No. No. No. All of this is ASB. There is nothing the Germans can offer that would make iota of difference in the Pacific War. None at all. Besides, no one is going to trust Hitler.
ASB/WI: WWII - Germany Declares War on Japan After Pearl Harbor
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
No. No. No. All of this is ASB. There is nothing the Germans can offer that would make iota of difference in the Pacific War. None at all. Besides, no one is going to trust Hitler.
No one is going to accept that. After Munich, Hitler had as much credibility as Young Earth Creationism. Him DOW'ing Japan, then trying to leverage it to cut some kind of cease-fire/de facto surrender in the west in exchange for token support against his erstwhile ally would get Ribbentrop laughed out of Downing Street.
As for the US public suddenly becoming big fans of "Uncle Adolph" or whatever, that's not in the cards either. The US wasn't some bastion of isolationism that suddenly woke up rip-roaring mad the instant Germany DOW'd on December 8th; a great majority of the public wasn't fans of the Germans (seeing as they had conquered France and were currently bombing the ever loving fuck our of Britain), and most people expected that it was a question of when, not if the US would get involved in Europe.
Only the most hard-core anti-communists and diet-Fascists/anti-Semites viewed the Nazi's in a favorable light, and they were a very distinct minority. A German DOW on Japan, in some kind of half-assed show of "solidarity" isn't going to reverse that perception, it'd probably be viewed as yet another duplicitous gamble by a widely recognize crazy man.
Can you PM a mod to move to ASB then? It might be more productive than shooting down everyone who posts.
We're not "shooting down everyone who posts", we're pointing out that this is a ridiculous idea, and that even if it were actually carried out it'd be seen as a cynical and obvious ploy by widely distrusted (if not despised) leader.
There's a difference between that and saying "sealion pls go" or whatever.
The EuroAxis can't contribute much to a war against Japan. But the Vichy French can make a big contribution - their fleet. Plus Vichy France has a reason to declare war, the loss of French Indochina to Japan.
Yeah, the whole thing isn't realistic. I do like the image of Dunkerque, Strasbourg, Algerie, and friends in the Pacific (meaning even more ships relying on the available oilers.).
Bearn could see important use as well, moving aircraft around.
Yeah, the whole thing isn't realistic. I do like the image of Dunkerque, Strasbourg, Algerie, and friends in the Pacific (meaning even more ships relying on the available oilers.).
Bearn could see important use as well, moving aircraft around.
I posted the idea some months back in another thread,so it has not been thoroughly explored. I listed a possible motivation as the German defeat in front of Moscow. It could be within Human nature (if this is needed with Hitler) to blame Japan for turning south rather than honering the pact with Italy and Germany.
Nothing practically they could do, but it would be very hard politically for the US to pursue a war against Germany or even support for the British.
Why to any of this?
The loss of Singapore, Burma, and the threat to the Raj was of huge concern to the UK, especially if Japan was able to successfully stoke the flames of Indian nationalism.
And Germany offering Intel in relation to IJN and IJA military codes as Japan planned these operations, could be HUGE in terms of preparing adequate defensive strategies for British troops stationed in south east Asia.
Think about all the operations that the IJA used the element of surprise to their advantage to win.
Now imagine those operations with full defensive preparations.
Intel is a HUGE bargining chip.
And it is NOT asb for Germany to continue offering peace agreements to the UK to help preserve the British Empire as the actually did in OTL.
I must highlight again that Hitler was a pragmatist and could absolutely used war against Japan as a trump card to at least stave off war with the US and possibly a temporary ceasefire with the UK.
Would this have ended LL to the USSR, probably not. But would lack of a second front, coupled with a stoppage of British bombing help the war effort in the USSR, absolutely.
Last edited:
Well, there's your problem. Hitler was many things (genocidal maniac, dog lover, mediocre artist), but he was not a pragmatist. He was not a rational actor, as all of the evidence points to, so proscribing to him the behavior of a pragmatic, rational leader just doesn't work. We're talking about a man who thought invading Russia to the Urals was a good idea, and on top of that diverting key transportation and material assets to murdering millions of people while at the same time fighting the largest war in human history was top notch thinking.
Even if he did DOW Japan, literally everyone would recognize it for what it was: a far-fetched and cynical ploy to yet again somehow finagle a cease-fire with the UK that leaves him with his conquests in Europe recognized (which is absolutely not going to happen). Even if the Nazis were absolutely sincere (which, again, is impossible because no one would sign off on such a rock stupid plan), the UK would demand the Nazis to vacate France in exchange for accepting their assistance against the Japanese, which of course the Nazi's wouldn't accept, which brings us back to square one, except now the Nazi's have abandoned their one ally who could divert the WAllies attention from Europe.
For all the reasons you listed, I did not say he was rational, but to deny his pragmatism you deny history.
-Molotov-Ribbentrop was the history-shaking diplomatic coup that was because of pragmatism.
-Hitler's halt at dunkirk was because of pragmatism
-Hitler's diversion of Armee group Central to the Kiev pocket was because of pragmatism.
-Hitler's catering to the Wermacht over the SA was due to pragmatism.
The list goes on and on.
Again was he rational? No, Nazis are by nature forever irrational, but you can't argue against his pragmatism.