Europe First Problem

It's a paradox that I've seen repeated over and over on this forum by different members, and it often seems like the paradox is glossed over because the Nazis are understood by 99.99% of humanity to be awful in every way.

Statement A: Nazi Germany was a greater long-term threat to the United States than Japan.

Statement B: Nazi Germany, at no point, would have had long-range capabilities to strike the United States in such a way as Japan did in late 41/early 42.

The trouble is that one statement says that Nazi Germany is a military threat to the United States, and the other statement says that Nazi Germany is not a military threat to the United States. :confused::confused::confused:
 

Deleted member 1487

It's a paradox that I've seen repeated over and over on this forum by different members, and it often seems like the paradox is glossed over because the Nazis are understood by 99.99% of humanity to be awful in every way.

Statement A: Nazi Germany was a greater long-term threat to the United States than Japan.

Statement B: Nazi Germany, at no point, would have had long-range capabilities to strike the United States in such a way as Japan did in late 41/early 42.

The trouble is that one statement says that Nazi Germany is a military threat to the United States, and the other statement says that Nazi Germany is not a military threat to the United States. :confused::confused::confused:

In the long run Nazi Germany would have been a military threat, but in 1940 it was a major economic threat by controlling the massive European market; if they won the war and remained in control of Europe with access to world markets post war they would control an area with a pre-war GDP greater than the US. Even accounting for GDP loss due to destruction, genocide, and mismanagement a Nazi run Europe would be a far bigger threat than the USSR EVER was. At its peak the USSR had 25% of the US's GDP. At worst by 1950 the GDP of the Nazi economic area in Europe alone (not counting colonies) would have been greater than the US. Even with mismanagement and loss of colonies that zone would probably have been no less than 75% of the US's GDP at its worst. That's 3 times more powerful than the USSR. Plus German engineers were at least as good as the US/UK's in many categories, so were a bigger threat than the USSR.
 

Ian_W

Banned
It's a paradox that I've seen repeated over and over on this forum by different members, and it often seems like the paradox is glossed over because the Nazis are understood by 99.99% of humanity to be awful in every way.

Statement A: Nazi Germany was a greater long-term threat to the United States than Japan.

Statement B: Nazi Germany, at no point, would have had long-range capabilities to strike the United States in such a way as Japan did in late 41/early 42.

The trouble is that one statement says that Nazi Germany is a military threat to the United States, and the other statement says that Nazi Germany is not a military threat to the United States. :confused::confused::confused:

Regarding Japan in statement B, they can strike the US, just not the important bits, and can generally only strike them intermittently - a Pearl Harbour raid is possible for Japan, but an invasion of Hawaii isnt. And in any case, the US war economy doesnt rely on Hawaii or Alaska.

More generally, a Germany that wins WW2, defeats the USSR and occupies the European part Poland-style, and neutralises Britain is a long term threat, as they can build the fleet and expeditionary forces that can challenge the US in the Western hemisphere.
 
Kreigsmarine threatened the US Eastern Seaboard.
Even before the USA declared war, the USN was chasing U-boats along the Atlantic Coast.
Most major population cneters were within battleship gunnery rnage of the East Coast.
WALLIES imposed black-outs as far as Windsor and Detroit for fear that U-boats could penetrate the Great Lakes. U-boats sank Canadian freighters as far up the St. Lawrence /river as Riviere du Loup.
KM might not have been able to invade the USA, but they killed hundreds of WALLY sailors within sight of New England.
 
It's a paradox that I've seen repeated over and over on this forum by different members, and it often seems like the paradox is glossed over because the Nazis are understood by 99.99% of humanity to be awful in every way.

Statement A: Nazi Germany was a greater long-term threat to the United States than Japan.

Statement B: Nazi Germany, at no point, would have had long-range capabilities to strike the United States in such a way as Japan did in late 41/early 42.

The trouble is that one statement says that Nazi Germany is a military threat to the United States, and the other statement says that Nazi Germany is not a military threat to the United States. :confused::confused::confused:

A German dominated Europe would be an absolute threat to the US in a way that a Japanese dominated East-Asia never would be. In particular Roosevelt deeply feared that Britain would surrender in 1940 and give Germany the Royal Navy, in which Nazi Germany would instantly become a very severe threat to the US. He actively sought (although never received) assurances from Churchill (and later Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie) that the UK would under no conditions surrender its Fleet to the Nazis and that if the UK fell, the fleet would be sent to Canada. Remember when Pearl Harbour happened, the Russians were getting annihilated on the Eastern Front and Britain was getting bombed and blockaded. It looked very possible to the American leadership that without their intervention both Great Britain and the USSR could fall. In short the potential threat posed by a victorious Germany was much higher to the US than a victorious Japan, and thus the number one objective was to defeat the Germans
 
I agree with the comments above that Euro-Germany was a long term economic threat and an immediate easter shore threat. WMD perspective would have made it a very real long-term threat, but probably was not on the agenda.
However, in an attempt to quantitate the more immediate aspects, what was the volume of eastern shores sea-trade both domestically and with south America. How important was it for the overall economy?
 
See the first graph in this writeup: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Frankly, in the long run, the Japanese half of the conflict didn't matter from the economic point of view. Japan couldn't muster the forces (tied down across all of East Asia) nor the industry to match even a portion of the US's potential warmaking power. That is the danger of an island nation; all the US had to do was tighten the noose around Japan, cut it off from resupply, and watch as the ships run out of fuel and the warehouses run out of food. No matter how lucky the IJN would be, it would eventually run out fortune and be sent to the bottom of the ocean. And, then, nothing could protect the home islands.

Germany, on the other hand, had an entire continent under its belt. There its closest ally was shaky, and Spain was still recovering from its civil war war, it appeared that there was no one but the Soviets (almost overrun) and Britain (besieged) left in the game against them. If one of those fell, the US would practically be alone against the world.

Anecdotal, but just the other day, I was digging through a shoebox my great-grandfather had kept of old obituaries, and I found a headline telling about a ship being sunk by U-Boats of the North Carolina coast in January of 1942. The Eastern Coast of the US was (and still is) more important to the US, and its defense was a greater concern.
 
Regarding Japan in statement B, they can strike the US, just not the important bits, and can generally only strike them intermittently - a Pearl Harbour raid is possible for Japan, but an invasion of Hawaii isnt. And in any case, the US war economy doesnt rely on Hawaii or Alaska.

More generally, a Germany that wins WW2, defeats the USSR and occupies the European part Poland-style, and neutralises Britain is a long term threat, as they can build the fleet and expeditionary forces that can challenge the US in the Western hemisphere.

It's not even the threat of invasion, the Nazis were never going to have the capacity to genuinely threaten US hegemony in such a manner (Cross Atlantic invasions aren't going to happen in the nuclear age, especially considering the significant Naval advantage that the US had and would continue to have over Germany who was leaps and bounds behind the US in that department), however having all of Europe fortified under the domination of such an unpredictable and hostile regime was economically and politically unaccpetable.
 
A German dominated Europe would be an absolute threat to the US in a way that a Japanese dominated East-Asia never would be. In particular Roosevelt deeply feared that Britain would surrender in 1940 and give Germany the Royal Navy, in which Nazi Germany would instantly become a very severe threat to the US. It looked very possible to the American leadership that without their intervention both Great Britain and the USSR could fall. In short the potential threat posed by a victorious Germany was much higher to the US than a victorious Japan, and thus the number one objective was to defeat the Germans

worried about the French fleet under Vichy regime even more?

and German influence in South America.
 
worried about the French fleet under Vichy regime even more?

and German influence in South America.


Well Darlan withheld the French Fleet from the Nazi's primarily because of his promise to Britain (Churchill didn't trust him and sunk a good chunk of the French Fleet anyway) but if the UK were to fall (in hindsight this is extremely unlikely but from the view of the US in 1940 this is a very possibles situation) and if it were obligated to turn over its Fleet to the Germans, then I don't see why the French wold withhold their fleet any longer (besides the remainder of the French fleet would be a drop in te bucket for the new German controlled navy that had just absorbed what was then the largest navy on earth).
 
It's a paradox that I've seen repeated over and over on this forum by different members, and it often seems like the paradox is glossed over because the Nazis are understood by 99.99% of humanity to be awful in every way.

Statement A: Nazi Germany was a greater long-term threat to the United States than Japan.

Statement B: Nazi Germany, at no point, would have had long-range capabilities to strike the United States in such a way as Japan did in late 41/early 42.

The trouble is that one statement says that Nazi Germany is a military threat to the United States, and the other statement says that Nazi Germany is not a military threat to the United States. :confused::confused::confused:

I don't see that Statement B can be presumed to be accurate in the long term. In 1940-41, the US had (legitimately) convinced itself that, without US lend-lease help and/or direct intervention, a German victory over Britain was very possible...and early German successes in North Africa and Russia indicated that complete German victory in the European/Mediterranean theatre was not impossible...and this would give a very efficient and ruthless Nazi regime control over the raw material, industrial, and human resources over much of industrialized Eurasia.

One plans for the worst in assessing risk, and a hostile Nazi Germany in command of the resources of Europe is an eventual existential threat to the US, and an immediate threat to US economic interests throughout the world. Japan had the ability to strike at Hawaii and perhaps parts of coastal Alaska and the Aleutians, but at no point did US war planners consider Japan an existential threat to the US, even if they defeated China and occupied US possessions in the western Pacific.

"Germany First" just made sense.
 
Top