Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump has resurrected America First as a doctrine. Some say the term is ugly, mostly relating to WW2 and the desire to stay out of it. My question is how would the war have turned out if indeed America had stayed out? I am not at all sure that Germany would have prevailed.
I'll restrict myself to the Pacific Theater, and I'll answer the question as asked, without getting into the whole issue about the United States failing to respond to the Pearl Harbor attack.
If the U.S. stayed out of the war, Japan would have seized New Guinea in May 1942 (as attempted, but turned back in the Battle of the Coral Sea) and then Midway in June 1942 (as attempted, but turned back in the Battle of Midway). They would have seized Guadalcanal (as attempted, but ultimately turned back following the Guadalcanal Campaign) and thus cut off America's supply line to Australia.
Towards the end of 1942, Japan would have attempted to invade Hawaii. Since the U.S. is sitting out the war as per the OP's question, the island chain would have fallen.
I suspect that Japan's territorial expansion would have halted at that point. Given that Australia was not able to project much power, there seems little point to attempting to conquer it. And there's even less point in attempting to invade the continental United States, since we're offering no resistance to their intended seizure of the resource-rich Dutch East Indies. Instead, with the oil fields et al safely in their hands, Japan would have milked their new territories dry, while fortifying their position to defend against an anticipated American counter-attack . . . which, in this scenario, never comes.
Newly strengthened with their conquered resources, and left alone by the Yanks, Japan re-doubles its efforts to subdue China, and eventually they probably prevail. Thus, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere becomes a reality, and encompasses all of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the southwestern Pacific (probably not including Australia and New Zealand). After that, life goes on, and that's that. (Though, it would be a miserable existence for the non-Japanese Asians.)
And today, the Yamato Museum would feature the actual full-sized battleship of that name, instead of just a scale model.
I'm sorry but these "what if threads" are becoming increasingly idiotic by the day, which is unfortunate because there was a time when there actually interesting discussions about history!
What if the U.S. sat out WW2.
How in the bloody hell was the U.S. suppose to "sit out" the Second World War II following the simultaneous attack and declaration of wars by Imperial Japan and the Nazi Germany?
There are those who say that the US didn't have to get involved in the wars in Europe and Asia. We usually see this coupled with anti-FDR sentiments. The Committee to Defend America First was one such group.
I'll restrict myself to the Pacific Theater, and I'll answer the question as asked, without getting into the whole issue about the United States failing to respond to the Pearl Harbor attack.
If the U.S. stayed out of the war, Japan would have seized New Guinea in May 1942 (as attempted, but turned back in the Battle of the Coral Sea) and then Midway in June 1942 (as attempted, but turned back in the Battle of Midway). They would have seized Guadalcanal (as attempted, but ultimately turned back following the Guadalcanal Campaign) and thus cut off America's supply line to Australia.
Towards the end of 1942, Japan would have attempted to invade Hawaii. Since the U.S. is sitting out the war as per the OP's question, the island chain would have fallen.
I suspect that Japan's territorial expansion would have halted at that point. Given that Australia was not able to project much power, there seems little point to attempting to conquer it. And there's even less point in attempting to invade the continental United States, since we're offering no resistance to their intended seizure of the resource-rich Dutch East Indies. Instead, with the oil fields et al safely in their hands, Japan would have milked their new territories dry, while fortifying their position to defend against an anticipated American counter-attack . . . which, in this scenario, never comes.
Newly strengthened with their conquered resources, and left alone by the Yanks, Japan re-doubles its efforts to subdue China, and eventually they probably prevail. Thus, the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere becomes a reality, and encompasses all of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the southwestern Pacific (probably not including Australia and New Zealand). After that, life goes on, and that's that. (Though, it would be a miserable existence for the non-Japanese Asians.)
And today, the Yamato Museum would feature the actual full-sized battleship of that name, instead of just a scale model.
Regarding China - By the time the US entered the war, Japan had been fighting China for 4 years with impunity. Japan had virtually all of Coastal China and the capital. But similar with Germany in Russia - they simply could not advance further. So I don't see them as ever being able to fully subjacate China. Probably not Australia either (as you point out).
I doubt Trumpet understood what America First stood for, it's just another slogan for him. If he does understand it then he's for withdrawing the US from the world, building a little island in the world that would have to see to all it's needs and require nothing from the rest of the world. Your cheap TVs and cell phones would be gone, as would your Prius and Sentras. This would be a reversion to a national policy that was proven impossible in the 1930s.
I doubt Trumpet understood what America First stood for, it's just another slogan for him. If he does understand it then he's for withdrawing the US from the world, building a little island in the world that would have to see to all it's needs and require nothing from the rest of the world. Your cheap TVs and cell phones would be gone, as would your Prius and Sentras. This would be a reversion to a national policy that was proven impossible in the 1930s.
Actually, it would be a rather large island. And the rest of the world would be begging for access to our market -- a plea which the US could parlay into a return of manufacturing plants and jobs to the U.S.
My God. I'm channeling Donald Trump, only with more lucidity.
Actually, it would be a rather large island. And the rest of the world would be begging for access to our market -- a plea which the US could parlay into a return of manufacturing plants and jobs to the U.S.
My God. I'm channeling Donald Trump, only with more lucidity.
You assume free markets, but the Axis powers would be dominant in that world, because the US would have shown that they didn't care about any country other than the US.
The Allies would still have won, but it may well have ended in a negotiated settlement (like WW1) in 1949 rather than unconditional surrender in 1945. Assuming that the US arms industry would keep both the Brits and the Soviets well supplied with arms and ammo while profiting nicely. And also assuming that neither side developed nuclear weapons.
Geography and logistics pretty well doomed the Axis from the start.
Nuclear weapons were developed by a joint effort of all the allies, they may not have been developed until a much later date without the war, the battle of Britain meant that the UK was safe from invasion, in fact even if the battle of Britain was lost it was probably safe from invasion (cross sea invasions are notoriously difficult) the Russians would have overcome Germany on its own if necessary.
Nuclear weapons were developed by a joint effort of all the allies, they may not have been developed until a much later date without the war, the battle of Britain meant that the UK was safe from invasion, in fact even if the battle of Britain was lost it was probably safe from invasion (cross sea invasions are notoriously difficult) the Russians would have overcome Germany on its own if necessary.
The US and British jointly developed the atomic bombs. It was secret from other allies. Even then-senator Harry S. Truman didn't know about the project. The US crash program was meant to have atomic bombs ready for use against Germany in 1945. The bombs were ready, but the Germans had left the game.
The US and British jointly developed the atomic bombs. It was secret from other allies. Even then-senator Harry S. Truman didn't know about the project. The US crash program was meant to have atomic bombs ready for use against Germany in 1945. The bombs were ready, but the Germans had left the game.
I could be wrong but I thought that there were German scientists (that had fled from the Nazis) that were also involved??
I could be wrong but I thought that there were German scientists (that had fled from the Nazis) that were also involved??
Yeah, they were taken into the US or British program. You can imagine the scale of surveillance they worked under during the war.
On the griping hand, Warner Heisenberg may or may not have worked on the German bomb program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
