Pearl Harbor doesn't happen

[A18]

Does the U.S. ever enter the war?

[MasterJedi]

Probably but it would have taken a lot longer for it to happen without an attack on the homeland.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A lot would depend upon why Pearl Harbor doesn't happen.

1)  The Japanese decided that they will go after the Northern Resource Area rather than the Southern Resource Area.  Thus, instead of occupying Indochina which served as the excuse Roosevelt used for embargoing the Japanese, the japanses prepar for an invasion of Siberia in the Spring of 1942.  Given the resouces that the Russians have transferred west to fight the Germans, the Japanese should easily secure Siberia east of Lake Biakal by early summer.

By Summer 1942, US/German clashes in the Atlantic will have led to either a formal, if not as enthusiatic entry of the US into the war or Roosevelt being reined in by Congress.  If as seems more probable , the entry of the US into the war in Spring 1942, the Pacific phase of the war begins with a major naval battle off the Phillipines which the US loses and loses badly.  Early in the war, Japan had the superiority in both quantity and quality in naval aviation.  Without Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Prince of Wales, the incautious US battleship fleet will be sunk by Japanese planes where it cannot be salavaged and returned to service.  By the end of 1942, the Japanese are clearly going to be in a better position than they were in OTL.

So will the Germans.  While Stalingrad will still be a mess, I doubt if the Soviets wil l be able to assemble sufficient force to launch a counter-offensive that encircles the German 6th Army.

That said, while it will take the Allies longer to win, they will still end up winning.

2) The Japanese decide that they already have enough on their plate with China,  Again, the lack of a Japanese occupation of French Indochina denies Roosevelt a reason to declare an embargo against Japan.  No embargo means no Pearl Harbor, so it takes a few extra months for the US to enter the war.  With no Japanese distraction, the war in Europe ends a few months earlier and with less of Eastern Europe under Soviet control.  With American aid essentially gone, Chaing has two options left, surrender to th Communists or surrender to the Japanese.  Either way, he's irrelevant.  Japan, Manchukuo, and other Japanese puppet states end up receiving aid from the US under the Dewey Doctrine after he's been reelected in 1948 in order to combat the Communist menace.

3) The Japanese occupy Indochina, but Roosevelt decides against an embargo.  Increased American demand for war material would have made the embargo worthless any way, as it would have been used by us rather than exported to Japan.  Net effect is similar to (2) except that French objections keep Japan from receiving Dewey Doctrine assistance until the after the Soviet-Japanese War breaks out.  The war spreads into WW III, which goes nuclear.

4) The embargo occurs, but Japan decides to try seizing the Dutch East Indies without attacking The US or the Phillipines.  Again, because the American fleet is lured out of Pearl Harbor so that when the battleships are sunk, they are not recoverable.  The Japanese do slightly better, but the Germans do much as they did before, and the Axis still loses the war in the end.

5) The embargo occurs and the Japanese back down so that there is no war.  Afterwards, the Alien Space Bats that caused that will  cure Roosevelt of polio so that he, Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler can battle it out mano-a-mano for the control of Earth.

[Beet]

Under option 1 the axis would win

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

[Erc]

A Japanese invasion in Spring 1942 might have changed the whole German battle plans for the year...which really weren't set until mid-summer as far as I can tell.

They may have tried for Moscow again instead, or been a bit less schizophrenic in the South, or something.

[PBrunsel]

Say hello to President Robert A. Taft if no Pearl Harbor occured.

[A18]

Say hello to President Robert A. Taft if no Pearl Harbor occured.

What year?

[minionofmidas]

Why would the Japanese attack Siberia rather than Indonesia? And why should they cope well with Siberian winters?

[ragnar]

Say hello to President Robert A. Taft if no Pearl Harbor occured.

What year?

1912 I presume

[PBrunsel]

Say hello to President Robert A. Taft if no Pearl Harbor occured.

What year?

1944.

FDR would have no reason to seek a fourth term if we had not entered WWII. Taft was the obvious choice for the GOP if there was no FDR.

[J. J.]

In terms of the Russian front, very little would change from 12/41 until 12/42.  The US was not engaged in ground combat against the Nazis in any great numbers at that point.

There are two questions if Pearl Harbor never happened:

1.  Do the Japanese ever attack the US and when?

2.  Does the US enter the war against Nazi Germany at any point and when?

Now, if there was no Pearl Harbor, it's somewhat likely that the Soviets supply situation would be slightly worse.  Their offensive of 1941-2 may not have been as successful as it was in OTL, but it still would have been successful.

The question becomes, how much more successful would the Nazi counter offensive in the Spring/Summer of 1942 would have been?  Would Stalingrad fall, for example?

Even a six month delay in the Japanese attack might have lead to this result.

North Africa would also be problematic, but it would be unlikely that the Nazis would have taken the Suez Canal.  It's basically a stalemate in 1942 and there is no "second front" moving in from Morocco.

[ATFFL]

North Africa would also be problematic, but it would be unlikely that the Nazis would have taken the Suez Canal.  It's basically a stalemate in 1942 and there is no "second front" moving in from Morocco.

One thing to consider in NA is, if the Japanese do not move against the British and French , what do the Allies do with their forces in the region.  The British supply situation was much better than the Italian/German situation due to the better infrastructure in Egypt.

If the Japanese move into Siberia the British will be able to bring in enough men and machines that they will likely push the Axis back and take back all of N. Africa.  Then we will get to see Operation Jupiter, the British attack on Norway.

[J. J.]

North Africa would also be problematic, but it would be unlikely that the Nazis would have taken the Suez Canal.  It's basically a stalemate in 1942 and there is no "second front" moving in from Morocco.

One thing to consider in NA is, if the Japanese do not move against the British and French , what do the Allies do with their forces in the region.  The British supply situation was much better than the Italian/German situation due to the better infrastructure in Egypt.

If the Japanese move into Siberia the British will be able to bring in enough men and machines that they will likely push the Axis back and take back all of N. Africa.  Then we will get to see Operation Jupiter, the British attack on Norway.

Well, first, the French are out of it in 1941/42.

Second, does Great Britain declare war on Japan, if Japan invades Siberia?  Is their possibly a naval battle of Singapor, in the spring of 1943?

[Beet]

Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

I don't know, my theory was much simpler. Firstly, the USSR was on the verge of collapse at the end of 1941, using troops from the eastern theater to replace those lost in the west, including for the December 7 counterattack near Moscow. Secondly, the "America First" movement was much stronger in the U.S. than during World War I, with most Americans firmly against direct participation in the war. The collapse of the USSR would not have changed that. Caught between the Axis powers, and achieving only minimal aid from the British, the USSR would eventually have lost the war. Not necessarily surrendered, but just defeated.

[J. J.]

Say hello to President Robert A. Taft if no Pearl Harbor occured.

What year?

1912 I presume

That was the father.  Sen. Taft was one of the GOP leaders, often refered to as "Mr. Republican."

[ATFFL]

North Africa would also be problematic, but it would be unlikely that the Nazis would have taken the Suez Canal.  It's basically a stalemate in 1942 and there is no "second front" moving in from Morocco.

One thing to consider in NA is, if the Japanese do not move against the British and French , what do the Allies do with their forces in the region.  The British supply situation was much better than the Italian/German situation due to the better infrastructure in Egypt.

If the Japanese move into Siberia the British will be able to bring in enough men and machines that they will likely push the Axis back and take back all of N. Africa.  Then we will get to see Operation Jupiter, the British attack on Norway.

Well, first, the French are out of it in 1941/42.

Second, does Great Britain declare war on Japan, if Japan invades Siberia?  Is their possibly a naval battle of Singapor, in the spring of 1943?

There were still Free French troops.

It is highly unlikely the British would declare war on Japan.  They have little to gain

[patrick1]

Do you guys think strong resistance movements would have materialized in the Nazi/Axis occupied nations? 

[J. J.]

Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

I don't know, my theory was much simpler. Firstly, the USSR was on the verge of collapse at the end of 1941, using troops from the eastern theater to replace those lost in the west, including for the December 7 counterattack near Moscow. Secondly, the "America First" movement was much stronger in the U.S. than during World War I, with most Americans firmly against direct participation in the war. The collapse of the USSR would not have changed that. Caught between the Axis powers, and achieving only minimal aid from the British, the USSR would eventually have lost the war. Not necessarily surrendered, but just defeated.

I see little change on the Eastern Front through June of 1942.  The Soviets launch their 12/41 offensive that temporarily saves Moscow.  The Nazis launch their Spring offensive and head to Stalingrad.  After that, it becomes murky, even it the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor on June 6, 1942.

Assuming the Japanese invade Siberia in 12/41 or even 1/42, they can gain a lot of territory.  There is however a lot of territory between Pacific coast and the heartland of Russia Proper.  It's als winter, so they mightnot have invaded until the spring (May or June).

[J. J.]

There were still Free French troops.

It is highly unlikely the British would declare war on Japan.  They have little to gain

Not that many Free French.

The UK might have felt a need in order to keep the USSR in the war.

Now, I'm wondering if the British might have tried to hold onto the Empire and pulled out of the with the Japanese now in it.

[ATFFL]

Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

I don't know, my theory was much simpler. Firstly, the USSR was on the verge of collapse at the end of 1941, using troops from the eastern theater to replace those lost in the west, including for the December 7 counterattack near Moscow. Secondly, the "America First" movement was much stronger in the U.S. than during World War I, with most Americans firmly against direct participation in the war. The collapse of the USSR would not have changed that. Caught between the Axis powers, and achieving only minimal aid from the British, the USSR would eventually have lost the war. Not necessarily surrendered, but just defeated.

I see little change on the Eastern Front through June of 1942.  The Soviets launch their 12/41 offensive that temporarily saves Moscow.  The Nazis launch their Spring offensive and head to Stalingrad.  After that, it becomes murky, even it the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor on June 6, 1942.

Assuming the Japanese invade Siberia in 12/41 or even 1/42, they can gain a lot of territory.  There is however a lot of territory between Pacific coast and the heartland of Russia Proper.  It's als winter, so they mightnot have invaded until the spring (May or June).

Let's be real, there is no way they can move in during the winter.  They pretty much have to wait until spring/summer. 

Even then there is no guarantee they get much past the coasts.  The cost in lives is going to be huge on both sides.  The Japanese would use human wave attacks with their Manchurian puppets and they are going to be seriously outclassed by Soviet armor.

[Erc]

Under option 1 the axis would win

Stalin may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid.  There was no way he would risk signing a seperate peace with Hitler. and the Germans would not have been able to mount a successful 1943 offensive.  The German 6th Army, while not destroyed, would still be pinned down and unable to effectively maneuver thanks to Hitler's obsession with Stalingrad.  Basically this gives the Allies time to launch a 1945 Balkans invasion that keeps the Soviets from controlling Albania and Bulgaria.  Also the Czech Republic and Austria get to escape the Soviets.  We also have a chance to avoid a DPRK.  That's all to the good.  To the bad, we've probably seen at least five A-bombs used in Germany and US war dead are at least a quarter million  higher than OTL. (Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg, Munich, and Vienna make a good list of A-Bomb targets.)

I don't know, my theory was much simpler. Firstly, the USSR was on the verge of collapse at the end of 1941, using troops from the eastern theater to replace those lost in the west, including for the December 7 counterattack near Moscow. Secondly, the "America First" movement was much stronger in the U.S. than during World War I, with most Americans firmly against direct participation in the war. The collapse of the USSR would not have changed that. Caught between the Axis powers, and achieving only minimal aid from the British, the USSR would eventually have lost the war. Not necessarily surrendered, but just defeated.

I see little change on the Eastern Front through June of 1942.  The Soviets launch their 12/41 offensive that temporarily saves Moscow.  The Nazis launch their Spring offensive and head to Stalingrad.  After that, it becomes murky, even it the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor on June 6, 1942.

Assuming the Japanese invade Siberia in 12/41 or even 1/42, they can gain a lot of territory.  There is however a lot of territory between Pacific coast and the heartland of Russia Proper.  It's als winter, so they mightnot have invaded until the spring (May or June).

Let's be real, there is no way they can move in during the winter.  They pretty much have to wait until spring/summer. 

Even then there is no guarantee they get much past the coasts.  The cost in lives is going to be huge on both sides.  The Japanese would use human wave attacks with their Manchurian puppets and they are going to be seriously outclassed by Soviet armor.

Well we all know how the Japanese were mainly smushed in the border skirmishes of '39...but here we're talking about a Japan that has had three years to learn from its mistakes, is making Siberia its main objective, and invading an area which had the majority of its troops withdrawn in November '41.

[J. J.]

Another question is, does Japan decide to go after the British and the Dutch East Indies, bypassing the Phillippines. 

On 12/8/41, the Japanese Ambassador tells Secretary Hull that American posessions are safe. 

Without the Phillippines invasion, the Japanese capture the DEI, Singapore, and invade New Guinea about a month earlier.  In April, the JIN defeats a combind Anglo-Austrailian fleet in the Coral Sea.  In the west, Burma falls a few weeks earlier. (The Japanese did well in OTL during this period, but they do even better; this in not much of a stretch.)

By July 1, New Guinea falls.

To defend both India and Austrailia, the British have put ships and men into the Pacific and India Ocean.  This draws troops from North Africa.

So basically, six months out, NA is a stalemake, India and Austrailia are threateded (the latter is being bombed).  On the Russian front, Germany is doing slightly better in it's offensive that it did in OTL.

Now, does FDR decide that it is worth going to war to defend a potential threat to the Phillippines?

Do the Japanese decide to hold in the south and west and strike north, at Vladivostok and the Trans-Siberian Railway?

[J. J.]

Does anybody have any idea how many carriers Britain had in 1941/2?  I've read that the Ark Royal was hit and that there were converted merchant ships used as escort carriers in the North Sea.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The RN had the following carriers in service or under construction as of 1 December 1941

Experimental WW I/post WW I era carriers using various converted hulls.

• Furious (Decommissioned September 1944.)
• Argus (Decommissioned August 1944.)
• Hermes (Sunk off Ceylon April 1942.)
• Eagle (Sunk off Malta August 1942.)

Illustrious class fleet carriers

• Illustrous
• Formidible
• Victorious
• Indomnitable

Implacable class fleet carriers

• Implacable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)
• Indefatigable  (Under construction, launched December 1941)

Unicorn (light fleet/aircraft maintenence carrier)

• Unicorn (launched, but still being fitted out, in service as of March 1943)

Escort carriers

• Activity (launched May 1942, commissioned September 1942)
• Archer (lend-lease Long Island class)

There were also a number of escort carriers intended for use by the British via lend-lease that were in various stages of completion, but had not yet transferred to the RN.

The converted merchant ships were not yet in service or even undergoing conversion as of Pearl Harbor.

It's hard to say who would win a naval war bewteen the 1942 RN and the 1942 IJN with no other combatants to clous the issue.  The RN had superior carriers, but the IJN had better planes and pilots and more carriers than the British.