WI: WW2 without germany?

Is there any other conflict that could turn into a world war and germany is not part of it?
Maybe there is no fleet conference in washington and the japan/uk would go to war with the us?
 

MrP

Banned
I suppose if one really monkeyed about, one could shift the UK's political leanings against America. After all, they wouldn't fight Germany, then here they come, arriving late, taking all the credit, demanding money to pay for all the weapons and explosives we bought off them. Why I oughta . . . ;)

Given the size, manpower and industrial strength of the USA, if you want her opponents to have a fighting chance, you'd probably better get France to join the Brits and Japanese - and anyone else you can grab, too! Canada, I'm afraid, is either neutral or buggered with a bayonet.
 
I don't thinl it'd be possible for Canada to be neutral. As Britain's largest ally within the Empire and the British possession closest to the United States, I think that Canada would become one of the main battlegrounds of the war.
 

MrP

Banned
I agree, with the reservation that her only hope for neutrality would be "Icelandic neutrality". Which amounts to being occupied anyway.
 
MrP said:
I agree, with the reservation that her only hope for neutrality would be "Icelandic neutrality". Which amounts to being occupied anyway.

That's a possibility, I suppose. Canada becomes one of the major theatres of operation, the Canadians themselves refuse to fight.
 

MrP

Banned
The problem is that the Canadians won't be happy to have the Americans invading them. But if the Canadians fight, they'll get slowly but surely ground down. With American industry largely stretching from Illinois to the East Coast, there's no great difficulty in getting finished products to the border. Canada could be really lucky and hold the Americans off, or even pull a Turtledove and inflict vast casualties. But, simply put, if this war lasts any length of time, and America's generals aren't totally stupid, Canada's screwed.

So Canada has commitments to Britain and to the Empire in this timeframe. However, honouring them means losing a long war or praying for a short war.

Perversely, naval actions are going to be very odd. One can make the case that America's production of warships will outweigh anything Britain can throw at her. That's misleading. The Lexingtons will get finished as battlecruisers if t'Washington Conference collapses. They've got thinner armour than my car's windscreen. If Britain actually builds the G3s, nothing in anyone's arsenal can touch them for speed and armour. Though that wouldn't last more than a few years, of course. Anyway, a confrontation between Hoods or G3s and Lexingtons will inevitably lead to some very perforated Lexies!

I've got an old issue of Wargames Illustrated somewhere that I'll dig out. It has America's Plan Red and a lot of numbers for old British WWI tanks and equipment stored in Canada.

What's the general feeling? Will 1920s/30s Canada fight or accept "Icelandic neutrality"?
 

Redbeard

Banned
PoD:
The French win great in 1870 and again in 1914 against a coalition of A-H, German states and Russia. Germany is subdued into a kind of Confederation of the Rhine, Italy and Spain are French vassals.

WWI(I) is a repeat Napoleonic wars between France and her allies (incl. USA?) vs. Russia, UK, A-H and Japan.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
MrP said:
What's the general feeling? Will 1920s/30s Canada fight or accept "Icelandic neutrality"?

I think it would depend on the mood at the time. If its like OTL where Canada is populated mostly by British immigrants and 2/3 generation Canadians then most people will be either hardcore imperialists or hardcore nationalists. If that's the case then I think that Canadians will almost definetly fight.
 
I cannot imagine a WWII scenario that does not include Nazi Germany.

I cannot possibly imagine the UK going to war against the USA. There's no way that makes any sense to me at all.

The only possibility of a WWII without Germany that I can imagine would be if Japan were to have attacked both the USA and the UK.

Officially at least, WWII in Europe began on September 1, 1939 when Adolph Hitler invaded Poland. It started because of Hitler's ambitions and agression.

I'm sorry but I just can't imagine a WWII that doesn't include Nazi Germany.
 
How about a Baltic-Japanese-Turkish-British-Yugoslav alliance against the Russians, Spanish, Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and French?
 
Gustav Anderman said:
Is there any other conflict that could turn into a world war and germany is not part of it?
Maybe there is no fleet conference in washington and the japan/uk would go to war with the us?
Britain and the UK allied against the US in the 40s is ASB.
 
Wendell said:
How about a Baltic-Japanese-Turkish-British-Yugoslav alliance against the Russians, Spanish, Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and French?

Interesting!

Still, I just can't somehow imagine a WWII in Europe without Nazi Germany since officially Hitler began WWII in Europe.

Even without the Nazis, Germany is large enough in terms of land size, population, etc that I can't imagine WWII in Europe that would not have eventually involved Germany and pulled them in.

Wendell, If you had to add Germany to one of the alliances you described, witch one would you add it to. With that amount of war and fighting going on around them I feel it would have been hard for Germany to be neutral. Eventually they would have gotten dragged into it somehow somewhere.
 
The Mists Of Time said:
Interesting!

Still, I just can't somehow imagine a WWII in Europe without Nazi Germany since officially Hitler began WWII in Europe.

Even without the Nazis, Germany is large enough in terms of land size, population, etc that I can't imagine WWII in Europe that would not have eventually involved Germany and pulled them in.

Wendell, If you had to add Germany to one of the alliances you described, witch one would you add it to. With that amount of war and fighting going on around them I feel it would have been hard for Germany to be neutral. Eventually they would have gotten dragged into it somehow somewhere.
I would say the Baltic & British grouping, but I cannot be sure. There may be ways to keep the Germans at bay, however.

Suppose Versailles was harsher and/or France had fallen to Fascist expansionists instead of Germany?

Or, suppose that Hitler is assassinated in 138, and civil war ensues, leaving Germany out of the war at first, and weakening the Reich enough for it to take a rest from conflict when its internal struggle ends.
 

MrP

Banned
Wendell said:
Suppose Versailles was harsher and/or France had fallen to Fascist expansionists instead of Germany?

Or, suppose that Hitler is assassinated in 1938, and civil war ensues, leaving Germany out of the war at first, and weakening the Reich enough for it to take a rest from conflict when its internal struggle ends.

A harsher Versailles simply gives people more reason to follow nuts like Hitler to restore Germany's "rightful place". A laxer Versailles stands a chance. For that one needs must get Wilson to have a proper voice at the talks.
 
MrP said:
A harsher Versailles simply gives people more reason to follow nuts like Hitler to restore Germany's "rightful place". A laxer Versailles stands a chance. For that one needs must get Wilson to have a proper voice at the talks.
True, or getting a different POTUS....
 

MrP

Banned
I mentioned earlier an article in Wargames Illustrated. It's the April, 2000 edition, #151, pp.54-6. Gary Hughs is the author. Some excerpts and paraphrasing follow.

Plan Red:
"Planning started in August 1920, and progressed . . . [for] ten years. The planners were bothered by the strength of the RN, which might pose a serious threat to American overseas possessions and trade routes, whilst regular British and Imperial troops outnumbered the American army by 3:2.

"The American planners assumed the main British objective would be the elimination of America as a commercial threat." RN would interdict or sink American merchants, while landings could be made against US overseas possessions: West Indies, Philippines and Samoa. "On the continental mainland, the main objectives would be the industrial manufacturing cities of the north east, all within easy reach of forces based in Canada, and...Washington and New York...Canadian forces [represented little threat, but] could be rapidly boosted by huge numbers of British troops:" 148,000 could be transported to Halifax within 60 days, according to US estimates.

US planners anticipated reinforcements from Australia, India, NZ, S Africa, and - weirdly - the Irish Free State (worst case scenario, I guess). American plan: all out attack prior to British reinforcements' arrival. "[O]ne army was to make Montreal and Quebec primary targets, a second was to take Winnipeg and sever the Canadian-Pacific railway. Smaller forces were to secure bridgeheads to protect Detroit, Buffalo and the Niagara power installations, and the Sault Sainte Marie canals." A contongency left to the President, but dropped as too ambitious from the main plan was to ship 25,000 men to Nova Scotia to deny Halifax to the British.

USMC was to secure the Panama Canal. Subsequent combined operations were to secure "Jamaica, the Bahamas, Bermuda, Trinidad, St. Lucia, and British Honduras" - local opposition was expected to be light, because the islands were being freed from imperial domination. :rolleyes: "After the intial stage of the war was successfully concluded, the army would launch further offensives in Canada to destroy all enemy forces and take Ontario, Sudbury, and Vancouver, whilst the navy would proceed with trans-Atlantic commerce raiding, or possibly even raids into the Mediterranean."

I'll post detailed problems later - redeploying the USN from Pacific to Atlantic, for example and the relative sizes of the two navies.
 
Perhaps we could see such a war starting with the Soviet Union going to war against UK and France over Poland, Turkey or Finland. Not sure why Germany would be kept out, maybe a civil war or longer economic troubles.

Anyway, with Britain and France fighting the Soviet Union, Japan could attack their colonies and the USA as usual. Maybe with common foes the Soviet Union and Japan form a limited alliance of sorts.
 
Wendell said:
How about a Baltic-Japanese-Turkish-British-Yugoslav alliance against the Russians, Spanish, Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and French?

I think it would have been more likely to be Britain+France+Poland+Latvia+Estonia+Finland+Romania+Turkey vs USSR+Hungary+Bulgaria+Lithuania+Japan.

You can have WWII without Germany , but the sides would be the winners of WWI ( except Italy , maybe ) vs the SU , Japan and the other losers of WWI , like Hungary and Bulgaria.

The TL for this war could be something like this:
-Germany doesn't rearm
-Stalin invades Poland and the Baltics ( he might also invade Turkey , Finland , Romania ) to take back the territories lost at the end of WWI.
-Poland's allies ( Britain , France , Romania ) declare war on the SU
-Hungary attacks Romania to take back Transilvania
-The Little Entente ( Czechoslovakia , Yugoslavia , Romania ) declares war on Hungary .
- The SU declares war on the Little Entente
- Lithuania invades Poland to take back Vilnius
- Bulgaria attacks Romania to take back Southern Dobruja
- The Balkan Alliance ( Romania , Yugoslavia , Greece , Turkey ) declares war on Bulgaria
- The SU declares war on the Balkan Alliance
- Japan and the USSR sign the Molotov-Tojo pact , dividing their spheres of influence in China . Japan is already at war with China and is suffering from the embargo imposed by the US.
- Japanese aircraft bomb Pearl Harbour . The US declares war on Japan
- Japanese forces attack American and European possesions in Southeast Asia.

Italy could attack Greece or Yugoslavia to gain some territories , but I don't see fascist Italy and communist Russia fighting on the same side.
The US and USSR might soon be at war with each other.
Siam might join Japan , as in OTL.
 
MrP said:
A harsher Versailles simply gives people more reason to follow nuts like Hitler to restore Germany's "rightful place". A laxer Versailles stands a chance. For that one needs must get Wilson to have a proper voice at the talks.

More reasons, but less power to do anything about it.

But a harshed Versailles is not necessary for that; One which is enforced is enough. Or even enforced to a greater fraction ( OTL, Germany paid about 5% of the Versailles reparations; the remainder was forgottent in 1932 and there was capital left to pay for rearmament... )
 

WFHermans

Banned
No problem. A war between Japan and some colonial powers would be a worldwar. For instance between Japan and Britain, starting about 1937.

The USA then supports the liberation of the british colonies and before you know it a 1812- like war starts..
 
Top