America doesn't fight.

Ok you have me on President George W Bush.

While I was in the USA working as a summer camp councillor working with disables folk I met one young man, he was 18 and had an IQ of 75.
All this kid could talk about is going overseas an killing gooks. This kids older brother was a Marine and his sister was in the Navy.
I got friendly with the mother and after I had left camp, she contacted me and gave me the bad news.

Incredible as it is he was able to join the army, with a 75 IQ no questions asked, what happened to him. He was doing basic training and it came time to learn about the various weapons the boy's would be using. This day they trained to hand grenades, they gave him a grenade and before anyone had noticed that he removed the pin and just stared at the grenade, it detonated and killed him instantly.

 

Was chatting to my mate Mark about this and he said “God created war so that Americans would learn geography.” - We chuckled and passed the doob.

 

Britain could carry on the Mediterranean campaign without the US, although it would likely drag out longer. Historically the landings in French North Africa were carried out mainly with American troops, due to the animosity between Britain and the Vichy regime, but the assault shipping and naval forces for Oran and Algiers were mainly British (the British did not consider landings on the Atlantic coast of Morocco essential). The US had had covert contact with the Vichy authorities in North Africa, and an armistice was arranged after a few days' fighting, This would be unlikely in an all-British operation. The analogy which occurs to me is the fighting in Syria and Lebanon in 1941, which went on for five weeks despite the area being isolated from Vichy or Axis support. North Africa would be much tougher, larger area, more Vichy troops (eight divisions including those in Morocco), and the possibility of reinforcement by sea or air from France. The Royal Navy would seek to isolate the battlefield but would be subject to German and Italian attack (the situation could be dire if the French, Germans, and Italians cooperated effectively; fortunately that seems unlikely).

Another wild card; by January 1943 the retreating Panzerarmee would arrive at the Tunisian border with Montgomery's 8th Army right behind. Strictly speaking the Germans should be interned if they enter French territory, but since the British are already fighting Vichy, Monty would presumably carry on into Tunisia. Would Rommel then end up fighting alongside the French against the British?

Most likely the British would eventually secure all of North Africa. There were in Britain nine British, three Canadian, and one Polish division plus numerous brigades etc. which eventually fought in NW Europe after Overlord; these would make up for American forces although the buildup would be slower with only British shipping available.

If French North Africa was conquered by force rather than making an armistice, the Germans might not turn against Vichy. Vichy would only become more anti-British in the aftermath of a bitter campaign. It seems unlikely that the British would be able to raise a strong Free French army from their defeated foes.

Presumably the British would still envision Sicily and Italy as their next steps. I doubt they would have the amphibious lift for an eight-division Husky, but they could land four divisions as they did historically around Syracuse. From then on the campaign would progress as historically, just slower. As noted, they could eventually employ forces comparable to the actual Anglo-American armies. I doubt the Germans would have the opportunity to inflict a major defeat, but Italy was ideal for delaying action.

 

No I ride in a pouch of a kangaroo.

 

Ok here is is a whopper.

America is so paranoid about getting into the war that it does not sign the lend lease act and Britain must pay up front for war materiel.
Also no embargo on Japan

 

As far as I have read on this subject, the population of the USA is totally against going into another European war, both Republican and Democrat Representatives and Senators are boldly told by their constituents that they face serious backlash in the lead up to elections in 1940, both presidential candidates are therefore staunch isolationist.

Then there a plenty of polls that show that Americans could not give a damn about the Chinese-Japanese war therefore Roosevelt after winning never promotes or implements the freezing of Japanese assets and placing a crippling embargo on Japan, therefore Japan never attacks Pearl Harbour or any other US territory like the Philipines. In fact the US and Japan maintain diplomatic relations as well as with Germany.

However the US sees this as a perfect opportunity to make serious money and Henry Ford convinces Roosevelt to sell war material to both sides of the European War, but they have to pay upfront there is no lend lease. This cripples Britain as by now she has used up her entire gold reserves, this get worse when both Canada and South Africa are running dry their gold reserves, while Germany has plenty of cash and gold reserves. By the beginning of 1942 Britain is bankrupt, the only asset Britain has is her Navy, she has no option to sell her Navy to be able to fight Germany.

It ain't perfect, but it is a start.

 

So 175,000,000 Americans were in favour of going to a second European war.

Gallup polls mean nothing in the real world.

 

Nope, 132 million.However, they were not in favor of "going to war", far from it. That only demonstrates you haven't looked at or tried to understand what the polls were.

Oddly enough, their impact on politicians was and still remains strong, because they provide a measure of what "accepted wisdom" on the street was.

 

How about you guys come up with a post that concludes with the Americans not participating in ww2.