WI America went to war in 1937

[Hades]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident

The USS panay was attacked in the Yangtze river by Japanese soldiers.

WI this led to war? Who would win in the East?

And how would this affect the Nazis?

[lothaw]

Japan rightly apologized and paid compensation over this incident.

Given America's largely isolationalist attitude, this would be highly unpopular, especially in light of their apology and willingness to accept responsability. This would likely make recruiting a large enough military for a war very difficult. The US military of 1937 wasn't a large force in any means, the exception being the Navy of course.

Which brings us to the year being 1937. It's very possible War Plan Orange would be initiated as the IJN's opening moves are certainly going to be an attack on the Phillipines and Guam.

Now at the time Japan had 4 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers vs the US's 4 carriers(5 if you count Langley I guess..). Couple this with the fact that Claude Bloch is the commander of the Pacific Fleet at this time, an old school big guns admiral by all acounts, he's very likely to ignore the importance of Naval aviation.

Japan's counter to War Plan Orange was a series of carrier attacks and submarine ambushes before a decisive battle around the Phillipines. It's quite possible Admiral Bloch would play right into this.

So, you're presented with the Phillipines certainly invaded and a decisive defeat of the Pacific Fleet. Would the US people stand for it? Remember Hitler's not the archnemisis of the world yet. While Rosevelt has two years before he's up for election, he's likely going to get killed in the midterm congressional elections. And Robert Taft could very well be elected President in 1940, which would be interesting to say the least when the real war gets around to starting.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by lothaw

Japan rightly apologized and paid compensation over this incident.

Given America's largely isolationalist attitude, this would be highly unpopular, especially in light of their apology and willingness to accept responsability. This would likely make recruiting a large enough military for a war very difficult. The US military of 1937 wasn't a large force in any means, the exception being the Navy of course.

Japan sort of apologized, did pay compensation, and was UNwilling to accept responsibility is my reading of the event.

The fact of the matter was they attacked a US ship, PLAINLY flying the US flag, which is a causus belli, if the US wanted it to be one.

However, of course, they didn't. The US was, as you say isolationist, and it would be tough to get enthusiasm for a major war. Moreover, they were horribly unprepared for war.

If the US thought they could declare war and basically repeat Perry (send a couple of warships, spank the wogs, and negotiate a peace with concessions), they MIGHT try it, but, as much as the US underestimated the Japanese at that point, I can't imagine them underestimating them THAT much.


What I could see would be a harsher US reaction (short of war, possibly earlier embargoes) leads to harsher Japanese reaction, which builds a constituency in the US for 'putting the Japs in their place', which could lead to war. It could lead to major rearmament drive in the US, in to prepare for a possible war, in which case the US would likely still be less prepared for a Pacific war, but would be more prepared for the European one.... Maybe. Of course, if the US then enters the European war in 1939, they'll be less prepared than they were in 41-42.

[Hendryk]

Originally Posted by lothaw

And Robert Taft could very well be elected President in 1940, which would be interesting to say the least when the real war gets around to starting.

A nitpick: this statement makes it sound like you don't think what was going on in Asia from 1937 was a "real war". Twenty million Chinese dead beg to differ.

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by Hendryk

A nitpick: this statement makes it sound like you don't think what was going on in Asia from 1937 was a "real war". Twenty million Chinese dead beg to differ.

At that point it was the Second-Sino Japanese War and not World War II just yet. That was the point I was making reference to, not undermining China's struggle in this war.

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by lothaw

Japan rightly apologized and paid compensation over this incident.

Given America's largely isolationalist attitude, this would be highly unpopular, especially in light of their apology and willingness to accept responsability. This would likely make recruiting a large enough military for a war very difficult. The US military of 1937 wasn't a large force in any means, the exception being the Navy of course.

Which brings us to the year being 1937. It's very possible War Plan Orange would be initiated as the IJN's opening moves are certainly going to be an attack on the Phillipines and Guam.

Now at the time Japan had 4 fleet carriers and 2 light carriers vs the US's 4 carriers(5 if you count Langley I guess..). Couple this with the fact that Claude Bloch is the commander of the Pacific Fleet at this time, an old school big guns admiral by all acounts, he's very likely to ignore the importance of Naval aviation.

Japan's counter to War Plan Orange was a series of carrier attacks and submarine ambushes before a decisive battle around the Phillipines. It's quite possible Admiral Bloch would play right into this.

So, you're presented with the Phillipines certainly invaded and a decisive defeat of the Pacific Fleet. Would the US people stand for it? Remember Hitler's not the archnemisis of the world yet. While Rosevelt has two years before he's up for election, he's likely going to get killed in the midterm congressional elections. And Robert Taft could very well be elected President in 1940, which would be interesting to say the least when the real war gets around to starting.

Alright, I am greatly interested in this idea now. What, IYO would happen after that? How would the European War go? Everything else? The Depression?

[Doraemon]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

Alright, I am greatly interested in this idea now. What, IYO would happen after that? How would the European War go? Everything else? The Depression?

If the US Pacific fleet is destroyed, we might see a negotiated peace coming out. The Japanese didn't want a prolonged war against the US, and after a significant defeat, the US probably doesn't want one either, especially with the isolationist attitude.

A peace deal probably won't include any major territorial changes (maybe some islands or 2), but it's likely that the US would be forced to "recognize" Japanese claims in China and SE Pacific.

Another outcome I can see is that this war might reaffirm the US isolationist stance. FDR might not win in 1940, and we might see a neutral US throughout WWII.

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

Alright, I am greatly interested in this idea now. What, IYO would happen after that? How would the European War go? Everything else? The Depression?

Well after the Phillipines fall and Guam and possibly Wake being next, the 1938 midterms will probably be rolling around and the Republicans would likely make large enough gains to get a majority in both houses.

With the Pacific Fleet reduced in strength, Japan's next logical move is to go after Midway. By now, Bloch has probably been sacked, so the Pacific Fleet would likely have a new commander along with being reinforced from the Altantic Fleet. It'd likely be Kimmel taking over I should think. Remember Nimitz is still just a Captain at this point, even if his star is on the rise.

So I'd suspect you'd see a force consisting of 3 carriers on Japan's part(assume the US will get at least one, and the light carriers never can keep up) against 3 on the US part(figure the US would have 2 in the theater at the opening of hostilities which were lost, so the other two, plus I'd imagine Langley would be brought back into service at this point) plus support ships which ratios would probably favor Japan.

Even on more or less even terms, I still think you'd see a Japanese victory here. Japan's planes and pilots were superior at this point. They would then assault the island, and given the unpopularity of the war, and the state of the US army at the time, you're likely only going to have a division or so defending the island, though they'll inflict heavy casualties on the attackers, the island will fall I should think.

By the point, the Republicans will probably be slashing the war budget in an effort to force Roosevelt to negotiate a peace. Figure on a Greater East Asia Co-Propserity Sphere Phillipines, Guam to Japan, Midway and Wake demilitarized, Japan gets perfered trade status instead of repirations and the US has to pledge not to interfere in China. Though I'd see Roosevelt continuing to do so, if under the table.

In regards to the Depression, the US was already on the climb back up, and a sudden, if brief, war boom would actually help out, even if it's along with the bitter taste of defeat. Certainly Roosevelt's going to be rebuilding the fleet for the remainder of his term.

This isn't going to affect Europe all too much I don't think. Germany still starts the European war in 1939, while Japan has the time and freedom to continue digesting China.

By the time 1940 rolls around, France has still fallen and Japan's still bogged down in China. In the US, I believe Wilkie's triumphant nomination for the GOP would be butterflied away by the Panay war, and Taft would get the nomination and win the Presidency in 1940. Interesting thing is, would Roosevelt even have the pluck to run for a 3rd term after this. Or would Garner or Wallace take a shot at it?

Hmm, this is actually getting somewhat interesting.

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by Doraemon

snip

Originally Posted by lothaw

snip

So does this cancel Lend-Lease? Or do we end up with Red Europe?

EDIT: For that matter, how does this effect Australia (in particular) and the other European Pacific colonies (in general)?

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

So does this cancel Lend-Lease? Or do we end up with Red Europe?

I imagine so. That was an idea of Roosvelt's administration after all. Taft will likely continue building up the Navy, though the Army and to a lesser extent the air force are going to still be relatively small.

Taft may well keep up Cash and Carry, meaning if you can pay for it, we'll give it to you, but I don't flat out see him giving US war supplies to Britain. With all the naval losses in the Panay War, I think you could scrub Destroyers for Bases too. It's going to take a lot to get Taft into the war.

Without Lend-Lease, Britain's going to be hard pressed to keep up the war past 1942-3 and certainly Russia's going to have a harder time of it. Though being Stalin's idea of sovling a problem is throwing bodies at it, so he may well keep that up even without supplies and requisitions.

I think Japan would still end up Going South late 1941, early 1942 attacking Britain's Empire and the Dutch East Indies. Certainly they have more carriers coming into service by now. Taft won't get involved and Britain's suddenly stretched to the breaking point having to maintain an air war with Germany over Europe, fighting over North Africa, and fighting Japan in the Far East.

Britain's going to have a hard time resisting Japan in the far east, and without US war material and help(OTL they were involved by this point), the North Africa campaign could very well favor the Axis.

Britain would have no prospects for keeping this war up. Even if there is discontent in the US over all the world falling under dictatorships, it's going to take a lot to get Taft involved in the war. Probably nothing short of a direct attack, which Japan has no reason to do now.

I see them suing for peace, yielding Egypt and the Suez to Italy, possibly Malta and Cyprus as well. Japan gets Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Hitler was said to have been in favor of letting Britain off the hook comparitively easy, so it's reasonable to say they could keep the bulk of their Empire. Meaning most of Africa, India, Gibraltar(iffy on this one, Hitler might insist upon it going to Franco, even if he didn't jump on the bandwagon), and their colonies in the Americas. They would have to recongize the Vichy government though, and their rights to their African colonies. So de Gaulle's nothing more than a bandit to be hunted down these days.

The Eastern Front is a bigger question mark. Can Russia hold off Germany all on it's own? I'm actually inclined to say yes, at least until 1944 when things may begin changing politically. Certainly it will be a blood bath and their counter offensives in 1943-4 won't be near as successful, but it's just too much land, too many Russians and not enough Germans.

By 1944, there will be discontent over Germany and Japan's conquests. I could actually see Roosevelt having spent the last four years going across America campaigning against isolation and yielding to tyranny and then running for President again in 1944(how cool would that be? ). You could argue his health would be a bit better since he's no longer "bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders."

Things to consider, the US nuclear program is likely in it's infancy still, with little funding allocated to it, so Britain, Germany and the US would likely be roughly even at this point. If Rosevelt wins and Russia's held on, you could possibly see a reckoning to come and the US declaring war on Germany. Britain would then be poised for a rematch too I should think, having had some time to lick it's wounds.

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by lothaw

snip

So what happens to Australia? And, if/when America goes after Germany in '44, how will that play out?

[Faeelin]

One of the responses to the Panay Affair OTL was to propose a constitutional amendment that would've required a referendum on going to war. So...

[lothaw]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

So what happens to Australia? And, if/when America goes after Germany in '44, how will that play out?

Figure Japan would cease Eastern New Guinea and probably give it back at the peace table. Nothing there worth making a big deal over anyways cept Port Moresby. Those British and French islands in the southeastern Pacific likely go to Japan.

As for the "Second European War" well... long and bloody most likely. You'd see something like Lend-Lease for Russia and Britain(who'd probably maintain "neutrality" as long as they can before getting involved again). KMT China probably isn't much of a concern at this point either, Japan having had free reign for the last five years.

It's questionable if the US would go after Japan at all at this point being Germany is the greater danger. Though Japan could very well opt to go North after they put a big enough rock in their fists. Though this would certainly mean another war with the US, though they could arrogantly think they beat them once, they can do it again. At the same time, Japan's been at war for eight or so years on and off. So they could say enough's enough for awhile. The combined war with Britain-US-China stretched Japan to the breaking point OTL after all.

The US would have to declare war on Vichy France too, since their only prospect of attacking the enemy would be a Torch like operation. So you could see a stronger French influence against the Allies in this war. De Gaulle couldn't have kept up his "Free France" without British or US help, so he'd be out of the picture.

You could actually see US divisions directly reinforcing the Eastern Front too. They're going to be in pretty dire straights at this point, and a few divisions of well-equipped and trained troops could certainly bolster their lines.

Actually I'd have to think more on how this would play out. Already wondering if I want to make this my first TL.

[Astrodragon]

Some of these ideas of the US response seem to be in ASB territory.

So, lets assume the US loses the big sea battle against the IJN. So...they just cave in to the Japanese, meekly give up possesions, then go home and, mm, dont rebuild a fleet?

This is completely against the US mindset of the time. Isolationism does NOT mean allowing 'little yellow men' to walk all over you, and then just give up and go home.

Further, if the Japanese attack the British and Dutch possessions in 1942, the US is judt going to..sit and watch!? Not take the opportunity for a little revenge on Japan, here...??

Whats more likely is that if the US loses the first rounds of the war against the IJN, is that they reinforce their bases (the Japanese simply dont have the logistic capacity to mount any major assults, and the earlier date makes things even more difficult as, for example, the range and performance of planes are worse). They then conduct a naval war, building up their fleet. It probably wouldnt be like OTL Pacific, its quite possible the affair degenerates into Japan losing its navy - there is on way they can keep up with the US building program. The US knows this very well, keeping things going until they swamp Japan is a winning strategy for them.

However..lets assume, that for some reason, the US decides to cut its losses after losing a battle or two. They are very unlikely to go for anything other than a white peace, although quietly getting out of Japans way in China is possible. They are still going to build up their fleet - after all, they dont want to be huniliated again.
The isolationism argument is a straw man - after being beaten, the US WILL build up to a level where 'it cant happen again'. Even if the fleet is based in San Francisco and Norfolk rather than deployed further abroad. It isnt difficult to move ships around, its what they do...

And they would certainly take the chance of revenge in 42 if the Japanese got involved in the southern operation. Why wouldn't they??? Wait till the Japanese are comitted, then stab them in the back (OK, they wouldnt word it like that, but....)

Allowing what is then seen as a second rate asian power walk all over them is simply not in the 30's US mind set.

[lothaw]

Robert Taft is president in the scenario I'm proposing. Do you honestly think he'd go out of his way to start a war?

[BigWillyG]

One thing I wonder with all this is I think US war resolve is being severly undersetimated. Even without Pearl Harbor I feel that a scenario that causes the Panay to become a war requires the Japenese apology not to happen at the least and probably a few more incidents like that.
If thats the case, the war may not have the support it had after Pearl but we're not going to cut and run after a couple defeats either.

[HMS Warspite]

The USA in 1937 were totally unprepared for any sort of international conflict. There was not much of an armed force, besides its navy, as the Army was not yet maned, so any conflict would have to be postponed, until enough armed forces had been created and trained, besides equipped and shipped.

In the late 30's the USA were still in a recovering phase of the great depression, foccussing only on internal affairs and cutting expenses in defense, wherever it could, untill WW2 seemed unavoidable (after 1938 = Anschluss and München).

[lothaw]

Well the premise for the scenario is a US declaration of war over the Panay incident. Two things could cause this. Japan pretty much telling the US to F*** off. I don't see that at all, Japan isn't exactly ready either, even if they're better off.

Other scenario is FDR being angry enough about China being invaded to ask for a declaration, using the Panay incident as an excuse. After two major defeats in a war the US wasn't even remotely prepared for, wouldn't it be plausable for a Republican Congress to cut the war budget, making FDR seek terms? He certainly isn't going to on his own.

[Paul MacQ]

Ok looking at this Scenario I can Imagine an Oil Embargo request by the US Or similar. I am not sure what position the British Dutch and French would be in at this time to go along with enforcing this.

Posturing by the US making Japan force it's hand before US Declares war. Say 8-9 Months later Japan thinks it has to make a first strike against the US

Something similar to the 1941 Pearl Harbour Happening, (Still not convinced how much the Matapan had effected Japanese thinking) Less prepared US Navy. On the other hand a much less powerful Strike on Pearl Harbour.

2 Years before Massive Industrial Might of the US turns around some Reverses in the Pacific. You have a US that is now got Battle Experience and Massive Numbers of Veterans. Before a European War starts.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by lothaw

Well the premise for the scenario is a US declaration of war over the Panay incident. Two things could cause this. Japan pretty much telling the US to F*** off. I don't see that at all, Japan isn't exactly ready either, even if they're better off.

Other scenario is FDR being angry enough about China being invaded to ask for a declaration, using the Panay incident as an excuse. After two major defeats in a war the US wasn't even remotely prepared for, wouldn't it be plausable for a Republican Congress to cut the war budget, making FDR seek terms? He certainly isn't going to on his own.

No, its an ASB level of plausability.

Think about it. The USA in the 30's, not exactly pro-Japanese .
"Citizens, we know your sons have been dying in the Pacific because of our lack of preparation. So we are going to CUT the defence budget...."
Er, exactly how is this going to work again???