ISOT What if the USA ISOTs from July 20th, 1945 to July 20th, 1944?

[raharris1973]

What if the United States, including all its 48 states, overseas territories and Commonwealths, territorial waters, and naval forces at sea are ISOT one year back in time from July 20th 1945 (this is four days after the Trinity test and four days after the battleship taking the ‘Little Boy’ bomb to the western Pacific started out from LA.) to July 20th, 1944.

Instead of the uptime 1945 USA just seeing its soldiers and citizens who stood in 1945 on ground in Europe and the Asia-Pacific that was still occupied by Axis troops one year earlier simply vanish into limbo or appear in Axis captivity, the ASBs safely deposit these people, their gear, shelter, and consumable supplies in rear areas like England and New Guinea.

What happens from there with the US, now under President Truman instead of Roosevelt and soon having atomic bombs to use, losing the previous year’s progress destroying the Axis and needing to refight battles to destroy them and liberate territories and set up the bases and infrastructure to use their capabilities to greatest effect?

 

[stevep]

What if the United States, including all its 48 states, overseas territories and Commonwealths, territorial waters, and naval forces at sea are ISOT one year back in time from July 20th 1945 (this is four days after the Trinity test and four days after the battleship taking the ‘Little Boy’ bomb to the western Pacific started out from LA.) to July 20th, 1944.

Instead of the uptime 1945 USA just seeing its soldiers and citizens who stood in 1945 on ground in Europe and the Asia-Pacific that was still occupied by Axis troops one year earlier simply vanish into limbo or appear in Axis captivity, the ASBs safely deposit these people, their gear, shelter, and consumable supplies in rear areas like England and New Guinea.

What happens from there with the US, now under President Truman instead of Roosevelt and soon having atomic bombs to use, losing the previous year’s progress destroying the Axis and needing to refight battles to destroy them and liberate territories and set up the bases and infrastructure to use their capabilities to greatest effect?

Well a lot of the people from 45 will be disheartened at having to fight those battles again in both Europe and the Far East and be aware of the colleagues lost or maimed in the lost year. However their also got a lot of people doubled as many of those already in action in both theatres in 44 are now duplicated by their 45 counterparts. As such massive amounts of equipment, ground, naval and air is appearing in Britain and New Guinea, which especially in the former is going to cause no end of chaos and logistical problems with the sheer numbers involved.

Also their a year advanced in technology as well as knowledge of enemy actions in the intervening period - albeit that some of the latter might change. About the only down-side for the US is that by July 45 their run down a fair bit of their military production but that could be reversed. For instance they now have a lot more B-29s and know that fire bombing terror raids is the way to go to devastate Japanese cities. Also their likely to be even more destructive of the IJN in the battle for the Philippines assuming that still goes ahead and they markedly more knowledge of how to defend against kamikazes.

Truman seemed less friendly toward Stalin than Roosevelt was and will be aware of the Soviet behaviour during the Warsaw uprising for instance. As such and with the bomb available he might switch its use to against Germany to seek a rapid surrender and push borders somewhat further east than OTL.

 

[raharris1973]

Well a lot of the people from 45 will be disheartened at having to fight those battles again in both Europe and the Far East and be aware of the colleagues lost or maimed in the lost year.

A couple Pacific battles will not have to be refought in the Pacific because of the arbitrary decision I made in the OP to make sure all US overseas territories and Commonwealths go back, so the Philippines and Guam, which were recovered between July '44 and July '45 are sent back to '44 with their 1945 forces. That gives them bases still pretty close to the Japanese homeland, though still not as close as Okinawa and Iwo Jima. And also, the situation for the Allies on the map actually is a little better in China in July 1944. The Japanese had taken Changsha in their Ichigo offensive but had not yet seized the continuous land and rail corridor between Wuhan and Guangzhou and Indochina, nor destroyed all the US east China airbases yet. Possibly 1945 US AirPower, in addition to burning down Japan, can also provide support from bases in the Philippines to blunt the Japanese attacks on the mainland? If there's a desire to avoid a repeat of the Okinawa and Iwo Jima invasions, there's the alternative of engaging the rather large Army forces in the Philippines and New Guinea in operations on the China coast, first to stop the Japanese success against the Chinese, then to counterattack and get ground close enough for proper escorted bombing and a-bombing of the home islands.

Perhaps rather than reinvade Iwo Jima with a repeat of the OTL operation, an A-Bomb is used for tactical support against the defenders at first?

 

[WolfBear]

What if the United States, including all its 48 states, overseas territories and Commonwealths, territorial waters, and naval forces at sea are ISOT one year back in time from July 20th 1945 (this is four days after the Trinity test and four days after the battleship taking the ‘Little Boy’ bomb to the western Pacific started out from LA.) to July 20th, 1944.

Instead of the uptime 1945 USA just seeing its soldiers and citizens who stood in 1945 on ground in Europe and the Asia-Pacific that was still occupied by Axis troops one year earlier simply vanish into limbo or appear in Axis captivity, the ASBs safely deposit these people, their gear, shelter, and consumable supplies in rear areas like England and New Guinea.

What happens from there with the US, now under President Truman instead of Roosevelt and soon having atomic bombs to use, losing the previous year’s progress destroying the Axis and needing to refight battles to destroy them and liberate territories and set up the bases and infrastructure to use their capabilities to greatest effect?

Are we talking about right after Stauffenberg's plot failing? If so, then many liberal Germans could view Germany getting nuked as a punishment for Stauffenberg's plot failing. I would expect the US to mercilessly nuke Germany to the best of its abilities in this TL, though I doubt that this would actually be enough for the Nazis to surrender and another coup would not be feasible after the aggressive purging and executions of the July 20th Plotters--not to mention the enhanced security around Hitler. The war in Europe could end several months sooner, maybe with a front line somewhat further to the east. Not sure just how much exactly. And the Japanese could surrender immediately after Germany goes down since they'll obviously be aware of what is in store for them afterwards. I do think that the US will refrain from nuking Japan until it is fully finished dealing with Germany, though. Germany was a more important and more deadly target, after all.

 

[ATP]

What if the United States, including all its 48 states, overseas territories and Commonwealths, territorial waters, and naval forces at sea are ISOT one year back in time from July 20th 1945 (this is four days after the Trinity test and four days after the battleship taking the ‘Little Boy’ bomb to the western Pacific started out from LA.) to July 20th, 1944.

Instead of the uptime 1945 USA just seeing its soldiers and citizens who stood in 1945 on ground in Europe and the Asia-Pacific that was still occupied by Axis troops one year earlier simply vanish into limbo or appear in Axis captivity, the ASBs safely deposit these people, their gear, shelter, and consumable supplies in rear areas like England and New Guinea.

What happens from there with the US, now under President Truman instead of Roosevelt and soon having atomic bombs to use, losing the previous year’s progress destroying the Axis and needing to refight battles to destroy them and liberate territories and set up the bases and infrastructure to use their capabilities to greatest effect?

Nothing change.Truman still gave up Poland to soviets for nothing in OTL,so he would do the same.
Well,one difference - americans would not get suprised in 1944 by germans in Ardennes.
And,USA would mass-produce M26 in 1944.
Aside from that,nothing change.

 

[stevep]

A couple Pacific battles will not have to be refought in the Pacific because of the arbitrary decision I made in the OP to make sure all US overseas territories and Commonwealths go back, so the Philippines and Guam, which were recovered between July '44 and July '45 are sent back to '44 with their 1945 forces. That gives them bases still pretty close to the Japanese homeland, though still not as close as Okinawa and Iwo Jima. And also, the situation for the Allies on the map actually is a little better in China in July 1944. The Japanese had taken Changsha in their Ichigo offensive but had not yet seized the continuous land and rail corridor between Wuhan and Guangzhou and Indochina, nor destroyed all the US east China airbases yet. Possibly 1945 US AirPower, in addition to burning down Japan, can also provide support from bases in the Philippines to blunt the Japanese attacks on the mainland? If there's a desire to avoid a repeat of the Okinawa and Iwo Jima invasions, there's the alternative of engaging the rather large Army forces in the Philippines and New Guinea in operations on the China coast, first to stop the Japanese success against the Chinese, then to counterattack and get ground close enough for proper escorted bombing and a-bombing of the home islands.

Perhaps rather than reinvade Iwo Jima with a repeat of the OTL operation, an A-Bomb is used for tactical support against the defenders at first?

Sorry missed that. There's going to be confusion on both sides as those territories have magically changed hands as far as the people in 1944 are aware and it also means that Japan will immediately lose all their forces on those territories [other than the post-invasion hold-outs]. However US forces are strong enough, both 44 & 45 to handle the resultant confusion and with the Philippines especially available as a forward base the Japanese economy is even further screwed as pretty much all the supply lines to the southern empire are cut.

The US seemed to be averse to using their ground forces in mainland China but it would be an interesting option. If they did do so and worked with local Chinese forces it could really put the screws on Japanese forces on the mainland. You could have something similar to the peninsula campaign in the Napoleonic wars with the Japanese needing to spread thin to hold ground and supply lines while also needing to concentrate to try and counter regular and well equipped US forces.

It might be an option using a nuke on somewhere like Iwo Jima especially as the allies weren't aware of the problems of fall-out yet. [I read once that the plans for the invasion of Japan included using nukes [plural] to clear beach defences prior to allied forces landing! ] However given that Germany was still putting up heavy resistance and the 45 US knows how much hard fighting was ahead they might be seen as best used against urban targets and inside Germany rather than Japan. If they could target wherever Hitler was then the Nazi regime could collapse into chaos and assorted factions fight for supreme control while even if WolfBear is right this would give the military a new both opportunity and very clear incentive to remove the Nazis and make peace, even on terms of unconditional surrender.

The Yalta Conference hasn't happened yet so there are no formal spheres of influence but even with Truman now in charge of the US I suspect that it will want the USSR as a 'friend' rather than openly challenging them so I would expect that Stalin will receive a share in the occupation of Germany which really means that Poland at least and probably the Czechs will end up in the Soviet sphere. The real area that might be saved from Soviet occupation could be much of the Balkans but the US was very reluctant to get involved there and famous hindered Churchill's attempts.

In terms of tactical changes as ATP says the US are less likely to be caught napping in a Bulge type battle and also there could be useful advice to Britain for the Burma campaign. Also the Normandy campaign is still in its fairly early stages so hopefully at least some lessons learnt OTL will be implemented there and elsewhere in France and Italy.

 

[stevep]

Are we talking about right after Stauffenberg's plot failing? If so, then many liberal Germans could view Germany getting nuked as a punishment for Stauffenberg's plot failing. I would expect the US to mercilessly nuke Germany to the best of its abilities in this TL, though I doubt that this would actually be enough for the Nazis to surrender and another coup would not be feasible after the aggressive purging and executions of the July 20th Plotters--not to mention the enhanced security around Hitler. The war in Europe could end several months sooner, maybe with a front line somewhat further to the east. Not sure just how much exactly. And the Japanese could surrender immediately after Germany goes down since they'll obviously be aware of what is in store for them afterwards. I do think that the US will refrain from nuking Japan until it is fully finished dealing with Germany, though. Germany was a more important and more deadly target, after all.

I think, if you manage to decapitate the regime by killing Hitler it could make a change, even after the Stauffenberg plot failed. For one thing the rats will be fighting over the top post so there would be a lot of chaos and for another a nuke on a German city would concentrate minds a lot more than the ongoing conventional bombing. Given the threat of more and possibly a couple more landing I think that would be a hell of an incentive for the military to both get its act together and not to try, as with the Stauffenberg gang, arguing for Germany not only being unoccupied but also seeking to keep some of their conquests. Possibly especially if they get details of what a Soviet conquest of eastern Germany will mean.

 

[WolfBear]

I think, if you manage to decapitate the regime by killing Hitler it could make a change, even after the Stauffenberg plot failed. For one thing the rats will be fighting over the top post so there would be a lot of chaos and for another a nuke on a German city would concentrate minds a lot more than the ongoing conventional bombing. Given the threat of more and possibly a couple more landing I think that would be a hell of an incentive for the military to both get its act together and not to try, as with the Stauffenberg gang, arguing for Germany not only being unoccupied but also seeking to keep some of their conquests. Possibly especially if they get details of what a Soviet conquest of eastern Germany will mean.

Would nuking Berlin and/or the Wolf's Lair actually be enough to kill Hitler?

 

[raharris1973]

Would nuking Berlin and/or the Wolf's Lair actually be enough to kill Hitler?

Depends on the ballistics of the shot and the luck of where is specifically, the shockwaves, the construction of whatever building he is in, and if he survives the initial blast/flash the intensity of contamination of the local air, water, food supply he depends on.... it is no guarantee.

I would add, a deep airstrike using even July 1945 aircraft, flying in from available Allied airbases in England, northwestern France, or south-central Italy, would be extremely dangerous going through still intact 1944 Reich air defenses. It could not fly in with the same tactics that were used on Hiroshima, no way, no how. It would require a massive escort, that wouldn't have had the range to reach that eastern part of Germany, and maneuvers required for dropping the bomb on target probably would not be consistently with the maneuvers required for tactical survival of the bombing aircraft.

Strategically, Germany is the more important target than Japan, but tactically, Japan is the more "achievable" target than Germany, at least until months more campaigning destroys much more of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe and brings about Allied air supremacy and bases in close range of the capital. Even Japan's home island cities are still a bit too far out of range in this scenario, but it will take less work and destruction of fewer forces and capture of just enough proximate territory to put Japanese cities under atomic threat within a couple months.

 

[stevep]

Depends on the ballistics of the shot and the luck of where is specifically, the shockwaves, the construction of whatever building he is in, and if he survives the initial blast/flash the intensity of contamination of the local air, water, food supply he depends on.... it is no guarantee.

I would add, a deep airstrike using even July 1945 aircraft, flying in from available Allied airbases in England, northwestern France, or south-central Italy, would be extremely dangerous going through still intact 1944 Reich air defenses. It could not fly in with the same tactics that were used on Hiroshima, no way, no how. It would require a massive escort, that wouldn't have had the range to reach that eastern part of Germany, and maneuvers required for dropping the bomb on target probably would not be consistently with the maneuvers required for tactical survival of the bombing aircraft.

Strategically, Germany is the more important target than Japan, but tactically, Japan is the more "achievable" target than Germany, at least until months more campaigning destroys much more of the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe and brings about Allied air supremacy and bases in close range of the capital. Even Japan's home island cities are still a bit too far out of range in this scenario, but it will take less work and destruction of fewer forces and capture of just enough proximate territory to put Japanese cities under atomic threat within a couple months.

That is a big issue in terms of getting a nuke safely to Germany, even by night if they tried that. I have read the suggestion that flying high the B-29 could be largely above most of the German air defences but that could faulty.

I think that trying to kill Hitler would be the most effective way of trying to end the war in Europe quickly but a strike elsewhere would have potential, especially against a major economic/urban target. Hitler will refuse to surrender but it might make it a lot clearer to assorted groups inside Germany the costs of continuing the war.

However agree there is great certainty in getting a bomb into a target in Japan, albeit you would need a nearer base and there is still an air defence system there.

 

[ATP]

That is a big issue in terms of getting a nuke safely to Germany, even by night if they tried that. I have read the suggestion that flying high the B-29 could be largely above most of the German air defences but that could faulty.

I think that trying to kill Hitler would be the most effective way of trying to end the war in Europe quickly but a strike elsewhere would have potential, especially against a major economic/urban target. Hitler will refuse to surrender but it might make it a lot clearer to assorted groups inside Germany the costs of continuing the war.

However agree there is great certainty in getting a bomb into a target in Japan, albeit you would need a nearer base and there is still an air defence system there.

B.29 - 9.000 attitude.Fw190 still could reach that,but they had problems.And average flak/88mm/ was useless.
So.germans would have big problems fighting that,even with mass produced Me-262.

And just killing Hitler would not work.They would found some double tp pretend,that he is still alive.
Pity,but they simply must burn one german city after another,till they cry uncle.

 

[stevep]

B.29 - 9.000 attitude.Fw190 still could reach that,but they had problems.And average flak/88mm/ was useless.
So.germans would have big problems fighting that,even with mass produced Me-262.

And just killing Hitler would not work.They would found some double tp pretend,that he is still alive.
Pity,but they simply must burn one german city after another,till they cry uncle.

Doubt that would work. Apart from anything else the people in power would know and with the fuhrer dead a lot of them would want the top job themselves so no way they could keep that secret. Attempting to do such a thing would further discredit them.

Another factor is that the oath of loyalty was to Hitler personally, not the office. As such a lot of the officers who had used that as an excuse to stay loyal have that stripped from them at the same time as its made clear how devastating continued resistance would be. Especially since they wouldn't know how few bombs the allies can produce initially.

 

[ATP]

Doubt that would work. Apart from anything else the people in power would know and with the fuhrer dead a lot of them would want the top job themselves so no way they could keep that secret. Attempting to do such a thing would further discredit them.

Another factor is that the oath of loyalty was to Hitler personally, not the office. As such a lot of the officers who had used that as an excuse to stay loyal have that stripped from them at the same time as its made clear how devastating continued resistance would be. Especially since they wouldn't know how few bombs the allies can produce initially.

That would change nothing.TRuman from 1945 still supported soviets,so they would get the same territory.

 

[stevep]

That would change nothing.TRuman from 1945 still supported soviets,so they would get the same territory.

Truman was in no position to change the already agreed partitions at Yalta. Especially since with OTL it being unclear when nukes could be available and how effective they would actually be getting Stalin's support against Japan was seen as important.

 

[raharris1973]

Truman was in no position to change the already agreed partitions at Yalta. Especially since with OTL it being unclear when nukes could be available and how effective they would actually be getting Stalin's support against Japan was seen as important.

Are we talking OTL, or this ISOT, or both. Yalta hasn’t taken place yet in the ISOT, and I would say he has time to consider whether Soviet participation against Japan is wanted or needed.

 

[stevep]

Are we talking OTL, or this ISOT, or both. Yalta hasn’t taken place yet in the ISOT, and I would say he has time to consider whether Soviet participation against Japan is wanted or needed.

I was talking OTL because ATP was making statements about the OTL situation which don't fit the actual facts.

Think I did suggest in an earlier post that TTL he might be less inclined to think continued Soviet support to be worth the costs and hence the idea of trying to force Germany to surrender quickly by nuclear use.

 

[ATP]

I was talking OTL because ATP was making statements about the OTL situation which don't fit the actual facts.

Think I did suggest in an earlier post that TTL he might be less inclined to think continued Soviet support to be worth the costs and hence the idea of trying to force Germany to surrender quickly by nuclear use.

Yes,there would be A bombs dropped on Germany,i agree.But - Truman was pro-soviet in OTL,when he could destroy them,so why change that? he would still gave them part of Germany.