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

I feel like the US, due to not having a Pearl Harbor, would be very reluctant to really dedicate massive amounts of resources to a 'foreign war'. However, that could just be me and my belief that Pearl Harbor was the real single unifying point in which all of the United States viewed the Second World War as a great struggle for all.
 
So, even with a security treaty with France, the US isn't going to have a draft?

It will be more limited, even if passed.

From the wiki
the draft began in October 1940, with the first men entering military service on November 18. By the early summer of 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked the U.S. Congress to extend the term of duty for the draftees beyond twelve months to a total of thirty months, plus any additional time that he could deem necessary for national security. On August 12, the United States House of Representatives approved the extension by a single vote.[4] As Under Secretary of the Army Karl R. Bendetsen said in an oral history interview, "Mr. Rayburn banged the gavel at a critical moment and declared the Bill had passed."[5] The Senate approved it by a wider margin, and Roosevelt signed the Service Extension Act of 1941 into law on August 18.

Many of the soldiers drafted in October 1940 threatened to desert once the original twelve months of their service was up. Many of these men painted the letters "O H I O" on the walls of their barracks in protest.[6] These letters were an acronym for "Over the hill in October", which meant that the men intended to desert upon the end of their twelve months of duty. Desertions did occur, but they were not widespread. Following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, millions of American men entered the United States military's ranks both by volunteering and by conscription.
 
I feel like the US, due to not having a Pearl Harbor, would be very reluctant to really dedicate massive amounts of resources to a 'foreign war'. However, that could just be me and my belief that Pearl Harbor was the real single unifying point in which all of the United States viewed the Second World War as a great struggle for all.

We can cite Gallup polling that was showing support for intervening against Germany appearing in the months leading up to Pearl Harbor, and that was with a relatively isolationist US. This was against a Germany that had sunk multiple American warships, and after the US had occupied Iceland and gone out of its way to support the British at every turn. The US was basically in the war and, while the population was not going to vote themselves into a war, there was a 60%-40% spread that felt it was more important to help the UK at risk of provoking war than to cease helping them, and this is around Christmas 1940. And Feb 5, 1941, there was a poll asking whether a nationwide vote should be held before the war - this poll was only a 52%-48% margin for yes. For the US at the time, so long as they had a choice, they would likely vote no, but they were more and more willing to fight if they feel the choice is fighting or their side losing. The polling becomes further and further skewed toward intervening the further you go on.

That isn't to say that Pearl Harbor wasn't a polarizing moment - it was. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back, more than a single isolated event that provoked the US into action.

So, if you change the definition of what the US is willing to fight for, you'll certainly find support. Though, considering butterflies, anymore interventionist American support, and continued American participation in the League of Nations, would lead to enough changes being made that WW2 never happens as it does.

Also, remember that part of the initial thoughts behind the Pearl Harbor attack was that it was the Germans fault, as the Japanese could not have pulled it off on their own. There definitely was that element.
 
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. ...

If Harding or Coolidge is President, and/or the isolationist movement is strong there effectively won't be a treaty or a politically engaged US. Any treaty ratified earlier would be ignored when convenient or maybe withdrawn. A US still engaged in Europe requires a considerable change in the attitude of the electorate in the 1920s. Its difficult to see a likely PoD post 1919 that reverses the US social and political stance towards Europe . It took a catastrophic and existential threat like rampaging Facists to do it.
 
So, even with a security treaty with France, the US isn't going to have a draft?

Conscription has never been popular in the US. Conversely the militia has been popular. A National Guard of 500,000, or larger, as proposed by Peyton Marsh or Jack Pershing is quite possible. OTL the US Army had no problem finding the men for a reserve officer corps of 60,000+ & doubling its active service 1938 strength in a year. The 1919 proposal for a army of 500,000 Regular Army and 500,000 National Guard is practical had Congress/Voters been willing to pay for it. They were sold on keeping up a large and expensive navy, so a standing Army and reserve that is between tenth and fifteenth is size globally is not ASB
 
Also, question--does the Fall of France even occur if the US is already in the war? For instance, could US troops get sent to the Ardennes/Sedan sector between September 1939 and May 1940--thus preventing a German breakthrough there?

This has so many variables affecting it. A major one is the size of the US Army in 1938-39. The OTL Army could not be built up fast enough to field anything rivaling the BEF. Conversely if something like the proposed 1919 plan, or the reduced 1921 plan were existing then the US could have between 15 and 25 combat ready divisions with modern equipment in France come May 1940. Congress choked on funding either plan & we got what we paid for.
 
The Panay attack could work for this.

The actual effect of the Panay attack was to strengthen isolationism in the US.

As David M. Kennedy writes in Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945, p. 402: "But the Panay was not to be a modern Maine, nor even a Lusitania. Its sinking produced a cry for withdrawal, not for war. 'We should learn that it is about time for us to mind our own business,' Texas Democrat Maury Maverick declared in the House. A few months later, a Fortune magazine poll showed that a majority of Americans favored getting the United States out of China altogether. When Japan tendered an official apology for the Panay incident and paid some $2 million in reparations, the crisis swiftly blew over.

"The principal residue of the Panay affair in Congress was not more bellicosity but more pacifism [citing the boost the incident gave to the proposed Ludlow Amendment]... https://books.google.com/books?id=UQlEq9GILRgC&pg=PR111
 
Perhaps one POD is that the US becomes more involved in the Spanish Civil War. The fascists still win, which worries FDR to the point where he decides to prepare for the coming war with the Germans earlier.
 
If the US enters WWII in 1939 (this can be done by having Woodrow Wilson focus on securing Senate ratification of the security treaty with France in 1919-1920 instead of focusing on his quixotic fight for the League of Nations), does an anti-Nazi coup occur in Germany in 1939-40?

The DoWs from Britain and France in response to the Nazi invasion of Poland weren't enough to trigger an anti-Nazi coup in Germany in the eight months between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France. However, would a U.S. declaration of war in September 1939 been a game-changer in regards to this?

"The US and UK create a credible alliance with France in 1918-19 but history until 1939 goes exactly as it did in OTL" does not seem terribly plausible to me.

BTW, the proposed treaty of guarantee had a lot of wiggle room: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27

"In case the following stipulations relating to the left Bank of the Rhine contained in the Treaty of Peace with Germany signed at Versailles the 28th day of June, 1919, by the United States of America, the French Republic and the British Empire among other Powers:


“Article 42. Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the West of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine.”
“Article 43. In the area defined above the maintenance and assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manoeuvres of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilisation are in the same way forbidden.”
“Article 44. In case Germany violates in any manner whatever the provisions of Articles 42 et 43, she shall be regarded as committing a hostile act against the Powers signatory of the present Treaty and as calculated to disturb the peace of the world.”

may not at first provide adequate security and protection to France, the United States of America shall be bound to come immediately to her assistance in the event of any unprovoked movement of aggression against her being made by Germany." https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27

If the US wants to avoid war in 1939, it can simply say that Germany had not yet made any "unprovoked movement of aggression" against France (as opposed to Poland). So the US is perfectly free not to go to war...

(A. J. P. Taylor argued that "The Anglo-American guarantee, even if had been implemented, was no more than a promise to liberate France if she were conquered by the Germans — a promise fulfilled in 1944 even without a treaty." https://books.google.com/books?id=nxCw5map13AC&pg=PA31)
 
Last edited:

The Avenger

Banned
"The US and UK create a credible alliance with France in 1918-19 but history until 1939 goes exactly as it did in OTL" does not seem terribly plausible to me.

Well, what changes in this TL are you proposing?

For example, is it possible that France doesn't ally with countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia in this TL due to its belief that an Anglo-American guarantee is enough to protect its security?

BTW, the proposed treaty of guarantee had a lot of wiggle room: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27

"In case the following stipulations relating to the left Bank of the Rhine contained in the Treaty of Peace with Germany signed at Versailles the 28th day of June, 1919, by the United States of America, the French Republic and the British Empire among other Powers:

“Article 42. Germany is forbidden to maintain or construct any fortifications either on the left bank of the Rhine or on the right bank to the West of a line drawn 50 kilometres to the East of the Rhine.”
“Article 43. In the area defined above the maintenance and assembly of armed forces, either permanently or temporarily, and military manoeuvres of any kind, as well as the upkeep of all permanent works for mobilisation are in the same way forbidden.”
“Article 44. In case Germany violates in any manner whatever the provisions of Articles 42 et 43, she shall be regarded as committing a hostile act against the Powers signatory of the present Treaty and as calculated to disturb the peace of the world.”

may not at first provide adequate security and protection to France, the United States of America shall be bound to come immediately to her assistance in the event of any unprovoked movement of aggression against her being made by Germany." https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1919Parisv13/ch27

If the US wats to avoid war in 1939, it can simply say that Germany had not yet made any "unprovoked movement of aggression" against France (as opposed to Poland). So the US is perfectly free not to go to war...

Yes, the US could technically avoid going to war in 1939 even in this TL for the reason that you said (France declared war on Germany--thus, there was no unprovoked German aggression against France). On the other hand, though, if the US, Britain, and France will be allies for 20 years by this point in time, then it's possible for Americans to feel a moral obligation towards helping Britain and France fight their war on behalf of Poland. Heck, Americans might think that Britain and France are going to do most of the fighting anyway and that thus--even with a US DoW on Germany--the US wouldn't have to sacrifice a lot of American lives.

(A. J. P. Taylor argued that "The Anglo-American guarantee, even if had been implemented, was no more than a promise to liberate France if she were conquered by the Germans — a promise fulfilled in 1944 even without a treaty." https://books.google.com/books?id=nxCw5map13AC&pg=PA31)

I think that Taylor is being too pessimistic here. Given the strength of France's military, it would not have been unrealistic without hindsight to expect them to hold out by themselves in the face of a German attack for a couple of years. That would be more than enough time to get a large number of British and American troops to France and thus to ensure that France never falls.

Also, as a side note, I wonder--let's say that the US genuinely does declare that it is not going to declare war on Germany in response to a German invasion of Poland. Do Britain and France still guarantee Poland against German aggression or do they decide that the war is not worth fighting unless the US is on board? (True, in our TL, Britain and France guaranteed Poland's independence without the help of the US; however, since the US wasn't actually allied with Britain and France in our TL, Britain and France had nothing to lose by guaranteeing Poland in our TL.)
 
You need a military build-up starting around 1937 for there to be much of an impact. In OTL 1939, the US Army had 190,000 men in it. I don't think this is particularly realistic, nor do I see the US doing anything before September 1, 1939.
 
Top