US leaders believed Germany would likely have been invulnerable had it defeated SU

[Yuri]

Question for you: during this "re-evaluation and a decision made to limit deep-penetration raids aimed at targets far beyond escort range", did raids beyond the escort range (which compromised two thirds of Germany, for the record) occur and how long did said raids not occur?

So you want me to do the research for you?

Okay, at random, after the lull that ensued following Mission 80, 81, and 84, which struck Kassel, Bochum/Vereinigte Stahl, Bonn, Recklinghausen, Frankfurt-am-Main, and Heilbronn:

Mission 107 on 2 October 1943 targeted Munich.
Mission 108 on 4 October 1943, targeted Frankfurt-am-Main, Heddern, Saarbrucken/Sarreguemines, Saarlautern, and Wiesbaden.
Mission 113 on 9 October 1943, targeted Anklam, Danzig, and Marienburg.
Mission 115, on 14 October 1943, targeted Schweinfurt.
....
Among others.

43-10-08 TagesAngiffe Amerikanische.jpg

[Yuri]

43-08-18 AngriifeBritisch.jpg

[TheMarcksPlan]

Topic came up in another thread, as it's more germane here, moving the discussion:

Hitler was the face of evil and the world's democracies and USSR would stop at nothing to get rid of him, even if it took 15 years.

George Gallup knew probably more about American public opinion than anyone. Here's what he said:

The American perception of the world's racial hierarchy, though probably not as intensely felt
by Americans as by Germans, was otherwise not dissimilar. As George Gallup noted: "German
ideas of racial superiority find their counterpart in our own theories of racial and cultural
superiority .... " See Gallup, "Analysis of American Opinion on the War," PPF 4721, Roosevelt
Papers.

From the same article:

A candid discussion of the Nazi regime designed to educate
Americans to the stark contrasts between the German and American
systems might well fall short of the hoped-for result. Anti-democratic,
potentially "fascist" attitudes infected a considerable portion of the
American population. Polls revealed that more than half of those who
expressed an opinion thought Jews in the United States had too much
power, and about 20 percent thought Hitler's racial policy was justified.
On this touchstone of fascism, at least, little distinguished the attitudes
of a good many Americans from those of their enemies.46

Also:

The question asked was: If Germany were to offer peace on the basis that she would keep only
the territory won from Russia and give up the other conquered territories, would you favor such a
peace. 34 percent favored acceptance. George Gallup, "Voters Opposed to a Hitler 'Peace,' "
New York Times, Aug. 31, 1941.

So already in 1941, 34% of Americans favored letting Hitler keep the East. Given what we know about American response to battlefield setbacks and resultant war-weariness, it's not at all difficult to envision that number hitting 50% if we had taken serious reverses in the field and invading Europe looked hopeless and/or unimaginably bloody.

Again - not trying to be provocative but this is [some of] the actual evidence about American beliefs (plus that I cited in the above-linked posts). I get the sense that you have a naive view of America and haven't seriously questioned whether we'd have made peace with Hitler.
-------------------------------------------------

Re the broader thread topic, this is further support for the notion that America would not have conducted an invasion of Europe had the SU fallen.

The OP shows that American political and military leaders considered doing so infeasible, the post discussing Tomorrow, the World shows that non-governmental foreign policy elite opinion-makers didn't even consider invading Europe until SU started killing Ostheer, and opinion polls show that Americans were at best ambivalent about Germany First.

[T. A. Gardner]

So already in 1941, 34% of Americans favored letting Hitler keep the East. Given what we know about American response to battlefield setbacks and resultant war-weariness, it's not at all difficult to envision that number hitting 50% if we had taken serious reverses in the field and invading Europe looked hopeless and/or unimaginably bloody.

Again - not trying to be provocative but this is [some of] the actual evidence about American beliefs (plus that I cited in the above-linked posts). I get the sense that you have a naive view of America and haven't seriously questioned whether we'd have made peace with Hitler.

Let's say the US and Britain do come to some agreed end to the war in Europe in say 1945 with the defeat of Japan--nuclear weapons or not. The real question becomes What does the peace look like?

[historygeek2021]

Topic came up in another thread, as it's more germane here, moving the discussion:

Is there somewhere where you present a grand overview of your ATL in which Germany arrives at a state of invulnerability? Something like:

193x: Germany decides to shift resources from [medium bombers, etc.] to [trucks and railroad engineering].

May/June 1941: Germany attacks the USSR with X many divisions, of which Y are fully motorized, and with Z aircraft. Germany has XX many divisions deployed in France, Norway, etc.

Oct 1941: Germany has conquered X much territory and encircled Y armies/divisions/Red Army soldiers after the first summer of the campaign.

And then a step by step account of 1942, because that's really where everything seems to hinge, because this is the year in which Germany has to both (1) eliminate the Red Army as a threat once and for all and (2) transition to other theaters. We need details on things like:

(1) How many divisions does Germany start with in 1942, and where are they located?

(2) How are these divisions redeployed or disbanded, month by month?

(3) Why exactly is Stalin compelled to agree to a peace in which he reduces the Red Army to a negligible size and takes other disarmament steps that result in the USSR posing no threat to Germany whatsoever? Why can't he just keep retreating further to the east, relying on U.S. lend-lease through Vladivostok to keep his army and people fed?

(4) How does Germany make the capital switch from army production to air and naval production? Presumably the capital investment in air and naval production would have to begin well before 1942 - how does this reconcile with the capital investment in army production needed to eliminate the Red Army in 2 years? We really need a precise timeline.

(5) How and when does Germany alter its OTL pilot training program, which was already under strain by 1942? Similarly, how does Germany address the pressurization issues it faced when trying to design a fighter that could engage very high altitude bombers?

(6) Where is Germany getting its fuel in your ATL? Does Germany conquer the Middle East? How does Germany get the oil back to Germany? How long does the railroad construction, etc. take?

(7) How does Germany defend its sources of vital materials in remote areas: tungsten (Portugal), iron (Sweden), chromium (Turkey)? Presumably once the Allies see that the Soviet Union is collapsing, they could make a concerted effort to land at Narvik and push into Sweden, depriving Germany of the high quality iron ore on which its massive steel industry depended.

(8) How do you think peace comes about? Does Hitler keep terrorizing the west with U-boats, V-1s and V-2s? Why would the west settle with someone who has broken every treaty, is using terrorist weapons against their civilians and is threatening global commerce with U-boats?

[TheMarcksPlan]

Is there somewhere where you present a grand overview of your ATL in which Germany arrives at a state of invulnerability?

First, I don't think the feasibility of the ancillary ATL exhausts the intellectual interest of the question. This arguably shouldn't be an ATL thread, rather in the "US in WW2" section or elsewhere. Whether the US was willing to accommodate Hitler (it was) or would have ripped its own guts out fighting him (it wouldn't have) is, I'd argue, important to narratives about American history and the legitimacy of the American Empire.

Basic ATL at Barbarossa's outset is my +5pz div (+5 ID's motorized) ATL. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=243557

Outline of 1942-3 here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=252647#p2297200

I have discussed many of the specific questions you ask elsewhere; maybe search the last year or so of my posts? Seriously though you can DM me if you're really interested.

---------------------------------

As I don't think the feasibility of my ATL exhausts the questions before us, might you provide some evidence of American willingness to invade Europe absent Soviet assistance? Like any evidence besides bromides about American/democratic virtue?

EDIT to add:

Although I have addressed and/or will address your many questions (they are part of my ongoing comprehensive ATL, which I'll probably publish on Medium or elsewhere), I find it odd that you demand so many detailed pre-conditions that are unnecessary to the startlingly interesting question presented. I would think you'd want to present your own evidence in support of your own contentions. It's also noteworthy that when you want to make your own ATL, America can conjure 12 million more Army men without any consideration of the impact on production or other branches.

Adding replies to few of your points here: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=243557

[historygeek2021]

I don't think it makes sense to speak of invulnerability in the post-WW2 era, because that is the atomic era, and no country is invulnerable if another country has atomic weapons and the means to deliver them. In your ATL the war continues past 1945 into an era of ever increasingly high and fast bombers capable of delivering ever increasing payloads, and eventually ICBMs. So if the war stays hot, and America demonstrates the same willingness to pulverize enemy countries from the air that it demonstrated in the OTL against Japan, North Korea, Vietnam, etc., then we can definitively say that Germany would never be "invulnerable", unless you can demonstrate that Germany could erect an air defense system capable of wiping B-29s and B-36s from the sky before they could deliver their payloads.

Regarding a land invasion, I don't think any timeline would be as simple as Germany completely eliminating the USSR as a threat and then redeploying its forces to cover all essential sectors (Portugal, Turkey, Sweden, North Africa, the Middle East, France and the Low Countries) before the United States could get to them. If the Soviet Union were truly beaten to the point of posing no threat whatsoever to Germany, there would be early indications of this collapse that would give the United States time to adjust its strategy. Your other posts indicated that Germany would conquer past Moscow and cut the Murmansk railway in 1941. This would no doubt change U.S. planning for 1942 and likely increase its sense of urgency for that year.

As an example of what the U.S. could do, America could try to take the northern Swedish iron mines in 1942 instead of, or in addition to, invading North Africa. There was no overland connection to Narvik, except through Sweden, so the Allies have only to use their vast naval supremacy to cut off German forces in northern Norway and an invasion would be feasible. Following which, the Allies could push into Sweden and cut off what was arguably Germany's most vital resource.

This is only an example. The United States would have lots of options to cut off the peripheries of the Nazi empire where its essential resources were located - Portugal, Turkey, Baku, etc. I don't see the need for a massive D-Day style ground invasion of mainland Europe in the event that the Soviet Union has been completely eliminated. The United States would wage an economic war against Germany by cutting off its remote resource sources and pulverizing Germany from the air.

Finally, I don't think a few opinion polls and subjective statements from 1941 can be used to establish that the U.S. would throw up its hands and give up the minute Stalin surrendered. They merely establish that (1) yes, there are a lot racists and Nazi sympathizers in America and (2) political and military leaders correctly foresaw that defeating Nazi Germany would be far more difficult without the Soviets being used as an endless source of canon fodder.

Finally finally, it would greatly help the conversation if you avoided referring to other users' statements as "bromides" or in similar disparaging terms ("liberal arts") as these insulting remarks poison the conversation and make me not want to engage in what is otherwise a very fun topic.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Dear all,

Sorry to chip in briefly to this thread but I had a thought tonight...happens every now and again.

Not sure that it is totally relevant to a discussion about American grand strategy and perspective on a long war, but it is worth noting that historically Britain had fought several very long wars against larger continental opponents (Napoleonic wars being just one of many examples). Churchill, for example, wrote a 4 volume biography of his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough which covers his command of allied troops during the War of the Spanish Succession which went on for over 10 years IIRC.

So, for Britain at least, the need to endure long wars when fighting other major powers was part of a historical tradition that was understand at the highest levels. Not sure how much this tradition flowed across into the American historical consciousness, although both War of Independence and US Civil War took a bit of winning too.

Just a random thought...

Regards

Tom

[TheMarcksPlan]

Finally finally, it would greatly help the conversation if you avoided referring to other users' statements as "bromides" or in similar disparaging terms ("liberal arts") as these insulting remarks poison the conversation and make me not want to engage in what is otherwise a very fun topic.

Fair. Let's be courteous.

There are some standards for courtesy I try to stick to that go beyond niceties. One of them is responding to evidence with evidence. I've asked you a couple times now for evidence that the US was willing to prosecute long-term warfare against Germany had the SU collapsed. Now maybe there isn't such direct evidence - I haven't found any. That doesn't mean your position is flatly wrong; it does mean that you should acknowledge my request for evidence, its absence if that's the case, and state your claim accordingly. Obviously I can't prove your claim wrong definitively - the SU never collapsed.

Another part of courtesy is not strawmanning:

I don't think a few opinion polls and subjective statements from 1941 can be used to establish that the U.S. would throw up its hands and give up the minute Stalin surrendered.

Obviously that's not what I said.

And obviously I base my claim on more than "a few opinion polls." Besides my general observations on American society circa 1942 and the depth of its abhorrence of Nazi racism, my position in this thread rests on copious citations to American political, military, and social/elite leadership stating that invasion of Europe was dubious absent the SU. Did you read the OP or the post discussing Wertheim?

It's frustrating that you don't even acknowledge that I've carried a burden of production and gone to some effort to share with the forum interesting excerpts from my reading.

I would be happy to discuss the prospects of W.Allied invasions of Turkey/Portugal/Sweden but, again, if we do so I'd expect you to actually engage with textual and other evidence I'd present and, given that you haven't done so in this thread other than to strawman, I'm not confident that would be so.

But you're right, I shouldn't use provocative phrases like bromides. I was trying to provoke you to put in more effort but that was rude. If you don't want to dig up a text or whatever I can't force you to. With the utmost politeness, I don't find it worthwhile to engage in exchanges unless they're tied to evidence on your side and reciprocal engagement of each other's evidence.

[historygeek2021]

I have read in the past, but I can't remember where now, that the U.S. expected a war with Germany to take 10 or more years in the event that the Soviet Union collapsed. I have seen no evidence showing that the United States or the United Kingdom would make peace with Hitler under any circumstances. Churchill's speech to the House of Commons in June 1940 stated that the British Empire would keep fighting even if Great Britain were conquered. When members of the German resistance contacted the Allies to ask what sort of peace terms they could get if Hitler were removed from power, the Allies replied that they would still demand unconditional surrender. The quotes you've provided do not show that the Allies were even contemplating making peace with Germany if the Soviet Union collapsed. They simply express the great difficulty of making a land invasion of mainland Europe without the Red Army making a second front.

But war can be waged without making a full blown D-Day style invasion of mainland Europe. War can be waged at sea against Germany's U-boats and commerce raiders and blockade runners. War can be waged in the air against Germany's industry and population. War can be waged in peripheral ground theaters that contain resources vital to Germany's economy: Portugal, Sweden, Turkey and the Caucasus.

All we can do in a "What If" thread is infer from our collective knowledge what leaders were likely to do in different scenarios. In a scenario where Germany has eliminated the Soviet Union from the war, the Western Allies would still refuse to make peace with Hitler for multiple reasons:

(1) He had a proven track record of breaking every treaty he ever signed.

(2) He had a proven track record of breaking peace and waging war against other countries, and of making intense militarism the center of his national policy.

(3) Hitler had developed weapons that could strike the Allied civilian population (V-1 and V-2 rockets) and Allied commerce (U-boats) and had demonstrated a willingness to use them, and proven himself completely untrustworthy if he promised not to use them.

(4) The Allies could only infer that Hitler would develop more offensive weapons and use them against Allied civilians and commerce without warning in the future.

(5) Agreeing to a peace would give Hitler time to consolidate his gains, and if overseas trade were reopened, the ability to build an even stronger military in the future. Continuing to wage war would deny Germany overseas trade and prevent Hitler from shifting resources from his military to developing his economic base.

(6) Allied air and naval superiority and command of global sea lanes and most of the world outside of Europe would convince the Allies that they had a long-term advantage against Germany and would eventually win a long-term war of attrition.

[TheMarcksPlan]

I have read in the past, but I can't remember where now, that the U.S. expected a war with Germany to take 10 or more years in the event that the Soviet Union collapsed

Did you ever find this quote?

[historygeek2021]

I have read in the past, but I can't remember where now, that the U.S. expected a war with Germany to take 10 or more years in the event that the Soviet Union collapsed

Did you ever find this quote?

No, sorry. Too many quotes floating around in my head that I can't trace back to any source. Let's hope I'm not imagining things.

[glenn239]

As an example of what the U.S. could do, America could try to take the northern Swedish iron mines in 1942 instead of, or in addition to, invading North Africa. There was no overland connection to Narvik, except through Sweden, so the Allies have only to use their vast naval supremacy to cut off German forces in northern Norway and an invasion would be feasible. Following which, the Allies could push into Sweden and cut off what was arguably Germany's most vital resource.

The other advantage to occupying Sweden for the US is its use for the Anglo-American air offensive. In particular Berlin is at brutally close range to Sweden.

[ljadw]

Air distance London-Berlin : 950 km,Stockholm-Berlin : 810 km ,which is not brutally close.
Normally Swedish iron ore was going to Germany through Sweden and the East Sea. In the Winter it was transported to Narvik,which was ice free,and from Narvik to Germany .
And, what excuse would US give for an attack on Sweden, attack,which would make Sweden a German ally ?
Besides, it is very questionable that the weak US Torch forces could have invaded Sweden in the Winter .Distance Kiruma Mine- Stockholm : 1240 km .
Other point : Germany had other sources for its iron ore imports .
The Swedish share of Germany's iron ore consumption was between 1933 and 1943 between 40/43 per cent . While this is important, one should not exaggerate it .
Source : Swedish iron ore exports to Germany 1933-1944 (by Rolf Karlbom ) .

[TheMarcksPlan]

Upthread I mentioned Stephen Wertheim's book Tomorrow, the World, which inter alia documents the Council on Foreign Relations' long term vision after the Fall of France. CFR was, at that time, a functional planning shop for the State Department, which lacked personnel for CFR-style analysis. After/during the war CFR personnel were folded formally into State.

Anyway, I posted this map in another forum, thought I'd add it here:



The dark is the postwar German sphere of influence.

For those who can't stomach the patriotically-incorrect notion of America accepting Nazi hegemony over Europe, perhaps this visual image will be more impactful than my previous text excerpts.