USA joins WW2 later

US interests required that Japan get out of China, not further advance in China, so there's really no chance of any such agreement being reached.

Nor can there be an agreement to maintain trade when Japan is on the verge of running out of the money to engage in trade.
 
US interests required that Japan get out of China, not further advance in China, so there's really no chance of any such agreement being reached.
But the US didn't embargo Japan because of China, and America's trade with China in the 1930s was actually smaller than its trade with Japan. So why would America do anything but wring its hands about China when it didn't in OTL?
 
I don't know if the Gentleman's Agreement would work to begin with, than again, OTL US government was way more confrontational with Japan but believed its overtures towards peace (i.e. the ones they kept having in the days before PH to avoid suspicion), but then again, Japan broke a ton of its agreements in regards to arms control and being an expansionist, militarily aggressive power in the Pacific, would the American public or their president be so willing to take the Japanese at face value. Then again, they might do it just for the sheer sake that they don't want to have to get involved, still, I think Japan's promises hardly mean anything by this point in time.

Yeah, it would definitely just serve to delay US entry at best, because given the Japanese government's track record at the time, they would break any agreement the instant there was something to gain from it. However, it might work well enough if our goal is merely bumping back US entry into the war a few months; it's not like we need a viable long-term solution. In fact, something that's doomed to fail within a few months at best due to Japan's inability to sustain trade would be just about perfect for the OP's request to briefly delay US entry.
 
First off, they joined the war in December because of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Second, if you want them to join at a later date, you're going to have to butterfly away or delay Pearl Harbor.
That's possible, actually. Have Japan be less convinced of U.S.-British inseperability, maybe by no Neutrality Patrol. Or by a deal between IJA & IJN to guarantee IJA doesn't get 80-90% of the Japanese defense budget if they adopt the "Southern strategy"...:rolleyes:
 
Even isolationists won't keep the US out of the war if there's unrestricted submarine warfare and something that is similar to, if it isn't exactly an attack on Pearl Harbor.


Hello,

it was unrestricted sub war, even us destroyers got sunk (Reuben James) or attacked german subs...

the interesting question is:
what if the japanese do what they did in late 1941, but germany do not declare war....

will the USA start a war with germany if it is in a war with japan?
Can someone avoid this - if it is avoided, what consequences will this have for the british?

Could the flow of materials and ships to the british island be lessen, because the USA concentrate at japan (no germany first-strategy?)

The only significant points are:
let roosevelt die in the 20ties...
another president that is not so eager to enter the war will be not so kind to the brits, so these have no money to pay the toys... if this president hates communism, he will not support the russians...

so basically you cange two things with it:
a.) the british empire suffer heavy, cause they have not the money to pay the weapons - if you like sink one of the gold-transporters, so the british loose this money too... without cash the british cannot act as they did in real life... (lesser destroyers, lesser production, lesser P40, guns, etc)
b.) the russians recive nothing - that hurt them really. So less tanks, planes, supply, cloths, shoes, jeeps, trucks (!), locomotions... even if they are not ready in 1941 or early 1942, the russians knew that the usa will send this stuff. Also no british support (they have no surplus, cause they cannot pay the usa for their own stuff)

you do not change:
usa rearm fast - from 1938 on... every president will do this, cause the depression need it...

the japanese will have similar problems like the british... they will have no money left in a few months... so even without an embargo, they need to attack...

how serious are the changes and how do they influence the war in europe?

with the USA not in the war (and as important: only cash-and-carry) the british are seriously weakened. Esp. if the japanese do like they did historically, they are in real trouble - not to be conquered - but they have to decide what they need. If it is ships, they cannot build much bombers - because both are important they will have less from both - so the germans have more possibilities (or less losses) in 1941 and 1942.

the russians will be beaten in 1941, but not out of the game, their comeback will be much later and way bloodier... without the support of the usa they cannot mount so many attacks - lesser attacks could lead to leningrad taken (in august 1942)... so even a stalingrad could be avoided (stalin could shift all his strength to the nord - so he could be weak at both locations)
how serious this will change the war in the east if leningrad falls before winter 1942/43 and stalingrad will be no encirclement?

the russians have enough chances to hit the germans in the south, but the loss of leningrad (if someone want to go this way) improve the supply situation a lot.... so more trucks for the central and the south (you can ship much more supplies by sea transports, save from partisans)
with this the german frontline is stronger in the north and the central...

but - with the usa in the war - say december 1942 (for example, the fall of leningrad and stalingrad in late november together with a unsucsessfull el-alemain-battle, so the usa realize that the germans really could "win" this war) this will change.

So another interesting question: how quick can american support improve the russian situation? 6 months? 12 months?

Interesting for sure...
 
Last edited:
Hello,

it was unrestricted sub war, even us destroyers got sunk (Reuben James) or attacked german subs...

the interesting question is:
what if the japanese do what they did in late 1941, but germany do not declare war....

will the USA start a war with germany if it is in a war with japan?
Can someone avoid this - if it is avoided, what consequences will this have for the british?

Could the flow of materials and ships to the british island be lessen, because the USA concentrate at japan (no germany first-strategy?)

The only significant points are:
let roosevelt die in the 20ties...
another president that is not so eager to enter the war will be not so kind to the brits, so these have no money to pay the toys... if this president hates communism, he will not support the russians...

so basically you cange two things with it:
a.) the british empire suffer heavy, cause they have not the money to pay the weapons - if you like sink one of the gold-transporters, so the british loose this money too... without cash the british cannot act as they did in real life... (lesser destroyers, lesser production, lesser P40, guns, etc)
b.) the russians recive nothing - that hurt them really. So less tanks, planes, supply, cloths, shoes, jeeps, trucks (!), locomotions... even if they are not ready in 1941 or early 1942, the russians knew that the usa will send this stuff. Also no british support (they have no surplus, cause they cannot pay the usa for their own stuff)

you do not change:
usa rearm fast - from 1938 on... every president will do this, cause the depression need it...

the japanese will have similar problems like the british... they will have no money left in a few months... so even without an embargo, they need to attack...

how serious are the changes and how do they influence the war in europe?

with the USA not in the war (and as important: only cash-and-carry) the british are seriously weakened. Esp. if the japanese do like they did historically, they are in real trouble - not to be conquered - but they have to decide what they need. If it is ships, they cannot build much bombers - because both are important they will have less from both - so the germans have more possibilities (or less losses) in 1941 and 1942.

the russians will be beaten in 1941, but not out of the game, their comeback will be much later and way bloodier... without the support of the usa they cannot mount so many attacks - lesser attacks could lead to leningrad taken (in august 1942)... so even a stalingrad could be avoided (stalin could shift all his strength to the nord - so he could be weak at both locations)
how serious this will change the war in the east if leningrad falls before winter 1942/43 and stalingrad will be no encirclement?

the russians have enough chances to hit the germans in the south, but the loss of leningrad (if someone want to go this way) improve the supply situation a lot.... so more trucks for the central and the south (you can ship much more supplies by sea transports, save from partisans)
with this the german frontline is stronger in the north and the central...

but - with the usa in the war - say december 1942 (for example, the fall of leningrad and stalingrad in late november together with a unsucsessfull el-alemain-battle, so the usa realize that the germans really could "win" this war) this will change.

So another interesting question: how quick can american support improve the russian situation? 6 months? 12 months?

Interesting for sure...

I'm torn between the opinion that you dont engage your brain before spouting off all the rubbish you do, and the one in which you're just blatantly trolling.
All this has actually been discussed many time on the board.

You have no idea as to how and what the British were actually paying for and how much (and when) came from LendLease.
You seem to have no idea as to why the countries concerned came to the decisions they did (hint - countries do things for what are (at least at the time), seen as sane and rational reasons - yes, even Germany)
An 'unsuccessful' Alamein -really, and how was the pretty small US input suppose to turn a crushing victory into a defeat??? Magic, or ASB's?
 
First off, they joined the war in December because of the Pearl Harbor attacks. Second, if you want them to join at a later date, you're going to have to butterfly away or delay Pearl Harbor.

I bet somebody else said this, but the Pearl Harbor attack only led to a US declaration of war on Japan. It was Hitler who made WW2 by declaring war on the US. If Germany doesn't declare war on the US, one could see eventual US involvement in the European war being delayed to 1942 or later. This is really an interesting question - that has been explored before on this board.
 
I'm torn between the opinion that you dont engage your brain before spouting off all the rubbish you do, and the one in which you're just blatantly trolling.
All this has actually been discussed many time on the board.

You have no idea as to how and what the British were actually paying for and how much (and when) came from LendLease.
You seem to have no idea as to why the countries concerned came to the decisions they did (hint - countries do things for what are (at least at the time), seen as sane and rational reasons - yes, even Germany)
An 'unsuccessful' Alamein -really, and how was the pretty small US input suppose to turn a crushing victory into a defeat??? Magic, or ASB's?


you can try to be the insulting guy you are :D, i do not care.

As long as you avoid to react to things other people write it is quite difficult to discuss things,.

If you do not know what the british needed in 1940 and 1941 and what they could pay cash you should try to inform yourself.

You really should understood the questions of people.. the thread starter asked about the consequences of a delayed entry of the usa could be. Or to make it better - he asked how the usa enter the war later...

i made one possible answer - to make it realistic the usa will NOT go further as cash and carry... so the brits (yes, they needed the stuff, oh god, really... yeah :p) have problems. i also wrote, to make it better (okay, worse for the tommies, but this is better in this scenario) sink some gold-ship...

so the brits cannot pay the americans... result: they get nothing they got via LL.
this has consequences... not in the world of britwankys... but if someone take it serious, less ressources mean consequences.

one possibility is, that the brits suffer more and do less.
without the americans in the war in 1942 and without LL the british problems will grow.
so, if the war in africa went like it did historically (i hope you know that el alemain was fought late 1942... if not you really should inform yourself about this interesting part of history) the british could be so weak that their force cannot crush the axis troops... for britwanks monty the old fox should have beaten the krauts alone... i know, but real life looked different ;)

without torch (the brits alone never ever could have done it, the americans aren´t in the war, so beside the marsians nobody else is left) africa is not gone (in the moment)

Also, it was just an example, why the usa (with another president, keeping the usa out of war as long as possible) declare war to germany in december 1942 - one year after the real life (yes, germany declared war, i know... but so we have the threadstarters one year delay)

i know, it is useless to discuss things with you, so i will not answer to you in future. Please stay away... i dislike people like you

Thank you in forward
 
I bet somebody else said this, but the Pearl Harbor attack only led to a US declaration of war on Japan. It was Hitler who made WW2 by declaring war on the US. If Germany doesn't declare war on the US, one could see eventual US involvement in the European war being delayed to 1942 or later. This is really an interesting question - that has been explored before on this board.


Hi,

yes - but it wasn´t important

with roosevelt leading the usa war with germany factual was ongoing... so you avoid really a war you need another president and real neutrality (so only cash and carry, even if churchill went wild), also make this guy another McCarthy... about communism. So no love to Stalin

whole plot is on weak ground... this is the only possibility... basically in autum 1941 the usa was at war with germany... the strange thing is, that hitler - avoiding anything to start war with the usa just did the declaration without need.
 
Hi,

yes - but it wasn´t important

with roosevelt leading the usa war with germany factual was ongoing... so you avoid really a war you need another president and real neutrality (so only cash and carry, even if churchill went wild), also make this guy another McCarthy... about communism. So no love to Stalin

whole plot is on weak ground... this is the only possibility... basically in autum 1941 the usa was at war with germany... the strange thing is, that hitler - avoiding anything to start war with the usa just did the declaration without need.

You are correct that the US was providing, and would continue to provide extensive materiel assistance to Britain - and continue with it's very aggressive anti-submarine policy in the Atlantic. Eventually something would happen (one too many German attacks on US merchantmen, one too many u-boats sunk by US patrol boats, etc) and the US would probably declare war on Germany. But even a delay til mid 1942 could have major effects on allied strategy, and there remains the question if congress (still heavily Republican and conservative) would agree to a declaratrion of war against Germany that also made the US an ally of the Soviet Union and not just Britain. Also, in this context, with a war already in progress between the USA and Japan, there would have been no agreed-upon Germany First policy and, even with a declared war with Germany, the Americans might just, as you yourself say, make their naval war with Germany official. To say that Hitler's declaration of war wasn't important is just wrong.
 
Doesn't alter the European war one way or another until after the Battle of Kursk. The Soviets were able to stop the Blitzkrieg without meaningful input from the democracies. If anything the absence of US production as a motivating factor for a general offensive may encourage Stalin's cautiousness in the Battle of Moscow, in which case bye-bye Army Group Center.......
 
If they could, early on Soviet deficiencies in industry and supplies were made up for by Lend-Lease aid, the Soviets largely offset this later with their own titanic industry buildup, but early on they were at a disadvantage that would've made things worse before they got better, so yes, the possibility of a WORSE World War Two does exist, they don't need to lose to be put through Hell and back after all.

A US that enters later would likely be one with no Lend-Lease Act, FDR knew full well that that was an overt step towards the Allies and it was irrevocable, after Lend-Lease passes the USA's joining the war against Germany is merely a matter of time, Hitler wasn't going to tolerate American "neutrality" and it would be a true fool of a military commander who doesn't try to put a stop to supplies that are keeping his enemy running.

That matters only after Kursk. Prior to that Soviet production and logistics favor them, not the Nazis, and they will be probably less prone to general offensives with less resources to spend. Which in the case of the Battle of Moscow turns it from "almost" destroyed Army Group Center to really destroying that overextended force and the result of *that* is destruction of a good-sized chunk of Germany's armored reserve. The Nazis never recovered from OTL losses in the Battle of Moscow and in that scenario it knocks their entire war plan into a great big skew.

Not to mention all the Lend-Lease that wouldn't be so easily replaced by Soviet industry, like Aviation Fuel (which the USSR could refine a small amount of) or food (Germany occupied most of the USSR's best farmland). Then there's all the logistical aid the US provided; if the Soviets have to build all of their own jeeps and trains, it means making fewer tanks, guns, and bullets.

This doesn't factor in overmuch to 1943, at which point the absence of Soviet mobility could drastically change the war. On the other hand if the absence of mobility leads Stalin to accept due to no choice at all the necessity for staggered offensives then the Wehrmacht is boned as instead of squandering its strength and reserves it faces the same losses and increasing weakness against a less mobile Soviet enemy that is already staggering offensives like IOTL later in the war.
 
This doesn't factor in overmuch to 1943, at which point the absence of Soviet mobility could drastically change the war. On the other hand if the absence of mobility leads Stalin to accept due to no choice at all the necessity for staggered offensives then the Wehrmacht is boned as instead of squandering its strength and reserves it faces the same losses and increasing weakness against a less mobile Soviet enemy that is already staggering offensives like IOTL later in the war.

Of course, it's worth noting that decreased Soviet mobility was only a tiny part of my overall post. It also bears mentioning that it's not just going to be a loss of mobility; as I mentioned last time, if the USSR has to build its own logistical support it means making fewer tanks, guns, and bullets. Not building logistical support isn't really an option; it doesn't matter how many guns your factories produce if you can't get them to the soldier on the frontline, and building thousands of tanks you can't keep supplied with fuel and ammunition is utterly pointless.

The biggest problem is things like food and high-octane aviation fuel and other advanced petroleum products, which the Soviet Union simply couldn't produce in sufficient quantities on it's own under wartime conditions. The Red Army might able to win with fewer tanks and less mobility, but you can't really get around the fact that people need to eat, and about half the Soviet farmland was under Nazi occupation.

By the same token, planes don't fly without avgas, and just about anything mechanical has trouble without lubricants. That's not to mention that, in addition to US petroleum imports, Lend-Lease to the Soviets also included drilling rigs, refining equipment, and lots of other gear intended to increase domestic Soviet production capacity.
 
What if they attacked earlier? obviously the thread is about USA entering the war later, but suppose the Japanese had attacked a year earlier?
No chance. The fleet wasn't moved to Hawaii til Feb '41. To have the same effect, Yamamoto'd have to hit San Diego or San Pedro.:eek::eek: He wouldn't have to threaten to resign; Nagano'd fire him.:rolleyes:
Much of what they used in the Hawaii Operation they learned from the British strike at Taranto in Nov. 1940.
That's crap. You're presuming the Japanese were too stupid to figure out for themselves what they needed to do to attack a shallow harbor.
So then they attack, say, 3-4 months after that? so that they can get the idea and then plan it, move ships into position etc?
How do they overcome the time needed to get approval, write the plan, equip, & train? As it was OTL, they damn near didn't have time before the deadline. Plus, you're forgetting the bad winter weather in the North Pacific, one reason Yamamoto went when he did.

Also, with the presumption the Sovs would take more of Europe, why is everyone presuming, with changes to Lend-Lease, the Brits do nothing differently? Why are they stupid? It's dead easy to change attack priorities in the face of the knowledge you can't afford bomber losses. A switch to attacks on rail & river transport would cut losses to near zero & have enormous impact on German production.

As for "no Zekes"? A6M entered service in July '40...
An isolationist US wouldn't embargo Japan in the first place.
Why not? The idea was to pressure Japan into getting out of French IndoChina & keep her from starting a war against Britain in Asia...
...FDR's policies that were very clearly aimed at bringing the US into the war.
Huh?! They were designed to intimidate the Japanese & prevent war in the Pacific, with the express objective of improving aid to Britain by removing the threat from Japan. It backfired...:eek:
 
Last edited:
If the US does not pass lend lease but continues cash & carry, the UK is screwed. They were very close to the point where they had neither the cash (even selling off assets at fire sale prices) nor enough bottoms (theirs/allies/chartered from neutrals) to transport it. Of course, no LL means after June, 1941 supplies to the USSR either direct LL or passed through the UK are diminished. Anything that diminishes UK & USSR logistics is very bad.

In the Pacific, the straw that broke the camel's back was the August 1941 total embargo on all petroleum products from US to Japan. Once that happened the clock was ticking - Japan had to either stop the war in China, and go back to the 1936 lines (Manchukuo) or get the oil - and the Brits & Dutch had joined the US in the embargo. To get the oil of Borneo, DEI the Japanese had to go by the PI - and therefore the PI had to be neutralized therefore the US fleet had to be neutralized...therefore PH.

With an administration in DC "isolationist" & no LL, and no oil embargo...also see the draft expire in 1941, and slower re-armament...so US is probably less prepared in 1942-43 than OTL 12/41.
 
Why not? The idea was to pressure Japan into getting out of French IndoChina & keep her from starting a war against Britain in Asia...
Because, by definition, isolationists don't have a foreign policy that involves attempting to force other nations to modify their international agenda to comply with US demands. A truly isolationist US wouldn't be trying to force Japan out of French Indochina or trying keep Japan from starting a war with Britain in the first place, because an isolationist US wouldn't care about what it would see as other countries' problems.

Huh?! They were designed to intimidate the Japanese & prevent war in the Pacific, with the express objective of improving aid to Britain by removing the threat from Japan. It backfired...:eek:
FDR was not an idiot; he knew that embargoes materials Japan desperately needed to continue its war effort and ultimatums Japan would never even consider complying with would create a very real risk of a Japanese attack. That's not to mention that the oil and steel embargo wasn't the first thing the US did; war materiel, other aid, and even volunteer fighters like the Flying Tigers had been going to China for a while.

Then there's all of FDR's policies in regards to the European War, which can't even be remotely disputed as war-enabling.
 
2 PODs for the price of one

Possible POD: the 1932 assassination attempt on FDR succeeds leaving Garner, his VP, the likely successor. Garner did not like most of the New Deal and believed in balanced budgets over deficit spending. He likewise believed that the Atlantic and Pacific were valid enough defense and was not interested in getting involved in any foreign entanglements. Then again, his lack of charisma and reluctance to lead (he was forced to accept the VP slot) might lead to a worse America when it needed someone like FDR. 1940 likely sees a Republican president.

As for a way to draw Japan's attention away from the Pacific, have the Battle of Nomonhan go slightly better with the Japanese managing a draw with the Soviets leaving them willing to go a later round. The main reason the Japanese did not join in from the east during Hitler's invasion was due to the savage results of the battle itself.

With these two PODs, you have an isolationist America and a Japan much more likely to head north rather than south in 1941.

Without an early American entry into the war, Operation Torch doesn't happen and Germany doesn't lose hundreds of thousands of soldiers in North Africa. The Soviets don't receive lend lease and do worse. In fact, doubtful America even sends lend lease to the UK in 1940 which might make all the difference in pushing Parliament to consider an armistice. As for what happens due to a Japanese strike into Siberia during 1941 is anyone's guess. Likely it will tie down Soviet troops, which were desperately needed against the Germans in the fight for Moscow, but I don't see the Japanese achieving any major breakthroughs.
 
Top