If the US enters WWII in 1939, does an anti-Nazi coup occur in Germany in 1939-40?

Honestly, it would appear that everything would effectively go as it historically went. The only thing I would expect to be different is American National Unity, and the fact that we would now have an American Dunkirk. This is more or less a guess at the situation though, because the Allied forces could've attempted a breakthrough but due to lessons taught during the Louisiana Maneuvers there is very little likelihood of anything really different in 1939-1940.
(I'm referring to the 1938-39 Louisiana Maneuvers in which a full tank regiment got stuck in a swamp and not the 1940-41 one which had a US Tank Division encircle the Blue Forces)
 

The Avenger

Banned
But any US that would is very different and probably tied into LoN with all that applies to the build up to war as GB did etc.

AFAIK, the LoN didn't require its members to come to the defense of any of its other members.

The Anschluss in 38, firmly challenge that and butterfly's fly in large numbers....

The Austrians themselves probably wanted to unite with Germany, though.
 
Honestly, a US that is still engaged in International affairs means you're more likely to see a war against Communism than against Fascism. Or you get the unholy alliance of Japan and the Soviet Union and a very Pacific-focused WWII.
 

The Avenger

Banned
Honestly, a US that is still engaged in International affairs means you're more likely to see a war against Communism than against Fascism. Or you get the unholy alliance of Japan and the Soviet Union and a very Pacific-focused WWII.
I doubt that Americans would want to fight either Fascists or Commies unless they absolutely have to.
 
Honestly, a US that is still engaged in International affairs means you're more likely to see a war against Communism than against Fascism. Or you get the unholy alliance of Japan and the Soviet Union and a very Pacific-focused WWII.
I would actually expect a Chinese-American alliance in a world with a more involved American due to the policies America had about China at the time. There's also the matter that even without popular, political, and military support over the Sino-Japanese war, there were US forces deployed abroad during the 1930s and 1940s in order to assist the Chinese. Therefore, its believable that with a more involved US that the US would actually deploy US Armed Forces into China in order to assist them.
 

The Avenger

Banned
I would actually expect a Chinese-American alliance in a world with a more involved American due to the policies America had about China at the time. There's also the matter that even without popular, political, and military support over the Sino-Japanese war, there were US forces deployed abroad during the 1930s and 1940s in order to assist the Chinese. Therefore, its believable that with a more involved US that the US would actually deploy US Armed Forces into China in order to assist them.
It might be hard to convince Americans to die en masse for China when they're not even letting Chinese people into the US, though.
 
It might be hard to convince Americans to die en masse for China when they're not even letting Chinese people into the US, though.
It could but due to the circumstances of the situation and the presumption of a US that's able to commit to international interactions, then its possible that America could deploy forces to assist China in its struggle when it already has announced support several times through the 1930s in combating the aggressive actions of Japan.
 
It might be hard to convince Americans to die en masse for China when they're not even letting Chinese people into the US, though.

When the other choice is Japanese domination over the Chinese market, which America has purposefully tried to keep open for decades, combined with Japanese aggression towards US interests elsewhere in the Pacific

And I doubt the US would be resorting to human wave tactics to dying like cannon fodder. And you're also conflating domestic policy with international policy. The US Open Door Policy in China has been on the book for decades, and the Pacific is considered the US's backyard, into which the Japanese are encroaching. Just because the US doesn't want them over here doesn't mean they're not willing to help them over there (especially if end result would mean more taking down a rival and preserving economic dominance).

And, besides, a more internationalist US would be more willing to intervene to nip problems in the bud.

It could but due to the circumstances of the situation and the presumption of a US that's able to commit to international interactions, then its possible that America could deploy forces to assist China in its struggle when it already has announced support several times through the 1930s in combating the aggressive actions of Japan.

Heck, if you have an internationalist US in the period... Wilsonian Armenia? Greater Greece? Fascist Turkey in response that aligns with Germany? etc. But you need to define what happens to actually make the US willing.
 
Heck, if you have an internationalist US in the period... Wilsonian Armenia? Greater Greece? Fascist Turkey in response that aligns with Germany? etc. But you need to define what happens to actually make the US willing.
I was referring to the previous post by Theoretical_TJ in regards to a internationalist US and its goals. However, the US would most likely need democrat presidents in place to the republican presidents of the 20s for a Internationalist US.
 

The Avenger

Banned
When the other choice is Japanese domination over the Chinese market, which America has purposefully tried to keep open for decades, combined with Japanese aggression towards US interests elsewhere in the Pacific

And I doubt the US would be resorting to human wave tactics to dying like cannon fodder. And you're also conflating domestic policy with international policy. The US Open Door Policy in China has been on the book for decades, and the Pacific is considered the US's backyard, into which the Japanese are encroaching. Just because the US doesn't want them over here doesn't mean they're not willing to help them over there (especially if end result would mean more taking down a rival and preserving economic dominance).

And, besides, a more internationalist US would be more willing to intervene to nip problems in the bud.

If the US is preoccupied with China, might it be unwilling to make guarantees to Poland along with Britain and France?

Heck, if you have an internationalist US in the period... Wilsonian Armenia? Greater Greece? Fascist Turkey in response that aligns with Germany? etc. But you need to define what happens to actually make the US willing.

The only things that change in this TL are the US joining the League of Nations with Lodge's Reservations and the US ratifying a security treaty with Britain and France in 1919-1920.

The US still wouldn't want to make unlimited foreign commitments in this TL--just to protect France and Britain from unprovoked German aggression.
 

The Avenger

Banned
It could but due to the circumstances of the situation and the presumption of a US that's able to commit to international interactions, then its possible that America could deploy forces to assist China in its struggle when it already has announced support several times through the 1930s in combating the aggressive actions of Japan.
Yes, it's definitely possible. That said, the US didn't intervene to prevent China from going Red in the late 1940s in our TL.
 
Yes, it's definitely possible. That said, the US didn't intervene to prevent China from going Red in the late 1940s in our TL.
I was more or less referring to the Sino-Japanese war in which we deployed volunteer units like the Fighting Tigers and stuff like that. However, I'm betting if the US was internationalist then its possible for boots on the ground but that's just a theory.
 
The only things that change in this TL are the US joining the League of Nations with Lodge's Reservations and the US ratifying a security treaty with Britain and France in 1919-1920.

The US still wouldn't want to make unlimited foreign commitments in this TL--just to protect France and Britain from unprovoked German aggression.
But in OTL did the French not withdraw from crushing Germany several times early on (20s /early 30s) due to economic problems with mobilization if US is willing to simply back France economically will TTL not be very different?
 
I'm not so sure about that. Germany's demand for both the Rhineland and the Sudetenland was viewed as legitimate by many people in the West.

I don't see American boys being willing to die for either of these two territories.

The French & Belgians had been. Both nations invaded Germany in 1923 to enforce the Versailles Treaty. Lack of support from their former allies, Britain, Italy, and most important the US pulled the rug out from under France. President Coolidge actually went with the pro German factions in the US undercutting its ally France, effectively eliminating the remnants of the Entente. With continued solid support from the Entente nations France would have retained a proactive and aggressive policy keeping Germany down. Left without any major allies France and Belgium reversed their policy, after another four years of debate. Finally in 1928 the Chamber of Deputies endorsed a policy reversal to the defense by voting for a fortress construction project, vs funding a modernized offensive capable army.

A engaged and anti German US means the French government can act with confidence against German resurgence.

Thats the stick. There could be a carrot with Entente cooperation in working out a better solution than the Versailles Treaty.

If you are talking about the US coming in late 1939 say October. There is no way that US troops can get to Europe in the numbers needed to stop the Germans against France. The US is just gearing up and only has three understrength infantry divisions. The national guard is being called up but again the twenty or so divisions are in worse shape and will need plenty of training. In OTL the draft was only reintroduced in 1940 after the fall of France. Since the US is in the war, I assume that the draft law will be passed right after the declaration. The problem is there is nowhere to put the draftees (the US had to construct a large number camps to house them). If they try and send the 1st-3rd divisions, there is no one to train the draftees. The only way I see France surviving is the generals remove Hitler and then sue for a white peace which is accepted.

All this assumes a US engaged in European matters shapes the same military as it did for a isolationist policy. Which does not make sense. The Army & National Guard that existed in 1938 were shaped to a large extent by War Plan Orange. That plan contemplated mobilizing less than 500,000 Army/NG, and fielding a expeditionary force of only 100,000 twelve months after initial mobilization. Active engagement in Europe means Congress would have to take more seriously funding a larger mobilization plan that aimed at standing up between 1.5 & 2 million soldiers in twelve months. As it was the US came close to having 1.6 million organized and trained men for the Army by the end of 1941. However the mid 1941 decision to expand from 45 odd ground combat divisions to over 150, and increase the Air Force five fold shrank the possible expeditionary force of December 1941 from 20+ divisions to maybe a half dozen.

The butterflies of a European engagement for the US extend far beyond military alliances. Anything like the Smoot-Hawley Act is very unlikely. With no catastrophic tariff war during the Depression years the economic retrenchment & reforms will be much less painful and lengthly. There likely to be more inter government cooperation to alleviate problems in the banks & other fixes. That makes it harder for the nazis to gain voting traction 1930-33. & their bogeyman the communists. With a shallower recession the NSDAP is going to peak out among voters sooner over economic matters.
 

The Avenger

Banned
The French & Belgians had been. Both nations invaded Germany in 1923 to enforce the Versailles Treaty. Lack of support from their former allies, Britain, Italy, and most important the US pulled the rug out from under France. President Coolidge actually went with the pro German factions in the US undercutting its ally France, effectively eliminating the remnants of the Entente. With continued solid support from the Entente nations France would have retained a proactive and aggressive policy keeping Germany down. Left without any major allies France and Belgium reversed their policy, after another four years of debate. Finally in 1928 the Chamber of Deputies endorsed a policy reversal to the defense by voting for a fortress construction project, vs funding a modernized offensive capable army.

A engaged and anti German US means the French government can act with confidence against German resurgence.

Thats the stick. There could be a carrot with Entente cooperation in working out a better solution than the Versailles Treaty.
You're assuming that "engaged" means "anti-German," though. I doubt that it would mean that--especially considering that Coolidge could still become U.S. President in 1923 in this TL.
 
With a Treaty in place, won't change the isolationist feelings of the electorate, so I think the *Selective Training and Service Act of this TL will have a much harder time being passed, with more emphasis on Volunteers to keep the US out of a 'big' War.

Without a 'Pearl Harbor' I don't think you will get the expansion of that Act, either
 

The Avenger

Banned
With a Treaty in place, won't change the isolationist feelings of the electorate, so I think the *Selective Training and Service Act of this TL will have a much harder time being passed, with more emphasis on Volunteers to keep the US out of a 'big' War.

Without a 'Pearl Harbor' I don't think you will get the expansion of that Act, either
So, even with a security treaty with France, the US isn't going to have a draft?
 
Top