American intervention in 1939?
- Thread starter Armot
- Start date
In 1939, the US Army had three under-equipped, poorly trained infantry divisions. The Dutch Army was bigger and more threatening to Germany. Had they deployed to France, well, the Germans MIGHT have noticed as the panzers overran them.
The US Army Air Corps was even worse. Tag another few kills for the Luftwaffe.
Paris still falls in June.
Of course, by 1941, the US would be a monster. 60 divisions and growing, huge Navy, huge air force. So the Germans fortify France, and don't attack USSR. US + GB eventually take out Germany at horrendous cost in men.
So the real winner is Stalin ... who attacks Germany in 1944 as the Reich is crumbling under the Anglo-American onslaught...
Mike Turcotte
The very real problem, and one which most European commentators fail to grasp here, is that America was not the massive militarily built-up nation it is today. Not only did we have to suddenly and rapidly take several million men to expand upon our small military establishment, we had to build up the facilities to handle military forces of that size from scratch. President Roosevelt had been pushing legislation to expand and modernize the military, a bit at a time to account for public opinions, but it was not enough by 1939.
One we got going, we were all but unstoppable. The problem was in the getting going.
In short, even if we had taken the decision to intervene in '39, it would not have been enough to stop the initial phases of the war from going precisely as they did.
One we got going, we were all but unstoppable. The problem was in the getting going.
In short, even if we had taken the decision to intervene in '39, it would not have been enough to stop the initial phases of the war from going precisely as they did.
A PoD that leads to US intervention in 1939 could reach all the way back to 1919, or beyond.
One of the tipping points was at the Versailles confrence. Perhaps had that gone differently the US voters & leaders not been so disgusted, not turned to support the isolationist concept and participated in the League of nations. The problem with this, which is not really a 'problem', is that with US participation the French & Belgian will have better support for their 1923 occupation of the Ruhr, and that might lead to a alteration of the Versailles treaty to either suppress or defuse the revival of the German military. If it does not then US participation & support could lead to a French Belgian intervention against the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland. That likely leads to the end of nazi government, and further changes to ensure the German military does not revive.
Isolationism as a policy and philosophy or ideology was just to well rooted. It would require a actual attack and a alrge on the US or its territories or military to drag the 1930s US into a war.
Every other post 1919 PoD I've seen is either so weak or so twisted it is difficult to see it occuring. One such proposes the US and France (& Britain) stumble together into a war with Japan over its war with China. If that occurs in 1937, 38, or even early 1939 it creates a degree of alliance between the US and France, breaks down the isolationist policy, and kick starts US mobilization. Thus when Germany occupies Prague in march 1939, or tangles with Poland the US would have more than three half prepared divisions & two air wings, have its industrial plans at least partially sorted out, allocating money for developing the weapons that had been tested in the previous two decades, ect...
Of course such a Pacific War avenue requires the fanatical fringe of the Japanese imperialist faction have a even greater ability to run off the cliff than OTL. If the US is not going to war over the warship Panay sunk, a diplomat beaten, & US business property in China seized it is going to take some really earth shaking outrages.
One of the tipping points was at the Versailles confrence. Perhaps had that gone differently the US voters & leaders not been so disgusted, not turned to support the isolationist concept and participated in the League of nations. The problem with this, which is not really a 'problem', is that with US participation the French & Belgian will have better support for their 1923 occupation of the Ruhr, and that might lead to a alteration of the Versailles treaty to either suppress or defuse the revival of the German military. If it does not then US participation & support could lead to a French Belgian intervention against the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland. That likely leads to the end of nazi government, and further changes to ensure the German military does not revive.
Isolationism as a policy and philosophy or ideology was just to well rooted. It would require a actual attack and a alrge on the US or its territories or military to drag the 1930s US into a war.
Every other post 1919 PoD I've seen is either so weak or so twisted it is difficult to see it occuring. One such proposes the US and France (& Britain) stumble together into a war with Japan over its war with China. If that occurs in 1937, 38, or even early 1939 it creates a degree of alliance between the US and France, breaks down the isolationist policy, and kick starts US mobilization. Thus when Germany occupies Prague in march 1939, or tangles with Poland the US would have more than three half prepared divisions & two air wings, have its industrial plans at least partially sorted out, allocating money for developing the weapons that had been tested in the previous two decades, ect...
Of course such a Pacific War avenue requires the fanatical fringe of the Japanese imperialist faction have a even greater ability to run off the cliff than OTL. If the US is not going to war over the warship Panay sunk, a diplomat beaten, & US business property in China seized it is going to take some really earth shaking outrages.
Last edited:
About the only point this early where the US might make a difference would be in Norway in April. With the US Navy at hand it is possible the Allies will be able to beat the Germans there by days or weeks. Even in a scenario close to OTL the German are going to have a tougher time with the US fleet added in. More surface warships, submarines, one or two more aircraft carriers, and one of the Marine expeditionary brigades might tip the balance.
In the longer run US participation might discourage the Italians from entering the war. Hard to guess what with Mussolinis haphazard approach to foreign policy.
The U.S. was utterly unprepared to fight in 1939. The American idea of how military forces should be raised was very much stuck in the 19th Century, and the early part at that. The cherished belief that militia was enough, that a large standing army was a greater threat than protection, ran deep in the collective American thought process.
Active Army force was ~189K with an equal number of reservists. Just over 300 tanks, including some of the OLD 2 man Renault FT models from WW I, and nothing that was even close to the T-38 or BT-26 (the M-1 "combat car", which was a tankette, but not called one due to U.S. law, had 2 .50 cal mg, and was by far the best American tank in 1939). The USN, which received far and away the biggest piece of the Defense Budget, had 125K men, with the USMC adding 19K to the navy's total ration strength.
The USN hadn't commissioned a new Battleship since 1923, had only five operational carriers (and that is a stretch because it includes the Ranger) split between 2 oceans, and was barely beginning to modernize its destroyer force.
The USAF was still operating large numbers of P-26 fighters, the P-35 & P-36 were just entering squadron service and the EARLY version of the P-40 was barely beginning production. The B-17 was still in very low series production and the main bombers were the B-10 & B-18.
One of the great fantasies of WW II is that the U.S. could have jumped in right at the start and such intervention would have resulted in a rapid Allied victory. The truth is very different. The U.S., as had been the case in WW I, effectively had no military. What it had was a constabulary force and reasonably strong navy that was weak on light forces. It was the most powerful military in the Western Hemisphere (although the Canadian military could give it run for its money), but this was much more a matter of lack of competition than any sort of prowess. It took the U.S. better than two years from the start of the European phase of WW II to train a reasonably sized ground force and begin to equip it with sufficient transport, armored vehicles, and artillery to survive on the modern battlefield. Until then the U.S. was a country of enormous potential, not great power.
It took the disasters of late 1941 and the difficulties of 1942 (and it needs to be noted, the later near disaster in 1950 Korea) for the U.S. to collectively realize that the era of small standing cadre and masses of militia were at an end. The permanent, vastly powerful force that is now the U.S. military didn't exist before the events of the Cold War made it necessary, and it exists now simply because enough political fear of being caught short if something bad happens keeps the money flowing.
Active Army force was ~189K with an equal number of reservists. Just over 300 tanks, including some of the OLD 2 man Renault FT models from WW I, and nothing that was even close to the T-38 or BT-26 (the M-1 "combat car", which was a tankette, but not called one due to U.S. law, had 2 .50 cal mg, and was by far the best American tank in 1939). The USN, which received far and away the biggest piece of the Defense Budget, had 125K men, with the USMC adding 19K to the navy's total ration strength.
The USN hadn't commissioned a new Battleship since 1923, had only five operational carriers (and that is a stretch because it includes the Ranger) split between 2 oceans, and was barely beginning to modernize its destroyer force.
The USAF was still operating large numbers of P-26 fighters, the P-35 & P-36 were just entering squadron service and the EARLY version of the P-40 was barely beginning production. The B-17 was still in very low series production and the main bombers were the B-10 & B-18.
One of the great fantasies of WW II is that the U.S. could have jumped in right at the start and such intervention would have resulted in a rapid Allied victory. The truth is very different. The U.S., as had been the case in WW I, effectively had no military. What it had was a constabulary force and reasonably strong navy that was weak on light forces. It was the most powerful military in the Western Hemisphere (although the Canadian military could give it run for its money), but this was much more a matter of lack of competition than any sort of prowess. It took the U.S. better than two years from the start of the European phase of WW II to train a reasonably sized ground force and begin to equip it with sufficient transport, armored vehicles, and artillery to survive on the modern battlefield. Until then the U.S. was a country of enormous potential, not great power.
It took the disasters of late 1941 and the difficulties of 1942 (and it needs to be noted, the later near disaster in 1950 Korea) for the U.S. to collectively realize that the era of small standing cadre and masses of militia were at an end. The permanent, vastly powerful force that is now the U.S. military didn't exist before the events of the Cold War made it necessary, and it exists now simply because enough political fear of being caught short if something bad happens keeps the money flowing.
The U.S. has to have something to intervene with. Here goes:
The Panay incident leads the U.S. to the brink of war with Japan. The U.S. has to back down and apologize to Japan for mob incidents in the U.S. because the Army points out that we haven't got a pot to pee in, in terms of ground forces and airpower.
This leads to a program of military expansion, which also functions as much-needed economic stimulus. With unemployment still very high, there's no shortage of volunteers for an expanded Army. Development of tanks and aircraft is welcomed by hungry industrialists.
By 1939, the U.S. has about 750,000 troops under arms; the Navy has also been fleshed out, especially its air elements.
Some incident involving Americans has made Nazi Germany even more loathed by Americans than OTL. Reports of Nazi behavior in occupied Poland. Sabotage by German agents of an American factory producing something for Britain or France, with heavy casualties. More incidents at sea.
In October 1939, the U.S. declares war against Germany. This is accompanied by a Congressional Resolution that there will be no conscription, and that only volunteers will be sent to Europe.
The U.S. also begins "Freedom Fund" production for the Allies, and expansion of U.S. forces accelerates. Industry shifts to war production.
By spring 1940, a U.S. Army mechanized corps is deployed in France, along with several fighter squadrons. The mech corps is four armored divisions, with full motor transport, and lots of everything - half-tracks, armored cars, SP artillery, and of course tanks (the rough equivalent of the 1942 Grant). The US forces are about 150,000 men, including support elements. Radio communications. Organization and tactics are somewhat problematic - the force has never seen battle, only maneuvers - but it's very powerful anyway.
It arrived late, and is held in reserve against a German breakthrough. That happens at Sedan as OTL. The Americans counterattack, and after a bruising meeting engagement, destroy the German panzer spearhead force and push back to the Meuse, with French infantry in support. The fighters squadrons cover the battlefield, shooting down lots of Stukas.
The German right wing is making limited progress against the French, British, and Belgians in Belgium. But with the center secure, the Allies reinforce their left, and the German offensive stalls out before Brussels and Antwerp.
CASE GELB has failed.
On 20 July 1940, Hitler's plane "crashes" en route to Berlin. (The bomb inside helped.) Goering claims power as Hitler's designated successor. On 23 July, Allied bombers attack several locations deep in Germany. The attacks are ineffective, but the mere fact of them is very embarrassing to Goering. On 25 July, an Army coup d'etat seizes power. (Goering "retires due to ill health". Goebbels, Hess, Himmler, and Kaltenbrunner are quietly arrested.) On 30 July, the new German government and the Allies agree to a peace. All German forces will withdraw from France, Luxemburg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Poland. Germany will pay moderate reparations to Poland, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
Not the T-28.
The LT-38 (known in the Heer as the Pw-38(t), with the (t) indicating that it was a Czech design).
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-38t.htm
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
Possibly the best bet for an impact that early is that US military officers may be able to influence French and British commanders to adopt a different posture during the early stages of the European conflict. This is hardly guaranteed though.
Though I would be interested in hearing how one goes about killing the Isolationist movement in the US in the interwar years without having too many butterflies hit the European situation.
Though I would be interested in hearing how one goes about killing the Isolationist movement in the US in the interwar years without having too many butterflies hit the European situation.
I dont see how you can reduce the isolationist influence after 1919, except by foreign nation action. & Japan is the only remote candidate, and the amount of aggresive behavior it would require is far beyond that of OTL.
There are some PoD before 1920, but those generally lead to German militarism & a nazi led war being snuffed by the mid 1930s at the latest.
I think I agree that the Panay incident that leads to a buildup in the best scenario for a quicker US intervention. Either the US goes after Japan, with or without an alliance with Britain and France, or they have a severe cold war and an oil embargo sooner. With the vamping of US recruitment and contracts for new equipment and planes leads to a more aggressive US.
That I think is the best situation, though not the most likely.
That I think is the best situation, though not the most likely.
One things is probably sure, and that's Wilkie not getting the Republican nomination in 1940. I would guess that you might see Robert Taft emerge as the nominee.
EDIT: I made a quick map based on this scenario.
EDIT: I made a quick map based on this scenario.
Last edited:
Panay incident..or two...
The Panay Incident could spiral out of control. If the Panay gets lucky and downs a Japanese fighter--and enraged pilots strafe survivors in the water, and it's shown on newsreels in the USA, the people will be more upset than in OTL.
War isn't declared, but the American population is mad now--then another "accident" happens, with more American dead, another ship sunk. Or perhaps som missionaries are machine-gunned. With war now in the air, there's discussion about the readiness of the army and navy in various newspapers, and the state of the military is upsetting to the population. So--recruiting goes up, perhaps even a draft, as the military is authorized more troops, more materials.
Result: the USA is somewhat more capable of acting in Europe, if a reason should come up.
The Panay Incident could spiral out of control. If the Panay gets lucky and downs a Japanese fighter--and enraged pilots strafe survivors in the water, and it's shown on newsreels in the USA, the people will be more upset than in OTL.
War isn't declared, but the American population is mad now--then another "accident" happens, with more American dead, another ship sunk. Or perhaps som missionaries are machine-gunned. With war now in the air, there's discussion about the readiness of the army and navy in various newspapers, and the state of the military is upsetting to the population. So--recruiting goes up, perhaps even a draft, as the military is authorized more troops, more materials.
Result: the USA is somewhat more capable of acting in Europe, if a reason should come up.
If the USA intervenes in Europe in 1939 then you have handed Asia on a platter to the Japanese. The US couldn't fight in two theatres then and if the Japanese launch a Pearl Harbour equivalent a year early!*
I know that eventually the economic might of the US would cause it to win but it would be a much longer and messier war.
*assuming that they can come up with the idea themselves rather than looking at the Taranto operation by the Fleet Air Arm and going "That looks interesting!" They do have the planners capable of doing that.
I know that eventually the economic might of the US would cause it to win but it would be a much longer and messier war.
*assuming that they can come up with the idea themselves rather than looking at the Taranto operation by the Fleet Air Arm and going "That looks interesting!" They do have the planners capable of doing that.
If the US started getting on full war economy from March 15th 1939, when Prague was occupied, how much of US forces could have been available in France 1940, May 10th to June 22nd, at the latest?
Besides, if the Americans are around, France might continue the fight and not surrender, even if metropolitan France is lost for the moment.
Besides, if the Americans are around, France might continue the fight and not surrender, even if metropolitan France is lost for the moment.
Hoist40
Banned
Depends on the priorities.
If you want to use most of your regulars to train new troops in the USA then at most you would get a US Corps in France consisting of 3 regular divisions, maybe a couple of light tank regiments and some Corps artillery. Equipment wise it would have mostly left over WW1 equipment though some would be modernized and should have a fair number of modern trucks even if some are requisitioned civilian models
If you really want to do most of the training and equipping in France then maybe up to ten divisions but few would be ready for a fight since they would have only unmodernized WW1 equipment and not enough time to get the divisions trained.
Equipment wise the US was worse off then 1917 since none of its factories in 1939 were producing much military equipment and its allies Britain and France needed everything they produced for their own forces. In 1917 the US had been producing military equipment for Britain and France and the British and French had finally managed to get their production going enough that they were able to lend some to the US forces. The only bright spot for the US in 1939 was the large amount of equipment left over from WW1 but it was not really the right equipment for a WW2 battle
So no matter what the US would have much less then the British.
As to US encouraging France to fight on from North Africa this was possible, the US had money, plus its fleet could help prevent the German/Italians from a quick attack on the French positions in North Africa. Also the US could send its troops to North Africa even if not fully ready but enough to scare off the German/Italians from trying an attack at the ends of their logistic lines.
The US joining the war could even keep Italy out since they joined mostly to get a cheap victory and with the US in they might not think it would be so cheap
If you want to use most of your regulars to train new troops in the USA then at most you would get a US Corps in France consisting of 3 regular divisions, maybe a couple of light tank regiments and some Corps artillery. Equipment wise it would have mostly left over WW1 equipment though some would be modernized and should have a fair number of modern trucks even if some are requisitioned civilian models
If you really want to do most of the training and equipping in France then maybe up to ten divisions but few would be ready for a fight since they would have only unmodernized WW1 equipment and not enough time to get the divisions trained.
Equipment wise the US was worse off then 1917 since none of its factories in 1939 were producing much military equipment and its allies Britain and France needed everything they produced for their own forces. In 1917 the US had been producing military equipment for Britain and France and the British and French had finally managed to get their production going enough that they were able to lend some to the US forces. The only bright spot for the US in 1939 was the large amount of equipment left over from WW1 but it was not really the right equipment for a WW2 battle
So no matter what the US would have much less then the British.
As to US encouraging France to fight on from North Africa this was possible, the US had money, plus its fleet could help prevent the German/Italians from a quick attack on the French positions in North Africa. Also the US could send its troops to North Africa even if not fully ready but enough to scare off the German/Italians from trying an attack at the ends of their logistic lines.
The US joining the war could even keep Italy out since they joined mostly to get a cheap victory and with the US in they might not think it would be so cheap