PC: Large-scale American Antiwar Movement in WW2

Harry Turtledove wrote a thinly-veiled allegory about the Iraq War and the "cowardly" liberals who opposed it entitled "News from the Front", which details the antiwar movement in the US during the Second World War. Obviously quite a bit of it is unlikely (I highly doubt celebrities would travel to Germany and Japan to act as human shields and that newspapers would publish top-secret military plans). Despite the story's implausibilities, is a large-scale movement (comparable to the one against the war in Vietnam) possible? Could there be large numbers of desertions, attacks on military installations, strikes etc, etc.?

I recall Howard Zinn in A People's History reporting a lukewarm reception to the war among blacks, who saw their plight as being similar to that of the Jews of the Reich. (for example Malcolm X told the draft board that he wanted to steal guns and shoot crackers in the South). Also many more soldiers requested conscientious objector status than in WW1. So it would appear that support wasn't completely unanimous.

Thon Taddeo said:

Harry Turtledove wrote a thinly-veiled allegory about the Iraq War and the cowardly liberals who opposed it entitled "News from the Front", which details the antiwar movement in the US during the Second World War. Obviously quite a bit of it is unlikely (I highly doubt celebrities would travel to Germany and Japan to act as human shields and that newspapers would publish top-secret military plans). Despite the story's implausibilities, is a large-scale movement (comparable to the one against the war in Vietnam) possible? Could there be large numbers of desertions, attacks on military installations, strikes etc, etc.?

I recall Howard Zinn in A People's History reporting a lukewarm reception to the war among blacks, who saw their plight as being similar to that of the Jews of the Reich. (for example Malcolm X told the draft board that he wanted to steal guns and shoot crackers in the South). Also many more soldiers requested conscientious objector status than in WW1. So it would appear that support wasn't completely unanimous.

Click to expand...

Much like the UK, during the course of the war the number of wildcat strikes increased and by the end of the war there were major strikes (Coal and Rail '46?) and also a very vibrant soldiers movement against continued service.

I think that a fantasy of the 1960s has blinded you to the actuality of anti-war conduct during WWII in the United States and by Americans. In fact, it is easy to suggest that the WWII wildcats were more serious than the Vietnam wildcats; because during WWII the official left and even a fair bit of the ultra-left supported the war and these two groups had far more industrial influence during WWII than in Vietnam.

yours,
Sam R.

You'd have to have the U.S. join in without any direct attack on it's shores. IOTL, Pearl Harbor made the America First types shut up.

To increase opposition to the war on the far left, you'd have to do something with the Soviet Union. Most likely possibility: have the USSR remain neutral for whatever reason, thus maintaining the view among the radical left of the war as one among bourgeois imperialist powers.

XNM said:

You'd have to have the U.S. join in without any direct attack on it's shores. IOTL, Pearl Harbor made the America First types shut up.

To increase opposition to the war on the far left, you'd have to do something with the Soviet Union. Most likely possibility: have the USSR remain neutral for whatever reason, thus maintaining the view among the radical left of the war as one among bourgeois imperialist powers.

Click to expand...

How about Britain and France bomb Baku in response to the Winter War, leading to increased (at least temporary) Nazi-German cooperation. Have Hitler assassinated or something, and someone more pragmatic take over. With the "imperialist" powers at war with Russia, the American left opposes the war.

Thon Taddeo said:

Harry Turtledove wrote a thinly-veiled allegory about the Iraq War and the cowardly liberals who opposed it entitled "News from the Front", which details the antiwar movement in the US during the Second World War.

Click to expand...

I remember that short story. I thought it was really a blast at the media and how modern outlets put their rating above national security/soldiers' safety/common good/etc.

The Kiat said:

I remember that short story. I thought it was really a blast at the media and how modern outlets put their rating above national security/soldiers' safety/common good/etc.

Click to expand...

I thought it was more about Vietnam...

Thon Taddeo said:

How about Britain and France bomb Baku in response to the Winter War, leading to increased (at least temporary) Nazi-German cooperation. Have Hitler assassinated or something, and someone more pragmatic take over. With the "imperialist" powers at war with Russia, the American left opposes the war.

Click to expand...

Could work.

One issue any anti-war movement would face would be government suppression. Though the Sedition act of 1918 had been repealed, a similar act could be easily passed and the Espionage act was (and still is) on the books. The FBI under Hoover would also do their damnedest to suppress any sort of dissension. Anti-war activists and draft-dodgers could be imprisoned, and anti-war writings censored. Russian and German-Americans could be hounded the government (rather like American Muslims during the War on Terror). If the anti-war movement has a racial component to it, things could get really ugly.

Well, OTL, Germans were under a lot of suspicion. (My great-grandfather got interviewed by the FBI.) In addition, a lot of media outlets were skeptical of FDR.

Thon Taddeo said:

that newspapers would publish top-secret military plans

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that - the Chicago Tribune famously published the US war plans on December 4th, 1941 in quite some detail.

But for the ASB nature of Congress allowing it you could definitely get huge anti-war sentiment by jumping in right away in 39. Almost no one is going to support war with Germany over Poland at that point.

I think you'd have to have a POD sometimes during the 1930's where the great depression ends much sooner.

The way I see it is the war was the thing that put everyone back to work and finally ended the great depression. People were just happy to have a job.

So if their was no depression going on, where people were happy and content, I can see more of a isolationist movement that would keep the US out of the war.

I was just thinking, what if the US had taken more of a beating in WW1 would they want to try again? Considering the US was only involved in WW1 for about 14 months and hadnt had the massive causalties the UK and France had.

UrbanRedneck said:

I was just thinking, what if the US had taken more of a beating in WW1 would they want to try again? Considering the US was only involved in WW1 for about 14 months and hadnt had the massive causalties the UK and France had.

Click to expand...

In and of itself it doesn't change a whole lot. There will be even less anti German sentiment, but at the end of the day it was a direct attack that brought the US into the war, and no amount of isolationism or previous beating (especially with ultimate victory) is going to make the American people not want to fight after Pearl Harbour. I guess you might be able to get a reasonably vocal group claiming Germany is unnecessary and that Japan is the only country worth fighting, but I can't imagine that anything is going to make most people believe it.

Thon Taddeo said:

Harry Turtledove wrote a thinly-veiled allegory about the Iraq War and the cowardly liberals who opposed it entitled....

Click to expand...

I could do without the editorializing about opposition to the Iraq War. There was nothing cowardly about opposing or questioning what was then a popular rush toward what was even then arguably an unwise, unnecessary and unjustified war.

You have to make it so that the US doesn't put trade embargoes on the Japanese, so either the Japanese don't commit so many atrocities, or word doesn't get out.

Instead of attacking Pearl Harbour the Japanese first attack the Philipines to liberate it from American Colonialists. Defending islands most had not heard of, full of non-americans who don't want you there thousands of miles from the US mainland would be harder to sell to the US people. Then when the Pacific Fleet sets sail they are ambushed crossing the Pacific. As long as Hitler keeps his cool and doesn't declare war on their side the Japanese can claim to be liberating the oppressed peoples of Asia from their colonial masters. No so much killing of the newly liberated people would help and raise a few non-japanese army units as proof.

I think you need a series of POD's. You need a more ambiguous war, probably going back to late 1930's. You don't need all of these, but enough to add up. And yes as others said, Japan must not attack.

1) Breaking Munich hurt Hitlers reputation. If we can have it so there is more of a reason for Hitler to come in, it helps a lot. Not full justification, but Czech are also bad. Think something like IRA (Czech Republic Army) blowing up enough stuff to make it murky. Maybe one bomb goes off near US Embassy or something. Now this may be too far back for you to be close enough for OTLish WW2. So to next one.

2) Like #1 with Poland. Massacre by Polish militia in Danzig or whatever. Or Soviets hit Poland same day as Germans. Again, maybe POD too far back for your liking.

3) Get UK in Finland. Even a regiment would be enough to confuse the USA public on who is good and bad once Germans and Soviets start fighting. Massive, Massive butterflies.

4) Norway. UK sailed before Germans or very close to this. Have it get into USA papers that UK attacked first. Something like some of the leaks in USA press in war but for UK. A few days before the British leave, a USA paper gets the scoop. So 24 hours before Germans land, NY Times runs article saying "British invade Norway". Does not matter too much if the information is false, that is the paper got information from source that did not have the information. I think by now you will need to have used some POD, so we get a situation where it is murkier before France falls and scares people. At first blush, this is where I would start my POD for a TL "Hitler has better PR; Story of American Home Front". Not a winner for Germany, but who says every TL has to have a different winner in a war.

5) Better SS reputation. (note better does not mean good). There are posters on the board who believe Hitler was incapable of any slight moderation here. I am not one of them. I think with the right people and arguments, he might be to see the benefits of being less obvious in what he was doing. 400K of 500K Jews were allowed to leave Germany prewar, without possession of course. Unfortunately most did not run far enough away. Simple things like not making official PR films that gloat over the killings help. Banning cameras at the mass graves. We could also look at more radical options waiting until after the attack on the Soviets to treat Poles so badly, so publicly. The Nazi's were proud of what they were doing.

6) Something to make/remind USA of fear of communism. Not enough up on subject, but I am sure some way to make USA public more aware of Stalin. Some Soviet assassination on USA soil of Russian exile. Soviet movie villifying USA is translated and show at some theaters.

7) FDR was trying to get justification for war by actions in Atlantic. You need something here to backfire on FDR. We talk at times on the USS Texas coming close to being attacked by Nazi. We need some mistake by US Navy to cause issue. Say sinking some Spanish naval ship. Shooting at Swedish merchantman mistaken for commerce raider. Paper makes issue of FDR breaking law, at least effectively making the case. The stuff being smuggled across border to Canada as "scrap" is scandal. Add bribes, drugs, hookers or something to story it might gain traction.

These types of POD should give you a shot at some murky feelings, maybe protests.

HARRY said:

Instead of attacking Pearl Harbour the Japanese first attack the Philipines to liberate it from American Colonialists. Defending islands most had not heard of, full of non-americans who don't want you there thousands of miles from the US mainland would be harder to sell to the US people. Then when the Pacific Fleet sets sail they are ambushed crossing the Pacific. As long as Hitler keeps his cool and doesn't declare war on their side the Japanese can claim to be liberating the oppressed peoples of Asia from their colonial masters. No so much killing of the newly liberated people would help and raise a few non-japanese army units as proof.

Click to expand...

Except that the US had already proclaimed that the Philippines would get independence in 1946.

That is why MacArthur was in the Philippines, he was retired from the US Army and was training the new Philippine Army so they could take over in 1946.

Hoist40 said:

Except that the US had already proclaimed that the Philippines would get independence in 1946.

That is why MacArthur was in the Philippines, he was retired from the US Army and was training the new Philippine Army so they could take over in 1946.

Click to expand...

Could more German attacks on US shipping result in a declaration of war?

Apollo 20 said:

I could do without the editorializing about opposition to the Iraq War. There was nothing cowardly about opposing or questioning what was then a popular rush toward what was even then arguably an unwise, unnecessary and unjustified war.

Click to expand...

I was (and am) opposed to the Iraq War. There is nothing cowardly about opposing an unjust, illegal war waged under false pretenses. The opinion expressed was that of Turtledove, who appears to have supported the war and opposed what he perceived as the liberal media's bias against it.

Something which might make WW2 a more grey v. grey conflict would be Britain launching Operation Vegetarian. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way for them to do so without Germany using chemical weapons first.