Are you at all familiar with a period of history commonly known as “the Cold War”?
It was a period that began right after the war, during which each of the two superpowers of the time feared the other as an existential threat, not just to their global interests, but to their respective homelands. The paranoia was so intense that it led to nuclear escalation, McCarthyism, and a great many other extreme reactions.
Yet you believe that a global power consisting, not just of the USSR, but of the combined might of the whole of Europe AND the USSR under a united Third Reich could not possibly have posed a threat to the US, because, like, there’s all this water in the way!
So yes, although that last remark wasn’t addressed to me, let’s by all means agree to disagree on that.
Sure. In 1947 or later, after per spifflog: *the Soviet Union is either defeated or surrenders
-The United States does not perfect the atomic bomb
-In concert with this, Japan is not defeated
-Britain surrenders or is defeated
*
Then perhaps the Axis is a danger to mainland USA.
But in 1942 Germany wasnt a danger at all to the USA.
The USSR was never a real invasion/existential threat to the U.S. either except in a nuclear exchange scenario. Red Dawn was science fiction. There’s also debate to be had as to how quickly or completely the Germans could have consolidated and hold the Soviet Union even allowing they could have conquered it.
They would have to get there. After the expenditure of beating Europe and Russia, money would still be needed to build an extensive fleet.
I would stick with convincing Mexico or a Central American nation for ports and staging areas.
It was a state of affairs where two global superpowers each feared the other as an existential threat, despite being separated by a great big ocean.
Seriously, it’s fascinating reading newspapers and magazines from that era, especially the 50s (remember McCarthyism?) and early 60s. There were articles in popular magazines about things like rocket technology and space stations, but nothing like what you read about today – they were always in contexts like this: “there are huge challenges in getting a space station into earth orbit, but it would be worth it, because then we could lob missiles down anywhere on earth – the risk is that the Russkies might do it first!” It’s easy to forget the justifiable paranoia of the time. Cities and individuals were building bomb shelters, North American cities were installing air raid/missile warning sirens for the first time since the Second World War, and “emergency broadcast systems” were being regularly tested.
You aseem to think that a land invasion is the only meaningful kind of conquest. Perhaps it is. But the Great Depression (1929-1939) is an example of the kind of damage a trade war can do.
Yes, I think Japan made a good move by going after Pearl Harbor. They thought they could take out the enemies top ships, quickly seize the other assets like the Philippines, and then wait for years before the Americans return.
I’m guessing Japan was still on its mindset from 1904 when in a sneak attack they took out the Russian Pacific fleet and then it took months for the Russians to counterattack with their Baltic fleet which they easily defeated. It was also working with the European powers like Holland, Britain, and France who were tied up with a European war.
The Japanese though, were not aware of how quickly the US could build massive fleets of ships and aircraft and had the resources to fight both it and Germany.
Yes. I 100% believe that a global power consisting not just of the USSR, but the combined might of the whole of Europe could not possibly have posed a threat to the US, because of all the water in the way. No way, no how.
I think you minimize the difficulty of keeping all of Europe, including France and Britain, as well as the Soviet Union under thumb, while after 5, 6, 7(?) years of war, you still have the economic might to fight the largest economic power in the world. That German war machine of yours couldn’t beat the Soviet Union, at their doorstep in many ways. After losing millions of Soldiers? But they are going to build a navy from scratch and sail across the Atlantic. And keep that Army or yours equipped for the years and years of fighting in North America? Really??
The most significant difference in the world between 1941 and 1960 is the ability of the two superpowers to deliver nuclear weapons to each others homeland - pure and simple.
The United States never feared an invasion from the Soviet Union. They feared nuclear bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs.
Or put another way - “Red Dawn” - NOT a documentary.
OK, a couple of points, and then we can agree to disagree on what is after all not the main topic here. This all started when I mentioned in passing that Japan’s territorial objectives and those of Germany were such that Germany was regarded as by far the greatest threat to the US homeland. It’s indisputable that it was so regarded, and we can disagree on whether that was justified or not.
But the points are these. In 1941 and even the early part of 1942 the war was not going well for the Allies, so the knowledge from hindsight that Germany would suffer catastrophic losses on the Russian front in later months and years isn’t really relevant. And the reality is that had things gone according to plan, the Soviet Union would have been in the same position in Germany’s empire as the rest of Europe, not a drag on resources but a net contributor of resources and buildup of military might. The threat to the US would have come after such a period of consolidation.
And with regard to this:
That was certainly the primary fear. Which is as valid a threat as anything else – and the Third Reich as a global power would have provided that threat in spades. They were already working on nuclear energy and weaponry, and had developed several sources of heavy water that could be used in nuclear power plants and for breeder reactors that produced plutonium, though admittedly they weren’t very far advanced. And in the V-1 and V-2 they developed rocket-propelled missiles before anyone else.
And last but not least, don’t underestimate the impact of such nuclear weapons in actual invasion and occupation. It worked against Japan, did it not?
I don’t concur that Germany was regard as “by far the greatest threat to the US homeland,” or that “they were a threat to the US homeland” at all. Japan attacked the US homeland (at the very least a territory of the US). Germany (save for a submarine shelling IIRC) did not.
I think you need to make some attempt to separate the public stance of the American government during WWII from the actualities on the ground. Yes the US wanted (and wants) a free democratic west. Yes they want it from an economic standpoint. Yes there were civil defense units and drills. But to say that the US government was actively concerned about foreign soldiers on US soil is patently false. (And please don’t trot out the Aleutian Islands.)
I’ll say this for the last time. I feel you have no idea the complexities and difficulties of sailing millions of men, and their equipment - not to mention keeping them supplied for years - 4,000 miles from your base of operations.
Much of this - if not all of this - is in the “if pigs had wings they could fly” territory.
This seems like a baseball team losing 10 to 0 saying if only they hadn’t given up 10 runs and has score themselves they would have won. Well, OK.
If you want to say that many things that didn’t actually go Germany’s would, and that many things that went the Allies way wouldn’t, I suppose you can say that.
You might as well say that if Italy had only beaten the Brits they would have gone on to rule the world too at this rate.
But as I said up thread, as some point these “what is scenarios” drift beyond great debates and well into great fantasy.
Okay, spifflog, let me ask you this hypothetical. Suppose Britain had surrendered in the early days of WWII. Maybe Halifax became PM instead of Churchill, maybe Hitler sent the tanks in at Dunkirk, maybe Goering kept bombing the airbases instead of switching to London, whatever - let’s just say Britain’s out of the war.
Now move forward to December 1941. The Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and America has entered the war. Hitler is deciding if he should also declare war on the United States.
In your opinion, does Hitler have any reason to worry about the United States? America in this scenario will not have the British islands as a base. Does that mean, in your opinion, that Germany is invulnerable to the American military? That the United States can do nothing against Germany, in 1941 or at any point in the foreseeable future? That Germany is safe as long as an ocean separates them from America?
I don’t think a victorious Germany could have directly threatened US shores in 1945, but it isn’t a stretch to see how that situation would have threatened the US as soon as Hitler consolidated his new empire. Here is an excerpt from Roosevelt’s Navy Day address on October 27, 1941 (5 weeks before Pearl Harbor):
*Hitler has often protested that his plans for conquest do not extend across the Atlantic Ocean. But his submarines and raiders prove otherwise. So does the entire design of his new world order.
For example, I have in my possession a secret map made in Germany by Hitler’s government-by the planners of the new world order. It is a map of South America and a part of Central America, as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. Today in this area there are fourteen separate countries. The geographical experts of Berlin, however, have ruthlessly obliterated all existing boundary lines; and have divided South America into five vassal states, bringing the whole continent under their domination. And they have also so arranged it that the territory of one of these new puppet states includes the Republic of Panama and our great life line-the Panama Canal.
That is his plan. It will never go into effect.
This map makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States itself.
*
But I think the US was more concerned about the prospect of the USSR winning the war on its own and dominating all of Europe than they were about the Nazis. By D-day it was already clear that Germany would lose, but the US and UK fought all the harder from that point on so as to be in a position to oppose Russian influence over post-war Europe.
Had Hitler conquered all of Europe, I think he would have had his hands full for a decade or two, simply consolidating control over that continent.
Europe was/is a large, heavily populated continent, full of diverse ethnicities, religions, historical splits, quarrels, complexities and all sorts of complications. Pacifying and fully establishing control could take a long, long time. I imagine Adolf would be busy stamping the boot on Russia, finishing the Final Solution, fully extracting and exploiting the resources of the region - maybe moving the Wehrmact south to get some Arab oil - but the USA would surely be a distant second consideration.
By the 1960s, however, the Cold War is on in earnest, but it’s a three-way rivalry between Nazi Europe vs. North America vs. Japan-dominated Asia.
In reply to the OP, I think the Pearl Harbor attack was Japan’s wisest course of action under the circumstances.
I long ago read John Costello’s The Pacific War, which is still considered one of the best treatments of that conflict. He spends a good deal of time reviewing the events leading up to the war and concludes that by 1941 a war between the US and Japan was considered inevitable by both sides. Both were actively preparing for it at the time, but Japan had a big head start.
Now in hindsight it’s easy to say that the whole idea of going to war was shit, but Japan considered the actions and attitudes of the US and colonial Europeans to be completely unacceptable. If they didn’t go to war, they would forever be hemmed in and spat upon. The war in Europe and the alliance with the Axis provided them their one great chance to break out.
Given that they already decided to go to war, 1941 was the best time for the Japanese to strike. Delaying would only give the huge US industrial capacity more time to catch up to and surpass the Imperial Japanese Navy. Japan knew it had advantages at that time that it would lose forever if the US continued to build and fortify. They also figured Hitler would declare war on the US and that the US would be more concerned with Europe, as actually took place.
Given that 1941 was the best time to start the war, the Pearl Harbor strike was a pretty good way to do it. As previously mentioned, Japan’s strategy was not to win outright militarily, which they knew they couldn’t do, but to hope that the US got tired and quit. To allow for this to happen they needed to extend the war as long as possible, and crippling the US Pacific Fleet at the outset with a surprise attack was the best way to do this. Yamamoto predicted that after Pearl Harbor he would be able to “run wild” in the Pacific for one year and one year only, and that’s pretty much how it turned out.
He would have gotten a lot more time if they had caught the carriers, but Japanese strategists can’t be blamed for the bad luck of completely missing them. Two of them could usually be found in PH during that period. (The other was based on the West Coast; they were never going to get all three in one strike.)
I would need to be three people, General Tojo (and PM), Admiral Yamamoto and Emperor Hirohito in order to really control the military and foreign policies.
Given completely knowledge of what happens in the coming years, including my execution, getting shot shown down and losing power, respectively, I would do the following:
First, switch sides. Goodbye losers. Germany and Italy can kiss my ass(es).
Make an alliance with the UK and USSR in their darkest hours, when they’ll pay top dollars for the least amount of work.
In return to these countries agreeing to my territorial ambitions in Asia, we would participate in the war in Europe. I would demand full recognition of Manchuria (they would have already recognized Korea and Taiwan) and certain rights over other countries. They would also have to agree to pressure the US to accept Manchuria.
I would agree with the US they could have equal access to China markets, and that the Japanese forces would withdraw in an “orderly” manner.
I would propose to the US that Japan could maintain Manchuria as a buffer zone against Soviet influence in Asia. I would also get them to agree to release the frozen funds and resume oil shipments as well as scrap iron.
Propose a demilitarized zone for Pacific islands other than Hawaii and Japan, including the Marshall islands. The US was behind in development so this would be an incentive.
I would come to peace with KMT/ROC Chinese to withdraw from China in exchange for Manchuria and also a pledge to help fight the Red Army.
I would drop the unreasonable demands and renegotiate the failed agreement with the exiled Dutch government to resume oil shipments.
I would negotiate an nonaggression pact with the Philippines in which they kick out the US and we agree to not attack each other.
I would send several hundreds of thousands of troops and corresponding air planes to the Eastern Front, not only to stand with the USSR against Germany but also to allow Soviets to withdraw more forces from the Far East. Agree to absolutely respect each other’s borders, including Manchuria.
I would send five battleships and three fleet carriers to the Atlantic along with cruisers and destroyers to fight the Italians in the Mediterranean Sea, freeing up the RN to fight more in the Atlantic as well as some escort carriers and destroyers to help with convoy duty.
You win by not fighting the US in the Pacific. Make real contributions to the Allied causes when they absolutely require it, e.g., before the US entry into the war and you get your trade back, as well as Manchuria. You get a timetable to withdraw from China in a manner which saves face and makes other countries happy.
With the US guaranteed access to the Chinese market, Japan out of Indochina and the Japanese relinquishing control of China, this reduces the need for war.
Oh, and you execute 20 or so generals and a few admirals to get their attention.
Plus you get some good latte, something which was in terrible shortage in Japan circa 1941.
You know Little Nemo, I’ve been thinking about this very same question all night. The exact same question.
Part, a small part of this question, is how Britain is forced out of the war and what the conditions are. If Britain is somewhat happily out of the war, with minimum impact (i.e. no concentration camps, a few Germany soldiers as possible in the nation etc.) that would be one thing. If they country is being torn apart, with destruction and mass executions, that might be something else entirely. How badly does the US and the people of the US want to “save” Britain?
But, to answer your question, I really don’t think Hitler needs to worry much about the US in 1941. I think the earliest that Germany needs to worry about the US is in 1945 with the advent of the atomic bomb.
I believe Germany would be safe for the same reasons that I feel the US is safe. The Atlantic Ocean. Or perhaps more importantly, the lack of a jumping off point to reach out and touch your adversary. If the US can’t use Britain as a base for strategic bombing, for the Navy and to launch an invasion, I think Germany is largely safe for the same reasons I’ve been stating. You just can’t sail 4,000 miles with millions of troops directly from one continent to the other and fight. And probably more importantly, you can’t keep them supplied. The allies had to halt the fight several times due to supply issues with Britain as a base. How’s that going to work in this scenario?
Additionally, with England out of the war, the allies would love control of the sea lines of communication, at least in the immediate area of whatever landing there would be. And with Britain out of the fight, I can’t imagine there would be allied air superiority over whatever landing zone the US picked to reenter Europe.
One could argue that the US found a way to do this in Japan, and to some degree that is true. But the US had air superiority and controlled the sea in and around Japan. The German controlled bases in France, Germany and Britain, with air superiority in and around Europe landing there is going to be virtually impossible.
The Mediterranean is probably safe. The US fighting into Italy would be very difficult. Fighting in from Africa? Same issue.
The status of the fight between the USSR and Germany would be interesting. But if that was over in Germany’s favor, I don’t know what the US could do. If the USSR was winning, as some point the US might find a way to get into the fight, but I’m not sure how.
In December '41, the USN had three carriers in the Pacific (Saratoga, Lexington, Enterprise), and four in the Atlantic (Ranger, Wasp, Yorktown, Hornet).
They also had eleven Essex class authorized, with five having begun construction (CV-9, CV-10, CV-11, CV-16, CV-17). Immediately after PH, two more fleet carriers were authorized (CV’s 20 & 21).
Studies had already been completed in the direction of “emergency” war construction/conversion of CVE and CVL’s, and in January of '42, the Navy Department ordered that some Cleveland class cruisers were to be converted on the stocks into CVL’s (the Independence class), and nine of these eventually joined the fleet in late '42 and '43.
