"What if" no Pacific War

[Jeff]

Alright I haven't come up with a whacky "what if" so what if there were no attack on PH, no real strain on Pacific relations. How much more effort could have been made on the European front? Additional divisions? Additional SBC effort? Less Naval construction?

[Guest AdamMachell]

Even better, how long would we (The US) have waited?

 

If Hitler reached some stalemate with England, could he have held off Russia?

[nitflegal]

I'd think that, had relations with Japan been generally good, it might have seriously delayed or even prevented US entry into the war. It seems that the actions of the Japanese in China got some decent play, which hardened feelings towards the Axis as a whole. In addition, while much aid was sent a mild amount of upport, it took Pearl Harbor for a formal entry into the war on the US side. Take that away and let the European war be presented as those bloody Europeans beating on each other again 20 years after we went to war for them last time and you'd have a really tough sell on FDR's part. While German u-Boot action might have made things somewhat irritating, I don't see that as easily presented as a cause for war.

 

So, you get to try out the whole Commonwealth and battered USSR against Hitler bit, with significantly less US material support.

 

Matt

[KingSargent]

FDR already had the US Navy escorting convoys to Britain (actually to mid-Atlantic where the RN took over) for months before Pearl Harbor. Then he got all indignant and tried to get a war declaration when German U-boats torpedoed some convoy escorts that turned out to be Americans.

 

I think that if the people and Congress knew what was really going on in late 1941 (FDR waging war on his own hook), FDR would have had a real tough time selling US involvement in WW2 in Europe. He would be lucky if he wasn't impeached.

 

What could have been interesting is the Japanese getting Germany to make the Dutch cede the NEI to Japan - or at least all the oil production. They got France to agree to a Japanese takeover in IndoChina.

[ShotMagnet]

If Hitler reached some stalemate with England, could he have held off Russia?

 

Depends somewhat on Japan's stance vis-a-vis Russia.

 

The two powers had fought in the early days of WWII, and Jaoan had taken the worst of it. If Stalin had skillfully applied carrot and stick, and Japan content herself to be patient while Germany and Russia spill each other's blood, then Stalin might have seen fit to remove some eastern formations and relocate them west. On the other hand, Stalin had (IIRC) sizeable forces stationed east through most or all of the fighting, from Barbarossa on. He seemed able to manage okay without them.

 

Could Hitler have held off Russia? Stalin pushed the Germans out of Russia, then out of Poland, and to my knowledge (feel free to correct me) could have pushed them out of Germany if left unchecked. He did this largely without outside help (aside from Lend-Lease) and managed to throw the Germans more or less permanently on their heels as of July 43, almost a year before Overlord. Could Hitler have held off Russia? I'd be inclined to say 'no' even without Lend-Lease, or bombing Germany proper, or Italy, North Africa, etc.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but if I remember correctly (can't get to my references at the moment) the percentage of Germans otherwise occupied weren't enough to make a long-term difference.

 

How that might affect Japanese planning if they're suddenly not fighting the Allies is a good question, especially if they pull all the way out of China.

 

Japan was an Allied power during WWI and not a terribly ardent supporter of Hitler during WWII. If Japan wanted some street-cred (and maybe make the US lose some face in the process) she might throw in with England, France, and Russia against Germany. Supporting the Allied cause where the US couldn't/wouldn't, might strengthen her hand with the English and the French WRT Indochina and getting oil from the DEI.

 

After that, maybe IJN bases in India, the Middle East, the Med, and an extension (carefully executed and handled with diplomatic finesse) of her influence in the Pacific. By the time Germany was finished, she might be in sufficent fettle economically and/or politically to take on the US and maybe win, maybe without a fight.

 

Sure, that's assuming an awful lot but it is a 'what if'.

 

 

Shot

[JWB]

Could Hitler have held off Russia? Stalin pushed the Germans out of Russia, then out of Poland, and to my knowledge (feel free to correct me) could have pushed them out of Germany if left unchecked. He did this largely without outside help (aside from Lend-Lease) and managed to throw the Germans more or less permanently on their heels as of July 43, almost a year before Overlord. Could Hitler have held off Russia? I'd be inclined to say 'no' even without Lend-Lease, or bombing Germany proper, or Italy, North Africa, etc.

Stalin could have pushed Hitler out of Russia but without LL that is as far as he would have gotten.

[swerve]

What could have been interesting is the Japanese getting Germany to make the Dutch cede the NEI to Japan - or at least all the oil production. They got France to agree to a Japanese takeover in IndoChina.

 

Problem there is that the Dutch government & queen were in London, from May 1940. So who'd do the ceding? The Dutch forces in NEI obeyed the government in exile, of course - it was elected by the Dutch people.

[swerve]

If Hitler reached some stalemate with England, could he have held off Russia?

 

Depends somewhat on Japan's stance vis-a-vis Russia.

 

The two powers had fought in the early days of WWII, and Jaoan had taken the worst of it. If Stalin had skillfully applied carrot and stick, and Japan content herself to be patient while Germany and Russia spill each other's blood, then Stalin might have seen fit to remove some eastern formations and relocate them west. On the other hand, Stalin had (IIRC) sizeable forces stationed east through most or all of the fighting, from Barbarossa on. He seemed able to manage okay without them.Shot

208203[/snapback]

 

In fact, the USSR did reduce its forces in the east, because it had intelligence from the spy Richard Sorge that the Japanese were refusing German requests to attack.

[KingSargent]

Problem there is that the Dutch government & queen were in London, from May 1940. So who'd do the ceding? The Dutch forces in NEI obeyed the government in exile, of course - it was elected by the Dutch people.

208223[/snapback]

There are all sorts of diplomatic possibilities here, including giving Holland back to the Dutch in trade for the NEI. Why not? The Germans could always overrun them again if they felt like it.

"it was elected by the Dutch people." That will be news to the House of Orange, the heredetary monarchy of the Netherlands.

[R011]

"it was elected by the Dutch people." That will be news to the House of Orange, the heredetary monarchy of the Netherlands.

208589[/snapback]

Those members of the government-in-exile that actually did the governing were elected by the Dutch people. It's the same relationship that Churchill and his cabinet had with George VI or Blair has with Elizabeth II.

[swerve]

There are all sorts of diplomatic possibilities here, including giving Holland back to the Dutch in trade for the NEI. Why not? The Germans could always overrun them again if they felt like it.

"it was elected by the Dutch people." That will be news to the House of Orange, the heredetary monarchy of the Netherlands.

208589[/snapback]

 

Read it again, King - "the government and queen" and "the government in exile, of course - it was elected by the Dutch people.". I didn't say the Orange-Nassau lot were either elected, or part of the government.

[Ken Estes]

It becomes very tricky. With no Pearl Harbor and Pacific War, the callup of reserves and natl guard under the national emergency lapses. There is no guarantee of an extension, and next to no possible US entry into the Anglo-German or Russo-German wars in 1941-42. Even assuming that FDR's quasi-war in the North Atlantic continues, neutrality/non-intervention forces remain strong in the US.

 

Although Lend-Lease will not help the Rus before 1943, the accelerated schedule brought by the US entry into WWII measurably improves UK fortunes in 1942, perhaps decisive in the battles for N. Africa.

 

Cannot say much for the Russo-German War that is new; it was badly planned with no winter campaign envisioned [another one where 'we will be welcomed as liberators'], still a close run thing in 1941, less so in 1942. Suffice to say that there is no collapse in Russia by either side, nor is 1943 likely so bad for the III Reich, which would perhaps not lose two complete field armies in the first 4 months?

[Blunt Eversmoke]

The lend-lease only made up 15% of the total material used by Russia. Thus, it would take a little more time, but the Germans would have been thrown outta Russia, anyway. Now where the lend-lease comes in: No US trucks means real slow progress into Europe, because the Russian railway net is just that - Russian. As no quality trucks are there, new railroads have to be laid on the fly, to ensure goods transport to the frontline(or, rather, near it). Dare I say, at least one year more war?

Another variant: Usage of the excellent Russian tracked towing vehicles for the transportation not only of the guns, but also of supplies, making up for the lack of quality trucks. More would have to be produced, but oh well. 1/2 year more war, I'd say.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Blunt Eversmoke

[JohnB]

Although Lend-Lease will not help the Rus before 1943, the accelerated schedule brought by the US entry into WWII measurably improves UK fortunes in 1942,

 

 

Not to the extent that Japanese entry into the war worsened UK fortunes in 1942 though ...

[Ken Estes]

Not to the extent that Japanese entry into the war worsened UK fortunes in 1942 though ...

208783[/snapback]

I don't know about that one. Apart from the eventual withdrawal of the Australian Divisions, there does not seem to be much materiel heading for the Far East that could have helped out in the Western Desert, or is there more to it?

 

Earlier, I also do not see how the Red Army gains superiority over the Germans in 1943 and ... "would have been thrown outta Russia." ??

[Blunt Eversmoke]

Earlier, I also do not see how the Red Army gains superiority over the Germans in 1943 and ... "would have been thrown outta Russia."  ??

208827[/snapback]

 

More precise, please?

[JohnB]

I don't know about that one. Apart from the eventual withdrawal of the Australian Divisions, there does not seem to be much materiel heading for the Far East that could have helped out in the Western Desert, or is there more to it?

208827[/snapback]

 

The British 18th Infantry Division was diverted midway to the Middle East to Singapore, arriving just in time to be put in the bag. The 17th Indian Division was training up for the Desert in India until shipped to Burma whilst the 7th Armoured Brigade was transferred direct from the Middle East to Rangoon.

Throw in all the RAF Squadrons diverted to the Far East, the naval assets lost, the Australian divisions returned and add Bill Slim and I can't see the Axis forces being too much of a threat to the Canal or even the Gazala position.

[Daniel Papp]

The lend-lease only made up 15% of the total material used by Russia. Thus, it would take a little more time, but the Germans would have been thrown outta Russia, anyway. Now where the lend-lease comes in: No US trucks means real slow progress into Europe, because the Russian railway net is just that - Russian. As no quality trucks are there, new railroads have to be laid on the fly, to ensure goods transport to the frontline(or, rather, near it).  Dare I say, at least one year more war?

Another variant: Usage of the excellent Russian tracked towing vehicles for the transportation not only of the guns, but also of supplies, making up for the lack of quality trucks. More would have to be produced, but oh well. 1/2 year more war, I'd say.

208778[/snapback]

 

Someone have mentioned on this grate site before that Lend-Lease accounted for about 80% of Russian ammo&explosive usage, as the German advance take out the ammo factories located in the West. I won't call that insignificant but the single most important contribution in the short-medium term.

[KingSargent]

The British 18th Infantry Division was diverted midway to the Middle East to Singapore, arriving just in time to be put in the bag. The 17th Indian Division was training up for the Desert in India until shipped to Burma whilst the 7th Armoured Brigade was transferred direct from the Middle East to Rangoon.

Throw in all the RAF Squadrons diverted to the Far East, the naval assets lost, the Australian divisions  returned and add Bill Slim and I can't see the Axis forces being too much of a threat to the Canal or even the Gazala position.

208863[/snapback]

Slim wasn't a big shot yet, and IIRC he was hors de combat due to being shot in the ass in Eritrea.

 

"All the RAF squadrons transferred" didn't amount to much, especially as the Japanese had most of the archipelago's airfields by the time they arrived. Recall that we are postulating 1st Air Fleet in support in SE Asia, since they weren't going to PH. 1AF outnumbered all the Allied a/c deployed to SEA/PI, and they were considerably better. They ate the RAF's lunch during the Trincomalee raid in April '42. I shudder to think of what they would have the poor untrained Yank fliers in the PI had they decided to intervene...

 

The IJN didn't have much problem with any RN ships foolish enough to expose themselves either.* The biggest force the RN planned to deploy in 1942 would have been a speed bump in the way of 1AF and the IJN surface elements in SE Asia.

 

* The Royal Indian Navy, OTOH... A story which deserves much wider attention is the gallant fight of an Indian minesweeper which took on two IJN armed merchant cruisers, sank one, and drove the other off.

[KingSargent]

Someone have mentioned on this grate site before that Lend-Lease accounted for about 80% of Russian ammo&explosive usage, as the German advance take out the ammo factories located in the West. I won't call that insignificant but the single most important contribution in the short-medium term.

208893[/snapback]

Lend-Lease also provided most of the trucks used by the Sovs in the 44-45 offensives. Signal equipmen, both radio and wire also plugged big gaps in the Soviets C&C abilities.

[Colin Williams]

I've always thought this is an extremely interesting "What If?"

 

If Japan is friendly ala WW1, my guess is that the combined British-Indian-Australian-New Zealand land forces deployable to the Med and Europe (or not deployed to the Far East in the first place) equal 6 to 10 divisions. Also, fairly objective (from my point of view) officers in the Middle East were 100% convinced that 8th Army would have held onto Cyrenaica after the end of Operation Crusader if Japan stayed out of the war.

 

In the best case scenario, with full US Lend-Lease but no entry into the war, I can see the Brits conquering Libya, "liberating" French North Africa, defeating the U-boats, and possibly knocking Italy out of the war by taking Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. I don't know if they would want or be able to occupy southern Italy. I am sure that without the Americans there is no way they try to invade France. The strategic bombing campaign would certainly be weaker, as would the tactical campaign to win control of the air. I expect the Soviets would have been able to pull off Stalingrad and to continue to push the Germans back and defeat the Kursk offensive. After that, Soviet offensives depended more on logistics made possible by Lend-Lease and a relatively weak Luftwaffe. With a stronger Luftwaffe, more divisions, and less disruption from strategic bombing, I see the Germans stalemating the Soviets somewhere along the Curzon Line, until Winnie ships the A-bomb in from Canada and takes out Berlin.

[Blunt Eversmoke]

Someone have mentioned on this grate site before that Lend-Lease accounted for about 80% of Russian ammo&explosive usage, as the German advance take out the ammo factories located in the West. I won't call that insignificant but the single most important contribution in the short-medium term.

208893[/snapback]

 

They MAY have made 80%... If they arrived in the same quantity they were sent in. Seeing, however, that the majority of goods never actually made it to their destination(remember PQ-17 and don't-do-it-Dudley?), the total percentage of material used by the USSR was only 15% lend-lease. If it was used in the first place(armament and ammunition, for example, hardly ever were). But I'll grant the lend-lease the trucks - see above. That's where my 1-2 years more estimated figure comes from.

[Leo Niehorster]

Food for thought.

 

Would Stalin have continued to fight the Germans if there were no Lend Lease, or a promise of a "second front"? My creaking memory seems vaguely to recall that Stalin seriously considered offering peace terms to the Germans, but was encouraged by the other Allies to continue on. Of course, the Germans might have refused.

 

And frankly, I don't see the British winning North Africa without the US military equipment. Just try and imagine, for example, the British in North Africa without Stuart/Honey's, Lee/Grant's and Shermans. The Axis in Tunisia/Libya/Egypt would have been hard to beat without the French North Africa landings at their backs. And French North Africa would certainly have resisted the British.

 

Without the military and industrial might of the USA weighing in, there was little hope that there would be an invasion of continental Europe.

Cheers

Leo

[JohnB]

And frankly, I don't see the British winning North Africa without the US military equipment. Just try and imagine, for example, the British in North Africa without Stuart/Honey's, Lee/Grant's and Shermans.

209253[/snapback]

 

 

Replacing the US tanks with British manufactured ones wouldn't have been a problem - the UK was shipping 200 tanks per month to the Soviets as was.

Trading Crusaders and Valentines for Stuarts and Grants would make little change and absent the Japanese and Eighth Army will have more of them. More significant, on the materiel side, than the supply of US tanks to Eighth Armys fight back and victory, I would say, was the increasing provision of 6pdr A/Tk guns and the reestablishment of the doctrine of centralisation in the Royal Artillery.

The Stuart and Grant tanks in use by the Brits in North Africa were all Cash purchase AFAIK.

 

The Axis in Tunisia/Libya/Egypt would have been hard to beat without the French North Africa landings at their backs. And French North Africa would certainly have resisted the British.

 

A TORCH like operation, minus the Algerian landings, is certainly doable by the Brits alone, although whether Vichy French resistance would be as fierce as in Syria I doubt but probably tougher than that faced by the joint operation. To balance which the British army would probably be led by Monty.

[Ken Estes]

Food for thought.

 

Would Stalin have continued to fight the Germans if there were no Lend Lease, or a promise of a "second front"? My creaking memory seems vaguely to recall that Stalin seriously considered offering peace terms to the Germans, but was encouraged by the other Allies to continue on. Of course, the Germans might have refused.

 

And frankly, I don't see the British winning North Africa without the US military equipment. Just try and imagine, for example, the British in North Africa without Stuart/Honey's, Lee/Grant's and Shermans. The Axis in Tunisia/Libya/Egypt would have been hard to beat without the French North Africa landings at their backs. And French North Africa would certainly have resisted the British.

 

Without the military and industrial might of the USA weighing in, there was little hope that there would be an invasion of continental Europe.

Cheers

Leo

209253[/snapback]

Agree. Without the US entry into the war, one should not assume Lend-Lease quantities or items would flow to UK/USSR as historically occurred; with a clear chance that none would go to the USSR. Certainly things like the emergency dispatch of 300 M4 mediums to the British 8th Army in mid-1942 might not have happened.

 

The shipment of US tanks in general to the UK under L-L becomes problematic, especially when we reconsider whether British design features/mods would have been accepted, especially viz. 75mm guns and AP performance.

 

Lack of troops and equipment did not endanger to the 8th Army until the twin disasters of Gazala-Tobruk, and it was the Desert Air Force that bought time for Auckinleck to patch a defense together near El Alamein station.

 

[On the other hand, lack of the US military mission in Cairo means that Rommel will not know so much about 8th Army weaknesses in 1942!!]

 

The peace feelers between Germany and USSR played out in 1941-43, and were once detailed by Vojtek Mastijy [sp?] in the late 1970s, but I have not followed the historiography since. Meetings in Stockholm, hinging on restoration of frontiers in 1939 vs. 1941, etc. were some of the details i remmeber. After the summer of 1943 these broke down, of course.

 

Along with the lack of materiel and men to do the Second Front, I see the Germans more difficult to route from the USSR, barring severe German errors of course. A German defensive posture in the East becomes a useful option once there is no looming US effectiveness.