war in 1937 ??????

[bridav58]

Ok let's say the US goes to war with Japan over the Panay Incident while the UK & France go to war over the Hitler's attempt to annex Austria. My questions are...
1. How do the sides match up in this time frame?
2. What is each side's limitations at this date compared to thier historical entry into the war?
3. You could very well have 2 parrallel wars here without the US getting involved in Europe or the France/UK getting involved in the Pacific but what would get the US involved in Europe???
Sorry I just wanted to get something started!!! I've always windered what if the Western Allies called Hitler's bluff of the US would have faced Japan down quicker.

[JMS]

In 1937 I would say the European allies are better off than in 1939. German rearmament is just starting to take off while there's still a Poland and a Czechoslovakia armed to the teeth. The German navy is feeble with a handful of U boats (26?). The Panzer divisions either didn't exist or had yet to solve their teething problems.

[john964]

Ok let's say the US goes to war with Japan over the Panay Incident while the UK & France go to war over the Hitler's attempt to annex Austria. My questions are...
1. How do the sides match up in this time frame?
2. What is each side's limitations at this date compared to thier historical entry into the war?
3. You could very well have 2 parrallel wars here without the US getting involved in Europe or the France/UK getting involved in the Pacific but what would get the US involved in Europe???
Sorry I just wanted to get something started!!! I've always windered what if the Western Allies called Hitler's bluff of the US would have faced Japan down quicker.

It would be interesting to say the least, the USN would only have 2 CV's (Lex and Sara) 1 CVL? Langley, Yorktown would not be ready until late 37 early 38. The IJN would be in about the same shape with 3 CV's 2 CVL's and 1 CV ready late in the year. The USN's BB's would be ready with a few in for refit. but the IJN would be in compareable shape,

[Campy]

The British weren't ready for war in 1938. That is why they signed the Munich pact. They knew there wouldn't be "Peace in our time." They just needed the time. In 1937, they might have been better armed than Hitler, but were they prepared for war? France and Germany actually had more tanks and troops than the Germans in 1940. It didn't help them.

Frank

[clacton2]

The British weren't ready for war in 1938. That is why they signed the Munich pact. They knew there wouldn't be "Peace in our time." They just needed the time. In 1937, they might have been better armed than Hitler, but were they prepared for war? France and Germany actually had more tanks and troops than the Germans in 1940. It didn't help them.

Frank

Hi,
As Frank says, neither the British people or the armed services were ready for war in 1937, and in fact at that stage would have done almost anything to avoid war.
By the same token, neither Germany or Hitler was ready or re-armed enough for war either, so they would almost certainly have backed down in any real confrontation with France and Britain. Bit of a chicken and egg situation really!
Jon:eek:

[bridav58]

It would be interesting to say the least, the USN would only have 2 CV's (Lex and Sara) 1 CVL? Langley, Yorktown would not be ready until late 37 early 38. The IJN would be in about the same shape with 3 CV's 2 CVL's and 1 CV ready late in the year. The USN's BB's would be ready with a few in for refit. but the IJN would be in compareable shape,
1. The USN would have as CV's Lexington, Saratoga, and Ranger along with Langley. As you say by late '37 & mid '38 the USN will have the Yorktown & Enterprise . The IJN has Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, plus CVL's Ryujo & Hosho but will get no replacement CV's till Hiryu in mid 1939 & the Shokaku's in 1941 . However the IJN doesn't have the Zero nor does the USN have the F4F.
2. The USN has it's entire battleline while for the IJN the Hiei is still de-militarised . Fuso,Yamashiro, and Ise were under refit in 1937. So the IJN has 3 Kongo's , Hyuga , Nagato and Mutsu for a batttleline verse 15 USN BB's.
3. In cruisers the US has 10 Omaha , 2 Pensacola, 6 Northampton, 2 Portland, 7 New Orleans, and 2 Brooklyns verse 2 Tenryu's, 5 Kuma's, 6 Nagara's, 3 Sendai's, Yubari, you also have the 4 Myoko's & 4 Takao's( all 8 may have been undergoing hull strengthening though at this time), and the 4 Mogami's were undergoing delayed completions/rebuilds at this time too. Aoba,Kinugasa,Kako and Furutaka were under rebuilds at this time. In other words alot of the IJN cruiser force was under rfebuild/refit at this time however I'm not sure of the timelines.
4. Per the war in Europe France & UK are in a much better position relatively speaking verse Germany with the added bonus that Czechoslavakia & Poland are both in her rear in this war.

[old_pop2000]

In 1937, the Japanese would have had Akagi, Kaga and Ryujo for carriers. However, Soryu and Hiryu would only be completed in 1937 and 1938, and would require workups. They would have had the early model of the B5N. They would not have had the D3A Val or the A6M2 Model 21 Zero, so the Pearl Harbor attack would not have been possible. In fact, Pearl Harbor was not the fleet base in 1937, the fleet was scattered on the west coast at San Diego, San Pedro and Mare Island.

Japanese records also show that the consideration for a shallow water attack occurred in 1939, two years before the idea of the Pearl Harbor attack was conceived but not in 1937. In fact, in 1937, the Japanese finally created an Air Power Research Committee to assist in the development of operational and armaments planning.

All in all, the reason the Japanese did not use the Panay incident as a precursor to war, was that the IJN was simply not ready for a full scale war, since it had been focusing on the China war. So, it is, in my opinion, a remote possibility.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ok let's say the US goes to war with Japan over the Panay Incident while the UK & France go to war over the Hitler's attempt to annex Austria. My questions are...
1. How do the sides match up in this time frame?
2. What is each side's limitations at this date compared to thier historical entry into the war?
3. You could very well have 2 parrallel wars here without the US getting involved in Europe or the France/UK getting involved in the Pacific but what would get the US involved in Europe???
Sorry I just wanted to get something started!!! I've always windered what if the Western Allies called Hitler's bluff of the US would have faced Japan down quicker.

Hi:

Regarding France and England versus Germany in 1937, Hitler himeslf had said that if the French army had opposed his occupation of the Rhineland, then his regime would have collapsed. Germany could certainly fight, but its army and airforce were certainly not at the level they were in 1939 and 1940. The calculated bluffs that Germany ran in the years prior to WWII rested on the fact that neither England nor France wanted a replay of the carnage of WWI and would find ways to avoid war. Unfortuntately this only made for a bigger butcher's bill later on. While the military casualties that France and England suffered in WWII were not as great as in WWI, the civilian casualties and destruction of property were greater.

Since neither the US or Japan had a fully developed carrier arm or doctrine in 1937, I would expect more of a traditional surface fleet action a la Plan Orange with the decisive battles fought in the Mandates.

[old_pop2000]

Hi:

Regarding France and England versus Germany in 1937, Hitler himeslf had said that if the French army had opposed his occupation of the Rhineland, then his regime would have collapsed. Germany could certainly fight, but its army and airforce were certainly not at the level they were in 1939 and 1940. The calculated bluffs that Germany ran in the years prior to WWII rested on the fact that neither England nor France wanted a replay of the carnage of WWI and would find ways to avoid war. Unfortuntately this only made for a bigger butcher's bill later on. While the military casualties that France and England suffered in WWII were not as great as in WWI, the civilian casualties and destruction of property were greater.

Since neither the US or Japan had a fully developed carrier arm or doctrine in 1937, I would expect more of a traditional surface fleet action a la Plan Orange with the decisive battles fought in the Mandates.
Ed:

What about fleet oilers? The fleet would be on the west coast, and the fuel farm in Pearl was not completed until 1938. So how do those battleships get refueled? It is 4800 miles plus, to the Marshall Islands. The three classes of fleet oilers available have a max speed of 10-12 knots at best, around 8 to refuel. The destroyers will have to refuel every day.

[bridav58]

Ed:

What about fleet oilers? The fleet would be on the west coast, and the fuel farm in Pearl was not completed until 1938. So how do those battleships get refueled? It is 4800 miles plus, to the Marshall Islands.


"station tankers" be based at Pearl Harbor ? I know during the war the US used old/captured Italian-German tankers for station tankers to store oil at various islands/attolls across the Pacific . So the question arises why can't regulat tankers be used to carry and/or store oil at Pearl Harbor?

[bridav58]

Could/Would the rallying cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" being replaced by "Remember the Panay" stiffen French & British resolve against Hitler? Now if Hitler backs down on the Austrian/Sudentan German issues could we end up seeing lend lease in reverse from the UK/France to the US in it's war with Japan? What equipment could or would the Us use of the Western Allies?
How could the US get involved in the European War?
I don't know if these issues are allowed to be discussed on this board because of the political overttones . i hope it's alright to bring these issues up.

[old_pop2000]

Could/Would the rallying cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" being replaced by "Remember the Panay" stiffen French & British resolve against Hitler? Now if Hitler backs down on the Austrian/Sudentan German issues could we end up seeing lend lease in reverse from the UK/France to the US in it's war with Japan? What equipment could or would the Us use of the Western Allies?
How could the US get involved in the European War?
I don't know if these issues are allowed to be discussed on this board because of the political overttones . i hope it's alright to bring these issues up.
The question would always revolve around western nations being involved in far eastern diplomacy. What was the mission of the Panay? Why was it in the Yangtze? The answer is that it was being used as a bomb shelter for foreign Embassy staff members during the Japanese bombing of Nanking. Both it and a British gunboat were bombed and strafed. The Panay incident is a weak sister to push us into war.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:

What about fleet oilers? The fleet would be on the west coast, and the fuel farm in Pearl was not completed until 1938. So how do those battleships get refueled? It is 4800 miles plus, to the Marshall Islands. The three classes of fleet oilers available have a max speed of 10-12 knots at best, around 8 to refuel. The destroyers will have to refuel every day.

Dennis:

I would imagine that the setting up of advanced bases as per War Plan Orange would have been the first consideration. Since Japan faces the same problem, either they fight in the Mandates or seize the Philippines and wait for the USN to come to them.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Could/Would the rallying cry of "Remember Pearl Harbor" being replaced by "Remember the Panay" stiffen French & British resolve against Hitler? Now if Hitler backs down on the Austrian/Sudentan German issues could we end up seeing lend lease in reverse from the UK/France to the US in it's war with Japan? What equipment could or would the Us use of the Western Allies?
How could the US get involved in the European War?
I don't know if these issues are allowed to be discussed on this board because of the political overttones . i hope it's alright to bring these issues up.

Hi:

Equipment wise, I can see the US wanting more aircraft for certain. But outside of the Spitfire, I can't think of anything the US would ask for. Weapons wise I could see the US asking for the Bren light machine gun and possibly a British cruiser tank. But essentially none of the Allied nations had a surplus of material to give in 1937. The US was still dealing with the Depression and had not begun to re-arm. Indeed, it was the growing tensions worldwide that helped spur US defense industries into growth by selling weapons to France and England. Point is, nobody was ready for a major war in 1937. Japan got away with it because she was fighting a badly fragmented China.

[bridav58]

Hi:

Equipment wise, I can see the US wanting more aircraft for certain. But outside of the Spitfire, I can't think of anything the US would ask for. Weapons wise I could see the US asking for the Bren light machine gun and possibly a British cruiser tank. But essentially none of the Allied nations had a surplus of material to give in 1937. The US was still dealing with the Depression and had not begun to re-arm. Indeed, it was the growing tensions worldwide that helped spur US defense industries into growth by selling weapons to France and England. Point is, nobody was ready for a major war in 1937. Japan got away with it because she was fighting a badly fragmented China.


the depression is that it had a GNP of around 68 billion dollars and was spending 1.5 % of that on defence. For comparisons...
British Empire ...22 Billion dollars ,5.7% on defence
France....10 Billion GNP ..9.1% on defence
Germany...17 billion GNP ,23.5% on defence
Italy...6 Billion..14.5% on defence
USSR...19 billion...26.4% on defence
Japan...4 billion...28.2% on defence
In shares of World Manufactoring Output.. US was 28.7%, USSR 17.6% , Germany 13.2% , UK 9.2% , France 4.5% , Japan 3.8% and Italy 2.9%. Further the US had seen & would see far better days,US industry had immense slack in 1937.
In steel production the US was producing 26.4 million tons well ahead of Germany 20.7 millions ,USSR 16.5 million and Japan's 6,000,000 BUT The US steel industry was operating at 1/3 capacity those other 3 countries were at full capacity.

Just thought I would throw a little economics into this and also show the surplus the US,France and UK had in thier economies compared to Germany & Japan. Now Italy is interesting since her & Germany's relations were strained at this time and she very well could end up siding with the Uk & France in this war.

[old_pop2000]

"station tankers" be based at Pearl Harbor ? I know during the war the US used old/captured Italian-German tankers for station tankers to store oil at various islands/attolls across the Pacific . So the question arises why can't regulat tankers be used to carry and/or store oil at Pearl Harbor?
Regular tankers are not equipped for refueling at sea, nor do they have the speed to keep up with the fleet.

As to Pearl Harbor and regular tankers, docking space is at a premium at Pearl Harbor. These are not super tankers.

Comparison of fleet oilers commissioned in the 1940's with those commissioned in the intervening years;

Platte-146,000 barrel capacity - commissioned in 1941

Tippecanoe - 70,000 barrel capacity - 1921

Neches, Pecos -55,700 barrel capacity -1921

Note also that fleet oilers carried av gas for aircraft, ships boats, lubricants and sometimes dry stuff.

Max speed on prewar oilers was 10-12 knots.

Iowa class battleships had a fuel capacity of 7621 tons of fuel oil, USS Nevada carried 2035 tons of fuel oil.

Now, for you math wizards, 1 American barrel of oil is equivalent to .136 tonnes of oil so if the USS Nevada carried about 2035 tons of fuel oil, that is equivalent to 14,963 barrels of oil, if I did that correctly.

Now, if we use the Pecos at 55,700 barrels of oil, then she could refuel 3.7 battleships.

In 1939, the only year that I have information for, there were 12 battleships in the Pacific Fleet. That means that it would take 4 tankers of the Peco's size at 55,700 barrels to fill up the battleships. What about the 14 light cruisers, and 68 destroyers? What about the 12 heavy cruisers and one light cruiser in the scouting force?

In 1937, the Scouting force was changed from all destroyers to a composite, just for information.

Now, in 1937, there would have been 15 fleet tankers available to both Atlantic and the Pacific Fleets. Even if they assigned 10 fleet oilers to the Pacific fleet, will 10 be sufficient to keep the fleet sailing without a fleet fuel farm in Hawaii?

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I would imagine that the setting up of advanced bases as per War Plan Orange would have been the first consideration. Since Japan faces the same problem, either they fight in the Mandates or seize the Philippines and wait for the USN to come to them.
I am certain that in 1937, our economic problems would have greatly hampered our ability to follow through with War Plan Orange, which was never a Congressionally sanctioned plan, it was simply a US Navy planning document. The Philippines would have been lost very quickly, since we had almost no defenses on the islands.

Our strategy in the Pacific would be based on the CinC US Pacific Forces at the time and it would not be the aggressive Admiral Kimmel.

[Ed Rotondaro]

the depression is that it had a GNP of around 68 billion dollars and was spending 1.5 % of that on defence. For comparisons...
British Empire ...22 Billion dollars ,5.7% on defence
France....10 Billion GNP ..9.1% on defence
Germany...17 billion GNP ,23.5% on defence
Italy...6 Billion..14.5% on defence
USSR...19 billion...26.4% on defence
Japan...4 billion...28.2% on defence
In shares of World Manufactoring Output.. US was 28.7%, USSR 17.6% , Germany 13.2% , UK 9.2% , France 4.5% , Japan 3.8% and Italy 2.9%. Further the US had seen & would see far better days,US industry had immense slack in 1937.
In steel production the US was producing 26.4 million tons well ahead of Germany 20.7 millions ,USSR 16.5 million and Japan's 6,000,000 BUT The US steel industry was operating at 1/3 capacity those other 3 countries were at full capacity.

Just thought I would throw a little economics into this and also show the surplus the US,France and UK had in thier economies compared to Germany & Japan. Now Italy is interesting since her & Germany's relations were strained at this time and she very well could end up siding with the Uk & France in this war.

Well it definitely shows that with the size of its economy and the ability to transition from peacetime to wartime, the US had a tremendous edge. The question is would it have been able to do so in 1937 over the sinking of a gunboat? Or would it have taken a more gradual build up to war?

[old_pop2000]

Well it definitely shows that with the size of its economy and the ability to transition from peacetime to wartime, the US had a tremendous edge. The question is would it have been able to do so in 1937 over the sinking of a gunboat? Or would it have taken a more gradual build up to war?
Keep in mind, the Japanese and the Germans controlled the time and place to start the war, not the Allied countries. No matter what the economic data says, it starts when they decide to start it.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I am certain that in 1937, our economic problems would have greatly hampered our ability to follow through with War Plan Orange, which was never a Congressionally sanctioned plan, it was simply a US Navy planning document. The Philippines would have been lost very quickly, since we had almost no defenses on the islands.

Our strategy in the Pacific would be based on the CinC US Pacific Forces at the time and it would not be the aggressive Admiral Kimmel.

Dennis:

I agree, the USN had already written off the Philippines and the original War Plan Orange by that time. Japan would also be operating under similar fueling constraints. Did they have a massive fuel reserve in the Central Pacific? Was the fleet base at Truk already in existence? I'm not certain of when the IJN built up its infra-structure in the Pacific.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

I agree, the USN had already written off the Philippines and the original War Plan Orange by that time. Japan would also be operating under similar fueling constraints. Did they have a massive fuel reserve in the Central Pacific? Was the fleet base at Truk already in existence? I'm not certain of when the IJN built up its infra-structure in the Pacific.
After the Japanese walked out of the Conference of Naval Arms control in 1935, they began construction that was termed "for economic development" however, after the war it was determined that some of it could be used for military purposes. However, in most respects, the japanese stuck to the letter of the law. We know that the US carrier raids against the Marshall's did encounter single engined fighters and two engined attack bombers from those areas, so by 1942, there were operational fields. But as to fuel dumps and tanker support, I would have doubts. Their strategy was to await our moved across the central pacific.

[bridav58]

Keep in mind, the Japanese and the Germans controlled the time and place to start the war, not the Allied countries. No matter what the economic data says, it starts when they decide to start it.


Your very right there about historically boiling down to Germany or Japan initiating the war however my whole scenario boils down to the US,France,and UK having more resolve . In the case of the US it boils down to the people boiling over at thier ship getting bombed. As far as leaving economics out of it though isn't it true that Germany's financial situation was forcing it to say anex Austria & Czechoslavakia ?
This whole scenario is meant to focus on what might have been if the democracies had just shown more resolve. As a side I have at times seen the US being severly criticised for not entering the war till it was going on for over 2 years(and having to be attacked at that) though one of the reasons for this from the US perspective is that our armed forces weren't ready however the Western Allies themsleves used the same excuse for not going to war over Austria or Czechoslavakia . It does seem though that the US was better in relative terms verse Japan in 1937 as compared to 1941 while the French & British were the same as per verses Germany(considering Poland & Czechoslavakia were very viable militarily too at the time) ,further Italy & Germany weren't on the best of terms at the time either.

[old_pop2000]

Your very right there about historically boiling down to Germany or Japan initiating the war however my whole scenario boils down to the US,France,and UK having more resolve . In the case of the US it boils down to the people boiling over at thier ship getting bombed. As far as leaving economics out of it though isn't it true that Germany's financial situation was forcing it to say anex Austria & Czechoslavakia ?
This whole scenario is meant to focus on what might have been if the democracies had just shown more resolve. As a side I have at times seen the US being severly criticised for not entering the war till it was going on for over 2 years(and having to be attacked at that) though one of the reasons for this from the US perspective is that our armed forces weren't ready however the Western Allies themsleves used the same excuse for not going to war over Austria or Czechoslavakia . It does seem though that the US was better in relative terms verse Japan in 1937 as compared to 1941 while the French & British were the same as per verses Germany(considering Poland & Czechoslavakia were very viable militarily too at the time) ,further Italy & Germany weren't on the best of terms at the time either.
You miss the point. Even with resolve, on the part of the Allies, the Axis would have just retreated and waited until they were ready. If the Japanese were not ready in 1937, they would have simply acceded to the US demands temporarily, and continued the naval build up. This goes for the Germans. The aggressor nation picks the time and the place to start the war. It takes two sides to have a war.

[bridav58]

You miss the point. Even with resolve, on the part of the Allies, the Axis would have just retreated and waited until they were ready. If the Japanese were not ready in 1937, they would have simply acceded to the US demands temporarily, and continued the naval build up. This goes for the Germans. The aggressor nation picks the time and the place to start the war. It takes two sides to have a war.


Your saying that Japan would have done just about anything to avoid war at the time and they have time on thier side since it would take a bit of it before the US is knocking at the Home islands door ,sort of speak. Time that would allow the fury to subside in the US .
Germany would just have abandoned it's annexations of Austria & Czechoslavakia and retreated inside it's own borders which if they did France & GB wouldn't feel a full blown invasion of Germany was practical or wise.
However if one or both these things I posted above happened couldn't the 'retreats" cause the downfall of Hitler in Germany? And a fall from grace of the IJA in Tokyo?

[old_pop2000]

Your saying that Japan would have done just about anything to avoid war at the time and they have time on thier side since it would take a bit of it before the US is knocking at the Home islands door ,sort of speak. Time that would allow the fury to subside in the US .
Germany would just have abandoned it's annexations of Austria & Czechoslavakia and retreated inside it's own borders which if they did France & GB wouldn't feel a full blown invasion of Germany was practical or wise.
However if one or both these things I posted above happened couldn't the 'retreats" cause the downfall of Hitler in Germany? And a fall from grace of the IJA in Tokyo?
If either Germany or Japan decides to accede to the demands of the Allies, they can turn that into a show of their peaceful intentions. The Allied nations, being democratic nations, will not allow their government to be viewed as the aggressor.

[old_pop2000]

Something to keep in mind. Aggressors or dictators, what ever word you wish to apply, can move much closer to the edge of war, than a democracy. They have nothing to lose and a world to gain. Democracy, on the other hand, has much to lose and are responsible to the people. The aggressors or dictators can push the envelope of diplomacy closer to the edge than any democracy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your very right there about historically boiling down to Germany or Japan initiating the war however my whole scenario boils down to the US,France,and UK having more resolve . In the case of the US it boils down to the people boiling over at thier ship getting bombed. As far as leaving economics out of it though isn't it true that Germany's financial situation was forcing it to say anex Austria & Czechoslavakia ?
This whole scenario is meant to focus on what might have been if the democracies had just shown more resolve. As a side I have at times seen the US being severly criticised for not entering the war till it was going on for over 2 years(and having to be attacked at that) though one of the reasons for this from the US perspective is that our armed forces weren't ready however the Western Allies themsleves used the same excuse for not going to war over Austria or Czechoslavakia . It does seem though that the US was better in relative terms verse Japan in 1937 as compared to 1941 while the French & British were the same as per verses Germany(considering Poland & Czechoslavakia were very viable militarily too at the time) ,further Italy & Germany weren't on the best of terms at the time either.

Hi:

I can't fully agree that the US was in a better position in 1937 than in 1941 versus Japan. By 1941, the had already passed the two-ocean navy bill and was undergoing massive ship building which would pay off with two modern battleships in mid-1942 as well as the first examples of the Fletcher class DDs to be followed by the Essex class carriers. About the only area were I can see a clear advantage is in the number of battleships, but all of them were very slow and very old. Also we were still in the grips of the Depression, it was the re-arming that began in 1940 that helped pull the nation out of its economic slump.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Your saying that Japan would have done just about anything to avoid war at the time and they have time on thier side since it would take a bit of it before the US is knocking at the Home islands door ,sort of speak. Time that would allow the fury to subside in the US .
Germany would just have abandoned it's annexations of Austria & Czechoslavakia and retreated inside it's own borders which if they did France & GB wouldn't feel a full blown invasion of Germany was practical or wise.
However if one or both these things I posted above happened couldn't the 'retreats" cause the downfall of Hitler in Germany? And a fall from grace of the IJA in Tokyo?

Hi:

Hitler could probably have hung on, he had purged all organized opposition to him by then. Tojo and company might have fallen from grace and moderates might have gained power, but overall, Japan's goal of gaining an economic sphere of control would have remained intact. As Dennis said she could chose the time and place. Oh and one more thing. Do you honestly think sinking a gunboat could sway isolationist feelings against a war? It took Pearl Harbor to do that.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Something to keep in mind. Aggressors or dictators, what ever word you wish to apply, can move much closer to the edge of war, than a democracy. They have nothing to lose and a world to gain. Democracy, on the other hand, has much to lose and are responsible to the people. The aggressors or dictators can push the envelope of diplomacy closer to the edge than any democracy.

Dennis:

We have had recent examples of this. North Korea with its nuclear posturing. Saddam Hussein during both Gulf Wars (he really never believed the US would fight him).

[bridav58]

Hi:

I can't fully agree that the US was in a better position in 1937 than in 1941 versus Japan. By 1941, the had already passed the two-ocean navy bill and was undergoing massive ship building which would pay off with two modern battleships in mid-1942 as well as the first examples of the Fletcher class DDs to be followed by the Essex class carriers. About the only area were I can see a clear advantage is in the number of battleships, but all of them were very slow and very old. Also we were still in the grips of the Depression, it was the re-arming that began in 1940 that helped pull the nation out of its economic slump.


Well my point is that the IJN also doesn't have the services of 3 of it's BB's due to refits ,Hiei is de-militarised and the Yamato's have just been laid down so they only have 6 to our 15 .Further alot of the IJN's cruisers are undegoing refits ,the Kate is just coming into service but there are no Vals or Zero's .The IJN doesn't have it's Long Lances either or at least not very many at all. I'm nut sure but thier oil reserves are probably far worse then in 1941 . Another thing the IJN benefitted in 1941 from thier battle expierence in China ,in 1937 they have just actually just started the war there.

[bridav58]

Hi:

Hitler could probably have hung on, he had purged all organized opposition to him by then. Tojo and company might have fallen from grace and moderates might have gained power, but overall, Japan's goal of gaining an economic sphere of control would have remained intact. As Dennis said she could chose the time and place. Oh and one more thing. Do you honestly think sinking a gunboat could sway isolationist feelings against a war? It took Pearl Harbor to do that.


I know the US wouldn't go to war in the 1930's over a gunboat !!!! But alternative history is so much fun!!!ON Hitler he conquered Austria & Czechoslavakia because of economic problems for one thing ,i.e. he needed some plunder . So he may have had no other choice.
However I do concede Dennis is probably right about Japan & Germany choosing the time but it is fun to speculate.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I know the US wouldn't go to war in the 1930's over a gunboat !!!! But alternative history is so much fun!!!ON Hitler he conquered Austria & Czechoslavakia because of economic problems for one thing ,i.e. he needed some plunder . So he may have had no other choice.
However I do concede Dennis is probably right about Japan & Germany choosing the time but it is fun to speculate.

Sorry bro, I know you know that. This where alternate history breaks down, We try and stay as close to what happened and insert a different course of action. Makes for a fun discussion though.;)

[djcyclone]

A big thing to consider in this discussion is the Axis alliance. A war in 1937 would have been a disaster for the Axis nations. Germany was capable of starting a war, and most likely they would have defeated France the same way as they did for real. They would simply go in from behind that big wall that France had built and catch them from the Flank, then force them to surrender so that Paris would not be damaged. However Italy would have most likely sided with the Allies since they had been with the Allies in WW I and it would have been smart to go with the winning side. Germany was still to week to be seen as anything other than a nuisance. Another problem is that Germany would not have had the same training that they had by 1939. Experts agree that the biggest advantage for German Tanks was the training. Russia and France had bigger and better tanks, as well as more tanks than Germany, but it was the training and the combined attack of Blitzkrieg that led to swift victories. This would have been less likely in 1937.
I do not think that the U.S. would have gotten involved in Europe because there would have been no reason to. It took some impressive lies from the British and French to get us into WW I. I do not believe that the Zimmerman telegram was ever proven. I believe that the British made it up to get the U.S. upset. And then we have to look at the sinking of the Leviathan. The Germans said that the British where using passenger liners to transport troops and ammunition, but the British said it was a lie. Today we know that it was actually true. This means the U.S. would not have had any reasons to get involved in a two front war.
A big thing to consider is that Germany and Japan where not allies yet. Hitler did not agree to sign an alliance with Japan until after he had invaded the U.S.S.R. He did this only to get Japan to harass the U.S.S.R. and help him win that front. This is one of the many divine things that I see in WW II, because Japan never did live up to their agreement. They never did attack the U.S.S.R. like Germany wanted them to.
This means that the U.S. would have dealt with Japan only, and Japan was no match for the U.S. on a solo basis. But you also need to consider the patriotic spirit of the U.S. Just like we see today, we do not want to finish a war after we start it. It is like a foot ball game, we start out kicking tale and taking names, but by half time we have lost spirit and so then we start to get hit back, and then by the end of the 3rd quarter we are ready to go home and give up. I imagine it would have been the same in 1937 if not worse. The only reason that we finished WW II is because of Pearl Harbor and the effect it had on National Moral. The attack on a gun boat would not have brought the same results.
To summarize, Germany would have been defeated by the U.S.S.R. and U.K. after it defeated France. France would have been liberated by the British and maybe the U.S.S.R. would have helped thus splitting France like they did Germany for real. This would have been a disaster for the Cold War to come. The War in the pacific would have been a farce, because Japan was no match for the U.S. in a one on one scenario. The U.S. would have lost spirit and made peace, and Japan would have accepted after getting their butts kicked in a few locations.

I know, I watch the History Channel too much.

[Citadelvette]

A big thing to consider in this discussion is the Axis alliance. A war in 1937 would have been a disaster for the Axis nations. Germany was capable of starting a war, and most likely they would have defeated France the same way as they did for real. They would simply go in from behind that big wall that France had built and catch them from the Flank, then force them to surrender so that Paris would not be damaged. However Italy would have most likely sided with the Allies since they had been with the Allies in WW I and it would have been smart to go with the winning side. Germany was still to week to be seen as anything other than a nuisance. Another problem is that Germany would not have had the same training that they had by 1939. Experts agree that the biggest advantage for German Tanks was the training. Russia and France had bigger and better tanks, as well as more tanks than Germany, but it was the training and the combined attack of Blitzkrieg that led to swift victories. This would have been less likely in 1937.
I do not think that the U.S. would have gotten involved in Europe because there would have been no reason to. It took some impressive lies from the British and French to get us into WW I. I do not believe that the Zimmerman telegram was ever proven. I believe that the British made it up to get the U.S. upset. And then we have to look at the sinking of the Leviathan. The Germans said that the British where using passenger liners to transport troops and ammunition, but the British said it was a lie. Today we know that it was actually true. This means the U.S. would not have had any reasons to get involved in a two front war.
A big thing to consider is that Germany and Japan where not allies yet. Hitler did not agree to sign an alliance with Japan until after he had invaded the U.S.S.R. He did this only to get Japan to harass the U.S.S.R. and help him win that front. This is one of the many divine things that I see in WW II, because Japan never did live up to their agreement. They never did attack the U.S.S.R. like Germany wanted them to.
This means that the U.S. would have dealt with Japan only, and Japan was no match for the U.S. on a solo basis. But you also need to consider the patriotic spirit of the U.S. Just like we see today, we do not want to finish a war after we start it. It is like a foot ball game, we start out kicking tale and taking names, but by half time we have lost spirit and so then we start to get hit back, and then by the end of the 3rd quarter we are ready to go home and give up. I imagine it would have been the same in 1937 if not worse. The only reason that we finished WW II is because of Pearl Harbor and the effect it had on National Moral. The attack on a gun boat would not have brought the same results.
To summarize, Germany would have been defeated by the U.S.S.R. and U.K. after it defeated France. France would have been liberated by the British and maybe the U.S.S.R. would have helped thus splitting France like they did Germany for real. This would have been a disaster for the Cold War to come. The War in the pacific would have been a farce, because Japan was no match for the U.S. in a one on one scenario. The U.S. would have lost spirit and made peace, and Japan would have accepted after getting their butts kicked in a few locations.

I know, I watch the History Channel too much.

It was the Lusitania that was sunk by the Germans, the Leviathan was a German liner intered in the US and then made a transport by the USN, at 58,000 tons and 910 ft long she was the largest ship in USN service till the Midway CV was commisioned in 1945.

[djcyclone]

I was doing my best to remember that, but I thought I came up with it. I used to know that right off the top of my head in discussions. I guess I forgot. I was going to just put passanger liner, because I could not remember, but I decided to go with that instead.