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: 3382
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 » 24 Sep 2020 18:46

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
24 Sep 2020 18:16
We have rolled in the weeds considerably on the subject of the possible composition of a AEF. there may be more to say on that, but there were other questions in the OP.

Folks have touched on the question of Italian entry as a German ally, or non alliance/participation. & the question of Htlers next course of action; attack th USSR in 1941, or...? Both are worth a bit more consideration if anyone has any fresh insights and historical information.

Then there is this one:
Well, yeah, because as usual this what if was formulated as a fait accompli...the POD was presented as "this and that happen" without any good reason for "this and that" to happen. Such as this even more glaring and unresolved one...
Futurist wrote:
10 Jan 2020 08:42
the US would have already entered WWII on the Anglo-French side by that point in time (which might actually be pretty doable if Woodrow Wilson dies of his stroke in late 1919 and new US President Thomas Marshall is able to get the US Senate to subsequently ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France
If Wilson dies, then the most likely alternate outcome is that Lodge's version of the treaty, the "14 reservations" compromise that was rejected 19 November 1919 due to Wilson's directive, gets passed. That means that Reservation 2, "The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article X, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which under the Constitution has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide." would be incorporated into an American acceptance of the League of Nations, which means we are back to square one - there is no "Security Treaty with Britain and France."

This leads again to my observation, which somehow always gets misconstrued by the what if crowd, that a good what if requires a solid point of departure and a decent understanding of the actual background and historical events that are being modified, rather than a simple declarative hand wave, followed by anecdotal twisting of data. In this case, the POD does not logically lead in any way, shape, or form, to the remote possibility that the United States would declare war on Germany in 1939.
"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

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 24 Sep 2020 19:11

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Sep 2020 18:46
...

This leads again to my observation, which somehow always gets misconstrued by the what if crowd, that a good what if requires a solid point of departure and a decent understanding of the actual background and historical events that are being modified, rather than a simple declarative hand wave, followed by anecdotal twisting of data. In this case, the POD does not logically lead in any way, shape, or form, to the remote possibility that the United States would declare war on Germany in 1939.
Agree there. This has been touched on earlier in this thread, and other very similar elsewhere. My guess is any PoD this early waives away WWII in any form we'd recognize. A PoD that leads to the OTL events of 1939, but with US joining the war then, requires a narrow window for events, and is heavily dependent of nazi bungling of foreign policy 1938-39.

I may be influenced after 40 years by Kline-Albrandht & his course on the interwar era or Europe. A entire semester of poking through the weeds of European politics may have left me with a more flexible view of critical events then.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 2245
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

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

Post by T. A. Gardner » 25 Sep 2020 03:06

I think the agreed bottom line here is that if the US joined the war and was on the French / British side early enough to send troops to France, they couldn't have sent more than about a corps worth of ground forces-- possibly with a Marine brigade (eg., reinforced regiment)--backed by a rather pathetic group of aircraft that might total 150 planes at most, possibly less. That would make them roughly--roughly--equal to the BEF forces in France, which isn't saying much.

The only real positive I can see here is that US involvement would be a big incentive for the French to fight on in N. Africa as the Us would have been sending additional units there as France collapsed and it is the one of the logical places for US forces on the continent to retreat to as things fell apart.

User avatar
TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1643
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 » 25 Sep 2020 03:14

Carl Schwamberger wrote:My guess is any PoD this early waives away WWII in any form we'd recognize.
Agreed and that's potentially true of even a PoD proximate to WW2, operating via pixie dust to cause U.S. entry in 1939. If Stalin gets his WW1-redux in the West, who's to say he doesn't grab the Straits and post Soviet forces throughout Eastern Europe? Hitler can't guarantee Romania, let alone Turkey/Bulgaria/Yugoslavia, in that ATL. What then? A three-way war? Coup against Hitler and then a united West against Stalin? On which side does Japan fall? We'd have called that conflict WW2 but its meaning and outcome would be unrecognizable.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 25 Sep 2020 22:59

T. A. Gardner wrote:
25 Sep 2020 03:06
...
The only real positive I can see here is that US involvement would be a big incentive for the French to fight on in N. Africa as the Us would have been sending additional units there as France collapsed and it is the one of the logical places for US forces on the continent to retreat to as things fell apart.
If a Allied French government continues that is a positive. Tho I suspect There may be a split among the Deputies and another government be formed with a mandate to seek a armistice. This could lead to a split with a 'peace government in France that signs a armistice with Germany, and a Allied government continuing on outside of France.

Equally positive would be if this discourages Italy from joining Germany as a belligerent. Remaining neutral in 1940 instead.

A third equal would be Allied control of Norway. If that results both the political and military landscape of Scandinavia changes in fundamental ways.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2735
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 » 28 Sep 2020 04:29

In regards to my last question here (mentioned in Carl's last post here), I wonder if something such as D-Day would actually be possible without a lot of Nazi forces being diverted to the East for the military campaign against the Soviet Union.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2735
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 » 28 Sep 2020 04:32

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Sep 2020 18:46
Futurist wrote:
10 Jan 2020 08:42
the US would have already entered WWII on the Anglo-French side by that point in time (which might actually be pretty doable if Woodrow Wilson dies of his stroke in late 1919 and new US President Thomas Marshall is able to get the US Senate to subsequently ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France
If Wilson dies, then the most likely alternate outcome is that Lodge's version of the treaty, the "14 reservations" compromise that was rejected 19 November 1919 due to Wilson's directive, gets passed. That means that Reservation 2, "The United States assumes no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between nations — whether members of the League or not — under the provisions of Article X, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose, unless in any particular case the Congress, which under the Constitution has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide." would be incorporated into an American acceptance of the League of Nations, which means we are back to square one - there is no "Security Treaty with Britain and France."

This leads again to my observation, which somehow always gets misconstrued by the what if crowd, that a good what if requires a solid point of departure and a decent understanding of the actual background and historical events that are being modified, rather than a simple declarative hand wave, followed by anecdotal twisting of data. In this case, the POD does not logically lead in any way, shape, or form, to the remote possibility that the United States would declare war on Germany in 1939.
Technically speaking, though, the US Senate can ratify the Treaty of Versailles with the Lodge Reservations and then separately ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France if there is enough support for it, no? The Lodge Reservations would make it clear that the US assumes no obligations to defend any other country, but there is no reason that it can't subsequently ratify another treaty to create such an obligation, is there?

BTW, here is what Lodge wrote about the Security Treaty in August 1919:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodge_Res ... ublicanism
if there had been no proposition such as is included in Article 10, but a simple proposition that it would be our intention to aid France, which is our barrier and outpost, when attacked without provocation by Germany, I should have strongly favored it for I feel very keenly the sacrifices of France and the immense value her gallant defense was to the whole world. But they have made the French treaty subject to the authority of the League, which is not to be tolerated. If we ever are called upon to go to the assistance of France as we were two years ago, we will go without asking anybody's leave. It is humiliating to be put in such an attitude and not the least of the mischief done by the League is that Article 10 will probably make it impossible to do anything for France as Root recommends and as many of our Senators desire.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3382
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 » 28 Sep 2020 06:03

Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 04:32
Technically speaking, though, the US Senate can ratify the Treaty of Versailles with the Lodge Reservations and then separately ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France if there is enough support for it, no? The Lodge Reservations would make it clear that the US assumes no obligations to defend any other country, but there is no reason that it can't subsequently ratify another treaty to create such an obligation, is there?
What "Security Treaty"?
BTW, here is what Lodge wrote about the Security Treaty in August 1919:
Oddly enough, he seems to be writing about the Versailles Treaty. Given that his chief reservations were regarding the sovereignty, international independence, and freedom of action of the United States, I would have to doubt that he and his fellows on both sides of the aisle would then turn around and enter into a "security treaty" with Britain and France that potential would compromise those principals. Heck, its a rabid subject among most elements in the Republican Party to this day.
"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

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 28 Sep 2020 18:13

Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 04:29
In regards to my last question here (mentioned in Carl's last post here), I wonder if something such as D-Day would actually be possible without a lot of Nazi forces being diverted to the East for the military campaign against the Soviet Union.
My take on Hitlers thinking is attacking the USSR in 1941 is more likely than not. One of the rational for this was Hitlers recognition that he lacked the resources to defeat Britain in a long war. This led to the idea of seizing the resources of the USSR to enable the later defeat of Britain. The same logic applies in this alternate, tho to the outsider it may appear even stupider.

Returning a army to France in such a event is obviously wide open to debate. While it usually works on the game board, even in 1941, there are some very strong arguments against it.

If the Allies retain all or part of Norway that a more likely venue for offensive action. First remaining German forces could be cleared out. Then actions in the far north to support the USSR. Next would be pressure on Sweden, and assistance to close that neutral support to Germany. If Churchill could persuade Yugoslavians to conduct a pro Allied coup in 1941 the Swedes might be persuaded to commit to the Allies. That opens all sorts of possibilities for increasing pressure on Finland and increasing military action in the Baltic region & Denmark.

If Italy has allied with Germany then the Mediterranean region would distract from a renewed French battle front.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 28 Sep 2020 18:16

Discussing this with the old men on the couch here in Indiana, a hypothetical naval battle, of the US fleet of 1940 vs the Italians may be on the table this year.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2735
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 » 28 Sep 2020 19:53

Richard Anderson wrote:
28 Sep 2020 06:03
Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 04:32
Technically speaking, though, the US Senate can ratify the Treaty of Versailles with the Lodge Reservations and then separately ratify the Security Treaty with Britain and France if there is enough support for it, no? The Lodge Reservations would make it clear that the US assumes no obligations to defend any other country, but there is no reason that it can't subsequently ratify another treaty to create such an obligation, is there?
What "Security Treaty"?
This:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of ... aggression.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2735
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 » 28 Sep 2020 19:54

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
28 Sep 2020 18:13
Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 04:29
In regards to my last question here (mentioned in Carl's last post here), I wonder if something such as D-Day would actually be possible without a lot of Nazi forces being diverted to the East for the military campaign against the Soviet Union.
My take on Hitlers thinking is attacking the USSR in 1941 is more likely than not. One of the rational for this was Hitlers recognition that he lacked the resources to defeat Britain in a long war. This led to the idea of seizing the resources of the USSR to enable the later defeat of Britain. The same logic applies in this alternate, tho to the outsider it may appear even stupider.

Returning a army to France in such a event is obviously wide open to debate. While it usually works on the game board, even in 1941, there are some very strong arguments against it.

If the Allies retain all or part of Norway that a more likely venue for offensive action. First remaining German forces could be cleared out. Then actions in the far north to support the USSR. Next would be pressure on Sweden, and assistance to close that neutral support to Germany. If Churchill could persuade Yugoslavians to conduct a pro Allied coup in 1941 the Swedes might be persuaded to commit to the Allies. That opens all sorts of possibilities for increasing pressure on Finland and increasing military action in the Baltic region & Denmark.

If Italy has allied with Germany then the Mediterranean region would distract from a renewed French battle front.
Just how much worse do you think that Operation Barbarossa would have fared in this TL?

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 28 Sep 2020 20:17

Richard Anderson wrote:
24 Sep 2020 18:46

Well, yeah, because as usual this what if was formulated as a fait accompli...the POD was presented as "this and that happen" without any good reason for "this and that" to happen. Such as this even more glaring and unresolved one...
Something I got used to from military war-games. While the tactical considerations or actions in a exercise were essential stuff, to get to those often required considerable bending of the context. Suspension of disbelief. I did not understand the context of the remark at the time, but as a Lt I overheard a scold to a objection about a premise for a exercise. Specifically: That no one in the USN of the 1920s 0r 1930s gamed or trained to the situation they found themselves in off Guadalcanal in 1942. Sending two battleships, at night, into reef strewn water, with only four destroyers, on a emergency basis was something no one would have bothered thinking about. It could never happen in the USN thinking of 1939. Yet thats where Adm. Lee found himself at midnight 14 November.

I still have a problem with 'difficult' PoD, but they are something I was overexposed to long ago.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7825
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 » 28 Sep 2020 20:19

Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 19:54
...
Just how much worse do you think that Operation Barbarossa would have fared in this TL?
No idea "how much" but my take is anything along this line makes it worse.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2735
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 » 28 Sep 2020 21:33

Carl Schwamberger wrote:
28 Sep 2020 20:19
Futurist wrote:
28 Sep 2020 19:54
...
Just how much worse do you think that Operation Barbarossa would have fared in this TL?
No idea "how much" but my take is anything along this line makes it worse.
Could we actually see Western Allied troops in Russia in this scenario?

Return to “What if”