Assuming no Pearl Harbor, how long until the US is at war with Germany?

[CalBear]

Reasonable guess is late spring of 1942. The USN was increasing its escort close to mid Atlantic for UK bound convoys and the effort was beginning to complicate the U-boat offensive. Eventually one side or the other will go too far (worth keeping in mind that a U-boat tried to get a shot at the Texas IOTL, if she had been sunk you are talking a couple thousand U.S. KIA, that would have set things off very nicely)

Would the Germans surrender in such a scenario, if unconditional surrender wasn't demanded?

They'd pretty much know they were licked.

Would Japan agree to terms with the Allies as well- thinking it's better than the alternative (facing everyone on their own is suicidal, evenmore so than Japan was in OTL)

The Germans didn't have to know it was Unconditional Surrender. The Party leadership knew what it had done, and knew the consequences that will result if they lost the war. They literally had nothing to lose.

The troops in the East were protecting their homes from troops who had seen what had been done across the USSR by the Reich. They were all in, even without the Party having to send Gestapo minders. The troops in the West were fighting to cover their buddies in the East from being surrounded.

The Japanese NEVER figured thing out, not until two nuclear weapons and a massive, entirely unexpected, Soviet invasion of Manchuria (all happening in a space of 3 days) made it possible for part of the senior leadership to push for surrender. Still, after the intervention of the Emperor, it was a very near run thing, a couple senior officers lean in a different direction and the surrender doesn't happen. Even after Okinawa the Japanese wanted to retain much of what they had acquired, wanted to be exempt from war crimes trials, and were insisting on conditions that would have made an outside observer think things were at a stalemate.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

It probably depends on lots of things.

WHY does Japan not attack the US?

Does France still fall, as thats a close run thing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

WHY does Japan not attack the US?

Perhaps they decide to still hit the Dutch and UK possessions but bypass Pearl Harbour and the Phillipines, hoping that lingering isolationist tendencies in the US will prevent Roosevelt from intervening on behalf of colonial powers?

 

[BMN]

It probably depends on lots of things.

WHY does Japan not attack the US?

Does France still fall, as thats a close run thing.

Perhaps they decide to still hit the Dutch and UK possessions but bypass Pearl Harbour and the Phillipines, hoping that lingering isolationist tendencies in the US will prevent Roosevelt from intervening on behalf of colonial powers?

I'm working on a TL with a 1895 POD that leads to Japan not taking the path of militarism, Taisho democracy staying stable and not being marginalized by military fascism. Japan doesn't invade China and stays out of WW2.

Result: The Allies get to focus Germany. If the Allies can land in France by 1943, I'm expecting Berlin should fall to the West instead of the Soviets.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I'm working on a TL with a 1895 POD that leads to Japan not taking the path of militarism, Taisho democracy staying stable and not being marginalized by military fascism. Japan doesn't invade China and stays out of WW2.

Result: The Allies get to focus Germany. If the Allies can land in France by 1943, I'm expecting Berlin should fall to the West instead of the Soviets.

Ah.

If Japan stays out of China (except Taiwan and possibly Manchuria), then the US is going to stay more isolationist.

They'll sell lots to Britain, but they MIGHT never enter the war. If they do, it's rather likely to be later than sooner.

I suspect that iOTL, the existence of the Japanese irritation caused the US to seriously consider building up its navy, etc. Yes, I know the 2 Ocean Navy act didn't pass until the Fall of France.

If France falls, the US is likely to get more and more active in the Atlantic, and eventually go to war at some point, after enough US ships have been lost. But that wouldn't be until at least '42, possibly as late as '43.

If France doesn't fall, the US might just sit on the sidelines, selling war materiel and maybe taking the odd colony in payment....

Again, it also depends on what the Soviets do. If they are allied to Germany, the US is more likely to join the war. If they are allies/co-belligerents with the UK (/France) then the US is less likely to, all other things being equal.

YMMV

 

[LordKalvert]

Perhaps they decide to still hit the Dutch and UK possessions but bypass Pearl Harbour and the Phillipines, hoping that lingering isolationist tendencies in the US will prevent Roosevelt from intervening on behalf of colonial powers?

And that wouldn't be a bad bet. Without Pearl Harbor the Americans would have to find an excuse to declare war and there just aren't many reasons that would drive it. Isolationist sentiment was still very strong

That the US wouldn't go to war while the Nazis occupied the Netherlands and bombed London is a good sign that they aren't going to war to protect English and Dutch colonies

 

[BMN]

And that wouldn't be a bad bet. Without Pearl Harbor the Americans would have to find an excuse to declare war and there just aren't many reasons that would drive it. Isolationist sentiment was still very strong

That the US wouldn't go to war while the Nazis occupied the Netherlands and bombed London is a good sign that they aren't going to war to protect English and Dutch colonies

But they didn't want the British to lose the war either, and would find an excuse in the undeclared naval war Germany was waging on the shipping lanes, much like WW1

 

[Saphroneth]

But they didn't want the British to lose the war either, and would find an excuse in the undeclared naval war Germany was waging on the shipping lanes, much like WW1

Besides, sooner or later some German submarine is going to blow up a US naval ship (OTL one nearly torpedoed the USS Texas) or something, which is an act of war.

 

[Derek Jackson]

In otl the sinking of the Reuben James did not bring the US into ww2

 

[Saphroneth]

In otl the sinking of the Reuben James did not bring the US into ww2

Once can potentially be forgiven. But if Texas, or a cruiser, or even another one or two DDs cop it? Sooner or later there'll be something that the nation will want revenge for.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

I recall a short-lived TL several years back where the Reuben James incident was a much bigger affair with several US ships getting sucked into a battle with a German wolfpack and both sides lose several vessels. The result is the US declare war on Germany in October of 1941.

I don't remember much else about it, since it never got very far before being abandoned.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

All good points about the US not declaring war, but Hitler had half the vote in this. On 8th, 9th, and 10th December 1941 there was little discussion in the US Congress or the White House about declaring war on Germany. No proposals to do so, or bills on the floor of Congress. Yet on 11 Dec Germany was clearly at war with the US.

Hitler had during 1941 discussed the possibility, the circumstances, and when the stars would be right. On 10 Dec 1941 he was under no treaty obligation to Japan, and there was little logical miltiary incentive to do so then. Yet he did act. The US had a number of other aggresive actions planned, much like the occupation of Iceland which had angered Hitler. The massive US construction effort in Persia to aid the LL to the Red Army was underway even before the PH attack. Hitler was a aware of 'talks' between the US and the Vichy government, tho he did not know the subject matter. He also knew of US plans to occupy the Azores, and of US pressure on Spain to lessen support of Germany. Through the decryption of the US AT3 comm. security system Hitler had daily transcripts of the highest level messages between Washington and London concerning LL & military cooperation.

It is fairly likely Hitler would have succumed to his paranoid side & opened warfare with the US by the spring of 1942. Churchill might have even forced the issue by leaking a false plan for a US action to Hitler via the Double Cross system.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I recall a short-lived TL several years back where the Reuben James incident was a much bigger affair with several US ships getting sucked into a battle with a German wolfpack and both sides lose several vessels. The result is the US declare war on Germany in October of 1941.

I don't remember much else about it, since it never got very far before being abandoned.

My variation of that is a submarine attack on the US fleet executing the occupation of Iceland in 1941. If the US & Germany are not at war in early 1942 then same event might occur when the US Army 5th div replaced the Marine brigade.

 

[Rich Rostrom]

I'm working on a timeline where Japan stays neutral through WW2. I'd like some outside opinions on what this does to the US entry into the war.

How long is it delayed?
Who does the declaring? Germany on US or US on Germany?

Any advice or help towards my TL is much appreciated

ITYM "No Pacific War". There could be a Pacific War without Pearl Harbor, but no Pacific War means no Pearl Harbor and no a lot of other things, most importantly no Japanese invasion of SE Asia.

This has big consequences for the war in North Africa; it's probable that without the distraction of a new war in Asia, British forces follow up the CRUSADER victory and finish off Rommel by April or May 1941.

Meanwhile - I've considered the question of when the U.S. would have declared war on Germany if Germany hadn't declared war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. ISTM that it even in that situation it would have been a few months. Without Pearl Harbor, the U.S. is not at war.

Gallup polls in 1941 showed that about 20% of Americans were isolationist, 20% were interventionist, 20% had no opinion, and 40% favored aid to the Allies, even at risk of war, but not a declaration of war unless it was necessary to defeat the Axis. With the Axis beaten in front of Moscow and in Africa, that necessity would not be obvious.

(Gallup reported the breakdown among a sample of respondents who were listed in Who's Who. These "elite" respondents were 45% interventionist!)

My WAG is late 1942.

 

[Derwit]

With no Pacific War the Germans would heavily reinforce the west even at the expense of the Russian front by 1943. So an early D Day would be no walk over. This could effect the offensive at Kursk and possibly the Battle of Stalingrad as Hitlers eyes would be distracted by this time with the West and the need to preserve his forces. Net result the Wallies face stronger German resistance (including more powerful air forces) than in 1944 and suffer massively greater casualties and make slower progress as a result. The Russians take fewer casualties due to the less German opposition earlier and take ground more quickly than OTL.

Net result the war is over some time in 1944 with similar areas occupied by Wallies and Russia. Long term NATO powers weakened due to increased casualties and expenditure of war material and USSR correspondingly stronger due to less losses.

 

[Saphroneth]

With no Pacific War the Germans would heavily reinforce the west even at the expense of the Russian front by 1943. So an early D Day would be no walk over. This could effect the offensive at Kursk and possibly the Battle of Stalingrad as Hitlers eyes would be distracted by this time with the West and the need to preserve his forces. Net result the Wallies face stronger German resistance (including more powerful air forces) than in 1944 and suffer massively greater casualties and make slower progress as a result. The Russians take fewer casualties due to the less German opposition earlier and take ground more quickly than OTL.

Net result the war is over some time in 1944 with similar areas occupied by Wallies and Russia. Long term NATO powers weakened due to increased casualties and expenditure of war material and USSR correspondingly stronger due to less losses.

Er... what about the utterly vast expenses of the OTL pacific war? With several hundred thousand more troops available just from the lack of the Fall of Singapore, and all the resources that OTL went into further expanding the US fleet past the Two Ocean Navy and into providing air power in the Pacific... if all that is poured into the ETO and Lend Lease, then it's going to influence things since that amount of production alone pretty much matches German industrial capacity.
Example - in 1943, the Sherman is still the Sherman, but the Tiger and the Panther are hardly anywhere. The Sherman is, OTOH, more like everywhere.

Oh, yeah. And in 1944, OTL, there was actually quite a lot of German firepower deployed west. They'd already taken quite a lot out of the line in the USSR.

 

[redlightning]

They would have been at war within no more than a year after a German U-boat intentionally sank or fired upon at US Destroyer or a series of merchant ships. Roosevelt would declare war sometime in late 1942.

The war in Europe may end a few months earlier, that is all it will have an impact.