Sorry if this has been done before, I haven’t been able to find anything with this situation, but is there a way America could enter the European front without without Germany declaring war on them after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? What would be the effects of America being at war with Germany and Italy but not Japan? Would Japan be able to win the war in the pacific or no? Would the bomb be used in Germany? And when would the war in Europe end?
AHC: America enters the European Theatre without Pearl Harbor
- Thread starter The_Russian
- Start date
The US navy was already fighting the Battle of the Atlantic before Pearl Harbor. If Japan just sat there peacefully for some implausible reason, the torpedoing of American shipping by German u-boats would eventually bring about American entry into the war. If (more plausible but still unlikely) Japan attacked but Germany did not declare war, the US Navy would initially decrease its efforts in the Atlantic to focus on the Pacific, but it wouldn't completely wind down in the Atlantic, because Washington knew how important it was to keep Britain supplied. Also once the war-production ramped up in full, the USA would have more than enough ships (both supply and warships) for both oceans, so that decrease in Atlantic activity would be both limited and temporary. Having Japan attack without a declaration of war from Hitler would actually result in a later American entry compared to a situation where Japan just doesn't attack at all for some reason, but both scenarios would still lead to US entry into the European theater.
The bomb would absolutely be used on Germany if it was ready before the Germans surrendered. Also if you want to realistically avert a war between the USA and Japan, you'd have to prevent Japan from invading China.
The bomb would absolutely be used on Germany if it was ready before the Germans surrendered. Also if you want to realistically avert a war between the USA and Japan, you'd have to prevent Japan from invading China.
I doubt they would wind down in the Atlantic. I'd see them doubling down, because shipment to the UK (an ally against Japan) is not to be lost to the Germans. And if the Germans continue their submarine warfare, it's just a matter of time before too many US ships (either merchants or navy) are sunk and war is declared.
Oh the US would not let Britain go under, but in the early part of the war, if there's no declaration from Hitler, then I think there would be some diversion of resources from the Atlantic to address the situation the Philippines.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
@ the OP - Your title and your OP are asking a couple distinct questions.
The reason for it not to be used would *not* be racism or reluctance to use the bomb on white people/white civilians. The most probable reason would be because the Germans would probably be defeated before it's ready. The next most probable reason for it to not be used would be technical- if developed before the land armies are about to close in on Germany anyway, German air defenses may be too strong to risk using the bomb because the bomber might be shot down and device recovered. It could possibly used if the bomb is available during a "sweet spot" when Germany's air defenses and fighter corps are rendered in effective, but it looks like the bomb could make German generals surrender faster, catch Hitler in his bunker or in the open, or encourage people who would be able to shoot him and thereby give a chance to shorten the war, hasten the surrender and forestall some tough ground-fighting and casualties.
America enters the European Theatre without Pearl Harbor - this is possible
OK, so this version of your question presumes Pearl Harbor is attacked by Japan. If this has happened, America will declare war within days on Germany, even if Germany does not do so. FDR blamed Germany for the attack as well as Japan, because of their alliance ties.
Greater concentration on the European war, possibly landings in more parts of Europe, possibly earlier, or earlier definitive success against the U-Boats. So, amound of time between the US DoW on Germany, or Germany's DoW on USA, and Germany's final defeat, may be shorter than OTL. Also, the Western Allies and Soviets forces might meet each other further east within Europe.
I assume you mean if not at war with the USA? Possibly. However. It would be impossible for Japan to be having a war on British and Dutch colonies in the Pacific, while Britain and America and Netherlands are cobelligerents against Germany, without America also ending up at war with Japan. If you mean Japan just at war with China in the Pacific, Japan could win that, in the short-term and medium term at least. In fact, the Chinese have no way to win or push the Japanese back without other powers, like USSR, or USA, later directly intervening militarily, or strongly intervening diplomatically, economically, and arms supplies-wise.'
Probably not, but it is possible.
The reason for it not to be used would *not* be racism or reluctance to use the bomb on white people/white civilians. The most probable reason would be because the Germans would probably be defeated before it's ready. The next most probable reason for it to not be used would be technical- if developed before the land armies are about to close in on Germany anyway, German air defenses may be too strong to risk using the bomb because the bomber might be shot down and device recovered. It could possibly used if the bomb is available during a "sweet spot" when Germany's air defenses and fighter corps are rendered in effective, but it looks like the bomb could make German generals surrender faster, catch Hitler in his bunker or in the open, or encourage people who would be able to shoot him and thereby give a chance to shorten the war, hasten the surrender and forestall some tough ground-fighting and casualties.
Sorry, I should have structured that better. I meant no pearl harbor and that meaning Germany doesn't go to war with America since the US declared war on Japan and in response Hitler declared war on America. I just meant America only being in the European theatre and fighting Hitler without Hitler first declaring war on the US. My apologies
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Not a big problem - the only consequence was you got a bonus extra answer to an extra what-if question.
First, IMO it would be possible for the US to declare war on Germany without the Pacific War having already started. A late 1941 Gallup poll showed that American opinion was divided as follows:
20% - no opinion
20% - isolationist
20% - interventionist
40% - support the Allies as necessary even at the risk of war
At that time, Gallup often reported a secondary result, of only people important enough to be listed in Who's Who. The secondary result was 55% interventionist.
The problem is, I don't know what would tip the 40% group to outright interventionism. There had already been incidents in the Atlantic; I can't see how a few more would be decisive.
But assume that the country follows the elite as measured by Gallup, and that the US declares war on Germany in July 1942, and also that Japan for whatever reason never attacks any of the Allies.
The latter has short term consequences: Britain is not distracted from the North African campaign, pre-empting Rommel's early 1942 comeback. It is distinctly possible that Britain finishes the North African campaign by mid-1942, which has consequences for French North Africa. Mainly that the pro-Allied element there will be strengthened, and the US/UK can move in a lot easier.
There are also consequences for the USSR. If Japan does not commit to attacking in SE Asia (and the US), Sorge cannot report that to Soviet intelligence, and the potential threat to the USSR from Japan would pin down more Soviet troops in the Far East. Also, if as noted the North Africa campaign ends a year early, the German forces sent there in late 1942 would be retained and be available for the Eastern Front. Unless the US and UK can gin up some sort of attack into continental Europe.
Suppose Libya is done by June, and French North Africa flips to the Allies in August... If OTL the US/UK could stage TORCH in November 1942, ITTL they can do something comparable or even larger. They would have the support of French North Africa, and all the resources sent to the Pacific OTL.
(A bit of weirdness comes up here. What are the US Marines doing? There's no fighting in the Pacific, and the Army will be dead set against any USMC participation in the ETO. They'll be last on the list to get any amphibious craft or airplanes. Will the Marines basically sit out the war? IIRC, after the Marines got most of the headlines for the battle of Belleau Wood in June 1918, resentful Army brass made sure they never saw action again.)
With Stalingrad roaring, the Allies have to attack somewhere. Where? France is out, I think. Sicily would be very ambitious, Crete out of air support range. A massive raid on France seems most likely.
20% - no opinion
20% - isolationist
20% - interventionist
40% - support the Allies as necessary even at the risk of war
At that time, Gallup often reported a secondary result, of only people important enough to be listed in Who's Who. The secondary result was 55% interventionist.
The problem is, I don't know what would tip the 40% group to outright interventionism. There had already been incidents in the Atlantic; I can't see how a few more would be decisive.
But assume that the country follows the elite as measured by Gallup, and that the US declares war on Germany in July 1942, and also that Japan for whatever reason never attacks any of the Allies.
The latter has short term consequences: Britain is not distracted from the North African campaign, pre-empting Rommel's early 1942 comeback. It is distinctly possible that Britain finishes the North African campaign by mid-1942, which has consequences for French North Africa. Mainly that the pro-Allied element there will be strengthened, and the US/UK can move in a lot easier.
There are also consequences for the USSR. If Japan does not commit to attacking in SE Asia (and the US), Sorge cannot report that to Soviet intelligence, and the potential threat to the USSR from Japan would pin down more Soviet troops in the Far East. Also, if as noted the North Africa campaign ends a year early, the German forces sent there in late 1942 would be retained and be available for the Eastern Front. Unless the US and UK can gin up some sort of attack into continental Europe.
Suppose Libya is done by June, and French North Africa flips to the Allies in August... If OTL the US/UK could stage TORCH in November 1942, ITTL they can do something comparable or even larger. They would have the support of French North Africa, and all the resources sent to the Pacific OTL.
(A bit of weirdness comes up here. What are the US Marines doing? There's no fighting in the Pacific, and the Army will be dead set against any USMC participation in the ETO. They'll be last on the list to get any amphibious craft or airplanes. Will the Marines basically sit out the war? IIRC, after the Marines got most of the headlines for the battle of Belleau Wood in June 1918, resentful Army brass made sure they never saw action again.)
With Stalingrad roaring, the Allies have to attack somewhere. Where? France is out, I think. Sicily would be very ambitious, Crete out of air support range. A massive raid on France seems most likely.
Last edited: