If the U.S. enters World War II in 1939, does France fight on in 1940?

If there are large numbers of American soldiers in France, then the Allied
lines may hold. It would not take very long for the German army to be
defeated to a massive logistical failure.

Post by WolfBear
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this TL?

Not with a German defeat in France and the lack of German resources.

Post by WolfBear
In addition, how much people and industry is France going to be able to evacuate to North Africa? Also, would a larger French population and presence in North Africa have made France less willing to give it up (especially give up Algeria) after the end of World War II?

No German victory, no Italy in the war and without Italy no logistics for
Germany to go into North Africa and Hitler does not want to go to North
Africa anyway.

Post by WolfBear
Any thoughts on all of this?

The Horny Goat

2018-02-25 09:15:36 UTC

If there are large numbers of American soldiers in France, then the Allied
lines may hold. It would not take very long for the German army to be
defeated to a massive logistical failure.

What do you consider large numbers?

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers
reports

Year Army Navy Marines Coast Guard Total
1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473
1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365
1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 56,716 3,915,507
(saying they didn't count the Coast Guard until they were augmented to
wartime strength after Pearl Harbor)

(elsewhere the site says these are year-end numbers thus even if they
stripped all training units, America would be hard pressed to put 200k
troops into France in 1940 and likely at most 1/2 that.

That would help but nothing like an extra 500 anti-tank guns at Sedan
in May 1940.

Bottom line is Canada had more men under arms at the end of 1940 than
the US - bearing in mind that Canada was at war and the US wasn't.
(Nobody was in doubt that a mobilized USA could field many more men
than were actually in arms before Pearl Harbor)

Post by WolfBear
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this TL?

Not with a German defeat in France and the lack of German resources.

Thing is what's a German defeat in France? A world war 1 style trench
system? Is that a defeat? (Because that's a battle of attrition
Germany is likely to win in 1941 barring economic collapse or
political instability in Berlin both of which being possible.

No German victory, no Italy in the war and without Italy no logistics for
Germany to go into North Africa and Hitler does not want to go to North
Africa anyway.

Post by WolfBear
Any thoughts on all of this?

Italy doesn't join the war without the fall of Paris - and without
Italy there is obviously no battles in North Africa or Greece (which
definitely delayed Barbarossa).

Other possible PODs might be no Norwegian campaign which makes Germany
stronger in May 1940 not having lost half its navy. (Which still
doesn't make Sealion plausible)

About the ONLY thing that makes Sealion possible is German possession
of the French fleet - which Renaud and his cabinet swore would never
happen. And even if they did there's still the issue of how the
Germans get large chunks of the French fleet from Toulon past
GIbraltar and into the Channel. (Which assumes they have enough
sailors to actually crew the ships which is another point I am
skeptical on)

Realistically the ONLY way the French fleet is a factor against
Britain is if the French join the Axis which is doubtful to put it
mildly no matter what Hitler offers a post-surrender French
government.

SolomonW

2018-02-25 13:57:18 UTC

If there are large numbers of American soldiers in France, then the Allied
lines may hold. It would not take very long for the German army to be
defeated to a massive logistical failure.

What do you consider large numbers?
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-us-military-numbers
reports
Year Army Navy Marines Coast Guard Total
1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473
1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365
1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 56,716 3,915,507
(saying they didn't count the Coast Guard until they were augmented to
wartime strength after Pearl Harbor)
(elsewhere the site says these are year-end numbers thus even if they
stripped all training units, America would be hard pressed to put 200k
troops into France in 1940 and likely at most 1/2 that.
That would help but nothing like an extra 500 anti-tank guns at Sedan
in May 1940.
Bottom line is Canada had more men under arms at the end of 1940 than
the US - bearing in mind that Canada was at war and the US wasn't.
(Nobody was in doubt that a mobilized USA could field many more men
than were actually in arms before Pearl Harbor)

When does the US start mobilizing for war? If the US declares war with the
allies in Sep 1939, then clearly its a different US, than in the OTL. Now
look at the growth of the US army once they go to war, 1.5 million men
within a year. So they can mobilize fast.

The other issue is that the allies lacked supplies.

Post by WolfBear
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this TL?

Not with a German defeat in France and the lack of German resources.

I disagree, German economy was practically breaking up. They threw almost
everything into the battle. A major hold up of the German military would
have seen a serious German logistical collapse.

No German victory, no Italy in the war and without Italy no logistics for
Germany to go into North Africa and Hitler does not want to go to North
Africa anyway.

Post by WolfBear
Any thoughts on all of this?

Italy doesn't join the war without the fall of Paris - and without
Italy there is obviously no battles in North Africa or Greece (which
definitely delayed Barbarossa).

I am not sure this did delay Barbarossa but without the resources of France
as in the OTL and France, US and Britain fighting in France, it's
impossible for an attack on Russia.

Post by The Horny Goat
Other possible PODs might be no Norwegian campaign which makes Germany
stronger in May 1940 not having lost half its navy. (Which still
doesn't make Sealion plausible)
About the ONLY thing that makes Sealion possible is German possession
of the French fleet - which Renaud and his cabinet swore would never
happen. And even if they did there's still the issue of how the
Germans get large chunks of the French fleet from Toulon past
GIbraltar and into the Channel. (Which assumes they have enough
sailors to actually crew the ships which is another point I am
skeptical on)
Realistically the ONLY way the French fleet is a factor against
Britain is if the French join the Axis which is doubtful to put it
mildly no matter what Hitler offers a post-surrender French
government.

Robert Woodward

2018-02-25 17:56:38 UTC

If there are large numbers of American soldiers in France, then the Allied
lines may hold. It would not take very long for the German army to be
defeated to a massive logistical failure.

What do you consider large numbers?

<SNIP>

Post by SolomonW
When does the US start mobilizing for war? If the US declares war with the
allies in Sep 1939, then clearly its a different US, than in the OTL. Now
look at the growth of the US army once they go to war, 1.5 million men
within a year. So they can mobilize fast.

The US Army didn't really start expanding until the Draft was instituted
in 1940 (but that was in response to the fall of France). It still took
2 years before it could deploy forces in North Africa in late 1942. The
US Navy started its building program in 1938. In the summer of 1940, the
South Dakota class of battleships was under construction. Also, the
"Essex", the lead ship of the Essex class aircraft carriers had been
ordered (construction started in 1941).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com

SolomonW

2018-02-26 13:10:18 UTC

Post by Robert Woodward

If there are large numbers of American soldiers in France, then the Allied
lines may hold. It would not take very long for the German army to be
defeated to a massive logistical failure.

What do you consider large numbers?

<SNIP>

Your point is valid, let me add that without the Japanese conflict the US
can send more to Europe.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-26 23:07:11 UTC

Post by Robert Woodward
The US Army didn't really start expanding until the Draft was instituted
in 1940 (but that was in response to the fall of France). It still took
2 years before it could deploy forces in North Africa in late 1942. The
US Navy started its building program in 1938. In the summer of 1940, the
South Dakota class of battleships was under construction. Also, the
"Essex", the lead ship of the Essex class aircraft carriers had been
ordered (construction started in 1941).

Your point is valid, let me add that without the Japanese conflict the US
can send more to Europe.

Perhaps but there was no way in hell Japan was going to war with the
USA in 1939 if the USA declared on Germany in 1939.

If Japan DOES do 'a Pearl Harbor' in this scenario she is likely to
find the US Pacific fleet much weaker than in OTL.

Long-term whether that does them any good is highly doubtful as
elements of Atlantic fleet surely get to the Pacific eventually.

America could stand 2 or 3 Midway type defeats and come back at most 2
years later. The same is not true of Japan.

SolomonW

2018-02-27 10:26:21 UTC

Your point is valid, let me add that without the Japanese conflict the US
can send more to Europe.

Perhaps but there was no way in hell Japan was going to war with the
USA in 1939 if the USA declared on Germany in 1939.

If Germany is bogged down in a war in France and so does not attack Russia,
I doubt Japan will move South.

Post by The Horny Goat
If Japan DOES do 'a Pearl Harbor' in this scenario she is likely to
find the US Pacific fleet much weaker than in OTL.
Long-term whether that does them any good is highly doubtful as
elements of Atlantic fleet surely get to the Pacific eventually.
America could stand 2 or 3 Midway type defeats and come back at most 2
years later. The same is not true of Japan.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-25 18:07:19 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
Year Army Navy Marines Coast Guard Total
1939 189,839 125,202 19,432 334,473
1940 269,023 160,997 28,345 458,365
1941 1,462,315 284,427 54,359 1,801,101
1942 3,075,608 640,570 142,613 56,716 3,915,507
(saying they didn't count the Coast Guard until they were augmented to
wartime strength after Pearl Harbor)
(elsewhere the site says these are year-end numbers thus even if they
stripped all training units, America would be hard pressed to put 200k
troops into France in 1940 and likely at most 1/2 that.
That would help but nothing like an extra 500 anti-tank guns at Sedan
in May 1940.
Bottom line is Canada had more men under arms at the end of 1940 than
the US - bearing in mind that Canada was at war and the US wasn't.
(Nobody was in doubt that a mobilized USA could field many more men
than were actually in arms before Pearl Harbor)

Which I'm pretty sure the European powers knew - if they didn't they
had the example of WW1 to learn from.

Post by SolomonW
The other issue is that the allies lacked supplies.

Post by WolfBear
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this TL?

Depends on what "fights on" means. If it means full scale fighting
(where? with Italy neutral you don't get Libya for a base) then
perhaps not. If you mean something like Britain 1940-41 minus the ATL
non-existent North African campaign not so much.

Post by SolomonW
Not with a German defeat in France and the lack of German resources.

I disagree, German economy was practically breaking up. They threw almost
everything into the battle. A major hold up of the German military would
have seen a serious German logistical collapse.

OK well suppose trench lines develop at the Meuse (no particular
reason there - as good a location as anywhere else) - you're saying
that would produce a logistical collapse?

(I'm thinking of something like the front line after Dunkirk but
before the drive south that took Paris)

Post by WolfBear
Any thoughts on all of this?

Italy doesn't join the war without the fall of Paris - and without
Italy there is obviously no battles in North Africa or Greece (which
definitely delayed Barbarossa).

I am not sure this did delay Barbarossa but without the resources of France
as in the OTL and France, US and Britain fighting in France, it's
impossible for an attack on Russia.

Germany invaded Greece because Mussolini did unsuccessfully. While
it's possible the Yugoslav coup succeeds and German troops pass freely
to the Yugo-Greek border it's still a logistical feat which can't help
but hold up Barbarossa for 4-6 weeks even if the air assault on Crete
isn't attempted.

SolomonW

2018-02-26 13:07:31 UTC

Post by SolomonW
I disagree, German economy was practically breaking up. They threw almost
everything into the battle. A major hold up of the German military would
have seen a serious German logistical collapse.

OK well suppose trench lines develop at the Meuse (no particular
reason there - as good a location as anywhere else) - you're saying
that would produce a logistical collapse?

It was said to be Hitler's greatest gamble

http://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/the-fall-of-france-hitlers-greatest-gamble/

Post by The Horny Goat
(I'm thinking of something like the front line after Dunkirk but
before the drive south that took Paris)

Post by WolfBear
Any thoughts on all of this?

Italy doesn't join the war without the fall of Paris - and without
Italy there is obviously no battles in North Africa or Greece (which
definitely delayed Barbarossa).

I am not sure this did delay Barbarossa but without the resources of France
as in the OTL and France, US and Britain fighting in France, it's
impossible for an attack on Russia.

Most likely the reason for the delay was the Russian weather.

Rob

2018-02-25 17:09:39 UTC

Post by WolfBear
I previously proposed a way to get the U.S. into World War II in 1939. Specifically, I talked about Woodrow Wilson's stroke killing him in 1919 and thus allowing the U.S. to enter the League of Nations with Senator Lodge's reservations as well as to ratify its security treaty with France (which will result in the U.S. being a Franco-British ally in the interwar years).
Anyway, if the U.S. enters World War II in 1939, does France fight on in 1940?
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this TL? In addition, how much people and industry is France going to be able to evacuate to North Africa? Also, would a larger French population and presence in North Africa have made France less willing to give it up (especially give up Algeria) after the end of World War II?
Any thoughts on all of this?

France will fight on from Corsica and the French Overseas Empire, but not the French mainland, unless there are butterflies leading to France holding out better in May 1940. If the German sweep through France is butterflied away and France holds on in the mainland, it will not *look* to serious historians like American participation was the decisive factor making the difference that year.

Pete Barrett

2018-02-26 17:46:31 UTC

Post by Rob

Post by WolfBear
I previously proposed a way to get the U.S. into World War II in 1939.
Specifically, I talked about Woodrow Wilson's stroke killing him in
1919 and thus allowing the U.S. to enter the League of Nations with
Senator Lodge's reservations as well as to ratify its security treaty
with France (which will result in the U.S. being a Franco-British ally
in the interwar years).
Anyway, if the U.S. enters World War II in 1939, does France fight on in 1940?
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the
war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this
TL? In addition, how much people and industry is France going to be
able to evacuate to North Africa? Also, would a larger French
population and presence in North Africa have made France less willing
to give it up (especially give up Algeria) after the end of World War
II?
Any thoughts on all of this?

France will fight on from Corsica and the French Overseas Empire, but
not the French mainland, unless there are butterflies leading to France
holding out better in May 1940. If the German sweep through France is
butterflied away and France holds on in the mainland, it will not *look*
to serious historians like American participation was the decisive
factor making the difference that year.

It seems to me that if the US declares war in 1939, Hitler can't afford
(or at least, will think he can't afford) to wait until 1940 to invade
France. There was a 6 month 'phony war' between September 1939 and Spring
1940 - if the Americans are ramping up their army and military production
generally in that time, won't Hitler think that he must strike to knock
out France and Britain before the US can bring its military up to an
operational level and move it across the Atlantic?

So how early can Germany attack France (presumably using much the same
plan as they did OTL in 1940)? And would that help Germany or the allies?

--
Pete BARRETT

Rob

2018-02-26 23:55:03 UTC

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Rob

Post by WolfBear
I previously proposed a way to get the U.S. into World War II in 1939.
Specifically, I talked about Woodrow Wilson's stroke killing him in
1919 and thus allowing the U.S. to enter the League of Nations with
Senator Lodge's reservations as well as to ratify its security treaty
with France (which will result in the U.S. being a Franco-British ally
in the interwar years).
Anyway, if the U.S. enters World War II in 1939, does France fight on in 1940?
Also, if France fights on in 1940, what effects will this have on the
war? For instance, is Operation Barbarossa still going to occur in this
TL? In addition, how much people and industry is France going to be
able to evacuate to North Africa? Also, would a larger French
population and presence in North Africa have made France less willing
to give it up (especially give up Algeria) after the end of World War
II?
Any thoughts on all of this?

France will fight on from Corsica and the French Overseas Empire, but
not the French mainland, unless there are butterflies leading to France
holding out better in May 1940. If the German sweep through France is
butterflied away and France holds on in the mainland, it will not *look*
to serious historians like American participation was the decisive
factor making the difference that year.

It seems to me that if the US declares war in 1939, Hitler can't afford
(or at least, will think he can't afford) to wait until 1940 to invade
France. There was a 6 month 'phony war' between September 1939 and Spring
1940 - if the Americans are ramping up their army and military production
generally in that time, won't Hitler think that he must strike to knock
out France and Britain before the US can bring its military up to an
operational level and move it across the Atlantic?
So how early can Germany attack France (presumably using much the same
plan as they did OTL in 1940)? And would that help Germany or the allies?
--
Pete BARRETT

If the US declares war in 1939, and is no more prepared at that time than OTL, Germany can afford to wait till spring. The Germans are used to the Americans taking their time.

All it means is that by May, nobody is trying to convince Hitler to wait past the summer to get started.

The Horny Goat

2018-02-27 00:50:46 UTC

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:55:03 -0800 (PST), Rob

Post by Rob

Post by Pete Barrett
So how early can Germany attack France (presumably using much the same
plan as they did OTL in 1940)? And would that help Germany or the allies?

If the US declares war in 1939, and is no more prepared at that time than OTL, Germany can afford to wait till spring. The Germans are used to the Americans taking their time.
All it means is that by May, nobody is trying to convince Hitler to wait past the summer to get started.

If you're suggesting Germany goes directly for France (plus presumably
Holland and Belgium as per OTL) and foregoes Norway that probably
leaves them stronger not weaker particularly if France falls as per
OTL.

While a German fleet with all the ships they lost in Norway is more of
a Sealion threat they're still nowhere near making Sealion plausible.

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-01 05:58:24 UTC

If the US is ready to declare war in 1939, then the US
will have been preparing at least somewhat for war
beforehand. That is, if the US regards Nazi German
actions in 1939 as a reason for war, it will regard
Nazi German actions in previous years as threatening
war, which the US would need to prepare for.

So the US Army would be stronger, and probably contribute
a corps-size AEF to the Battle of France. As an American
force, even then, it would be fully motorized and probably
have a bunch of tanks. If it was posted in western France,
it would be in position to counterattack against any
German breakthrough, thus altering the course of the battle.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Ed Stasiak

2018-03-01 17:14:24 UTC

Rich Rostrom
So the US Army would be stronger, and probably contribute
a corps-size AEF to the Battle of France. As an American
force, even then, it would be fully motorized and probably
have a bunch of tanks.

I dunno about that. The U.S. would still be in the depths of the
Depression, so there wouldn’t have been money available for
R&D and production. For example, the U.S. adopted the M1
Garand rifle in 1936 but it wouldn’t begin to be issued until late
1940.

In the OTL, the 1939 U.S. Army had fewer tanks than Poland and
most were M2 light tanks with a few M2 mediums and what would
be become the “halftrack armored car M2” was adopted off the
drawing board in Sept.1940 and wouldn’t go into production until
1941.

David Tenner

2018-03-02 00:38:02 UTC

Post by Ed Stasiak

I dunno about that. The U.S. would still be in the depths of the
Depression, so there wouldnât have been money available for
R&D and production.

According to Alexander J. Field, the 1930's were the most technologically
progressive decade of twentieth century America.

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/when-hard-times-led-to-a-boom/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105628

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net

Ed Stasiak

2018-03-02 16:05:10 UTC

Post by David Tenner
David Tenner

Ed Stasiak
I dunno about that. The U.S. would still be in the depths of the
Depression, so there wouldn’t have been money available for
R&D and production.

According to Alexander J. Field, the 1930's were the most technologically
progressive decade of twentieth century America.

I still don’t see how the U.S. is going to get an effective armored force
in time for the invasion of France in 1940, as the money just ain’t there
and the tactical philosophy will be the same; battalion sized tank units
armed mostly with machine guns, scattered among infantry divs.

In the OTL, the U.S. benefited from the failures of the Poles, French
and British and the success of the Germans in 1939-40 and adjusted
its tank designs accordingly. In this ATL, the U.S. will still be thinking
in terms of a WWI battlefield (as had the Poles, French and British)
with tanks plodding along supporting infantry with machine guns as
they clear extensive trench lines.

One advantage the U.S. would have, would be reliability and a sound
basis for future tanks, as both the M2 lights and M2 mediums used a
very reliable and effective engine, drive-line and chassis that would
continue to be used throughout the war essentially unchanged as the
M3/M5 Stuart and M3/M4 Lee/Sherman tanks.

The Horny Goat

2018-03-03 02:42:27 UTC

I still dont see how the U.S. is going to get an effective armored force
in time for the invasion of France in 1940, as the money just aint there
and the tactical philosophy will be the same; battalion sized tank units
armed mostly with machine guns, scattered among infantry divs.

I don't either - on the other hand the US was fairly advanced in
motorized infantry - i.e. getting infantry pretty much wherever needed
on the front though was well behind both Germany and Britain in the
development of the sort of armored personnel carriers of the sort
deployed in 1944-45. Early war they were fairly competitive in the
artillery arm but not really in anti-tank. (As Kasserine proved)

In short - they probably could have been usefully deployed on the left
flank of the BEF (which covered the greatest distances into Belgium in
1940) but unless Guderian is stopped either on the Meuse or elsewhere
1940 turns out as per OTL.

I don't really think the USAAF would have been a factor in 1939-40
unless we're discussing a POD at least 3-4 years earlier.

Ed Stasiak

2018-03-03 05:20:47 UTC

The Horny Goat

Ed Stasiak
I still don’t see how the U.S. is going to get an effective armored force
in time for the invasion of France in 1940,

I don't either - on the other hand the US was fairly advanced in
motorized infantry

In the OLT, the U.S. didn’t have any armored halftracks in 1940 and wouldn’t
until the autumn of 1941 but it did have some quantity of unarmored prime
movers (artillery tractors) that used the same chassis/track/suspension that
would later be used with the armored halftracks.

I suppose a crash effort to develop armored halftracks could be initiated in
1939 that would get some into service with an American expeditionary force
in time for May 1940 but I’m guessing this would only be enough to equip
cavalry reconnaissance units, with any motorized infantry using unarmored
trucks.

Early war they were fairly competitive in the artillery arm but not really in
anti-tank. (As Kasserine proved)

In the OLT, the U.S. had begun issuing the M3 37mm anti-gun in early 1940
(producing 340 by the end of the year) and with a similar crash effort to build
more, the U.S. forces in France should be sufficiently armed and unlike in
1942, these would be very effective against German tanks of the time.

I don't really think the USAAF would have been a factor in 1939-40
unless we're discussing a POD at least 3-4 years earlier.

I’m not that hip to aircraft but the P-40 Warhawk was in service and was
a very good fighter at the time, as well as the A-20 Havoc light bomber.

The Horny Goat

2018-03-01 17:32:33 UTC

On Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:58:24 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WolfBear
Anyway, if the U.S. enters World War II in 1939,
does France fight on in 1940?

The trouble with this idea is that if FDR decides Germany is a threat
sometime after 1935 he is more likely - particularly with his
background - to put the focus on the Navy rather than the Army. This
probably means the U-boats are mastered in 1941 or 42 instead of 1943
and means good things for the Allies by 1943 with the war economy in
full swing but May 1940 still goes as per OTL.

I say again - putting a first rate division with full anti-tank
weaponry at Sedan stands an excellent chance of stopping the Manstein
plan - at least equal to anything OTL's America could have fielded in
1939. The French had good armor and artillery in 1940 - what they
didn't have was leadership close to the German level.

On paper Germany should not have won in May/June 1940 - they were
overwhelming in air power but the Allies had more of nearly everything
else and the best of the French armor was equal to the Panzer IIIs and
completely superior to earlier models (which were heavily used in 1940
and retired after the French campaign).

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-02 16:43:23 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
The trouble with this idea is that if FDR decides Germany is a threat
sometime after 1935 he is more likely - particularly with his
background - to put the focus on the Navy rather than the Army.

Possibly - but Germany was fairly obviously not going
to be a great naval menace. In 1935 Germany had no navy
to speak of, but was already building a large army.

The US might indeed emphasize the Navvy, but ITSM it
wouldn't take much additional effort in 1935-1939 for
the US to have a significantly larger army.

Post by The Horny Goat
This probably means the U-boats are mastered in 1941
or 42 instead of 1943 and means good things for the
Allies by 1943 with the war economy in full swing
but May 1940 still goes as per OTL.

Actually, the US in the war in 1939 means a major boost
to Allied naval circumstances in the early stages of the
war. For instance, the USN might take charge of hunting
down the GRAF SPEE - deploying say LEXINGTON, ENTERPRISE,
some battleships, 8 cruisers, and 20 destroyers. Then the
RN can stay concentrated near Europe. Plus of course the
USN would provide lots of escorts for the trans-Atlantic
routes, again freeing up lots of British ships for fleet
action.

This could very easily alter the course of the Norway
campaign.

And this would be true even if the US did no additional
naval expansion before the war.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

WolfBear

2018-03-03 03:01:50 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

If the US is ready to declare war in 1939, then the US
will have been preparing at least somewhat for war
beforehand. That is, if the US regards Nazi German
actions in 1939 as a reason for war, it will regard
Nazi German actions in previous years as threatening
war, which the US would need to prepare for.
So the US Army would be stronger, and probably contribute
a corps-size AEF to the Battle of France. As an American
force, even then, it would be fully motorized and probably
have a bunch of tanks. If it was posted in western France,
it would be in position to counterattack against any
German breakthrough, thus altering the course of the battle.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Actually, I'm not so sure that the U.S. would have been much more prepared in 1939 had it been willing to go to war back then. After all, it would have probably expected Britain and France to do the lion's share of the fighting against Nazi Germany. Indeed, sending off a lot of American boys to their deaths--even in pursuit of a noble cause--is not going to be something which many Americans are going to want. In turn, this is why the U.S. would have preferred to minimize its own combat role in World War II in this TL if at all possible.

Also, how powerful was the BEF in May 1940?

Rich Rostrom

2018-03-03 23:24:48 UTC

Post by WolfBear
Also, how powerful was the BEF in May 1940?

The BEF maxed out at 13 divisions, including
one improvised division formed from rear-
echelon troops.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

WolfBear

2018-03-03 23:32:35 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by WolfBear
Also, how powerful was the BEF in May 1940?

The BEF maxed out at 13 divisions, including
one improvised division formed from rear-
echelon troops.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

And how many divisions would the AEF Version 2.0 have in this TL?

Ed Stasiak

2018-03-04 01:01:06 UTC

WolfBear
And how many divisions would the AEF Version 2.0 have in this TL?

According to;
https://ww2-weapons.com/us-army-at-the-beginning-of-ww2/

The continental United States, the Zone of the Interior, was administered by four armies
and, in 1940, they only had skeleton staffs of 4,400 troops each. There were nine infantry
divisions; only three had a compliment of regular formations, the other six were only 3,000
strong. There was also a cavalry division and a mechanised brigade of 4,000 and 2,300
men respectively.

Responsibility for speeding up mobilisation was given to General Headquarters (GHQ),
and in 1941 it was given responsibility for the training of troops under the leadership of
General Leslie McNair.

On 17 June 1941 the Army was expanded to 280,000 men and nine days later to 375,000.
On 16 September the National Guard units were absorbed into the Army and Roosevelt
persuaded Congress to pass the Selective Service Act; by July 1941, 606,915 men were
inducted into the Army.

New units were usually formed around the regular or National Guard formations. At first
there were 27 divisions, nine regular and 18 National Guard; there were also two armoured
divisions and a further three completing their training.

American mobilisation proceeded fairly smoothly before the outbreak of war in December 1941.
Thereafter the strain inflicted by the early disasters in the Pacific and the demand for continued
expansion proved too much. The War Department originally believed that it could mobilise three
or four divisions per month after March 1942, but this rate could not be kept up; by the end of
December 1942 only 42 of the planned 73 divisions had been mobilised. Indeed, by September
the Army was short of 330,000 men and the ambitious plans laid in that month to create an army
of 114 divisions were never realised.

m***@gmail.com

2018-03-17 12:57:25 UTC