Certainly not likely, but what if...

[Big B]

An alternate history poser,

What if - on the evening of Dec 7th 1941, Der Fuhrer and Il Duce pulled a PR coups, and immediately declared to the world - mutual Outrage and Sympathy for the United States over Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor, ...followed by declarations of war against Japan?

Mussolini never made a habit of informing Hitler of his plans, and vice versa, and neither were real 'friends' of Japan. Both of these guys were opportunists and schemers... and though it's historically very unlikely they would have - had they had the political/PR savvy to join the USA against Japan (which would have ment nothing in the way of concrete help realistically) what would have been the outcome of Roosevelt's options for declaring war on Dec 8th if Germany and Italy immediately lined up as Co-belligerents with the USA against Japan? Absurd as it sounds, there is no real-politik reason why they couldn't have done so in the first couple days after Dec 7th, since Germany and Italy had expounded that they were on a crusade against communism - not democracy ...and consider that the USA did not declare war on Germany and Italy until about Dec 10th as I recall - leaving a small window open for the Axis to position itself as a US Ally... in name at least. Could Roosevelt politically have declared war against Germany and Italy as he did, under those conditions?

If that follows as a possibility, how long do you think the Pacific war would have lasted if the USA was totally committed against Japan with 100% of it's might, and no distraction in supplying Europe?

Your thoughts...

B

[FastPhil]

I think you overlooked one thing.  Germany declared war on the U.S. after it declared war on Japan eventhough it was under no obligation to.  Think what would have happened if Hitler just shut up and did not declare war on the U.S.

[Big B]

Ahh, but that was the point - Germany did not declare war on the USA until Dec 11th (I had forgotten the sequence - thank you).
So Germany could have declared itself a USA Ally on the 7th or 8th...

[niceguy2005]

Interesting what if Big B, I mean this is something that has never really crossed my mind.  That said, there is a big hole in the scenario, which is the UK.  Since PH was not the only place attacked on Dec 7th it would be hard for Germany to go as far as declaring war against Japan, with Japan going to war against the UK.  Best I think they could have done was condemn the attacks and declare nuetrality.  However, Rosevelt was spoiling for a fight with Germany, knowing it was going to happen sooner or later, and he was far more politically savy than many of our former presidents.  I'm sure Rosevelt would have found a way to prod Germany into war.  Had Japan not attacked the UK, I think that the UK still would have declared for the US and would have gone to war.  With Lend Lease the US and UK were bound tightly together.

However, had war with Germany and Italy somehow been averted I think it would have only sped up the Pacifc war some.  Off the top of my head I think the bottle neck would have been carriers and the fact that the US had to mobilize either way.  Without the carrier air cover there is no way to advance through the central pacific.  It would have been either an island hopping campaign all the way to Japan, or a slow campaign through cent pac.  One thing that would have changed is that there would certainly have been a larger army and the USAAF would have had more modern fighters on the front lines of the pacific earlier. 

One has to consider though, IF Germany were not at war with the US, it is likely that the UK is not at war with Japan.  With Australia nuetral the US does not have good forward south pacific bases.  Not having Oz to work from would have been a real handicap. 

Last thought, if war had not been declared with Germany would the US have had the bomb in time to use against Japan, if not, would that have meant invasion of the Japanese Isles?

[ctangus]

I agree it's highly unlikely, but this is one of the most interesting WWII "what-if?"s that I've ever thought about. Germany & Italy would have to, of course, rapidly denounce the tripartite treaty.

Don't know if the anti-communist theme would carry the day, however. Japan's leadership was anti-communist too...

To respond to your questions:

1. I don't think Roosevelt could have engineered a declaration of war against Germany/Italy in such circumstances. Even the isolationists were ready for war after Pearl Harbor, but only against the aggressors. I personally think Hitler's 2nd biggest mistake during the war was declaring war on the US.

2. How long would the war against Japan have lasted? Hmmm... There would be a lot more infantry and planes available, as well as a few more naval assets. Deep offensives would still probably depend upon the late '43, early '44 carrier build up. It would probably still take until Nov-Dec '44 to win the war.

Though the help of Germany & Italy might reduce that time... [:D]

[Big B]

Of course it's unconventional to think about, but there are no rules one must follow in national survival...no court of law so to speak.
Hitler was trying hard (at times sincerely) to end hostilities with Britain, and Japan's fortunes meant nothing to Hitler and Mussolini beyond 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I was just consuming a glass of wine and pondering "histories greatest blunders" and thinking of examples of things that did not have to be - and this one occurred to me, as a given - that wasn't necessarily so.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Interesting what if Big B, I mean this is something that has never really crossed my mind. That said, there is a big hole in the scenario, which is the UK.

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Big B

What if - on the evening of Dec 7th 1941, Der Fuhrer and Il Duce pulled a PR coups, and immediately declared to the world - mutual Outrage and Sympathy for the United States over Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor, ...followed by declarations of war against Japan?

LOL, that's genius, Brian! See if you can sell it to el cid!

[Big B]

Well then, Ribbentrop and Count Ciano should have been fired...but I DON'T think I would have wanted to be left in their places holding the bag. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: timtom

ORIGINAL: Big B

What if - on the evening of Dec 7th 1941, Der Fuhrer and Il Duce pulled a PR coups, and immediately declared to the world - mutual Outrage and Sympathy for the United States over Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor, ...followed by declarations of war against Japan?

LOL, that's genius, Brian! See if you can sell it to el cid!

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
One has to consider though, IF Germany were not at war with the US, it is likely that the UK is not at war with Japan.  With Australia nuetral the US does not have good forward south pacific bases.  Not having Oz to work from would have been a real handicap. 

Huh? How do you figure this? Japs still needed the Malayan portion of the SRA's resources, and Churchill is going to jump in with both feet on the USA's side in hopes of getting a reciprical declaration against Germany. I don't see how war between Japan and the British Empire could have been delayed more than a month.

[AW1Steve]

[:)] It is a very , very intresting bit of speculation. FDR had been trying , unsuccessfully to goad Hitler. On the other hand , imagine all the B-17s and B-24's facing Japan in 1943? If they could have built the bases close enough , 1000 bomber raids?   And there was a very strong "get Japan 1st , they are the real aggressors " faction , even with Germany's declaration. Ernie King for one , would have be delighted to turn EVERYTHING on against Japan.  [:)]

[okami]

I think you need to take into consideration that even before Dec.7th the US Navy was already at war with Germany. After the opening of hostilities with Japan one of the many incidents of US surface vs German submarine actions would have precipitated war. As has been stated Roosevelt was looking for excuses and he would have hyped any sub attack against a US ship in the Atlantic. War against Germany may have been delayed a month and maybe in would have been the US declaring war on Germany, but it still would have happened. What it may have changed is the Germany first policy of the allies. And that may have shortened the Pacific war by as much as six months. No Soviet intervension would have occured due to a minor lengthening of the European war and the shortening of the Pacific war.

[Big B]

It is quite true that the USN was in an undeclared shooting war with German U-Boats prior to Dec 7th, but there has been much written about the extraordinary restraint Hitler imposed on U-Boats shooting back at American destroyers prior to the declaration of war.
I have heard of RN subs secretly firing at USN DDs to provoke an incident - though I don't know of such an attack having deadly results.
I don't know who sank the DD Ruben James, we presume it was a German U-Boat, but I don't know which U-Boat has been credited with it...if it was a U-Boat.
But the point is that Churchill wanted the USA in the war on his side above all else, and stopped at little to induce that result, and just as fervently Roosevelt wanted the same thing. But for quite some time Hitler was trying hard to avoid that from happening (1918 memories?).
Yeah, it's a stretch, but maybe, maybe the bad guys could have played it to their ends. I don't know...

ORIGINAL: okami

I think you need to take into consideration that even before Dec.7th the US Navy was already at war with Germany. ...

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Of course it's unconventional to think about, but there are no rules one must follow in national survival...no court of law so to speak.
Hitler was trying hard (at times sincerely) to end hostilities with Britain, and Japan's fortunes meant nothing to Hitler and Mussolini beyond 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

I was just consuming a glass of wine and pondering "histories greatest blunders" and thinking of examples of things that did not have to be - and this one occurred to me, as a given - that wasn't necessarily so.

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Interesting what if Big B, I mean this is something that has never really crossed my mind. That said, there is a big hole in the scenario, which is the UK.

Well, as they say, anything is possible, and you have posed an interesting question.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
One has to consider though, IF Germany were not at war with the US, it is likely that the UK is not at war with Japan. With Australia nuetral the US does not have good forward south pacific bases. Not having Oz to work from would have been a real handicap.

Huh? How do you figure this? Japs still needed the Malayan portion of the SRA's resources, and Churchill is going to jump in with both feet on the USA's side in hopes of getting a reciprical declaration against Germany. I don't see how war between Japan and the British Empire could have been delayed more than a month.

I agree with you, but this is a hypothetical.

Well, my original post wasn't my most articulate ever, but if you notice earlier in the post I stated that I thought it unlikely the UK could be kept out of the war. However, the premise was if Germany allied itself with the US, or (my assumption) was at the very least declare itself neutral. I think the UK would have made a truce with Germany when hell froze over, thus the only way I see Germany being neutral was if the UK was neutral, which as you say would require that Japan not attack Malaya, it would also mean that the UK would have to renounce the mutual defense treaty it had with the government of the DEI.

The premise seems a bit unlikely, but IF one can accept the European powers being neutral in the pacific and IF Japan doesn't attack UK territory, it does change the strategy of the Pacific quite a bit.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005
One has to consider though, IF Germany were not at war with the US, it is likely that the UK is not at war with Japan. With Australia nuetral the US does not have good forward south pacific bases. Not having Oz to work from would have been a real handicap.

Huh? How do you figure this? Japs still needed the Malayan portion of the SRA's resources, and Churchill is going to jump in with both feet on the USA's side in hopes of getting a reciprical declaration against Germany. I don't see how war between Japan and the British Empire could have been delayed more than a month.

I agree with you, but this is a hypothetical.

Well, my original post wasn't my most articulate ever, but if you notice earlier in the post I stated that I thought it unlikely the UK could be kept out of the war. However, the premise was if Germany allied itself with the US, or (my assumption) was at the very least declare itself neutral. I think the UK would have made a truce with Germany when hell froze over, thus the only way I see Germany being neutral was if the UK was neutral, which as you say would require that Japan not attack Malaya, it would also mean that the UK would have to renounce the mutual defense treaty it had with the government of the DEI.

The premise seems a bit unlikely, but IF one can accept the European powers being neutral in the pacific and IF Japan doesn't attack UK territory, it does change the strategy of the Pacific quite a bit.

One other consideration. Germany declares war on Japan (or even just castigates her assult in the Pacific). Doesn't that pretty much make Japan the Ally of the Soviet Union? (Or at least a "friendly neutral?) Meaning the Soviets don't have to keep anything in the Far East..., everything can be sent against Hitler? Uncle Adolf would have pretty much shot himself in the foot.

[wdolson]

The US was already essentially a quiet ally of the UK before Pearl Harbor.  Between Dec 7th and the German declaration of war, Roosevelt was trying to figure out how to leverage the Pacific War into a European one.  Hitler made the problem much easier.

Hitler also had a strategic reason for declaring war on the US, though the benefit was short lived.  Hitler knew that most of Britain's oil was shipped up the US East Coast inside US territorial waters and without escorts.  He declared war just before his U-boats arrived on station just off the coast of the US.  The u-boats sank a frightening number of tankers and put a real crimp in Britain's fuel supply.  Doenitz pulled back the u-boats because he was afraid that they would get slaughtered when the US escorts arrived on scene and so far from home and in coastal waters, they would be dead meat.  They only operated for a month or so.  If they had kept up the campaign, they may have really hurt Britain badly and there was an outside chance they would have been knocked out of the war.

The u-boats were so bold, they would wait on the surface at night near American cities and wait for a silluette to block the lights of the city.  The u-boats got a lot of easy kills.  The Germans were amazed that the US was not instituting black outs.

Bill

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[TulliusDetritus]

"LOL, that's genius, Brian! See if you can sell it to el cid!" -- Tim Tom

HA HA HA HA! One of the funniest things I have ever read here (needless to say, no offense intended). Thank you [:)] [:D]

As for the topic itself, I think I saw this "what if" thing in a Twilight Zone episode.

[Dixie]

Assuming that Japan still attacked Burma, DEI etc:

If the US stayed out of the struggle against Germany then the North Africa campaign would have continued longer (into 1944 onwards) due to the fact that the Torch landings didn't happen.  The German forces there may have been pulled out later in the war once the Russian advance gathered pace.  Without the USAAF bombing of German held oilfields the German resistance would have been much stiffer with more fuel available for the panzers and Luftwaffe.  German industry would have been less affected by bombing so would be able to churn out more a/c, tanks, guns and u-boats for the fight.   The battle of the Atlantic would have been more costly for the UK as there are fewer CVEs and HK groups to hunt U-boats.  There would be no D-Day as the UK wouldn't be strong enough to mount one on it's own, but there would probably be more Commando type raids in Occupied Europe.

Whilst Germany would eventually collapse under the sheer mass of Soviet troops the fall would have taken longer.  No D-Day landings would have occured which means no Western Allies on the continent so there would probably be  more German units fighting to the bitter end rather than surrender to the Soviets.  Many of the leaders would probably attempt to flee to Britain to escape certain death at the hands of the Russians.

In the Pacific the island hopping would have been at an increased pace with all of the amphibious assault ships etc being assigned to the region.  The end result could be that Japan is defeated much quicker in the Pacific but Germany lasts longer in the West.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Dixie





Whilst Germany would eventually collapse under the sheer mass of Soviet troops the fall would have taken longer.  No D-Day landings would have occured which means no Western Allies on the continent so there would probably be  more German units fighting to the bitter end rather than surrender to the Soviets.  Many of the leaders would probably attempt to flee to Britain to escape certain death at the hands of the Russians.

NO US, no 600,000 trucks. No trucks and the Soviet army moves very slowly. So slowly that the Germans would probably have no problem beating them every summer. It is all about the application of pressure. Without the mobility those trucks gave the Soviets, there would be no Kursk, no destruction of Army Group Center. In fact they may not have been able to encircle 6th Army at Stalingrad. Without Lend-lease the Russian army moves on foot. A very long war indeed.