What would it take to keep US out of WWII European war?

[ivanotter]

Maybe we have also been in on this some few times, in which instance I appologise.

I can see from a lot of other threads that we have had some good discussions on this stopic, but only on the sidelines really.

1) More pressure from the German emmigrants?
2) Taft?
3) New deal not working?
4) Japan?
5) USSR?
6) Other US only stuff?

I am not clued up on US policy, so this is more of a learning curve than looking at Hitler's Germany (except of course to play into this discussion).

Looking forward to learning something new.

Ivan

[jmc247]

An attack on France that happens in September after which time FDR has decided Europe will be a stalemate and doesn't run and another dem candidate has been nominated. The Republican wins in a close race. Decides against Lend Lease and undoes any trade restrictions on Japan.

America emerges from the Great Depression a world economic power by selling weapons to everyone, but not a world military power.

The UK exits the war by 1942 or 1943 after being exausted and depleated economically. The USSR and Germany exaust themselves fighting.

[LOTLOF]

6) President of the United States; John Nance Garner.

[SergeantHeretic]

If the United States keeps out of the war, the Axis wins.

It's as simple as that.

The holocaust continues, and probably comes to fruition, the Japanes gain positive control over the entire pacific rim less AMerica's terriroties which means a probably agressive war against AMerica in the 50's or sixties.

In genenral bad, bad things.

[mowque]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

If the United States keeps out of the war, the Axis wins.

It's as simple as that.
.

It is never as simple as that. Such a war would be an odd beast since America will almost always get involved unless the Axis wins early on and the USSR-Nazi battle takes place separately.

[MikeTurcotte]

POD: Better Allied AT

The German attack on France bogs down in Belgium. Neither side advances through 1940, and the German PZ formations are shattered by allied AT. The German economy starts to unravel.

The Japanese don't seize IndoChina, and while relations with the US remain frosty, FDR can't get the embargo passed.

The British and French, with larger economies than Germany are able build up their own armored forces by 1941-42. They launch a big armored thrust in April of 1942 that manages to pierce the German lines, and drive on the Rhine. The Germans contain it, but Stalin, seeing the fascists unravelling, launches a surprise attack. The Red Army isn't very good, but vastly outnumbers the 20 or so German divisions in Poland, and quickly overruns them (and it's own logistical train).

The Germans redeploy from the west to meet the Russian on the Vistula, and hence the British and French renew their offensives. Eventually, the Germans crack, and the Wallies and Soviets meet at the Elbe.

Mike Turcotte

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by mowque

It is never as simple as that. Such a war would be an odd beast since America will almost always get involved unless the Axis wins early on and the USSR-Nazi battle takes place separately.

Moque, the other Allies cannot defeat the Tripartite pact o ntheir own. The US.S>R> can bleed them but with no western front or at least not much of one, Germany will have the full brunt of their war machine to throw at Stalin.

Add that to Japan not having the AMericans to orry about, and even having the AMericans selling them needed war material and you can kiss the Belligerent Western ALlies goodbye, then you can kiss the U.S> goodbye when the victorious axis turns on us.

You're welcome.

[Deckhand]

Originally Posted by MikeTurcotte

POD: Better Allied AT

The German attack on France bogs down in Belgium. Neither side advances through 1940, and the German PZ formations are shattered by allied AT. The German economy starts to unravel.

The Japanese don't seize IndoChina, and while relations with the US remain frosty, FDR can't get the embargo passed.

The British and French, with larger economies than Germany are able build up their own armored forces by 1941-42. They launch a big armored thrust in April of 1942 that manages to pierce the German lines, and drive on the Rhine. The Germans contain it, but Stalin, seeing the fascists unravelling, launches a surprise attack. The Red Army isn't very good, but vastly outnumbers the 20 or so German divisions in Poland, and quickly overruns them (and it's own logistical train).

The Germans redeploy from the west to meet the Russian on the Vistula, and hence the British and French renew their offensives. Eventually, the Germans crack, and the Wallies and Soviets meet at the Elbe.

Mike Turcotte

This.

Or the germans fail at sedan, or the french put 7th army where it was supposed to be. Lots of potential for German failure in France in 1940. And if the French hold, America won't come in, or need to.

[GarethC]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Add that to Japan not having the AMericans to orry about, and even having the AMericans selling them needed war material and you can kiss the Belligerent Western ALlies goodbye, then you can kiss the U.S> goodbye when the victorious axis turns on us.

Sarge, the OP only specified that the US would stay out of the European war.

The inevitability of US strategic interests clashing with Japan's leading to war over the Philippines to protect the oil source in the DEI remains unchanged.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by GarethC

Sarge, the OP only specified that the US would stay out of the European war.

The inevitability of US strategic interests clashing with Japan's leading to war over the Philippines to protect the oil source in the DEI remains unchanged.

Oh,

Nevermind.

I'll just go over to the ASB section, then that way I won't bother anyone.

[RGB]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

Moque, the other Allies cannot defeat the Tripartite pact o ntheir own. The US.S>R> can bleed them but with no western front or at least not much of one, Germany will have the full brunt of their war machine to throw at Stalin.

Not too terribly different than OTL.

Besides, by changing America's pre-war stance you are potentially changing lots of strategic decisions and alliance attempts by both WAllies and the Soviets.

The OP needs to specify a particular reason for the chance to change it and the timeframe to do so.

[Awilla the Hun]

The USSR ultimately manages to grind the Germans back to its borders, but then starts to run out of men. The British Empire and Commonwealth, through a supreme effort of will and mobilisation (quite possibly causing greater instability in its process of decolonisation), manages ultimately to plough its way through Italy and possibly France, and/or gets its nuclear programme into action. The USA, when they get involved against Japan, will probably give the UK some aid to help keep them going-they definitely won't want, say, India in Japanese hands due to a British surrender, and the possibility of re-opening the Burma Road is important for the USA in order to keep China going. This requires the British to stay in the war, and therefore US assistance to be given.

I'll let this drabble, based on a lack of knowledge but much reading of his board, cease.

[ivanotter]

Are there any internal reasons for US?

I am not sure on how influential the German emmigrants were, how much they could really swing.

What about the US Mid-West? I have also heard that they were not particular interested in a European war?

Ivan

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

Are there any internal reasons for US?

I am not sure on how influential the German emmigrants were, how much they could really swing.

What about the US Mid-West? I have also heard that they were not particular interested in a European war?

Ivan

ALl you have to do is make the German-American lobby just a little stronger and make the isolationist factor do a little better in the four gongressional elections leading up to 1939.

And SOMEONE talk Hitler out of declaring war on us in 1941.

[Julian]

The US was going to declare war on Nazi Germany; it really was more or less inevitable. By 1940 it was already fighting as an undeclared participant in the Atlantic, and provided Britain with plenty of material. Public opinion had clearly shifted away from isolationism, with almost 50% supporting direct lend lease to the Soviet Union in 1941 (And mind you most people had a rather bad perception of communism in the 1930s and 40s). Even without Japan it only really takes one accidental sinking of a US destroyer by a U-Boat in the Atlantic for a US declaration of war.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Julian

The US was going to declare war on Nazi Germany; it really was more or less inevitable. By 1940 it was already fighting as an undeclared participant in the Atlantic, and provided Britain with plenty of material. Public opinion had clearly shifted away from isolationism, with almost 50% supporting direct lend lease to the Soviet Union in 1941 (And mind you most people had a rather bad perception of communism in the 1930s and 40s). Even without Japan it only really takes one accidental sinking of a US destroyer by a U-Boat in the Atlantic for a US declaration of war.

How soon WAS the resolution in the mind of AMericans to wage war on Germany? when did the political tide turn for good and all against Hitler i nthe U.S>?

[Julian]

Originally Posted by SergeantHeretic

How soon WAS the resolution in the mind of AMericans to wage war on Germany? when did the political tide turn for good and all against Hitler i nthe U.S>?

It was a gradual shift due to a lot of things like an escalation towards war, then open war, a generally improving US economy, France's defeat, etc.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

Maybe we have also been in on this some few times, in which instance I appologise.

I can see from a lot of other threads that we have had some good discussions on this stopic, but only on the sidelines really.

1) More pressure from the German emmigrants?
2) Taft?
3) New deal not working?
4) Japan?
5) USSR?
6) Other US only stuff?

I am not clued up on US policy, so this is more of a learning curve than looking at Hitler's Germany (except of course to play into this discussion).

Looking forward to learning something new.

Ivan

Well, it is more of TL than a POD. Or put another way, you need an earlier POD with a few powerful butterflies or several POD's. Lots of POD change when and exactly how the USA enters (both sooner or later).

One way to help a lot if for the Nazi to look like less of a bad guy compared to the rest of Europe. Lots of things could help, such as:

1) Soviets move first in Poland, or at same time.

2) Germany does not go for Norway and the UK does. Norway fights hard against the UK, and the government in exile retreats to Germany as a safe haven.

3) Germany can get legitimate Casus Belli. There was a thread I saw a ways back about a Polish commander taking the initiative and attacking the German warship in Danzig.

4) Either better PR on treatment of Jews or delaying some of the more public atrocities.

5) There are lots of other little ways people could come up with, and these are probably not enough alone, but they help.

We can also have France fall slower, so FDR does not get elected or the threat does not seem as severe. Or the UK can make peace. Or Hitler could offer a generous peace that the UK rejects.

You talk of the new deal. Yes, a domestic problem such as a major race riot would work too. It takes a TL, but the USA did treat blacks quite poorly.

Or you could distract the USA in Latin American. Another Mexican intervention or Cuba goes into civil war, etc.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Julian

It was a gradual shift due to a lot of things like an escalation towards war, then open war, a generally improving US economy, France's defeat, etc.

But when did the shift become irrevocable?

[mrmandias]

US strategic interests were (1) freedom of the seas* and (2) maintaining a strategic balance of power by preventing any one nation from dominating Europe. The Nazis threatened both.

So you need a stalemate where the US doesn't see a threat of any one power taking over the continent. Either the UK and France do better or else the initial drive into Russia doesn't go as far.

You also need the Brits to dominate in the Battle of the Atlantic.

The alternative would be to have the Nazis win so fast that the US doesn't have time to get into war. If the Brits sued for peace after the fall of France and got a reasonable one that didn't leave the UK gearing up for round 2, maybe.

*This gets a little complicated, because as a rising seapower the US also wants to maintain traditional blockade rules and is going to be somewhat leary of alternative or 'cheap' naval power via submarine warfare. Basically, the US' interests at sea align pretty closely with the Brits.