The Butterfly Effect: A British AAR

[Duritz]

However.......if Japan were to press home some of these attacks at the expense of its Chinese adventures then the US may not even consider an oil embargo. Bashing communists will always play well to the voters even if the Chinese get hurt too (especially if it can be shown that are Communist backed). It will depend on how the Neutrality Acts in the US (if they exist at all) are applied.

A Gallup poll taken in 1939 asked who would you rather win in a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. The results came back overwhelmingly in favour of a Soviet victory... don't try to cut and paste post Cold War ideals onto pre War USA.

The Japanese were far more unpopular than the Soviets because they were far more of an immediate risk. An attack on Russia may not have the same impact on US Foreign policy as an attack on China but it wouldn't be seen as a positive either.

The Neutrality Acts don't exist in a world without FDR. It may lead to some interesting equipment poping up all over Europe and Asia...

 

[Faeelin]

I don't beleive Russia would ever consider a pact with the Japanese a la M-R pact.

Firstly there is too much conflict ideologically with Japan in China - the Russian policy of aiding both the KMT and the Communists in our time line won't change significantly. Remember that Tsushima was only 32 years ago and the Japanese are still the "Yellow Peril" in most Russian eyes. Plus we should be seeing border conflicts in Manchuria soon.

A few thoughts. First, such a deal was tentatively proposed after Munich.

Second, it might be worth it if the USSR can gain an optoin elsewhere. Perhaps, say, the Baltic?

 

[Nathan Madien]

Second, it might be worth it if the USSR can gain an optoin elsewhere. Perhaps, say, the Baltic?

Hmm...what's in the Baltic that would make it a good option?

 

[Arilou]

"Yesterday the Swedish government informed the Japanese ambassador that..."

Heh, I think Sweden is a bit far away to be a reliable supplier to the japanese

(funny story, in the 1600's the only two net-exporters of copper to the european markets was Sweden and Japan (both carried on dutch keels) naturally the japanese couldn't exactly ship competitive volumes

 

[Derek Pullem]

A few thoughts. First, such a deal was tentatively proposed after Munich.

Second, it might be worth it if the USSR can gain an optoin elsewhere. Perhaps, say, the Baltic?

After Munich? Surely the rapprochement betwen the USSR and Japan didn't start until the M-R pact and the Japanese defeat in the border war of 1939. Up until then Japan was firmly in the "kick Russia, don't kiss her" camp.

 

[Derek Pullem]

A Gallup poll taken in 1939 asked who would you rather win in a war between Germany and the Soviet Union. The results came back overwhelmingly in favour of a Soviet victory... don't try to cut and paste post Cold War ideals onto pre War USA.

The Japanese were far more unpopular than the Soviets because they were far more of an immediate risk. An attack on Russia may not have the same impact on US Foreign policy as an attack on China but it wouldn't be seen as a positive either.

The Neutrality Acts don't exist in a world without FDR. It may lead to some interesting equipment poping up all over Europe and Asia...

Was that poll after the outbreak of war in Poland or before? Was there a similar poll after the Winter War?

Communism may not have been the big evil in the thirties - but fascism may not be in this timeline either. Remember Mussolini is checked in Abyssina and the Civil War in Spain is much less ideologically split than in OTL.

If Russia is perceived as politically controlling China this would be just as much as threat to the US as Japan's military adventures.

Roosevelt was strongly against the Neutrality Act but was overridden by the house democrats and republicans - they would happen in any event.

 

[Duritz]

Was that poll after the outbreak of war in Poland or before? Was there a similar poll after the Winter War?

Communism may not have been the big evil in the thirties - but fascism may not be in this timeline either. Remember Mussolini is checked in Abyssina and the Civil War in Spain is much less ideologically split than in OTL.

If Russia is perceived as politically controlling China this would be just as much as threat to the US as Japan's military adventures.

Roosevelt was strongly against the Neutrality Act but was overridden by the house democrats and republicans - they would happen in any event.

Poll was taken prior to Poland but after the betrayal of Czechoslovakia, so I take your point... still, I only used that as an example of how attitudes were different back then. The issue in this case isn't fascism in Europe but Japan in Asia.

A military invasion of China by an Asiatic upstart will weigh more heavily than perceived political influence in China by a European nation. The Russian economic concessions in Manchuria prior to 1905 didn't exclude US investors where as the Japanese protectorate of Manchukuo did... and this is definately still in this timeline.

Also, the idealistic Soviet Union is still a mainstream political idea. The purges haven't been heard of yet and when it comes down to it, the Russians are still white under all that red!

In comparison, the increased immigration to Hawaii and California is starting to bite politically and Japan will act like equals with the white man, something that will get up the noses of many a Yank.

Sorry, I see a confrontation between the US and Japan as inevitable.

Also, wasn't the Neutrality bill proposed as a block to FDR's pro Allied stance? My suggestion isn't FDR supported it but that with an Isolationist in the White House, Congress wouldn't have seen the need to enact a bill of this nature and would instead scrabble to sell their products to both sides...

 

[Nathan Madien]

Poll was taken prior to Poland but after the betrayal of Czechoslovakia, so I take your point... still, I only used that as an example of how attitudes were different back then. The issue in this case isn't fascism in Europe but Japan in Asia.

A military invasion of China by an Asiatic upstart will weigh more heavily than perceived political influence in China by a European nation. The Russian economic concessions in Manchuria prior to 1905 didn't exclude US investors where as the Japanese protectorate of Manchukuo did... and this is definately still in this timeline.

Also, the idealistic Soviet Union is still a mainstream political idea. The purges haven't been heard of yet and when it comes down to it, the Russians are still white under all that red!

In comparison, the increased immigration to Hawaii and California is starting to bite politically and Japan will act like equals with the white man, something that will get up the noses of many a Yank.

Sorry, I see a confrontation between the US and Japan as inevitable.

Also, wasn't the Neutrality bill proposed as a block to FDR's pro Allied stance? My suggestion isn't FDR supported it but that with an Isolationist in the White House, Congress wouldn't have seen the need to enact a bill of this nature and would instead scrabble to sell their products to both sides...

Hmm...makes sense to me - especially the last part. I think it would be redundant to implement pro-isolationist laws when you have an Isolationist President anyhow.

 

[Faeelin]

Hmm...makes sense to me - especially the last part. I think it would be redundant to implement pro-isolationist laws when you have an Isolationist President anyhow.

But the laws were designed to stop businesses from selling abroad; so what changes?

 

[Duritz]

But the laws were designed to stop businesses from selling abroad; so what changes?

Sorry but that wasn't the case. Many minor nations in Europe did buy US built equipment, especially 1st generation monoplane aircraft like the Curtiss Hawk. The bill was designed to stop businesses from selling to combatants in conflicts.

Congress was worried that FDR would allow the whole of the US weapons export capacity to go to the Allies, effectively supporting one side in the conflict. An isolationist President doesn't raise this concern.

US business is set to thrive... and have their second rate aircraft shot down in droves by Me109's and Spitfires!

 

[trekaddict]

US business is set to thrive... and have their second rate aircraft and Me109's shot down in droves by Spitfires!

Fixed.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Sorry but that wasn't the case. Many minor nations in Europe did buy US built equipment, especially 1st generation monoplane aircraft like the Curtiss Hawk. The bill was designed to stop businesses from selling to combatants in conflicts.

Congress was worried that FDR would allow the whole of the US weapons export capacity to go to the Allies, effectively supporting one side in the conflict. An isolationist President doesn't raise this concern.

US business is set to thrive... and have their second rate aircraft shot down in droves by Me109's and Spitfires!

I'd take issue with your characterising the Neutrality Acts as an anti-Roosevelt measure. They were anti-big business and bankers who were widely distrusted (as they are today) and were suspected of being the real reason why the US got involved in the First World War.

Essentially they were a populist measure and would be passed even with an Isolationist President - just that an Isolationist President wouldn't feel that he was constrained by them as Roosevelt was.

 

[El Pip]

A great deal of discussion here, luckily the next update covers Japan (in part at least) while the one after is the US so rest assured all these issues will be covered. However a few general points;

As Derek has pointed out, the Neutrality Acts are inevitable in some form, the Nye Committee and the Merchants of Death furore hasn't been changed. Without FDR opposing them I would expect a more thorough act in fact, a longer time frame before they expire and so on. As said it's a populist rather than practical measure.

That said the Depression has been epically deeper for the US, while the public may want to avoid being dragged into a war I can't see a blanket ban on arms sales. As Duritz says the firms will be free to flog stuff, the threat of further large job losses will see to that. Whether they have anything anyone wants to buy is a different matter, the Armed Forces and R&D were cut back to the bone marrow by President Smith (before he was shot), monoplanes are still crazy future talk. Against that Hawker will flog you a Hurricane I 'As used in North Africa', once the RAF has taken their fill of more advanced models.

One final point - the US election is in November, Al Smith is dead and it is far from certain who the next president will be. Whilst that is up in the air everything in Foreign Policy is going to be speculation.

 

[trekaddict]

In this timeline that could mean that later in the war the US will jump over certain bad Ideas of OTL ( unescorted heavy bombers in daylight for example ) just by exprience gathered in Britain. On the other hand it also means that early in the war the technological advantage of the others in certain areas would be much more pronounced and we could see more foreign equipment in US service.

 

[unmerged(58610)]

That said, election years aren't good or thoughtful through Acts nor for Presidiential candidates who want to be Neutral. Presidents getting shot by person or persons unknown who may or may not have been in service of foreigners are not normally conducive to being neutral - revenge may be uppermost. A congress and president desiring revenge could have consequences.

 

[Nathan Madien]

As Derek has pointed out, the Neutrality Acts are inevitable in some form, the Nye Committee and the Merchants of Death furore hasn't been changed. Without FDR opposing them I would expect a more thorough act in fact, a longer time frame before they expire and so on. As said it's a populist rather than practical measure.

So are you saying the Neutrality Acts would be implemented merely to appease the masses?

 

[trekaddict]

So are you saying the Neutrality Acts would be implemented merely to appease the masses?

Isn't that what politics is all about?

 

[El Pip]

trekaddict - Certainly the US will have to use a great deal of foreign equipment, but not in the usual context or theatres. (If the plot develops as I expect and I don't see any good ideas from readers to 'borrow')

Chief Ragusa - President Smith's assassin was known and certainly wasn't in foreign employ. That said the political elite has seen one of their own shot by the public, there will be consequences to that.

Nathan Madien - As trekaddict says; that's the point of a democracy. It may be a bad idea, short sighted and doomed to failure but if the majority of the public want it then, all else being equal, it should happen.

On the specific point I'd say the acts were popular with all but the Internationalist few, and in the early/mid 1930s that really was a few. Even without popular pressure I'd still expect to see the Acts (or something like them) emerge, a desire to keep your country out of Foreign Wars isn't that controversial, particularly when your thousands of miles away from most trouble zones.

 

[Duritz]

Well, out of European wars anyway.... I still have great hopes for an adventure in Asia.

I also thank Derek Pullem and Pippy for the engaging conversation. I now know more about the Neutrality Acts than I did before, or ever thought I'd want to!

If I recall correctly the aircraft industry was an absolute mess until Roosevelt began to give it a kick along with his military spending. It sure will be funny watching Northdrop building Spitfires under licence! :wacko:

 

[El Pip]

Well, out of European wars anyway.... I still have great hopes for an adventure in Asia.

There will be a great deal of action in Asia, as the next update will discuss, whether the US is involved depends a great deal on the next president.

OK next update as soon as I sort piccies and formatting. I'm not entirely happy with it, but it's had dozens of drafts and it's not getting better so it must be done. Not sure if I've captured the Japanese mindset very well, or indeed the complex internal politics, however it seems about right to my (very) limited understanding.