Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 25th, 2015, 07:35 AM   #11

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 4,905

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Only way for the USA to defeat Germany is with the bomb
Inversely there is no way Germany could defeat the USA.
zincwarrior is online now  
Remove Ads
Old June 25th, 2015, 08:30 AM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,192

Quote:
Originally Posted by zincwarrior View Post
Inversely there is no way Germany could defeat the USA.
Not in the 1940's
Poly is online now  
Old June 25th, 2015, 09:41 AM   #13

Zhang LaoYong's Avatar
A stray cat.
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: On the prowl.
Posts: 5,123

I do not see the UK defeating Germany alone, and perhaps they could defend their island long enough to strike some kind of deal with Berlin to end the war.

If the US is fighting alone, and not having to divert attention to fighting Japan, just Germany, then I believe we would defeat the Third Reich. The immense industrial machine here would roll along, and not spend any time giving away any of it to other nations. Our military forces would be sent in one direction, east, and not split in two. We spent a lot of blood and treasure on the Pacific Theater, much more than any of our allies could imagine spending there. All of that concentrated on North Africa, Italy, France and other places for invasion would wear down the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS.

Our enormous Navy would still smash anything the Kriegsmarine could float, and we would handle the wolf packs as well, taming our Atlantic routes to pour our forces into North Africa and eventually Mediterranean soft spots as well. Our Army Air forces and Naval air power could still drag the Luftwaffe into a war of attrition, and win, as we did with both them and the Japanese in the real war.

It would take longer, it would cost more US casualties, but the end result would be the same. There is too much overwhelming wealth of manpower and industrial might within these borders, something Hitler's armies could never reach. We would strangle his forces on Europe, conquer the air space, supply and direct partisan forces on the ground, and step by step crush the German military machine.
Zhang LaoYong is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 10:42 AM   #14
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Far From Home
Posts: 698

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeeper View Post
During the war, the Red Army repelled the Wehrmacht's strongest blows and incinerated 75% of all German Forces.

What if both countries where put in the same position that they have to fight the Wehrmacht alone? Would either country have the ability to stand up against the entire Wehrmacht (including the SS) alone.

Just to clarify a few things. Britain and America aren't fighting alongside each other. Both countries are fighting Germany alone with no help.
l
Without US subsidies Britain is broke by November 1940 at latest. Then either sues for peace or has to become a Communist state to keep the munitions works running when they can no longer pay the bills.

US can "in theory" defeat Germany alone. It could do it in a computer strategy game scenario with the player in charge of the nation's total resources. But not in real life. The political will isn't there. US public won't accept millions of dead American boys just to destroy a country on the other side of the world that hasn't done them any harm.

Even in real life FDR had to deceive the public pretty bad just to be able to push through peace time conscription. Most Americans don't want military tyranny in their country.
Raskolnik is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 11:09 AM   #15

schmitt trigger's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: Texas
Posts: 327

My two cents
It would become a long stalemate, with skirmishes here and there, but without either side actually being able to physically invade the others side soil.

But it would likely started an arms race, which consists of :

-The US developing mass production of atomic bombs, but without the means to deliver them across the Atlantic.

-The Germans developing the V2's successor, the so called "New York Rocket". It would have caused lots and lots of grief on cities along the North Atlantic coast, but in itself would not have defeated the US.

-The third option would be submarines. Both countries had already developed the World's best subs at the time. But Diesel powered ones by themselves would not be enough.

-So, if the Americans, as a parallel effort to atom bombs had also developed a nuclear-powered sub, and brought Dr. Goddard's ideas back to design a short-range missile capable of A-bomb delivery close to the European coastline....then and only then would the US decisively defeat Germany.

Last edited by schmitt trigger; June 25th, 2015 at 11:13 AM.
schmitt trigger is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 11:29 AM   #16

zincwarrior's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Texas
Posts: 4,905

B-36s with nukes?

On the flipside. If Germany has not taken Europe, then they too are going to economic level difficulties in the same manner noted as Britain.

Last edited by zincwarrior; June 25th, 2015 at 12:01 PM.
zincwarrior is online now  
Old June 25th, 2015, 11:31 AM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnik View Post
US can "in theory" defeat Germany alone. It could do it in a computer strategy game scenario with the player in charge of the nation's total resources. But not in real life. The political will isn't there. US public won't accept millions of dead American boys just to destroy a country on the other side of the world that hasn't done them any harm.
There's nothing indicating the US works differently in this than other nations. Once the casualties start mounting up, it become progressively HARDER to just call it quits since that means allowing Nazi Germany to "win" in some sense, and the dead American boys still stay dead, and for nothing at all. The public will demand the US sees it through to the bitter end, or the boys already sacrificed died for nothing.

So, the more dead young Americans, the more dedicated the US can be assumed to become to fight Nazi Germany to the end. Pass a milestone like when the dead of the conflict would overtake the Civil War, and then the counter can just tick upwards for a very long time, into the millions. The more US blood shed in the fight, the less inclined the US would become to accept it's unable to win, and that the sacrifice has been for nothing. Especially if the US still feels it has the means to bring it off oterwise. It only ends by the US crying uncle, IF the US somehow gets the impression it just can't win, regardless of its millions of war-dead. But that's going to smart like all hell for the US pride.
Larrey is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 12:06 PM   #18

Zhang LaoYong's Avatar
A stray cat.
 
Joined: Oct 2014
From: On the prowl.
Posts: 5,123

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnik View Post
Without US subsidies Britain is broke by November 1940 at latest. Then either sues for peace or has to become a Communist state to keep the munitions works running when they can no longer pay the bills.

US can "in theory" defeat Germany alone. It could do it in a computer strategy game scenario with the player in charge of the nation's total resources. But not in real life. The political will isn't there. US public won't accept millions of dead American boys just to destroy a country on the other side of the world that hasn't done them any harm.

Even in real life FDR had to deceive the public pretty bad just to be able to push through peace time conscription. Most Americans don't want military tyranny in their country.
The political will is certainly there at that time. So is the very real fact about our immense industrial capacity and overwhelming military might that would be poured onto one enemy alone, not divided up on two massive fronts on opposites ends of the globe.

We would earn the ability to own both the seas and the air, and Germany would be spreading all around the shores to try and keep us from gaining that foothold on European soil. It would only be a matter of time, with Germany under siege trying to defend all of Europe's coast and dealing with the internal struggles of the partisans -- which you can certainly bet we would be funding, arming, and moving around the continent.

Only a matter of time. The US had the resources, manpower, and the will to fight to the end. That was already proven in the real war, and would be no different here in this fantasy world.
Zhang LaoYong is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 01:26 PM   #19
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Far From Home
Posts: 698

If USA had to fight for its life and existence (like USSR or Germany in the war) then sure it would make those sacrifices. I'm not saying Americans can't be brave when they have to. But that's not the case here. Just millions of boys dying in a useless war half the world away to feed J P Morgan and the merchants of death. Even if you don't agree with that it's certainly how the little people will see it.

How can you explain to the voters every fourth American boy must die? In this scenario there's no Britain that must be saved by provoking incidents with U-boats because the US fights alone. And there's no Japanese involvement so there won't be any "Remember The Maine Pearl Harbor!" opportunity for war propaganda. What can FDR tell Lindbergh et al when they asks what's the point of it all?

Purely by numbers I agree, if it's war to the death USA wins. But since USA is on the other side of a big ocean from Europe there's no need for them to fight to the death. It's questionable it'll be possible to start a war at all. And even if there is war the US can get out any time they like. Which will be soon once the voters start facing USSR like seven figure casualty figures if not long before. Even in real life FDR's popularity took a beating in the 1944 elections. And that was when US casualties were minuscule (by Second World War standards) and the Allies were clearly winning and the end was near.

Last edited by Raskolnik; June 25th, 2015 at 01:29 PM.
Raskolnik is offline  
Old June 25th, 2015, 06:09 PM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,102

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raskolnik View Post
If USA had to fight for its life and existence (like USSR or Germany in the war) then sure it would make those sacrifices. I'm not saying Americans can't be brave when they have to. But that's not the case here. Just millions of boys dying in a useless war half the world away to feed J P Morgan and the merchants of death. Even if you don't agree with that it's certainly how the little people will see it.

How can you explain to the voters every fourth American boy must die?
Simple. When every fifth American boy has ALREADY died, then its actually going to be rather difficult to tell the public it was all for nothing, and we're pulling the plug on this one, letting the German have it their way.

Nations get pulled gradually into these things. They don't come with a clear choice of casualty levels. At some point it all tips in the direction where the nation, even the little folk, will even want the war to be fought to victory to make the sacrifices already made worthwhile.

In for the hundered thousand, in for the three or four million, kind of thing...

Otherwise we assume WWII is inherently a useless war for the US, and it wouldn't fight it to start with, or the US does invest properly in it, and then the US will likely do what other nations in WWI and II did when the going got tough, and stick to it until the war is either comprehensively won or lost, and then massive casualties become the REASON for fighting on. War in general might be thought off as useless, but the own dead up the ante a treat for any nation.

Does the US otherwise go "Nah, not worth the bother..." at 100 000, 300 000, 500 000, a million, two? Obviously, going simply by the historical record 400 000 dead Americans wasn't that much of a strain. The US should be expected to accept ten times that at least — just like any other nation — if only to make the ALREADY made sacrifices worthwhile.

Because otherwise it's telling the common American that these lives were truly worthless. The fact that the US so far in its history has been fortunate enough to not have been put in that position simply means the US lacks that specific, nasty, experience of war.
Larrey is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
america, britain, defeated, soviets, wehrmacht



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Could the US have defeated the Kreigsmarine without Britain and Canada Kevinhones59 War and Military History 10 April 19th, 2015 03:31 PM
America saved Germany and Japan from Soviets? FrancaisP European History 22 March 15th, 2015 10:36 AM
What if Hitler defeated Soviets and crushed England greatstreetwarrior Speculative History 11 March 5th, 2015 01:48 PM
If South America could not be defeated by any other culture Brisieis Speculative History 15 January 1st, 2013 06:24 AM
Armchair Generals : How would America invade the Soviets ? Mohammed the Persian Speculative History 34 August 23rd, 2012 02:31 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.