while before it happens TTL) atomic weapons then the US is just as likely as anyone else to develop their own very rapidly after that. This is ESPECIALLY true if Germany continues to develop world wide influence as it has TTL. Note that actually building a bomb is not all that difficult, what is difficult and expensive is building a GOOD bomb. Little Boy wasn't the most efficient bomb which is why Fat Man was develop but it WAS substantially easier, (and cheaper) to design and built. And on that note I will point out that from what has been written it is pretty clear the Germany is no where near getting a 'bomb' at this point. They have a very small and modestly funded project which by what we've seen is directed more towards power than weapons and with good reason as that is vastly less expensive an undertaking.
The above point can't be stressed enough. You know the theory, yes, but you need to weed out the problems. XKCD demonstrated how well the US space program worked with American engineers. You don't have anything of this sort to help along
Lets agree that XKCD is an often funny and irreverent comic but lets also agree that it does not always get the 'facts' correct. For example the rockets that kept blowing up were in fact those same "Nazi" designed V2s not the majority of the US derived and built rockets which in fact flew successfully on first flights rather unlike their German counterparts. Once the US decided that rockets were in fact worth pursing we will develop and deploy them. The US has plenty of scientist and engineers with the knowledge and capability to do so. (In fact the US was more advanced that anyone in the world with solid propellant which PM might want to keep in mind
) Point of fact is that in SOME cases NOT having those refugee and displaced scientists is going to be a BENIFT to the US rather than a hindrance. (No Von Karmen means the US probably will NOT get side tracked with cruise missiles over ballistic missiles. If he has any influence over the European programs he'd probably make the same call he did OTL which will mean more focus on V1 derived missiles rather than V2
)
◦The Imperial German war machine is far more advanced, since they retained the above scientists and engineers. This means not only is going more expensive, but you have to go even further.
Actually you're missing the point which was the KNOWLEDGE was already there and only the support and effort was required. This is as true in the US an in Europe. Expense, (which you seem to think is prohibitive for only the US when it would be similar for all involved) is not going to be reduced significantly by having specific scientists available. The basic requirement is industrial capability and resources both of which are available on both sides of the Atlantic ocean by this time period. So far as we've seen nobody seems to think such an effort is required at the moment which was the main reason development was so slow till the US went all in OTL.
◦Even the intelligence apparatus is not much help. The CIA (and the rest of the alphabet soup) was formed after OTL WW2, meaning they don't exist yet. Not only that, they don't get a leg up by the British (since they supported the Japanese) and their opposition is much more competent this time around. Even worse, the Germans managed to compromise the counter-espionage from the top down. So the net flow of knowledge will be to the benefit of the Europeans.
Actually PM has indicated that the founder of what was OTL the OSS got burned but that would logically mean they take the threat much more seriously and would move the counter that threat which is what happened OTL. While the Germans have compromised SOME assets, (Hoover is suggested) that in fact wouldn't have that much effect on other members of the "alphabet soup" as you call it. At this point it would actually be a huge benefit that there are about a dozen different agencies gathering intelligence rather than one or two. The problem the Germans are going to run into is that there ARE multiple agencies that can and will 'cross-check' each other more often than the more centralized intelligence gathering of today. This was actually one of the few features, not a bug despite the overall inefficiency of the day.
Meaning, your argument is moot. Even your economic part. As stated above, the US has none of want, will or ability to successfully confront the European allies. You should get comfortable with the fact that not all TLs end with US hegemony.
Last first; if they did then they'd all be boring anyway
But you are wrong that the US has "none of want, will, ability" to confront the European allies as it has all of them and will do so it it is required. Further the "European allies" are, fundamentally, at odds themselves at this point in time despite working together for a common goal AT THE MOMENT. The underlying tensions are still there and once the 'common foe' has been take care of they will tend to drift apart. France will want Indochina back once things have settled down. Britain will pressure Germany to divest itself of Australia, (and frankly despite the effort Australia has a much deeper connection to England anyway and this will not change significantly TTL) Similar there will be more than a little fear and trepidation of a hugely powerful Germany itself and with reason, most of Europe will quickly tire of a ascendant Germany as they have of similar American influence OTL.
I do think that the idea of America being a "natural" superpower is vastly overrated and only happened OTL due to certain circumstances but neither to I see it logical that American NOT being a superpower automatically regulates it to a 'second class' status. The US has pretty much always considered itself to be equal at the very least to European powers and this has been true since the beginning of the 20th century and I see nothing in the time line to suggest it would not strive to remain so.
Randy