Certainly not likely, but what if...

[Dixie]

I totally forgot about the lend-lease trucks and such [8|] I did say eventually though [:D]

EDIT: Wasn't lend lease extended to include the USSR sometime in mid 1941?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I totally forgot about the lend-lease trucks and such [8|] I did say eventually though [:D]

EDIT: Wasn't lend lease extended to include the USSR sometime in mid 1941?

That's the problem with a lot of these assumptions..., reality. Lend-lease was going to Britian AND Russia before PH---and would have continued (even with the silly assumption that America stays "neutral" in Europe, best way of making sure the USA doesn't have to fight Germany is to help someone else do it).

[Big B]

Yeah, Rommel and Patton arrive as US reinforcements in San Francisco about mid February...[:D]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd

Like you said, certainly not likely.

You need to create a new Big-B scenario. ...

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I totally forgot about the lend-lease trucks and such [8|] I did say eventually though [:D]

EDIT: Wasn't lend lease extended to include the USSR sometime in mid 1941?

That's the problem with a lot of these assumptions..., reality. Lend-lease was going to Britian AND Russia before PH---and would have continued (even with the silly assumption that America stays "neutral" in Europe, best way of making sure the USA doesn't have to fight Germany is to help someone else do it).

Yes lend-lease would have continued but the volume would have been very much less. With the US focus on a Japan first and only strategy, less libertyships would have sailed to Britain. The lend-lease that was extended to Russia would have come out of what the British(now under a greater strain with no American troops) could afford to send them. It is a domino effect.

[wdolson]

I think a more realistic "what if" scenario would be the US deciding on a Japan first strategy instead of a Germany first strategy.  That would make the US commitment to Europe much less, and supply the Pacific with much more in the way of forces.

The problem with any scenario of increased Pacific forces is to wonder where do they go?  Increased air units could have been used, though for much of the war, the forward bases available could not physically support an armada of 1000 B-17s (even if they can in the game).  The Navy already was mostly commited to the Pacific.  The only ships that could have been stripped from the Atlantic were convoy escorts and a few other odds and ends.  Those extra ships would not have contributed anything significant in the Pacific.  After mid-1942, the US had all the destroyers it needed in that theater.

With the Navy forces as a real limit, that limits the island hopping campaign to pretty close to what happened in the real war.  More landing craft could have been provided if there weren't a lot sent to Europe, but without another 10+ CVs, the Navy was incapable of  mounting more than one island operation at once, so the extra landing craft would have sat around unused and the extra troops they would have carried would be eating up supplies on backwater bases.

Except for air assets, the Pacific theater supported about as many forces as possible for most of the war.  By the time the Allies began closing in on Japan, there were more islands in the western Pacific to put extra forces.  The Pacific War may have lasted a little shorter with unlimited US commitment, but by only a year at absolute max.

Bill

[Nikademus]

I read recently that Hitler's decision wasn't as nonsensical as once thought. Apparantly he was given faulty intel from his charge' d'affaires in Washington that the U.S. was on the verge of declaring war on Germany. Given the already undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic coupled with lend lease seemed to make Hitler's decision for a trumping easy to make. Rest is history and Roosevelt could breathe a sigh of relief. He might have pulled off a declaration anyway but with Hitler's decision it removed any doubt whatsoever.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I totally forgot about the lend-lease trucks and such [8|] I did say eventually though [:D]

EDIT: Wasn't lend lease extended to include the USSR sometime in mid 1941?

That's the problem with a lot of these assumptions..., reality. Lend-lease was going to Britian AND Russia before PH---and would have continued (even with the silly assumption that America stays "neutral" in Europe, best way of making sure the USA doesn't have to fight Germany is to help someone else do it).

Yes lend-lease would have continued but the volume would have been very much less. With the US focus on a Japan first and only strategy, less libertyships would have sailed to Britain. The lend-lease that was extended to Russia would have come out of what the British(now under a greater strain with no American troops) could afford to send them. It is a domino effect.

A Japan first strategy means the US military is sent to the Pacific. Lend lease involved "equipment", not military units. So why should there be a significant reduction? Some is inevitable because it would take more shipping to move US Forces to the Pacific than to Europe. But Roosevelt isn't about to let Britian or anyone else fighting Hitler go down the tubes for lack of the tools to fight. Your arguement holds no water at all...

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





That's the problem with a lot of these assumptions..., reality. Lend-lease was going to Britian AND Russia before PH---and would have continued (even with the silly assumption that America stays "neutral" in Europe, best way of making sure the USA doesn't have to fight Germany is to help someone else do it).

Yes lend-lease would have continued but the volume would have been very much less. With the US focus on a Japan first and only strategy, less libertyships would have sailed to Britain. The lend-lease that was extended to Russia would have come out of what the British(now under a greater strain with no American troops) could afford to send them. It is a domino effect.

A Japan first strategy means the US military is sent to the Pacific. Lend lease involved "equipment", not military units. So why should there be a significant reduction? Some is inevitable because it would take more shipping to move US Forces to the Pacific than to Europe. But Roosevelt isn't about to let Britian or anyone else fighting Hitler go down the tubes for lack of the tools to fight. Your arguement holds no water at all...

My arguement is not based on the material sent I agree the US would still have the same volume of material to send, just not the volume of shipping to send it. THe US congress would have balked at sending ships to Europe that could be used in the Pacific. So the shipping is the problem. Roosevelt would have had a great deal of problems getting the Congress to see the big picture(much like today), and so it would be American first and everything else second with the Soviet Union a very distant third. With the absence of the US military in Europe, the resistance of the Axis grows. The Western Allies having less to work with keep more of what they have. Thus less to Russia and because of this, less effect on German from Russia. It is a sustained ripple effect in a pond that very much holds water.[:D][:D]

[Dixie]

There would have been less units facing the U-boats though.  Without a US war with Germany the US Navy HK groups would not have been in the Atlantic actively hunting down u-boats leaving just the RN and RCN taking the offensive.  The Atlantic theatre would be the main area that a difference would be seen, along with a knock-on effect on the war in Europe.

[decaro]

So what happens to the Tripartite Pact, which culminated in the signing of the Three-Power Pact in Berlin in 1940, which -- re Article 6 -- was to last 10 years.


Here's the Pact's preamble:

"The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned .... "

It will take more than PR to break this.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

So what happens to the Tripartite Pact, which culminated in the signing of the Three-Power Pact in Berlin in 1940, which -- re Article 6 -- was to last 10 years.


Here's the Pact's preamble:

"The governments of Germany, Italy and Japan, considering it as a condition precedent of any lasting peace that all nations of the world be given each its own proper place, have decided to stand by and co-operate with one another in regard to their efforts in greater East Asia and regions of Europe respectively wherein it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned .... "

It will take more than PR to break this.

Just ask yourself what happened to the Third Reich, it was supposed to last a thousand years. Treaties are made to be broken.

[decaro]

Hypothetical history shouldn't be unrealistic. In the 1930s, the Tripartite Pact was originally formed to counter Communism; the USSR was seen as an immediate threat by both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and both nations were (unduly) counting on the other's help.

After Pearl Harbor, Russia would still be there - I just don't think Nazi Germany could afford to break this Treaty and part w/IJ's (perceived) threat to Russia's eastern flank, which tied-up thousands of Soviet Siberian forces.

[Coach Z]

Also remeber Genetlemen US Destroyers and German U-Boats had secretly been having a shooting war for a couple of months in the Atlantic. The U.S.S. REUBEN JAMES  a destroyer was torpedoed and sunk by a U-Boat in late Ocober 1941.

[pmelheck1]

another interesting speculation is what if the government and been much more isolationist after the first world war.  No lend lease, no convoys from the U.S. the only cargo to the UK would be what they could buy (cash, as their survival wasn't assured for payment).  All U.S. ports and waters declared open.  A side impact would be a much smaller Navy and Air Force as the build-up of forces prior to war would not have happened (FDR's counterpart in the scenario would have adapted the view building up for war was to aggresive).  The Pacific fleet (what their was of it) would have remained on the west coast.  Perhaps even little to no military research that didn't come from the private sector and was adapted to military use.  This is wildly speculative and would give a much weaker U.S. not just at the start but for months to years afterward.  including the posibility of UK or USSR for both either vanquished or coming to terms with Germany akin to Vichy France.

[spence]

And then the Romulans ally themselves with the Japanese who put cloaking devices on their G4s so they can't be seen (or shot at) while making their torpedo attacks.  And then...and then....[8|]

[mdiehl]

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.

Not likely at all. The only reason for Japan to attack the US was to get unfettered access to colonies held by the UK. The PI simply did not have the human, agricultural oil or metal resources to interest Japan without Japan also planning to seize western New Guinea, Borneo, Singapore, Malaya and Indonesia. And the PI was the only asset that the US had that Japan could (1) get at, and (2) make any use of.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: mullk

another interesting speculation is what if the government and been much more isolationist after the first world war ...

How about something as simple as the US doesn't relocate its Pacific Fleet base to Pearl, but keeps it at San Francisco. Even if Japan still wanted to strike there, it would prove much more of a logistical challenge. It would also be much harder for the IJN to hide such a large strike fleet off the West Coast.

Think of an (isolationist) America's entry into WW II w/o a Pearl Harbor, though it was inevitable that the US would eventually get involved in a world war w/FDR and Churchill running the show.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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.

Not likely at all. The only reason for Japan to attack the US was to get unfettered access to colonies held by the UK. ...

Not to mention Dutch Pacific holdings; Imperial Japan's so-called Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere -- or whatever it was called -- simply replaced Western imperialsim w/its own imperialism.

[greg_slith]

What if Japan just skipped PH and PI? Would a still isolationist US want to go to war to protect Singapor? There would be no cry to enter the war if the US was not hit. Could Roosevelt get congress to ok intervention. As posted earlier there were few reasons (if any) for Japan to attack America other than a proactive defense (ie sinking the Pac fleet, the B-17's in PI, etc). It seems the Japanese did the world a favor by attacking the US. This was later compounded by the Nazis declaring war on us before we could figure out how to do it. If the Axis had played the US intervention scenerios differently the world may look quite a bit different today.

[mdiehl]

Japan attacked the US because she needed the Pacific Fleet out of the way while she made her move for the PI and thence the oil fields of Borneo and Indonesia. IMO if as an "alt history" scenario Japan simply does not engage the US, then on about December 1942 FDR issues an "offer that Japan can't refuse" (something like: withdraw from Malaya, Indonesia, Singapore, Indochina, and if demobilize your aircraft carrier fleet) on account of the Phillippines being (1) unassailable by Japan, and (2) right on Japan's supply lines.