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

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Joku_, Nov 27, 2019.

  1. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    I figured it was something like that. It's still kind of tied to the OTL and how war production was run. The ATL in question is a massive departure from that so assuming the same will happen is a bit of an assumption.

    I'd be interested in how the figure were worked out as the UK (@ 10.2% in table) had a smaller Economy than Germany (@ 14.4% in the table) in 1938 and yet out produced them*:

    British arms production

    German arms production


    *in pretty much most areas except small arms IIRC
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  2. Poach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    I think:

    - USSR is defeated on land in Europe. The US is still able to supply them via the Far East but limited ability to move the resources, plus the Wehrmacht having the British and French armies fighting alongside them in Europe instead of against them, means that the Red Army proves unable to hold them back. Not having to hold occupied Western Europe or fight in North Africa already frees up millions of German soldiers, who are then assisted by millions more British and French troops.
    - Japan is defeated at sea by the US. The Anglo-French navies maintain considerable forces at home to defend their half of the Atlantic, and though they send some help the IJN's way, it's simply not possible to stand up to the US shipbuilding industry.

    At that point it becomes a stalemate. The US can't feasibly invade Europe and Europe can't feasibly invade the US. A negotiated peace happens.
     
    TDM likes this.
  3. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    Thing is the US can't supply the USSR until they beat Japan, and that took time even in OTL which is less favourable to Japan.

    In fact depending on what happens* in the USSR unless the US completely blockades the Japanese islands (hard/resource intensive to maintain even for the US, even more so against RN, KM, RM and French**) Japan could conceivably be supplied from Russia


    *and this is important having to fight a Soviet insurgency every square mile to Vladivostok is impossible, but a regime change that is at least broadly accepted and the partial break up of the USSR, somewhat easier.


    **what was the French navy called (other than 'La Royale')
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    JohnBull likes this.
  4. Poach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2014
    Then it seems we broadly agree that the USSR can't effectively resist the combined might of Western Europe, even if the US is able to move some supplies through the Far East.

    On the other hand I don't believe the Japanese will hold out for long enough against a US that is focused solely on the Pacific to enable the Europeans to come to their aid.

    I'd predict Japan surrenders to the US, the USSR surrenders to the Western Europeans, and a negotiated peace between the US and Western Europe follows on, because both sides will realise that neither can really effectively launch trans-oceanic invasions. The US won't want to try to invade Europe across the Atlantic and likely won't be very interested in trying to invade India either, and the same is true in reverse: the European powers won't be interested in trying to land in the Americas.

    It might be that some of the more remote parts of the British Empire in the Pacific end up becoming American-controlled in a status quo peace. I doubt the Americans would have a serious interest in trying to conquer French Indochina or British Malaya, for example, because when they started getting closer to the Japanese Home Islands you'd start to see major forces being built up in those colonies. By then the USSR would be broken, or so close to broken that the Anglo-French forces would be able to spare the troops to put substantial garrisons in those colonies.
     
  5. Finbarr the Fair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Location:
    South Ayrshire, UK
    Firstly the UK figures for actual output might include production in the Commonwealth and Empire. Secondly, Lend Lease made extra resources available to it.

    Of course the Nazis were able to loot much of Europe but they did this inefficiently. And the growth in production from 1941 was reduced by the Bombing Offensive.

    It is still a bit odd that Germany devoted in 1942-3 a greater proportion of a higher GDP to military outlays according to Harrington. Yet overall produced less than the UK on a smaller percentage of a lower GDP Commonwealth output of course might account for this. As would Germany having to make greater investment in core industries- coal, steel, synthetics, machinery, even textiles - to get the production increase later in the War.
     
    TDM likes this.
  6. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    commonwealth figures are separate in the link (it's why i like that source)

    True, it splits out the small arms that were directly supplied, but you are right other resources were made available, of course until 1942 that was being paid for / traded for (ish :)). But also on top of that, there are resources coming in from the empire even if the stuff it went into was produced in the UK!

    True enough, and the Nazi economic mobilisation had other issues on top of that, but that's part of my puzzlement over scoring them higher?! But like I said we kind of need to see how those percentages are calculated to really know what's actually being shown here.

    Well maybe the Germans were just less efficient* at economic mobilisation on top of everything else than the UK was (the UK was actually pretty good at this, hence again my question over the figures)



    *these are still the chaps with hand stitched helmet linings after all!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
    Finbarr the Fair likes this.
  7. JohnBull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    But how the US would focus more on the Pacific than they did in OTL as now they have to fight British-French-Italian-German fleets combined? They would open the entire Eastern Seaboard to European raids and even take the risk to watch European trying to establish a bridgehead in Canada if they decided to withdrawl to the Pacific.

    In fact, the European naval superiority in the Atlantic would be so overwhelming that the British and French could afford to send their entire Mediterranean fleet to reinforce the Japanese in the Pacific. German U-Boats would operate from advance bases in the British Isles and cause havoc in the Atlantic.
     
    Joku_ and Antiochus V like this.
  8. Finbarr the Fair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2014
    Location:
    South Ayrshire, UK
    I think Canada, like Ireland and maybe South Africa, would be neutral. British and other Allies submarines could operate from Newfoundland though, that had reverted to being a Colony by the late 1930s. And of course from bases in the Caribbean or British Honduras (modern Belize).

    So you're right that it's basically the US Pacific Fleet that would be facing the IJN on fairly even terms. Unless or until the British and French send reinforcements to the Far East.
     
  9. RPW@Cy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    This is a very important point that hasn't been discussed but could be huge - assume the USSR goes down relatively quickly, what becomes of it? Because the second scenario - regime change, perhaps moves towards democracy under the rule of a suitable puppet (Alexander Kerensky is alive and living in Paris), show trials of the Communist leaders - sees it as at a very minimum a pro-allied neutral and perhaps even co-belligerent against the USA. Which, to put it mildly, is not trivial.


    Marine Nationale.
     
    TDM likes this.
  10. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    yep pretty much. Although how that much that becomes a post win quagmire will depend on what winning looks like


    Thing is if the US focuses solely on the pacific what happens in the Atlantic / South America (in this TL the USN have more to worry about in the Atlantic than it did OTL)

    I agree with the others I think the US vs Japan & naval allies* is not the same fight as it was OTL. Also you have Japan not fighting in Burma etc (what's the deal with China in this TL?).

    I think India might be potential though not by a direct invasion (at least not initially) but maybe by proxy war / incitement to uprising? I agree I think you see a cold war but that also means I think you see proxy wars. Indian nationalism is gaining strength, the US can play the whole "we used to be ruled by the English let us help you help yourselves". And frankly the Uk can't fight and hold an organised and supplied India.


    *who still have their FE.Asian bases and colonies here.


    I think you are right Canada might well go neutral (although while the US could invade, if it does it's a tough bit of land to control entirely, maybe another proxy war)

    S.Africa I'm not sure about, not sure why they would.

    The Caribbean and Belize though I think they pretty much fall under US control and the Gulf / Caribbean becomes a US pond in short order!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  11. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    yep, quite. in 1940 Communism is only one generation in, and although there was the civil war to unite them against outside forces, there was also pogroms, purges, failure in Finland, crushing 5 year plans, gulags, Holdomor etc etc to breed discontent. Especially in places that aren't Russia even if they are USSR e.g Ukraine etc



    Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  12. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018


    Just to pick up on this, depending on how well everyone works together this really could be a powerful combination. A German sub fleet, supported by the RN (especially carriers) and the RAF in the North Atlantic

    yep, although a side benefit of a general swap over from BB to Carrier helps mitigate this. Which brings up a point, say there is a general naval conflict in the North Atlantic, would it be carrier dominated* or do we think battleships/heavy cruisers etc would play a part.

    don't get me wrong the North Atlantic is still a big place but the Pacific is even larger and there will be more navies. More ships, more air forces and more options for shore support so I think there would be more combined arms stuff going on?


    *although there was carrier action in the Atlantic and Med (Taranto and Bismark e.g)
     
  13. edgeworthy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    The original source was quoted as saying that the non-German contribution to Barbarossa was 18% of the Total, Poland has 40% of the GGR's population, ergo doubling that is completely feasible.
     
  14. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    well To be fair that's because by summer 1944 the eastern front is in Romania so if you're a Romanian you don't have to go very far to find a Russian to fight! :)

    For similar reasons I think the Poles will be there in large numbers to fight the Soviets in the OP's TL since it involves the Soviet's invading Poland.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  15. Protagoras Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Proximity fuze was a British invention, shared with the U.S. OTL. It massively, massively increases the effectiveness of heavy AA (by a factor of six or so), and so the ability of ships to defend themselves against attacks from aircraft. Facing a war with the U.S., the British would probably share this (and radar, and code-breaking knowledge which should also lead to their allies being less sanguine about their codes) with their allies, so until the U.S. manages to develop this independently (which I expect they could eventually), there is likely to be a period when Four Power aligned warships have reasonably good protection against air attack but American warships do not. USN is not going to have a good time for the first few years of this war.
     
    TDM likes this.
  16. TDM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2018
    Fair point, I think you are right neither side is going to keep a monopoly on tech for very long (even if it is long enough to do damage). If we're going to allow for the possibility of the UK and friends to develop atomic bombs I think we can allow the US proximity fuzes etc :)(of course the Uk also gets high grade Avgas).

    You raise an interesting point about code breaking, not sure how far along the US was with an alternative (Bletchley park and Colossus etc)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  17. Protagoras Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Historically they had British help, but they also had a history of doing OK at codebreaking on their own, so I expect lack of British help would only have delayed them a bit. However, a combination of more complicated machinery and less frequent use of coded messages (one of the most important things you need for code-breaking is lots of samples to analyze) which would have made code-breaking in any reasonable amount of time impossible could have been implemented with the available technology. Even if they hadn't had the Navajo code talkers, the American SIGABA codes do not seem to have been broken either during the war or for many years afterwards, but the SIGABA machines were also hugely inconvenient compared to the much simpler Enigma machines. Presumably the Japanese and Germans could have come up with something similar if they had realized they needed it; they didn't OTL because they underestimated the threat. While the British might not have shared all of their secrets with their allies of convenience, they probably would at least make clear where their allies' existing systems were egregiously inadequate.
     
    Joku_ and TDM like this.
  18. NibiruMul New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2019
    Location:
    New York
    In this timeline, I could easily see Nazi Germany becoming something like America during McCarthyism, only on a more violent scale, with nastier witch hunts and Communists getting murdered. I don't know if the Holocaust could be averted in this timeline, although if it does happen in this timeline, Communists would be more heavily targeted.
     
  19. Cubert Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2019
    And would also require Poland to conscript at least ~15% of its 1939 population and have them all simultaneously on the front. If you're arguing this is feasible go ahead, but as far as my understanding goes this is like late war Germany conscripting people into the Volkssturm levels of desperation. Doing a bit of wikisurfing tells me that OTL Nazi Germany had at most ~8% of its population on the front for comparison.
     
  20. edgeworthy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2013
    What figures are you using here, because they don't seem to add up?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)
    The opening Axis strength, according to Wikipedia, at the start of Operation Barbarossa was 3.8 Million. 18% of that is 684,000 and Poland had over 1 million men under arms in 1939. 15% of the 1939 Polish Population would be 5.22 Million, I'm not arguing anything much over a third of that!?
     
    TDM likes this.