WI: No Pearl Harbor

FederationX

Lets say the Japanese fleet did not strike at Pearl Harbor on Decemeber 7th, 1941? Lets say the reason is because Japan and America were able to make a 6 month or 1 year plan in which the United States agreed to give oil to Japan in exchange for no more Japanese advances into China or Indochina. What are the results?

Even without a 6 month plan and Japan just doesn't bomb Pearl Harbor would happen? When would the United States enter the war? Does Russia lose more ground without U.S. intervention of Africa (assuming the USA doesn't enter by the summer of '42). Any big changes in the timeline? The point of this thread isn't to debate whether Japan had a more successful attack on Peral Harbor or anything like that. It's just about what would happen next? Sorry for the spelling errors, I'm very tired.
 

Agrippa

UK doesn't have to shift so many units to the Far East, so they do moderately better in North Africa. Additionally, they won't have to transfer some Australian and New Zealand units back home. They'll probably still win at El Alemein and push the Germans back to Tripoli (most American contribution here involved shipments of Sherman and Grant tanks which will probably still occur in ATL). The question is what happens when Rommel reaches the Tunisian border? Most likely he violates Vichy French sovereignty but what do the French do? Do they resist or let him pass? I imagine we'll see at least a few isolate incidents, though I'm not sure whether it'll escalate.

Meanwhile, Britain herself does better. American coastal shipping is still off-limits to the U-Boats and the Royal Navy is just getting the hang of convoy duty. So more convoys and Lend Lease equipment will make it through to Great Britain.

In the Soviet Union, things won't go too much differently until Stalingrad and Zhukov's counterattack. Without the need to fly reinforcements to Tunisia, the Luftwaffe has more transport capacity so the Sixth Army holds on a little longer. The Germans also have a few more divisions available, but that won't make too large a difference. Soon after, however, the lack of OTL Lend Lease quantities will start to make a difference. The Soviets won't be able to convert quite so much production to war manufacturing and the lack of American transportation (trucks/locomoties) and food supplies (few Soviet workers received adequate food for the labor they performed) will further increase the stain on the Soviet economy. The lack of the Combined Bomber Offensive, on the other hand, will allow Germany to greatly increase its production with its transition to a total war economy after Stalingrad.

The next question is when does the US enter the war? If its in late 1943/early 1943, there's probably not too much of a difference, though the Allies and Soviets may meet on the Rhine rather than Elbe River. As we hold off on American entry into the war, we get an increasing stalemate on the Eastern Front. The Germans probably can't win by that point, but they can prevent disasters like Bagration.
 

Kurt_Steiner

The US Navy was seen as the greatest threat to Japan and I suspect the IJN to delay the attack and continue to produce ships/planes etc.

Alternatively, the could as well start their conquest for the Pacific but leave US related countries like the Philipines out.
 

Guiman

Japanese Southeast Strategy

What about a Japanese southeast strategy? The Japanese are wary of US strength but still need to expand. Attacking the Dutch East Indies and perhaps even India would fill the Japanese need for oil and other resources. This would still tie down British forces in the east and a real threat to india could divert forces in the desert. On the eastern front, Soviets would still have to be wary of a Japanese attack and Siberian troops would be tied down in the east and unavailble in front of Moscow. US is still very isolationist and SE Asia is halfway around the world.
 

Matthew Craw

Guiman said:
On the eastern front, Soviets would still have to be wary of a Japanese attack and Siberian troops would be tied down in the east and unavailble in front of Moscow. US is still very isolationist and SE Asia is halfway around the world.
Click to expand...

The problem I've had with this whenever it;s proposed is that it assumes Stalin would have sacrificed Moscow in order to secure Vladivostok, which seems unlikely. By Dec 1941 the situation in the West was sufficiently serious that the Russians would have had little cjoice but to take their chances in the East.
 

Valamyr

Banned
If for some obscure reason the US accepts to sell and trade with Japan in exchange for merely no further advances, then obviously Japan has no reason to attack the US and will not do so as long as they think this deal can hold.

The US wasnt willing to do that. Roosevelt wanted this war badly and set up a series of unacceptable terms to ensure the Japanese had no choice but launch a war or give up their claims to world-class power.

A good POD here is simply to have Roosevelt thrown out in 1940. But the consequences there might be a "southern strategy" for Japan that simply leaves the isolationist US out of the war.
 

FederationX

Valamyr said:
If for some obscure reason the US accepts to sell and trade with Japan in exchange for merely no further advances, then obviously Japan has no reason to attack the US and will not do so as long as they think this deal can hold.

The US wasnt willing to do that. Roosevelt wanted this war badly and set up a series of unacceptable terms to ensure the Japanese had no choice but launch a war or give up their claims to world-class power.

A good POD here is simply to have Roosevelt thrown out in 1940. But the consequences there might be a "southern strategy" for Japan that simply leaves the isolationist US out of the war.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Wendall Wilkie pro-war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top