Hitler declares war on Japan.

While the point of departure for this WI is something of a stretch, it is within possibility however slim that may be. It isn't completely ABS however. Weirder things have happened in history.

Hitler and Germany enter World War 2 on September 4th 1939 invading Poland. Events occur historically up through December 1941. Russia is on the ropes. German divisions are on Moscow’s doorstep. In North Africa Britain is reeling in defeat.

The only differences are that Hitler has kept the U-boats in the Eastern Atlantic attacking British shipping. No US warships have been torpedoed and the tension between the US and Germany is lower than it was historically as a result. This is not much of a stretch and Hitler would have easily ceded to doing this.

The next is that Rudolf Hess doesn’t make his “peace” flight to England on May 18, 1941 and remains deputy fuhrer of the Reich. This change really has no impact on war events, but is necessary to make the scenario fully work.

On December 7th 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor in a surprise strike and the US goes to war with Japan. The next day Karl Haushoffer, the geopolitical theorist, and good friend of Rudolf Hess rushes to Hess’ residence.

Digressing for a moment, Haushoffer lived in Japan for several years just before WW 1 and even met the emperor. He is also a close friend and confidant of Hess, and his scientific and geopolitical advisor. His prewar book Geopolitics of the Pacific Ocean and his advice and direction were instrumental in Nazi relations with Japan. So, he has significant influence in this regime.

Haushofer tells Hess “We must meet with the Fuhrer immediately! It regards Japan’s entry into the war.” They discuss the situation at some length.

He and Hess meet with Hitler and Von Ribbentrop on the 10th. They discuss the matter of Japan and the US being at war. Von Ribbentrop is against declaring war on the US, arguing (historically as he did) that it would put Germany in a bind.

Haushoffer adds that the United States is outside Germany’s geopolitical realm of influence and should be kept from siding with Britain and Russia in the current war. Ribbentrop and Hess agree readily. He also notes to Hitler, who has made some minor rants about FDR in particular, that the US is overall an Aryan state with a population that includes millions of ethnic Germans as well as tens of millions who have German ancestry. He also notes that Japan will not go to war with the USSR or support German geopolitical goals.
Then Hess and Haushofer make an odd suggestion. “Fuhrer, what if we declare war on Japan? They have abrogated the non-aggression treaty they have with us.”

Ribbentrop adds, “We have no obligation to support their aggression, I have said this before.”
Hess then says “Declaring war on Japan solves two problems for us. First, it will keep the Americans out of this war we are fighting as we would be their allies against Japan. Second, it puts Britain in a position of supporting a war against us when we want peace with them while fighting a war against Japan as their ally. With Britain out of the war we face only Russia who we can defeat. We will have achieved our political dream of a united Aryan homeland.”
Ribbentrop adds, “It costs us nothing Herr Fuhrer. We need only make offers of support to America and not provoke them further. Japan offers us nothing as an ally.”

On December 11th, Hitler declares war on Japan.
 
One of the first things to die is Lend Lease. FDR can no longer justify selling or giving military equipment to Britain (outside its use in the Pacific) or to the USSR (totally). The Free French are totally dependent on British largesse for arms.

There is no way FDR could have justified continuation of the program.

Imagine some Republican in Congress on the floor. "Awr President is givin' our best military equipment to the British and Russians who awr fightin' the Germans who awr our Allies in awr war with Japan! I say we impeach the SOB!"

That pretty much ends Britain winning in Europe at all. For the USSR it means stalemate with the Germans at best, defeat at worst. While Lend Lease isn't really necessary for them to stalemate the Eastern Front without it they really are not going to be able to mount the large offensives that won them the war.

Then comes Germany's offer of assistance. For example, the Germans might offer the SS volunteer brigade Nederland and Dutch SS to help in the DEI. Several squadrons of Luftwaffe planes might be offered. Certainly some of the longer ranged aircraft could fly one-way to the US for example, or might fly to Iceland (under US control) and then continue to the US...

A few U-boats in the Pacific to help the US in their war effort. Maybe torpedo technology when the US really needs it... Would the US turn down refitting U-boats for use in the Pacific with US equipment? German raiders might make for the US too.

Without Lend-Lease the British in North Africa are in a tight spot. Sure, they could send Covenanters to make up for some of the lost US armor, and more Hurricanes or other fighters for loss of P-40's. But there will be no Torch landings...

Without the US Atlantic fleet Britain is going to have a hard time running convoys and Malta is all but screwed. The US provided much of the air cover (USS Wasp) for several resupply missions. Without US naval aircraft the FAA is reduced to near impotence with mediocre aircraft in miniscule numbers.

To what degree would Germany and the US cooperate? It certainly does complicate things greatly doesn't it?
 
One of the first things to die is Lend Lease. FDR can no longer justify selling or giving military equipment to Britain (outside its use in the Pacific) or to the USSR (totally). The Free French are totally dependent on British largesse for arms.

There is no way FDR could have justified continuation of the program.

Imagine some Republican in Congress on the floor. "Awr President is givin' our best military equipment to the British and Russians who awr fightin' the Germans who awr our Allies in awr war with Japan! I say we impeach the SOB!"

That pretty much ends Britain winning in Europe at all. For the USSR it means stalemate with the Germans at best, defeat at worst. While Lend Lease isn't really necessary for them to stalemate the Eastern Front without it they really are not going to be able to mount the large offensives that won them the war.

Then comes Germany's offer of assistance. For example, the Germans might offer the SS volunteer brigade Nederland and Dutch SS to help in the DEI. Several squadrons of Luftwaffe planes might be offered. Certainly some of the longer ranged aircraft could fly one-way to the US for example, or might fly to Iceland (under US control) and then continue to the US...

A few U-boats in the Pacific to help the US in their war effort. Maybe torpedo technology when the US really needs it... Would the US turn down refitting U-boats for use in the Pacific with US equipment? German raiders might make for the US too.

Without Lend-Lease the British in North Africa are in a tight spot. Sure, they could send Covenanters to make up for some of the lost US armor, and more Hurricanes or other fighters for loss of P-40's. But there will be no Torch landings...

Without the US Atlantic fleet Britain is going to have a hard time running convoys and Malta is all but screwed. The US provided much of the air cover (USS Wasp) for several resupply missions. Without US naval aircraft the FAA is reduced to near impotence with mediocre aircraft in miniscule numbers.

To what degree would Germany and the US cooperate? It certainly does complicate things greatly doesn't it?

Or maybe the desperate Free French and USSR ALSO declare war on Japan :D

And it becomes a war that nobody but the Americans are fighting, while the US continues to fund the Free French and USSR and UK :D
 
Or maybe the desperate Free French and USSR ALSO declare war on Japan :D

And it becomes a war that nobody but the Americans are fighting, while the US continues to fund the Free French and USSR and UK :D

Except the Soviets are in a bind. The Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow and they've just pulled most of their veteran forces out of the Far East and Siberia replacing them with raw recruits and crap equipment. That leaves them vulnerable to a Japanese offensive in Manchuria and the Far East. They have no worthwhile Pacific Fleet and doing so would cut off the most important US supply route: That from Alaska and the West Coast of the US. Historically, the Russians used only Russian flagged ships that the Japanese left alone to bring in Lend Lease that way. Declaring war ends that leaving just the Arctic route.
The Free French did declare on Japan, so that makes zero difference. The Vichy, still held a peace with Germany.

But, even if they did, the US would have to limit supplies to fighting Japan due to politics at home. The UK would get some specifically for the Pacific but nothing for use at home or in the Med. The loss of US Atlantic fleet assets and US production ASW vessels will make winning the U-boat war much harder for the British.
 
Does Hitler allow the Japanese to occupy Indochina? If the relationship between Germany and Japan continues just like OTL up until Pearl Harbor it would come across as Germany throwing Japan to the wolves for their attack on America. And while the Soviet Union wouldn't necessarily declare war on Japan they could take a more threatening posture that would allow FDR to excuse a continued flow of Lend-Lease.
 
Except the Soviets are in a bind. The Germans are on the doorstep of Moscow and they've just pulled most of their veteran forces out of the Far East and Siberia replacing them with raw recruits and crap equipment. That leaves them vulnerable to a Japanese offensive in Manchuria and the Far East. They have no worthwhile Pacific Fleet and doing so would cut off the most important US supply route: That from Alaska and the West Coast of the US. Historically, the Russians used only Russian flagged ships that the Japanese left alone to bring in Lend Lease that way. Declaring war ends that leaving just the Arctic route.
The Free French did declare on Japan, so that makes zero difference. The Vichy, still held a peace with Germany.

But, even if they did, the US would have to limit supplies to fighting Japan due to politics at home. The UK would get some specifically for the Pacific but nothing for use at home or in the Med. The loss of US Atlantic fleet assets and US production ASW vessels will make winning the U-boat war much harder for the British.

Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would be screwed in the upcoming Battle of Moscow, so it's more likely that they'll declare war on Japan, which is still much farther away.

And the US has to limit supplies to fighting Japan? Um, why do they need to place conditions on the aid? FDR doesn't want to, and what the press doesn't know can't hurt them.
 
Does Hitler allow the Japanese to occupy Indochina? If the relationship between Germany and Japan continues just like OTL up until Pearl Harbor it would come across as Germany throwing Japan to the wolves for their attack on America. And while the Soviet Union wouldn't necessarily declare war on Japan they could take a more threatening posture that would allow FDR to excuse a continued flow of Lend-Lease.

Like Germany didn't do that several times as it was... :cool:

As for Lend Lease, FDR still has to deal with Congress and getting re-elected. He likely isn't going to risk his re-election on supplying the Soviets...
 
Italy and all other Axis states grow very nervous and start trying to find ways to back out before Germany stabs them in the back when it becomes convenient. The German alliance in Europe falls into chaos and the German forces are distracted by having to invade some of their former allies.
 
US Congress dismisses Hitler's proclamations as bullshit and keep up the Lend Lease to Germany's enemies. Japan dismisses Germany as a perennial liar and starts working towards improving Soviet-Japanese relations. Nationalist China facepalms and remains reluctant to restart working with the Nazis, not unless Hitler never terminated Sino-German cooperation in favour of the Japanese. Italy and the remaining Axis start getting jittered by Hitler lying through his teeth again and start rapprochement with the Allies in secret.

Stalin? Stalin laughs, laughs, and laughs some more.

To put it shortly, Hitler cannot be trusted to keep promises, and this one just adds to his already-considerable nose growth. It was not as if Japan benefited in any considerable way to the German-Japanese alliance OTL (it was not like Japan had any help taking the colonies in SEA from the Germans beyond being a coincidental distraction), and vice versa. Here, it just makes Japan the first fall guy, before the US turns its full force on Germany too. The only downside is that Stalin might be able to turn more of Europe red, but the Soviets would have to grind more in the absence of American forces in Western Europe.
 
Except in the US there was considerable opposition to involvement in Europe and the war there. For example:

Up through June 1940, no material purchased by the Commonwealth could be moved to Canada directly. It was moved / flown to the border with Canada then literally physically pushed across.
In order to rearm Britain after the debacle in France FDR's government sold about 600,000 30.06 Enfield rifles and 800 French / US 75mm field pieces, among other equipment to private companies with the understanding it would be resold to Britain.

The Destroyers for Bases deal in September 1940 was decried by FDR's opponent for President, Wendell Wilke as "the most dictatorial action ever taken by any President." It was widely regarded by legal experts as a blatant violation of international law. FDR's attorney general, Jackson's legal ruling on it was based on the placement of a comma (great shades of what the meaning of "is" is...)

FDR wasn't being neutral by the end of 1940. He had sided with Britain. Read what Republican senators were saying about Lend Lease.

It was denounced as "a blank check." Senator Taft of Ohio called it Lending war equipment is a good deal like lending chewing gum..."

There was substantial and very bitter opposition to Lend Lease historically. It amounted to almost an unofficial declaration of war on Germany.

By Germany siding with the US against Japan they short circuit the US move to enter the war against them. In the long run, it might still happen but not before Japan is defeated. That gives Germany time to win their war and for a very real possibility of WW 3 to occur in the 1950's.

Oh, by the by, the reason I came up with this scenario is I was challenged more than once by the usual, "This is how Germany could win" dunderheads when their pet scenario was shot to pieces with "Well then, can you do better / come up with a way it could happen..." and in the end this is the single scenario that I could find that actually might work.
 
Except in the US there was considerable opposition to involvement in Europe and the war there. For example:

Up through June 1940, no material purchased by the Commonwealth could be moved to Canada directly. It was moved / flown to the border with Canada then literally physically pushed across.
In order to rearm Britain after the debacle in France FDR's government sold about 600,000 30.06 Enfield rifles and 800 French / US 75mm field pieces, among other equipment to private companies with the understanding it would be resold to Britain.

The Destroyers for Bases deal in September 1940 was decried by FDR's opponent for President, Wendell Wilke as "the most dictatorial action ever taken by any President." It was widely regarded by legal experts as a blatant violation of international law. FDR's attorney general, Jackson's legal ruling on it was based on the placement of a comma (great shades of what the meaning of "is" is...)

FDR wasn't being neutral by the end of 1940. He had sided with Britain. Read what Republican senators were saying about Lend Lease.

It was denounced as "a blank check." Senator Taft of Ohio called it Lending war equipment is a good deal like lending chewing gum..."

There was substantial and very bitter opposition to Lend Lease historically. It amounted to almost an unofficial declaration of war on Germany.

By Germany siding with the US against Japan they short circuit the US move to enter the war against them. In the long run, it might still happen but not before Japan is defeated. That gives Germany time to win their war and for a very real possibility of WW 3 to occur in the 1950's.

Oh, by the by, the reason I came up with this scenario is I was challenged more than once by the usual, "This is how Germany could win" dunderheads when their pet scenario was shot to pieces with "Well then, can you do better / come up with a way it could happen..." and in the end this is the single scenario that I could find that actually might work.

Well, how would Congress care? An alliance works with an agreement from both sides. This is just a one-way declaration, one which the US can simply go 'lol, no' and maintain neutrality or worse. Of course, just keeping the US neutral is already fair enough. Hitler really did not need to go too far to appease American opinion, which you did point out with the U-boat restraint. Sadly, he regularly did go too far (the opposite direction) just by maintaining his delusions of German racial superiority and generally being a total asshat to everyone but Mussolini, and as long as his Kriegsmarine can't stand toe to toe with Britain, he can't hope to knock them out of the war.

Also Germany was up against the USSR, however weakened they are by the lack of Lend Lease. The fundamental issue of fighting against Stalin's top commanders, Winter and Mud, still stuck badly, and German overengineering of their weapons only made the problems far worse. And they were stuck at a very long line of supply, one riddled with partisans ready to blow the tracks off the next supply train.

In essence, Nazi Germany had immense problems with war-making capabilities. That it managed to seize so much IOTL might as well have been ASBs tossing idiot balls at the Allies and rigging Hitler's chance dices multiple times. There is still the potential for more, that would require more fundamental changes (remove Hitler, remove Nazis, etc). Your scenario would keep the Third Reich lasting a bit longer, maybe as far as 1946-7 if they luck out more, but not any further. They certainly won't get any peace in between.

EDIT: Anyway, if you want a longer surviving Nazi TL, you can look at Tom Colton's Weber's Germany. It removes Hitler as a 'martyr' in the Munich Putsch, with his replacement, Weber, conscious enough of Germany's weaknesses to get cheap Versailles-style peace with each of the Allied nations. This ironically puts the Allies and Soviets in a stronger position than OTL as well, but it would give Germany some reprieve to restock and rearm before the inevitable demise.
 
Last edited:

LordKalvert

Banned
Does Hitler allow the Japanese to occupy Indochina? If the relationship between Germany and Japan continues just like OTL up until Pearl Harbor it would come across as Germany throwing Japan to the wolves for their attack on America. And while the Soviet Union wouldn't necessarily declare war on Japan they could take a more threatening posture that would allow FDR to excuse a continued flow of Lend-Lease.

It's not like Hitler would double cross an ally. He never would think of attacking the Soviets after they partitioned Poland. Never would cross his mind, I tell you

It is an interesting departure. If it plays well with the American people, then FDR is going to get dragged along. He won't like it- but that's the way democracies work
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Like Germany didn't do that several times as it was... :cool:

As for Lend Lease, FDR still has to deal with Congress and getting re-elected. He likely isn't going to risk his re-election on supplying the Soviets...


FDR doesn't face reelection until 1944 so he's free on that score. Congress faces the midterms in Nov. 1942- that's less than a year away. They are going with popular opinion on this one
 
It's not like Hitler would double cross an ally. He never would think of attacking the Soviets after they partitioned Poland. Never would cross his mind, I tell you

It is an interesting departure. If it plays well with the American people, then FDR is going to get dragged along. He won't like it- but that's the way democracies work

Well, I don't think this would have any tangible effect on the American people. They generally just want to stay out of the war before Pearl Harbor, though they were pretty pro-British and pro-French anyway. Having Germany side with them isn't really going to win Hitler any brownie points. It's not like he was going to be able to help them, and there's plenty of lobbying within the US, particularly refugees that had fled Germany and the occupied territories, that could out him as an untrustworthy hack.
 
Here's an idea: Instead of FDR, have the US be led by a far-right loony like George Van Horn Moseley or William Dudley Pelley.:eek:
 
Top