AHC: USA loses war to Germany (1919 start point)

[Forth Eorlingas]

Challenge: with a POD of 1919, the Treaty of Versailles, Germany and the USA fight a major war where Germany wins a clear cut victory and America acknowledges defeat.

3 conditions:
- The war starts during or before 1941.
- If Germany wins with allies, Germany must contribute half or more of the war effort.
- no direct changes to the US, but changes in Germany causing butterfly effects in US are OK

 

[kham_coc]

Well I would immagine that otl minus barbarossa works. DDay is a fantasy with no eastern front.

 

[Jedi Dragon]

otl minus barbarossa works

I'd add the Germans putting more effort towards the Mediterranean and pushing the British out. Even if they don't get a formal peace settlement, the Allies won't be able to invade Europe.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

- no direct changes to the US, but changes in Germany causing butterfly effects in US are OK

Not achievable without direct changes to America. The only way America loses the war is if its industrial capacity is somehow destroyed.

 

[RCAF Brat]

Not achievable without direct changes to America. The only way America loses the war is if its industrial capacity is somehow destroyed.

It is achievable, so long as Germany has/gets a decent intercontinental bomber (a B-36 analogue) and is the first to acquire nuclear weapons.

 

[RedSword12]

Not achievable without direct changes to America. The only way America loses the war is if its industrial capacity is somehow destroyed.

That's too limited. Wars aren't decided by material but whether will is sufficient to carry that material advantage to victory. If America isn't invested in the war, a political settlement is entirely possible. We would've stayed in Vietnam as long as it took if we were utterly convinced it was just and necessary.

 

[Gudestein]

The most plausible way is if US intervenes to help the British and the British still throw in the towel. That is not too easy but I suppose possible.

 

[Samsonov]

Pretty unrealistic but here is my suggestion. Basically, no one thinks aircraft carriers are any good in 1919, so they are not covered by the treaty of Versailles. Consequently, German builds a fair number of them, though not enough to spook anyone else. They are covered by the Washington naval treaty, but people still think they are not great, so people use their tonnage on battleships. I am struggling to think why war breaks out, with all other powers neutral but a major naval battle occurs and German air craft carriers decimate the US fleet. Peace treaty follows which favours Germany.

 

[Maponus]

An isolationist America stays out of the first world war, which Germany wins just narrowly enough that they are still radicalised enough to become paranoid anti-liberal authoritarians while falling short of Nazism. This is then followed by another war a decade or so later which Germany wins more, dropping a atomic bomb on London, prompting the collapse of the British Empire and shocking the bejesus out of the previously complacent US public. Then a Cold War occurs in which the hastily awakened US giant, suddenly aware that stratocratic Germany is determined to end Anglo-American style liberal capitalism forever, faces off against the hegemon of Europe in a series of proxy wars in Africa, India and Asia. Inexperienced and soft from years of isolationism, America is unable to bring it's many of its local allies to victory while experienced German advisors and advanced Germans arms are the best asset any post-British warlord could hope for.

 

[steamboy]

One massive problem. The Atlantic and the UK are in the way, the logistics of the US being defeated by Germany when the US's industrial base is basically untouchable are boggling. You'd also have to build up a fleet that is capable of going across the Atlantic, defeating the USN, and then landing troops and tanks and keeping them supplied.

Short of Yellowstone going up and the US also being hit by meteor's, as well as Odin and co somehow throwing their lot in with Nazis, not going to happen.

Oh and if the UK is defeated and somehow gives up Canada and the germans use that as a staging point, the US would react to there being tanks and infantry in Canada. They'd no go "Well that Nice Mr Hitler and friends just conquered Europe and our diplomacy is in the pan, but I'm sure those tanks and artillery and soldiers are here in Canada on holiday and nothing will happen to us."

 

[RedSword12]

One massive problem. The Atlantic and the UK are in the way, the logistics of the US being defeated by Germany when the US's industrial base is basically untouchable are boggling. You'd also have to build up a fleet that is capable of going across the Atlantic, defeating the USN, and then landing troops and tanks and keeping them supplied.

Short of Yellowstone going up and the US also being hit by meteor's, as well as Odin and co somehow throwing their lot in with Nazis, not going to happen.

Oh and if the UK is defeated and somehow gives up Canada and the germans use that as a staging point, the US would react to there being tanks and infantry in Canada. They'd no go "Well that Nice Mr Hitler and friends just conquered Europe and our diplomacy is in the pan, but I'm sure those tanks and artillery and soldiers are here in Canada on holiday and nothing will happen to us."

The notion that it is impossible to defeat a country without setting foot in it is just plain untrue, as proven by numerous wars throughout history. Defeat is not defined by enemy boots marching through your capital, but by the denial of your objectives. Or did the Boers not win the First Boer War, just because they didn't stage a victory parade in Trafalgar Square? Or did the British win the Revolutionary War because Washington didn't conquer Britain? Was a NVA parade in Washington DC required to make the Vietnam War an American defeat?

 

[steamboy]

The notion that it is impossible to defeat a country without setting foot in it is just plain untrue, as proven by numerous wars throughout history. Defeat is not defined by enemy boots marching through your capital, but by the denial of your objectives. Or did the Boers not win the First Boer War, just because they didn't stage a victory parade in Trafalgar Square? Or did the British win the Revolutionary War because Washington didn't conquer Britain? Was a NVA parade in Washington DC required to make the Vietnam War an American defeat?

There's a tad of a difference between those wars, which were regional ones compared to a WW2 scale conflict.

 

[RedSword12]

There's a tad of a difference between those wars, which were regional ones compared to a WW2 scale conflict.

Limited regional wars between Great Powers are hardly unheard of. Did the Anglo-French alliance lose the Crimean War, since they didn't conquer Russia and stage a victory parade in Saint Petersburg?

 

[steamboy]

Pendantics aside, in a full on WW2 style clash, you're not going to get the US to get to the barganing table without feet on the ground, and good luck getting forces over to do that.

 

[prester.john208]

Pendantics aside, in a full on WW2 style clash, you're not going to get the US to get to the barganing table without feet on the ground, and good luck getting forces over to do that.

With no Eastern Front, there's no way for either side to invade the other. About as futile as a Bolivia vs Tibet vs Switzerland vs Armenia four way war.

Navarre, Luxembourg, Laos, Lesotho and San Marino debate whether and when to join the war, or to just kick off a separate postage stamp revenue war that threatens to draw in the Vatican, Lichtenstein and Monaco.

 

[Garrison]

I'd add the Germans putting more effort towards the Mediterranean and pushing the British out. Even if they don't get a formal peace settlement, the Allies won't be able to invade Europe.

The Germans put as much effort into the Med as their logisitics would allow, they can't sustain a larger force and they were lucky to achieve as much as they did. Rommel's plans for reaching Suez or even India was pure fantasy.

Overall Germany defeating the USA post 1919 is the stuff of novels, not something that is remotely plausible.

 

[Crazyduck156]

I'd add the Germans putting more effort towards the Mediterranean and pushing the British out. Even if they don't get a formal peace settlement, the Allies won't be able to invade Europe.

I don't see how losing the Med stops an invasion of Europe if the Allies are determined to see it through. Southern europe and Italy maybe but D-Day didn't depart from Tripoli...

 

[prester.john208]

I don't see how losing the Med stops an invasion of Europe if the Allies are determined to see it through. Southern europe and Italy maybe but D-Day didn't depart from Tripoli...

Huge German army, not made up of teenagers, old men, medical invalids and Ost battalions, equipped with top of the line gear and not with cast offs or captured French gear. No allied air supremacy, more successful uboat war and likely aggressive Vichy neutrality.

Allied units landing on DDay will either have a record of losing or never having been in combat.

Raid on Dieppe likely a much bigger disaster as the garrisons stronger as are the reacting units.

Churchill might fall after losing Greece, Norway, Egypt, Cyprus, Suez, Malta and now Dieppe. OTOH he can point to successful attacks/ship stealing against former allies at Mers-el-Kébir, Alexandria, Plymouth and Dakar. They also sank unescorted French merchant ships at sea for trying to bring food to France.

 

[Crazyduck156]

Huge German army, not made up of teenagers, old men, medical invalids and Ost battalions, equipped with top of the line gear and not with cast offs or captured French gear. No allied air supremacy, more successful uboat war and likely aggressive Vichy neutrality.

Allied units landing on DDay will either have a record of losing or never having been in combat.

Raid on Dieppe likely a much bigger disaster as the garrisons stronger as are the reacting units.

The german army would still be pretty chewed up by barb (unless this barb was a cakewalk instead of a horrific grind-fest outside stalingrad/moscow etc before the soviets collapse), and air supremacy is a numbers/industrial game which the allies still have firmly on their side.

Losing north africa means one less "front" for the RN to have to hold which probably means less success for the U-Boats as more escort ships are freed up. And again, allied industrial, technological and naval supremacy means the U-boat campaign will fail sooner or later

And as for the units involved in D-Day correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure a good amount of them were "green" or hadn't been in direct combat for a while. The morale issue would be a concern definitely, but I reckon the morale impact on the axis forces of the allies starting to drop their instant-sun in a can come 1945 will be far worse

 

[Jedi Dragon]

The Germans put as much effort into the Med as their logisitics would allow, they can't sustain a larger force and they were lucky to achieve as much as they did. Rommel's plans for reaching Suez or even India was pure fantasy.

That's fair, I suppose. I was thinking that they at least postpone Barbarossa while launching Operation Hercules against Malta, thus removing a big threat to their supply lines. Even then, if America's in the game, the nukes are coming out, and we all know what that means.