Germany does not declare war on USA in 1941

He can't be bothered. :rolleyes:

I gave him a direct link to the 1941 polls in the other thread and even posted two of the polls yet he's still blubbering on about America First and FDR being unable to get a DOW on Germany without Hitler doing so first.

When the facts run counter to his preconceptions, he ignores the facts.



I think you are more intellegent than ever to consider that possibility.


Why do you say I would SURELY ignore the below when obviously you know better than that?



Carl Schwamberger
user_offline.gif

Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 818


I have educated myself a bit about the isolationist movement and learned it more or less 'walking dead' in the autum of 1941. donations for operations was falling off and active membership was stagnate or declining. Perhaps the best illustration is of Haniford McNider resigning from his leadership position in the America First organization in November 1941. McNider had been a major leader in Republican politics, a long time supporter of isolationism, and a active opponent of Roosevelt. Yet in November, weeks before the Japanese DoW he quit the America First and told his friends he intended to return to active service in the US Army as a officer. It says a lot when a leader in the anti war movement removes himself from political opposition with the intent to return to military service.

If you look carefully at the Gallup pols in 1941 you will see a trend moving from opposition to acceptance of the US being at war by mid 1942. That is to say the voters were no longer pressuring Congress to keep the US out.

It is really difficult to see the US staying out of the war for more than three or four months. A March or April entry into the european war is entirely possible.

I have educated myself a bit about the isolationist movement and learned it more or less 'walking dead' in the autum of 1941. donations for operations was falling off and active membership was stagnate or declining. Perhaps the best illustration is of Haniford McNider resigning from his leadership position in the America First organization in November 1941. McNider had been a major leader in Republican politics, a long time supporter of isolationism, and a active opponent of Roosevelt. Yet in November, weeks before the Japanese DoW he quit the America First and told his friends he intended to return to active service in the US Army as a officer. It says a lot when a leader in the anti war movement removes himself from political opposition with the intent to return to military service.

If you look carefully at the Gallup pols in 1941 you will see a trend moving from opposition to acceptance of the US being at war by mid 1942. That is to say the voters were no longer pressuring Congress to keep the US out.

It is really difficult to see the US staying out of the war for more than three or four months. A March or April entry into the european war is entirely possible.
 
Last edited:
I have educated myself a bit about the isolationist movement and learned it more or less 'walking dead' in the autum of 1941. donations for operations was falling off and active membership was stagnate or declining. Perhaps the best illustration is of Haniford McNider resigning from his leadership position in the America First organization in November 1941. McNider had been a major leader in Republican politics, a long time supporter of isolationism, and a active opponent of Roosevelt. Yet in November, weeks before the Japanese DoW he quit the America First and told his friends he intended to return to active service in the US Army as a officer. It says a lot when a leader in the anti war movement removes himself from political opposition with the intent to return to military service.

If you look carefully at the Gallup pols in 1941 you will see a trend moving from opposition to acceptance of the US being at war by mid 1942. That is to say the voters were no longer pressuring Congress to keep the US out.

It is really difficult to see the US staying out of the war for more than three or four months. A March or April entry into the european war is entirely possible.

http://uipress.lib.uiowa.edu/bdi/DetailsPage.aspx?id=243

From the above link you should see you have misspelled the mans name and that he really did not leave America First until Dec. 4, 1941.

Is the rest of your post any more accurate? I have no preconceived notion about that.
 
To avoid declaring war on US, Hitler either has to persuade Japan to attack Russia instead, making Stalin fight two fronts, or go back on his promise to Hirohito and concentrate on the soviets.

If he returned on his promise, then America will try to en pacific war as soon as possible, and try not to interfere in European war.

If both axis lords attacked Russia, then American politicians would try to stay away from the war in every possible way
 

Flubber

Banned
To avoid declaring war on US, Hitler either has to persuade Japan to attack Russia instead, making Stalin fight two fronts, or go back on his promise to Hirohito and concentrate on the soviets.

If he returned on his promise, then America will try to en pacific war as soon as possible, and try not to interfere in European war.

If both axis lords attacked Russia, then American politicians would try to stay away from the war in every possible way


You've only been here 20 posts so it's rather understandable why your post is completely wrong on all counts.

Use the search function, educate yourself, and then rejoin the conversation.
 

Flubber

Banned
In fact I am seriously considering the statements I think you are referring to. They seem very persuasive.


They seem very persuasive? Seem very persuasive?

You've been blubbering in two separate threads about how US isolationism would prevent FDR from getting a DOW against in Germany in December of '41, I provide you to links to actual Gallup polls from October and November of 1941 in which two thirds of Americans agree that actions need to be taken against both Germany and Japan regardless of whether war results or not, and you reply that those polls seem very persuasive?

You need to change your member name from Master of the Veiled Threat to Master of the Vast Understatement or Master of the Deliberate Incomprehension.
 
You've only been here 20 posts so it's rather understandable why your post is completely wrong on all counts.

Use the search function, educate yourself, and then rejoin the conversation.

Let's not start judging people on their post-count, please. I don't think it does anything to create a welcoming atmosphere for newcomers.
 

Flubber

Banned
Let's not start judging people on their post-count, please.

So instead we should simply judge them on the sole fact that the post in question was completely wrong?

Everything he wrote has been repeatedly refuted on these fora for years. So, he's either chose to ignore those refutations because he's been here longer than his join date and post count suggest or he's completely unaware of those refutations because he's new.

Which of those two options give him the benefit of the doubt?
 
with US not joining the Allies in Europe ?

it had major influence on Battlefield
no USAAF Bomberfleet over Germany !
and RAF has only capacity for Night bombing, what only hamper the German War industry, not cripple them under US bombing raids.
but the most interesting point is will a Neutral USA support The British empire and USSR ?
i think that communist are the losers in this.
and how the british has to reconquer Europe alone ?

on War production, the USA will focus on Japan and need for very long range Bomber & Fighters and bigger aircraft carriers and there aircrafts.
mean bombers like B-17 are only surrogate models with low production numbers, until B-29 size bomber are ready.
 
So instead we should simply judge them on the sole fact that the post in question was completely wrong?

Yes. If someone makes a claim, my opinion is that claim should be judged on its merits. It may be right or wrong, but the number of previous posts has nothing to do with that. It's like saying someone is wrong because they live in Wisconsin; there's no obvious causal link between the two.

But you know, I have fewer posts than other members so perhaps what I say isn't as valuable. Is there a particular number we have to reach before we're allowed to express opinions on this board?
 

Flubber

Banned
Yes. If someone makes a claim, my opinion is that claim should be judged on its merits.


Okay then. Judged on the merits of what he posted what he posted is completely wrong because he doesn't know enough of the facts and one of the reasons he doesn't know enough of the facts is that he hasn't been here long enough.

It may be right or wrong, but the number of previous posts has nothing to do with that. It's like saying someone is wrong because they live in Wisconsin; there's no obvious causal link between the two.

Not quite. Except for the case of extreme lurkers, the number of posts and the joining date are indicative of to how long someone has been here. If he'd been here for some time he would have been exposed to threads which laid out the facts refuting his claims. However, because he hasn't been here long, he's yet to be exposed to those facts.

But you know, I have fewer posts than other members so perhaps what I say isn't as valuable. Is there a particular number we have to reach before we're allowed to express opinions on this board?

Would you say there is a difference between being a member since January of 2011 and having 768 posts and being a member since May of 2013 and having 20 posts? Have you learned something after 29 months and 768 posts that you hadn't learned after 1 month and 20 posts?
 
Okay then. Judged on the merits of what he posted what he posted is completely wrong because he doesn't know enough of the facts and one of the reasons he doesn't know enough of the facts is that he hasn't been here long enough.
That is the most conceited BS I have ever heard ... Your assumption here is that the collective views of the AH Forum are always right and that no matter what a newcomers background is, whether they have a passing interest in the subject or they have a doctorate in history and have published many articles on the subject, they are always wrong because their own views are different to the collective ... utter nonsense!!!
 
To avoid declaring war on US, Hitler either has to persuade Japan to attack Russia instead, making Stalin fight two fronts, or go back on his promise to Hirohito and concentrate on the soviets.

If he returned on his promise, then America will try to en pacific war as soon as possible, and try not to interfere in European war.

If both axis lords attacked Russia, then American politicians would try to stay away from the war in every possible way

In starting this thread I said in effect WI Hitler made no such assurances to Hirohito or anyone else?
 
They seem very persuasive? Seem very persuasive?

You've been blubbering in two separate threads about how US isolationism would prevent FDR from getting a DOW against in Germany in December of '41, I provide you to links to actual Gallup polls from October and November of 1941 in which two thirds of Americans agree that actions need to be taken against both Germany and Japan regardless of whether war results or not, and you reply that those polls seem very persuasive?

You need to change your member name from Master of the Veiled Threat to Master of the Vast Understatement or Master of the Deliberate Incomprehension.

I said I believed you were too intellegent to believe your insults of me had any merit. I'm starting to have my doubts.
 
with US not joining the Allies in Europe ?

it had major influence on Battlefield
no USAAF Bomberfleet over Germany !
and RAF has only capacity for Night bombing, what only hamper the German War industry, not cripple them under US bombing raids.
but the most interesting point is will a Neutral USA support The British empire and USSR ?
i think that communist are the losers in this.
and how the british has to reconquer Europe alone ?

on War production, the USA will focus on Japan and need for very long range Bomber & Fighters and bigger aircraft carriers and there aircrafts.
mean bombers like B-17 are only surrogate models with low production numbers, until B-29 size bomber are ready.

When Japan goes under I imagine the UK and the USSR could be still hanging on at least by their fingernails. Then lend lease restarts or increases big time. The USA would soon have the A Bomb and one of the most beautiful planes ever, the B-36. IIRC with longer range and bomb capacity than the B-52. Germany will almost then certainly provoke the USA into a DOW or be sunk by our lend lease stuff.

If the UK and USSR are done for Germany will not likely have the bomb when Japan goes under and for years to come if left alone, but one way or the other it will not be left alone.

Take Japan out of it and see what Hitler has done......
 
They seem very persuasive? Seem very persuasive?

You've been blubbering in two separate threads about how US isolationism would prevent FDR from getting a DOW against in Germany in December of '41, I provide you to links to actual Gallup polls from October and November of 1941 in which two thirds of Americans agree that actions need to be taken against both Germany and Japan regardless of whether war results or not, and you reply that those polls seem very persuasive?

You need to change your member name from Master of the Veiled Threat to Master of the Vast Understatement or Master of the Deliberate Incomprehension.

Because of your grossly insulting tone I could not give your statements any merit. Make something out of it if you are so compelled by I simply did not see your post about the Gallup Poll. It is very interesting. I am not sure it is definite proof that the people would support war with Germany barring a German DOW, after Pearl but it does seem quite possible. But IIRC just before PH in the poll the people were against starting war with Germany right then.
 
That is the most conceited BS I have ever heard ... Your assumption here is that the collective views of the AH Forum are always right and that no matter what a newcomers background is, whether they have a passing interest in the subject or they have a doctorate in history and have published many articles on the subject, they are always wrong because their own views are different to the collective ... utter nonsense!!!

I was more concerned over the conceit that reading threads here was a good way to educate yourself. There are certainly good nuggets of historical info around here, but to actually educate oneself on history, one should read actual historical books written by historians.

Sure you could learn some things about the Byzantine Empire from Isaac's Empire, but you'd be much better reading Laiou.
 
To avoid declaring war on US, Hitler either has to persuade Japan to attack Russia instead, making Stalin fight two fronts, or go back on his promise to Hirohito and concentrate on the soviets.

If he returned on his promise, then America will try to en pacific war as soon as possible, and try not to interfere in European war.

If both axis lords attacked Russia, then American politicians would try to stay away from the war in every possible way

Japan did not want to attack Russia nor did they have the capacity to maintain any sort of campaign against them. Soviet armour and doctrine was vastly superior to anything the Japanese could muster and they had more then enough forces stationed in the East to contain the Japanese. The Japanese were conducting a war on a very finite budget of resources, resources which they were rapidly running out of. The attack on Pearl Harbour was to secure a line through to the oil rich Dutch East Indies without fear of interference from the American Pacific fleets.

Anyway, in the event that you did manage to get the Japanese to attack the Soviets, I'm not sure why that would prevent an American DOW. :confused:
 
You've only been here 20 posts so it's rather understandable why your post is completely wrong on all counts.

Use the search function, educate yourself, and then rejoin the conversation.

I didn't realise there was a list of required reading to join an internet forum.

The guy's taken an interest in alternatehistory, informing him that he's completely wrong and instructing him to spend time digging through past threads is pretty rude.
 
You do realize if Hitler doesn't declare war after Pearl Harbor, he's effectively signing his death warrant?

Lend-Lease is going to continue to go to Britain, & more of it, now the U.S. is at war with Japan (tho less, overall, with commitments to PTO, which will be greater than OTL). So unless Germany makes a stringent diplomatic protest (& IDK why that didn't happen OTL)...or unless Germany says flat out, "Send U.S. ships in British convoys, or escort British convoys, we'll treat them as hostile"...Germany is screwed.
 
The question is whether Hitler would be willing to curtail U-boat activity against Atlantic convoys out of fear of engaging American ships. If so, German efforts to starve out Britain will fail. If not, he risks bringing America into the war sooner or later. And restraint is not one of Hitler's dominant characteristics.

^

This.

For the US and Germany to remain at peace post Pearl Habor requires at least:

1. No German DOW on the USA

AND either:
2. Acceptance that they cannot continue the U-boat war against the British
3. A significantly more isolationist President than Roosevelt (this isn't Wilkie, or Wallace) which means a pre 1940 POD really.

Personally, 1 & 2 are the best shot, and indeed Germany retooling all that effort into something else (like tanks and planes) can only help them. I appreciate it's not something that can happen overnight, but if they can shift resources elsewhere it will only help them in the fight against the Soviet Union and also reduce significantly the chance of a US DOW coming their way.
 
Top