America in WW2 Without Japan

Okay, posit that, for whatever reason, Japan is not in a position to threaten East Asia in WW2 [1]. So, no Pearl Harbor.

I think the US and Germany still end up fighting a war, but it probably wouldn't start until 1942 as shipping incidents escelate.

On the one hand, the US has no Pacific Theater. On the other hand, will people be as enthusiastic for a war started over submarines yet again.

Any thoughts on how this goes?

[1] The reason, if you want to get technical, includes a Chinese state that can fight back in its own quite nicely, thank you.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I guess the japanese are too busy to deal with resistance in China and South East Asia to be able to get into awar with yet another nation in this TL. The axis between Berlin and Tokyo is more or less theoretic too, in that case. Yes, I think US would get involved in WW2 anyway, and probably at some point, declare war on Japan to help their west european allies defend thier colonial empires, it would all happen somewhat later though.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Perhaps the Us just honestly comes in based

on a geopolitical rationale.

The thing about submarine incidents is that they had lost the ability to shock.
Everybody knew they were asking for it.

Currents in favor of going to war would be increasing anti-nazi sentiment and increasing US preparedness. This would never form an overwhelming majority even if a workable.

there would be counter-currents however. For example, the US may be nervous about allied collapse through the autumn of 1942, but, after Stalingrad, and then Kursk and some additional rolling back of Germans in Libya and Russia as was probable in '43, it starts to look like the US can have its cake and eat it too, ie Have Hitler defeated but not have to intervene itself.

By 43 and 44 there's not much plausible self-defense rationale to get in, it would be all about getting in because Nazi germany's existence is deemed unacceptable.

Perhaps the type of crisis that might pull the US in would be if the US begins to fear the UK is going wobbly. For example if, due to frustration and earlier military failures, Winny is replaced by somebody else. The British government is staying in the war, but Washington worries.



Nobody dare say Hitler gets assassinated -, way, way too overused.
 
A Better Genoa Conference, a Better World?

Okay, the Genoa Conference, in OTL, met in April to May of 1922, wihth som pretty heady goals. Basically, it was the culmination of three nation's goals.

The USSR was willing to pay back Tsarist loans from before 1914 because it was desperate for long erm low interest loans and diplomatic recognition.

Germany, meanwhile, wanted access to the German marketto make up for lossess to Britain and France on the world stage. Yet Germany lacked teh capital to invest in Russia.

Britain, under Lloyd Gerorge, wanted to stimualte European trade, promote disarmament, and develop a peace structure that incorported the Weimar Republic and Soviet Russia.


This culminated in the Genoa Conference, which, "had it beeen accomplished in its most elaborate form, Soviet Russia would have reeived full and immediate diplomatic recognition as well as Western technology and capital, either in the form of long-term loans and credit or through a consortium led by Germany and financed by the victors of theWorld War. A portion of the German profits would hve been pledged to reparations payments, and until those proceeds were avaialble there would have been ap ayment moratorium. The Soviet government would have acknowledged as its obligation both pthe prewar debt and the Russian war debt, and it would have agreed to compensate the owners of property nationalized in the revolution. "

(Jon Jacobson, when teh Soviet Union entered World Politics)

Okay, clearly, this won't succeed in full. But I think it has potential.

Thoughts?
 

Rockingham

Banned
Okay, the Genoa Conference, in OTL, met in April to May of 1922, wihth som pretty heady goals. Basically, it was the culmination of three nation's goals.

The USSR was willing to pay back Tsarist loans from before 1914 because it was desperate for long erm low interest loans and diplomatic recognition.

Germany, meanwhile, wanted access to the German marketto make up for lossess to Britain and France on the world stage. Yet Germany lacked teh capital to invest in Russia.

Britain, under Lloyd Gerorge, wanted to stimualte European trade, promote disarmament, and develop a peace structure that incorported the Weimar Republic and Soviet Russia.


This culminated in the Genoa Conference, which, "had it beeen accomplished in its most elaborate form, Soviet Russia would have reeived full and immediate diplomatic recognition as well as Western technology and capital, either in the form of long-term loans and credit or through a consortium led by Germany and financed by the victors of theWorld War. A portion of the German profits would hve been pledged to reparations payments, and until those proceeds were avaialble there would have been ap ayment moratorium. The Soviet government would have acknowledged as its obligation both pthe prewar debt and the Russian war debt, and it would have agreed to compensate the owners of property nationalized in the revolution. "

(Jon Jacobson, when teh Soviet Union entered World Politics)

Okay, clearly, this won't succeed in full. But I think it has potential.

Thoughts?
Well.... a more open Soviet Union, perhaps leading towards taking the eventual Chinese path.... if WW2 occurs, and Soviets have significant trade relations with the West, they mmy intervene against Germany rather soon after snapping up the Baltics and East Poland..... thus Nazis are defeated quickly, Poland, Czechlovakia, Romania and Hungary "elect" a communist party, and Germany is driven back to a modern day Eastern border, while Saarland is French. The Soviets aren't such a threat, and are rather more Capitalist, having significant trade relations with the rest of Europe.... so we see a situation analogous to that between the US and China presently...a "detente" of sorts. Looks like a recipe for Soviet wank in the long run.... the US remains islationist, China and Japan are mutually devestated as a long and bloody war continues...
 
Without a direct attack on the US like Pearl Harbor, American popular opinion regarding the war would be highly divided. I suspect this would tie FDR's hands much more than in OTL. Even more than in OTL, the US would be driven by a policy which either aimed for a quick victory sooner or one which deliberately aimed to limit US combat casualties. The war would be seen through an isolationist filter in which strong attitudes existed that the US had been duped by England into another European war. Quite possibly FDR would not win reelection in 1940 (or 40 if the US entered at the outset)
 
Top