WWII What If: Britain, France, Japan and Germany vs. Soviet Union and United States

[edgeworthy]

So the US has both large reserves of Bauxite (if not heavily mining for it at the time), and production facilities.

Glad we established that.


Now.... Where exactly was that shortage of Bauxite in US territory you had been mentioning?

It has less than France, Hungary and the Dutch East Indies. It barely has more than Italy, the British Empire and Yugoslavia.
Realistically nearly half the historically available US Bauxite supply will still have to be imported, almost all from sources it is now at war with, ITTL.
Best/worst case scenario, Aluminium production can drop 47% without overseas supplies.

Oh and the US does have a domestic source of Tungsten, almost no Tin though.
(Very little Rubber, Manganese or Nickel either. The Nickel Powder used in the Manhattan Project had to be imported, from a factory in Britain.)

 

[Wendell]

It has less than France, Hungary and the Dutch East Indies. It barely has more than Italy, the British Empire and Yugoslavia.
Realistically nearly half the historically available US Bauxite supply will still have to be imported, almost all from sources it is now at war with, ITTL.
Best/worst case scenario, Aluminium production can drop 47% without overseas supplies.

Oh and the US does have a domestic source of Tungsten, almost no Tin though.
(Very little Rubber, Manganese or Nickel either. The Nickel Powder used in the Manhattan Project had to be imported, from a factory in Britain.)

Well, Hungary and the DEI will probably be occupied in short order, so I'm not sure that those supplies should be counted against the United States. .

 

[TDM]

So would Tube Alloys. I agree it may well come down to who gets nukes first.

Good point, i'll be honest I couldn't remember what resources Tube alloys might have needed that would be a problem in this set up

 

[TDM]

Well, Hungary and the DEI will probably be occupied in short order, so I'm not sure that those supplies should be counted against the United States. .

By who, the US? How is the US going to mount an invasion of a landlocked eastern European nation in this set up? The DEI is maybe more feasible but it's going to have go through a couple of 1st class navies and occupying forces

 

[Tibi088]

1. The USA would occupy Canada for sure as they cant risk it becoming a bridgehead for invasion.
2. The USSR will be defeated - I think swiftly. They could have beaten Japan but not with German and other troops on their way to Moscow. See that OTL even with heavy british and USA support the germans came close to knocking them out.
3. The tactics of the US navy would be interesting: They would be heavily outnumbered but they could concentrate their forces unlike their enemies - Panama is key. So thats what they should do. And when they are sure they can beat at least one side seek decisive battle there.
4. But its most likely if resonable peace is offered by either side the war ends before the big naval battles can start.
5. If not, USA get acess to instant Sunshine and likely decides to use it. Britain (or someon else with the capability) might decide to answer with biological weapons.
6. The end of History as whats left of humanity reenters the cave.

 

[Joku_]

Except for CalBear, nobody here seems to be paying any attention to the extreme political unlikeliness of this scenario:

(1) While the US was unhappy about Japan's conduct in China, virtually nobody wanted to go to war or (until well into World War II when Japan occupied French Indochina and threatened the resource-rich Dutch and British colonies in southeast Asia) even risk war with Japan about it. Talking about "the US does not resume trade relations with Japan" in 1939 is rather odd because the US before World War II never broke off trade relations with Japan--as noted, it kept selling even oil until mid-1941.

Actually, this is not the case, at least according to Wikipedia.

From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on USS Panay and the Nanjing Massacre swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased their fear of Japanese expansion, which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to China. Australia also prevented a Japanese government-owned company from taking over an iron mine in Australia, and banned iron ore exports in 1938.[104] However, in July 1939, negotiations between Japanese Foreign Minister Arita Khatira and the British Ambassador in Tokyo, Robert Craigie, led to an agreement by which Great Britain recognized Japanese conquests in China. At the same time, the US government extended a trade agreement with Japan for six months, then fully restored it. Under the agreement, Japan purchased trucks for the Kwantung Army,[105] machine tools for aircraft factories, strategic materials (steel and scrap iron up to October 16, 1940, petrol and petroleum products up to June 26, 1941),[106] and various other much-needed supplies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War#Allied

You may say you are positing a US administration more hostile to Japan over China than FDR's was. But this ignores the strength of isolationist and anti-war sentiment in the US in the late 1930's. FDR had to take care to avoid being branded as a warmonger even for the limited steps he did take (some of them purely verbal like the "quarantine speech"). The Panay incident resulted in a cry not for war with Japan or even for sanctions, but for the US to get out of China, and gave a boost to the proposed Ludlow Amendment https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-over-the-panay-sinking.465381/#post-18736166 Even in 1940 when Congress passed the Export Control Act--and remember that it was passed only after Japan had begun to occupy French Indochina--it relied largely on a rationale that "in wartime we can't export strategic goods that may be in short supply." And even then it excluded oil. The asset freeze and oil embargo came much later, at a time when Japan had occupied the rest of French Indochina and as noted was threatening the rest of southeast Asia. In short, in a timeline where there is no war between Germany and the Western Allies, it would be hard for any US administration to take actions that would provoke Japan into war (even if it wanted to, and very few people wanted to). The US sanctioning Britain and France for being friendly to the Japanese seems even more bizarre and politically unthinkable. And nobody advocated sending US troops to China--volunteers or otherwise--to fight the Japanese.

Yeah, the idea is that US in here is more hostile to Japan than in OTL, plus in addition more anti-Imperialist in general.

But you might be right, that 1938 would be a too late point of departure to realistically cause as radical changes as in the OP. I had got elsewhere the image that US was more hostile towards Japan than you are saying, but maybe that was not the case.

(3) Even stranger, Stalin who in OTL went out of his way to avoid "provoking" Germany in 1941 here starts a pre-emptive war with Germany while he is (unlike in OTL) busy fighting Japan!

No, if you look at the OP, Germany declares a war against Soviets. Soviets then panick, and pre-emptively invade Poland, because they fear that it would be siding with the Germans.

 

[TDM]

The US Navy happily sits within land based air cover while building a unstoppable naval force that accounts for something like 80% of the worlds naval capacity.

Frankly what stops the UK, Germany, Italy, France and Japan doing the same? in 1938 the US might be the single largest economy in the world, but the combined GDP of the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Japan is greater and that's before we take into account the British empire plus what ever the others have taken.

The problem here is I think you're taking what happened in RL and assuming that's just what happens automatically in different contexts. Yes the US outbuilt everyone else ending up with a massive navy by the end of WW2, but it's not like the other country's suddenly forget how to build ships. In RL the UK kept the RM & KM neutralised so didn't need to go on a massive ship building process (and was frankly doing other things that it wouldn't be doing here anyway) on top of that it didn't need to because well the US was, and the UK was allied with the US. The Germans and Italian weren't fighting any naval battles past the opening years and were basically bogged in Russia and N.Africa so again nor much ship building needed by them. In RL the IJN pretty much fought the USN by itself after the opening attacks against the UK/British empire.

Basically you build for the war you are fighting, if those countries are not going to be fighting themselves and have beaten the USSR and potentially going to be facing the US navy being built, they will build ships

Each Imperial alliance navy dies, one by one, impossibly outnumbered, alone and screaming in terror and fear, in the dark caused by thousands of US carrier based planes.

Why are they fighting alone, they know where the US navy is, and the US navy has to come to them (or lose control of the territory)? Also see above

And then the first high altitude long ranged bombers comes online, and industrial cities vanish one by one in nuclear holocaust.

Because only the US is capable of creating nuclear weapons and high altitude long range bombers? (also unless the US can seize some territory that long range will have to be intercontinental) Again as above you build for the war you're fighting. In RL the UK was bombing Germany so it built 15,000 heavy bombers designed with that goal in mind.

The French and British are not contributing jack shit to the Russian front, they're not sending a meaningful force there until it's entirely too late. The T-34's will roll through Berlin, then the low countries, and then Paris, to park on the Channel, and provide lovely bases for a combined US and USSR invasion of England.

You think the Soviets are going to beat:

Germany (undivided attention)
Italy (undivided attention)
France
UK
Japan

all without lend lease.



You also seem to be just re fighting the eastern front? No the UK won't be pouring troops into a OTL style Stalingrad meat grinder. But it won't need to? That RN that was supplying the USSR at Murmansk etc will likely be doing other things to the USSR. Not to mention that armies can go through to southern Russia from the empire if need be. Oh and with basically every great power in Europe in this alliance against their old enemy, you can bet Turkey's going to come in. So that's the black sea and Caucasus open.

 

[Wendell]

By who, the US? How is the US going to mount an invasion of a landlocked eastern European nation in this set up? The DEI is maybe more feasible but it's going to have go through a couple of 1st class navies and occupying forces

You have Germany and Russia on the same side. The U.S. has no need to occupy Hungary. As far as the Dutch East Indies, American air and sea power combined with German is more powerful than anything the British practically alone could organize, even with the Japanese.

 

[Aveeeno]

You have Germany and Russia on the same side.

Have you read the name of this thread? Germany and the USSR are not on the same side.

As far as the Dutch East Indies, American air and sea power combined with German is more powerful than anything the British practically alone could organize, even with the Japanese.

Again, the Germany is not allied with the USA. Furthermore, I don't know how you expect the USA to invade the Dutch East Indies. In real life, the Japanese held off the British and the Americans in the opening months of the war. In this scenario, the USA would have to face both the IJN and the RN alone. The USN in 1940-41 was hardly the juggernaut it was in 1944-45.

 

[Wendell]

Have you read the name of this thread? Germany and the USSR are not on the same side.


Again, the Germany is not allied with the USA. Furthermore, I don't know how you expect the USA to invade the Dutch East Indies. In real life, the Japanese held off the British and the Americans in the opening months of the war. In this scenario, the USA would have to face both the IJN and the RN alone. The USN in 1940-41 was hardly the juggernaut it was in 1944-45.

I misread that thread title.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I misread that thread title.

Don't worry, we all do things like that occasionally.

The USN would, in this rather implausible scenario, be potentially heavily outnumbered by the RN, IJN, MN and KM at the war's outbreak. I say potentially because there would almost certainly be a period of tension leading up to the conflict. Which nations started its rearmament program first would have an advantage.

But I doubt the US can outbuild these four nations combined efforts even with the distraction of an Eastern Front for Germany and maybe Japan.

 

[edgeworthy]

Don't worry, we all do things like that occasionally.

The USN would, in this rather implausible scenario, be potentially heavily outnumbered by the RN, IJN, MN and KM at the war's outbreak. I say potentially because there would almost certainly be a period of tension leading up to the conflict. Which nations started its rearmament program first would have an advantage.

But I doubt the US can outbuild these four nations combined efforts even with the distraction of an Eastern Front for Germany and maybe Japan.

Now there are some people who will immediately poo-poo this as completely impossible, and come up with some sort of statement about how Britain can never possibly afford it, but if the Royal Navy is able to maintain its Pre-War Construction rate, which should be noted was perfectly feasible on a Peacetime Budget, it may still be larger than the USN in 1944!.

In the 1936/37 Construction Program the Royal Navy Laid Down NINE Capital Ships, and there is actually spare capacity left over, if only because several Shipyards still had a considerable number of civilian contracts to complete, for example John Brown was occupied with RMS Queen Elizabeth. There are in fact at least Twelve Slipways capable of Capital Ship Construction in the UK: John Brown, Clydebank (2), Harland and Wolff, Belfast (2), Vickers-Armstrong, Tyneside (2), Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow (2), Swan Hunter, Tyneside, Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, Fairfield, Govan (2).

The Capacity to repeat the number of hulls laid down in the 38/39, 40/41 and 42/43 Construction Programs does exist. It didn't happen OTL due to the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, however, ITTL the Royal Navy gains an extra Two Years of preparation time where there are not the same historical delays due to losses and disruption and no one is bombing anyone. There is simply more time and resources, two years of not even having to convoy your shipping will do wonders for the economy and industry (10-20% of capacity is lost simply by this). The world's two busiest Trade Routes, and the significance of this cannot be overstated, the English Channel and the Suez Canal, will remain open so more capacity can be directed to Naval Shipbuilding.
As an example of this, after the Belfast Blitz Harland and Wolff had to shut down altogether for six months, ITTL that simply isn't going to happen. There is frequent speculation that HMS Prince of Wales was lost so dramatically due to it being bombed when fitting out, again which ITTL isn't going to happen.

In the absence of being bombed Supermarine will not have to relocate its R&D department from Woolston, years of work were lost. Little things like Harold Payn being able to remain as Chief Designer at Supermarine, he was considered a security risk as his wife was German, mean that Joe Smith, no that really was Supermarine's Chief Draughtsman, can remain focused on the Spitfire. Which means that with greater production capacity and a design team with more time and fewer distractions can produce a Seafire in 1940. Built using the construction which is not lost when the Luftwaffe now hasn't bombed Woolston. Which means that Fairey can possibly get the Barracuda which first flew in 1940, with more time and resources in service by 1941, and while its not especially impressive by 1945 standards, it is competitive compared to the Dauntless and Devastator. Its a long list, the Butterflies can only grow. (The OTL 1942/43 Construction Program contained 28 purpose built Carriers.)

In This Time Line completing the 36/37 Program will more than likely be functionally on schedule. The 38/39 Program will be the 4 Lions that were ordered and possibly 5 Carriers instead of 2, and the 40/41 Program perhaps 1 Battleship, Vanguard, and 8 Fleet Carriers. There is a practical limit to the number of Battleships that can be built due to the shortage of Gun-Pits. Exactly what sort of Aircraft Carriers will be built is a matter of speculation. The POD is too late to substantially change the Illustrious Class, although it might be possible to re-work them into something comparable to the Implacables. Given the time available and increased resources the DNC and the Third Sea Lord might well rethink their priorities and move to constructing a series of Improved Ark Royals, something like a very British Shokaku?
The construction of the Light Fleet Carriers will almost certainly begin earlier, and as the builder of the First Escort Carrier Britain knows how, ITTL Jervis Bay and Rawalpindi might well end up as such. The RN did consider more conversions of such small Liners, Britain requisitioned over 60 AMCs in 1939.
By 1944 13 Fast Battleships and 18 Fleet Carriers are possible. (With perhaps as many Light, and as many Escort as can be converted, just the 17 AMC's now not lost to the Kreigsmarine by 1941 are available)

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Now there are some people who will immediately poo-poo this as completely impossible, and come up with some sort of statement about how Britain can never possibly afford it, but if the Royal Navy is able to maintain its Pre-War Construction rate, which should be noted was perfectly feasible on a Peacetime Budget, it may still be larger than the USN in 1944!.

In the 1936/37 Construction Program the Royal Navy Laid Down NINE Capital Ships, and there is actually spare capacity left over, if only because several Shipyards still had a considerable number of civilian contracts to complete, for example John Brown was occupied with RMS Queen Elizabeth. There are in fact at least Twelve Slipways capable of Capital Ship Construction in the UK: John Brown, Clydebank (2), Harland and Wolff, Belfast (2), Vickers-Armstrong, Tyneside (2), Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow (2), Swan Hunter, Tyneside, Cammell Laird, Birkenhead, Fairfield, Govan (2).

The Capacity to repeat the number of hulls laid down in the 38/39, 40/41 and 42/43 Construction Programs does exist. It didn't happen OTL due to the outbreak of WW2 in 1939, however, ITTL the Royal Navy gains an extra Two Years of preparation time where there are not the same historical delays due to losses and disruption and no one is bombing anyone. There is simply more time and resources, two years of not even having to convoy your shipping will do wonders for the economy and industry (10-20% of capacity is lost simply by this). The world's two busiest Trade Routes, and the significance of this cannot be overstated, the English Channel and the Suez Canal, will remain open so more capacity can be directed to Naval Shipbuilding.
As an example of this, after the Belfast Blitz Harland and Wolff had to shut down altogether for six months, ITTL that simply isn't going to happen. There is frequent speculation that HMS Prince of Wales was lost so dramatically due to it being bombed when fitting out, again which ITTL isn't going to happen.

In the absence of being bombed Supermarine will not have to relocate its R&D department from Woolston, years of work were lost. Little things like Harold Payn being able to remain as Chief Designer at Supermarine, he was considered a security risk as his wife was German, mean that Joe Smith, no that really was Supermarine's Chief Draughtsman, can remain focused on the Spitfire. Which means that with greater production capacity and a design team with more time and fewer distractions can produce a Seafire in 1940. Built using the construction which is not lost when the Luftwaffe now hasn't bombed Woolston. Which means that Fairey can possibly get the Barracuda which first flew in 1940, with more time and resources in service by 1941, and while its not especially impressive by 1945 standards, it is competitive compared to the Dauntless and Devastator. Its a long list, the Butterflies can only grow. (The OTL 1942/43 Construction Program contained 28 purpose built Carriers.)

In This Time Line completing the 36/37 Program will more than likely be functionally on schedule. The 38/39 Program will be the 4 Lions that were ordered and possibly 5 Carriers instead of 2, and the 40/41 Program perhaps 1 Battleship, Vanguard, and 8 Fleet Carriers. There is a practical limit to the number of Battleships that can be built due to the shortage of Gun-Pits. Exactly what sort of Aircraft Carriers will be built is a matter of speculation. The POD is too late to substantially change the Illustrious Class, although it might be possible to re-work them into something comparable to the Implacables. Given the time available and increased resources the DNC and the Third Sea Lord might well rethink their priorities and move to constructing a series of Improved Ark Royals, something like a very British Shokaku?
The construction of the Light Fleet Carriers will almost certainly begin earlier, and as the builder of the First Escort Carrier Britain knows how, ITTL Jervis Bay and Rawalpindi might well end up as such. The RN did consider more conversions of such small Liners, Britain requisitioned over 60 AMCs in 1939.
By 1944 13 Fast Battleships and 18 Fleet Carriers are possible. (With perhaps as many Light, and as many Escort as can be converted, just the 17 AMC's now not lost to the Kreigsmarine by 1941 are available)

TBF most of the capital ship and cruiser programme was aimed at replacing obsolete ships rather than expansion. Though the destroyer and escort plans were to add to the fleet.

However, in a world in which this Alt WW2 was a risk no doubt the older ships would have been kept for a while also.

Without the Fall of France and a lesser USW threat the UK could have completed a lot more major warships than it did in WW2. Not enough to match the USN but with the IJN and other navies involved.

Stalemate rather than American walkover is the way to bet.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Why would the British and the French want to fight what was, even then, the world's biggest economy, and not by a couple percentage points? The leading exporter of oil, the leading mass manufacturer of products, not to mention the wealthiest, even with the effects of the Depression taken into account. The American method of mass production didn't really become universal until after the war, as a result Americans, even compared to citizens of France and the UK were almost stupid wealthy (at the start of WW II there were 2 million cars in the UK, the U.S produced 4.68 million cars in 1940 alone and total cars on America road exceed 27 million).

The scenario really has nothing to hang its hat on.

I don't see Britain joining this war unless attacked. They've no reason to attack the Soviets even if they have good relations with Germany. Sell the Germans everything but the kitchen sink to fight with, yes. Fight themselves, no. The French on the other hand are so divided they risk Civil War by getting involved. Both nations would sit back, watch the two sides bleed each other white and count the money rolling in.

Fight the US? Any that suggested it would end up in the nearest lunatic asylum no matter how tough any sanctions were.

 

[History Learner]

Imperial Alliance thought process is for the US navy to go out seeking the other navies in open seas from 1939-41 while the combined navies will be in one place to gang the US navy to save the Soviets.

It would be interesting to know how the British survive versus US Subs/US battleship raiding by North Carolina/South Dakota or even Alaskas when there are no liberty ships, lend and lease supplying the British losses in merchant marine.

According to this:

https://ww2-weapons.com/british-arms-production/


British Commonwealth merchant ship production peaked at 2.2M tons/year while merchant ships sunk by the Germans peaked at 8.2M tons/year.

Do you think the US will be able to replicate sinking this amount of merchant marine or at least US sink more than what the British produces? Or would US be too far away from the Britain?

The U.S. lacked the doctrine of Decisive Battle and the Imperial Japanese Navy, the most important part of the opposing coalition to the USSR-USA Pact, is in the Pacific while her partners are in the Atlantic; a link up is impossible given this fact, as well as American control of the Panama Canal. Merchant shipping can definitely be rapidly sunk by the Americans, given that have greater industrial capacity to produce submarines than Germany did IOTL and demonstrated excellent submarine warfare capabilities IOTL against Japan.

 

[History Learner]

I think it also needs to be said GDP is a horrible comparison to make in terms of industrial warfare; Nazi Germany far outclassed Soviet Russia in both GDP and GDP per capita, and we saw how that worked out. Same goes for Imperial Japan vis-a-vis China.

 

[Richard V]

I think it also needs to be said GDP is a horrible comparison to make in terms of industrial warfare; Nazi Germany far outclassed Soviet Russia in both GDP and GDP per capita, and we saw how that worked out. Same goes for Imperial Japan vis-a-vis China.

Per capita yes, overall the Soviet Union was slightly larger.

 

[History Learner]

Per capita yes, overall the Soviet Union was slightly larger.

View attachment 506156 View attachment 506157

Balance was in Germany's favor by 1940 and remained so until 1945.

 

[RMcD94]

This scenario is easier to stomach if you just pretend the USA has gone red.

I don't see any stalemate because one side will figure out nukes first. I believe the anti commies will probably manage that.

The British have a headstart on the USA as otl and now they can cooperate with German scientists. Jewish scientists might go to the USA instead

The Europeans will suffer from red spies, the soviet and American intelligence services cooperating will be tough for the Japo-Euro to deal with.

Even after the Soviets collapse.

A lot depends on China. Chiang and Mao may approach things differently when they just have the USA and USSR in support. Attacks from Burma, Tibet and French Indochina will threaten China.

You can assume all neutral states in Europe will be joining the continental system against trade with the USA, they're not in a great position to refuse.

The reds will try to fund separatists everywhere.

BTW how about Dutch rubber? Isn't that gonna be an issue?

Another way of describing the teams is

Anti fascists vs anti communists

Priorities from the democracies might make the reds scarier than the blacks.

 

[Richard V]

Balance was in Germany's favor by 1940 and remained so until 1945.

Because it conquered France and a bunch of others that doesn’t happen in this timeline.