Does the United States join WW2 if the soviets are in the axis and there is no pearl harbor?

Do they still join

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other (explain)

  • They continue to supply the allies but otherwise stay out.

  • They join the axis


Results are only viewable after voting.
If the Soviets join the axis between 1939 and 1941(lets say Hitler gets shot in Danzig or Paris and if Stalin is a issue he falls down some stairs or dies in the civil war.) and Japan does not attack pearl harbor because they have Soviet oil, does the united states still join world war 2?
 
Last edited:
This is a very different scenario altogether. One, an outright Soviet Axis probably drives Japan and Italy to the Allies, with Chiang's China (if the Germans aren't also Red) or a Red Reich-Soviet-Maoist trio. I suppose you could see it be German-Soviet-Japanese, but that seems less likely.

That gets you contiguous land powers that can get navally blockaded, but also have the resources to avoid the worst of such a blockade.

A key factor is that the US is not going to feel threatened by all of this land power and may well adopt a spheres of influence approach with a Japan forced to at least play nice or risk getting body-slammed out of Manchukuo. It'd take quite a bit to get the US in, especially if the U-Boats are kept contained.
 
This is a very different scenario altogether. One, an outright Soviet Axis probably drives Japan and Italy to the Allies, with Chiang's China (if the Germans aren't also Red) or a Red Reich-Soviet-Maoist trio. I suppose you could see it be German-Soviet-Japanese, but that seems less likely.

That gets you contiguous land powers that can get navally blockaded, but also have the resources to avoid the worst of such a blockade.

A key factor is that the US is not going to feel threatened by all of this land power and may well adopt a spheres of influence approach with a Japan forced to at least play nice or risk getting body-slammed out of Manchukuo. It'd take quite a bit to get the US in, especially if the U-Boats are kept contained.
For the purposes of this let's say if the Soviets join 1939- mid1940, Italy stays neutral initially and begins to open channels with the ally's but because of the swift fall of France, negotiations break down and Italy joins the axis out of opportunism like otl. We need no set up for a mid 1940-1941 entry because Italy is already in the axis. (I'm mainly looking for all major axis members plus the Soviets for this thread) On a side note is there any chance Franco can be convinced to join the axis because the Soviets are in axis and helping with the Mediterranean plan?
 
Last edited:
Its in the US best interest to return the world to the relatively open trade and markets of pre 1914. Overall the US has exported roughly 60% of the raw materials & finished goods it has produced. Efforts to create closed autarkies such as the USSR, or economically restricted regions as Germany, Japan, and others were attempting threatened the foundation of the US economy. Is easy to postulate political circumstances that cause the US to cease any efforts to restore the markets & trade of the early 20th century, but the results of dealing with multiple restrictive and dysfunctional economies like the USSR, the nazi reich, or Japans & Italys empires would not have been good for the future US. I suspect the business leaders, or at least the majority gradually came to understand this after the collapse of France, hence the dwindling support for isolationism & the migration to the more proactive America First doctrines, which rejected true isolationism.

To put it another way, scenarios which allow the Axis nations to 'win' lead to a US that is trying to adjust to Depression era levels of exports and a global banking system based of smoke, mirrors, and fraudulent accounting. Kleptomaniacs make for very bad business partners & I don't see the the US prospering with more than half the world under the nazi or Japanese & Soviet economic systems.
 
Its in the US best interest to return the world to the relatively open trade and markets of pre 1914. Overall the US has exported roughly 60% of the raw materials & finished goods it has produced. Efforts to create closed autarkies such as the USSR, or economically restricted regions as Germany, Japan, and others were attempting threatened the foundation of the US economy. Is easy to postulate political circumstances that cause the US to cease any efforts to restore the markets & trade of the early 20th century, but the results of dealing with multiple restrictive and dysfunctional economies like the USSR, the nazi reich, or Japans & Italys empires would not have been good for the future US. I suspect the business leaders, or at least the majority gradually came to understand this after the collapse of France, hence the dwindling support for isolationism & the migration to the more proactive America First doctrines, which rejected true isolationism.

To put it another way, scenarios which allow the Axis nations to 'win' lead to a US that is trying to adjust to Depression era levels of exports and a global banking system based of smoke, mirrors, and fraudulent accounting. Kleptomaniacs make for very bad business partners & I don't see the the US prospering with more than half the world under the nazi or Japanese & Soviet economic systems.
If you believe it is inevitable, how much later do you think the U.S.A would join the war?
 
Don't think it's inevitable, just increasingly likely as the global economy shifts away from favoring the US as it did to 1914.

How much later is as much in the hands of others as the US. OTL Tojo & Hitler outvoted the US Congress. Hitler had toyed with the idea of active ear will the US earlier in 1941. There's dozens of ways this could play out.
 
This is a very different scenario altogether. One, an outright Soviet Axis probably drives Japan and Italy to the Allies, with Chiang's China (if the Germans aren't also Red) or a Red Reich-Soviet-Maoist trio. I suppose you could see it be German-Soviet-Japanese, but that seems less likely.

That gets you contiguous land powers that can get navally blockaded, but also have the resources to avoid the worst of such a blockade.

A key factor is that the US is not going to feel threatened by all of this land power and may well adopt a spheres of influence approach with a Japan forced to at least play nice or risk getting body-slammed out of Manchukuo. It'd take quite a bit to get the US in, especially if the U-Boats are kept contained.

I don't see Japan joining the allies because they burned their bridges with the league of nations by invading Manchuria and were already at war with China by 1937 so by the time world war 2 happens in 1939 Japan is only joining the allies if they recognise Japanese dominance of China.
 
Almost certainly; US leadership (i.e. most elite opinion) was critical and fearful of Nazi Germany. The US entered the conflict by direct support of Britain without any direct attack or threat to the US. Strict isolationism was confined to a small but passionate minority. Nazi triumphs in 1939-1941 brought most Americans to the view that the US must help defeat the Axis, even at risk of war; though even so, only another small minority wanted the US to join the fighting.

An outright Nazi-Soviet alliance would be even more threatening. Also, it would alienate or demoralize those Americans who sympathized with either state (such as the Reds who promoted isolationism at Soviet direction until BARBAROSSA). I think it would be harder even for them to swallow such obvious hypocrisy.

There were some who were hostile to only one of the two states, and OTL willing to let the other do the fighting against it. ITTL, anyone hostile to either state would be hostile to the alliance of them.

As noted, Japan could be excluded from the Axis, as being in conflict with the USSR. Japan could then become a co-belligerent with the Allies, as the USSR did OTL.

OTOH, Japan and the USSR could partner in dividing China, and with Germany in seizing the British, French, and Dutch colonies in SE Asia.

One factor: the Axis was officially the "Anti-Comintern Pact", so the USSR has to stop being Communist. It would be awkward for the USSR to adopt "National Bolshevism", as Stalin was not Russian. (And because so much of the Soviet population was not: volksdeutsch, Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Kalmucks, Uzbeks, Georgians, Armenians, Samoyeds, Karelians, Jews, Chechens...)
 
Almost certainly; US leadership (i.e. most elite opinion) was critical and fearful of Nazi Germany. The US entered the conflict by direct support of Britain without any direct attack or threat to the US. Strict isolationism was confined to a small but passionate minority. Nazi triumphs in 1939-1941 brought most Americans to the view that the US must help defeat the Axis, even at risk of war; though even so, only another small minority wanted the US to join the fighting.

An outright Nazi-Soviet alliance would be even more threatening. Also, it would alienate or demoralize those Americans who sympathized with either state (such as the Reds who promoted isolationism at Soviet direction until BARBAROSSA). I think it would be harder even for them to swallow such obvious hypocrisy.

There were some who were hostile to only one of the two states, and OTL willing to let the other do the fighting against it. ITTL, anyone hostile to either state would be hostile to the alliance of them.

As noted, Japan could be excluded from the Axis, as being in conflict with the USSR. Japan could then become a co-belligerent with the Allies, as the USSR did OTL.

OTOH, Japan and the USSR could partner in dividing China, and with Germany in seizing the British, French, and Dutch colonies in SE Asia.

One factor: the Axis was officially the "Anti-Comintern Pact", so the USSR has to stop being Communist. It would be awkward for the USSR to adopt "National Bolshevism", as Stalin was not Russian. (And because so much of the Soviet population was not: volksdeutsch, Tatars, Kazakhs, Bashkirs, Kalmucks, Uzbeks, Georgians, Armenians, Samoyeds, Karelians, Jews, Chechens...)

Stalin, although seemingly not overtly nationalist in a comparable ethnic sense he was was still anti-semetic. In addition, the Soviet proposal (agreed upon by Stalin) to join the axis was rather reasonable and German diplomats were thrilled with the terms but Hitler did not want to move on the issue of Bulgaria. If we can make him negotiate on Bulgaria or get someone else who will (Hitler gets shot in Danzig or Paris) everything else is in place.
(Soviet proposal below.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks#Soviet_counterproposal_agreement
 
Last edited:
my vote US is getting into WW2

while useful for both countries have more difficulty with continued German-Soviet collaboration? maybe some earlier overtures between the two rather than 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which was universally regarded as cynical (and temporary) arrangement.

OR

successful German invasion and a Vichy-type regime in USSR joins Axis?
 
Well it was proposed IOTL and the Moltov Ribbentrop pact existed IOTL so I don't think it's that ASB. I think it works if Germany and the Soviets find themselves as accidental allies in a war that goes longer then they expect. Say Britain and France declare war on both the Soviets and the Germans for invading Poland (this one is ASB but you get the idea) Or say Stalin decides to invade China and India to create a Communist Empire in Asia and then ends up fighting England and Japan. I think it works if the Communists and the Fascists create a temporary alliance of convenience fully intending to betray one another but it winds up blowing up into a larger war and they end up stuck with one another.
 
while useful for both countries have more difficulty with continued German-Soviet collaboration? maybe some earlier overtures between the two rather than 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact which was universally regarded as cynical (and temporary) arrangement.

I propose that any future "Get the USSR into the Axis" threads be required to use the phrase "Anti-Comintern Pact", instead of "Axis", just so everyone understands how ASB the idea is.

Well it was proposed IOTL and the Moltov Ribbentrop pact existed IOTL so I don't think it's that ASB. I think it works if Germany and the Soviets find themselves as accidental allies in a war that goes longer then they expect. Say Britain and France declare war on both the Soviets and the Germans for invading Poland (this one is ASB but you get the idea) Or say Stalin decides to invade China and India to create a Communist Empire in Asia and then ends up fighting England and Japan. I think it works if the Communists and the Fascists create a temporary alliance of convenience fully intending to betray one another but it winds up blowing up into a larger war and they end up stuck with one another.

the Anti-Comintern Pact fell apart initially in 1935, Japan, Poland, and Turkey were proving to be elusive allies, possibly instead of renewed efforts to conclude Anti-Comintern Pact, the Nazi regime decides to reach out to Soviets in 1936? certainly the economics favor relations, as well as with China? the path laid out by Von Seeckt after WWI.
 
Roosevelt decisions were drive almost exclusively by gallop poll results. I think Americans wouldn't care who they traded with as long as they didn't have to fight.
 
Roosevelt decisions were drive almost exclusively by gallop poll results. I think Americans wouldn't care who they traded with as long as they didn't have to fight.
I have not heard of the impact of gallop polls on the Roosevelt administration. I would be interested in hearing more if you have anymore information or links for further reading on this subject?
 
'The Borrowed Years' is a good analysis of how Roosevelt made his decisions 1938-1941 concerning opposition to the Axis. 800 pages of details in the subject. Votes available in Congress were always a huge consideration. Favorable budget votes were essential for paying for preparations & aid.
 
How long is the Empire going to keep fighting?

My first thought was supply the Allies but otherwise stay out, but that assumes that the Allies can keep fighting. At historic tempos the UK is out of warm bodies by 1945. Of course the Allies will be slowing down into siege mode in this scenario, but they can't keep fighting forever. There goes the US's proxie.

At this point you have to wait for the internal contradictions of the Axis powers to tear them apart and provide a new opening.
 
Not as quickly, unless Pearl Harbor is still attacked, but that's in doubt if an Axis USSR is trading oil to Japan.
 
Top