WI: USA Joins Western Allies in 1939

Roosevelt persuades the French to stay in the war. When US troops arrive in August 1940, they came ashore in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.
 
I don't want it to be forgotten just how massive the Soviet contribution to Allied victory was OTL. On average something like 2/3 of all losses the Third Reich and its puppets took in the war were on the Soviet front. Anything that weakens the Soviets post-Barbarossa greatly multiplies the task the Western Allies face in breaking the Reich.

In terms of appearances before the fact, it would have looked otherwise of course. The less crazy elements of the Third Reich leadership would indeed have been daunted by an early US entry, whereas any qualms they had about the Soviet colossus were placated by a belief in the inherent superiority of German quality, grotesquely magnified by Nazi racism of course.

Rationally speaking, the idea of continuing the German-Soviet alliance indefinitely should also have prevailed. But we are dealing with Hitler and Nazis here! I am quite certain Hitler would never waver from his plan to conquer Russia; the timing might have been a bit flexible--but only a bit. He was determined to attack, as soon as damn possible. As for the idea that Hitler might be overthrown--OTL the Nazi regime turned out to be very politically tenacious; in the end the Germans fought for the Reich to the last bit of German territory and I think if a remarkably well-orchestrated Wehrmacht coup managed to take out Hitler and all the top tier of Nazi leadership in one swoop, lower-tier Nazis under SS leadership would have carried out a counter-coup handily, purged the Army leadership and carried on with Hitler's war anyway.

Once Russia was betrayed, I think the cold-blooded logic of using the Soviet capacity to whittle down the Reich would have been compelling, no matter what the war aims were. Stalin would profess a newfound commitment to a more liberal order, and point to the pre-war attempts to achieve collective security and a common front--just as he did OTL. And this fig leaf would have been plenty for the Western Allied leadership--for FDR and Churchill anyway, and they'd be the ones who mattered at that point.

The Soviets would need and get all the aid the US could give them, and that aid would be resources very well spent from the point of view of saving the lives and multiplying the effectiveness of British Tommies and American GIs too.

My own political arguments about the need to gratify the American right by DOWing the Soviets are the strongest arguments against this turnaround, unfortunately. It may be the Soviets are doomed to fight on without any help and with both WAllies and Nazis fighting them. They might even collapse, though they were amazingly tenacious OTL.

If so--the Western Allies are in for a harder, even more brutal war than they were OTL. The cost in blood and treasure seems likely to leave Britain even more smashed afterward, not less despite getting the aid that OTL went to Russia, even more abjectly dependent on their American patrons. And even the Americans might be badly off despite US soil probably never coming under any threat whatsoever.

The really scary prospect is that the Nazis might hang on in Europe and the daunted WAllies, seeing no realistic prospect of invasion, come to terms with them, leading to a post-war Cold War between a trans-Atlantic Anglo-American West and Nazi Europe.:eek:

So you see, I'd really hope the WAllies would indeed welcome Stalin into the alliance.
 
I don't want it to be forgotten just how massive the Soviet contribution to Allied victory was OTL. On average something like 2/3 of all losses the Third Reich and its puppets took in the war were on the Soviet front. Anything that weakens the Soviets post-Barbarossa greatly multiplies the task the Western Allies face in breaking the Reich.

In terms of appearances before the fact, it would have looked otherwise of course. The less crazy elements of the Third Reich leadership would indeed have been daunted by an early US entry, whereas any qualms they had about the Soviet colossus were placated by a belief in the inherent superiority of German quality, grotesquely magnified by Nazi racism of course.

Rationally speaking, the idea of continuing the German-Soviet alliance indefinitely should also have prevailed. But we are dealing with Hitler and Nazis here! I am quite certain Hitler would never waver from his plan to conquer Russia; the timing might have been a bit flexible--but only a bit. He was determined to attack, as soon as damn possible. As for the idea that Hitler might be overthrown--OTL the Nazi regime turned out to be very politically tenacious; in the end the Germans fought for the Reich to the last bit of German territory and I think if a remarkably well-orchestrated Wehrmacht coup managed to take out Hitler and all the top tier of Nazi leadership in one swoop, lower-tier Nazis under SS leadership would have carried out a counter-coup handily, purged the Army leadership and carried on with Hitler's war anyway.

Once Russia was betrayed, I think the cold-blooded logic of using the Soviet capacity to whittle down the Reich would have been compelling, no matter what the war aims were. Stalin would profess a newfound commitment to a more liberal order, and point to the pre-war attempts to achieve collective security and a common front--just as he did OTL. And this fig leaf would have been plenty for the Western Allied leadership--for FDR and Churchill anyway, and they'd be the ones who mattered at that point.

The Soviets would need and get all the aid the US could give them, and that aid would be resources very well spent from the point of view of saving the lives and multiplying the effectiveness of British Tommies and American GIs too.

My own political arguments about the need to gratify the American right by DOWing the Soviets are the strongest arguments against this turnaround, unfortunately. It may be the Soviets are doomed to fight on without any help and with both WAllies and Nazis fighting them. They might even collapse, though they were amazingly tenacious OTL.

If so--the Western Allies are in for a harder, even more brutal war than they were OTL. The cost in blood and treasure seems likely to leave Britain even more smashed afterward, not less despite getting the aid that OTL went to Russia, even more abjectly dependent on their American patrons. And even the Americans might be badly off despite US soil probably never coming under any threat whatsoever.

The really scary prospect is that the Nazis might hang on in Europe and the daunted WAllies, seeing no realistic prospect of invasion, come to terms with them, leading to a post-war Cold War between a trans-Atlantic Anglo-American West and Nazi Europe.:eek:

So you see, I'd really hope the WAllies would indeed welcome Stalin into the alliance.
The conclusion IMO hinges on the belief the Allies would fight the war the same way. With the changed conditions, I see no reason that would be true.

Frex, as said, more B-24 mean lower merchant losses means faster buildup in Britain & more capacity for building LCs. Also, less (or no) commitment in PTO means more available for beating Germany.

Plus, with a stronger France, & France still firmly in the fight, the odds against Germany in the West have dropped fairly substantially.
 
US, British and French Forces defeat Rommel in March 1941. In May they invade Sicily, two weeks later Mussolini is overthrown. Two weeks after that the Allies make a deal with the new Italian government. The Germans have sent enough troops to Northern Italy that they create a quagmire. In May 1942, we see the invasion of Normandy. In April 1943, Germany surrenders. Barbarossa happened just as OTL. So the WAllies liberate Eastern Europe.
The only way I can see the US getting involved early is that Nazi Germany has formed an alliance with Japan and when Japan joined the war in September 1939, they attacked the US and British in the Pacific. I assume there would have been a Manhattan Project , so maybe, just like OTL, the bomb is dropped before the European veterans arrive.
 
Paul V McNutt said:
US, British and French Forces defeat Rommel in March 1941.
With U.S. involvement, who says the Italians in Africa aren't defeated before Rommel is even sent?:confused:
Paul V McNutt said:
The Germans have sent enough troops to Northern Italy that they create a quagmire.
And with U.S. involvement from the start, & with a stronger France, how does Winston get his way on invading Italy to begin with?:confused:
Paul V McNutt said:
when Japan joined the war in September 1939
Why does Japan do this fully two years sooner than OTL?:confused::confused:
Paul V McNutt said:
there would have been a Manhattan Project , so maybe, just like OTL, the bomb is dropped before the European veterans arrive
Since the Bomb was built about as rapidly as it could conceivably have been, & wasn't ready until about July '45, how is it ready at least a year sooner TTL?:confused:
 
Top