Hitler doesn't Declare war on America in support of Japan

[Shadow Master]

Let me explain it again...

Germany and the US have been fighting an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic since the creation of the Neutrality Patrol in 1940.

After 7 Dec 41 the US and UK now allies fighting Japan and the US will move to supply her ally in that war.

Germany cannot allow those supplies to reach the UK because there isn't some Cosmic Umpire making sure said supplies will only be used against Japan.

Germany will sink US supply ships because it must and, when it does, the US and Germany will be at war.

It's not a matter of IF there will be a war between the US and Germany, it's a matter of WHEN there will be a war between the US and Germany. The war was now a foregone conclusion because of the US-UK alliance against Japan, so Hitler decided to begin the war at a time of his choosing. Every week he delayed would have meant the US was stronger and more ready. By striking as soon as he did, he struck the US when it was as weak as it would ever be in the war Germany could not prevent.

Do you understand now?

Ubderstood your points first time round, but had to attend class and couldn't use mini during the lecture.

Although I understand your points, I do not happen to agree with your conclusions.

The US isn't just FDR, and if it had been up to FDR alone then the US would have been in a shooting war much earlier, right? Therefore, as historically the US didn't DoW Germany until after Germanys DoW, it obviously was not up to FDR (and those who also clearly saw that war with Germany was surely needed), hence the issue is not as clear cut as your points would seem to indicate.

In fact, I believe that you are overlooking the entire possibiliy that conflict with Germany could be avoided if the US public is shown that a diplomatic solution is possible. Germany asks the US to mediate in the UK/German war, in order to bring about an immediate cease-fire. This would then be followed up quickly with negotiations starting up for the withdrawl of both the UK/German naval blockades.

If the US public is faced with an offer of co-belligerence with Germany against Japan, well, lets just say that FDR is going to have his work cut out for him attempting to get a DoW. I don't see how anyone can seriously fail to see that, and so lets move forward from there.

If Uncle Sam starts wearing the hat of mediator to bring about an end to the UK/German war (which will benifit both), then the precedent will have been set for keeping that hat firmly perched upon his head till Germanys self imposed troubles in the west are successfully resolved.

If this happens, then we might just see a negotiated peace in the west, which would confirm Stalin's suspicions, that leaves Germany free to knock herself out against the USSR.

Naturally, I remain convinced that Germany is doomed in fighting the USSR while suffering a trade embargo and everything else. Not to sure it even has a chance without these.

Well, it's time for my next class.

 

[steven]

I was toying around with a timeline based on this, but realised it would be hard work and require a bunch of research before I could reasonably start.
The general outline I had in my mind, was that when then Japanese attack, Hitler immediately denounces the attack and offers the US any help he can in defending against the Japanese. He tasks Goebels to do everything he can to get US public opinion thinking that Germany is trying to help in the fight against Japan. In a sign of good will he calls a 48 hour cease fire in the war with Britain and asks for Britain to comply. The cease fire could hold as not a lot was happening at the time. There was the battle of the Atlantic where Germany could easily hide for 2 days, the bombing campaign was in a relative lull, the War in North African had entered a 2 day lull and the battle of the Med.
I would guess after the 48 hours, Churchill go back to fighting, but in mid to late Dec 41 the British suffered some bad losses in the Med and coming up to Christmas I think there would be a lot of public pressure to accept a German cease fire and to try and negotiate a peace.
With this going on I think FDR would have no chance of getting a DOW against Germany when they are offering to help in the US war and attempting to make peace with Britain.

 

[Flubber]

Although I understand your points, I do not happen to agree with your conclusions.

That's because you don't understand the situation in December of 1941 an because you're ignoring the diplomatic record of the Nazi regime since 1933. The Nazi regime no longer has the "cred" to make such an offer even remotely worth considering.

The US isn't just FDR, and if it had been up to FDR alone then the US would have been in a shooting war much earlier, right? Therefore, as historically the US didn't DoW Germany until after Germanys DoW, it obviously was not up to FDR (and those who also clearly saw that war with Germany was surely needed), hence the issue is not as clear cut as your points would seem to indicate.

Only Congress can declare war so it was never "up to FDR" and, when German subs begin sinking US ships directly supplying a US ally in the war against Japan, it won't need to be up to FDR either.

In fact, I believe that you are overlooking the entire possibiliy that conflict with Germany could be avoided if the US public is shown that a diplomatic solution is possible.

You cannot be serious. Are you that unaware of the situation in late 1941? Or of the events in the decade proceeding it?

You need to examine the situation through the eyes of the politicians of the period. You also need to remember the events which, although they are decades in the past to us, occurred just a few years ago to the politicians of the period. By late 1941, even people with room temperature IQs had finally realized that the Nazi regime could not be trusted and would not negotiate anything in good faith with anybody.

The people of December 1941 have watched the Nazi regime negotiate and then break any number of domestic and foreign agreements all the while acting like completely untrustworthy assholes for over 8 years. Time an tine again, the Nazi regime had been negotiated with, engaged, an appeased by groups ans governments foreign an domestic only to watch the Nazis to renege, ignore, or violate treaties and agreements as soon as they chose to do so.

Since 1933, there had been the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, the German-Polish Non-Aggression pact, the Night of the Long Knives, Abyssinia, the Spanish Civil War, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Rhineland, Anschluss, Munich, the Sudetenland, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Molotov-Ribbentrop, the invasion of Poland, the invasion of Norway, the invasion of the Low Countries, the attack on Russia, and dozens of others I could list. In all of them, the Nazis regime repeatedly proved itself to be actively treacherous to those who chose to deal with it.

After the record of that last eight years, only someone who was criminally stupid would believe any offer Hitler made or would believe that the Nazis would negotiate anything in good faith. Hitler's denunciation of Pearl Harbor, his offer of a ceasefire with the UK, and his request for US mediation would be seen for what it is; a completely cynical attempt to gain some geopolitical advantage which only a moron would fall for.

There is no possibility of a diplomatic solution because one of the parties who would be involved in that potential solution has shown the world for nearly a decade that they cannot be trusted.

This is a question of the Nazi regime's abysmal record of diplomatic trustworthiness, not a question of some gambit in a game of Diplomacy.

 

[krull1m]

If Uncle Sam starts wearing the hat of mediator to bring about an end to the UK/German war (which will benifit both), then the precedent will have been set for keeping that hat firmly perched upon his head till Germanys self imposed troubles in the west are successfully resolved.

This alone would not happen. With Churchill in charge there is no chance of the UK agreeing to a ceasefire with the Nazis. To do so would be a total abandonment of their mainland European allies who were under occupation. The ONLY way a treaty might be agreeable is if it contained the requirement for the Nazis to withdraw without delay back to their own borders.

Any suggestion of a deal without this proviso would be rejected not only by the British, but by those Europeans who had escaped as well as a large part of the American population itself. It would (rightly) be seen as a total betrayal of American principles towards freedom and democracy.

And in support of what Flubber said earlier, the initial offer itself would be laughed at. Lets not forget that Japan made similar offers of peace etc towards the US and others, and then broke them. it wouldnt take a genius long to look at the two nations, both of which have launched unprovoked wars of agression against their neighbours, both of which have proven their (lack) of trustworthyness, and both of which therefore represent a clear and credible danger that must be stopped.

Framed that way I cant see the majority of the US public agreeing to force a peace deal that betrays their oldest and closest allies!!

 

[Shadow Master]

That's because you don't understand the situation in December of 1941 an because you're ignoring the diplomatic record of the Nazi regime since 1933. The Nazi regime no longer has the "cred" to make such an offer even remotely worth considering.

Only Congress can declare war so it was never "up to FDR" and, when German subs begin sinking US ships directly supplying a US ally in the war against Japan, it won't need to be up to FDR either.

You cannot be serious. Are you that unaware of the situation in late 1941? Or of the events in the decade proceeding it?

You need to examine the situation through the eyes of the politicians of the period. You also need to remember the events which, although they are decades in the past to us, occurred just a few years ago to the politicians of the period. By late 1941, even people with room temperature IQs had finally realized that the Nazi regime could not be trusted and would not negotiate anything in good faith with anybody.

The people of December 1941 have watched the Nazi regime negotiate and then break any number of domestic and foreign agreements all the while acting like completely untrustworthy assholes for over 8 years. Time an tine again, the Nazi regime had been negotiated with, engaged, an appeased by groups ans governments foreign an domestic only to watch the Nazis to renege, ignore, or violate treaties and agreements as soon as they chose to do so.

Since 1933, there had been the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Enabling Act, the German-Polish Non-Aggression pact, the Night of the Long Knives, Abyssinia, the Spanish Civil War, the Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the Rhineland, Anschluss, Munich, the Sudetenland, the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Molotov-Ribbentrop, the invasion of Poland, the invasion of Norway, the invasion of the Low Countries, the attack on Russia, and dozens of others I could list. In all of them, the Nazis regime repeatedly proved itself to be actively treacherous to those who chose to deal with it.

After the record of that last eight years, only someone who was criminally stupid would believe any offer Hitler made or would believe that the Nazis would negotiate anything in good faith. Hitler's denunciation of Pearl Harbor, his offer of a ceasefire with the UK, and his request for US mediation would be seen for what it is; a completely cynical attempt to gain some geopolitical advantage which only a moron would fall for.

There is no possibility of a diplomatic solution because one of the parties who would be involved in that potential solution has shown the world for nearly a decade that they cannot be trusted.

This is a question of the Nazi regime's abysmal record of diplomatic trustworthiness, not a question of some gambit in a game of Diplomacy.

I know that I have no first hand knowledge of these years, as I was not born till 20-30 years later. However, I do remember all the conversations I had with my Grandfather and his borthers (my Great Uncles?) who actually served in WWII. IIRC there was at that time in the USA strong feelings of 'never again' that were only made moot via dec 7th. FDR's illeagle use of american military forces was not publicly know at the time and no one (amoung the general population, that is) would be all that willing to fight another war in Europe against Germany, if Germany were to have just denounced and DoW'ed Japan.

According too my grandfather and his brothers, there was strong feeling of betrayal in the USA by the harsh terms that Briton and France demanded at the end of WWI (as opposed to wilson's 14 points), and that Germany had only been seeking to reclaim territories that had been stolen from her up until the UK and France DoW'ed Germany over demanding (and then invading) her territority back from Poland. You might try reading up on the end of WWI if you doubt this. Because of the widespread perception in the US that a second war in Europe was assured by the treaty of Versailes's harsh and unprecedented terms, the US never signed it!

If you have some firsthand info or reliable sources to offer some counter point, I would not mind reading them.

This alone would not happen. With Churchill in charge there is no chance of the UK agreeing to a ceasefire with the Nazis. To do so would be a total abandonment of their mainland European allies who were under occupation. The ONLY way a treaty might be agreeable is if it contained the requirement for the Nazis to withdraw without delay back to their own borders.

Any suggestion of a deal without this proviso would be rejected not only by the British, but by those Europeans who had escaped as well as a large part of the American population itself. It would (rightly) be seen as a total betrayal of American principles towards freedom and democracy.

And in support of what Flubber said earlier, the initial offer itself would be laughed at. Lets not forget that Japan made similar offers of peace etc towards the US and others, and then broke them. it wouldnt take a genius long to look at the two nations, both of which have launched unprovoked wars of agression against their neighbours, both of which have proven their (lack) of trustworthyness, and both of which therefore represent a clear and credible danger that must be stopped.

Framed that way I cant see the majority of the US public agreeing to force a peace deal that betrays their oldest and closest allies!!

I have to point out that we seem to be envisioning to very different positions here. Your post seems to envision the UK and Germany making a permant peace treaty without the Germany forces being withdrawn from foriegn soil as part of my idea, whereas I envisioned the US being invited to assume the role of mediator of a "Just and lasting peace" which the USA would insist upon as a condition for accepting. And as for the UK, exactly how are they going to insist upon ANY demands when they are in no position to do so?

The US, after all, is having her trade with Germany illeaglly obstructed by the RN (for the second time), and the knowledge that the UK blockade of Germany is the real reason for the German submarine blockade of the UK.

Crude, class time...more later.

 

[zoomar]

I know that I have no first hand knowledge of these years, as I was not born till 20-30 years later. However, I do remember all the conversations I had with my Grandfather and his borthers (my Great Uncles?) who actually served in WWII. IIRC there was at that time in the USA strong feelings of 'never again' that were only made moot via dec 7th. FDR's illeagle use of american military forces was not publicly know at the time and no one (amoung the general population, that is) would be all that willing to fight another war in Europe against Germany, if Germany were to have just denounced and DoW'ed Japan.

I have to say I believe you understand US popular sentiment regarding involvment in another European War better than Flubber. One only needs to read about the period to have a good understanding that there was little sentiment in Congress for a declaration of war against Germany in 1939-41 despite Nazi policies, Nazi war crimes, Nazi lies, and the sinking of US ships by German submarines. True, FDR wanted to enter the war and there were segments of the population and Democratic party who saw this as necessary, but this view was not mirrored in congress.

Had Germany simply stated a benign neutrality in the US-Japanese war (far less than a Nazi declaration of war against Japan, which is too improbable to contemplate), I believe it would have been politically impossible for FDR to go to congress and ask for a declaration of war against Germany and Italy after the Paciicf War started - unless Germany herself declared war or provided the causus belli. Reasons for this:

-Japan First - racist kill the little yellow bastards attitude
-Residual mistrust of Britain and still strong isolationist sentiment in Congress
-anti-communism in Congress and among the public. Why ally with the USSR unless we have to?

Now the likelihood that Hitler would not support Japan is almost nil, but this is about a "what if". And, the answer to his is not so obvious as the "war with Germany was inevitable" crowd believes.

 

[krull1m]

I have to point out that we seem to be envisioning to very different positions here. Your post seems to envision the UK and Germany making a permant peace treaty without the Germany forces being withdrawn from foriegn soil as part of my idea, whereas I envisioned the US being invited to assume the role of mediator of a "Just and lasting peace" which the USA would insist upon as a condition for accepting. And as for the UK, exactly how are they going to insist upon ANY demands when they are in no position to do so?

The US, after all, is having her trade with Germany illeaglly obstructed by the RN (for the second time), and the knowledge that the UK blockade of Germany is the real reason for the German submarine blockade of the UK.

Crude, class time...more later.

So what exactly are you proposing? Any "just and lasting peace" without the provision for the removal of nazi forces from all illegally occupied lands would not be acceptable to anyone, not the UK, not France, and chances are not the citizens of the US either. And there is no way in hell that Hitler would pack up and order his forces home, it defeated the entire purpose of starting the war.
SO the situation you are left with is the Nazis refusing to leave, the Europeans refusing to agree to anything unless they do leave and the US sat in the middle looking stupid for getting involved in that fashion.

Britain was holding out, yes there were shortages and problems but it was not all one sided and other than the blockade there was nothing that the nazis could do to force the sitution to a resolution.

Fact is that there is absolutely no reason for the US to accept any kind of deal with the Nazis. At best it gets them access to a submarine fleet, but one that couldnt be used for many months as that would mean the UK would be able to ship into the country without any problems.
On the flip side the US stands to lose a lot more. Britain, Australia and the Netherlands had real genuine interests in Asia, this made it practical for the US to ally with them. Any suggestion of a deal with the nazis would lead to absolutely no co-operation from any of these nations

 

[TimPhillips]

It is an interesting question.
My understanding is that Hitler declared war against the US in the belief that a) the US would declare war anyways b) that the Japanese would reciprocate by declaring war against the USSR and thus opening a 2nd front against the Soviets.

Germany's declaration definitely made things easier for FDR.
With the US engaged in a - at that time - losing series of battles in the Pacific, I'm not positive that FDR would have opted to open another front himself.

FDR was often a cagey politician. Much as he might want to directly support Great Britain....I'm not positive he would have managed to overcome the belief that he was "diluting" the US's response to Japan's attack by opening war against Germany.

I believe it is possible that if Hitler had correctly read Japan's intentions and not declared war himself...it may have been months if not a year or more before events led the US into actively joining the fighting in Europe.

That said, I'm not positive that the final outcomes would have changed any.
If the UK could keep the convoys moving....they would have stayed in the fight. The only terms Churchill was interested in were those of Germany's surrender. The back of the Wehrmacht was broken by the Soviets, who were faced with a battle of extermination. The strategic air offensive and landings in France did deplete and split the German response, but I do not believe it was "critical" in that the Soviets wouldn't have beaten the Wehrmact into the ground anyway.

What may well have happened is the US would be delayed entering the war in Europe...which means that more of the US effort is directed into the Pacific...which delays D-Day...which means that the Soviets push much further west they chase the Germans.

Tim

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

The problem with assuming that Germany tries to placate the US after Pearl Harbor in an effort to divide up the Anglosphere is that it relies on Hitler doing things that were absolutely counter to everything else he had done up to that point.

Try to look at things from his point of view(as difficult as that sounds), he had made aggressive moves leading up to and during the war until that point, many of which had been counter to the advice of his own generals. As a result of this, the French had been humiliated, the Low countries were firmly in his grasp, Poland was well on its way to filling its purpose as part of lebensraum, the Brits had been kicked off the continent and were looking ever more precarious in North Africa, and the Soviets were getting crushed under the might of the blitz. Why not declare war on the US? They had already started diluting their own racial purity by coexisting with racially inferior undermensch, they most certainly couldn't do anything to stop the might of the racially superior Reich.


Hitler did not want to play diplomatic games anymore, he wanted to conquer the shit out of all that stood in his way.

Even if he did try to walk that fine line, it wouldn't have changed much. Congress was getting increasingly antsy about the Nazis, much of the mobilization for the war at the time had already been kicked off before the war had started, and much of that was in direct response to German successes on the battlefield, not the Japanese. If Hitler had tried to extend feelers for some form of agreement with the US, FDR and his supporters could have stood before congress and said "we have seen similar offers of friendship before, at Munich, toward the Soviets, are we to be fooled by the German ruse as well?" and they would have been right.

What's more is that the success of Pearl Harbor and the fact that the Japanese had managed to string along diplomatic discussions while their carriers were sailing for Hawaii would have actually only served to make the case against peace with Germany. The American people did not wish to fall victim to yet another surprise attack. Just because the Germans had no ability to pull it off didn't change the fact that the public feared it anyway.

 

[iddt3]

Basically, here's why War is going to happen anyway.
1. If Hitler offers terms to England, at best it will be a cease fire in place, and perhaps a withdrawal from North Africa, whereas minimum acceptable terms for the English are going to be withdrawal from France and the Low Countries.
2. Churchill doesn't trust Hitler and is unlikely to accept even relatively generous terms.
3. While the US populace at large may be unenthusiastic about the war against Germany, none of them trust Hitler, this feeling is even stronger in congress. Hitler's offer isn't going to impress them.
4. If the US and Germany are not at War, and The US and Britain are allied against Japan, the US is going to open the full floodgates of lendlease onto Britain, much of which will end up being used against the Germans who would be unable to respond.
So what happens if Hitler offers a ceasefire, or even a DoW against Japan? From the German perspective, the UK starts getting even more aid, aggressively escorted by the US Navy, which Germany can't touch, which makes the war against Britain unwinnable. Either that or Germany carries on semi unrestricted submarine warfare, triggering the war in relatively short order. Hitler made a lot of bad choices, but DoWing America. given the circumstances, wasn't really one of them.

 

[Shadow Master]

What I have in mind is that a German DoW against Japan changes things diplomatically.

Basically, Germany sides with the USA (where there is a MAJORITY public opinion AGAINST a second war on Germany),and this pretty well removes any chance of a US DoW on germany any time soon. We have to agree on that much or just agree to disagree. That said, Germany once again reiterates that her retaking her territories stollen at Versailles is just. Makeing war against nations that declared war on her (or were just needed to bring to battle her emenies), and that, if the USA could negotiate an immediate "Cease-Fire" between the Germans and UK then peace talks could begin.

Now, no peace treaty is going to be negotiated that both sides do not agree to (no second Versailles), and this would mean:
1) An immediate end to fighting between UK/German forces in all theaters.
2) An immediate end to both the UK/German naval blockades.
3) Initial talks set up to negotiate withdrawl of German forces from all non-German lands (Pre WWI German, that is), in exchange for treaties that guarentee Germanys right to international trade (no more ability of the RN to interfeer in any way with German trade), and these treaties would have to be signed by all occupied countries + the USA BEFORE the German forces are withdrawn from such nations.

It would also be pointed out that the UK cannot really claim "The Germans are coming, the Germans are coming", as they are totally involved in a war vs the USSR. Keeping in mind that it was France and the UK DoW'ed Germany, that Germany allowed the evacuation at dunkirk, and only began attacks upon Briton when she refused to make peace.

In other words, Briton cannot claim she is forced to fight Germany for her own (nor her allies) survival, but instead she is fighting to keep Germany weak (which is, after all, the sinple truth), and in such a situation the burden is clearly not but rather upon the UK to answer for HER actions!

So basically, Germany goes all out to make it clear to everyone that she is not trying to fight the USA, that the first WW allies caused the situation in which the USA was drawn into that war, and the same 'ally' is now trying to force the USA into yet another war, not for America's sake, but for the sake of the same ally who betrayed the "Just and lasting Peace" the USA wisely tried to get at the end of the last war, and this not even for her survival, but just her pride!!!

Basically, I think that people need to remember just what had really happened in WWI, and you can see that (fortunately for us), had Nazi Germany been politiclly astute, we could have seen a far different WWII than historically.

Just so people understand me, I would not have wanted a Nazi victory in WWII, nor do I question the wisdom of FDR in realizing the threat that Nazi Germany posed and wanting to quash it ASAP, I just disagree that things were as cut and dried as some people seem to think.

Any thoughts?

 

[KyleB]

As far as no one trusting Germany: Who, in their right minds, still trusted Germany in late 1941?

Finland, Spain, Sweden...

The idea of Germany backstabbing Japan does constitute an awesome act of WW2 trolling, however. But I don't think it would help Germany at all. It wouldn't stop them from getting invaded.

 

[Shadow Master]

Basically, here's why War is going to happen anyway.
1. If Hitler offers terms to England, at best it will be a cease fire in place, and perhaps a withdrawal from North Africa, whereas minimum acceptable terms for the English are going to be withdrawal from France and the Low Countries.
2. Churchill doesn't trust Hitler and is unlikely to accept even relatively generous terms.
3. While the US populace at large may be unenthusiastic about the war against Germany, none of them trust Hitler, this feeling is even stronger in congress. Hitler's offer isn't going to impress them.
4. If the US and Germany are not at War, and The US and Britain are allied against Japan, the US is going to open the full floodgates of lendlease onto Britain, much of which will end up being used against the Germans who would be unable to respond.
So what happens if Hitler offers a ceasefire, or even a DoW against Japan? From the German perspective, the UK starts getting even more aid, aggressively escorted by the US Navy, which Germany can't touch, which makes the war against Britain unwinnable. Either that or Germany carries on semi unrestricted submarine warfare, triggering the war in relatively short order. Hitler made a lot of bad choices, but DoWing America. given the circumstances, wasn't really one of them.

Sorry, spent so long on my above post almost didn't see this one.

Need to point out:
Germany is not offering terms to the UK.
Germany is proposing that the US mediate (and bring pressure to bear) the continued war between the UK/Germany.

It doesn't matter what Mr Churchill wants, it matters what the USA is willing to accept.
No UK agreement to end the war with Germany, No US trade with UK?
US convoys sailing to both Germany and the UK (which makes the UK war on Germany unwinable)?

See my above post about withdrals from occupied nations for further info.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Shadow Master, I reviewed the following passage and hardly know where to begin pointing out your historical/factual errors.

It would also be pointed out that the UK cannot really claim "The Germans are coming, the Germans are coming", as they are totally involved in a war vs the USSR. Keeping in mind that it was France and the UK DoW'ed Germany, that Germany allowed the evacuation at dunkirk, and only began attacks upon Briton when she refused to make peace.

In other words, Briton cannot claim she is forced to fight Germany for her own (nor her allies) survival, but instead she is fighting to keep Germany weak (which is, after all, the sinple truth), and in such a situation the burden is clearly not but rather upon the UK to answer for HER actions!​

As for the US cutting off trade to the British(and Commonwealth?) while actively assisting Germany economically...never happen.

 

[amphibulous]

So what exactly are you proposing? Any "just and lasting peace" without the provision for the removal of nazi forces from all illegally occupied lands would not be acceptable to anyone, not the UK, not France, and chances are not the citizens of the US either.

If German occupation of Europe was unacceptable to USians then they would have declared war in 1939 or 1940. They didn't. This is reality; there is no room for another opinion about it ***because it actually happened.***

As for a war breaking out in the Atlantic over supplies to the UK, it's more than likely that Congress simply wouldn't have allowed this. FDR had been trying to get the US into the war that way long enough and it hadn't worked. More sinkings of US ships were more likely to harm him than the Germans.

 

[amphibulous]

Has anyone mentioned the New Gingrich novel yet???

 

[krull1m]

If German occupation of Europe was unacceptable to USians then they would have declared war in 1939 or 1940. They didn't. This is reality; there is no room for another opinion about it ***because it actually happened.***

As for a war breaking out in the Atlantic over supplies to the UK, it's more than likely that Congress simply wouldn't have allowed this. FDR had been trying to get the US into the war that way long enough and it hadn't worked. More sinkings of US ships were more likely to harm him than the Germans.

Its one thing to not get involved in a war when you think that your old allies can handle themselves, its something else to in anyway force a peace settlement or ceasefire that mandates those same allies effectively cease to exist.

To me that is what the OP is suggesting, that the US involvement forces the British to back down and allow the situation in Europe to remain as it was in 1941, with much of it being under a hostile occupation.
There was already growing support for the US to do something about the situation.

Hitler would simply not accept a withdrawal under any deal, doing so would be a major slap in the face for a nation obsessed with its image. And a more "politically astute" nazi leadership would not have been stupid enough to start a war with almost the entirety of europe at the same time.

 

[krull1m]

In other words, Briton cannot claim she is forced to fight Germany for her own (nor her allies) survival, but instead she is fighting to keep Germany weak (which is, after all, the sinple truth), and in such a situation the burden is clearly not but rather upon the UK to answer for HER actions!

So basically, Germany goes all out to make it clear to everyone that she is not trying to fight the USA, that the first WW allies caused the situation in which the USA was drawn into that war, and the same 'ally' is now trying to force the USA into yet another war, not for America's sake, but for the sake of the same ally who betrayed the "Just and lasting Peace" the USA wisely tried to get at the end of the last war, and this not even for her survival, but just her pride!!!

There are lot of things in this post that I disagree with, but the key one is this.
Britain was not fighting just to keep Germany weak at all, it declared war in defence of a nation treacherously attacked by the Nazis, and other nations that had been invaded without any provocation.
Britain had no need to defend their actions, they may have been the one who delcared war but they were most certainly NOT the ones to start it. Everyone knew that and everyone knows that Nazi germany can not be trusted at all.

What I do not understand, and what I find more than a little disturbing, is your line "but for the sake of the same ally who betrayed the "Just and lasting Peace". Are you really trying to claim that Britain betrayed the peace?? That their actions in response to unprovoked nazi agression were wrong? That the Nazis were actually RIGHT and justified to start the war?

 

[krull1m]

Sorry, spent so long on my above post almost didn't see this one.

Need to point out:
Germany is not offering terms to the UK.
Germany is proposing that the US mediate (and bring pressure to bear) the continued war between the UK/Germany.

This makes no sense, you say Hitler wont offer any terms to the UK, but that the US will mediate..... By definition that means that Hitler MUST offer some kind of deal to the British or else what is there to mediate?

Your suggestion would be nothing more than this:
US: Hitler wants peace of some kind
Brits: No way
US: he hasnt offered any terms
Brits: Typical, no deal, ever!
US: He looks to be staying put within occupied Europe
Brits: Tell him to get stuffed
US: And presumably any peace deal agreed through us would be required to state that too..... meaning we effectively give away other peoples land
Brits: Tell him to go to hell
US: Actually, he is a lying 2-faced lunatic on a power trip, we agree, no deal, have some more stuff
Brits: Ta very much, have a cuppa

 

[Deckhand]

3) Initial talks set up to negotiate withdrawl of German forces from all non-German lands (Pre WWI German, that is), in exchange for treaties that guarentee Germanys right to international trade (no more ability of the RN to interfeer in any way with German trade), and these treaties would have to be signed by all occupied countries + the USA BEFORE the German forces are withdrawn from such nations.

So germany is going to offer to withdraw from Bohemia and Congress poland? I find that extremely unlikely.