No US involvement in WW2
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
The US can obviously avoid the Pacific War by not applying sanctions to Japan and preventing their access to oil. There was indeed a plan for the Japanese to access Dutch East Indies oil, despite the fall of the Netherlands, and without Japan invading, but it was vetoed by the USA. Of course, that was only necessary in the first place cos the US cut the Japanese off from their own, but it is POSSIBLE to cut them off from US sources and still allow them to access oil, and avoid the war.
The US can also avoid escalating the trade war with Germany, which was a big part in why Hitler wasn't that bothered about war with the USA - he reckoned that in economic terms they were already at war.
The US can also avoid escalating the trade war with Germany, which was a big part in why Hitler wasn't that bothered about war with the USA - he reckoned that in economic terms they were already at war.
Either we end up with a Nazi Europe except the UK or a Soviet Europe except the UK. The first is horrible and the second is nearly as bad, at least whilst Stalin is still alive.
↑
Japan buys all the oil they can from the Dutch West Indies
A yes, money. A look at how dependent Japan was on short term loans from the US would be useful. & the effect of freezing Japanese accounts in US banks. I may be wrong, but that action seems to be at the heart of the embargo action. A similar problem lies in Japans merchant fleet. Through 1940 half or better of the intake and discharge in Japans ports was carried on foreign flagged ships. Those, controlled mostly by Britain and its allies, were denied service to Japan along side the US embargoes. Specific to the oil problem were the number of ankers in Japans merchant fleet. The low number from some sources is 40, the high number from others is 60. Maybe the latter includes coastal transports, fleet oilers, or a old hulk or two used for harbor storage. The low number may be the blue water transports suitable for the longer distance runs with crude of bulk refined oil. Either way the number looks to low to handle the quantities needed, by Japans industry and military.
Japan buys all the oil they can from the Dutch West Indies
A yes, money. A look at how dependent Japan was on short term loans from the US would be useful. & the effect of freezing Japanese accounts in US banks. I may be wrong, but that action seems to be at the heart of the embargo action. A similar problem lies in Japans merchant fleet. Through 1940 half or better of the intake and discharge in Japans ports was carried on foreign flagged ships. Those, controlled mostly by Britain and its allies, were denied service to Japan along side the US embargoes. Specific to the oil problem were the number of ankers in Japans merchant fleet. The low number from some sources is 40, the high number from others is 60. Maybe the latter includes coastal transports, fleet oilers, or a old hulk or two used for harbor storage. The low number may be the blue water transports suitable for the longer distance runs with crude of bulk refined oil. Either way the number looks to low to handle the quantities needed, by Japans industry and military.
thaddeus
Donor
my scenario to force British to armistice is a combination of magnetic mines and butterfly bombs, although my understanding the Germans never grasped how effective the latter were?
the immediate post-war class of German S-boats could carry a couple dozen mines, an increase from wartime capability of half dozen, and that might be plausible pre-war evolution.
the best case scenario in the East might be armistice that forces oil deliveries to both Germany and Japan (or just allows occupation of Maikop and Sakhalin) and some "banning" and/or dismantling of their air force and navy?
You might like to do some calculations about minefield density (probably 25+/km), and geography (major UK ports are on the western coasts) to work out the resources you need.
thaddeus
Donor
please do not take my best case scenario for an endorsement! think a brilliant mining campaign coupled with saturation bombing with the insidious butterfly bombs can only halt use of eastern ports and convoys which fouls up the pre-war, customary transportation system. also such mining and bombs as they were able to employ over western ports stalls unloading which was very scenario the British sought to avoid, of ships "piling up."
the British calculus might become "they are hurting us more than we are hurting them"
Not really. The USSR in 1940 has 173M people (not counting the inhabitants of recently annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and eastern Poland, who are not going to be willing cannon fodder for Stalin, and in fact more likely to fight for Germany).
Germany has only 71M; but Germany would have as allies Romania (16M), Hungary (9M), Finland (4M), Italy (44M), and Spain (26M). (All these countries sent troops to fight on the Eastern Front.) That makes 170M for the Axis.
So aggregate demographics are about even. Spain and Italy would be reluctant to mobilize on the same scale as Germany, but OTOH the loyalty of many Soviet troops was fragile; great numbers defected to the Axis OTL.
If we reduce the Spanish and Italian contributions by 3/4, that leaves the Axis with 118M. If we assume a 10% defection rate among Soviet troops, that leaves the USSR with 156M while boosting the Axis to to 135M.
And troop quality matters a lot, or China would have easily defeated Japan. Germany's Axis allies are inferior to German quality (except Finland), but they are about as good as Soviet troops for most of the war, while German troops were definitely superior to Soviet troops.
So IMO, the USSR doesn't have a great advantage in numbers.
So you think that the US would have to go to war to force Germany to accept US exports?
That this "fact" was so obvious it would cause Congress to override the President?
Absurd. Spherically absurd - from every angle.
How would Congress override the President, anyway? What war program would command 2/3 support in both houses? The President is the commander-in-chief, and Congress has no power to order American forces to Do Anything.
Well, if you consider four years of all out war, expenditure of almost $300B, and the deaths of over 400,000 men a "quick solution" to anything... Bear in mind that the entire US GDP for 1940 and 1941 was $224B.
hipper
Banned
Acoustic mines were first used by the Germans in October 1940 the countermeasure was to tow a noisemaking device which could sweep a passage. The obvious countermeasure to timer activated or mines that activate after a certain number of ships are detected is to use sweeps in front of all Convoys.
The trouble with superb ideas to win WW2 is that it assumes that people today are smarter than people in the 1940’s. Most of the things that can be thought up were in fact tried, and countermeasures were developed.
Last edited:
Do you think that US economic dominance post WWII was unplanned, and fortunate accident? That the economic structure Created by the Berreton Woods agreement, ect.. post 1945 was some sort of random construct? You have a great deal to learn.
Jack1971
Banned
Because the Germans can’t afford to keep America out. U-boats must attack American shipping, otherwise shipping from Canada will get through.
And don’t forget, War is first and foremost about money. There’s no way American manufacturers are going to ignore the largest market ever for planes, tanks, guns, ships, etc.... they’ll demand in, if only through the back door. Circumstances Hitler can’t allow.
This is important, read up on who paid for lobbying the changes that cleared the Nuetrality Acts in 1939 as a obstacle to exports. The Cash and Carry policy was a shot of adrenaline to US industry.
marathag
Banned
Power of the Purse, and Impeachment.
No money and maybe the VP has a different outlook on the war than the Prez
Point about troop quality, but I'd discount Spain. Their contribution IOTL was about 50,000 men, and Germany still needed manpower to occupy the, well, occupied lands. That's not the case for the USSR until Germany is against the ropes. Also, worse come the worse, Stalin wouldn't hesitate to conscript women, while Germany would not.
How about this:
Lindbergh becomes more outspoken a year and a half earlier, resigning from the Army Air Corps in early 1940, and goes barnstorming around the US speaking and denouncing FDR as a warmonger who wants American boys to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire again, and accusing him of sanctioning the Japanese to provoke them into an attack
seeing sinking polls, FDR is dejected and declines to run for a third term. whoever the Democrats put up is rolled over by Robert A. Taft and Lindbergh (as VP) for the Republicans, who reject the interventionism of the other viable Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie; the Taft/Lindbergh ticket has an easier time of it when Taft pledges he will not roll back anymore of the New Deal, but will only oppose further expansion
Taft wins and kills the sanctions on Japan, stops Lend-lease and says "the United States will not take sides when we have not been attacked at home. i will vigorously enforce the Monroe Doctrine"
The "Go North" faction in Japan wins the debate and prepares to attack the USSR; Hitler remains Hitler and Barbarossa goes ahead as OTL EXCEPT only days later the Japanese also declare war on the USSR; after weeks of defeat after defeat, Stalin is "retired" by Beria/Molotov who then ask for terms. All of European USSR is lost to Germany; Japan takes the Soviet pacific Coast and establishes garrisons at numerous strategic points in Siberia; a rump USSR survives in the land between and in Central Asia, it is almost totally disarmed
With no possible help and facing the Axis utterly alone, Churchill's government falls to a no confidence vote. Halifax becomes PM and asks for an armistice to discuss terms
The Treaty of Lisbon, signed June 1942
the UK recognizes Axis claims in North Africa except for Egypt, which is to be given full self-government and must permit the use of the Suez canal by anyone who can pay
the UK recognizes the Vichy government as the legitimate government of France
full exchange of prisoners ASAP
the UK recognizes all currently held territory of the Axis powers as theirs in perpetuity, with the exception of the Channel Islands, which are to be returned to the UK
Malta to Italy and Gibraltar to Spain, with all UK citizens there allowed 6 months to remove their property
Spain joins the Axis (as does Portugal months later when its government falls to a coup), Turkey joins the Axis in early '43
By 2018 ITTL, most of the world outside the Americas is ruled by either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, with the Americas becoming an armed camp under the near total domination of the United States. No I dont think the nazis would surely collapse economically, not after Furher Speer's economic reforms in the late 50s and early 60s (which did not change the racial or political character of the Reich)
Lindbergh becomes more outspoken a year and a half earlier, resigning from the Army Air Corps in early 1940, and goes barnstorming around the US speaking and denouncing FDR as a warmonger who wants American boys to pull Europe's chestnuts out of the fire again, and accusing him of sanctioning the Japanese to provoke them into an attack
seeing sinking polls, FDR is dejected and declines to run for a third term. whoever the Democrats put up is rolled over by Robert A. Taft and Lindbergh (as VP) for the Republicans, who reject the interventionism of the other viable Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie; the Taft/Lindbergh ticket has an easier time of it when Taft pledges he will not roll back anymore of the New Deal, but will only oppose further expansion
Taft wins and kills the sanctions on Japan, stops Lend-lease and says "the United States will not take sides when we have not been attacked at home. i will vigorously enforce the Monroe Doctrine"
The "Go North" faction in Japan wins the debate and prepares to attack the USSR; Hitler remains Hitler and Barbarossa goes ahead as OTL EXCEPT only days later the Japanese also declare war on the USSR; after weeks of defeat after defeat, Stalin is "retired" by Beria/Molotov who then ask for terms. All of European USSR is lost to Germany; Japan takes the Soviet pacific Coast and establishes garrisons at numerous strategic points in Siberia; a rump USSR survives in the land between and in Central Asia, it is almost totally disarmed
With no possible help and facing the Axis utterly alone, Churchill's government falls to a no confidence vote. Halifax becomes PM and asks for an armistice to discuss terms
The Treaty of Lisbon, signed June 1942
the UK recognizes Axis claims in North Africa except for Egypt, which is to be given full self-government and must permit the use of the Suez canal by anyone who can pay
the UK recognizes the Vichy government as the legitimate government of France
full exchange of prisoners ASAP
the UK recognizes all currently held territory of the Axis powers as theirs in perpetuity, with the exception of the Channel Islands, which are to be returned to the UK
Malta to Italy and Gibraltar to Spain, with all UK citizens there allowed 6 months to remove their property
Spain joins the Axis (as does Portugal months later when its government falls to a coup), Turkey joins the Axis in early '43
By 2018 ITTL, most of the world outside the Americas is ruled by either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, with the Americas becoming an armed camp under the near total domination of the United States. No I dont think the nazis would surely collapse economically, not after Furher Speer's economic reforms in the late 50s and early 60s (which did not change the racial or political character of the Reich)
What would the Japanese gain from invading Siberia? I also don't see Stalin being overthrown so quickly - OTL Soviet defeats were already worse than everything anyone imagined.
As for an Anglo-German ceasefire, while the British government will see that it has no chance of occupying Germany, the same happens in the reverse. I don't think they'd turn over Malta, and they'll probably want serious warranties about future Spanish neutrality so Hitler doesn't launch a surprise attack on Gibraltar within 5-10 years
As for an Anglo-German ceasefire, while the British government will see that it has no chance of occupying Germany, the same happens in the reverse. I don't think they'd turn over Malta, and they'll probably want serious warranties about future Spanish neutrality so Hitler doesn't launch a surprise attack on Gibraltar within 5-10 years
As to power of the purse - that is power of Congress to constrain the Executive from an action by refusing to appropriate funds for the action. (indeed, in the British constitutional history which the Framers were all familiar with, the power of the purse was asserted by Parliament to stop the King from waging unauthorized war. It was never employed to force the King into war.)
It is not power to order actions by the armed forces or any other executive personnel.
As to impeachment - one may presume the VP and Cabinet share the President's view. Under the succession law then in effect, the Vice President is followed by the Secretary of State and the rest of the Cabinet in order of departmental creation. Is it really plausible that there would be a 2/3 majority in the Senate for convicting the President and his entire Cabinet in order to get the US into an overseas war, when the US has not been attacked?
Thanks to certain quirks of US laws, it also gives Congress the power to force the executive to do things--in particular, appropriated funds that are earmarked for a specific activity must be spent on that activity, not diverted for others. Congress has in fact used this power a number of times in connection with defense, but mostly to get the executive to spend money on doing something that the executive didn't want to spend money on. A more recent example would the SLS rocket that NASA is developing, which was opposed by the Obama administration but which Congress forced NASA to spend money on (eventually the executive in this case gave up and went along).
Of course, it's questionable whether this would work in the context of forcing the military to actually do something, as opposed to forcing them to buy something. But the question is a little moot, because the War Powers Clause gives Congress sole authority over declaring war, with no reference at all to the President. If they really want the President to fight a war, they can just declare it, and then dare him to sit there and do nothing as Germany and/or Japan attack American citizens and military assets. I really don't think even the most pacifistic president would stand by and refuse to fight under those circumstances (not that I particularly rate Congress declaring war, either, but it's at least more firmly grounded in the law and more straightforward than trying to use the power of the purse or the impeachment power to start a war).