WI: Different WW2

Redcoat

Banned
(Just assume that these circumstances happen, I know that attitudes in OTL mean this wouldn't have happened.)

1. America declares war with Japan over the Panay incident.

2. Phoney War ends before the invasion of Norway and Denmark, America joins with the sinking of the Athena.

What happens next?
 
Panay = 12 December 1937, so I'm guessing US could declare Jan '38 .. Nazi's invade Poland 1 September 1939 ...

So by end '39 US will have been at war for almost 2 years and well on the way to beating the Japs b4 Europe lights up .. good bet that by this time they will have taken casualties and the population will be behind the war - plus their economy will be well on war footing - and the Japs well on the way to being beat ... so with public acceptance and industrialists eager for 'new markets', and as allies of UK, I'm betting they declare on Germany same time as UK ...

OTL Sept 39, the BEF departs for France and Dunkirk is 26 May 1940 ... could the US get troops into Europe to support a BEF offensive 'ending the phony war' in, say Jan '40 ??? it should be possible = this gives them about 3 months ..

The BEF & US would have to march through Belgium without 'permission' of course ... is this politically possible ? or will they just dig trenches on the Belgium/French border ? ... or, in an interesting twist, maybe have the BEF + US would attack through the Ardennes (whilst the French launch diversionary attacks across the Maginot Line i.e. via the direct route) ???

Problem is, when the BEF + US forces enter Germany, their commanders will just have them spend the next 3 months helping the French dig trenches (to expand the Maginot Line) ... by the end of winter 1940 they might start to think about marching on Berlin, however by then the German Panzers will be back from Poland ... after which it's much the same old tune (Blitzskrieg, collapse, Dunkirk) although the Panzers are likley to take more casualties (and there will be a lot more troops who have to march a lot further to the channel coast, many of which won't get away) ..

So, by June 1940 the Allies are out of Europe and Roosevelt signs Executive Order 8807 (OTL 28 June 1941), which leads directly to the Manhattan Project and the US starts building the atom bomb a year early ..

6 June 1943 it's 'H-Day' as the first US troops land on Honshu (Japan's main island) - after 6 months of slaughter (US takes significant causatives from mass attacks of Japanese citizens armed with knives tied to broom handles who act as 'human shields' for the explosive wrapped suicide bombers coming up behind them) Tokyo falls, the Emperor is captured and he announces Japan's surrender to prevalent further deaths on both sides ....

The US public is sickened by the slaughter and opposed to seeing any more of 'their boys' die in another bloody invasion from the sea == so D-Day never happens, the Germans have the forces to hold back the Russians, but the war ends in Aug 1944 when Hitler dies as Berlin goes up in a mushroom cloud ..


.
 
Panay = 12 December 1937, so I'm guessing US could declare Jan '38 .. Nazi's invade Poland 1 September 1939 ...

So by end '39 US will have been at war for almost 2 years and well on the way to beating the Japs b4 Europe lights up .. good bet that by this time they will have taken casualties and the population will be behind the war - plus their economy will be well on war footing - and the Japs well on the way to being beat ... so with public acceptance and industrialists eager for 'new markets', and as allies of UK, I'm betting they declare on Germany same time as UK ...

OTL Sept 39, the BEF departs for France and Dunkirk is 26 May 1940 ... could the US get troops into Europe to support a BEF offensive 'ending the phony war' in, say Jan '40 ??? it should be possible = this gives them about 3 months ..

The BEF & US would have to march through Belgium without 'permission' of course ... is this politically possible ? or will they just dig trenches on the Belgium/French border ? ... or, in an interesting twist, maybe have the BEF + US would attack through the Ardennes (whilst the French launch diversionary attacks across the Maginot Line i.e. via the direct route) ???

Problem is, when the BEF + US forces enter Germany, their commanders will just have them spend the next 3 months helping the French dig trenches (to expand the Maginot Line) ... by the end of winter 1940 they might start to think about marching on Berlin, however by then the German Panzers will be back from Poland ... after which it's much the same old tune (Blitzskrieg, collapse, Dunkirk) although the Panzers are likley to take more casualties (and there will be a lot more troops who have to march a lot further to the channel coast, many of which won't get away) ..

So, by June 1940 the Allies are out of Europe and Roosevelt signs Executive Order 8807 (OTL 28 June 1941), which leads directly to the Manhattan Project and the US starts building the atom bomb a year early ..

6 June 1943 it's 'H-Day' as the first US troops land on Honshu (Japan's main island) - after 6 months of slaughter (US takes significant causatives from mass attacks of Japanese citizens armed with knives tied to broom handles who act as 'human shields' for the explosive wrapped suicide bombers coming up behind them) Tokyo falls, the Emperor is captured and he announces Japan's surrender to prevalent further deaths on both sides ....

The US public is sickened by the slaughter and opposed to seeing any more of 'their boys' die in another bloody invasion from the sea == so D-Day never happens, the Germans have the forces to hold back the Russians, but the war ends in Aug 1944 when Hitler dies as Berlin goes up in a mushroom cloud ..


.
Berlin wouldn't get nuked if Germany surrenders after a strike to other cities like Frankfurt or Munich. Best bet would be operation Valkyrie
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Google for Panay War - there was a story under that name somewhere. Could had been on warships1 (yes, there is a one in the name).
With US mobilisation coming over two years earlier than in OTL, the war in Europe (if it had run as in OTL in 1939-41) should had run differently.
The US would had dragged Churchill kicking and screaming and frothing about soft-underbellies into invading Europe in 1943 and not 1944. Maybe even 1942, making use of Vichy France ("you come with a corps, we resist. You come with an army, we join" - misquote from memory).
 
Last edited:
Maybe even 1942, making use of Vichy France ("you come with a corps, we resist. You come with an army, we join" - misquote from memory).

Usually attributed to Darlan, in a conversation with Amabassador Leahey. "If you come with three divisions we will fight you. If you come with twenty we will join you." I common translation.

The Allies split the difference with twelve divisions for Op TORCH, & Darlans generals went both ways.
 

Redcoat

Banned
6 June 1943 it's 'H-Day' as the first US troops land on Honshu (Japan's main island) - after 6 months of slaughter (US takes significant causatives from mass attacks of Japanese citizens armed with knives tied to broom handles who act as 'human shields' for the explosive wrapped suicide bombers coming up behind them) Tokyo falls, the Emperor is captured and he announces Japan's surrender to prevalent further deaths on both sides ....
Why not just wait to drop nukes?
 
Panay = 12 December 1937, so I'm guessing US could declare Jan '38 .. Nazi's invade Poland 1 September 1939 ...

So by end '39 US will have been at war for almost 2 years and well on the way to beating the Japs b4 Europe lights up .. good bet that by this time they will have taken casualties and the population will be behind the war - plus their economy will be well on war footing - and the Japs well on the way to being beat ... so with public acceptance and industrialists eager for 'new markets', and as allies of UK, I'm betting they declare on Germany same time as UK ...

OTL Sept 39, the BEF departs for France and Dunkirk is 26 May 1940 ... could the US get troops into Europe to support a BEF offensive 'ending the phony war' in, say Jan '40 ??? it should be possible = this gives them about 3 months ..

The BEF & US would have to march through Belgium without 'permission' of course ... is this politically possible ? or will they just dig trenches on the Belgium/French border ? ... or, in an interesting twist, maybe have the BEF + US would attack through the Ardennes (whilst the French launch diversionary attacks across the Maginot Line i.e. via the direct route) ???

Problem is, when the BEF + US forces enter Germany, their commanders will just have them spend the next 3 months helping the French dig trenches (to expand the Maginot Line) ... by the end of winter 1940 they might start to think about marching on Berlin, however by then the German Panzers will be back from Poland ... after which it's much the same old tune (Blitzskrieg, collapse, Dunkirk) although the Panzers are likley to take more casualties (and there will be a lot more troops who have to march a lot further to the channel coast, many of which won't get away) ..

So, by June 1940 the Allies are out of Europe and Roosevelt signs Executive Order 8807 (OTL 28 June 1941), which leads directly to the Manhattan Project and the US starts building the atom bomb a year early ..

6 June 1943 it's 'H-Day' as the first US troops land on Honshu (Japan's main island) - after 6 months of slaughter (US takes significant causatives from mass attacks of Japanese citizens armed with knives tied to broom handles who act as 'human shields' for the explosive wrapped suicide bombers coming up behind them) Tokyo falls, the Emperor is captured and he announces Japan's surrender to prevalent further deaths on both sides ....

The US public is sickened by the slaughter and opposed to seeing any more of 'their boys' die in another bloody invasion from the sea == so D-Day never happens, the Germans have the forces to hold back the Russians, but the war ends in Aug 1944 when Hitler dies as Berlin goes up in a mushroom cloud ..


.

You are assuming the Germans are able to do ITTL what they did in OTL, considering the US has just ended a successful war in Asia, and has an army of veteran troops, that assumption is dubious. There is no reason to believe that the Japanese will fight with any less ferocity and intelligence in a "Panay War" than they did in OTL, the US Army will have learned many lessons and be much sounder in doctrine and tactics than either the French or British because of this.
Secondly, there is no guarantee, at all, that Germany will act as they did in OTL. With the presence of a US Army on the continent, Hitler may balk at moving through the Ardennes, and go for the original plan.
Factor in the effects of having large numbers of working, well developed aircraft, communications equipment, and logistics (which will be essential in a Pacific War) available to the Allies, and German's chances of victory are considerably reduced. A good radio net (and the US will have that) alone will prevent the lack of information and paralysis that plagued the French during the war.

US participation in WWII at this early date opens many variables. Do the Belgians continue with their head in the sand efforts at neutrality? No US weapons then. Will German invade through Belgium? Holland? Or, more likely, continue to propagate the lie that Poland started it all, and hope to hold the Allies at the German border? (Which is what I think they will do)
What the Soviets do is up in the air. It may well end up with an unholy alliance of the SU and Nazi Germany against the Free World, (and the Soviets will be paranoid regarding their Far Eastern Provinces, with a US friendly China sitting there) and the Allies fighting the two of them. If so, it will be the Napoleonic Wars writ large, a lengthy contest of wills. Eastern Europe stands to loose terribly in that conflict. They may try for neutrality, I doubt it will work.
 
The US won’t have outright defeated Japan by 1939, although they’ll be well on their way there. As noted above, the subsequent entry of the US that is both on a full war footing and has a experienced military introduces massive butterflies into the European Theater, so a lot of HexWargamer’s ideas there are pretty delusional. France will not fall. Even if Metro France does fall, the leadership probably won’t surrender and will instead to opt to fight on from the colonies. With the US already breathing down it’s neck, Germany won’t be starting any Barbarossa. The Soviets will likely remain neutral until the very end and then attack Germany/Japan at the least moment as it collapses (as they did with Japan OTL).
 
You are assuming the Germans are able to do ITTL what they did in OTL, considering the US has just ended a successful war in Asia, and has an army of veteran troops, that assumption is dubious. There is no reason to believe that the Japanese will fight with any less ferocity and intelligence in a "Panay War" than they did in OTL, the US Army will have learned many lessons and be much sounder in doctrine and tactics than either the French or British because of this.

I dunno. The shape of the Pacific War looks a lot more Hector Bywater than Plan Orange, if the US goes Ape over the Panay Incident. One thing is for certain, There is no Kido Butai, and hence no Pearl Harbor. Three years makes a huge difference in aircraft carrier warfare in the RTL. It could be that battles more reminiscent of the Mediterranean than what occurred in the Pacific result. In that case, the USN is in for a rude surprise as it learns its night fighting torpedo and gunnery tactics are not up to Japanese specs. It might take a year of Savo Islands and Kolombangaras (Second Kula Gulf for some of our Asian colleagues) for the USN to muster up. The shooting war resembles a one axis drive through the Gilberts, Marshalls, and Carolines to the Marianas. Would there be fighting in the Philippines? Yes. But since the Japanese have not built the amphibious shipping they have in 1941, the Lingayan Gulf fiasco may not be as bad. Could be a protracted fight on the central Luzon plain. MacArthur with a competent staff officer (Eisenhower) might actually not bungle the defense.

In any event, the US may indeed learn a few things.

On land: squad and platoon tactics. Cleaning out Japanese bunkers and revetments tends to make infantry intensive small unit tactics a primary focus. How this translates to Europe may mean a better US army NCO corps. That is a good thing. On the negative side, there won't be too many actions above battalion or regiment size to season the US army officer corps. The Americans should be expert in amphibious warfare and well equipped for it. They may actually have a good tank by 1939. (Bunker clearing almost demands something armored with a large caliber dual purpose gun. Might not be a Sherman though. Might be an American assault vehicle, like a Priest, but more armored and akin to a Stug.

At sea, victory will more than ever hinge on submarines as the carriers are not quite there yet. Could the USN go through its torpedo crisis and solve it earlier? With Harold R. Stark? I'm no fan of Stark. I don't think he would do better than King did. I think he could be worse. I mean Stark was Bu-Ord from 1934-37 and observe how he fared there. Most of the debacles for which Admiral William Furlong is unfairly blamed are Stark's screw-ups. Furlong was trying to fix these mistakes (those he knew about). He was succeeded by another disaster, the Atomic Playboy, Blandy. It might take hot-tempered O'Richardson to fix things, but O'Richardson and Roosevelt were like fire and a fuse train to dynamite.

In the air, the issue is can the Americans learn how to translate Pacific CAS to European TacAIR interdiction? Their air forces, naval and army, will be in this ITTL most likely medium bombers and single engine fighters. Being at war, a lot of shilly-shally will be brushed aside and planes will be rushed forward into service that might have never seen the light of day. F5F anybody?

Secondly, there is no guarantee, at all, that Germany will act as they did in OTL. With the presence of a US Army on the continent, Hitler may balk at moving through the Ardennes, and go for the original plan.

A US Army slid into say between the British and the French? (See map.)

France_1940_AHS.png


I know it is near ASB, but it is about as likely as the OP suggestion about the Panay Incident.

Factor in the effects of having large numbers of working, well developed aircraft, communications equipment, and logistics (which will be essential in a Pacific War) available to the Allies, and German's chances of victory are considerably reduced. A good radio net (and the US will have that) alone will prevent the lack of information and paralysis that plagued the French during the war.

One cannot assume the French will be much different, but the UK/US team (about 600,000-900,000 in 3 field armies) will be. If nothing else, the Anglo-Americans will be trading notes in this ATL as they did in the RTL. One thing will be immediately obvious. Uncle will have artillery and "tanks". Lots of both. And airpower.

US participation in WWII at this early date opens many variables. Do the Belgians continue with their head in the sand efforts at neutrality? No US weapons then. Will German invade through Belgium? Holland? Or, more likely, continue to propagate the lie that Poland started it all, and hope to hold the Allies at the German border? (Which is what I think they will do)

I'm thinking that the British with an experienced US (amphibious warfare, littoral warfare, possibly carrier warfare, and most definitely small unit actions that are reminiscent of the kind of fighting the British experienced in and around Narvik on land.) at their back, make a much harder fight for Norway.

The Battle of the North Atlantic changes too. The British will insist on convoy in this war as the Americans insisted on it in the last war. Will the Americans listen? Depends on the Pacific War. I think their own USN submarine campaign against Japan will convince them.

Italy will take one look at the lineup and sit this one out.

Russia will also sit it out. Marxist theory *(Stalin believes in it.) is that the capitalist states will destroy each other. "Let's you and him fight and I'll knife the loser in the back." could be Stalin's game. It was with Poland. And essentially, if Germany had not attacked Russia, it would have been Stalin's preferred ploy to wait until Germany and the Western allies had bludgeoned each other senseless, to come in and swallow eastern Europe as far west as he could march before he was stopped. See further...

What the Soviets do is up in the air. It may well end up with an unholy alliance of the SU and Nazi Germany against the Free World, (and the Soviets will be paranoid regarding their Far Eastern Provinces, with a US friendly China sitting there) and the Allies fighting the two of them. If so, it will be the Napoleonic Wars writ large, a lengthy contest of wills. Eastern Europe stands to loose terribly in that conflict. They may try for neutrality, I doubt it will work.

If the Americans follow the script of WP-58, Japan is a goner by 40. It will be submarines and not carriers, and it will be a negotiated surrender, but the Americans will actually have an easier war as the Japanese will not have gotten into S.E. Asia and Indonesia, their air forces will not be as experienced or as powerful and their ace in the hole, the Kido Butai, will not be the sword and shield behind which they can conduct their stab at the southern resources area. People do not realize how important the Japanese buildup from 1937 to 1941 was in enabling them to run riot in the Pacific in early *42.

I estimate that a defeated Japan, an insurgent Nationalist China and a war experienced US in the Pacific; nudged right up against the Soviet maritime provinces (Aleutians) makes Stalin a very polite boy. I do agree it will be a very hard row for the Eastern Europeans. and probably the Germans, too.
 
Last edited:
The POD is borderline ASB but I hope that from then on the reasoning is plausible enough.

We're tryin buddy! :) Not completely ASB. And unlike some other posts on here, your amenable to listening and discussing, which is sincerely appreciated. There really isn't much in McPherson's post I disagree with. It may take a bit longer, (we have a hell of a lot to build) but the end result is I think, pretty much as he laid out. There may be some battles in China proper, I'd not rule that out, and some lessons learned from there. BUT, that's getting into a different thread.
 
There have been a few other threads with a Panay Incident starting an earlier war with Japan, but they drop off after a few pages. I think it is possible but it will be a bloody start until the US can build up to try to take Japan on. Might Japan screw up and piss of the USSR in Mongolia?
 
There have been a few other threads with a Panay Incident starting an earlier war with Japan, but they drop off after a few pages. I think it is possible but it will be a bloody start until the US can build up to try to take Japan on. Might Japan screw up and piss of the USSR in Mongolia?

Easily. They did in OTL in 1938 with the Battle of Lake Khasan, and then again in 39 at Khalkin Gol, where Georgi Zhukov handed them their asses on a platter. Considering they occupied Manchuria in 31, there is plenty of opportunity to do so.
 
Top