German offer to the US in 1940

[Furthark]

What if Ribbentrop approaches American diplomats after the fall of France in 1940 in order to reach a similar agreement to the Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact with them. Specifically the agreement would state, that if the US will stay out of the war in Europe (which also means no lend -lease) that Germany will demand the US will receive all Dutch, French and British colonial holdings in the Caribbean(ABC-Islands, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Saint marin, etc.), South America (Suriname, Guyana), North America, the Atlantic and the pacific (Polynesia, New Caledonia, Dutch East Indies, etc.) and maybe even Greenland and Iceland, as conditions for a final peace after German victory.
Would the US take that deal? How would it affect the war?
To make it more realistic, lets also say there was no close relationship between Germany and Japan prior to the offer and off course there will be no DOW against the US after Pearl Harbour ITTL.
Bonus: Assume Hitler for some reason also decides to scrap Barbarossa ITTL. Will Germany be able to eventually force Britain to come to terms, if there is neither the Eastern Front nor the lend-lease and military support from the US?

 

[King Augeas]

No, the US wouldn't take the deal as it offers them nothing. Three reasons.

Firstly - the US had already identified Germany as their great enemy and were terrified by the fall of France and its implications for the balance of power.
Secondly - in any situation where Britain is losing badly enough to put those territories at risk, the US can just walk in and take them regardless of any deal with Germany.
Thirdly - If the US didn't want to wait that long, they could just cut a deal with Britain to establish US bases in most of those territories.

 

[Furthark]

No, the US wouldn't take the deal as it offers them nothing. Three reasons.

Firstly - the US had already identified Germany as their great enemy and were terrified by the fall of France and its implications for the balance of power.
Secondly - in any situation where Britain is losing badly enough to put those territories at risk, the US can just walk in and take them regardless of any deal with Germany.
Thirdly - If the US didn't want to wait that long, they could just cut a deal with Britain to establish US bases in most of those territories.

But why was Germany the great enemy, when there is was no direct hostility up to that point? Why did they care what Germany did in Europe? Germany was in no position to threaten the US even if Britain made peace. Also if they cared so much about the balance of power why did they support the SU which basically completely dominated Eurasia after the war and became a bigger threat than Germany ever could be? Seems kind of shortsighted to me.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

But why was Germany the great enemy, when there is was no direct hostility up to that point? Why did they care what Germany did in Europe? Germany was in no position to threaten the US even if Britain made peace. Also if they cared so much about the balance of power why did they support the SU which basically completely dominated Eurasia after the war and became a bigger threat than Germany ever could be? Seems kind of shortsighted to me.

The United States had interests as all states do. It was not in the interest of the United States to see genocidal fascists in control of Europe and Asia.

Put bluntly this would require the lobotomization of the entire American leadership. Also, by 1940 the world had seen how little Hitler's word meant. Or were German troops not in Prague, Warsaw, and Amsterdam?

 

[Furthark]

The United States had interests as all states do. It was not in the interest of the United States to see genocidal fascists in control of Europe and Asia.

That genocidal thing was not that obvious at that point. Also we assume no close alliance with Japan ITTL.
But let's assume Germany was a more classically fascist state with less hate for the Jews and less genocide (Mein Kampf would never have been written) but still willing to regain lost territories and restore German glory by military means if necessary. The foreign policy would be the same as IOTL until 1940 (Rheinland, Anschluss, etc.) the only difference is a less radical ideology.
Would the US be ok with leaving Europe alone in that case? If not, why so?

 

[Cymry-Korean]

That genocidal thing was not that obvious at that point. Also we assume no close alliance with Japan ITTL.
But let's assume Germany was a more classically fascist state with less hate for the Jews and less genocide (Mein Kampf would never have been written) but still willing to regain lost territories and restore German glory by military means if necessary. The foreign policy would be the same as IOTL until 1940 (Rheinland, Anschluss, etc.) the only difference is a less radical ideology.
Would the US be ok with leaving Europe alone in that case? If not, why so?

These "Notzis" are still untrustworthy brutes who have run roughshod over neutral states. The United States was not going to leave mainland Europe under the control of an aurarkic fascist regime.

Also, you can't just remove the genocide and antisemitism from the Nazis. It doesn't work that way.

 

[triscreen]

The US under Roosevelt, especially its leadership, is nowhere close to the Soviet Union under Stalin. It won't just agree to take some land from nations that it is sympathetic to in return to giving the Nazis a blank check over Europe - plus, the obvious comparison to Molotov-Ribbentrop would not be very favorable to public opinion.

 

[Furthark]

These "Notzis" are still untrustworthy brutes who have run roughshod over neutral states. The United States was not going to leave mainland Europe under the control of an aurarkic fascist regime.

Also, you can't just remove the genocide and antisemitism from the Nazis. It doesn't work that way.

Well Franco was also not genocidal, so I think it would not be that unlikely that with some change of events a different, less racialist, right wing movement would take over the Weimar Republic (the DNVP perhaps).
But I still don't get exactly what the reasons for US involvement in Europe were. I just want to understand. Why would they give a damn about some small states on an other continent. They didn't care much when Stalin took the baltic states either. Why should just one American soldier die for Belgium and Denmark then? Surely it is not to "protect the weak" or something like that. The US is not mother Theresa (no country is). They would only get involved if it granted them a benefit. Which benefit that is i would like to understand? Was the autarky part hurting the US economy? Was that the reason? If so would a Germany more open to trade made the US leave Europe alone? As I said I just want to understand because it really doesn't make sense to me. It is not like the US faced any threat of invasion from Germany.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Well Franco was also not genocidal, so I think it would not be that unlikely that with some change of events a different, less racialist, right wing movement would take over the Weimar Republic (the DNVP perhaps).
But I still don't get exactly what the reasons for US involvement in Europe were. I just want to understand. Why would they give a damn about some small states on an other continent. They didn't care much when Stalin took the baltic states either. Why should just one American soldier die for Belgium and Denmark then? Surely it is not to "protect the weak" or something like that. The US is not mother Theresa (no country is). They would only get involved if it granted them a benefit. Which benefit that is i would like to understand? Was the autarky part hurting the US economy? Was that the reason? If so would a Germany more open to trade made the US leave Europe alone? As I said I just want to understand because it really doesn't make sense to me. It is not like the US faced any threat of invasion from Germany.

The United States didn't want a totalitarian state dominating Europe. Out of all the threats out there, the Nazis in 1940 seemed on that pathway. That would endanger US security and threaten it both economically and iideologically. A rising aggressive Germany, Italy, and Japan (you can't just write off Japan for no reason) were a block that the United States didn't want dominating Eurasia.

 

[triscreen]

Well Franco was also not genocidal, so I think it would not be that unlikely that with some change of events a different, less racialist, right wing movement would take over the Weimar Republic (the DNVP perhaps).
But I still don't get exactly what the reasons for US involvement in Europe were. I just want to understand. Why would they give a damn about some small states on an other continent. They didn't care much when Stalin took the baltic states either. Why should just one American soldier die for Belgium and Denmark then? Surely it is not to "protect the weak" or something like that. The US is not mother Theresa (no country is). They would only get involved if it granted them a benefit. Which benefit that is i would like to understand? Was the autarky part hurting the US economy? Was that the reason? If so would a Germany more open to trade made the US leave Europe alone? As I said I just want to understand because it really doesn't make sense to me. It is not like the US faced any threat of invasion from Germany.

If you want to change the leadership of Germany, they won't do things the exact same way as the Nazis, and butterflies would change almost everything that is recognizable about the Second World War.

The reasons for US sympathy Europe were that it didn't want Germany, a nation they had been at war with a bit more than two decades before, to be gobbling up nations and becoming the dominant power in Europe. Part of it was an ideal of protecting freedoms and self-determination, but also it was the fact that the US and its businesses were on much more friendly terms with the Netherlands than a fascist Germany, and the English-speaking Britons were very keen on getting US aid / sympathy. However, those reasons were what gave most of the American people at least a slight bias towards the Allies, especially as France fell in 1940, although there was an obvious "America First" movement, which FDR was against.

The real reason the US got militarily involved in Europe was because the Nazis declared war on the US directly after Pearl Harbor. In the past, I've heard that the US wasn't planning on declaring war on Nazi Germany until the inverse happened, although this may be incorrect.

 

[Furthark]

The United States didn't want a totalitarian state dominating Europe. Out of all the threats out there, the Nazis in 1940 seemed on that pathway. That would endanger US security and threaten it both economically and iideologically. A rising aggressive Germany, Italy, and Japan (you can't just write off Japan for no reason) were a block that the United States didn't want dominating Eurasia.

The alliance with Japan was not set in stone. Until the end of the thirties the Germans still had strong ties to the Chinese and there were factions in Germany favoring an alliance with China over Japan.
Also would't having to independent, smaller, totalitarian powers dominated each end of Eurasia be more in line with US interests than having one big, totalitarian power stretching the whole continent dominate Eurasia alone, which is what actually happened after the war?
I also don't see how any of the Axis powers other than Japan could seriously threaten US security in any way in 1940.

 

[Furthark]

If you want to change the leadership of Germany, they won't do things the exact same way as the Nazis, and butterflies would change almost everything that is recognizable about the Second World War.

The reasons for US sympathy Europe were that it didn't want Germany, a nation they had been at war with a bit more than two decades before, to be gobbling up nations and becoming the dominant power in Europe. Part of it was an ideal of protecting freedoms and self-determination, but also it was the fact that the US and its businesses were on much more friendly terms with the Netherlands than a fascist Germany, and the English-speaking Britons were very keen on getting US aid / sympathy. However, those reasons were what gave most of the American people at least a slight bias towards the Allies, especially as France fell in 1940, although there was an obvious "America First" movement, which FDR was against.

The real reason the US got militarily involved in Europe was because the Nazis declared war on the US directly after Pearl Harbor. In the past, I've heard that the US wasn't planning on declaring war on Nazi Germany until the inverse happened, although this may be incorrect.

So you think the US would not have got involved in Europe if Hitler didn't declare war? Because a lot of people in here say that war was inevitable no matter what Hitler did.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

The alliance with Japan was not set in stone. Until the end of the thirties the Germans still had strong ties to the Chinese and there were factions in Germany favoring an alliance with China over Japan.
Also would't having to independent, smaller, totalitarian powers dominated each end of Eurasia be more in line with US interests than having one big, totalitarian power stretching the whole continent dominate Eurasia alone, which is what actually happened after the war?
I also don't see how any of the Axis powers other than Japan could seriously threaten US security in any way in 1940.

It wasn't what they could do in 1940. The United States was not blind however to what might happen in a Europe dominated by Germany and an Asia dominated by Japan. They were not lacking in foresight.

Also, why is this entirely different Germany doing the exact same thing that OTL Germany did in Europe? A less radical Germany might not have been willing to put all its eggs in the basket of a successful French campaign.

On a similar note, if Germany changes its overall strategy its opponents would likely do the same. Like in many of these suppositions, Germany is the only one allowed to change.

 

[triscreen]

So you think the US would not have got involved in Europe if Hitler didn't declare war? Because a lot of people in here say that war was inevitable no matter what Hitler did.

I'm not sure. In my mind, the US of 1941 is much like the US of 1917 - it has a president who outwardly claims to want to "keep us out of the war" but privately wants to join the war, a population that is sympathetic to the Allied cause, and it is financially and materially aiding the Allies to an extent that the American economy has a vested interest of winning the war. However, in both world wars, a spark was needed to have war begin - in 1917, it was the Zimmerman Telegram, and in 1941, it was Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Was war between the US and Germany inevitable by 1917 / 1941? I would argue so, but I think it would be an arguable fact that if there was somehow no spark, the US wouldn't have a justification to go into war that would rally Americans, including the sizable chunk of isolationist Americans, into supporting the fighting of a world war.

 

[Furthark]

I'm not sure. In my mind, the US of 1941 is much like the US of 1917 - it has a president who outwardly claims to want to "keep us out of the war" but privately wants to join the war, a population that is sympathetic to the Allied cause, and it is financially and materially aiding the Allies to an extent that the American economy has a vested interest of winning the war. However, in both world wars, a spark was needed to have war begin - in 1917, it was the Zimmerman Telegram, and in 1941, it was Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war. Was war between the US and Germany inevitable by 1917 / 1941? I would argue so, but I think it would be an arguable fact that if there was somehow no spark, the US wouldn't have a justification to go into war that would rally Americans, including the sizable chunk of isolationist Americans, into supporting the fighting of a world war.

Do you think the sinking of a US convoy to Britain would have been enough? Even if the US is already at war with Japan? (assuming there is no DOW after Pearl Harbour)

 

[RamscoopRaider]

The alliance with Japan was not set in stone. Until the end of the thirties the Germans still had strong ties to the Chinese and there were factions in Germany favoring an alliance with China over Japan.
Also would't having to independent, smaller, totalitarian powers dominated each end of Eurasia be more in line with US interests than having one big, totalitarian power stretching the whole continent dominate Eurasia alone, which is what actually happened after the war?
I also don't see how any of the Axis powers other than Japan could seriously threaten US security in any way in 1940.

Germany and the USSR were about as strong in 1939 just before the war according to Keegan, who is usually considered reasonably accurate. But Germany had subjugated France, the Low Countries, Norway and Denmark, with Central/Eastern Europe as Vassals and the Italians as subordinate allies. If Germany won they would gain a substantial part of the USSR as well, they get even stronger. Whereas the USSR got half their country wrecked by the Germans, and postwar managed to get only half of Europe. USSR + East Germany+Poland+Hungary+Romania+Bulgaria+Czechoslovakia is weaker than Germany+France+Benelux+Denmark+Norway+Italy+Czechoslovakia+Hungary+Poland+Romania+Bulgaria+Greece+Yugoslavia+Austria+Belarus+Ukraine+European Russia. As you can see a hypothetical German victory puts Germany in a much stronger position than the OTL USSR, in theory at least. The Geography supports that view as well, a victorious Germany has access to the French and Norwegian coastlines for naval bases, while the USSR is bottled up in the Baltic, Black and White Seas.

Then one adds the threat of Japan to the mix, and suddenly the US needs to worry about threats on both flanks

1940 is not what the US is worrying about in 1940, they are worrying about 1950 or later

 

[Furthark]

It wasn't what they could do in 1940. The United States was not blind however to what might happen in a Europe dominated by Germany and an Asia dominated by Japan. They were not lacking in foresight.

Also, why is this entirely different Germany doing the exact same thing that OTL Germany did in Europe? A less radical Germany might not have been willing to put all its eggs in the basket of a successful French campaign.

On a similar note, if Germany changes its overall strategy its opponents would likely do the same. Like in many of these suppositions, Germany is the only one allowed to change.

Which German change of strategy are you thinking of? Cancelling Barbarossa? I am not sure how this would change the overall strategy of the western powers.

 

[Cymry-Korean]

Which German change of strategy are you thinking of? Cancelling Barbarossa? I am not sure how this would change the overall strategy of the western powers.

Cancelling Barbarossa and not aligning with Japan are major changes that the other powers would react to.

 

[Furthark]

Germany and the USSR were about as strong in 1939 just before the war according to Keegan, who is usually considered reasonably accurate. But Germany had subjugated France, the Low Countries, Norway and Denmark, with Central/Eastern Europe as Vassals and the Italians as subordinate allies. If Germany won they would gain a substantial part of the USSR as well, they get even stronger. Whereas the USSR got half their country wrecked by the Germans, and postwar managed to get only half of Europe. USSR + East Germany+Poland+Hungary+Romania+Bulgaria+Czechoslovakia is weaker than Germany+France+Benelux+Denmark+Norway+Italy+Czechoslovakia+Hungary+Poland+Romania+Bulgaria+Greece+Yugoslavia+Austria+Belarus+Ukraine+European Russia. As you can see a hypothetical German victory puts Germany in a much stronger position than the OTL USSR, in theory at least. The Geography supports that view as well, a victorious Germany has access to the French and Norwegian coastlines for naval bases, while the USSR is bottled up in the Baltic, Black and White Seas.

Then one adds the threat of Japan to the mix, and suddenly the US needs to worry about threats on both flanks

1940 is not what the US is worrying about in 1940, they are worrying about 1950 or later

Do you think No Barbarossa+No alliance with Japan (consequently no DOW after Pearl Harbour) would have made it possible for the Germans to avoid direct military US involvement in Europe?

 

[Furthark]

Cancelling Barbarossa and not aligning with Japan are major changes that the other powers would react to.

In what way?