US alternate history in Second World War

[supery00n]

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines, and had never throughout the course of its war in the Pacific and in China, attacked any U.S. ship, base, civilian or military property, and had not killed any U.S. soldiers or civilians, but did invade and conquer the Indonesian archipelago, New Guinea, Southeast Asia, and selectively "skipped over" the Philippines and Hawaii, and neither did any of the Axis powers do anything of the above that Japan did not do, could Roosevelt ever had successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war?

If the U.S. had not entered the Second World War, and it had been fought to a victorious conclusion by the British Empire and the Soviet Union, although not necessarily an unconditional surrender, but a decisive military victory more conclusive than the victory won by the Triple Entente in the First World War but less so than unconditional surrender, would:
-America have developed an atom bomb, or have completed/started the Manhattan Project?
-Assuming the Soviet Union emerged the victor on the Eastern Front and on the Manchurian front, much as it did in actuality, but with significantly more casualties on the former and a greater length of the war by not more than a year, would the Soviet Union be the sole superpower in the world? If so, how much more powerful would the Soviet Union be than the British Empire and the United States?
-Comparing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. directly in such a situation, could America, having stayed out of the war as I assumed it occurred, have become a superpower purely on its potential military strength as estimated by its economy, or would the gap between the U.S.S.R. and the USA, as a consequence of the latter's non-participation, have become large enough militarily so that the U.S.A couldn't be considered an equal in military sense?

Would this military gap, if it would have existed by 1946-7, would have been a permanent one in which the U.S. lack of participation in the War would have made it nearly impossible for the U.S. military to gain parity with the Soviets, or would the economy eventually render the U.S. an equal or greater power, regardless of whether the military fought. In other words, could America have become a superpower without fighting?

Ignoring all of the alternate history above, with the only distinction being that the Manhattan project failed and the scientists in the project were stumped before the end of the war, before either the US or the USSR obtained nuclear weapons, was there a significant difference between the military strength in a purely conventional sense between the two nations? More to the point, would you be worried about losing a total conventional war against the Soviet Union in 1945 (assuming you're American I guess), as Germany did against them, if neither of the two nations would throughout the course of the war obtain the atom bomb or H bomb, or would you feel assured of victory in the end, and only be aghast at the cost of lives necessary to achieve that end? If it came down to an unconditional surrender, would you feel confident that you, and not Stalin, would be the victor?

Personally, I believe that the reason why the United States became a military superpower was because Japan attacked the U.S. in late 1941, but that it would remain the largest economy, with this margin over any other nation growing larger after the war until it became overwhelming, at least until 1960-5.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines, and had never throughout the course of its war in the Pacific and in China, attacked any U.S. ship, base, civilian or military property, and had not killed any U.S. soldiers or civilians, and neither did any of the Axis powers do anything of the above that Japan did not do, could Roosevelt ever had successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war?

This wasn't going to happen. The oil embargo on Japan pretty much forced them to either withdraw from China (which the military clique would not accept) or attack Western possessions which made American involvement inevitable. Plus by this point the Nazis had already attacked at least two US destroyers.

If the U.S. had not entered the Second World War, and it had been fought to a victorious conclusion by the British Empire and the Soviet Union, although not necessarily an unconditional surrender, but a decisive military victory more conclusive than the victory won by the Triple Entente in the First World War but less so than unconditional surrender, would:
-America have developed an atom bomb, or have completed/started the Manhattan Project?

Eventually, although probably more drawn out than OTL-say by 1950 or so.

-Assuming the Soviet Union emerged the victor on the Eastern Front and on the Manchurian front, much as it did in actuality, but with significantly more casualties on the former and a greater length of the war by not more than a year, would the Soviet Union be the sole superpower in the world? If so, how much more powerful would the Soviet Union be than the British Empire and the United States?

The USSR would be far more exhausted militarily and economically and the US and the British would still be natural allies and have greater economic strength combined.

-Comparing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. directly in such a situation, could America, having stayed out of the war as I assumed it occurred, have become a superpower purely on its potential military strength as estimated by its economy, or would the gap between the U.S.S.R. and the USA, as a consequence of the latter's non-participation, have become large enough militarily so that the U.S.A couldn't be considered an equal in military sense?

The latter is possible, although keep in mind that the US if threatened could easily build a massive military-until 1940 or so the US had the 16th largest army in the world.

Would this military gap, if it would have existed by 1946-7, would have been a permanent one in which the U.S. lack of participation in the War would have made it nearly impossible for the U.S. military to gain parity with the Soviets, or would the economy eventually render the U.S. an equal or greater power, regardless of whether the military fought. In other words, could America have become a superpower without fighting?

The latter. After all the Soviets throughout the Cold War had consistently larger forces.

Ignoring all of the alternate history above, with the only distinction being that the Manhattan project failed and the scientists in the project were stumped before the end of the war, before either the US or the USSR obtained nuclear weapons, was there a significant difference between the military strength in a purely conventional sense between the two nations? More to the point, would you be worried about losing a total conventional war against the Soviet Union in 1945 (assuming you're American I guess), as Germany did against them, if neither of the two nations would throughout the course of the war obtain the atom bomb or H bomb, or would you feel assured of victory in the end, and only be aghast at the cost of lives necessary to achieve that end? If it came down to an unconditional surrender, would you feel confident that you, and not Stalin, would be the victor?

Such a war would probably bog down in a stalemate-the Soviets might be able to push the Americans and the British out of the Continent but an invasion of Britain much less that of North America would be practically impossible.

[Scumpup]

WRT the US developing military might despite non-involvement in the war: take a look at real history. The stuff we had at the beginning of the war was not the same stuff we were using at the end. It was the war itself that drove us to develop and improve weapons. If we sat things out, being able to manufacture huge amounts of ca. 1940-ish tanks and planes and whatnot would have been of dubious value.

[Scumpup]

Our military was not exactly lavishly equipped when we entered the war IRL. If we spent the war as non-participants, when the Brits and the Commies finally settled the Axis' hash, we'd just have inferior weapons in very scant supply. If the isolationists had had their way, for whatever reason, on what basis would a government accustomed to a small, cheap military have spent big bucks on development and manufacture of advanced weapons?

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

on what basis would a government accustomed to a small, cheap military have spent big bucks on development and manufacture of advanced weapons?

Because we could be selling them to the other nations, who were fighting a war? And made big bucks in the process. And could have really grown our own economy, with all that money (or some of it) invested in building up our own infrastructure, factories, etc.

While all of them had cities, factories, transport facilities destroyed, and lots of skilled workers killed or busy in their military, we would have been completely undamaged by the war and wealthy from selling to them.

The Soviets might have emerged as a military superpower (though nearly bankrupt), but the USA would have been the only economic superpower.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Because we could be selling them to the other nations, who were fighting a war? And made big bucks in the process. And could have really grown our own economy, with all that money (or some of it) invested in building up our own infrastructure, factories, etc.

While all of them had cities, factories, transport facilities destroyed, and lots of skilled workers killed or busy in their military, we would have been completely undamaged by the war and wealthy from selling to them.

^ which was the successful US policy right up until Pearl Harbor: made a whole lot of money out of other nations fighting the Nazis.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by PrettyVacant

^ which was the successful US policy right up until Pearl Harbor: made a whole lot of money out of other nations fighting the Nazis.

Really? Maybe you can cite some examples. As I heard it, most of the folks fighting the Nazis didn't remain standing for long.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Really? Maybe you can cite some examples. As I heard it, most of the folks fighting the Nazis didn't remain standing for long.

The UK and Russia? Cash-and-carry and Lend-lease and all that?

[quant18]

Originally Posted by Qin Shi Huangdi

This wasn't going to happen. The oil embargo on Japan pretty much forced them to either withdraw from China (which the military clique would not accept)

The usual hand-wavey way around this is to imagine that Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield two decades early. There's actually an alternate history comic book in Japan based on this counterfactual (覇者の戦塵). I guess this is a pretty popular theory in Anglophone alternate history circles too; if you Google "What if Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield" you get a bunch of threads of varying levels of plausibility on that theme as well, but I don't know of any English novels about it.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

The UK and Russia? Cash-and-carry and Lend-lease and all that?

Did either of those programs make a dime in profit for the US? Individual companies might have shown a profit, but since the stuff was sold at discount, often deeply below cost, to the receiving nations, my guess is that the difference was made up by the US taxpayer. Anything we lent them that didn't get destroyed during the war was obsolete when we got it back. We destroyed it, sold it at a loss, or gave it away. Once again, I expect the US taxpayer was left picking up the tab.
Those programs were a way to help the side FDR wanted to help. They don't support the idea that the US could have sat out the war and enriched itself selling weapons.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Did either of those programs make a dime in profit for the US?

Well, the Wikipedia page sums up Lend-Lease repayment thusly:

Repayment
Main article: Anglo-American loan

There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war, but the Americans did expect the return of some durable goods such as ships. Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies after the war, so the administration charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[28] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines, and had never throughout the course of its war in the Pacific and in China, attacked any U.S. ship, base, civilian or military property, and had not killed any U.S. soldiers or civilians, but did invade and conquer the Indonesian archipelago, New Guinea, Southeast Asia, and selectively "skipped over" the Philippines and Hawaii, and neither did any of the Axis powers do anything of the above that Japan did not do, could Roosevelt ever had successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war?

This could not have happened. Attacking the Dutch East Indies meant attacking the US Navy. The US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed from Manila Bay prior to the outbreak of war; one light cruiser and five destroyers were at Tarakan, Borneo and four destroyers and a destroyer tender were at Balikpapan, Borneo intending to steam to Singapore. There's an order of battle here for the Asiatic Fleet. The entire reason for attacking the Dutch East Indies was to get the oil located there; oil that had been cut off as a result of the US led oil embargo.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

This could not have happened. Attacking the Dutch East Indies meant attacking the US Navy. The US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed from Manila Bay prior to the outbreak of war; one light cruiser and five destroyers were at Tarakan, Borneo and four destroyers and a destroyer tender were at Balikpapan, Borneo intending to steam to Singapore. There's an order of battle here for the Asiatic Fleet. The entire reason for attacking the Dutch East Indies was to get the oil located there; oil that had been cut off as a result of the US led oil embargo.

I thought the Asiatic fleet was only withdrawn from Manila Bay after the Japanese attack there began, because of heavy damage to US facilities. I'm not sure that there would have been the same US presence in Indonesia under the OP's hypthetical. And even if there were, if the US was still neutral in January 1942, would it have fought against the Japanese invasion of Indonesia? Getting a declaration of war when Hawaii was attacked was one thing, but opting to go to war in the first instance to protect Dutch colonial rule would have been politically trickier.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

I thought the Asiatic fleet was only withdrawn from Manila Bay after the Japanese attack there began, because of heavy damage to US facilities. I'm not sure that there would have been the same US presence in Indonesia under the OP's hypthetical. And even if there were, if the US was still neutral in January 1942, would it have fought against the Japanese invasion of Indonesia? Getting a declaration of war when Hawaii was attacked was one thing, but opting to go to war in the first instance to protect Dutch colonial rule would have been politically trickier.

They were dispersed from Manila Bay prior to the Japanese attack when one of the war warnings was issued. If you check the link it is the location of the vessels at the time of the Japanese attack on Dec 8th (local), 1941. International Date Line and all; Dec 8 local was Dec 7 Hawaii and continental US time. The vessels at Balikpapan were to join Force Z, the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse. The Japanese were not going to be able to attack the Dutch East Indies or British possessions in the area without attacking the US Navy, sinking US ships and killing US sailors which would make a declaration of war a slam dunk.

[Dissonance]

I dug a bit to find the exact date of leaving Manila Bay and it was actually 2 days prior to the war warning issued on November 27, 1941, at least for the ships at Balikpapan at the outbreak of hostilities. From here:

Four US destroyers of DesDiv 57 based in destroyer tender Black Hawk (AD-9), dispersed on 25 November 1941 by Adm Hart to Balikpapan, Borneo, allegedly for fuel. They were told while there they were then going on to Batavia, Java, (now Jakarta). But as soon as they were at sea turned towards Singapore, probably back through Philippine waters, to assist Adm Phillips RN of Force Z consisting of HMS Prince of Wales with Repulse and four destroyers. The U.S. destroyers reached that port on the morning of 10 December to take on British signalmen as the battleships of Force Z were being attacked by air with about 100 twin engine bombers in the Gulf of Siam. Des Div 57 arrived at the scene too late to assist in the rescue of survivors.

[supery00n]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

I thought the Asiatic fleet was only withdrawn from Manila Bay after the Japanese attack there began, because of heavy damage to US facilities. I'm not sure that there would have been the same US presence in Indonesia under the OP's hypthetical. And even if there were, if the US was still neutral in January 1942, would it have fought against the Japanese invasion of Indonesia? Getting a declaration of war when Hawaii was attacked was one thing, but opting to go to war in the first instance to protect Dutch colonial rule would have been politically trickier.

If the USA had not gone to war when mainland Britain was under threat of invasion (Battle of Britain), and when mainland China was invaded, why would it have gone to war when a Dutch colony was invaded? I definitely agree with you that it would have been politically tricky to the highest degree, especially when FDR had explicitly promised to not send Americans to fight in an overseas war (when that promise being on the condition that AMERICAN troops, territory, or property wasn't attacked. Even Wilson, who went to war, did so over things that related to American interests more so than a Dutch Colony being attacked).

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

Did either of those programs make a dime in profit for the US? Individual companies might have shown a profit,

The US is a government, not a for-profit organization, oddly enough. And presumably those individual companies paid taxes on their profits, and employed workers who also paid income taxes. So all that helps the US economy.

Originally Posted by Scumpup

but since the stuff was sold at discount, often deeply below cost, to the receiving nations, my guess is that the difference was made up by the US taxpayer.

Yes, at 90% discount. But for most of it, that was probably a generous valuation. This was obsolete equipment, mostly left over from WWI. (The US had not been building up the armed forces and buying much new equipment during the between-wars period.) That we were able to sell it at 10% of the original cost was a good deal. It also meant that we bought stuff to replace it, new stuff, purchased from factories thus putting people to work.

It was a good deal for the US economy, besides being the right thing to do.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If the USA had not gone to war when mainland Britain was under threat of invasion (Battle of Britain), and when mainland China was invaded, why would it have gone to war when a Dutch colony was invaded?

The situations were vastly different when China was invaded in 1937 and the oil embargo that was threatening to shut down Japan's economy in 1941 was put in place by the US over the issue of China. The US was already in an undeclared naval war with Germany in the Atlantic when Japan attacked. Finally, attacking the Dutch East Indies meant attacking the US Navy.

[supery00n]

The situations were vastly different when China was invaded in 1937 and the oil embargo that was threatening to shut down Japan's economy in 1941 was put in place by the US over the issue of China. The US was already in an undeclared naval war with Germany in the Atlantic when Japan attacked. Finally, attacking the Dutch East Indies meant attacking the US Navy.

All of your statements except the last sentence make perfect sense. Can you please explain how attacking the Dutch East Indies is a sufficient condition of attacking the US Navy? Were there US sailors in Dutch ships so that attacking a Dutch ship would mean the death or injury of Americans? Was there a secret alliance or tacit agreement between the Dutch and the U.S. that would call for a declaration of war against Japan by the United States if the Dutch East Indies were attacked, and if so, can you provide evidence that could be looked up and verified online (doesn't need to be a cited source..)? Was the US escorting Dutch ships or doing naval exercises with them?

If I recall correctly, both the U.S. and the Dutch placed an oil embargo on Japan in mid-1941. That does not necessarily imply that if Japan seized the oil of the Dutch East Indies, that it would be an act of war against the U.S. Of course, it would be an act of war against the Dutch since there's no way of taking their oil without invading and conquering the Indies, since Netherlands had also placed an oil embargo on Japan. Isn't it obvious that just because the US and Netherlands both placed an embargo on Japan for their respective oil resources, doesn't mean that the United States was guaranteeing the security of the Dutch colonies oil resources?

Just because two nations decide not to trade with you, even for a key military resource, doesn't mean that by attacking one of these nations (Dutch East Indies), and seizing the oil, and explicitly not attacking the other (the United States), will necessarily lead to war with both nations, unless there was a military alliance between the two that explicitly said that Japan doing that would mean war with not only the Netherlands (which is obvious), but ALSO America. A policy is a policy, and the burden of proof is on you to either say why I am factually wrong in that there WAS a naval presence of US ships directly in Indonesia, that there was a military alliance between the two, etc. or why in the absence of the two above, and other factors, that a war would nevertheless be declared by the US even though it wasn't attacked. The assumption that economic and trade relations being broken is an intermediate step toward war is hardly true generally, or from some law of international relations, but was the result of Japan's particular response to the situation; the breaking of diplomatic relations is actually the intermediate step toward wars, although even this can be settled, but probably only by a loss of national honor if that.

[Boyo Jim]

Roosevelt was looking for a way to get into the war to support England before Pearl Harbor, and I'm reasonably confident that the U-boat war would have eventually escalated enough to provide a pretext. Once in an alliance with Great Britain, there is a very good chance that the US would have been drawn into a Pacific war by virtue of Japanese attacks on British Asian colonies.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by quant18

The usual hand-wavey way around this is to imagine that Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield two decades early. There's actually an alternate history comic book in Japan based on this counterfactual (覇者の戦塵). I guess this is a pretty popular theory in Anglophone alternate history circles too; if you Google "What if Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield" you get a bunch of threads of varying levels of plausibility on that theme as well, but I don't know of any English novels about it.

Thanks, I've never about any AH using that POD. I'll look into that.

[cckerberos]

Originally Posted by quant18

The usual hand-wavey way around this is to imagine that Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield two decades early. There's actually an alternate history comic book in Japan based on this counterfactual (覇者の戦塵). I guess this is a pretty popular theory in Anglophone alternate history circles too; if you Google "What if Japan discovered the Daqing oilfield" you get a bunch of threads of varying levels of plausibility on that theme as well, but I don't know of any English novels about it.

I think 覇者の戦塵 is a series of novels. You might be thinking of Jipang?

Re the OP: I think FDR would have gotten us into the war one way or another, even without Pearl Harbor.

[supery00n]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

Roosevelt was looking for a way to get into the war to support England before Pearl Harbor, and I'm reasonably confident that the U-boat war would have eventually escalated enough to provide a pretext. Once in an alliance with Great Britain, there is a very good chance that the US would have been drawn into a Pacific war by virtue of Japanese attacks on British Asian colonies.

We can agree to disagree, but if you're correct on this point, then I guess you have a low opinion of Roosevelt keeping his campaign promises...

[Little Nemo]

My speculation.

Both Germany and Japan overestimated how much power Roosevelt had. They were dictatorships and they assumed the top guy could pretty much do what he wanted. So they discounted Congressional opposition to war.

I think Japan could have bypassed the Philippines and other American possessions and just attacked the Dutch East Indies and Malaysia. These were where the oilfields they wanted were located. The Philippines were just important because they lay across the route between the oilfields and Japan.

The United States didn't declare war when France or the Netherlands were overrun nor when Japan occupied French Indochina. Nor did the United States declare war when Britain, China, or the Soviet Union were attacked. It seems likely to me that the only thing that would have caused Congress to declare war would have been an attack on an American possession.

So let's say Japan attacks southeast Asia but avoids any American possessions. And let's say the United States protests greatly and imposes economic sanctions - but stops short of war. The British and Free Dutch wouldn't have been able to defend their east Asian colonies and Japan would have secured the resources it needed to defy American economic sanctions.

Hitler might have joined Japan in a war against the United States in 1941 but he wasn't going to start one of his own. So Germany would have just continued its war against the British Commonwealth and Soviet Union. The United States would have continued its program of economic aid to these powers. And the United States would have continued its atomic bomb program (which pre-dated Pearl Harbor) and were based on fears of an equivalent German program.

I think the Soviet Union would have beaten Germany eventually even if America stayed out of the war. Britain would have been on the winning side but it wouldn't have been able to counter-balance the Soviets with the Americans. So continental Europe would have ended up under Soviet control just as Eastern Europe historically did.

Japan would have eventually subdued China for the most part. The United States looking for allies to balance the Soviets would have had to accept a Japanese Empire as a fait accompli. The Americans would have an atomic bomb but it would remain a theoretical threat that had never been used in actual warfare. The British would have gradually lost their empire as they historically did. You might have seen proxy wars in Africa and southern Asia with Soviet-backed rebels fighting American-backed British regimes and American-backed rebels fighting Soviet-backed French and Dutch regimes.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by supery00n

We can agree to disagree, but if you're correct on this point, then I guess you have a low opinion of Roosevelt keeping his campaign promises...

Neither of us will ever know if I'm correct on this point. I suppose our disagreement will be eternal, and eternally meaningless.

[Randvek]

I can envision a world in which America never fought Japan, but I can't envision one in which America never fought an aggressive Nazi Germany. Really, the only reason it took us so long to get involved is that we kind of liked the idea of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union beating the tar out of each other. What happens to the Cold War if we step in right away and don't let Russian infrastructure go to hell in the German onslaught might be the better alternate history question...

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If the USA had not gone to war when mainland Britain was under threat of invasion (Battle of Britain), and when mainland China was invaded, why would it have gone to war when a Dutch colony was invaded?

I think there was a clear understanding in the US by '41, that this wasn't a second great war. It wasn't a bunch of Europeans having a squabble with no direct consequence for Americans. Polls were clearly moving in a pro-war direction and had been since the war had started. Americans were increasingly of the opinion that the wars were becoming an existential crisis, that the US was going to end up at war sooner or later, and most likely sooner. The US may have not declared war in December in response to a Japanese on the Dutch. But it was going to be yet another provocation, and the US was almost certainly going to eventually be at war with an expansionist Japan. It's not that the Dutch East Indies were more important than China. It's that the DEI, plus China, plus French Indochina, plus Thailand, plus Burma, etc. was more important than just China.

Here is some poll data (all Gallup)
1938-Sep-23 - 73% favor keeping mandatory arms embargo
1939-Jun-29 - 51% favor keeping mandatory arms embargo
1939-Sep-22 - 62% favor repealing mandatory arms embargo
...by 1941-Sep-4 - 62% approved limited naval warfare with Germany
by 1941-Nov-19 - 72% considered "defeating the Axis" as "the biggest job facing the nation"

At the same time the US was gearing up to war. The draft had been instituted the army had already gone from less than 200 thousand men to 1.6 million, and was still rapidly expanding. The navy had also grown but not as much. But the Navy generally had a long lead time. In '39 the US had 5 aircraft carriers and 1 under construction. By Pearl we had 8 and 11 under construction.

I think the US was clearly gearing up both mentally and materially to fight (primarily the Germans). But if the Japanese hadn't attacked the US. The US would have eventually attacked the Japanese. And with Wake, Guam, the Philippines, and a massive advantage in men and ships. It wouldn't have been any better for them than the actual time line was.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by supery00n

All of your statements except the last sentence make perfect sense. Can you please explain how attacking the Dutch East Indies is a sufficient condition of attacking the US Navy?

I'm not sure I get your confusion as you seem to have read all of my posts in this thread. The only thing I can think of is perhaps you are unaware that Borneo was part of the DEI. The US Navy was located in the Dutch East Indies, thus attacking the DEI meant attacking the US Navy. Tarakan and Balikpapan were both major ports for shipping oil from some of the largest sources of oil in the DEI and both were invaded by the Japanese.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor or the Philippines, and had never throughout the course of its war in the Pacific and in China, attacked any U.S. ship, base, civilian or military property, and had not killed any U.S. soldiers or civilians, but did invade and conquer the Indonesian archipelago, New Guinea, Southeast Asia, and selectively "skipped over" the Philippines and Hawaii, and neither did any of the Axis powers do anything of the above that Japan did not do, could Roosevelt ever had successfully asked Congress for a declaration of war?

I doubt it very seriously. There was too much isolationism in the United States. I cannot see the United States going to war to defend Indonesia, or even China without a Japanese strike against the United States.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by supery00n

If the U.S. had not entered the Second World War, and it had been fought to a victorious conclusion by the British Empire and the Soviet Union, although not necessarily an unconditional surrender, but a decisive military victory more conclusive than the victory won by the Triple Entente in the First World War but less so than unconditional surrender, would:
-America have developed an atom bomb, or have completed/started the Manhattan Project?
-Assuming the Soviet Union emerged the victor on the Eastern Front and on the Manchurian front, much as it did in actuality, but with significantly more casualties on the former and a greater length of the war by not more than a year, would the Soviet Union be the sole superpower in the world? If so, how much more powerful would the Soviet Union be than the British Empire and the United States?
-Comparing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. directly in such a situation, could America, having stayed out of the war as I assumed it occurred, have become a superpower purely on its potential military strength as estimated by its economy, or would the gap between the U.S.S.R. and the USA, as a consequence of the latter's non-participation, have become large enough militarily so that the U.S.A couldn't be considered an equal in military sense?

There are too many if's here. I do not think the Soviet Union would have survived without American entry into the war. Hitler never wanted to fight Great Britain. If Germany had conquered the Soviet Union to the Ural Mountains I think is is likely that Winston Churchill would have been replaced by a British leader who would have signed a peace treaty with Hitler. Great Britain would have remained free. The British Empire would have remained intact. Germany would have ruled the continent of Europe.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by supery00n

Ignoring all of the alternate history above, with the only distinction being that the Manhattan project failed and the scientists in the project were stumped before the end of the war, before either the US or the USSR obtained nuclear weapons, was there a significant difference between the military strength in a purely conventional sense between the two nations? More to the point, would you be worried about losing a total conventional war against the Soviet Union in 1945 (assuming you're American I guess), as Germany did against them, if neither of the two nations would throughout the course of the war obtain the atom bomb or H bomb, or would you feel assured of victory in the end, and only be aghast at the cost of lives necessary to achieve that end? If it came down to an unconditional surrender, would you feel confident that you, and not Stalin, would be the victor?

According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb. During the Second World War the Soviet Union lost an estimated 27 million dead and one third of its industrial and farm plant, so it was in a poor position to threaten Western Europe, much less the Untied States.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

There are too many if's here. I do not think the Soviet Union would have survived without American entry into the war.

They survived Barbarossa on their own, after which Germany was on the losing end of a war of attrition. There is no reason to believe that Germany would have defeated the USSR had the US remained neutral. The German army and their allies had been so badly savaged by Barbarossa and the winter fighting that the 1942 summer offensive was only conducted on the southern third of the front.

Hitler never wanted to fight Great Britain.

Nonsense. He made it perfectly clear that he wanted to fight Great Britain by invading Poland on September 1, 1939 after the UK had guaranteed it's independence.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

During the Second World War the Soviet Union lost an estimated 27 million dead and one third of its industrial and farm plant, so it was in a poor position to threaten Western Europe, much less the Untied States.

They also ended the war with the largest army in history, with most of it in Central Europe.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

I doubt it very seriously. There was too much isolationism in the United States. I cannot see the United States going to war to defend Indonesia, or even China without a Japanese strike against the United States.

See Bartman's post concerning the actual degree of isolationist sentiment in the US. See my other posts and note that the US Navy was deployed to the Dutch East Indies, so a move against them would mean attacking the US. Perhaps you should stick to threads explaining why you think blacks are genetically inferior.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

I'm not sure I get your confusion as you seem to have read all of my posts in this thread. The only thing I can think of is perhaps you are unaware that Borneo was part of the DEI. The US Navy was located in the Dutch East Indies, thus attacking the DEI meant attacking the US Navy. Tarakan and Balikpapan were both major ports for shipping oil from some of the largest sources of oil in the DEI and both were invaded by the Japanese.

There were American forces stationed in China when Japan attacked that country. American troops and ships even came under fire. But the United States didn't regard that as a cause for war. Nor did the United States regard it as a cause for war when American ships were attacked by the Germans in the Atlantic.

I'm going to stick with what I said earlier - Congress wasn't going to declare war in 1941 for any reason less than an attack on American territory. And the reason I say this is because that's what happened in history.

[supery00n]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

There were American forces stationed in China when Japan attacked that country. American troops and ships even came under fire. But the United States didn't regard that as a cause for war. Nor did the United States regard it as a cause for war when American ships were attacked by the Germans in the Atlantic.

I'm going to stick with what I said earlier - Congress wasn't going to declare war in 1941 for any reason less than an attack on American territory. And the reason I say this is because that's what happened in history.

Debate won, if no response. That's exactly what I think too.

[oreally]

Originally Posted by Scumpup

WRT the US developing military might despite non-involvement in the war: take a look at real history. The stuff we had at the beginning of the war was not the same stuff we were using at the end. It was the war itself that drove us to develop and improve weapons. If we sat things out, being able to manufacture huge amounts of ca. 1940-ish tanks and planes and whatnot would have been of dubious value.

War has been more responsible for technological advances than anything else in mankind's history, and it's not even close. Are we warped or what?

PS there is absolutely no way UK and USSR defeat Germany without us. None. Hell even with us it was one helluva fight.

[oreally]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

Perhaps you should stick to threads explaining why you think blacks are genetically inferior.

Sweet the race card. :thumbs up: Isn't it great how many unrelated threads that is inserted into?

The man oppressin! Reparations! You go girlfriend! All hail the almighty race card! Nothing can stand in its wake!!

[Ibn Warraq]

Originally Posted by oreally

Sweet the race card. :thumbs up: Isn't it great how many unrelated threads that is inserted into?

The man oppressin! Reparations! You go girlfriend! All hail the almighty race card! Nothing can stand in its wake!!

How was that playing the race card?

He merely suggested NDD stick to racist rants about how blacks are inferior to whites.

Considering the fact that around 90% of NDD's posts are on this subject and that NDD regularly espouses views that would cause most people to label him a racist, what's wrong with the comment?

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

There were American forces stationed in China when Japan attacked that country. American troops and ships even came under fire. But the United States didn't regard that as a cause for war. Nor did the United States regard it as a cause for war when American ships were attacked by the Germans in the Atlantic.

We've been down this road before Little Nemo. This should be familiar, links to cites used are in the original post.

Originally Posted by Me

Quote:

Let's try this one last time. The river gunboat Panay was sunk with the loss of two lives. Japan said it was attacked in error, apologized profusely and paid reparation. There is a newspaper article here from The Straits Times, 27 December 1937, Page 11, AMERICA ACCEPTS JAPAN'S PANAY APOLOGY. There's a lengthy article on the sinking of the Panay here. Let's see how things went, shall we?

Even leaving aside the intervening four years, you do see that a deliberate, sustained attack on and sinking of some of a light cruiser and destroyers as part of an invasion of the very island they were sent to help defend might draw a slightly different reaction? Particularly since it wouldn't be followed by three formal apologies from the Japanese government but rather with a Japanese declaration of war on the Dutch? You do see the difference between the two, right?

The Reuben James, yet again. The US was already at war with Germany when it was sunk, albeit without a formal declaration of war. Let that sink in for a moment, I'll repeat it: the US was already at war with Germany. It was acting as a belligerent vessel in the war. It was escorting the convoy of one belligerent (Britain) and had orders to attack the forces of the other belligerent (Germany) on sight. There is a lengthy US Naval Academy paper here (pdf file) entitled The U.S. Navy, the Neutrality Patrol, and Atlantic Fleet Escort Operations, 1939-1941. From the abstract:

There is a lengthy list here of "Belligerent Acts Prior to US Entry into WW2." You might want to give it a read, some of the highlights regarding US/German relations:

Umm, this generally hostile relationship had been escalating for years and was headed inexorably on a course to war. I suppose Germany and Poland weren't going to go to war on 1 Sept 1939. They had generally hostile relations for years up 'til then and hadn't gone to war. Thus Germany would not declare war on Poland. You do see the error in this logic, right?

No, they were not based on the concern that Japan might declare war, they were based on the concern that Japan would initiate hostilities at any moment. Japan's pattern of starting a war first and declaring war second was well known. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904-05 ringing any bells?

The sinking of the Panay was in no way remotely comparable to what we are talking about in the DEI in 1941, and the US was already at war with Germany in the Atlantic. By the by, I should note the significance of the US destroyers at Balikpapan being on the way to join Force Z. Force Z was the two British capital ships in the Far East, the Prince of Wales and Repulse, which were sent into the South China Sea to intercept reported Japanese invasion convoys that had been spotted prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Had they been there they would have come under attack by the Japanese twin-engined bombers that sank Force Z.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by oreally

PS there is absolutely no way UK and USSR defeat Germany without us. None. Hell even with us it was one helluva fight.

That's not very insightful.

So many variables it's impossible to gauge and taking any one, say the Ploiesti oil fields, out of the equation changes literally everything.

As it was, something over 80% of German deaths and casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. Even now, the scale of events on the Eastern Front seems unimaginable.

It's also worth bearing in mind Germany was effectively surrounded by the Soviet Union and British Empire - it had to supply everything from within its boundaries, and the capture of every oil field, coal mine, steel mill, etc had an exponential effect because its production could not be replaced.

[Quartz]

In short, the war lasts longer, Britain develops the nuke, parts of Germany become radioactive. Surrender rapidly follows. Faced with being nuked, Japan negotiates a surrender on advantageous terms. Churchill, who was re-elected due to the war not having been finished, launches a surprise nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, reducing Moscow to radioactive rubble, and the Soviet Union disintegrates into chaos, leading to a return of the Tsar.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

We've been down this road before Little Nemo. This should be familiar, links to cites used are in the original post.

I was trying to be nice by not referencing that thread. But since you chose to bring it up, here's a link to the entire thread not just one of your posts. So people can go back and judge your knowledge of WWII history.

Remember this post? "When did Japan attack the Soviet Union or French Indochina? It didn't attack either one. The oil embargo and causes of the immediate tension between the US and Japan was caused by the Japanese invasion of China."

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

By the by, I should note the significance of the US destroyers at Balikpapan being on the way to join Force Z. Force Z was the two British capital ships in the Far East, the Prince of Wales and Repulse, which were sent into the South China Sea to intercept reported Japanese invasion convoys that had been spotted prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Had they been there they would have come under attack by the Japanese twin-engined bombers that sank Force Z.

You act like the United States had made some long-term commitment to Balikpapan and the Dutch East Indies. The reality is that the American ships had been there for only nine days when Japan attacked. Balikpapan was just a harbor some American ships were staying in, not an American base.

As for joining Force Z, both the British and American ships had been given their orders before the attack. When a war starts, pre-war orders are generally re-written.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by supery00n

We can agree to disagree, but if you're correct on this point, then I guess you have a low opinion of Roosevelt keeping his campaign promises...

A campaign promise has to be considered in light of changing circumstances.

By late 1941 the U.S. and Germany were already engaging in open warfare on the high seas. Full scale war was inevitable, I would guess within six months.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Germany would have ruled the continent of Europe.

A stable situation could not have existed, no matter who won what, as long as Nazis ruled Germany. Nazism holds as axiomatic that war and conflict are a permanent state of human societies. No matter what had happened in the war between Nazy Germany, the USSR and the UK, the result, had the Nazis won, would have been another war, with someone, on whatever pretext could be thought up. A Nazi regime is always looking for another war because that's the fundamental, underlying principle of Nazisim.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

They survived Barbarossa on their own, after which Germany was on the losing end of a war of attrition. There is no reason to believe that Germany would have defeated the USSR had the US remained neutral. The German army and their allies had been so badly savaged by Barbarossa and the winter fighting that the 1942 summer offensive was only conducted on the southern third of the front.

I have read, although I cannot find verification on the internet, that immediately after the German invasion of the Soviet Union began President Roosevelt's military advisers told him that without American support the USSR would collapse within six weeks. Roosevelt began to sent financial and military support to the Soviets.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

Nonsense. He made it perfectly clear that he wanted to fight Great Britain by invading Poland on September 1, 1939 after the UK had guaranteed it's independence.

In The German Generals Talk Basil H. Liddell Hart reported the results he had with interviewing German generals after the Second World War.

http://www.amazon.com/German-General.../dp/0688060129

The German generals told Hart that the German Army could have destroyed the British Army at Dunkirk, but Hitler let the British evacuate.

[Scumpup]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

The US is a government, not a for-profit organization, oddly enough. And presumably those individual companies paid taxes on their profits, and employed workers who also paid income taxes. So all that helps the US economy. Yes, at 90% discount. But for most of it, that was probably a generous valuation. This was obsolete equipment, mostly left over from WWI. (The US had not been building up the armed forces and buying much new equipment during the between-wars period.) That we were able to sell it at 10% of the original cost was a good deal. It also meant that we bought stuff to replace it, new stuff, purchased from factories thus putting people to work.

It was a good deal for the US economy, besides being the right thing to do.

The trucks, Willys jeeps, and other vehicles provided through lend-lease were most assuredly not "left over from WWI." In any case, Lend-Lease was more than just military equipment.
The US government not being a profit-making or wealth creating entity is exactly my point. If a company manufactures a crate of ammo at a cost to them of $75 and sells it to the US government for $100, that company shows a $25 profit. The US government got the $100 it used to buy that ammo either from taxes or borrowing (which is actually just deferred taxing). If they later "sell" it under Lend-Lease to the Brits for $10, the US taxpayer is still on the hook for $90. Stuff costs money, even for the government, and the government gets its money by taking it from others. If we take the US government out of the equation and just go with the idea of the US companies being allowed to sell directly to the belligerents, do you think the ammunition maker in the example would have spent $75 making the crate of ammo and then sold it to the Brits for $10? Obviously, no. By getting the US government in the middle, it all comes down to stuff being sold at a loss with the taxpayer making up the difference so that the manufacturer can still show a profit. Lend-Lease might have been the right thing to do, but it absolutely wasn't a money making proposition.

[PrettyVacant]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The German generals told Hart that the German Army could have destroyed the British Army at Dunkirk, but Hitler let the British evacuate.

Or:

Few historians now accept the view that Hitler's behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was "quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit" in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...irk#Halt_order

[colonial]

Originally Posted by Dissonance

This could not have happened. Attacking the Dutch East Indies meant attacking the US Navy. The US Asiatic Fleet had dispersed from Manila Bay prior to the outbreak of war; one light cruiser and five destroyers were at Tarakan, Borneo and four destroyers and a destroyer tender were at Balikpapan, Borneo intending to steam to Singapore. There's an order of battle here for the Asiatic Fleet. The entire reason for attacking the Dutch East Indies was to get the oil located there; oil that had been cut off as a result of the US led oil embargo.

Here is a timeline for Japanese operations in Borneo:

The Japanese Occupation of Borneo, 1941-45

Googling Wiki articles on the specific Town/Areas, and various map sites indicate
the dates cited above are for the beginning of Japanese operations in Borneo.

DEI declared war on Japan on 12/8/42, but Japan did not make a counterdeclaration
until 1-10-42, and according to this map did not attack DEI until then.

Japan launched operations against Tarakan 1-11-42 or against Balikpan 1-24-42.
Both are on the east coast of Borneo, 100s of miles from Japan's first operations
on the island, which were directed 12-16 &ff against oil-rich UK possessions in the north/northwest.

So although the USN had a presence in DEI Borneo, without the attacks on Pearl Harbor
and the PI it would have been far from military operations and would not have had
a wartime mission, unless Congress decided to declare war because of Japanese attacks
on the UK and Dutch possessions, a very highly debatable hypothetical proposition.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by colonial

Japan launched operations against Tarakan 1-11-42 or against Balikpan 1-24-42. Both are on the east coast of Borneo, 100s of miles from Japan's first operations on the island, which were directed 12-16 &ff against oil-rich UK possessions in the north/northwest.

So although the USN had a presence in DEI Borneo, without the attacks on Pearl Harbor and the PI it would have been far from military operations and would not have had a wartime mission, unless Congress decided to declare war because of Japanese attacks on the UK and Dutch possessions, a very highly debatable hypothetical proposition.

You're mixing timelines. The OP is theorizing that Japan doesn't attack the Philippines or Pearl Harbor and instead only goes for the DEI and British possessions. As you can see on the map you linked, the attacks on Tarakan and Balikpapan were launched from Davoa on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines after the Japanese had occupied it. Had the Japanese tried to bypass occupying the Philippines and gone straight for the DEI it would have been the front line from the start of hostilities. British Borneo certainly produced a great deal of oil, but it pales in comparison to the amount produced by Dutch Borneo and shipped out from Tarakan and Balilpapan. The Dutch declaring war on Japan before Japan declared war on them is fairly meaningless; Japan didn't bother declaring war on the US and UK until after it had already bombed Pearl Harbor and initiated hostilities.* Japan intended to occupy the DEI from the beginning of hostilities, it wasn't something they did in response to the Dutch declaration.

*It is often said that the delay in decrypting the 14 part message by the Japanese embassy prevented a declaration of war from being delivered as Pearl Harbor was attacked, but this is untrue. The 14 part message was in no way a declaration of war, at best it was a suspension of ongoing negotiations about China and the oil.

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I was trying to be nice by not referencing that thread. But since you chose to bring it up, here's a link to the entire thread not just one of your posts. So people can go back and judge your knowledge of WWII history.

And I was trying to be nice by not bringing it up either until you replied to me here again trying to compare the accidental sinking of the Panay which caused the loss of only two lives and which Japan could not formally and officially apologize fast enough or often enough to deliberately attacking and sinking major US naval vessels as if they were the same thing. I have nothing to fear from a judgment of my knowledge of WW2 history and welcome enquiring minds to read the whole of the other thread and draw their own conclusions.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You act like the United States had made some long-term commitment to Balikpapan and the Dutch East Indies. The reality is that the American ships had been there for only nine days when Japan attacked. Balikpapan was just a harbor some American ships were staying in, not an American base.

You're making a straw man saying what you think I'm acting like; nowhere have I said or implied Balikpapan was an American base. However, the reality is Tarakan and Balikpapan is where the Asiatic Fleet dispersed to nine days before the Japanese attack upon receiving the Nov 27 war warning. It is where they would have been when war started if Japan attacked Pearl or not. Balikpapan was also not some harbor American ships were staying in, it was a stop-over point on the way to Singapore which is why a destroyer tender was with them; the old 4 stack flush-deck destroyers didn’t have very long legs.

As for joining Force Z, both the British and American ships had been given their orders before the attack. When a war starts, pre-war orders are generally re-written.

The point you seem to be missing is that US destroyers were on the way to join Force Z to create a joint US-British task force which was searching for Japanese transports on the way to invade Malaya. Again, you might want to take a look at some of those links I gave you, the US and UK had been planning joint operations on the outbreak of war for some time. See "Oct 5 . Naval Conference between US and British commanders in Singapore. [Hey look! Singapore!]"