Earlier U.S. entry into WW2

[Jasen777]

It's the spring of 1941 and FDR is doing everything he can do bring the U.S. into the European war. There's an incident at sea, and a U.S. destroyer is sunk by a (presumably German) sub. FDR pushes a declaration of war on Germany through congress. So,

1. How does the European war go differently?

2. What does Japan do?

 

[sloreck]

The Nazis did sink the USS Reuben James & no war declaration. Let's say however that a large, lit/identified & marked US passenger liner is sunk with 100's of dead Americans, and a US destroyer coming to the rescue also sunk - in the western Atlantic, not near the UK. That just might do it. So US enters the war in June 1941.

May get some shift of US fleet to Atlantic, and even without that this helps the RN big time. Still get the disaster of no convoys/blackouts along the east coast like OTL "Operation Drumbeat" by the Germans, but that gets solved like OTL, maybe even quicker. I expect USAAF units go to Britain, primarily fighters & pace of lend-lease stepped up.

The alliance Japan had with Germany was defensive & I doubt they would declare war in this case - Germany was not "attacked". Of course with the USA at war, even if vs Germany, there is no way a sneak attack on Pearl harbor happens.

Big question is, assuming declaration before Barbarossa, does Hitler still go?

 

[Jay]

Hitler shouldn't go after the Soviets considering he already has awakened one industrial giant, but then again, its Hitler.

The war would play out longer than the OTL assuming that the Soviets do not join the fight. Well, if the Wehrmacht are dealing with them, I find it hard that the Allies could find a good spot to land to liberate Europe with Germany's military in full push against them. The war may just be ended by the Allies eventually gaining air superiorty and bombing Germany into submission.

As for the Soviets, they may independently declare war on Germany to grab land in Eastern Europe.

This would be an interesting timeline that I would read.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Hitler just might be convinced to put off or completely cancel Barbarossa, although the U-boat commander in question will probably get drummed out of the KM at the very least.

Well the USAAF abandons using unescorted bombers earlier than IOTL, was the P-38 with drop tanks able to fly from England to Germany with the bombers?

Even with a failed European landing somewhere I still see the Allies giving it a second go, they just ubdate their tactics and weapons. you'll definetly see a much higher proliferation of the Jumbo Sherman and Pershing tanks later on. Romania probably gets a hell of a lot of attention, since it is the primary source of German Oil, maybe Italy and France get left alone and the war is carried out primarily in Eastern Europe, Stalin might be convinced to enter the war, he probably has no interest in seeing Allied occupied territory on his doorstep. Whatever happens, against the full might of the Wermacht, the Brits and Americans get schooled out of their bad habits much quicker than OTL for better or worse.

 

[CalBear]

It's the spring of 1941 and FDR is doing everything he can do bring the U.S. into the European war. There's an incident at sea, and a U.S. destroyer is sunk by a (presumably German) sub. FDR pushes a declaration of war on Germany through congress. So,

1. How does the European war go differently?

2. What does Japan do?

Not going to happen. The U.S. lost the Reuben James on October 31st, which was AFTER a U-boat put a torpedo into the Kearney on October 17th. Two attacks in less than two full weeks didn't do the trick, and that was AFTER the attack on the USSR.

Now if U-203 had managed to pot the Texas in June of '41, that might have garnered a reaction.

 

[Markus]

Now if U-203 had managed to pot the Texas in June of '41, that might have garnered a reaction.

Nice understatement!

I find it hard to imagine that the USA would not declare war right away if a sub sinks an obviously american BB that is a) nowhere near a british convoy and b) has not attacked the sub first.

 

[Euroman26]

Nice understatement!

I find it hard to imagine that the USA would not declare war right away if a sub sinks an obviously american BB that is a) nowhere near a british convoy and b) has not attacked the sub first.

Good point, but what about Nazi terrorism in the US in 1940?

 

[Markus]

Good point, but what about Nazi terrorism in the US in 1940?

What would that be? No offence but it sounds unreal, like the Werewolf.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I am thinking a series of Nazi attacks on civilian shipping along the U.S. coast. The U.S. gets into the war in Europe earlier and speeds up the victory. The U.S. gears up its defenses and is ready for the attack on Pearl Harbor, which would come.

 

[The Kiat]

If the U.S. got involved earlier, then in the Pacific it would activate War Plan Orange. The 7th Fleet would sail towards the Phillipines, smashing anything in the way. Yamamoto was a smart man, so he would probably be waiting for the Americans somewhere in the Phillipine Sea, and would have aircraft sink the 7th Fleet over open ocean (instead of a shallow harbor) where there would be no hope of salvage. It would be a disaster.

 

[Nikephoros]

Good point, but what about Nazi terrorism in the US in 1940?

What would that be? No offence but it sounds unreal, like the Werewolf.

Actually, it happened. There were a few extremely minor attacks committed by German agents, but there was also a plot to destroy a section of railroad near Altoona, PA. The "Horseshoe Curve"

 

[Jasen777]

Not going to happen. The U.S. lost the Reuben James on October 31st, which was AFTER a U-boat put a torpedo into the Kearney on October 17th. Two attacks in less than two full weeks didn't do the trick, and that was AFTER the attack on the USSR.

Not that you mention it, I remember used to know that.

 

[Markus]

Actually, it happened. There were a few extremely minor attacks committed by German agents, but there was also a plot to destroy a section of railroad near Altoona, PA. The "Horseshoe Curve"

Yes it happened but after war was declared, not before.

 

[Bearcat]

Yes it happened but after war was declared, not before.

A U-boat sinking Texas will start bloody hell politically, but it won't quite bring war by itself.

America First will say FDR is lying about the details, that Roosevelt engineered it to get us into the war, blah blah blah.

Now if the Germans follow up with another incident at sea (even in response to pissed-off USN challenging them), then things could easily slide out of control and into war, by say, August.

Paukenschlag (sp?) begins in September or October. The US is unprepared, as in OTL.

Even a European War might not be enough to shake off the Pacific Fleet's peacetime mindset. Chance might play a big role in any ATL Pearl Harbor battle.

 

[lothaw]

Sinking the Battleship Texas would do the trick, I imagine. Though I imagine the actual declaration of war vote would be close, like it was in 1812.

Would certainly make the midterm elections in 1942 interesting. As for Japan... really US entry into Europe doesn't change their situation much. The oil has still been cut off, and their choice is either pull out of China or take the resources they need. If anything this gives the pro-war people a valid arguement that the US is distracted in another war.

As for the Pacific Fleet's readiness? It'd almost have to be better than it was OTL. Though Kimmel was a battleship style admiral so in the event of war with Japan, he may just try and sortie his battleship line and relieve the Phillipines, War Plan Orange style.

I'd see Yamamotto chewing him up if he did that. And you can't refloat too easily outside of Pearl Harbor.

Still, the war would probably go very similar OTL, maybe shave a few months off of it.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Hitler can no longer do Barbarossa. He would need to eliminate as much staging areas for American forces as possible before they deploy in strength. The most important of these is Britain, but at this stage (mid-1941), is it even possible to launch Sealion? Probably not. So Hitler would more likely concentrate on the North African Campaign.

With the some of resources of Barbarossa devoted to North Africa, the Germans would likely succeed. A second front could be opened through Turkey to secure the oil necessary for sustaining a long war with the United States.

Hmmm. Hitler could end up doing quite well. Stalin would be content to sit back and build up his army. The bulk of German forces would not be destroyed in the Soviet Union and instead be used to bolster the defence of France. D-Day landing becomes neigh impossible, so is the invasion of Italy due to Axis control of the Med.

The Allies could try to retake the Middle Eastern oil fields from the Indian Ocean, but that logistic tail would be very long. We'll probably see an invasion of Norway and a much longer and nastier air war. When both sides have exhausted themselves, the Red Army would make its move and take all of Eastern Europe. This would force Germany to seek truce with the Western Allies.

Japan would play the same part and attack Pearl Harbour. However this time around more American ground troops would be committed to Asia since Europe is a stalemate. Burma would probably be retaken by 1943. Japanese controlled territories in the Pacific rolled back earlier, but it'll still require the B-29s to bring the war to a close.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US when Japan had given him the golden opportunity to get the US out of Nazi Germany's hair for a few years, just by denouncing Japan's vile sneak attack, Japan having already failed to support the EuroAxis against the USSR.

So why not have him admit to and gloat over sinking USS Texas? Let's see the American First get past THAT!



tallwingedgoat, without Barbarossa Stalin remains Hitler's ally so he'll wait until he can extort...pardon, ask his dear friend for a few favors. There won't be a stalemate either, the first atom bombs will fix that and quite possibly force Stalin to yield some of his 1939 gains.

 

[hzn5pk]

Hitler might be dumb enough to still launch Barbarossa in June after the naval incident with the US in the spring of 1941 for these reasons

1.) Germany was already deploying for the Soviet invasion, the later that this happens, the harder it is to stop the invasion. Things were in motion.
2.) Hitler was still infected with victory disease in that he thought that the German army was invincible and that he was destined to rule over Europe.
3.) Hitler thought that the Soviet Union would be a quick win, break through the front line units and the entire nation will crumble as it did in WWI.
4.) Hitler believed that he would have to take on the Americans sooner or latrer. Might as well be sooner.
5.) The Nazis were madmen

Would the invasion of the Soviets and the war starting with the USA in the spring of '41 embolden the German opposition more? Would any more officers come over to the opposition as they would see that Hitler is a madman? Could this actauuly lead to a successful coup?

 

[Astrodragon]

A U-boat sinking Texas will start bloody hell politically, but it won't quite bring war by itself.

America First will say FDR is lying about the details, that Roosevelt engineered it to get us into the war, blah blah blah.

Now if the Germans follow up with another incident at sea (even in response to pissed-off USN challenging them), then things could easily slide out of control and into war, by say, August.

Paukenschlag (sp?) begins in September or October. The US is unprepared, as in OTL.

Even a European War might not be enough to shake off the Pacific Fleet's peacetime mindset. Chance might play a big role in any ATL Pearl Harbor battle.

How about if the U-boat sinks the Texas, then sinks at least one of the ships sent to rescue the survivors...
I think that would do it, the amount of outrage would be far greater, and it would be much more difficult to pass it off as a mistake.
Even if some of the rescue ships were British, it would still be seen as compounding the attack on the Texas. I know that logically sinking warships regardless of what they are doing is acceptable, but I dont see the US public understanding that in those circumstances.

 

[Astrodragon]

I think Barbarossa would still go ahead.
The Germans werent as stupid as often made out with the timing.
they knew the Russians were building up their forces and restructuring them
They believed that the USA was going to declare war at some point (and even if it didnt, the amount of material supplied would just get bigger and bigger). They already pretty much considered the USA to be part of the allies (hence Hitlers declaration of war - again, not as stupid as it seems, the USA is only going to get stronger, why not strike while they are busy and do more damage?)

So taking out Russia in 41 makes sense - it was going to be a (relatively) short campaign to knock out the Russians (before they got stronger), and the USA wouldnt be in a position to do much until it was all over.