WI - USA doesn't join War In Europe until 1943-1944?

No they Wouldn't.
The Navy Lost interest in 1943, when they said it would be Difficult for America to make such a thing.

From what i've read, it was the Army that lost interest.

The Navy's "F-Go" project continued
As for material, they had difficulty Getting material, and the German Sub that was suppose to bring Uranium was captured by the US.
That was only one sub, others arrived and they used that material
Japan's attempts to make Uranium-235 Failed, and they Didn't have Hard Water.
They had two programs. One was stopped, the other continued; using centrifuges for the enrichment process. The centrifuges were far ahead of their time and very advanced. The "F-Go" project succeeded in uranium enrichment.
Over all, the Japanese lacked Material, .
No, they had the material.
started too late,
They started quite early actually.
and the Evidence of their supposed "Working Nuclear Bomb" is Ridiculous at best
That's strongly debatable as there's evidence that they actually did conduct a successful test. I haven't in this ATL considered that as happening as early as it did IOTL (late August 1945), because I believe it would happen later in this ATL without the pressure of war against the USA and the desperation of losing being so close at hand for such a long period of time.

I've studied the subject a lot over the years. It does however go offtopic to get into that in detail (it's very time consuming), because I have repeatedly said - I'm asking about what would happen in the USA joins the war in Europe in 1943.
 
Even as Calbear admits with his repetition of a faulty estimate that strayed provably from OTL, Japan had oil for that long. What's postulated here - as you seem to ignore just as Calbear did - is that Japan develops another source for oil during that 2 years. Also, that Japan had other sources of fuel (coal) for example which could be used to save on the use of oil in the economy.

Yes, and WHERE are they going to get the New Source of Oil? the DEI will be Reinforced, and Nazi Germany isn't going to spare any for the Japanese.

also, Wouldn't the Existing War Machines need to be Modified to Support a Coal-based System?
that brings up new problems, of course.


"our" Pacific Territories which are NOT being attacked.

So, what's the support for? Is the USA going to go to war over a non-existent attack? Are you saying that the USA would start the war? That the USa would just declare war on Japan whwn Japan hasn't done anything against them? How would the American public respond to an unprovoked declaration of war by their own government at that time?

Perhaps, but it'll be nothing like to the same extent in 1943 ATL as it was in 1943 OTL

It's not "We're going to war!", it's "just in case our Worst case Senario occurs."
it would be Very Foolish not to send additional Troops as a Cautionary move. Perhaps the Japanese won't attack, perhaps they will.
Being Prepared for something that may happen isn't foolish, it's Wise.

And why would they do that without a war in the Pacific, yet a clear danger in the Atlantic.

so you're basically saying "America will put all their Eggs in One Basket"?
Do you really thing the US will go "Well, we're Fighting Nazi Germany, better move our Pacific Fleet To the atlantic too."

Like I said before, Keeping Ships in the Pacific is a Cautionary move, the "In case of Emergency" package.

You seem to be supporting an "All or Nothing" approach to this. That type of thinking is Foolish in this senario.

Yes, Japan is not attacking. But that's only for now.
What about latter?
in this, the US isn't going "ah, they don't have the Balls.", they're going "well they're not doing it now, but maybe latter they will...."

Caution is always important in a War.
 
From what i've read, it was the Army that lost interest.

The Navy's "F-Go" project continued

No, the army's weapon Project continued. the Navy's weapon Project didn't.

The F-go Project was to use Nuclear Energy as an Alternate Fuel source.

That was only one sub, others arrived and they used that material

Source please?
I would like to see the Source of this Claim.

They had two programs. One was stopped, the other continued; using centrifuges for the enrichment process. The centrifuges were far ahead of their time and very advanced. The "F-Go" project succeeded in uranium enrichment.

So very wrong.

The F-Go's Ultracentrifuge was not even Made when the Japan Surrendered. it was still in the Design phase.

No, they had the material.

None of the Programs had Uranium or Hard Water , and none of them came close to Enriching it.

Please tell us where they got it.

That's strongly debatable as there's evidence that they actually did conduct a successful test. I haven't in this ATL considered that as happening as early as it did IOTL (late August 1945), because I believe it would happen later in this ATL without the pressure of war against the USA and the desperation of losing being so close at hand for such a long period of time.

The Evidence of their nuclear weapon is incredibly flimsy at best.

David Snell's Claims were Proven False by Bunsaku Arakatsu, Head of the F-Go project. the Lack of evidence Supporting Snell's claims are also apparent.

as for Robert Wilcox's Book Japan's Secret War: Japan's Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb, Some of his Information is From Snell, and not much better than the average Conspiracy theory.

Japan Didn't Even Get to the Enriching Uranium stage in OTL, and yet they're apparently America's Nuclear Rival?

Even With the Extra time they may gain in this Scenario, they still run into the same Issues the had in OTL; lack of Materials, lack of a way to get the Materials, Poor Equipment for the Project.

But the Point still stands.
From 1936 when Japan's First Cyclotron was built, to 1945 when Japan Surrendered, the Japanese Failed to produce Enriched Uranium.
the Extra time they get may make a difference, but I seriously doubt it will lead to a Working Nuke in this ATL.

I would like to see the source of your claims.

I've studied the subject a lot over the years. It does however go offtopic to get into that in detail (it's very time consuming), because I have repeatedly said - I'm asking about what would happen in the USA joins the war in Europe in 1943.

and What happens in the Pacific is part of that Question.

Does America Go to war with Japan in the Meantime? Does Pearl harbor still happen?
If a Pacific War doesn't happen, what happens instead? Does Japan go Deeper into China? attack Australia?

These are all question that will get brought up for this What if?
Delaying american Entry into WWII affects two Different Fronts, not just one.
 
1) Would an all-out oil embargo be kept in force for 2 years with Japan stubbornly refusing to attack american troops?

2) Were there any other possible oil trading parties?
 

world

Banned
POD

Option 1.

FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Let’s say Acheson did not draw up the oil sanction so Japan has time to delay its attack on Pearl Harbour.

Option 2.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan's retreat.

Fearful of a "second Munich," America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a "modus vivendi." If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became "hysterical," and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Japan gives up Indo-China or China itself in exchange for the embargo being lifted.
 
Could japan buy oil from

1) UK?

2) Holland?

3) South american countries?

(Obviously that would imply a slight change on the politics) :cool:
 

world

Banned
Could japan buy oil from

1) UK?

2) Holland?

3) South american countries?

(Obviously that would imply a slight change on the politics) :cool:

UK and Holland backed the American embargo.
I think most East Indies wells were American owned too and many in South America British or American owned.
 
What I mean is : with the war in europe with germany and Japan not overtly hostile, could UK (and Holland government-in-exile) afford to keep an all-out oil emabargo?
Wouldn't that mean taking risks?
 
All good points. I was thinking that in some ways, it actually makes it worse for the 3rd Reich if the USA is late to join the war by the extra 2 years. The USSR would take much more heavier casualties, but still prevail especially after the USA gets into the theatre. After that, the collapse of the German forces is accelerated because the USA would be hitting them when the Germans are about to start running out of steam, stretched thin as you mention..

How much depend on the circumstance. Does Stalingrad still occures, with same or similar outcome? If Germany fully mobilise in July 43 instead of February 43, there will be even less guns available for alt battle of Minsk on the axis side, which in turn would become even more one sided than historically. Cumulative effect may result in faster German defeat than historically.
There is a big variance whever it was that Germany didn´t declare war to the US in Dec 41, does or does not have to fight the Pacific war.
If Japan attack in December 1943, US fleet is likely to be in Manilla instead of Pearl Harbour.
In December 1941, Hitler was convinced that the Soviet-Union would soon collapse and that the UK could be finnished shortly afterward. In December 1943, with catastrophic situation in the east front and the UK having taken over North Africa, Hitler would certainly not declare war to the US to support Japan.
Most likely war in Dec 43 would be Roosevelt gathering support for a declaration of war against Germany after a submarine sink á US ship in the belief it was an english one.
In that case, US would not have to fight the pacific war at all and focus said effort against Germany.


Now that gets iffy and full of maybes.

I agree, it is just that one recent AH fashion is that there was some sort big ass conspiracy in the German military to seize power.


Raygun_McGuffin, there were so many utterly unsupported claims, errors and outright lies in that post that I barely know where to begin.

That is pretty rich coming from someone that prefer to put other posters on ignore list rather than back-up his/her own claimes.


except your posts increasingly remind me of another who was banned.


Veiled threats too? Wonderfull!
 
Last edited:

world

Banned
What I mean is : with the war in europe with germany and Japan not overtly hostile, could UK (and Holland government-in-exile) afford to keep an all-out oil emabargo?
Wouldn't that mean taking risks?

Could they risk not doing so?
An oil flush Japan may well be more dangerous than a Japan without Oil.
Besides by doing so he means Japan is much more likely to attack the USA which is what the UK wants.
 
and What happens in the Pacific is part of that Question.

Does America Go to war with Japan in the Meantime? Does Pearl harbor still happen?
If a Pacific War doesn't happen, what happens instead? Does Japan go Deeper into China? attack Australia?

These are all question that will get brought up for this What if?
Delaying american Entry into WWII affects two Different Fronts, not just one.
Everything here is an excellent point; one simply cannot ignore the entire Pacific Front of World War II. Even a cursory study of the war will reveal that events in one front affected the other; manpower and materiel were limited resources that had to be split between both fronts.

Also, for a study of how the war in Europe the question of Lend-Lease really needs to be addressed. As myself and others have pointed out, Lend-Lease is going to drag the US into a war with Germany within months of OTL unless the US drastically slashes or eliminates the program. I'm pretty sure that it is an accepted fact that, prior to 1944, American Spam, Avgas, and other resources provided as part of Lend-Lease were more important than American soldiers.

Also, am I the only under the impression that Raygun seems completely unaware of the fact that the Phillipines were a US possession? In between the loony conspiracy theories he does seem to be arguing that the US had no territory or interests anywhere near Asia, which simply is not the case. Then again, he also seems to believe that ship stationed in the Atlantic Ocean is completely incapable of ever transferring into the Pacific...
 
Chengar, Raygun's possible ignorance of the status of the Phillipines is such a minor thing compared to his revisionist version of Japan's nuclear program as based on pure fiction.
 
Chengar, Raygun's possible ignorance of the status of the Phillipines is such a minor thing compared to his revisionist version of Japan's nuclear program as based on pure fiction.
True, but the nuclear revisionism has already been solidly addressed, while his apparent ignorance of the Philippines had not come up yet.
 
Chengar, another good point but I think revisionism may not be a strong enough term for someone who actually claims Japan tested a nuclear device in 1945.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Could japan buy oil from

1) UK?

2) Holland?

3) South american countries?

(Obviously that would imply a slight change on the politics) :cool:

The short answer is no because of both internal needs and general economic requirements.

The Yen was not an accepted currency for international commerce outside of the Japanese controlled parts of Asia.The British would only accept gold, Pounds or dollars, the U.S. dollars or Gold, and the South American countries mainy were Dollar or gold centered, although some would accept the Pound. The Japanese had virtually no Pound reserves, virtually no Dollar reserves and very little Gold outside of that residing in U.S. Federal Reserve vaults that had been very nicely tied up by Treasury policy.

The UK needed all the oil it could get for the various war efforts and the DEI had made a decision to go with the policies of the UK and the U.S. which cut the Japanese off. There is also the very significant fact that, in the 1940's the vast majority of tanker tonnage were either UK or U.S. flagged. Those tankers were not going to be headed to Japan; this would have been true for the UK even if they were willing to sell to the Japanese for Yen since the Kriegsmarine was punching holes in every tanker they could get at and the British war effort needed that oil.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
...I've studied the subject a lot over the years. It does however go offtopic to get into that in detail (it's very time consuming), because I have repeatedly said - I'm asking about what would happen in the USA joins the war in Europe in 1943.


Bard, Blair, Raygun et al

When operating as a sock puppet, especially a sock puppet of a freshly banned member, it is advisable to alter one's posting style. It is also advisable to not respond to posters like you have been debating with them for months.

I will give you credit for not mentioning the fictional works of some hack writer so far in this thread.
 
Top