-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Assuming we're talking about a 1941 that is otherwise accurate, so Germany largely rules Europe but chooses not to stack Russia, then the USA would have to make this very hypothetical attack from the east. This would mean capturing Vladivostok and then slowly and arduously move large armies through Siberia.
Sounds like a terrible idea.
I'd love to hear how you think they'd win.
Sounds like a terrible idea.
I'd love to hear how you think they'd win.
Germany, Italy and Japan, because their enemies are too busy killing eachother to pay attention to their conquests, leaving Britain pretty much alone against the whole Axis.
Please, enlighten us how this would be possible. I don't even see an opportunity for one side to invade the other unless the USA decides to join the Axis...
Well, why?
Moreover, who says anyone wins? The only chance for conflict comes when the two powers can meet. You therefore have either the USSR taking the fight to the USA (practically impossible) or the USA taking the fight to the USSR (essentially limited to a Siberian landing). The resulting conflict would hardly be an epic clash of the titans and more a limited border squabble.
If however you're asking for a simple assessment of who was the most powerful, the answer is the USA. In almost every regard save standing military (and even here in naval power) the USA holds the advantage.
Moreover, who says anyone wins? The only chance for conflict comes when the two powers can meet. You therefore have either the USSR taking the fight to the USA (practically impossible) or the USA taking the fight to the USSR (essentially limited to a Siberian landing). The resulting conflict would hardly be an epic clash of the titans and more a limited border squabble.
If however you're asking for a simple assessment of who was the most powerful, the answer is the USA. In almost every regard save standing military (and even here in naval power) the USA holds the advantage.
- 1
The US was only willing to mobilize after:
War crimes
Attacks on American military AND civilians
A great threat to the global balance of power
The aggressors repeatedly lied and broke treaties that were meant to avoid conflict
So the Soviets win hands down. Stalin wasn't an idiot like Hitler. If he started getting aggressive he would be offered a reasonable deal to end the aggression and he would take it. The way for a war to break out would be a proxy war like what broke out in Korea in 1950. But if such a proxy war broke out in 1941 it would be happening before the American military industrial complex existed. The US could flood their side of the conflict in small arms and artillery shells but wouldn't have a military to speak of.
War crimes
Attacks on American military AND civilians
A great threat to the global balance of power
The aggressors repeatedly lied and broke treaties that were meant to avoid conflict
So the Soviets win hands down. Stalin wasn't an idiot like Hitler. If he started getting aggressive he would be offered a reasonable deal to end the aggression and he would take it. The way for a war to break out would be a proxy war like what broke out in Korea in 1950. But if such a proxy war broke out in 1941 it would be happening before the American military industrial complex existed. The US could flood their side of the conflict in small arms and artillery shells but wouldn't have a military to speak of.
a better question would be what would there be to win for them?
USSR has a huge land mass with huge low grade army and equipment and no navy to speak of; USA also has fairly huge land mass with loads of money with a huge navy.
Both have loads of resources
USSR is not going to be able to cross any body of water and USA is going to have a very had time pushing all the way to Moscow.
In a small conflict there would not be a war between USA and USSR, because USA was isolationist. So USSR would have to pull something major like invading China (possible I guess), Japan and/or the south pacific (the latter would be very theoretical). Then the USA would I guess open up its arsenal of democracy for China without wanting to be involved with its own men.
USSR has a huge land mass with huge low grade army and equipment and no navy to speak of; USA also has fairly huge land mass with loads of money with a huge navy.
Both have loads of resources
USSR is not going to be able to cross any body of water and USA is going to have a very had time pushing all the way to Moscow.
In a small conflict there would not be a war between USA and USSR, because USA was isolationist. So USSR would have to pull something major like invading China (possible I guess), Japan and/or the south pacific (the latter would be very theoretical). Then the USA would I guess open up its arsenal of democracy for China without wanting to be involved with its own men.
Yeah, the US wanted to do this with regards to Germany until Germany was unexpectedly successful against France. They didn't want to send troops but they were gearing up to send a huge quantity of weapons which ended up instead going to Britain.
- 1
Germany had direct land access to the smooth and welcoming European part of the USSR, a rolling war machine and ability to attack by surprise.
The USA would have only 3 points where to land - Kola, Leningrad and Ukraine.
What would make the USA successful there?
The USA would have only 3 points where to land - Kola, Leningrad and Ukraine.
What would make the USA successful there?
This conflict is troubled by the fact that it doesn't make any sense for either to attack either one at this time. Stalin wasn't going to commit suicide by attacking the US, distracting from his more current threats from the Axis Powers, and pushing the USA in the arms of the Allies. The USA wasn't going to attack because it wasn't going to do a war of aggression when it didn't want war at all.
If US joins Axis, they could have broken the USSR perhaps. On their own, nope!, even if they were more advanced and more powerful. With no direct land border , occupying a continent sized country and keeping everyone in check and supply lines open would be virtually impossible without commiting genocide. Not something I see the US doing. Also the fervent nationalism of USSR under Stalin doesn't allow for an easy coup either and it would have dragged out into a prolonged war.
So no, I don't believe the US could accomplish what Hitler couldn't (on their own).
So no, I don't believe the US could accomplish what Hitler couldn't (on their own).
Even economic US assistance for the Axis would probably be enough. The Axis didn't have enough food. While their genocidal death cult ideology made them brutal, the lack of food made them even worse. If they had food, there would have been less resistance to them.
- 1
The USA joining the Axis in 1941 is almost immediate game over. Canada was a huge contributor; they'd be put on the immediate defensive and external contributions would dry up. The British navy would have to abandon its multiple theaters in the face of the USA's naval threat; this plus the return of trade to Japan would mean the various Pacific allies are done for, Italy owns the Mediterranean, etc. Many South American nations were pushed into Allied support due to American entry and trade profits; these contributors (eg Chile's raw materials) would most likely now be pro-Axis. I suspect Britain can hold onto waters in range of home air bases, but ANYWHERE else the USA can put supplies with relative impunity. It's not even close to a fair fight here.
- 1
The Royal Navy would have had a hell of a fight ahead of them, that's for sure! But in 1941 the US Navy was not as overwhelming as it would be 2 or 3 years later. Of course this is purely hypothetical but if they sortied into the eastern Atlantic that would have been a high risk operation for them. The RN was already battle hardened from fighting the Germans and Italians, and was constantly surveying the Atlantic with recon planes from various island bases. while the US Navy was still very green and had a steep learning curve ahead of them. Shitty torpedoes, crummy peace time officers not yet weeded out, crap radar drills, etc. The British would already have carrier based raids down to an art form while the US Navy would still be under pre-Pearl Harbor attitudes.
Yeah but each british victory is just buying them time before they are cut off. It's like Jutland but in reverse.
- 2
Maybe so. But the point I was trying to make is, the USA were NOT going to go game over on Britain in 1941 or 1942, they just weren't that strong yet. Their army was crap even with all the buildup under FDR and needed some serious campaigning to get a grip on the realities of war(Kasserine pass and all that), and the navy was vastly overconfident and blind to its own weaknesses (exhibit A: pearl harbor OTL).
Pearl Harbor is an example of giving the enemy too much credit for rational assessment, not imcompetence.
- 1
Pearl Harbor was a disaster for the US not just because they underestimated the Japanese, but also because they overestimated the US navy's defences. Failure on many levels of military leadership.
