If the USA went into WW2 in June 1940 (Mexico, 1930s, biggest)

[383man]

Originally Posted by John-UK

You must stop making things up.

Ah if anybody is making things up its you. Its just no way it could have ever been done. Ok sure there was many countries with 45 million males in them like say China whose army reached about 5 million with about 14 million who served. And thats the most populated country in the world. Heck the USSR had 190 million and the US had 130 million as they may have had 45 million males or close but no one could train , equip and move the troops even if they had the means to try and raise that many. It dont matter how many people were in the Empire they could never even call up that many or even think to train them. So why even say it if there is no way on earth it could be done and you yourself even addmitted they could not equip them and we both know they could not train or ship them or even 5 million as I would think a world war is about the best reason ever to call as many troops as they could since they were loosing alot of the Empire during the war. No country or Empire in the world could have done it and the British Empire did not have any country able to even raise more then 5 million . It was just no way it could have been done or even close. Ron

[John-UK]

Originally Posted by 383man

Ah if anybody is making things up its you. Its just no way it could have ever been done. Ok sure there was many countries with 45 million males in them like say China

Not Ron again, who cannot add up. The British Empire held one fifth of the world's population. Get used to it. They could raise an army of 45 million - even the Turks recognised that. Not what you have been conditioned to believe of course, but fact.

[xander.XVII]

The only source is a Turkish ambassador?

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by John-UK

Not Ron again, who cannot add up. The British Empire held one fifth of the world's population. Get used to it. They could raise an army of 45 million - even the Turks recognised that. Not what you have been conditioned to believe of course, but fact.

I believe they had 45 million bodies to throw at the war, but "raising an army of 45 million" was an absolute impossibility. Even the "bodies" would require dipping heavily into the manpower resources of India, which was not going to happen on a scale needed to reach "45 million" without massive concessions to the INC or risking revolution. The Indian units that served overseas were mainly the original Indian Army forces with primarily British officers and highly loyal soldiers. The bulk of the troops drafted that went into the Indian Army during the war did so to counter the direct threat of Japanese aggression. Even that recruitment resulted in a response from the INC who were non too happy with British policies.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by John-UK

You have to put yourself in May/June 1940. Look around and see what all have and what they were thinking. Being wise in hindsight does not help here.


So, major questions:

1. Would have Mussolini declared war in June 1940 with the USA in the war?
2. What prompted Japan to declare war on the British Empire and the USA in Dec 1941 was that they thought the USSR was about to fall - it never and they were facing the world's two largest economies - exactly what they never wanted. Would have Japan been so foolish to declare war on the UK & US if Germany was not pushing back the USSR?
3. Would have Germany invaded the USSR? Recall that Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941 only for its resources when the USA was not in the war. Invading the USSR mean they leaves the western flank open to invasion by the UK & USA.

Originally Posted by xander.XVII

If the US had joined in May 1940, I doubt Italy would have joined Axis, hence we have no North Africa, no Taranto (therefore, what is it going to happen at Pearl Harbor?), no Tunisia, no Torch, no Sicily and no Italian Campaign, that means A LOT of forces.
It also means roughly 500,000 tons of ships NOT sunk by Italian submarines in the Atlantic (BETASOM), it means perhaps no Yugoslavia hence no Tito?
It also means 230,000 men less in Russia (CSIR then ARMIR), it means even more ships dedicated to fight U-boot (in this field Germans could have done MUCH MUCH MUCH more by the way), it means more men and airplane against Germany and perhaps it means that British possessions in the Far East are far better defended, it means that Japan might have never attacked considering that US forces would have been much readier.
It changes A LOT, just see how much the small, little and insignificant Italy changes without entering in war, let alone Japan.

1. I believe very strongly that Italy would have stayed neutral if the USA came in early. As Xander points out this would have a major impact, including the planning of a possible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (no Taranto attack to serve as an example). Indeed most the American battleships might have been in the Atlantic so no major Pearl Harbor raid.

2. I am not really sure about Japan.

3. Not sure but Germany may very well have attacked the USSR anyway because it wanted to defeat the Russians before the Anglo Americans built up their strength to maximum potential. In other words, he did not want to face the Western Allies when they reached full strength and then have Stalin attack in the back.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by LINative

1. I believe very strongly that Italy would have stayed neutral if the USA came in early. As Xander points out this would have a major impact, including the planning of a possible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (no Taranto attack to serve as an example). Indeed most the American battleships might have been in the Atlantic so no major Pearl Harbor raid.

Italy is the wildcard. I agree that it's questionable whether or not Italy would join in if the US had already joined. It really depends on the series of events doesn't it? Italy joined because France collapsed. If that still happens before US intervention, then no reason why Italy wouldn't join. If America is involved earlier than that, then maybe it would influence them.

2. I am not really sure about Japan.

I don't agree with John-UK that Japan's impetus to fight had to do with the Soviet Union and their war with Germany. Japan wanted resource security, period. They looked to the south to get it and that meant war with the US and UK. Assuming the timeline with Japan stays the same, there is no reason they wouldn't have joined. In fact, the US already being at war, may have even encouraged them more.

3. Not sure but Germany may very well have attacked the USSR anyway because it wanted to defeat the Russians before the Anglo Americans built up their strength to maximum potential. In other words, he did not want to face the Western Allies when they reached full strength and then have Stalin attack in the back.

This is actually very accurate to Hitler's thinking. The Germans believed it would take the US several years to build up forces to influence the war. The gross underestimation of US industrial capacity and the ability to move the country to a war footing was a colossal blunder. Early US entry may even have accelerated Hitler's desire to invade Russia. Remember, the plan was to attack and knock Russia out quickly, not engage in a war of attrition. US entry didn't really matter to Hitler in terms of his designs on the Soviet Union.

[LINative]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

Italy is the wildcard. I agree that it's questionable whether or not Italy would join in if the US had already joined. It really depends on the series of events doesn't it? Italy joined because France collapsed. If that still happens before US intervention, then no reason why Italy wouldn't join. If America is involved earlier than that, then maybe it would influence them.



I don't agree with John-UK that Japan's impetus to fight had to do with the Soviet Union and their war with Germany. Japan wanted resource security, period. They looked to the south to get it and that meant war with the US and UK. Assuming the timeline with Japan stays the same, there is no reason they wouldn't have joined. In fact, the US already being at war, may have even encouraged them more.



This is actually very accurate to Hitler's thinking. The Germans believed it would take the US several years to build up forces to influence the war. The gross underestimation of US industrial capacity and the ability to move the country to a war footing was a colossal blunder. Early US entry may even have accelerated Hitler's desire to invade Russia. Remember, the plan was to attack and knock Russia out quickly, not engage in a war of attrition. US entry didn't really matter to Hitler in terms of his designs on the Soviet Union.

1. ITALY - I am assuming for purposes of discussion on this thread that America declared war on Germany before Italy entered the war. Otherwise it may have gone off exactly like in real life.

The thing about Italy is that, unlike Germany, the Italians are vulnerable to attacks from the sea. In fact we saw this in real life in 1943. Italy is a long peninsula with offshore islands and (in 1940) colonies overseas. The United States in 1940 had a powerful and growing navy, which combined with the Royal Navy would have cut Italy off from her colonies. This would have given pause to Mussolini I am sure, after all he wanted to gain territory for Italy - not loose it!

2. JAPAN - good points about Japan, I did not even think about that.

3. GERMANY - pretty much spot on.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by John-UK

Not Ron again, who cannot add up. The British Empire held one fifth of the world's population. Get used to it. They could raise an army of 45 million - even the Turks recognised that. Not what you have been conditioned to believe of course, but fact.

The British empire was basic broke and they could not comment any more troops shortly after D Day which is why they borrowed US divisions there after. Raising 45 million people is quite different from 45 million member army. The same story in WWI. Long before WWII the British had started to be too thin even in use navy to control the empire. That is why they agreed to the Washington naval conference. WWI started the collapse of empire which is much of what German wanted and why it struck. Without convoy aid from US the island would have been a castle facing starvation. Even after the war Britain faced rationing lower than US during the war and collapsed its defense budget to survive. Churchhill and others in their writings tell just how bad off it was.

[texdav]

I also don't think it was so clear any more than likely hood Obama will invade Iraq again. I think few now understand how Americans felt about Europe after WWI. That is evident by Wilson's action of leaving the talks and congress wanting nothing to do with France's and England terms of peace. Pearl harbor and axis pact changed everything.

[Troyfan]

In June 1940, Germany and the USSR were allies. American communists were deeply imbedded in the Roosevelt administration never would have allowed the US to enter the war on the side of Germany's enemies.

It wasn't until Germany invaded the USSR the next year that US entry into the war on the side of France and Britain became desirable, desperately desirable. Even long after, American communists called leftists who advocated an early war against Germany "premature anti-fascists".