Europe First or the Pacific?

[GaryChildress]

I was going to post this in John 3rd's discussion on Allied airframe numbers and then thought better of it. Don't want to take his thread off topic or hijack it.

All the talk about the Allies diverting aircraft to the Pacific has got me thinking about my own mod. With the current incarnation of my mod there is no war in Europe. Europe is completely in the hands of the Axis, including the British Isles. The US is not yet in the war but soon will be when the Axis powers declare war and try to conquer the Pacific. The Soviet Union stays neutral per the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact and Hitler is miraculously endowed with common sense and decides not to mess with the USSR.

My question for the panel of experts is what might this mean for Allied aircraft numbers. Granted there would be no British production so the Commonwealth would be in extremely lean times, however, would the US focus more on the Pacific and therefore apply more aircraft (as well as other resources) to the theater? OR would it be more likely that the US would hold back a certain percentage of production form the Pacific for a proposed invasion to liberate the UK?

My initial thought is that "Pacific first" would be the priority, at least until there is some sort of stability on that front whereby the US thinks it can start building up for an invasion of the UK. On the other hand, it might be a smarter move to try to establish an early foothold in Europe in order to take pressure off the Pacific and cause Germany to divert resources back to Europe. Plus there is the political will to help Europe first maybe?

Just some wild and whimsical armchair general type speculation I guess...for anyone interested. [:)]

[Alfred]

Let's see if I have your mod's "facts" correct.
 
1.  France was defeated in 1940 and the historical Vichy regime set up.  No formal peace treaty signed with Germany and Italy because of point 2 below.
 
2.  The British Empire is still at war with Germany and Italy even though Sealion succeeded in 1940.  The UK government and the King escaped to Canada.  The Dutch government moved from the UK to the DEI (or perhaps Curacao) and also remains at war with Germany.
 
3.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact remains in place.  Consequently Germany and the Soviet Union remain as allies albeit the Soviet Union is not at war with the British Empire.
 
4.  Fighting between the British Empire and Germany/Italy continues in North Africa.  The Italian AOI remains under British occupation.  German and Italian subs still operate against British SLOCs in the Atlantic.
 
5.  The USA remains neutral but continues to provide Lend Lease to the British Empire.
 
6.  Japan still goes to war against the USA, the British Empire and the Netherlands on 7 December 1941.  Both Germany and Italy support Japan by subsequently also declaring war against the USA.
 
 
The above scenario is very important because it means certain historical contractual arrangements remain in place.  These arrangements severely circumscribe your freedom of manoeuvre.
 
Alfred

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Let's see if I have your mod's "facts" correct.

1.  France was defeated in 1940 and the historical Vichy regime set up.  No formal peace treaty signed with Germany and Italy because of point 2 below.

2.  The British Empire is still at war with Germany and Italy even though Sealion succeeded in 1940.  The UK government and the King escaped to Canada.  The Dutch government moved from the UK to the DEI (or perhaps Curacao) and also remains at war with Germany.

3.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact remains in place.  Consequently Germany and the Soviet Union remain as allies albeit the Soviet Union is not at war with the British Empire.

4.  Fighting between the British Empire and Germany/Italy continues in North Africa.  The Italian AOI remains under British occupation.  German and Italian subs still operate against British SLOCs in the Atlantic.

5.  The USA remains neutral but continues to provide Lend Lease to the British Empire.

6.  Japan still goes to war against the USA, the British Empire and the Netherlands on 7 December 1941.  Both Germany and Italy support Japan by subsequently also declaring war against the USA.


The above scenario is very important because it means certain historical contractual arrangements remain in place.  These arrangements severely circumscribe your freedom of manoeuvre.

Alfred

Hi Albert,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think this will be a fruitful discussion. Everything except # 4 is the case. The British lose North Africa as well and are driven out of the Middle East and eventually out of India. The British only retain S. Africa, Malaysia and other pacific holdings as well as Australia and Canada remaining. The British government in exile is in Canada. . Also French colonies follow the example of the British and Dutch and remain "free".

[Alfred]

If there is no land fighting between the British Empire and Germany and Italy it becomes difficult to argue that a formal peace treaty between France and Germany/Italy has not been concluded.  That being so:
 
1.  With a signed Franco peace treaty, German forces would not be based in France to any large degree.  Furthermore there would be no Free French colonies of any significance as historically all the significant ones remained loyal to Vichy and if any did rebel, there would have been German and Italian support to French arms to re-establish Vichy control.
 
2.  With no on going Anglo-Axis fighting, difficult to see both the legal and domestic American basis for Lend Lease being maintained and for the 1941 Anglo-American summits creating the United Nations having occurred or remaining valid.
 
3.  Lacking the resources to create anywhere a significant front against Germany, quite plausible to see the remaining Dominions receptive to a peace treaty.  The UK population itself probably would see no point continuing to endure war shortages and a break with the exiled Churchill government is on the cards.
 
4.  The Dutch would have come to a peace agreement.  In turn that almost certainly means that the DEI oil exports to Japan would have continued and the Dutch authorities would not have acquiesced to Roosevelt's oil embargo efforts.  Very little grounds to then assume Japan would have attacked on 7 December 1941 as no benefits ensue.
 
Alfred 

[GaryChildress]

Hi Alfred,

Thank you again for your reply.

(I apologize. I just looked above and realized I typed "Albert" instead of Alfred. Damn, I think I must be getting Alzeimer's or something. [:@])

I suppose I could have the US enter the war early but too late to really pitch in and help Britain. (with the Pacific being sort of a quiet front at first) That would essentially mean that the "Allies" would still exist after the fall of Britain. With the "Allies" still in existence and some good propaganda, perhaps the European colonies hold out and fight along side with the US in hopes that the US will be able to liberate their homelands. Or do you think the US would have sued for peace rather than go it alone?

Ultimately the purpose of this thread is to help develop the "background story" to my mod. So I appreciate any input. So far these are some of the talking points:

1. No naval treaties of any kind. (The Treaty of Versailles happened and WW1 happened, etc. however, there is no Great Depression and the major economies are able to create large militaries.)
2. Germany and Italy are occupying Ceylon which will be the springboard for their Pacific Campaign.  
3. Ultimately this will be a major military "clash of the titans" centering on the PTO and involving Germany, Italy, Japan, Thailand versus the Allies. There will be both a "Free India" movement and an "Indian Nationalist" movement, so India will be augmenting both sides.

[wdolson]

I doubt Sealion could have ever succeeded. A more likely scenario would be that when Chamberlin's government fell in May 1940, instead of Churchill, Lord Halifax is picked. Halifax was seriously considered, but he bowed out, he was also pro-Nazi and would have likely sued for peace with Germany. In this scenario England would probably still exist as an independent country and probably neutral, but it would be in Hitler's pocket. Hitler would probably have invaded the USSR knowing his back was safe.

Hitler would probably not declare war on the US in December 1941 because he would have no need to send U-boats into US territorial waters to hunt tankers bound for England as he did within a day or two of declaring war on the US.

If the US was able to send all its strength into the Pacific, it would have meant a much stronger USAAF presence, but otherwise probably wouldn't have made a huge difference. The limiting factor for full scale US offensive in that theater was ships, especially carriers and invasion capable ships and all the carriers went to the Pacific anyway. The US would have been able to put forth larger invasion fleets with no European war, but then the number of carriers would have been the primary limiting factor.

Bill

[Alfred]

The reason why I am nudging you to revisit your premises is that the Europe First strategy, which question lies at the heart of your mod in terms of allocating assets, was predicated on extremely sound strategic grounds.  If the grounds do not exist in your alternate history mod, then the question becomes very moot and you have much greater latitude to send assets to the Pacific.  Mind you if you still want to make it plausible, there would still be certain restrictions on your freedom of choice.
 
I find many Americans who post on this subject come from a jingoistic position and utterly fail to take into account the real impediments to ditching the Europe First strategy.  American leaders such as Roosevelt and Marshall were fully conscious of what fighting in a coalition entailed.  They were not stupid men.  So the issue you have to consider is whether the following factors which underpinned the Europe First strategy apply to your alternate history mod.
 
1.  A Europe First strategy can only exist if meaningful combat against the enemy in Europe is possible.  It is a very Clauswitzian approach.  One seeks to meet and destroy the main enemy force.  Quite correctly this was seen to be the Wehrmacht.  Consequently air assets were sent to destroy the German logistics, Torch and Husky were undertaken as holding actions whilst the big show Overlord, which the Americans always pushed most strenuously, was prepared.
 
2.  The main American allies were European countries and without their wholehearted participation and territorial bases, victory over a Germany which controlled the industrial resources of Europe, could not be achieved.  Accordingly the bulk of Lend Lease simply had to go to the UK and the Soviet Union.
 
3.  The USA was only primus inter pares of the Western powers; it could nudge, cajole but not unilaterally demand the other western powers to follow its wishes.  It did not have even that leverage against the Soviet Union.  There was always the fear that if Soviet demands were not accommodated, the Soviet Union would drop out of the war against Germany.  If that eventuated, all bets were off as to whether it would be possible to defeat Germany at all.  Stalin was in constant fear that the West would sell him out and if the idea ever took firm hold in his mind that they were doing so, the odds that a separate peace between Germany and the USSR would have increased markedly.  Hence why the Americans bent over backwards in 1942-44 to demonstrate to Stalin that they were pulling their weight fighting Germany.
 
 
As your alternate history mod is predicated on:
 

• Germany and the USSR being allies, not fighting each other to the death
• no meaningful fighting anywhere in Europe
• no significant European allies of America to be accommodated

there really isn't a basis to underpin a Europe first strategy.  Instead the fighting against the Germans and Italians you envisage as occurring would take place only in Asia and is not of a Clauswitzian nature.  That being so the assets would be sent to where they could be used.  That isn't Europe.
 
So rather than a Europe First strategy, which is largely a meaningless concept in your alternate history mod, the real question is: Is America safe from invasion (both sea and overland)?  If the answer is in the affirmative then assets can be sent offshore but if the answer is in the negative, then substantial assets would have to be retained in CONUS and thus not available to be sent off shore to the Pacific to oppose the Japanese and the small expeditionary German forces operating out of Ceylon and Italian from the AOI.
 
Alfred 

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I doubt Sealion could have ever succeeded. A more likely scenario would be that when Chamberlin's government fell in May 1940, instead of Churchill, Lord Halifax is picked. Halifax was seriously considered, but he bowed out, he was also pro-Nazi and would have likely sued for peace with Germany. In this scenario England would probably still exist as an independent country and probably neutral, but it would be in Hitler's pocket. Hitler would probably have invaded the USSR knowing his back was safe.

Hitler would probably not declare war on the US in December 1941 because he would have no need to send U-boats into US territorial waters to hunt tankers bound for England as he did within a day or two of declaring war on the US.

If the US was able to send all its strength into the Pacific, it would have meant a much stronger USAAF presence, but otherwise probably wouldn't have made a huge difference. The limiting factor for full scale US offensive in that theater was ships, especially carriers and invasion capable ships and all the carriers went to the Pacific anyway. The US would have been able to put forth larger invasion fleets with no European war, but then the number of carriers would have been the primary limiting factor.

Bill

I think without the loss of the ships in the Atlantic, the US could have focused its naval construction differently. This would have allowed more transports to be built but I think they could have built more carriers, they would have been CVL's since the larger yards would already have what ever was historically planned.

[traskott]

With Germany controling Europe, not fighting against URSS ( the only army capable of withstand the casualties needed to stop the panzers ), with Asia almost conquered, the question is if USA would go to the war. Even P.H. wouldn't be enough to mobilize the country against, basically, the whole world.

[oldman45]

I am not sure what kind of real threat Germany could have presented to the US. I don't have the numbers in front of me but if we just think about ships in the Atlantic fleet how could Germany attacked the US even with Italian support. Factor in the AAF and there would be no hope. Traskott makes a good point, if Germany manages to get GB out of the war either with force or diplomacy I am not sure the US Congress would have gone to war. So if Japan only attacks the Brits and Dutch there are no treaties pulling us into a war in the pacific. So much for our game... [;)] Whats worse, lets say the Brits stay in the war but the home country is conquered, are we sure all the colonies would support continuing the war with Germany? If I recall South Africa needed a little arm twisting to join in.

[wdolson]

The rule of thumb in 20th century conflict is that to occupy a territory you need 20 troops per 1000 population. The only successful 20th century occupation with a smaller army was Japan which quickly dropped to 6 per 1000 because the Japanese government was so effective at policing their own population. All other occupations that brought fewer than 20 per 1000 failed.

When invading initially, the force usually had to be more than 20 per 1000 because you had to defeat the standing army first unless there was a huge disparity of forces at the get go.

To occupy the United States based on the 1940 census would have required an army of 2.6 million troops. To initially invade might have taken close to 10 times that.

The Germans put about 18-20 million under arms, so they could conceivably occupied the US, but the next question is, how do they get there? The Germans had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to cobble together a rag tag fleet for Sealion. Many historians thought it wouldn't have been enough. It would have been a very risky operation in any case.

Ironically only one navy in history has had enough lift capability to come even close to moving enough troops to invade North American successfully, that was the 1945 US Navy. The only hope of invading the US would be via a land route and any invasion of any country in the western hemisphere by an Old World power would have brought out the US in force to counter it. An invasion anywhere in South America would mean fighting the US in South America and having to push back a large continental force with the world's biggest industrial base and a large population backing them up. Their supply lines would be getting ever shorter and yours ever longer.

Bill

[Mundy]

The German Navy got beat up dealing with Norway. Sealion was a no-go. They'd have never made it across the Atlantic.

Even if (a bit if) they got 1-2 CVs in service, 1-2 USN CVs would have ended such an adventure quickly.

Not to mention, a rifle behind every blade of grass...

Ed-

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Let's see if I have your mod's "facts" correct.

1.  France was defeated in 1940 and the historical Vichy regime set up.  No formal peace treaty signed with Germany and Italy because of point 2 below.

2.  The British Empire is still at war with Germany and Italy even though Sealion succeeded in 1940.  The UK government and the King escaped to Canada.  The Dutch government moved from the UK to the DEI (or perhaps Curacao) and also remains at war with Germany.

3.  The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact remains in place.  Consequently Germany and the Soviet Union remain as allies albeit the Soviet Union is not at war with the British Empire.

4.  Fighting between the British Empire and Germany/Italy continues in North Africa.  The Italian AOI remains under British occupation.  German and Italian subs still operate against British SLOCs in the Atlantic.

5.  The USA remains neutral but continues to provide Lend Lease to the British Empire.

6.  Japan still goes to war against the USA, the British Empire and the Netherlands on 7 December 1941.  Both Germany and Italy support Japan by subsequently also declaring war against the USA.


The above scenario is very important because it means certain historical contractual arrangements remain in place.  These arrangements severely circumscribe your freedom of manoeuvre.

Alfred

Hi Albert,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think this will be a fruitful discussion. Everything except # 4 is the case. The British lose North Africa as well and are driven out of the Middle East and eventually out of India. The British only retain S. Africa, Malaysia and other pacific holdings as well as Australia and Canada remaining. The British government in exile is in Canada. . Also French colonies follow the example of the British and Dutch and remain "free".

if Germany would really be able to take the British isles then there wouldn't be any fighting in North Africa anymore, let alone when there isn't a war vs Russia. The Allied had enough problem with the Africa Corps,
how would that look like against the whole Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine? Compared to what was operating on the Eastern Front, the Africa Corps was kind of a pityful force.
Britain conquered, no war with Russia, NO chance for the US to do anything in Europe. Same goes for Germany, they couldn't do much
but sending some U-boats and supporting the Japanese some more with technology and some ressources perhaps but that's it then. The US would fully focus on Japan and would blow them away perhaps a year earlier, even
though it still takes the same time to build all those ships for the Pacific war.

But the whole thought about such a scenario is a little far stretched IMO.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Alfred,

Thank you again for your reply.

(I apologize. I just looked above and realized I typed "Albert" instead of Alfred. Damn, I think I must be getting Alzeimer's or something. [:@])

I suppose I could have the US enter the war early but too late to really pitch in and help Britain. (with the Pacific being sort of a quiet front at first) That would essentially mean that the "Allies" would still exist after the fall of Britain. With the "Allies" still in existence and some good propaganda, perhaps the European colonies hold out and fight along side with the US in hopes that the US will be able to liberate their homelands. Or do you think the US would have sued for peace rather than go it alone?

Ultimately the purpose of this thread is to help develop the "background story" to my mod. So I appreciate any input. So far these are some of the talking points:

1. No naval treaties of any kind. (The Treaty of Versailles happened and WW1 happened, etc. however, there is no Great Depression and the major economies are able to create large militaries.)
2. Germany and Italy are occupying Ceylon which will be the springboard for their Pacific Campaign.  
3. Ultimately this will be a major military "clash of the titans" centering on the PTO and involving Germany, Italy, Japan, Thailand versus the Allies. There will be both a "Free India" movement and an "Indian Nationalist" movement, so India will be augmenting both sides.

hey Gary, you really got some interesting thoughts there but I have to ask the question if everything should stay somewhere in the range of possible outcomes or just some fantasy? If that little chance of occupying
Britain succeeding and no war with Russia, how on Earth would the German and Italian wage a war in the Pacific? Having a very optimistic thought about Germany knocking out Britain and not attacking Russia (vice versa)
then I am 100% sure there would be no German/Italian/Japanese war vs the US in the Pacific. How would they get there and for what reason would they do so?

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
hey Gary, you really got some interesting thoughts there but I have to ask the question if everything should stay somewhere in the range of possible outcomes or just some fantasy? If that little chance of occupying
Britain succeeding and no war with Russia, how on Earth would the German and Italian wage a war in the Pacific? Having a very optimistic thought about Germany knocking out Britain and not attacking Russia (vice versa)
then I am 100% sure there would be no German/Italian/Japanese war vs the US in the Pacific. How would they get there and for what reason would they do so?

Hi folks. Just my humble opinion on life the universe and everything, that might help with the quest. It's basically .. who cares?

There's no way to construct a scenario of this kind with any degree of historicity. So why bother to construct a premise? All a premise does is confuse, obfuscate, and obscure the main scenario thrust. WPO was offered, and well accepted, without any prior discussion of realities.

If one is looking for a discussion that validates the scenario premise, one will never find it. So why bother? It's an interesting premise, so why not just do it? and let the chips fall where they may?

We've done quite a few "fantasy" scenarios in Babes and didn't ask for anybody's permission or input. It was take-it-as-it-is, and they were still well received. So if you think you have something that the community will accept, just do it !! Don't ask, just do it !! IMHO, J

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: castor troy
hey Gary, you really got some interesting thoughts there but I have to ask the question if everything should stay somewhere in the range of possible outcomes or just some fantasy? If that little chance of occupying
Britain succeeding and no war with Russia, how on Earth would the German and Italian wage a war in the Pacific? Having a very optimistic thought about Germany knocking out Britain and not attacking Russia (vice versa)
then I am 100% sure there would be no German/Italian/Japanese war vs the US in the Pacific. How would they get there and for what reason would they do so?

Hi folks. Just my humble opinion on life the universe and everything, that might help with the quest. It's basically .. who cares?

There's no way to construct a scenario of this kind with any degree of historicity. So why bother to construct a premise? All a premise does is confuse, obfuscate, and obscure the main scenario thrust. WPO was offered, and well accepted, without any prior discussion of realities.

If one is looking for a discussion that validates the scenario premise, one will never find it. So why bother? It's an interesting premise, so why not just do it? and let the chips fall where they may?

We've done quite a few "fantasy" scenarios in Babes and didn't ask for anybody's permission or input. It was take-it-as-it-is, and they were still well received. So if you think you have something that the community will accept, just do it !! Don't ask, just do it !! IMHO, J

Thank you JWE. As usual, I think you've pretty much cut to the heart of the matter. [&o]

This is just going to be a mod created for no other purpose than enjoyment. Maybe I'll change the name to WitP Chess or something. It'll have Germans, Italians and the kitchen sink squaring off in the Pacific. Take it or leave it. [8D]

[msieving1]

The general situation (UK and France conquered, US opposed by Germany, Italy, and Japan) was covered in the Rainbow 4 war plan. A key question that hasn't been answered is, what happened to the British and French fleets?

If the RN and French navy were destroyed, the US has some breathing room. If Germany and Italy control the British and French fleets, then the Axis potentially have a fleet in the Atlantic that's superior to the US Navy. In that case, the US isn't doing much in the Pacific. Nearly all the US fleet would be in the Caribbean and along the east coast.

Best case of course is that the RN escaped to Canada, but that's not very likely. I can't imagine the RN running away while Great Britain is invaded. They're either going down fighting or they'll be captured. So the US Navy is going to have to replace the RN in the Atlantic or counter it. Either way, it's going to require more US naval forces in the Atlantic than historically.

With respect, I have to disagree with a couple of Alfred's points. Alfred said that Germany would not maintain an occupation of France. I can't see why not. At the very least they would occupy the French (and British) naval bases and make sure that the bulk of industrial output went to the Reich. France and the UK would be as much German puppets as Manchukuo was a Japanese puppet.

Also, the US "Germany First" policy wasn't just an accommodation to our European allies. It was a recognition by the US that Germany was by far a greater threat to US interests than Japan. It's hard to see why the US would conclude that a Germany that has conquered the UK would be less of a threat.

Rainbow 4 called for an essentially defensive strategy. The US would occupy British, French, and Dutch holdings in the Western Hemisphere, defend the Caribbean, Brazil, and the west coast of South America, and maintain communications in the Western Atlantic and with Hawaii and Alaska in the Pacific. The plan called for use of US military force to counter Fascist or Communist movements in Mexico and South America. It would be a very different war than what happened historically.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
This is just going to be a mod created for no other purpose than enjoyment. Maybe I'll change the name to WitP Chess or something. It'll have Germans, Italians and the kitchen sink squaring off in the Pacific. Take it or leave it. [8D]

I absolutely agree, Gary. Mods are for the margins [8D]. Discussing the premise is fun, but it don't lead anywhere functional.

Just grip-it and rip-it [:D]. I think it might be fun to play. But be careful with the Eff of the "kitchen sink" [:D].

Ciao. JWE

[btd64]

Gary, Symon hit the nail on the head. Just dig in and have fun.[;)] When your done, myself and I think many others will be here to play it.[:)]
Cheers Man