Axis Bilateral Pact 1940

The day after the attack, December 7th, 1941, President Roosevelt went before the US Congress and asked for a formal declaration of War with Japan. However he never asked for war with Italy or Germany before the Congress. Instead, three days after December 7th, Italy and Germany declared war on the United States having signed the Tripartite Pact in September 1940 with Japan, which officially founded the Axis powers. Though FDR wanted the US in the war, isolationist US populace wanted no part of the war in Europe. Even with the sinking of civilian shipping, the general public remained unmoved to war with Germany.

What if the Axis Pact was signed only by Italy and Germany thus allowing the US to remain out of the War in Europe operating only as a material supplier to its allies? What would be the result if the US focused all its main efforts on Japan? How would fascism and communism fare under these conditions? Would there still be a Cold War?
 
Last edited:
The day after the attack, December 7th, 1941, President Roosevelt went before the US Congress and asked for a formal declaration of War with Japan. However he never asked for war with Italy or Germany before the Congress. Instead, three days after December 7th, Italy and Germany declared war on the United States having signed the Tripartite Pact in September 1940 with Japan, which officially founded the Axis powers. Though FDR wanted the US in the war, isolationist US populace wanted no part of the war in Europe. Even with the sinking of civilian shipping, the general public remained unmoved to war with Germany.

What if the Axis Pact was signed only by Italy and Germany thus allowing the US to remain out of the War in Europe operating only as a material supplier to its allies? What would be the result if the US focused all its main efforts on Japan? How would fascism and communism fare under these conditions? Would there still be a Cold War?


The Tripartite Pact was defensive. Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the USA because of a Japanese aggression.
Germany did declare war on the USA anyway, for the very simple reason that the USA were already waging an undeclared war against Germany. The live-fire engagements between US and German units taking place in 1941 were not casual accidents.
Had Germany not declared war on the USA, the engagements would have continued, possibly until the sinking of a major US unit, say a cruiser, by a German U-Boot. The US population would have been on a warlike mood anyway after Pearl, also note that it was a common misconception that the Japanese would not have been able to pull that off without German aid. Outcome: US declaration of war on Germany some time in 1942.
 
Axis Bialateral Pact 1940

The Tripartite Pact was defensive. Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the USA because of a Japanese aggression.

This pact was signed by the Axis powers in the 1940s; it stated that should one of the signatories, consisting of Japan, Germany, and Italy, be aggressed upon by the United States, the other two were obliged to send help. This was most beneficial for Japan, as they had the more to gain by drawing the United States into a European war than Germany and Italy.

Germany did declare war on the USA anyway, for the very simple reason that the USA were already waging an undeclared war against Germany.

It can't be assumed that a war will go 'hot' through muntions trade to an ally, shots across the bow or a few US pilots in the Battle of Britain. (Arms and training by the US during the Russian invasion of Afganistan is a perfect example of this. Veitnam is another). Without the Tripartite, it is possible that the the US would not have made the same natural link of all three axis powers alligned together as the 'common enemy'. Without the pact it also cannot be assumed that Hitler would declare war especially by 1942 when he was losing in North Africa and the Italian had been routed.
 
Last edited:
This pact was signed by the Axis powers in the 1940s; it stated that should one of the signatories, consisting of Japan, Germany, and Italy, be aggressed upon by the United States, the other two were obliged to send help. This was most beneficial for Japan, as they had the more to gain by drawing the United States into a European war than Germany and Italy.

That's what I said. It was a defensive alliance. Japan is the aggressor, Germany is not bound to declare war.

It can't be assumed that a war will go 'hot' through muntions trade to an ally,

What ally? When the USA were supplying arms to Britain, including some 50 destroyers at a time when Britain was fighting an uphill fight against U-Boote, the nice thing about it was that the USA were no allies of Britain.


shots across the bow

Which only goes to show you don't know enough about the issue to be talking about it.
Look up: Kearny, Reuben James.
 
The Tripartite Pact was defensive. Germany was under no obligation to declare war on the USA because of a Japanese aggression.
Germany did declare war on the USA anyway, for the very simple reason that the USA were already waging an undeclared war against Germany. The live-fire engagements between US and German units taking place in 1941 were not casual accidents.
Had Germany not declared war on the USA, the engagements would have continued, possibly until the sinking of a major US unit, say a cruiser, by a German U-Boot. The US population would have been on a warlike mood anyway after Pearl, also note that it was a common misconception that the Japanese would not have been able to pull that off without German aid. Outcome: US declaration of war on Germany some time in 1942.

However, is it inconceivable that Hitler might order the Kriegsmarine to restrain itself? (The OP, if I got it right, wants a way to keep the US out of the war as long as possible.) If the Germans don't sink an American unit, Roosevelt's belligerence still won't be enough to start a war on them, and will probably mean no US aid to the Soviets either. Letting through shipments to Britain might still be favourable to getting the US into the fight.
 
It can't be assumed that a war will go 'hot' through muntions trade to an ally, shots across the bow or a few US pilots in the Battle of Britain.

This is not an accurate characterization of what was going on in the north Atlantic in 1940-41. The U.S. Navy was sinking German U-Boats. We'd have been at war with Germany by October of 1940, at the very latest, if it wasn't for the fact that Hitler was trying to avoid that outcome. Then he saw Pearl Harbor, thought it meant more than it did, and got carried away with irrational exuberance.
 
IMO, it was a case of miscalculation on Hitler's side. He clearly underestimated the power of the United States, and thought that they were already doing all they could to help the british, so why not declare war and give them some blows (as he actually did in the "second happy times" for the U-Boats). Change Hitler's view of the americans a bit and you can have a POD.
There is no way to say if FDR would have been able to enter the european war, much less to adopt a Germany First strategy had not Hitler declared war on the US.
Without american troops and the US Air force, there might have been a Torch, but the germans could have lasted in Tunisia for a long time. No italian front, no D-Day, and no air campaign (or a much less powerfull one, even if the RAF gets B-17s)
 
[
Change Hitler's view of the americans a bit and you can have a POD.

Yes, Michelle is correct. The defensive nature of the Axis Pact would have nullifyed the agreement.

Can we go with this then...a more cautious Hiltler who does not declare war on the US immediately. Would it follow that the focus of the US war effort would remain on Japan. If so, how does this impact upon the North Africa Campaign? Can the POD build towards a progreesively neutral US in respect to Europe?
 
However, is it inconceivable that Hitler might order the Kriegsmarine to restrain itself? (The OP, if I got it right, wants a way to keep the US out of the war as long as possible.) If the Germans don't sink an American unit, Roosevelt's belligerence still won't be enough to start a war on them, and will probably mean no US aid to the Soviets either. Letting through shipments to Britain might still be favourable to getting the US into the fight.


No, it's not unconceivable. It might happen. The Kriegsmarine being "restrained" means not attacking the US-escorted, Britain-bound convoys, at least for as long as they were US-escorted. It means attacking them in the last leg of the journey, well within land-based aircraft range and close to the British Isles, an area so dangerous that U-Boote by now tended to avoid it. It is a possible choice; it brings much more supplies to the British and, indirectly, to the Soviets.

Even so, the USA are on a war footing. The population's feeling has changed from "let's try to stay out" to "let's get done and over with this". There are these rumours about Germany providing know-how, when not aircraft and pilots (!), to the Japanese to carry out their Pearl stunt – and in OTL, Roosevelt made more than one reference to the Tripartite powers as being in cahoots. The ABC-I Staff Agreement of March 1941 is in force. In July, US forces relieve the British troops in Iceland, not exactly a neutral move either. The Odenwald is still captured in November 1941. I think the trend is clear and hard to reverse. Maybe it won't be easy for FDR, but by mid 1942 something or other will happen and war will erupt. In OTL the U-Boote bagged a hefty tonnage along the East Coast in those months, while in ATL where the USA are at war, albeit with Japan, they will have had those months to establish convoying, building escort vessels and ASW aircraft, etc. The US Army will have had more time to expand and train. On balance, Germany might be better off, but not a lot.
 
I believe Hitler declared war on the USA because the Germans were at the gates of Moscow and it looked like the war in Russia was close to being over.
 
Top