The United States conquers the world after WW2

[KDF33]

Read the thread man. This ATL posits that the U.S. starts planning for war with the USSR in 1942 and doesn't limit itself to 90 divisions as in the OTL.

Well, (1) I did and (2) where do you find the manpower for an extra 244 divisions?

The U.S. could prepare for years in advance to invade from Persia.

Wouldn't you say that pumping significant ground forces in Iran, when there's no German units to engage, would make Stalin suspicious?

Britain and France aren't going to cut off supplies to the only army standing between them and Stalin.

Why not? In this scenario the U.S. leadership has clearly gone mad, in what I can only assume is a case of demonic possession of Truman by the spirit of Hitler, following an occult ritual presided by Himmler.

America can unilaterally provoke war with the USSR without letting the Europeans know in advance.

What do you mean, provoke war? And how does such unilateral action help keep the Europeans on board?

At that point they certainly aren't going to cut off supplies (not that they could anyway, since the U.S. effectively occupied both their countries).

The U.S. most definitely was not occupying their countries. It was occupying Germany. On 30 April 1945, there was a grand total of 270 men (!) in U.S. field forces stationed in Britain. The rest were Air Force and COM-Z personnel, plus patients in British hospitals.

If the U.S. unilaterally engages the Soviets, it's rear positions in Europe are completely dependent on the goodwill of Britain and France.

The Soviets were at the end of their supply lines

Are they? By what criteria?

Besides, the U.S. is literally projecting power across the Atlantic Ocean. That's quite a long supply line.

and their only sources of oil would be obliterated by B-29s on day one.

The U.S. could certainly inflict significant damage on Baku. Two points, however. First, in 1945 the share of Azerbaijani oil production had declined to 59.4% of the Soviet total, from a high of 71.6% in 1942.

Second, the Soviets had fuel stocks. Even had Baku provided 100% of their oil supply, the RKKA wouldn't just freeze in place as soon as the production was interrupted.

You can also count on the Soviets (1) quickly going on the offensive in Iran to clear out US airbases and (2) assigning priority to repairing damaged infrastructure.

U.S. forces in Europe can plan their retreat before the war even starts. The U.S. Army can retreat as much or as little as it wants. Even if the U.S. Army withdraws to England

This, again, depends on the goodwill of U.S. allies. The U.S. obviously cannot retreat to Britain without British agreement.

the Soviets will end up occupying a desolate continent with an army that relies on horses for transport. America can do whatever it wants from that point.

AFAICT, here is what would happen:

(1) The U.S. concentrates for an offensive against the Red Army in Europe. Moscow, as well as London and Paris, become aware of the preparations in advance.

(2) London and Paris urgently ask the U.S. to clarify what it is doing.

(3) The U.S. either tells them and asks them to join in an unprovoked war, which they decline and protest, or stonewalls them, which destroys the relationship. Meanwhile, Stalin initiates rapprochement with the Japanese, thus freeing additional forces that can be redeployed to Central Europe and/or Iran.

(4) The growing international crisis leads to domestic backlash in the U.S. Congress urgently queries the Truman administration to explain its erratic behavior.

The war, which appeared to be winding down a few weeks prior, now seems about to massively expand. The U.S. has antagonized its allies and is finishing preparations for an offensive in the teeth of an Army that, despite significant limitations, is more than twice its size. Domestically, no one really understands what is happening, and rumors are starting to spread: the newly-sworn in President may well be suffering from some form of psychosis. Whispers in Congress tentatively mention impeachment.

[T. A. Gardner]

The USSR would be conquered. See the original post in this thread.

I've read it. It assumes much.

On V-E day, the U.S. had about 2.5 million ground troops in Europe. The Soviets, about 5.5 million. The U.S. would need the active participation of allied troops - British, Canadian, French - to stand a chance. That participation is, to put it mildly, unlikely.

Not entirely true. The Soviets had the equivalent of about 20 Western armored divisions and 15 infantry (mechanized) divisions in 1945 in the ETO. The bulk of their army was unmotorized infantry "divisions" that were rough analogies to Western infantry regiments or brigades in capability that were capable of little more than defense.
Numbers alone confer little advantage. Yes, the Western allies would have to participate but that isn't too hard to get if there is an active war with the Soviets.

Second, Churchill is in any event losing the July 5 general election. However unlikely British participation to a U.S. war of aggression would be under the wartime coalition, you can be sure that a majority Labour government under Attlee will be against it.

The US need only not provide food and other material support to the UK once the Soviets look beaten. The UK has a sudden crisis of starvation and economic collapse. The US could move in to take effective control of the economy and restore order, saying it was "temporary" to help Britain.

The same applies to France. De Gaulle is Chairman of the Provisional Government until January 1946. He is a nationalist and wants to restore France to its former status as a great power. He is comfortable with "triangulating" between the US and the USSR, as shown by his visit to Moscow in October 1944.

Same thing. The US lets De Gaulle run things while effectively controlling the economy.

Neither Britain nor France will support such a U.S. adventure. Without their active participation, the U.S. would be foolish to try: alone, its forces wouldn't defeat the Red Army in the heart of Europe.

They would have little choice. The alternative is they end up overrun and becoming puppets of the Soviet Union.

[TheMarcksPlan]

I find USA world conquest after WW2 militarily feasible but it would require substantial revisions to your ATL to account for manpower and logistical issues. The USA was certainly powerful, the A-bomb and its industrial strength gave it theoretical world-conquering power, but its resources were limited (albeit at a higher limit).

there is no "90 division gamble", but instead the 334 division army envisioned by the Joint Chiefs in 1942 is brought to fruition.

Topline manpower/logistical issues:

• (1) At OTL division slice of >50,000, another 243 divisions requires drafting >12mil more men.
• (2) If millions more drafted in '42-'45, how is OTL production impacted? There is some slack for higher %GDP mobilized - your ATL can specify that - but even so 12mil men is ~30% of the non-agriculture/military U.S. workforce in 1944. https://www2.census.gov/library/publica ... 45-chD.pdf There's not enough slack to do without 30% of the material-producing workforce (especially given higher male training/education and therefore productivity back then).
• How do you supply the additional divisions? In Fall 1944 the U.S. once again encountered a shipping crisis that limited its options; a >200% increase in European deployment makes that crisis insoluble absent tremendously-expanded shipping resources. https://history.army.mil/html/books/001 ... ub_1-6.pdf (page 551)

Mean of ameliorating the manpower problem include:

• Raising fewer divisions, say "only" 100 extra so 191 Army divisions. US would still be outnumbered by RKKA in Europe but, to only a slightly lesser extent than Germany, it has higher combat effectiveness than RKKA.
• Manpower rationalization: Army leaders knew - and bemoaned - manpower inefficiency. Maybe in this ATL whatever motivates world conquest also motivates forcing the troops to live more frugally and the service corps to work longer hours.
• Shift of manpower from AAF and USN (who also rationalize) to Army.

Addressing the shipping problem is straightforward - maintain 1943 or higher shipbuilding levels - but straightforwardly demands manpower and steel made far scarcer by the massive ATL army.

Some of the manpower issues could be addressed by emergency lifting of immigration restrictions and importing millions of Latin Americans and (later) Chinese to man the economy. Politically feasible? Doubtful but theoretically possible. If we're setting political/moral constraints aside entirely, U.S. could just raid the world for forced labor (re-invigorating an old tradition).

an incident triggers an outbreak of conflict between the USA and UK on one side (the "Allies"), and the USSR on the other.

Probably would have been doable. Ultimatum on Poland and Baltic freedom, Korea/China. Lend/Lease cut off abruptly in Fall '44, loud demands for repayment. Publicize rumors of things like Katyn massacre as established fact, demand "fair treatment" of captured Axis soldiers, publicize Red Army rapes in Germany. Mix in some good ole-fashioned Red Baiting and it's feasible to sell war to the public and whip them up for it.

September 1945 - The Red Army is defeated in central Europe. Exhausted from 4 years of bitter fighting, at the end of its supply lines,

Even with the 234-division army I don't see this going quite so neatly. Yes, the Red Army had been fighting a long time. But it fought energetically in April 1945 - will 5 more months exhaust a nation/army that fought heroically for 4 years? IMO this veers into OKH-esque underestimation of the SU. Countries facing invasion - provided they maintain political stability - can have virtually inexhaustible moral reserves (see, e.g., Iran and Vietnam for more recent examples).

US bombers in Persia obliterate the oil fields in Baku, Grozny and Maikop.

Re oil field obliteration, only possible with A-bombs, therefore delayed a few months from the outset of hostilities. Why? Well a conventional bombing campaign has a massive logistical tail. It's not a matter of flying bombers to Iran; it's a matter of shipping hundreds of thousands of men there to build/maintain aerodomes and service/supply the machines and crew. If WW2 demonstrated anything, it's that successful strategic bombing requires sustained and repeated target strikes.

1946-1948 - Starving and desperate, the Soviet Union disintegrates. The Allies promise liberation and, more importantly, economic aid to the various republics if they rebel against Stalin. Regardless of the Soviet will to fight on, it simply cannot fight alone while economically cut off from the rest of the world.

Again this faith in Soviet disintegration smacks of OKH. I agree Soviets can't prevent US/UK from conquering them but it's hard to see the straight line to anti-Stalin rebellion. Not saying it's impossible but IMO the ATL needs to address what happens if a country that was heroic for 4 years can be so for 6 or 7.

Rather than allow a single colossal Chinese state to emerge, the United States manipulates China back into its fractured state prior to the outbreak of fighting in the 1930s.

How? I mean that earnestly - it's an interesting question and not necessarily inevitable that unified China emerges. I could exploitation of linguistic/cultural differences by an occupying power - the Japanese tried some of that. Manhuria for Manchurians, the Yangtze Delta for Wu speakers (more developed and civilized than those uncouth Mandarins), Hokkien area, Cantonese area, of course Tibet and Xinjiang independent...

IMO we need not declare open war on Communist China, just back the Nationalists more (probably replacing Chiang with someone more amenable to heading a regional, south-based government).

The United States enforces its unilateral will on all countries primarily through its navy, which can cut off trade for any dissident country in an instant.

...and through its control of financial levers.

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

At base I don't think it's feasible for the U.S. to assume Soviet collapse or for the U.S. to have built the required army absent far-reaching changes to OTL that impact the path of WW2 and therefore need more background explication.

BUT the A-bomb gives the U.S. the ability to ensure Soviet military impotence within a few years. They just need to hold the line in Europe and Asia until the RKKA's economic underpinnings disappear.

And just out of curiosity, is this intended as an improvement over OTL? IMO it seems pretty bleak. Nothing against bleakness; most of my ATL's are horrifically bleak.

[OpanaPointer]

The US didn't have one!
Cuba had already been cut loose, Puerto Rico practically runs itself, and as for the Philippines the only significant American "boss" present was MacArthur. HIS job was to help build an Army of 10 Philippine Divisions so that the US could withdraw it's men... which amounted to a couple of Regiments at the start of the war.

Marshall did indeed ask Mac to return to the PI for that mission. We were going to grant the PI independence on July 4th, 1946 (and we did) so we want the archipelago to be able to defend itself from threats like Japan.

Congress authorized the Spanish-American war on the condition that it was not to be an empire building exercise.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Anyone who voices opposition would be labelled a communist or a terrorist and be taken out. The CIA would infiltrate foreign governments and ensure their compliance with America's will and identify resistance before it becomes a threat.

So basically what happened OTL to third-world countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia ... E2%80%9366 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Dirty_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iran ... 7%C3%A9tat
(and dozens of others)

The one hitch here is American politics. We were able to do these things because the American public likes to be able to tell itself that our foreign policy is noble; the low-salience nature of the above examples enables that lie. That 99% of Americans never head of Indonesia's genocide - let alone our involvement - is essential to the OTL American Way. ATL the violence is open and historically that caused the American public eventually to oppose wars/occupation (Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq). [btw the intended bleakness is more apparent as I read downthread]

We could change the political parameters but that would approach those "Nazis win if they're not Nazis" ATL's.

Such overt domination is also certain to lead to a massive, worldwide backlash.

In modern warfare there is no virtually no practical limit to successful coercion if moral scruples are released. Nazi Germany extracted ~40% of Western European GDP with little real problems until the Allies approached. See, e.g., Does Conquest Pay? by Liberman for a general discussion. Occupation of poorer countries will be more bloody but, absent an armaments infrastructure, permanent banditry wouldn't challenge ruthless American rule. Just see Afghanistan, 2001-2089.

Of course, America can't always politically afford to be limitlessly ruthless so a few thousand bandits with small arms defeated us in Vietnam.

That's why, IMO, this ATL is more about political conditions than military.

If ATL America is as morally bankrupt as Nazi Germany then IMO there's nothing anybody could do to stop her. If any scruples endure, the ATL probably isn't feasible in the long run (though successful war against SU in '45 is reasonably feasible IMO).

Luckily America isn't as bad as Nazi Germany. We're a run-of-the-mill hegemon in that we sling blood and destruction but are constrained by prevailing moral sentiments to require our lies to have moral plausibility.

[TheMarcksPlan]

The United States already had a good logistical setup in Persia because it was a major route for lend-lease supplies to the USSR.

In Persia, not toPersia. See above re shipping constraints, especially the Fall 1944 shipping crisis. Sea route to Persia is >3x as far as Europe (via Suez).

The U.S. could then use the Ural River as a supply route up to the last remaining Soviet industrial regions near the Ural Mountains

Ural River isn't really navigable, especially not into the Ural Mountains. http://russiangeography.com/European_plain/ural-river

Volga, however, is navigable and using it (and the Kama) to Perm gets you abreast the critical Central Urals, which are low-lying and not a formidable barrier.

But this is a byzantine route (literally and figuratively). Baltic/Black/White Seas present a much shorter shipping route. Given Germany supported Ostheer deep into Russia from Poland, it wouldn't be that hard for US/UK to support their armies via Leningrad/Murmansk/Rostov.

rather than get bogged down in the forests of northern Russia.

The RKKA slowed the Germans, not the trees. There's no getting around fighting the RKKA, whether beside the Caspian or between Black and Baltic makes little difference.

Corrupt maniacs have been in power since the end of WW2. They've murdered millions in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen ...

Wait do you think is actually a morally good ATL? I'm confused.

I'm noting that your list of maniacs only includes those ideologies blacklisted by the US Government (communist, Islamic). Maybe your confidence in the public being brainwashed is projection?

What about the maniacs we assisted specifically to suppress our enemies (Saddam, Suharto, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Contra). I realize that the bloodlust of our Cold War and other allies gets less play in the media than Enemies of the State but I'd expect a history geek not to hew party line.

What you're proposing, in practice, is dozens of Indonesian genocides to maintain "peace."

Seriously - are you even aware of what happened in Indonesia pursuant to exactly the U.S. world-domination strategy you propose? A good place to start are two award-winning movies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Act_of_Killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Look_of_Silence

For how representative Indonesia was of U.S.-sponsored/assisted massacres during the Cold War, see https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-W ... 9766277718

[TheMarcksPlan]

Are they? By what criteria?

Besides, the U.S. is literally projecting power across the Atlantic Ocean. That's quite a long supply line.

Noticed too late you've already made many of my points.

Meta-point:

The tendency to assume that American resources were unlimited - especially logistics - is endemic to AHF.

[KDF33]

In modern warfare there is no virtually no practical limit to successful coercion if moral scruples are released. Nazi Germany extracted ~40% of Western European GDP with little real problems until the Allies approached. See, e.g., Does Conquest Pay? by Liberman for a general discussion.

It also had large occupation forces garrisoning Western Europe, and wasn't systematically de-industrializing those countries. Indeed, until late 1942 France had residual autonomy.

Occupation of poorer countries will be more bloody but, absent an armaments infrastructure, permanent banditry wouldn't challenge ruthless American rule.

This commits the U.S. to maintaining millions of men in uniform around the entire world to suppress local populations and keep them in a state of pre-industrial existence.

Just see Afghanistan, 2001-2089.

Afghanistan and Iraq led to ≈7,000 U.S. deaths and a combined peak deployment of ≈200,000 troops. The U.S. was also supporting elected national governments, and not trying to enslave the population.

Of course, America can't always politically afford to be limitlessly ruthless so a few thousand bandits with small arms defeated us in Vietnam.

That's why, IMO, this ATL is more about political conditions than military.

If ATL America is as morally bankrupt as Nazi Germany then IMO there's nothing anybody could do to stop her. If any scruples endure, the ATL probably isn't feasible in the long run (though successful war against SU in '45 is reasonably feasible IMO).

Well, that is the point. Unless the U.S. starts nuking civilian populations, its not going to maintain control. And no U.S. government will have popular support to commit such atrocities.

Luckily America isn't as bad as Nazi Germany. We're a run-of-the-mill hegemon in that we sling blood and destruction but are constrained by prevailing moral sentiments to require our lies to have moral plausibility.

I'd say America is an accidental and reluctant hegemon, and by far a better one than most historical precedents. As a democracy, it cannot really have organized international ambitions and is bound to have an essentially reactive foreign policy. Which is a good thing. Democracies don't really afford their temporary leaders the opportunity to fancy themselves as world conquerors.

Anyway, this ATL would make more sense if it was titled "America develops into a totalitarian nightmare before WWII". But then it would beg the question, why would anyone ally with it in the first place?

[KDF33]

Wait do you think is actually a morally good ATL? I'm confused.

It sure seems so. In another post, he writes:

There would be world peace, forever.

It appears that he perceives this dystopia as an utopia. A scenario where the U.S., to prevent the emergence of dictators murdering hundreds of thousands / millions, goes around the world and itself murders millions / ten of millions.

[KDF33]

What you're proposing, in practice, is dozens of Indonesian genocides to maintain "peace."

[...]

For how representative Indonesia was of U.S.-sponsored/assisted massacres during the Cold War, see https://www.amazon.com/Jakarta-Method-W ... 9766277718

To clarify my last post, where I wrote that the U.S. was a "far better" hegemon: I'm sure a lot of Indonesians, Vietnamese or South Americans would disagree, but ultimately even those atrocities were half-assed and unsustainable.

I'd also argue that as time passes, especially now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. population is imposing further limits on U.S. government behavior. The U.S. cannot go to war without having hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, as seen before Iraq. And now even the Republican Party is growing opposed to foreign interventions.

I'd even argue that respect for human rights across the world is becoming truly valued by U.S. administrations, or at least the Democratic ones.

[Richard Anderson]

Of course, America can't always politically afford to be limitlessly ruthless so a few thousand bandits with small arms defeated us in Vietnam.

The ongoing problem of misunderstanding reality shaping assessments.

In 1966, the "few thousand bandits with small arms" in Vietnam consisted of 30,000 PAVN (NVA Regulars), 67,000 VC Main Force, and 205,000 VC Regional Militia and support troops. In terms of weapons captured from the insurgents, MACV recorded 17,294 individual weapons and 1,511 crew-served weapons. By 1968, strength increased to 90,000 PAVN, 200,000 VC Main Force and Militia, with an unknown number of support troops...in that year, 141,081 personnel infiltrated from North Vietnam. Weaapons captured in 1968 included 514 mortars, 3,132 rocket launchers, and 32 artillery pieces, including 130mm guns.

[TheMarcksPlan]

It appears that he perceives this dystopia as an utopia. A scenario where the U.S., to prevent the emergence of dictators murdering hundreds of thousands / millions, goes around the world and itself murders millions / ten of millions.

Apparently so. It's a cartoonishly naive view of war and of America's role in the world. We seem to disagree on our moral evaluation of U.S. foreign policy but one needn't be a Naxalite to know that bad stuff isn't good just because the Good Country is doing it.

It also had large occupation forces garrisoning Western Europe

Most were defending Germany's western frontier, which moved forward from Germany. Otherwise they would have been on the German border. Absent the threat of invasion and naval/air bases aimed at England, Germany's occupation forces would probably have been on the order of 50,000.

Indeed, until late 1942 France had residual autonomy.

Even after 1942 - Vichy still set most of the domestic agenda. And that make exploitation more effective.

It's a deeper, longer discussion but the critical point, IMO, is that if an occupier allows a modern economy to function reasonably well the incentive structure is for individuals to conduct business as quasi-normal. The occupier is able to cream off a substantial share of GDP via financial measures - in the French/Belgian/Dutch cases through "occupation costs" and a national clearing account manipulated by fixed exchange rates. Exploitation occurs at such a macro level that, at transaction level, it's invisible. Only in the aggregate it is obvious but, again, the individual has no means of impacting the aggregate via individual transactions.

...unless she drops out of the modern economy. But, except for those evading the Service du Travail, few saw that as attractive until near D-Day when the consequences were obviously short-term.

It's like the situation a U.S. taxpayer knowing his payments underwrite the Iraq War or some other horror but making them anyway. I wasn't willing to go underground to withhold from what I knew was evil; neither were most West Europeans under Nazi occupation.

I'd say America is an accidental and reluctant hegemon, and by far a better one than most historical precedents.

Hard disagree on accidental. A new book discusses the hegemonic turn, is relevant to AHF. https://www.amazon.com/Tomorrow-World-B ... 067424866X

Yes, the U.S. is the most moral hegemon in human history. But the world community is the most moral it's ever been also - we have to grade on that curve. IMJ there are no instances - WW2 included - of the U.S. acting out of much more than narrowly-rational self interest. That's not exactly a critique, it's just an IMO necessary deflation of the moral mythology that surrounds the American Imperium. Every power - even the Nazis - ultimately told itself it ruled based on moral considerations, it's essential always to view these justifications with extreme skepticism.

I'd also argue that as time passes, especially now that the Cold War is over, the U.S. population is imposing further limits on U.S. government behavior.

In the long, long term I have to believe that to be so. Mid-term IDK. We lose 3,000 people one day and suddenly it's fine to kill any military-age Muslim male. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... es/511454/ It's reassuring that a periodical as jingoistic as The Atlantic criticizes Obama for that but I fear that the new "constraint" is a polite performance of guilt when we do terrible things.

[KDF33]

Hard disagree on accidental. A new book discusses the hegemonic turn, is relevant to AHF. https://www.amazon.com/Tomorrow-World-B ... 067424866X

True. I'll rephrase that as confused rather than accidental.

Yes, the U.S. is the most moral hegemon in human history. But the world community is the most moral it's ever been also - we have to grade on that curve. IMJ there are no instances - WW2 included - of the U.S. acting out of much more than narrowly-rational self interest. That's not exactly a critique, it's just an IMO necessary deflation of the moral mythology that surrounds the American Imperium. Every power - even the Nazis - ultimately told itself it ruled based on moral considerations, it's essential always to view these justifications with extreme skepticism.

Oh I agree. American mythology is just that - a feel-good narrative, like all other national stories. My view is simply that the U.S. is an especially large modern liberal democracy, and as such acts within the political/moral constraints of a modern liberal democracy - which is a massive improvement over previous regimes.

[AnchorSteam]

I don't understand this place sometimes..

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=255046

That was wrong, but this isn't?

[TheMarcksPlan]

My view is simply that the U.S. is an especially large modern liberal democracy, and as such acts within the political/moral constraints of a modern liberal democracy - which is a massive improvement over previous regimes.

Yeah we agree on that.

I've posted other ATL's pointing up the benefits of earlier U.S. military ambition on the "narrow" issue of WW2.

It was our lack of strong military tradition and/or of pure bloodlust that prevented us from preventing WW2 or at least ending it much earlier, IMO.

It's such a double-edged sword, though. The Hitler analogy, the Munich moment, is constantly used to justify evil. Part of my project here has been to explore the contingency of WW2's outcome to illustrate that (1) the U.S. wasn't all-powerful even at the moment it supposedly saved the world and (2) that the U.S. probably was unwilling/unable to do what was required to defeat Hitler absent Stalin's help. We fought WW2 to protect our perceived interests and would have done no more fighting than was (mostly) instrumentally rational.