France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3233
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Richard Anderson » 29 Aug 2020 17:18

Andy H wrote:
24 Apr 2020 19:26
Hi TMP

What would be your imagined US strength in France come 1940?

Regards

Andy H
In terms of an expeditionary force it could only have been similar to those expeditionary forces actually deployed. After all, the effective mobilization of the American Army began in spring 1940 anyway. The earliest "ready" force would have been the 1st Division, c. spring 1941, followed roughly by the 3d Division, and then the 2d Division. It would be early 1942 before additional divisions were ready for deployment. The only way to possibly accelerate that would have been to deploy the NG as federalized, i.e., as "square" divisions, but even then it would have been fall 1941 before the earliest could have deployed.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 29 Aug 2020 19:23

Richard Anderson wrote:
29 Aug 2020 17:18
Andy H wrote:
24 Apr 2020 19:26
Hi TMP

What would be your imagined US strength in France come 1940?

Regards

Andy H
In terms of an expeditionary force it could only have been similar to those expeditionary forces actually deployed. After all, the effective mobilization of the American Army began in spring 1940 anyway. The earliest "ready" force would have been the 1st Division, c. spring 1941, followed roughly by the 3d Division, and then the 2d Division. It would be early 1942 before additional divisions were ready for deployment. The only way to possibly accelerate that would have been to deploy the NG as federalized, i.e., as "square" divisions, but even then it would have been fall 1941 before the earliest could have deployed.
What modifications in your division mobilization timetable have you made to account for the U.S. being at war over two years earlier than OTL? Or is it your view that any such modifications were impossible?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15177
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Andy H » 29 Aug 2020 22:22

Richard Anderson wrote:
29 Aug 2020 17:18
Andy H wrote:
24 Apr 2020 19:26
Hi TMP

What would be your imagined US strength in France come 1940?

Regards

Andy H
In terms of an expeditionary force it could only have been similar to those expeditionary forces actually deployed. After all, the effective mobilization of the American Army began in spring 1940 anyway. The earliest "ready" force would have been the 1st Division, c. spring 1941, followed roughly by the 3d Division, and then the 2d Division. It would be early 1942 before additional divisions were ready for deployment. The only way to possibly accelerate that would have been to deploy the NG as federalized, i.e., as "square" divisions, but even then it would have been fall 1941 before the earliest could have deployed.
Hi Richard

Thank you for the info.

Regards

Andy H

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 30 Aug 2020 01:18

I think France's political divisions by 1939 made staking any decision on its fighting risky. The cleavages in their society were generally mirrored by the conscript army, from what reading I've done on it.

Us Americans entering earlier would have made the war shorter, no doubt. I doubt we could have saved France, though. We simply didn't have the boots, weaponry, or transport to make such a quick influence in the spring of 1940.

I do think that our isolationism pre-1935 or so was hurtful, as well.

I don't think Barbarossa happens if we enter early.

There's a lot of track to inspect in this question.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7721
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 30 Aug 2020 16:59

Attacking the USSR was a obsession. OTL there was still a active war with Britain, and a undeclared naval war with the US developing & the attack occurred. Assuming the Allies are pushed off the continent as OTL then I'd think the situation would be still seen as favorable for wiping out the Bolsheviks. I cant see Italian neutrality changing much.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Futurist » 15 Sep 2020 19:39

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
30 Aug 2020 01:18
I think France's political divisions by 1939 made staking any decision on its fighting risky. The cleavages in their society were generally mirrored by the conscript army, from what reading I've done on it.

Us Americans entering earlier would have made the war shorter, no doubt. I doubt we could have saved France, though. We simply didn't have the boots, weaponry, or transport to make such a quick influence in the spring of 1940.

I do think that our isolationism pre-1935 or so was hurtful, as well.

I don't think Barbarossa happens if we enter early.

There's a lot of track to inspect in this question.
One might wonder whether we'd have rearmed earlier had we been less isolationist and indeed allied to France in the 1930s, though.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7721
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Sep 2020 20:35

Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 19:39

One might wonder whether we'd have rearmed earlier had we been less isolationist and indeed allied to France in the 1930s, though.
Possibly. But that takes us back to the 'No WWII As We Know It' scenarios mentioned earlier in this thread. theres a very narrow window to push the US into the 1939/40 war & yet not throw the whole thing off the tracks.

Had the isolationists & more important the fiscal conservatives in 1920 not prevailed then the Marsh proposal might have taken shape. Army CoS Peyton Marsh proposed a standing Army of 500,000 & a National Guard/Army Reserve of another 500,000+ . More important his plan called for ongoing development of weapons, tied to stand by production should they be needed. That is the Army would be constantly testing & improving test batches of weapons & industry would be subsidized to have reserve production capability ready to set up when needed. So instead of a mass of obsolescent 40 year old designs we had in 1940 & near zero production capability for new designs the US could set up factories imeadiatly for production of designs worked out and throughly tested in the last few years. At its ultimate extension the Marsh plan would have from a 1939 mobilization a army of four million men in 1941, equipped with the equivalents of P47 fighters, M14 rifles, T20 tanks.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Futurist » 15 Sep 2020 20:37

Very interesting! What was the Congressional vote against this proposal in 1920? Do you know? As in, the tally itself?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7721
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 15 Sep 2020 20:58

I don't know. The proposal was not written into a budget bill as far as I know. The Secretary of War saw there was little support for that sort of military expense. The Congressmen made it clear early in the process there was little support. As it was the smaller budget proposed was cut by the budget committee. The result can be illustrated by one example. The eight motorized artillery regiments existing were reduced to two in 1922 & those had half their batteries cadred. So effectively one regiment. The balance of the trucks were sold off as surplus. When Pershing became CoS he proposed half of what Marsh asked for and received even less. In 1938 the nadir of US Army finances, the collective manpower of the Active, Reserves, and National Guard was perhaps a quarter of the Marsh plan. Maybe less. Worse there was no useful industrial mobilization plan. Just a sort of unresearched wish list.
Last edited by Carl Schwamberger on 16 Sep 2020 18:24, edited 1 time in total.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Futurist » 15 Sep 2020 21:22

Interesting; thank you!

Also, is there any realistic PoD after 1920 to get the US involved in WWII in 1939 other than Germany declaring war on the US?

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 16 Sep 2020 01:34

Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 19:39
One might wonder whether we'd have rearmed earlier had we been less isolationist and indeed allied to France in the 1930s, though.
Of course, assuming that Depression finances would have allowed for expanding the Army and the AAC as well as essentially maintaining the Navy for ten years.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7721
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2020 01:44

Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 21:22
... Also, is there any realistic PoD after 1920 to get the US involved in WWII in 1939 other than Germany declaring war on the US?
In post #10 there was the Bone Headed nazi scenario. Instead of sucking up to Ford, Rockefeller, or Dupont the nazis nationalize US businesses. Tensions rise Americans suspected of being Jewish are detained & sent to the camps. The Quaker group trying to assist Jews in leaving Germay has its representatives beaten & murdered. German diplomats in the US become severely insufferable, pissing off everyone. Is such blundering unrealistic, not if you look at the German mistakes with the US 1914-1917.

Such moves 1937-1939 could lead the US to attempt to pressure Germany into behaving ultimately leading to the US joining Britain and France in guaranteeing Polands borders. This would be a miscalculation not unlike the embargo that were to pressure Japan into negotiating a withdrawal from French Indochina & peace talks with China. This course of events may have only a 20 or 30 % chance of playing out to a US DoW, but its not unrealistic.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7721
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2020 01:49

Thumpalumpacus wrote:
16 Sep 2020 01:34
Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 19:39
One might wonder whether we'd have rearmed earlier had we been less isolationist and indeed allied to France in the 1930s, though.
Of course, assuming that Depression finances would have allowed for expanding the Army and the AAC as well as essentially maintaining the Navy for ten years.
1938 was a budget year, 1936 being the previous. For the 1939-1940 budget Congress did fund some new naval construction, including the first new battleships laid down in 20 years. Plus funds to double the Army manpower and build some of the new aircraft like the XB17 super bomber. In these scenarios a yet larger budget is possible.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2653
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Futurist » 16 Sep 2020 02:22

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 01:44
Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 21:22
... Also, is there any realistic PoD after 1920 to get the US involved in WWII in 1939 other than Germany declaring war on the US?
In post #10 there was the Bone Headed nazi scenario. Instead of sucking up to Ford, Rockefeller, or Dupont the nazis nationalize US businesses. Tensions rise Americans suspected of being Jewish are detained & sent to the camps. The Quaker group trying to assist Jews in leaving Germay has its representatives beaten & murdered. German diplomats in the US become severely insufferable, pissing off everyone. Is such blundering unrealistic, not if you look at the German mistakes with the US 1914-1917.

Such moves 1937-1939 could lead the US to attempt to pressure Germany into behaving ultimately leading to the US joining Britain and France in guaranteeing Polands borders. This would be a miscalculation not unlike the embargo that were to pressure Japan into negotiating a withdrawal from French Indochina & peace talks with China. This course of events may have only a 20 or 30 % chance of playing out to a US DoW, but its not unrealistic.
Literally murdering peaceful US citizens (Quakers or whomever else) is likely to result in Nazi Germany being viewed as an extremely rogue state akin to Muammar Gaddafi's Libya in the 1980s, no?

User avatar
Thumpalumpacus
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 05 Feb 2016 10:09
Location: Hill Country, Tejas

Re: France fights on in 1940 *and* the US already enters WWII on the Anglo-French side

Post by Thumpalumpacus » 16 Sep 2020 02:54

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
16 Sep 2020 01:49
Thumpalumpacus wrote:
16 Sep 2020 01:34
Futurist wrote:
15 Sep 2020 19:39
One might wonder whether we'd have rearmed earlier had we been less isolationist and indeed allied to France in the 1930s, though.
Of course, assuming that Depression finances would have allowed for expanding the Army and the AAC as well as essentially maintaining the Navy for ten years.
1938 was a budget year, 1936 being the previous. For the 1939-1940 budget Congress did fund some new naval construction, including the first new battleships laid down in 20 years. Plus funds to double the Army manpower and build some of the new aircraft like the XB17 super bomber. In these scenarios a yet larger budget is possible.
Yeah, I was responding to a question about US rearming happening earlier in the 30s.

Return to “What if”