WI : USA enters WW2 in 1939

What if the United States never enforced isolationism, and entered World War II in 1939 as an oppose to 1941?
how WW2 would've had play out ?
 
IF the USA never enforced Isolationism and maintain a viable military force and kept pace with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany

And convince Congress that they need to create an Armed Force that can fight Two Fronts, one Pacific and one Atlantic and start the buildup after 1936 or 1938...

maybe the USN and USArmy among with their aviation units can become a viable fighting force tho convincing the American People the need during the time of the Depression will be very hard to to do

America can defend herself from aggressors.. but folks in the 1920s and 1930s were heavily weary from the financial crash and loss of job and lifestyle...

Hard indeed...
 
All other things being equal (sorry kclcmdr) The the aid the US could give the French and British (I'm assuming its on the side of the allies) militarily would be rather limited by May 1940. Possibly one or two infantry divisions some air and more help against the U-boat menace. However in terms of financial and material aid with the promise of much more to come it radically alters the allied outlook. This more optimistic outlook could turn the tide in the Battle of France and even if France falls in a similar way to OTL, I feel that the French would fight on from North Africa due to the knowledge of almost certain eventual victory.

The military build up of US assets from 1939 also means that war in the Pacific becomes increasingly unlikely. Also a battle hardened victorious western allied army in central Europe deters Stalin from going West.
 
IF the USA never enforced Isolationism and maintain a viable military force ...

And convince Congress that they need to create an Armed Force that can fight Two Fronts, one Pacific and one Atlantic and start the buildup after 1936 or 1938...

...

Re: The 1919 plan US Army CoS Peyton Marsh presented to Congress.

Ongoing R & D program to design, test, and provide prototypes of state of the art weapons ready to put into production.

Subsidizing US industry to keep resources in place to start large scale production of these weapons within six months & be at full production in twelve months.

Keep a reserve of stratigic materials on hand for initial production of weapons.

Maintain a standing Army of 500,000 men. With state of the art equipment.

A Reserve of 100,000 officers & NCO sufficient to cadre 40 divisions plus Corps and Army HQ/support units in appropriate numbers.

Subsidize a portion of the state militias as a 'National Guard' in fully organized divisions amounting to 500,000 men & equipped with modern material.

The general objective of this plan was to have a 50,000 man expeditionary force ready for overseas deployment in 30 days, a large army (200,000?) ready in 180 days, 1,000,000 in twelve months, and several million in 24 months. While a large air component was included the bulk of the expeditionary force would have been a infantry/artillery army much like that planned for 1919 to invade Germany with.

Pershing presented a plan for half that. The actual strength of the standing or regular Army was a quarter, with the National Guard halved & the Army Reserve at about 60% of the Marsh plan. The R & D budget was far below requirement, tho a few critical weapon & research projects were kept afloat. The preparations for production were not made at all.
 
Last edited:
It might help to lead to earlier convoys, improved destroyer production, and more trained troops and pilots.
 
How exactly would the US enter the war in 1939? I believe the US public was rather in favour of isolationism, and the war would be unpopular. You'd need either the Nazis or the Japanese (or Italians?) to do something bad to Americans or America itself to get the American public on the side of the war.

But it'll help Britain and France out in the initial phase of WWII. As noted above, I don't think France would so easily quit with the US on their side, eventually coming to bail them out.
 
Hmm
I agree with a number of the other posters here, that I think it increases the chance of France deciding to fight on from North Africa greatly if they know that the United States are already in, even if US forces haven't really started to cross the Atlantic and mainland France still falls in mid-1940.

I wonder, too, if Mussolini would stay out of things militarily for longer (continuing to refit the Italian army, and trying to play peace-broker) if the United States were committed from the invasion of Poland in 1939?...
 
How exactly would the US enter the war in 1939? I believe the US public was rather in favour of isolationism, and the war would be unpopular. You'd need either the Nazis or the Japanese (or Italians?) to do something bad to Americans or America itself to get the American public on the side of the war.

But it'll help Britain and France out in the initial phase of WWII. As noted above, I don't think France would so easily quit with the US on their side, eventually coming to bail them out.

Capras Prelude to War shows just how pro-isolationist the US was with a Pathe Newsreel from 1939.
 
If the US enters the war in 1939, Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor are butterflied away. By 1941 Germany and Italy will feel the increased pressure from fresh American divisions in North Africa, and fighters engaging the Luftwaffe in England. Hitler won't push for a war against the USSR under these conditions. Pearl Harbor also won't come since the US Navy is increasing in size even faster since 1939. Heck, the Ribentropp-Molotov pact could even stand or develop further if Stalin starts thinking that the USSR will be the next target for the Western democracies. Massive butterflies will ensure.
 
... I believe the US public was rather in favour of isolationism, .

Yep. It requires a PoD set way back. The only sure thing I can see is a bad war scare with Japan, or a actual Pacific War breaking out. Once the cat is out of the bag the isolationist position is difficult to hold on to. OTL it started falling apsrt with the collapse of France & became a dead man walking when the USSR was attacked. If this early Pacific war has either France or Britain as a US ally its almost impossible to keep the US out of a European war in 1939.

It might help to lead to earlier convoys, improved destroyer production, and more trained troops and pilots.

OTL the US mobilization got under way in the autum of 1940 as the War Powers Acts went into effect. If the US enters the European war in September 1939 that sets the mobilization forward a year, and adds in the wartime urgency.
 
Popular opinion in the US in 1939, while pro-Allied was even more overwhelmingly pro-neutrality. If it was so different in this TL from what it was in OTL, this must mean that the US was *much* less isolationist, and such a change in mind could not have been brought about overnight. (I mean unless Hitler bombs New York...) In short, history would have already been so different that it is doubtful that World War II as we know it--i.e., starting at the time and in the manner it did--would happen.
 
If isolatinism was never a thing in the US then you get no naval treaty's and and a congress willing to spend money. Britain and Japan probably go broke trying to keep up with the US as it keeps pumping out ships like clockwork. That alone changes a hell of a lot of things and any ATL WW2 is gonna be a lot different then OTL WW2.
 
Here is an idea. For the sake of the scenario Secretary of State Hull takes an official trip to GB and his ship is sunk by a U-boat (If necessary by mistake) and fearing that war will happen anyways Hitler claims credit for it saying as war is inevitable Germany will always strike first.
 
You have to be careful with American isolationism, it's easy to misunderstand its nature. From reading those Gallup polls it seems that in 1939 and the first half of 1940 the US public was against American entry generally because they thought Britain and France had things in hand and they didn't see any need to send their boys over to get shot, rather than any affection for Germany or lack of care who won. By 1940-1 they were pleased to be supporting Britain, but still wanted to avoid actual war and hence casualties, unless it seemed to be absolutely necessary - "to prevent the British from collapsing", or something. This was a case of trying to have their cake and eat it, I think!

On that basis it is quite hard to get US entry in 1939 because there simply doesn't seem to be a need for it. You'd need quite a provocation.
 

jahenders

Banned
You have to be careful with American isolationism, it's easy to misunderstand its nature. From reading those Gallup polls it seems that in 1939 and the first half of 1940 the US public was against American entry generally because they thought Britain and France had things in hand and they didn't see any need to send their boys over to get shot, rather than any affection for Germany or lack of care who won. By 1940-1 they were pleased to be supporting Britain, but still wanted to avoid actual war and hence casualties, unless it seemed to be absolutely necessary - "to prevent the British from collapsing", or something. This was a case of trying to have their cake and eat it, I think!

On that basis it is quite hard to get US entry in 1939 because there simply doesn't seem to be a need for it. You'd need quite a provocation.

I agree -- very hard to get sufficient US public support for a vote for war. You'd almost need something on the scale of Pearl Harbor.

If the US does somehow get involved in 1939, it's going to have even more building up to do before it can be effective. Even though US involvement won't be substantial by mid 1940, the moral effect might well help the French to keep fighting, at least in North Africa.

US involvement in 1939, will be even more German-focused, so they'll take very little action in the Pacific other than buildup.
 
Top