If not for Pearl Harbor when would the U.S. have entered WWII

[Toronado3800]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

Looking back to find examples and expecting history to repeat itself I figure sometime during 1942 the right American ship taking orphaned British children to Canada or something after delivering war goods would be sunk in the Atlantic drawing us into war.

Do you think there is a chance right or wrong we could have avoided entry into the war?

If the Germans would have just turned East and left France alone I wonder if the anti communists would have kept us out assuming Hitler could round up his Jews more quietly. Bad PR move that genocide thing. As it was I figure we were bound for war in Europe and given our embargo eventually the Pacific but I don't know hiw we would have gotten into the Pacific War unless Jaoan was silly enough to honor their obligation and declare war on us after we did on Germany.

Honor...sorry, Japan would have.

 

[bodecea]

The more I read about the first year of WWI...the Brits should have stayed out of it and I believe Europe would have been a better place if the Germans had won....quickly. No Bolshevik Revolution, no millions dead, no Hitler rising killing even millions more a few decades later.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

We were effectively in WWII already when Pearl Harbor happened. We came in against the Japanese on China's side (Flying Tigers et al.) We'd embargoed Japan's oil (an act of war then as now.) And were siding with Britain against Germany (who as an ally with Japan would have resulted in hostilities anyway.)

 

[whitehall]

Under FDR the US was a blind giant. After the US entered the War the Brits were shocked that the US had no cohesive intelligence network. COS Army general George Marshall had access to the decoded Japanese dispatches code name "magic" but when he had the final decoded message in his hand that indicated the Japanese had declared war on the US he held it and read it and re-read it and re-re read it until the Military message network went down and he had no way to alert Pearl Harbor unless he picked up the freaking telephone. He failed to do so and sent a Western Union telegram that arrived at the same time as the Zeroes. Marshall should have been relieved of command but strangely enough his actions seemed to be part of the plan. The US considered the Japanese to be incapable of waging a "real" war and if it took a Japanese attack to get into the European war the fools in the White House were willing to take the risk.

 

[Toronado3800]

Do you think that by 43 we would have been at war with Japan or Germany if Japan did not attack us?

 

[Politico]

No way to know. But it would have been too late by then.

 

[jwoodie]

The more I read about the first year of WWI...the Brits should have stayed out of it and I believe Europe would have been a better place if the Germans had won....quickly. No Bolshevik Revolution, no millions dead, no Hitler rising killing even millions more a few decades later.

Exactly. The Brits created both world wars in order to undermine Germany as an economic and political rival. The violation of Belgium's neutrality was concocted excuse for declaring war on Germany, which was surrounded by the two largest armies in Europe, Russian and French. Without the British intervention, the war would have been settled like previous European wars (e.g., Franco-Prussian) with far fewer casualties.

Even after signing the Armistice, the Brits continued to blockade German ports to starve the population and destabilize the government. They then forced Germany to accept complete responsibility for the entire war (started by Austria-Hungary) and to pay all of their war debts to the USA, thus guaranteeing a second world war 20 years later.

 

[regent]

Does the Republican party have an official position on the cause of America's entry into WWII Seems like one Republican take is that FDR engineered that entry. The and the other take is that FDR did now allow America to properly prepare for that conflict, and we got caught unprepared. A new reason has been introduced in that FDR was under Stalin's dominance and Stalin called the tune.
Again, does the Republican party have an official position on America's entry into WWII?

 

[jwoodie]

Does the Republican party have an official position on the cause of America's entry into WWII Seems like one Republican take is that FDR engineered that entry. The and the other take is that FDR did now allow America to properly prepare for that conflict, and we got caught unprepared. A new reason has been introduced in that FDR was under Stalin's dominance and Stalin called the tune.
Again, does the Republican party have an official position on America's entry into WWII?

Are you trying to appear intelligent again? Setting aside your disingenuous and asinine question, the cause of America's entry into WWII was unchecked German and Japanese international aggression. The only variables were when it would occur and which opponent would be given first priority. FDR saw this coming and helped keep Great Britain afloat during the interim. He was a great wartime leader, but seriously underestimated Stalin's post-war intentions.

 

[regent]

Does the Republican party have an official position on the cause of America's entry into WWII Seems like one Republican take is that FDR engineered that entry. The and the other take is that FDR did now allow America to properly prepare for that conflict, and we got caught unprepared. A new reason has been introduced in that FDR was under Stalin's dominance and Stalin called the tune.
Again, does the Republican party have an official position on America's entry into WWII?

Are you trying to appear intelligent again? Setting aside your disingenuous and asinine question, the cause of America's entry into WWII was unchecked German and Japanese international aggression. The only variables were when it would occur and which opponent would be given first priority. FDR saw this coming and helped keep Great Britain afloat during the interim. He was a great wartime leader, but seriously underestimated Stalin's post-war intentions.

Is that the official position of the Republican party?

 

[jwoodie]

Does the Republican party have an official position on the cause of America's entry into WWII Seems like one Republican take is that FDR engineered that entry. The and the other take is that FDR did now allow America to properly prepare for that conflict, and we got caught unprepared. A new reason has been introduced in that FDR was under Stalin's dominance and Stalin called the tune.
Again, does the Republican party have an official position on America's entry into WWII?

Are you trying to appear intelligent again? Setting aside your disingenuous and asinine question, the cause of America's entry into WWII was unchecked German and Japanese international aggression. The only variables were when it would occur and which opponent would be given first priority. FDR saw this coming and helped keep Great Britain afloat during the interim. He was a great wartime leader, but seriously underestimated Stalin's post-war intentions.

Is that the official position of the Republican party?

In your alternate universe?

 

[Bush92]

At some point on the high seas Japan and Germany would have sank enough US merchant ships to provoke an entry by United States.

 

[regent]

At some point on the high seas Japan and Germany would have sank enough US merchant ships to provoke an entry by United States.

We were determined to keep Britain alive, but many Americans still did not want to get involved in Europe's wars, so FDR had his hands full. We had our first peace time draft going but due to expire shortly, Congress finally renewed the draft by one or two votes as I remember. Pearl Harbor would happen two months later. I think most Americans felt the loss of the ships were our own fault in our attempt to sell Britain our war goods and keep Britain alive. Britain would soon run out of money. Pearl Harbor solved most of our dilemma as to how far we should go in Europe's war. There seems to be more controversy today about our entry, than on December 8,1941.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

This is a poor hypothetical question, I think. All else being equal there's no reason Pearl Harbor isn't attacked because FDR still provokes the Axis Powers, especially Japan, at every turn, making an attack inevitable. Now if we stipulate that FDR adopts a true policy of neutrality, thus Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor, then the answer is that the U.S. probably never enters WWII because there was absolutely no public support for doing so.

 

[Agit8r]

Another thread got me thinking about this.

Looking back to find examples and expecting history to repeat itself I figure sometime during 1942 the right American ship taking orphaned British children to Canada or something after delivering war goods would be sunk in the Atlantic drawing us into war.

Do you think there is a chance right or wrong we could have avoided entry into the war?

If the Germans would have just turned East and left France alone I wonder if the anti communists would have kept us out assuming Hitler could round up his Jews more quietly. Bad PR move that genocide thing. As it was I figure we were bound for war in Europe and given our embargo eventually the Pacific but I don't know hiw we would have gotten into the Pacific War unless Jaoan was silly enough to honor their obligation and declare war on us after we did on Germany.

Honor...sorry, Japan would have.

We would have gotten nuked eventually

 

[Manonthestreet]

Except they attacked Philippines same day......result the same.

 

[Picaro]

Both Japan and Germany would have attacked us regardless of what FDR or any other President did. It's the nature of imperialist fantasies that they usually attack anybody sooner or later, and the U.S. was too big to ignore, plus it had no real military at the time and made an 'easy target' to the Axis, plus it had a large number of morons who think isolationism and 'neutrality' was grand and politically possible, despite all the historical evidence that proves that to be both a stupid and a dangerous policy in a world quickly getting smaller and smaller. It was a dangerous and impossible policy then, and far, far less viable today.

 

[Picaro]

Wilhelm II made sure almost every European power would have to go to war with Germany and the Dual Monarchy. The amazing thing about that era was that Wilhelm didn't manage to start it years earlier. The other powers in Europe showed remarkable restraint in dealing with him. Unfortunately, imperialist sociopaths consider that sort of thing as a sign of weakness and are encouraged by it, as did the Axis powers in the 1930's and the Islamists do now.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

hard to say for sure but whats an established fact now is that FDR was a traiter and murdered those american sailers knowing full well the japenses would bomb them withholding that information from the american fleet purposely allowing them to bomb and murder them so he could get the support of the american people to enter the war and so he could stay in office past the required two terms.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Both Japan and Germany would have attacked us regardless of what FDR or any other President did. It's the nature of imperialist fantasies that they usually attack anybody sooner or later, and the U.S. was too big to ignore, plus it had no real military at the time and made an 'easy target' to the Axis, plus it had a large number of morons who think isolationism and 'neutrality' was grand and politically possible, despite all the historical evidence that proves that to be both a stupid and a dangerous policy in a world quickly getting smaller and smaller. It was a dangerous and impossible policy then, and far, far less viable today.

Proved when? What major power has ever practiced non-intervention?