US givng up on Britain in 1942 and turns to Pacific

Or the complete opposite.

The Germans can concentrate everything on the Russian front and hold them off longer while German industry has more time to produce advanced weapons, improve it's defences in Western Europe and produce V weapons that continue to fall on Britain throughout 1945 and destroying their morale. The Germans also produce more and better U-Boats and Lend-Lease shipments fall.

When the Americans finally decide to do something they get slaughtered and the Russians take all Europe.

Unless you butterfly away the Manhattan project would be used on Germany, which it was designed, for not Japan. There would be a slaughter but not Americans Germans.
 
Itis actually a classic and genuine "WHAT IF..." scenario:

in May 1942 it could have gone the other way as Arnold was advocating "packing up the dishes and go home" strategy. That is a quote from him and I am busy finding the source for that one.

King was focused on the Pacific, fair enough, insofar as the USN was the main force there.

Marshall was all for a "Germany first" strategy, but was having an uphill battle as the feeling was that the British were sliding and not sticking to commitments.

Of course it did not exactly help that the British had a very professional planning and management team. And they must have let the US generals know that they were regarded as very green in modern war.

US enthusiasm not matched by reality also put strain on it all.

So, May 1942: Britain is not interested in committing suicide on invading France.
FDR is being convinced that either US troops gets to grips with Germany or it is off to the Pacific.

I am not sure the US factories produced for warehousing if Britain could not use the output. As far as I know, the rapid expansion of US army and USAAF would have taken care of any spare capacity.

Could Germany have done anything to keep the focus on Europe? the "happy times v2" along the US East Coast was bad news, but how much did it do to public US opinion vs. PH?

FDR was a politician and I believe that if the public opinion was squarely behind a "Japan first" strategy, he would have backed that. BUT that is speculation.

Reading Fenby's "Alliance", the special relationship was more Churchill clinging to the US than a 2-way street.

So, without US intervention (even counting for the slow ramping-up) was Torch going to happen if it were Britain only? doubtful

Cross-channel in 1944? if Japan had been defeated, well maybe. But I cannot see Britain doing it alone.

If Britain is withdrawing its shipping from US usage? I am not clued up on the amount of shipping in 1942 or 1943 going to what destination and under which flag.

So, IF US is leaving Britain to do its own fighting?

Ivan
 
So, May 1942: Britain is not interested in committing suicide on invading France.
FDR is being convinced that either US troops gets to grips with Germany or it is off to the Pacific.
And here's where it goes wrong. FDR isn't stupid, he know the British don't have a hope of pulling off a '42 invasion, and nor does the US. If he's forced to push or pull he'll either end up with Dieppe writ large, or the western elements of Torch.

I am not sure the US factories produced for warehousing if Britain could not use the output. As far as I know, the rapid expansion of US army and USAAF would have taken care of any spare capacity.
An army that is now to sit around at home because the tanks need to be craned off transport ships in a port. As for cancelling L-L, the agreement for that was signed 9 months before PH, I don't think it would get cancelled again any time soon.

Could Germany have done anything to keep the focus on Europe? the "happy times v2" along the US East Coast was bad news, but how much did it do to public US opinion vs. PH?
Well Germany was constantly hitting east coast shipping with U-Boats.
 
If the POD goes through, I think German submarines have a fox-in-henouse time down the eastern US seaboard. Maybe some get reassigned to the Pacifc theatre.

Eventually, the Soviets come crashing in, and Germany goes down. The bigger butterflies come after the war, with the US and Western Europe left in a strategically worse position.
 
Itis actually a classic and genuine "WHAT IF..." scenario:

in May 1942 it could have gone the other way

What the service chiefs think doesn't matter on this one. Torch went ahead because FDR, as Commander in Chief ORDERED Marshall to do it, signing himself as C-in-C (which was very, very rare).

You have to deal with the politics of it, especially US concerns that the Soviet Union would not last, and the risk that the Germans would then turn on Britain. The US needs to keep both in the war otherwise the US may find itself at war with Germany, which has complete domination of the Europe.
 
Top