[R_G]

So, to clarify, the United States is till aiding Britain in export, however they don't do anything like D-Day.

Instead the United States goes after Japan, and ultimately wins.



Let's assume the United States does develop the Atom Bomb like they did and does away with Japan, but perhaps earlier, maybe November 1944??

And let's also assume Britain is still independent from Nazi Germany as they continue to fight the Soviet Union. We've discussed here before how apparently the Soviet Union would eventually defeat the Nazis, but let's look at that and how the United States would have acted. Would they start arming the Soviet Union or not? And how would control of Japan affect Asian?

[Daktoria]

Controlling Asia while the Soviet Union is still busy wouldn't have made Mao's prospects any brighter.

[Someneck]

So, to clarify, the United States is till aiding Britain in export, however they don't do anything like D-Day.

Instead the United States goes after Japan, and ultimately wins.



Let's assume the United States does develop the Atom Bomb like they did and does away with Japan, but perhaps earlier, maybe November 1944??

And let's also assume Britain is still independent from Nazi Germany as they continue to fight the Soviet Union. We've discussed here before how apparently the Soviet Union would eventually defeat the Nazis, but let's look at that and how the United States would have acted. Would they start arming the Soviet Union or not? And how would control of Japan affect Asian?

I think the objectives of the US would have been roughly the same - to roll up Germany in such a way that the US controlled the maximum territory. Arming Russia not necessary - in fact counter productive to gaining territory. Once the population had been roused to war by Pearl Harbour, it would be fairly easy to concoct a reason to attack Germany, even if they had not been allied with Japan

The Germans nowadays , think that the US would have used nuclear weapons on them, but the Brits would have asked for stiff westerly breeze on the day it happened

Once Germany was cut off from the oil as it was by its defeats in North Africa and at Stalingrad, it could be strangled fairly easily, especially with the combined navies of the US and Britain
The main point of interest to me is this idea in the US that they saved Britain. The battle of Britain had been won in the Autumn of 1940 and Hitler had given up. Hitler was smashed at Stalingrad while the west was encamped in Britain, and had already been rolled right back by the time the allies decided they had to invade the mainland and grab as much as they could before the Ruskis arrived.

If D day had not occurred, Hitler would have been run over anyway but the Russians would have held Calais and that was the main driver for D Day

That is not to diminish the contribution of the US and Britain in cutting off oil supplies and carpet bombing German Cities, but the fighting on the ground was not essential to Germany's collapse

Stalingrad was the pivot point, not Normandy

[Smilin' Dave]

Would they start arming the Soviet Union or not?

Given the US would still be keenly interested in defeating Nazi Germany, if anything they might have felt compelled to send more arms to the Soviets to offset their own lack of troops to contribute. Given a lot of gear that was produced for the European theatre in the original timeline would probably not be required in a scenario where the focus was on Japan instead, there would be quite a bit of potential excess production (in that the US would still have to build up its war industries first) that could be used for this.

The real loser in this scenario might end up being France and other Western European countries. Without D-Day their liberation would be quite different (and probably later), either resulting from a Soviet advance (I think this unlikely but...), insurgency (hence greater losses and damage for the home population) or some kind of political settlement once Germany is defeated (which without physical pressure to withdraw, is less likely to be on good terms for them).

And how would control of Japan affect Asian?

The US pretty well had control of Japan at the end of WWII anyway. The big change might be how it effects Korea. The division of Korea at the end of the war, and the subsequent Korean War, had a big impact on US policy towards Japan and the rest of Asia. If Korea weren't divided then perhaps there would be no war. This would have a further knock on effect on the US miitary, that actually withered on the vine a bit after WWII, and only the shocks of defeat early in the Korean War reversed this. You could have a hypothetical scenario where the US still ends up in a war in Vietnam, but with less of a technological edge (then again, North Vietnam might have had less support from the Soviets?).

Controlling Asia while the Soviet Union is still busy wouldn't have made Mao's prospects any brighter.

Changing the balance in China probably would have required US occupation of China, which I think is pretty unlikely even in this scenario. It might have had an impact of the PLA's access to Soviet military surplus when the Civil War did roll around but even that might not have been entirely decisive, the PLA was able to army itself pretty well from KMT stocks (and a lot of their troops ended up being defectors from memory).

[Someneck]

The Germans had lost their sources of oil.

In November 1942, the Germans lost the battle of El Alamein so they lost North African oil and Persian Oil
A month later they lost at Stalingrad thereby losing oil from Romania and the Caucuses

At that point their life blood was cut off

The Ruskis had oil and troops and didn't really need much help.

This battle of the bulge was such a tiny, short and insignificant scrap, and yet many americans think it was the decisive battle of the entire European war ! It was a foggy few days when the US air force couldn't fly

Still hanging onto that as a great success is about as logical as the Brits claiming Dunkirk as a master stroke

I give the laurels to Ivan

[Section Leader]

I think there's a serious chance that no US involvement in the European war would have resulted in a Japanese victory.

If the USA never joined the war in Europe Winston Churchill is unlikely to have lasted very much longer, he would probably have been replaced with Lord Halifax as the U-Boat squeeze on the shipping lanes grew ever tighter and the public lost any appetite for the war. No lend lease would have meant the US economy would still be in the depression while trying to wage a war for the dominance of the Pacific.

I expect Germany would be left ruling the roost in central Europe after cutting some sort of deal with the Soviets where they get to keep Poland and are allowed a free hand in Central and Western Europe (possibly betraying the Finns in the process).

[Daktoria]

Changing the balance in China probably would have required US occupation of China, which I think is pretty unlikely even in this scenario. It might have had an impact of the PLA's access to Soviet military surplus when the Civil War did roll around but even that might not have been entirely decisive, the PLA was able to army itself pretty well from KMT stocks (and a lot of their troops ended up being defectors from memory).

My understanding is the Soviet Union was vital to Mao's retreat into Manchuria. If the Russians were still occupied by Germany, and Wedemeyer's attitude was embraced over Stilwell's, Mao wouldn't have had a chance at retaining an insurrection.

[Someneck]

My understanding is the Soviet Union was vital to Mao's retreat into Manchuria. If the Russians were still occupied by Germany, and Wedemeyer's attitude was embraced over Stilwell's, Mao wouldn't have had a chance at retaining an insurrection.

"Retaining an insurrection ?" Pfizer have a pill to deal with that

[Daktoria]

Haha...

...Chinese could use that...

...especially the commies.

[pugsville]

Err North African Oil? There was no North Africa oil. Iraq & Persia are not in North Africa. It's a long way from Egypt to any Oil. Rommel was not close or about to be close to any Oil at El Alimain.

[Ombrageux]

Without D-Day, Western Europe goes Communist. You might have had, at best, an autonomous Tito-style regime born of insurgency in France. Otherwise it's all Soviet-imposed puppet states.

[Section Leader]

Without D-Day, Western Europe goes Communist. You might have had, at best, an autonomous Tito-style regime born of insurgency in France. Otherwise it's all Soviet-imposed puppet states.

That's only IF the USSR manages to totally defeat and destroy Germany, which without the western allies is unlikely. They could easily have driven the Germans out of the Soviet Union itself, but whether they could have pushed into Poland, the Baltics and East Prussia is another matter entirely.

[Someneck]

All a bit boring now that we are all friends. The present borders will last for ever and we will still be doing "what ifs" in a thousand years

Well, I won't, but you know what I mean

Imperialism nowadays is done by proxies. I thought the Northern Alliance was an Insurance Company until they took over Afghanistan.

When our supplies were being "Held up by the Uzbeks" , I thought that was euphemism for something rude

Its a good job Gibraltar/Falklands/Formosa/Korea etc are all quiet coz we cant afford a war just now - but we are saving hard for the next one and there are children in school right now who will be killed in it

I think future wars are more interesting because we can weave Sarah's ideas into it, plus Tom Cruise's take on the roll of the body thetans during the occupation phase

[Smilin' Dave]

In November 1942, the Germans lost the battle of El Alamein so they lost North African oil and Persian Oil
A month later they lost at Stalingrad thereby losing oil from Romania and the Caucuses

To be precise, the first line really only relates to possible sources of oil (I don't think there were any major oil wells in North Africa circa WWII), and Persia was ruled out when it was occupied by the Soviets and western Allies (or possibly only British troops? I forget) after it's flirtation with support for the Axis. Now, if the Axis had somehow won the whole North Africa campaign oil might very well have flowed from the Middle East to Germany etc. but that would have been a follow on effect rather than a result of holding North Africa itself.

With the second line, the loss of Stalingrad didn't effect the flow of oil from Romania. That oil was shipped up different rivers that were well away from the front in the late 1942-early 1943 period.

If the USA never joined the war in Europe Winston Churchill is unlikely to have lasted very much longer, he would probably have been replaced with Lord Halifax as the U-Boat squeeze on the shipping lanes grew ever tighter and the public lost any appetite for the war. No lend lease would have meant the US economy would still be in the depression while trying to wage a war for the dominance of the Pacific.

The OP specifically states that lend lease or something like that continues. Which means the practice of the US Navy intercepting German subs to protect their shipping (which began before the US entered the war) continues which means no increase in losses of US shipping. It also means that US still shifts to a wartime economy which avoids any extension of the effects of the Depression.

I would even go so far as to argue that even with decreased industrial production, the US would beat the hell out of the Japanese. Japan's industry was very far behind the US, even at reduced Depression-like levels.

My understanding is the Soviet Union was vital to Mao's retreat into Manchuria.

Quite the opposite happened. Chiang Kai Shek knew the CCP would move into the vacuum of power left in Manchuria (which in our scenario will still occur when Japan falls) and actually asked the Soviets to stay on longer so that he could get his own troops into the area. US transports then flew some of the KMT's best units into Manchuria. Meanwhile the Soviets took anything they could find of value in Manchuria and sent it home.

[Daktoria]

Quite the opposite happened. Chiang Kai Shek knew the CCP would move into the vacuum of power left in Manchuria (which in our scenario will still occur when Japan falls) and actually asked the Soviets to stay on longer so that he could get his own troops into the area. US transports then flew some of the KMT's best units into Manchuria. Meanwhile the Soviets took anything they could find of value in Manchuria and sent it home.

You're ignoring how the Russians invaded Manchuria first, so Kai-Shek wasn't willing to fight them too.

If the Russians weren't there in the first place, he could have pursued Mao instead. Heck, he might not have even needed to enter Manchuria since the Japanese wouldn't have befriended Mao either (who were asked to hold their ground by the Americans to boot).

[Someneck]

With the second line, the loss of Stalingrad didn't effect the flow of oil from Romania. That oil was shipped up different rivers that were well away from the front in the late 1942-early 1943 period.

That is interesting because I understood that the whole Stalingrad/Southern caucuses campaign was a desperate race for the oil reserves there

If that oil could have been imported anyway via the rivers, what was the point of Stalingrad ?

[Someneck]

That's only IF the USSR manages to totally defeat and destroy Germany, which without the western allies is unlikely. They could easily have driven the Germans out of the Soviet Union itself, but whether they could have pushed into Poland, the Baltics and East Prussia is another matter entirely.

If the Ruskis had pushed Germany out of the Soviet Union and back to the borders of Germany, Russia would have had manufacturing thousand of miles from Germany, but Germany would have had manufacturing only scores of miles from Russia. Given that Britain had an overwhelming navy and was inventing radars which caused 75% losses to the U-boat fleet, surely Germany would have been strangled at that time without a D-day operation.

By the time of D-day, the Germans were already so weak that they could not hold Italy and were being rolled up by the Ruskis. It could only have become much worse, even without D-day.

The allies could have wrung their neck "like chicken" without leaving Britain - but that would have handed Europe to the Russians - hence D-day

[Daktoria]

If the U.S. didn't step into Europe, I doubt we'd be dealing with Iran like we are today. The U.S. liberated Persia from the Anglo-Soviet invasion, and installed the successor to Reza Shah who later became the target of the Iranian Revolution.

[Smilin' Dave]

You're ignoring how the Russians invaded Manchuria first, so Kai-Shek wasn't willing to fight them too.

If the Russians weren't there in the first place, he could have pursued Mao instead.

Excuse me? How could I be ignoring the Soviet occupation of Manchuria in a series of events that is entirely related to Soviet withdrawal from Manchuria?

If Chiang Kai-Shek's only concern was fighting the Soviets and CCP, he wouldn't have encouraged the Soviets to stay on, he would have wanted them out as fast as possible. After all according to you, it would have been a simple matter of pursuing the CCP/PLA.

the Japanese wouldn't have befriended Mao either (who were asked to hold their ground by the Americans to boot).

Can you cite some evidence that the Japanese military and the CCP were remotely friendly? It seems pretty improbable that the US would ask them to stay on temporarily as a garrison if they were chums with the 'enemy'.

That is interesting because I understood that the whole Stalingrad/Southern caucuses campaign was a desperate race for the oil reserves there

If that oil could have been imported anyway via the rivers, what was the point of Stalingrad ?

Capturing Stalingrad and the Caucasus was about denying the Soviets their fuel supply while obtaining same for the Axis war effort. Holding Romania was about hanging on to the oil supplies and refineries they already had.

Also different rivers were involved. Stalingrad sits on the Volga river while I think Romanian oil would have travelled up the Danube or something.

The U.S. liberated Persia from the Anglo-Soviet invasion

FDR actually supported the occupation of Iran, far from simply wanting Iran liberated. The US were quite happy with the occupation while the war was on, a considerable volume of Lend Lease equipment entered the Soviet Union via Iran.

and installed the successor to Reza Shah who later became the target of the Iranian Revolution.

You are kind of skipping big chunks of time here. Mossadegh didn't come to power until 1951, which was quite a while after WWII. And Mossadegh came to power through internal political moves, not outside forces. And his removal was the result of a joint UK and US operation.