What historical conditions would have to have been met for the USA to support the Axis instead of the Allies?

This. Alternate history discussion is pretty stupid and futile.

I wouldn't go that far. But alt-his works best when you look at little, local changes, rather than trying to re-set half the world.

Looking at how say, the Desert campaign would have worked if Model got sent to North Africa and Rommel went to the USSR is interesting (at least to me), but I doubt it would have huge scale repercussions even in the Mediterranean theater, let alone the rest of the war and beyond.

Japan switched sides.
Italy switched sides a couple times.

No, it's just bad on average, like dubstep.

Is it really that far fetched? What if Britain became tyrannical in its attempts to hold onto its empire and things went downhill from there?

crazier things have happened, ww1 began because some serb autist joined a meme "the black hand of doom" club and killed a largely irrelevant rich toff to prove how edgy he is

>he still believes in the simplified high school tier explanation for the cause of wwi

Yes, yes it is that far-fetched. Stuff going on in Africa and South America was way less visible than stuff going on in Europe. Anerica was a colonial power itself back then, having de jure colonies in the Philippines and Puerto Rico and a de facto one in Cuba, and they weren't that different from the norm in enforcing order on it.

And of course, none of that will impact the shared heritage/language/culture stuff, nor the economic advantages to sticking with Britain. It is enormously improbable.

If the Venezuelan crisis of 1888 had turned out the other way, then America would have allied with Germany in WW1

>The South wins the Civil War
>The USA is too weak due to loss of land to help Britain in WWI
>Germany sends the Zimmerman Telegrams to Mexico and the USA to invade the CSA and Canada
>Thus letting the US join WWI on Germany's side
>Possibly strengthening their ties to the Axis to the point in which of joining Hitler in WWII
IDK, I guess if they let Japan have control over German parts of the Pacific..

The biggest thing that directly led to Japanese hostility towards America and Britain was the perceived unfairness of the naval arms limitation treaties, giving Japan a lesser share than America or the UK. I suppose allowing them to build a bigger fleet would allow them to feel more equal, and thus change a lot of things, but I don't actually know all that much about interwar period Japan-Anglo relations.

US were not going to ally with the upstart losers in your wildest dreams so you might as well just give in to reality.

Except the naval treaties favored Japan greatly and harmed Britain the most. Japan's butthurt was not rationally motivated. They were looking for something to be butthurt about and any version of the treaty was going to leave them angry at the howaito piggu no matter what.

Hence why I said "perceived unfairness". Yes, I'm aware that a 3:5 inferiority when you can concentrate your fleet is a pretty sweet deal, and that furthermore, Japan probably couldn't afford to build to the same limits as the U.S. or the UK.

But I'm not so sure that their being quite literally delineated as an inferior, second-rate power by treaty terms is entirely an irrational reason to be butthurt. Things were pretty good between them and England especially for a while, and only really started souring when the tonnage limits went through.

>But I'm not so sure that their being quite literally delineated as an inferior, second-rate power by treaty terms is entirely an irrational reason to be butthurt.
It's absolutely irrational as no rational human would've seen them as anything but an inferior, second-rate power to the US and the UK.

The point is there was no real reason to put them under special restrictions because they wouldn't have been able to make the maximum number allowed anyway.

Would never have happened because America is a child of the Anglos, not of the Krauts.

America would never support Germany over Britain or France in any war scenario.

Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush's father, approached Smedley V. Butler about leading an army of 'bonus veterans' on Washington D.C. to overthrow Roosevelt and institute a fascist US government.

Butler was a hero of WWI, and had he led them, the WWI vets would have followed. Instead he testified to Congress on the matter, and Union Bank, and a few other entities, were shuttered. Bush, even then, was too powerful to touch, as were IBM and other companies.

Essentially, had Butler been swayed in the USA, and Chamberlain held on in England, Germany would have been able to concentrate on Russia, and would have won. The

USA was neutral, but supporting Hitler in reviving Germany from the punishment they received during World War II.

Hitler was hailed Man of the Year in 1938 by Time Magazine.

I mean World War I.

Nazi Germany was popular enough that they were allowed to have the Olympics. However, a certain amount of goodwill does not translate into a willingness to team up in a war against long-time allies. After the Nazis actually started invading other countries, most of their admirers in the US changed their minds very quickly, many going so far as to publicly renounce their earlier statements.

You do realize man of the year is not judged on whethet or not the person is good, but simply how influential they are, right? Ffs Bin Laden was man of the year at one point.

>However, a certain amount of goodwill does not translate into a willingness to team up in a war against long-time allies

It happened to Italy. Italy switched sides for WW2.

The distaste of Butler for war was underestimated. His book "War is a Racket" should be required reading in every middle school in the world.

He alone was responsible for the failure of the Business Plot, and the fall of the Reich.

Had he felt otherwise op, the USA would have joined the Axis.

>You do realize man of the year is not judged on whethet or not the person is good, but simply how influential they are, right?

YOU DON'T SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good or bad is relative. What are you, 12?

eisenhower and patton both regretted supporting the anglos immediately postwar

>Hailed

January 2 1939
>"Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today"

nice source

From the context of that post it makes it seem as if Hitler was viewed positively thus he was named person of the year which isn't really the case.

You're funny.

Where exactly were the business plotters going to recruit their 500,000 man army? Even if Butler issued a call to arms, how would an enormous force assemble from all over the country without sparking a real civil war? (I also find the claim that hundreds of thousands of veterans would flock to this call dubious)

Should this "plan" have worked, they were going to reduce FDR to a figurehead and assume total control behind the scenes. So what exactly is going to stop Garner from assuming the presidency at that point? And when 1936 rolls around, what, are they going to fix the election too?

> Instead he testified to Congress on the matter, and Union Bank, and a few other entities, were shuttered. Bush, even then, was too powerful to touch, as were IBM and other companies.

If by this you mean "there was no corroborating evidence or plans of an actual coup" then yes, they were too powerful to touch. You know, I'm too powerful to touch too, and I'm planning the overthrow of the government.

But anyway, let's skip over all of these little problems. So now Butler's apparently dictator for life or something. Given his lecturing on nascent fascism in the U.S., what exactly makes you think he'd be kindly disposed towards actual Fascists? Remember, OP doesn't want a neutral U.S., he wants a U.S. joining the Axis.

>And Chamberlain held on in England,

Yeah, because that's in the cards with the disastrous performance early in the war for the UK.

>Germany would have been able to concentrate on Russia, and would have won

This statement is also dubious. Chamberlain was actually for war with Germany when it broke out. And of course, the big Lend-Lease drops came in after the German offensive had petered out. Predicting German victory is as insane as pretty much every other facet of your post.

Berlin won the bid for 1936 Olympics in 1931, long before the Nazis were a thing.

This is a conspiracy theory.

There is no proof of a "Business Plot."

If there was proof, there would have been convictions.

You have a point there.

Not at all. It was a very near thing. The old money (Rothschild etc) beat out the new money (Bush, Ford etc). The war was won in the City of London - the financial district, not the urban area.

>nice source

Thanks, it's only from the magazine you claimed that hailed Hitler as a good guy when it was quite the opposite

content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2019712_2019694_2019588,00.html

They're back pedaling to be politically correct and to protect their brand.

You know, there's a sale on tinfoil at K-mart. Why don't you run off and stock up?

why are /pol/luters always so mentally ill?

Unless they had oil. They didn't because the embargo, and that left them no choice but to war, or become a client state, which is what they became after losing.

Wait did you just make a post implying that Japan would've been a first-rate power if they had oil?

Really now? The cover says it all

The WWI veterans that had not received their promised bonus were already encamped, waiting only a leader they trusted. Far more than would have been necessary. There was significant support for fascism, more than there was support for the revolution when that occurred.

FDR was widely, and rightly, seen as a wamonger, greedy to get the USA profitably involved in war manufacturing, which he did by maneuvering the Japanese into the Pacific conflict by withholding oil supplies utterly essential to their industry.

Had England also responded favorably to the secret mission by that German Colonel, both the US and the UK would have sided with Germany against Russia, and Russia damn near lost anyway.

Over 20 million Russians died in WWII.

Europe, and the developed world, would have been unified. Bush et al weren't stupid. They just lost to less stupid money.

>The WWI veterans that had not received their promised bonus
The Bonus Army was not asking for bonus that had been promised. They were asking for the promised bonus to be paid years ahead of time.

I did. They would have been able to hold China, which is why we denied them oil.

They had oil between 1937-1941 and they weren't doing too hot.

>which he did by maneuvering the Japanese into the Pacific conflict by withholding oil supplies utterly essential to their industry

Another Japanese war crimes denial thread.

>The WWI veterans that had not received their promised bonus were already encamped, waiting only a leader they trusted. Far more than would have been necessary. There was significant support for fascism, more than there was support for the revolution when that occurred.

The bonus army and the business plot are two completely separate things, you dunce. Those people wanting an immediate cash out to their bond-like bonus promises were not interested in a facist government, nor in reorganization of the President's role. They wanted a congressional dispensation to allow them to make an immediate trade.

>There was significant support for fascism, more than there was support for the revolution when that occurred.

Adorable. [citation needed]

> which he did by maneuvering the Japanese into the Pacific conflict by withholding oil supplies utterly essential to their industry.

He forced Japan to invade Indo-China, for which there was an ultimatum almost a year old demanding they not do shit like that? Holy crap, how'd he pull that one off?

>Had England also responded favorably to the secret mission by that German Colonel,

Hoess was the deputy fuhrer and a cabinet member, not "some colonel".

>both the US and the UK would have sided with Germany against Russia

His offer had nothing to do with the siding of the Anglo powers (the U.S. was neutral at that point anyway) against Russia, and was almost certainly unauthorized besides.

> and Russia damn near lost anyway.

What metric are you using to calculate this?

>Over 20 million Russians died in WWII.

And over 30 million Chinese died in the Second Sino-Japanese war. What's your point? At no juncture was the KMT in actual risk of losing its grip on power, not until years later when the CCP had gathered enough strength. Stalin too, wasn't actually anywhere close to even losing the confidence of the Communist Party in the USSR, and after that initial
rush, the Germans faced enormous problems, like how to fight when it's costing you a liter of fuel to get a second liter to the front.

>Europe, and the developed world, would have been unified.

No, it wouldn't be.

> Bush et al weren't stupid. They just lost to less stupid money.

What proof do you have that Bush was involved? You seem to be incredibly stupid.

this

that sounds fucking awesome

lol I am no supporter of war. Neither do I deny war crimes, committed by any party.

I'm just saying that Japanese industry was crippled by lack of fuel the USA, in particular, denied them, and had they had it, they would have become a superpower.

This is why they were denied it.

Doesn't matter. The depression was widely known to be a conspiracy by the wealthy, at least many of the starving WWI vets thought so, and this made them easily manipulable by the very plotters that had engineered the 1929 crash.

The Bush family did quite well, having sold Dresser just in time

So then why didn't their industry take off when they occuped the Dutch East Indies and got more oil from that than they were being supplied by the U.S. pre-war?

Time's Man of the Year... Along with Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Charles Manson...

It's about historical impact, not being "hailed".

Not that you don't have a point about the US being more Nazi sympathizing than we like to think - but as this whole thread is /pol/ bait anyways.

Strategically and economically, there was no other possible outcome but to side with the Allies in that war, regardless of how some of the US population may have felt about it, and even on that front, well, Pearl Harbor kinda cinched it.

You are exposed as having practically zero command of the facts and yet you brush them off because in your mind you not knowing any of the facts simply doesn't matter. I really wish you would stop posting on Veeky Forums.

This 2bh
Union would have been a German ally in WW1/WW2 and honestly through sheer industrial might especially in the 20th century would have crushed the agrarian confederacy in round 2 had they not in round 1.

War. Their industry was nascent and rudimentary. Even so, they had some of the best weapons on the field.

My 6.5 Arisaka was the most accurate bolt rifle I ever fired, and widely held to be the strongest bolt action made.

Japan had a very shallow industrial base, unlike the USA, which was building on industry dating back at least to the Civil War. They had to devote all of their industry to war materiel, and it prevented economic expansion.

The one problem with that idea is that I can't see the CSA winning the ACW directly, at best getting an armistice around 1864, say if Lincoln loses the election to McClellan and he can actually go through with his peace plan.

But it's 50 years between then and the start of WW1, and the north still would have all those advantages in population, industry, and ease of immigration with a primarily non-agrarian economy.

It's not that I don't buy war not breaking out again, but I think it's implausible it would take that long. I would think 5-10 years before round 2 is more likely.

t.Harry Turtledove

You say that, but offer no evidence to support your thesis. I wish you would. I'd love to learn something you seem to believe you know.

According to Hearts of Iron 4, all you need is 150 political points, assign a fascist politician, and then you go fascist in the next election.

Though in this scenario, Tibet can make nuclear weapons by 1945.

Counterpoint: The Soviet union, who also had nascent industry, enormous problems within the war itself (losing access to almost 1/5th of their population in the first 6 months), and who nonetheless saw a colossal industrial increase during the war.

>My 6.5 Arisaka was the most accurate bolt rifle I ever fired, and widely held to be the strongest bolt action made.

That is completely irrelevant to the issue of industralization or its lack you idiot. And why are you taking the quality of small arms as such a high ideal? 60% or so of WW2 casualties were caused by artillery, and Japanese guns were pretty shitty. Why shouldn't we use that to say that Japan turned out crap?

>Japan had a very shallow industrial base, unlike the USA, which was building on industry dating back at least to the Civil War. They had to devote all of their industry to war materiel, and it prevented economic expansion.

Real life isn't an RTS. You don't' have a board sitting at the top trying to decide how much to allocate to new troops, and how much to allocate to further production increases.

>But it's 50 years between then and the start of WW1, and the north still would have all those advantages in population, industry, and ease of immigration with a primarily non-agrarian economy.

If the South won the war, they would not have allowed the North to keep all those advantages.

Here's how but it can be a stretch
>Alexander II of Russia decides to not listen to the Union and actively supports them
>This gets Great Britain Butthurt and breaks the Union blockade
>Union eventually can't handle a south getting direct aid from Great Britain
>Russia once again realizes it fucked up royally in terms of diplomacy
>Confederacy wins with help of Great Britain keeping Union navy at bay
>Union gets eternally butthurt at Great Britain and also Russia for fucking them over
>Great Britain offers military support to confederacy in return for cheap cotton
>Fast forward to 20th century
>Union gets offer by Germany to invade ineffective Canada and an agrarian confederacy
>Takes land in both, can't be touched too well by the entente, holds said land and Germany still loses in Europe
>Union has to sign treaty to give up most land it took, gets even more butthurt
>Adolf comes into power, Union more than willing to support old ally from WW1
>Union becomes military ally with Germany and Japan
>Invades Confederacy and Canada, taking over them both whilst becoming a major economic ally of Nazi Germany

>If the South won the war, they would not have allowed the North to keep all those advantages.

How would they have prevented it? Invading and occupying large chunks of the north weren't in their strategy and weren't particularly feasible. They do have a massive slave economy, and all the pressures that puts on immigration (someone isn't going to have a rosy future trying to look for unskilled jobs like most 1st gen immigrants when they have to compete with guys who are literal slaves), that the North is extremely unlikely to adopt even if they lose the war. Huge population centers like Pennsylvania and New York are well out of reach for the CSA.

The CSA's vision of winning was a la the American revolution, be too expensive and bloody to be worth putting down. They weren't going to occupy Washington and directly win the war in a conventional sense.

Point taken. The USSR won. They were also allied with the most powerful economies extant.

The quality of Japanese war materiel was directly sampled by my use of the Arisaka. I never used one of their field pieces, but the high regard for this arm indicates that they had high potential in industry, as also the Zero, and their fleet showed.

No, it's not an RTS, but if you're trying to say they couldn't choose to build weapons rather than machine tools, I find that quite facile, and patently, obviously, untrue.

They did not win, but it wasn't because they were incompetent manufacturers. I seem to recall they had significant industrial success immediately after the war, as well.

>the US beating the CSA in a completely defensive war
>with the CSA having almost 100 years to build up a proper government and military

Still, the US government has to be weakened somehow by the fact that half the country is now missing. Really, the entire scenario is dependent on the idea that the Confederacy would be able to form strong alliances with Britain and France that would bring them into WW1 against Germany, thus possibly causing the North to join the German team.

It's really hard to see the Confederacy as a viable world power unless they begin to phase out slavery almost immediately after gaining independence and form an industrialized economy instead. And that just seems terribly unlikely.

>I seem to recall they had significant industrial success immediately after the war, as well.

That didn't happen in a vacuum. They had help from the US.

Any invasion of the CSA by the US post-Civil War would be like the Russian-Finnish Winter War at best for the US. I can't say anything about Canada because they don't really have a track record of fighting against the US besides 1812, but the CSA was able to attain ridiculous kill ratios against a much larger enemy at their disorganized worst and prolong the conflict for almost the entire duration of WWI or II, so I doubt a second US-CS conflict in the 20th century would be a definite victory for the north, let alone the steamroll you are making it sound like.

>The quality of Japanese war materiel was directly sampled by my use of the Arisaka. I never used one of their field pieces, but the high regard for this arm indicates that they had high potential in industry, as also the Zero, and their fleet showed.

You're still missing the point. I can go to a handcrafting cobbler and get an absolutely masterful pair of boots that would last for decades in the sorts of abuse that cross country hiking puts them through. That doesn't mean that a nation of hand-cobblers have high output rates. Yes, the Japanese made some good stuff (although I wouldn't exactly point to their fleet nor the A6M as proof of this, as both had significant deficiencies when compared to their U.S. counterparts). That doesn't mean they had an industrial base. It also doesn't mean that their lack of it was caused by U.S. oil embargoes, nor contest the point that when they got a new supply from the DEI, their industry didn't exactly take off.

>No, it's not an RTS, but if you're trying to say they couldn't choose to build weapons rather than machine tools, I find that quite facile, and patently, obviously, untrue.

Except that pretty much every other war economy managed to do both. The only other "major power" exceptions I'm aware of (and I'm using major power pretty loosely here) in WW2 were France, who got occcupied within a year of hostilities breaking out, and China, which was a basket case. Even Italy managed to ramp up production faster as a percentage of their 1939 totals than Japan did.

1/2

>They did not win, but it wasn't because they were incompetent manufacturers.

I would argue that that is in fact a large part of the problem.

google.com/search?q=1940 japan population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=1940 U.S. population

google.com/search?q=1940 japan population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

73.1 million to 132.1 million in 1940; that means a population advantage of about 1.8:1 in the U.S. favor.

By most relevant metrics of the Pacific War, the U.S. was outbuilding Japan, not by 1.8:1, but by about 8:1.

combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

They weren't manufacturing on anything remotely the same level.

2/2

Maybe if Germany had not hated the Jews?

>Still, the US government has to be weakened somehow by the fact that half the country is now missing.

Yes, but they still have almost 3 times the population of the south, (more if you don't count the Blacks, who aren't going to be the most loyal or productive to the new regime), and a significantly higher industrial output.

>Really, the entire scenario is dependent on the idea that the Confederacy would be able to form strong alliances with Britain and France that would bring them into WW1 against Germany, thus possibly causing the North to join the German team.

And what I've been saying is that you need more than just that. You need to have strong enough alliances with Britain and France to not only do that, but to be able and willing to be involved in a war across the Atlantic Ocean to prevent the North from re-annexing the South, especially since they're likely to have a more vibrant economy overall per capita, and a greater ability to colonize and grab the relatively uninhabited areas of the West, meaning the power disparity is likely to grow, not shrink.

Not him, but the ratios weren't that lopsided.

Wiki, giving info from some guys named Chambers and Anderson, put union casualties at roughly 365,000 dead and 282,000 wounded, with the confederate losses at 290,000 dead and 137,000 wounded.

That makes an overall (lumping dead and wounded together) ratio of about 1.5:1. That's not a great deterrent, and it's nothing like the Russo-Finnish war ratio of almost 4.5:1

That's very true. So did France, and I've never owned a french computer. I once owned a Renault, though, and understood immediately how they lost WWII.

Look, if the business plot wasn't real, why did Smedley Butler, who had no interest in fame, testify to it? Why Union Bank and Fritz Theissen?

Japan seized most of the Pacific theatre early. Why did they lose it?

We had the oil and deeper manufacturing base.

If Butler had wanted fame, he could have toppled FDR, and there were adequate financial, industrial, and political, as well as military, forces that would have supported him.

Had he done so, the USSR would have been left swinging in the wintry Siberian wind, as would England, had they not also responded favourably to Rudolph Hess.

Since neither the USA nor England did, Germany and Japan became their bitches, where things stand today.

OP asked what it would have taken to put the USA in the Axis.

Smedley V. Butler is all it would have taken.

Not the guy you're responding to, but

>Japan seized most of the Pacific theatre early. Why did they lose it?

Because mostly they overran a bunch of thinly or completely undefended islands, striking with enormous local superiority. They were pushed onto the defensive within 6 months. They almost never had a battle, even the ones they won (nevermind the ones they lost) where they inflicted as many casualties as they took. They were outbuilt on a colossal scale and had a pretty severe quality inferiority as well, not just in equipment, but in training and doctrine.

>If Butler had wanted fame, he could have toppled FDR, and there were adequate financial, industrial, and political, as well as military, forces that would have supported him.

Extremely unlikely. For fuck's sake, what he said of the Business Plot (which again, has never received any independent corroboration) was that they would try to essentially make a puppet FDR and act to preserve his health. I've never seen any indication as to how this would possibly work once 1936 rolls around and the Democratic party appoints someone else to run for the presidency.

>Had he done so, the USSR would have been left swinging in the wintry Siberian wind, as would England, had they not also responded favourably to Rudolph Hess.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The UK (or more properly commonwealth) alone outproduced Germany, who had no means of striking at their core areas. The USSR did so by a massive scale even before they started getting Lend-Lease. They would not have been overrun by an invincible Germany.

>OP asked what it would have taken to put the USA in the Axis.

And even your hypothetical makes things neutral (and it's ridiculous to boot), you haven't given any indication why the rabidly anti-foreign intervention and antifascist Butler would have joined the Axis.

If hardcore Imperial Preference had been established as originally intended in 1932 as a result of the Great Depression, you'd see a much more hostile US-UK relationship.

IRL Imperial Preference was watered down but the original intention was to exclude all trade outside of the British Empire and Commonwealth through punitive tariffs, Britain was to trade only with its colonies, Dominions (Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and "Honorary Dominion" Argentina), maybe other informal empire countries like Ireland or Denmark would have been included too but the USA would have definitively been left out.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Preference

I can imagine a much more hostile relationship had Imperial Preference suceeded.

1.5-1 is pretty ridiculous for a ragtag rebellion engaging an opponent in conventional, non-guerilla warfare. All I was saying is that a conflict with a fully organized CSA would be way more disastrous than you (or him, if you're not who I was replying to) were making it seem like.

>The quality of Japanese war materiel was directly sampled by my use of the Arisaka
This is the dumbest post on Veeky Forums right now. Congratulations.

>1.5-1 is pretty ridiculous for a ragtag rebellion engaging an opponent in conventional, non-guerilla warfare.

Not particularly. And let's not forget that by ACW times, most of the forces fighting were on similar levels of quality; early forces were almost all state militias rolled up and turned into the regular force, and then as the war dragged on, replaced by draftees.

This isn't some peasant shmuck rebellion going up against armored knights (not that that sort of thing happened nearly as often as people make you think), I mean for fuck's sake, the Dutch did way better in their war of independence against the Spanish, and the Reds pulled similar numbers against the Whites. It's not that remarkable.

> All I was saying is that a conflict with a fully organized CSA would be way more disastrous than you (or him, if you're not who I was replying to) were making it seem like.

And if the North also switches to a more militarized, professional footing? European powers sent lots of observers over to watch the ACW, and they derided the proto-trench warfare you saw in 1864, because 'lol hillbillies fighting with their militias'. It was a sloppy, ugly mess of a war, but there's no reason to suppose a round two would be the same, nor that the long term union advantages in wealth and manpower wouldn't go away.

Please tell me you dont really believe WWI started because of the assassination of Franz

I cannot disagree about Butler. He had no interest in becoming a warlord, and I am left wondering what Bush et al were thinking when they tried to recruit him.

Japan was doomed at the outset of the war. I agree. The military command knew that too. Japan had two choices: war, or become a client state. It wasn't even a choice, really, because after they lost they became a client state anyway.

As to Russia, England, and German production, had the USA become a fascist state then, it may well have entered the war as an ally of Germany, as that was the purpose of the business plot, after all.

The UK did not outproduce Germany, France, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, and the entire rest of Europe, excepting the few neutral states, which would not have long remained neutral had the USA joined the Axis.

Had lend-lease been extended to Germany instead of the USSR, as most US brass would have preferred (Patton, MacArthur, etc) then the eastern front would have been resupplied, and Stalin would have lost.

This was not in the interests of the old money in the City of London, who wanted to retain control of their hegemony, not see new money carve it up amongst themselves.

The bonus army was real, and would have followed Butler to Hell. I believe Butler about the plot, and that means there was significant financial and industry support for him to seize the White House. High US military brass openly stated they preferred Germany to Russia. They would have cheerfully sent Stalin to Hell first to await Butler. A significant portion of the population was pro-fascist.

Smedley V. Butler did not do it. If he had things would have been very different.

Just saying

lol. Why is having some first hand experience dumb?

It's clearly anecdotal. However, the weapon remains in high regard by people who judge bolt rifles. My personal experience bore out what I had read.

Hardly dumb to see for yourself, imho.

I've also fired the M1 Garand, and it is a superior battlefield weapon. The Arisaka was not poorly designed, made, or otherwise crap. It wasn't cobbled together by peasants on fishing boats.

It was not semiauto, and this made it inferior to the M1 Garand. Personally I prefer the higher stopping power of the .30-06 over the 6.5, but had the Japanese had the manufacturing resources to make many more of them than they did, it still wouldn't have made a significant difference in the outcome of the war.

The only point I was making was that Japan was verging on becoming an industrial superpower, and the Arisaka was proof of their competence.

I prefer the Arisaka for hunting, as it is more suited to the hunt than battle, and the opposite is true of the M1 Garand.

It is one of the best bolt rifles ever designed. I know this by experience, not merely reputation.

>As to Russia, England, and German production, had the USA become a fascist state then, it may well have entered the war as an ally of Germany, as that was the purpose of the business plot, after all.

The Business plot was allegedly in 1933 . This was before Hitler was even elected Chancellor of Germany. It was well before anyone thought there was going to BE a war. It was not to get in behind Germany, it was to promote a more pro-business atmosphere than what FDR was going to provide.

>The UK did not outproduce Germany, France, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, and the entire rest of Europe, excepting the few neutral states, which would not have long remained neutral had the USA joined the Axis.

The British Commonwealth did indeed outproduce the entirety of German occupied Europe. I would recommend these for a short read

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf

jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/236/251

As well as just wiki-ing production of various armaments. If you're up for a real long read, I'd recommend Supplying War, by Creveld.

>Had lend-lease been extended to Germany instead of the USSR, as most US brass would have preferred (Patton, MacArthur, etc) then the eastern front would have been resupplied, and Stalin would have lost.

Had Lend-Lease been extended to Germany, it wouldn't be able to get through the British fleet. A tiny band of submarines sank almost 14 million tons of shipping. The Royal Navy is orders of magnitude more dangerous, and convoys are slow, combustible, and vulnerable.

Also, please provide a source about most of the U.S. brass not wanting to give Lend Lease out, because that's ridiculous.

>The bonus army was real, and would have followed Butler to Hell

The Bonus Army and the Business plot were two completely separate things, over a year apart.
1/2

2/2

> I believe Butler about the plot, and that means there was significant financial and industry support for him to seize the White House.

No, it means you believe a man who has litearlly no corroboration, and that you aren't very bright.

>High US military brass openly stated they preferred Germany to Russia.

Patton is literally the only one who said that, and he also said quite a few nasty things about Nazi Germany, like when he first discovered those camps.

>A significant portion of the population was pro-fascist.

No, they fucking weren't.

ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1940.htm

ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm

Which side do you want to see win the present war—England and France or Germany?

England and France.................. 84%

Germany........................... 1

>Interviewing Date 4/19-24/40

Survey #191-K Question #7

If you were voting for President, which type of candidate (on card) do you think you would be more likely to vote for: (A) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war and refuses to give any more help to England and France than we are now giving them, even if they are being defeated by Germany; or (B) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war, but who is willing to give England and France all the help they want, except sending our army and navy.

Refuses help........................ 34%

Aid except troops.................... 66
Interviewing Date 5/25-30/40

Survey #196-K Question #9

If Germany defeats the Allies, should the United States fight if necessary to keep Germany out of the British, French, and Dutch possessions located in the area of the Panama Canal?

Yes................................ 84%

No................................ 16

I would also point out that for the general "Should we go to war" it creeps up every time the question is asked

>Just saying

Pull that tinfoil hat off, it's clogging up blood to your brain.

The US still would have won had it continued using the M1903 Springfield. Minute differences in small arms do not affect the outcomes of wars.

Thanks. I appreciate the info. I'll give it a lot of thought.

Excellent riposte! I do appreciate it.

Regarding the business plot, while we cannot delve into the plethora of political, personal, and legal machinations that were ongoing at the time, there is much evidence of, at least, financial duplicity by some of the parties, to wit Union Bank, Brown Brothers Harriman, etc.

IBM supplied Hollerith machines to the Reich to track their detainees, and GE, GM, and Boeing have also been accused if doing business with Germany at the time.

Business was no less political then than it is now, and the current crop of US presidential candidates is ample evidence that politics can trump the law (ahem, pun not necessarily indicative of political preferences).

It seems evident to many that support either that the other candidate has committed felonies and is getting away with it.

I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks, and when you do, it appears that you need to, because your arguments aren't adequate. I'm not gonna cry cuz you cyberbully me either.

MacArthur, and many others, vehemently warned against Stalin, not only Patton.

While the bonus army predated the business plot, the dire need of those veterans remained in 1933, and could be counted on.

The surveys you post are informative, but also dated 1940. Much water had gone under the bridge by then.

There was support for fascism in the 30's. There was also a lot of support for socialism, communism, anarchism, and anything anyone could think of that was maybe better than the dust bowl, okies, soup lines, the depression, etc.

It was a fervid time. Unions were breaking the mills, and Pinkertons were breaking the strikers.

I have read Butler, and was struck by his forthright description of war profiteering. I have yet to hear anyone ascribe to him any motive that might plausibly suffice to cause him to lie.

If Butler wasn't lying, then he could have entered the USA into a fascist alliance. He didn't do it. I still don't think he lied.

>The US still would have won had it continued using the M1903 Springfield
And indeed they did on Guadalcanal.

>I fired a bolt action rifle it was kool guyz so that proves Japan had quality tanks and planes
If you can't figure out why this is dumb you need to start thinking about killing yourself.

>Regarding the business plot, while we cannot delve into the plethora of political, personal, and legal machinations that were ongoing at the time, there is much evidence of, at least, financial duplicity by some of the parties, to wit Union Bank, Brown Brothers Harriman, etc.

You've yet to show any.

>IBM supplied Hollerith machines to the Reich to track their detainees, and GE, GM, and Boeing have also been accused if doing business with Germany at the time.

Doing business with Germany in the early 30s is neither a support for fascism nor a notion that these businesses would side with Germany should a war that nobody was thinking about break out.

>It seems evident to many that support either that the other candidate has committed felonies and is getting away with it.

Just because they are capable of getting away with felonies does not prove that they have done felonies and gotten away with them. Absence of evidence isn't proof of perfidy well covered up.

>I have not resorted to ad hominem attacks, and when you do, it appears that you need to, because your arguments aren't adequate. I'm not gonna cry cuz you cyberbully me either.

I have not made ad hominem attacks. Rather, I have insulted you while demolishing your arguments, which are often barely even coherent.

>MacArthur, and many others, vehemently warned against Stalin, not only Patton.

That is not equivalent to saying that Lend-Lease was a bad idea; ever hear of the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

>While the bonus army predated the business plot, the dire need of those veterans remained in 1933, and could be counted on.

Why? Just because they are in dire need and need some dosh doesn't mean that most (if any) are willing to overthrow the entire government to install a fascist business state.

1/2