Hello. Another 'what if' thread. I was wondering how people think WW2 might have panned-out had America not joined the war.
I'm no expert, but my guess is Russia would still have overcome the Germans. I'm not sure how that would have worked-out for Britain & France though. But I have absolutely no idea how the Japanese situation would have worked-out. Were they unstoppable, other than US intervention (let's imagine that Pearl Harbour didn't happen)? If not, then what was the extent of their ambitions and goals?
Thanks.

From my understanding, Britain was pretty bad off from daily bombings by the Germans. There's an unconfirmed hypothesis that the military at Pearl Harbor had radar and thus saw the incoming Japanese attack, but that they allowed it to happen because they knew they needed something to get public opinion behind helping out in ww2. It's probably not true, but certainly, at that point it was basically England v. the world on the eastern front.

num1cubfn wrote:From my understanding, Britain was pretty bad off from daily bombings by the Germans. There's an unconfirmed hypothesis that the military at Pearl Harbor had radar and thus saw the incoming Japanese attack, but that they allowed it to happen because they knew they needed something to get public opinion behind helping out in ww2. It's probably not true, but certainly, at that point it was basically England v. the world on the eastern front.

So without Pearl Harbour and American involvement, what do you think would have happened in the East?

There wouldn't have been a Japanese situation. If the Japanese were going to war they were going to attack the US. There is no what if they didn't because there is no way they would have gone to war and not attacked the US. Pointless to discuss that one.

The USSR probably would have eventually stopped the Germans through the fact that the Germans would eventually run out of people to throw into the fire before the Soviets did.

num1cubfn wrote:From my understanding, Britain was pretty bad off from daily bombings by the Germans. There's an unconfirmed hypothesis that the military at Pearl Harbor had radar and thus saw the incoming Japanese attack, but that they allowed it to happen because they knew they needed something to get public opinion behind helping out in ww2. It's probably not true, but certainly, at that point it was basically England v. the world on the eastern front.

It's known that the military had radar at Pearl Harbor and it's known that they did indeed spot the incoming Japanese attack. However, it's also known that it was new, those using it weren't trained much in its use and that when they reported it it was thought it was a flight of B17s coming in from the mainland.

Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union was almost certainly an overstretch. They left matters with Britain unfinished, meaning a fight on two fronts. They were already in trouble by 1943 in the east, before even the invasion of Italy. An America that remained neutral would have probably still found it in their strategic interest to help supply the Soviets, just as they were doing with Britain. This would have meant, at best for Germany, a bloody stalemate in the east, or at worst, a Soviet victory, perhaps a little longer coming. Britain would have likely tried to maintain some sort of influence in Europe, in the event of a worrisome Soviet sweep through the continent, either through diplomacy, or perhaps even with some sort of back-door deal with Germany. If the Soviets had ended up dominating Europe, it would have certainly put a different slant on the cold war.

Japan’s victories in the Pacific look impressive, but in the ‘40s Japan was still far behind major European countries in industrialization. They were able to gain so much ground in ’41 and ’42 because there was very little opposition. Eyes were focused on Europe. They also had few resources, so their position was quite vulnerable. They certainly could have still grabbed the former European colonies in East Asia. Probably, the US would have redoubled their efforts to aid China, where Japan was pretty much stuck in a long term conflict it couldn’t really loose, but also couldn’t win. We also have to remember that after the war, Asians began fighting hard for their independence; the Japanese were already encountering this. The population in many of these countries also surged. Britain had already made a deal with India: help us win the war, and you’ve got your independence. Britain, the dominions, and perhaps the US too would have likely tried to build up India as a bulwark against further Japanese expansion, perhaps granting independence right away. How long would the Japanese have kept the lid on? Probably, they would have eventually ended up fighting the same conflicts as the western powers did in Indonesia, Malaya, and Indochina, battling locals who wanted their freedom. Support for the insurgents would probably have come from Britain, Australia, perhaps the US, and even the Soviets, no friend of Japan.

Rome Existed wrote:There wouldn't have been a Japanese situation. If the Japanese were going to war they were going to attack the US. There is no what if they didn't because there is no way they would have gone to war and not attacked the US. Pointless to discuss that one.

They were already at war with china since the 30's, and also occupied French Indochina (Vietnam) in 1940. There most certainly was a 'Japanese situation' prior to Pearl Harbour... and I'm wondering how much the Japanese might have achieved if they'd steered clear of war with Britain and the US.

Father O Rielly wrote:... China, where Japan was pretty much stuck in a long term conflict it couldn’t really loose, but also couldn’t win.

Why couldn't they have lost, or won?

jamest wrote:

Father O Rielly wrote:... China, where Japan was pretty much stuck in a long term conflict it couldn’t really loose, but also couldn’t win.

Why couldn't they have lost, or won?

Resources, on both sides. The Japanese couldn't win because they were too low on resources (hell, that's why they invaded, but there wasn't the industrial base to support them in China), and the Chinese couldn't manage the fight by themselves (they had a hard enough time with us providing the logistical aids).

Again, like many questions about warfare, it all comes down to logistics in the end.

Well, we are speculating here of course. But Japan was spread very thin by 1942. They may have been able to commit the huge number of troops necessary to occupy all China, but that would have inevitably weakened them elsewhere. At the time, most of inland China was an agricultural backwater, and the Japanese had much higher priorities. They needed the oil and other resources of South-East Asia, and consequently the strategic ports and facilities that were key to controlling this area. They also needed a number of Pacific islands to provide defense in depth. This meant being strung out from Alaska to British India, getting close to half the globe.

It is hard to see how they could have avoided conflict with Britain, as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaya were essential to their plans to dominate Asia. And, from their point of view, I suppose they considered that they had a once in a lifetime opportunity, as the European powers were down and out, temporarily anyway, and their Asia colonies open for the taking.

I think they would have been much smarter if they had tried to keep the US out of the conflict for as long as humanly possible. Even the more rabid militarists in Japan realized that bringing the US into the conflict was not a good idea. Their hope was to stall as long as possible, and then deliver a big, decisive blow that would take the US a year or two to make up for. By then they hoped to have enough “facts on the ground”- control of East Asia, and hopefully Germany would be in a better position by then too- that the US would feel compelled to negotiate some sort of compromise, agreeing to stick to its own hemisphere and have limited involvement in Asia.

They could have possibly gained a few more months, or even years, if they had not attacked Pearl Harbor, but kept trying to convince the Americans that they could do business with them, one way or another. Pearl Harbor was a dead loss for Japan anyway. Despite all the hoopla about the event, it ended up making little difference militarily. They sunk a number of battleships, but by then strategists were already coming to the conclusion that these ships were obsolete. Airpower was now what would make the difference. By a stroke of luck, the US aircraft carriers were out at sea on that day, and survived.

In the end, I don’t think Japan would have been dominant for long in Asia. The Dutch were kicked out of Indonesia, the French and Americans were consecutively kicked out of Indochina, the British did a little better in Malaya, but ultimately left South East Asia, and India.

If the US had stayed out, and sat brooding within North America, they no doubt would have felt less safe in what would have been a much more dangerous world at that point. It is very possible that they still would have pursued a Manhattan Project with all the displaced scientists from Europe, although perhaps with not the same urgency. If they did, they would have ended up holding the aces anyway.

I don't see the overall outcome being very different, although the timing almost certainly would have been.
It is difficult to imagine the USA not at the least contributing funds and materiel to the United Nations, even just from an economic point of view. The Axis powers were much weaker than the early victories indicate, victory over the USSR was a dream, and Japan was even further overstretched. The quick victories and massive territory gains carried there own serious issues, especially for Japan, as the newly occupied territories would have become increasingly impossible to maintain with draconian regimes imposed generating indigenous opposition soaking up more and more resources.
I also doubt that the 'iron curtain' would have extended to the Atlantic coast without generating similar problems for the USSR.

num1cubfn wrote:From my understanding, Britain was pretty bad off from daily bombings by the Germans. There's an unconfirmed hypothesis that the military at Pearl Harbor had radar and thus saw the incoming Japanese attack, but that they allowed it to happen because they knew they needed something to get public opinion behind helping out in ww2. It's probably not true, but certainly, at that point it was basically England v. the world on the eastern front.

1 post in and conspiracies already?

Japan could never win a major war from the stand point that except when doing surprise attacks their strategy and tactics sucked. When everyone worked them out Japan got slaughtered. It wasn't uncommon in the Pacific for the US and Australia to inflict at least 10 times more deaths upon the Japanese in a stand up battle than what the Japanese were able to inflict back.

I believe Iwo Jima was the only land battle in which the Japanese were able to inflict heavier casualties on the US but they still lost more dead.

Rome Existed wrote:
I believe Iwo Jima was the only land battle in which the Japanese were able to inflict heavier casualties on the US but they still lost more dead.

Given that defensive positions usually are considered to confer a 3:1 advantage to the defenders, and given that the Japanese were fighting from prepared defensive positions for most of the war, they should have been able to inflict this sort of casualty count every battle. That they couldn't says a whole lot about their tactics throughout the war.

Hello. Another 'what if' thread. I was wondering how people think WW2 might have panned-out had America not joined the war.

for one thing we would be driving cheaper Toyatas

Launion wrote:Hello. Another 'what if' thread. I was wondering how people think WW2 might have panned-out had America not joined the war.

for one thing we would be driving cheaper Toyatas

Hah! They'd probably have been Mitsubishis. Volkswagen would have been pretty good, too.

One thing for certain, few alive today would be alive. Just think of the marriages affected by the war.

If America had not joined the war I think the probability Germany might have conquered America would not have been unthinkable.

The Americans helping Russia and Britain and fighting in the Middle East must have caused the technological advances and resources of Germany to diminish somewhat.

Without all that war interference that was going on to the German war machine they might have had the XXI submarines hunting off Americas East coast. Peenemünde would have had the V-2 in steady production a year or two earlier and as they were working on U-Boat launched V2’s that could have made most of the USA under missile threat, and with a leap of guesswork if the Nazi’s had gained the first atomic bombs I don’t think they would have been afraid to launch them on the USA in a pre emptive strike by 1944.

How many Hiroshima’s would it have taken to make America unconditionally surrender?

If the French army had fought as well as it did in the first World War, instead of collapsing around the BEF, so forcing their withdrawal, WWII might not have lasted very long at all. The BEF lost in Norway because of poor logistical support, but in France it was a different scenario. France had the largest army in Europe, but generals in their 70's & not up to the job. Maybe we could speculate about the French military having a retirement age of 60 for its general staff & how that might have effected the war. French troops were up to the job, but their generals were pretty bloody useless.

Now Hitler being defeated in 1940 would have been more of a change to the world Bill than if America entered the war or not.

The rewards would have been less as a number of the German technologies would have still been at early stages, but France and Britain getting hold of all the German scientists would have radically changed the 60’s USSR and USA.

America was entering a depression slip just before WW2, no WW2 and there would have been no need for the factory investments at the scale they reached working to fight both sides of the globe. Post war America also made a fortune out of Europe, and Americans might remind us of the loans given but those monies only went back to the USA as they had the only industries not ravaged. It was a win win situation for them and a bankrupt Europe was no competition to overseas trade..

Without that trade there could not have been a post war economic boom. Nor all the technologies and scientists they grabbed in Operation Paperclip. Same for the USSR regarding that technology.

Would Britain and France made use of such things, maybe, but not to the same level as America did, so no men on the moon?

I still think the British Empire would have gone, but perhaps with a more favourable deal to trade and investors? The NHS might not have occurred. Immigration would have been far smaller as less young men dead through war would have meant no need to open the borders.

Israel might still have been formed but I suspect with less Zionists willing to go there.

Pearl Harbour would have still happened, and that war still won, but America held a policy of if troops landed and occupied that nation took all the spoils. Post WW2 America effectively locked down Japan for its own, but the British Empire would have focused war efforts in that front. So Australia/New Zealand (aka the Empire) might have laid claim to Japan too, further diminishing Americas post war boom and technology.