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

[amphibulous]

Originally Posted by Flubber
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.

The reason why the above fails is implicit in the facts you've listed - but haven't understood. I.e. the US is ALREADY supplying the British with weapons - to use against the Germans! And that hasn't led to war.

(Also your belief that the majority supplies for the British forces in the Pacific theatre would travel via Britain instead of directly to the places they were needed is rather mad. But that's a minor point compared to the above. Go google "Lend Lease".)

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Shadow Master, the US agreed to the terms at Versailles, rather than the 14 points, so let's not waste time on the pretense that the US had no idea of the terms being imposed.

One reason was that Germany was in no position to complain after the terms Germany tried to force on Russia and Romania, not to mention destroying the French coal and iron mines even while pleading not to be stripped of places like the Saar. When word of the mass flooding arrived even Wilson knew all hope of punitive terms was gone.


Then we have such false claims as Germany allowing the Dunkirk evacuation , FDR's illegal use of the military and that Germany didn't attack Great Britain until after London refused to surrender...pardon, make peace.

 

[Sean Mulligan]

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.

The Nazis had already gone beyond regaining lost territory when it bullied the Austrian government into allowing Germany to annex Austria, and violated the Munich Agreement invading what was left of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France warned Germany that they would declare war if Germany attacked Poland, but Hitler ignored them. The Germans didn't only retake Polish land, they tried to destroy the Polish nation.

 

[jmc247]

FDR gave a two billion dollar loan to Stalin everyone knew the Soviets wouldn't pay back just a few days before Pearl Harbor. Hitler could rationalize the US helping the UK, but the US doing the same for Stalin basically told him that the US was dead set on war with Germany and nothing was going to stop it at that point. FDR also really really liked Stalin and trusted him much more then the Cold War press will ever admit to.

At best Hitler speed up the official DoW by a few months. The loans to the USSR and Lend Lease alone would have guarenteed a German defeat even without a DoW which was virtually inevitable to happen anyway.

Have FDR die in 1940 and put an isolationist Republican in and everthing changes though.

 

[iddt3]

Niether FDR or Churchill will seriously entertain an offer from the Nazis, the Public in the UK certainly won't and FDR is enough of a propagandist to make sure the American public doesn't either.

 

[Shadow Master]

Shadow Master, the US agreed to the terms at Versailles, rather than the 14 points, so let's not waste time on the pretense that the US had no idea of the terms being imposed.

I didn't say the USA didn't know what the French and Brittish wanted. I said that they felt 'betrayed' by these terms.

Then we have such false claims as Germany allowing the Dunkirk evacuation.

Yes, Germany absoutely went all out to crush the evacuation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk
"In one of the most widely-debated decisions of the war, the Germans halted their advance on Dunkirk"

FDR's illegal use of the military.

The US President (of 1940's) was not authorized to order United States military forces to fire upon conbatants. US forces were only allowed to return fire if they themselves were fired upon.

Germany didn't attack Great Britain until after London refused to surrender...pardon, make peace.

I am talking here about the BoB, not any fighting elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
The Treaty of Versailles had little to do with the Fourteen Points and was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.[2]

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Shadow Master, did you read your link to Wikipedia or do you consider an effort involving the 20+ German infantry divisions of Army Group B plus the Luftwaffe to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk to somehow consist of letting the British escape?


Actually a majority of the 14 Points were partially or entirely in the Treaty of Versailles, and the shock of the terms of Versailles to Germany reeks of pure hypocrisy given the terms Germany had imposed on Russia and Romania and most especially the destruction inflicted on much of France even as Germany was begging for merciful terms from France.


Any example of FDR ordering the US military to start shooting, instead of positioning themselves so that the Germans were given the choice of shooting Americans or abandoning an attack?


In other words the first nine months of fighting between Germany and Great Britain somehow do not count?

 

[mrmandias]

The American public is well aware that Germany is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, as are the American policy elites. The war with Japan eliminated most isolationist sentiment, so all FDR needs is a plausible excuse and Congress will declare war on Germany. This might make a slight difference to morale or fervor or something, but none of that makes a big difference anyway. OTL, America was more resigned to fight than it was gung-ho, champin' at the bit, but that didn't matter. Because it was overwhelming population and industrial might that did the trick. Paul Bunyan doesn't have to be in berserker mode to crush you flat.

 

[Shadow Master]

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?

The "Just and lasting peace" I am refering to here is, of course, that peace that never was (because of Britian and France), the peace that should have been negotiated at the end of WWI.

So, did the British 'betray' the peace that could and should have been @ the end of WWI? Absoutely, no question about it. Without her demands (and Frances), there might not have been a WWII at all. No WWII, no Nazi's, right?

Also, everyone needs to keep in mind that the UK was cutting off US trade with one of our major trading partners whit her blockade. This is not a good thing and didn't lead to hard place with the USA in WWI primarily because they bought up everything we could sell them.

And, let us not forget that the illegal arming of British merchantmen in WWI forced the Germans to abandon the whole 'shot accross the bow' standard, and replacing it with the well known "Unrestricted submarine warfare" we all know so well.

So yes, Britian does need to answer for her conduct, and yes, if things had been done differently, I could see the US deciding to trade with both the UK and Germany (and thus ending the UK's naval blockade of Germany). What exactly would the UK do if the US refused to stop trading with Germany, and escorted her merchant ships to German ports?

My point with all of this is to try to provoke thought, and to awaken people to the facts that history didn't HAVE to follow the path that it did. Things could have been quite different, and it really wouldn't have taken all that much to knock things off kilter from what we know.

 

[amphibulous]

FDR gave a two billion dollar loan to Stalin everyone knew the Soviets wouldn't pay back just a few days before Pearl Harbor. Hitler could rationalize the US helping the UK, but the US doing the same for Stalin basically told him that the US was dead set on war with Germany and nothing was going to stop it at that point.

This argument is unproven and nonsensical. *Why* should aid to the USSR matter more than aid to the UK? The UK was afterall literally starving the Germans to death, with its naval blockade.

At best Hitler speed up the official DoW by a few months. The loans to the USSR and Lend Lease alone would have guarenteed a German defeat even without a DoW which was virtually inevitable to happen anyway.

Same comment. With the addition that the only factor Hitler *should* have considered was whether declaring war on the US would make things better or worse. It offered no chance of improvement, so why do it? It's hard to see Hitler's action as being anything other than stupid.

 

[amphibulous]

Shadow Master, did you read your link to Wikipedia or do you consider an effort involving the 20+ German infantry divisions of Army Group B plus the Luftwaffe to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk to somehow consist of letting the British escape?

A lot of people assume that Dunkirk is *before* the Battle Of France. It isn't! They also assume that the German's will steamroller through France whatever they do, and that they know this. They don't!

 

[krull1m]

The "Just and lasting peace" I am refering to here is, of course, that peace that never was (because of Britian and France), the peace that should have been negotiated at the end of WWI.

So, did the British 'betray' the peace that could and should have been @ the end of WWI? Absoutely, no question about it. Without her demands (and Frances), there might not have been a WWII at all. No WWII, no Nazi's, right?

Also, everyone needs to keep in mind that the UK was cutting off US trade with one of our major trading partners whit her blockade. This is not a good thing and didn't lead to hard place with the USA in WWI primarily because they bought up everything we could sell them.

And, let us not forget that the illegal arming of British merchantmen in WWI forced the Germans to abandon the whole 'shot accross the bow' standard, and replacing it with the well known "Unrestricted submarine warfare" we all know so well.

So yes, Britian does need to answer for her conduct, and yes, if things had been done differently, I could see the US deciding to trade with both the UK and Germany (and thus ending the UK's naval blockade of Germany). What exactly would the UK do if the US refused to stop trading with Germany, and escorted her merchant ships to German ports?

My point with all of this is to try to provoke thought, and to awaken people to the facts that history didn't HAVE to follow the path that it did. Things could have been quite different, and it really wouldn't have taken all that much to knock things off kilter from what we know.

As harsh as the treaty at the end of WW1 was I do not and never will accept that it was the cause of what followed later. The blame rests with the german people who allowed the nazis to do what they did. A lot of things happened over the following 20 years that had more impact, things such as the great depression that caused far more suffering to the german people than the treaty did.
And as others have pointed out, given the actions of the germans in WW1 they actually got off lighter than France would have had the germans won. Let us not forget that the germans pretty much caused the whole thing in the first place, they told Austria to do whatever they wanted and that germany would back them up, they invaded neutral countries, and the war they started caused millions of deaths on a scale not seen until then. There was naturally a strong desire to punish the germans for what they caused. Britain and France are not innocent, but when compared to germany they are not in the same league!!

As for the trade blockade, sorry but that is a perfectly normal action in a time of war, especially an unprovoked war of murder and agression of the kind that the nazis launched.
Allowing your enemies to be supplied (even by your friends) is something that you simply can not afford to allow, hence the reason why the same tactics are used today, even without a declaration of war. All the "trade sanctions" that are used throughout the world are exactly the same thing.

You are right that history didnt have to follow the path that it did, however the only people who had the power to bring about major alterations were the german people, and they chose not to. They allowed Hitler to exploit/manipulate them and take power, they supported the mobilisation and they started WW2 by trying to conquer all of Europe. They picked fights with neutral nations to do this.

Now getting pack on the real point, if you allow for a much earlier POD, namely back in the 1930s and change the entire strategy and behaviour of the nazis then maybe (and its still a huge maybe) the USA might listen to them as per your suggestion.However, as has been repeatedly pointed out there is absolutely no way in hell that anyone trusted the word of Hitler in 1941 and certainly no way that the US would take the side of the nazis at the expense of their long friendship with the UK, Canada, Australia, France etc

 

[amphibulous]

Niether FDR or Churchill will seriously entertain an offer from the Nazis, the Public in the UK certainly won't and FDR is enough of a propagandist to make sure the American public doesn't either.

This is silly - because it goes against the historical record. FDR had no such control over US opinion and he knew that. When the US opened economic war against Japan he told friends and colleagues that the worst scenario would be if the Japanese attacked British & Dutch colonies, but no US targets - because in that case he'd be able to do nothing. He was a politician, not The Mule.

Another good example of FDR's lack of Total Mind Control Powers would be the backlash against his threat to appoint more Supremes. Then there was the erosion of the New Deal by Congress - the idea that FDR could always get his won way through "propaganda" is contra-historical to the point of lunacy.

 

[Geon]

Not Possible Except by ASBs

I have to agree with Flubber. Germany would have been a fool not to declare war on the U.S. after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler knew U.S. entry into the war would be a potential disaster for Germany which was why he gave strict orders that his U-Boat commanders not attack any ship with an American flag. Now that the U.S. was fighting Japan, Hitler hoped that the U.S. would concentrate on the Pacific theater of war and that Europe would be secondary. Unfortunately, for him, that did not happen.

There is one slim possibility.

And I mention this even though it is so full of Alien Space Bats it will make everyone's heads spin because it is such a wild implausibility.

Hitler has advance knowledge of the upcoming Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He realizes that the U.S. becoming involved in the war will mean a major disaster for Germany. He decides on a double cross. He orders his intelligence agency, the Abwehr to collect all available information on the upcoming attack and forwards this information to FDR and Churchill. He also presents an offer. If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, Germany will abrogate the Tri-Partite treaty and be willing to join the Allies against Japan. As a sign of his good will Hitler offers to completely withdraw all German forces from Western Europe and return control of the Low Countries, France, Norway and Denmark to their rightful governments. The only exception is that France must maintain her army at levels that will present no threat to Germany. Germany will continue its "war against Bolshovism" in the East until Stalin is defeated, then the final status of Poland can be "negotiated." (read, Germany gets to keep the "lion share" of Poland for protecting Western Europe against communism) In addition the Allies must agree to send equipment and possibly troops to Germany to help them in their "great crusade."

Hitler's offer is leaked to the press by the German embassy in Washington. People such as Charles Lindburgh see this as an opportunity to smash communism and Japanese imperialism and demonstrate for the German offer.

When Japan does attack, it is not a surprise. The U.S. Pacific Fleet is waiting because of the information from German intelligence. Hitler as a sign of good faith even sends a "token force" of U-Boats to act as scouts and to aid the Fleet. The resulting clash costs the Japanese three carriers and several support vessels. Germany is hailed by Roosevelt (no doubt through gritted teeth) as a very heroic ally. Churchill resigns rather then deal with the likes of Hitler. But World War II becomes a three way war with Germany, Britain, France, and the U.S. fighting the U.S.S.R., fighting Japan.

As I said earlier the above is so ASB that I need to apologize in advance given its complete implausibility (especially to you Flubber) but it is one way I could see things happening-even if a certain very warm place is likely to freeze over first.

Geon

 

[krull1m]

This is silly - because it goes against the historical record. FDR had no such control over US opinion and he knew that.

He can however generate a lot of propoganda designed to sway the opinion of the US public. And lets be honest, the nazis were writing this stuff for them! Unprovoked attacks on neutral countries, bombing of civilian targets and cities etc, priceless stuff.
Sure he couldnt change peoples minds over night however it wouldnt be that hard to sway people.

And once the attacks in asia started, effectively forcing the US into an alliance with Britain and others in that theatre it was only a matter of time until they offered more support for the fight in Europe too.

 

[amphibulous]

So, did the British 'betray' the peace that could and should have been @ the end of WWI? Absoutely, no question about it. Without her demands (and Frances), there might not have been a WWII at all. No WWII, no Nazi's, right?.

This shows profound ignorance of history.

1. The terms Germany received were much better than those she gave Russia. This is a major obstacle for anyone arguing that they were unfair! Or that politicians should have been able to avoid them - Germany had set the benchmark.

2. The terms actually weren't that harsh - this is a History Channel myth. If you read Tooze's book he breaks down German debt, and reparations were less of a problem than money owed to the US.

3. The main stumbling block to Britain & France forgiving the Germans reparations was... the US demand for them to pay their war debt. Reparations were basically a way of shifting some of this debt to the aggressor. If the US had been willing to wave part of its debt as a reparations, then a lot could probably have been done.

So in fact the country most responsible was the rise of Nazism other than Germany was... the US. Obviously this wouldn't play on the History Channel, so the couch potato brigade get soothing psuedo-history instead.

 

[amphibulous]

He can however generate a lot of propoganda designed to sway the opinion of the US public.

Yes, and as the examples I gave showed, that wouldn't work. And FDR, who knew vastly more of what was possible for him than you do, knew this.

 

[krull1m]

Yes, and as the examples I gave showed, that wouldn't work. And FDR, who knew vastly more of what was possible for him than you do, knew this.

Sorry but the examples you provided DONT prove that, they only illustrate that it would take some time and couldnt be done over night. Propaganda is an effective weapon that does work it used correctly and you dont get to be president unless you know how to work it.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The American public is well aware that Germany is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, as are the American policy elites. The war with Japan eliminated most isolationist sentiment, so all FDR needs is a plausible excuse and Congress will declare war on Germany. This might make a slight difference to morale or fervor or something, but none of that makes a big difference anyway. OTL, America was more resigned to fight than it was gung-ho, champin' at the bit, but that didn't matter. Because it was overwhelming population and industrial might that did the trick. Paul Bunyan doesn't have to be in berserker mode to crush you flat.

Only reason I disagree is that while the Americans might have been more than willing to go to war against Japan (the nation that attacked them) there was not enough sentiment in the American public to go back to Europe without reason. If Hitler had not declared war it would have been a very uphill political battle for FDR. Politically you probably wouldn't see anything until 1942 as it became increasingly obvious that the Germans were not going to respect American neutrality in the Atlantic.

By 1942 the Germans will have had to start outright attacking American ships in order to hurt Britain so war is inevitable in that sense. But until then it is a tricky fight against the isolationist sentiment in the nation.

 

[krull1m]

Only reason I disagree is that while the Americans might have been more than willing to go to war against Japan (the nation that attacked them) there was not enough sentiment in the American public to go back to Europe without reason. If Hitler had not declared war it would have been a very uphill political battle for FDR. Politically you probably wouldn't see anything until 1942 as it became increasingly obvious that the Germans were not going to respect American neutrality in the Atlantic.

By 1942 the Germans will have had to start outright attacking American ships in order to hurt Britain so war is inevitable in that sense. But until then it is a tricky fight against the isolationist sentiment in the nation.

I agree with most of this, the one thing I dont is that it would be a big uphill fight to win support for a war in Europe.
The USA would already be de-facto allies with the British in the pacific theatre as they were both under threat by the Japanese so it would make sense. Given that situation, it wouldnt be hard to justify sending more resources to Britain to support them against the Nazis, and with more US ships around there is a much greater risk that the nazis will sink them.
I agree that it would be 1942 before there was enough support for a declaration but I dont think it would be hard to do at all.