what if Germany had not declared war on USA

[Prunesquallor]

As so often in this site, I get the impression I'm wading through glue. Melvin, can you explain to me in words of one syllable just why the hell Hitler should organise sabotage attacks on the American mainland or large scale attacks on American escorted convoys? Norman, can you explain to me in words of one syllable just why the hell Stalin should declare war on Russia six months after Pearl Habour? Stalin had already stripped the Siberian garrison to its minimum to provide the units which Zhukov used against Army Group Centre outside Moscow in December. So six months later, he declares war on Japan, just as the German summer offensive of 1942 is getting under way? Either he sends troops to Siberia (in which case Stalingrad might very well be a German victory) or relies on the forces he's got in the Far East (in which case the Japanese would probably win.)

Roosevelt had been asked after Pearl Harbour to make mention of Germany and Italy in his message to Congress asking for a declaration of war on Japan. He refused to do this, let alone include them in the declaration. He knew the political arithmetic. He also knew that Hitler had promised to aid Japan if it went to war against America. In fact Hitler wasn't even bound by treaty to aid Japan against America. The treaty which included this wasnt signed till days after Pearl Harbour. But how much were Hitler's promises worth? He was doubtful about his alliance with Japan. As he said to one of his staff after he heard of Pearl Harbour: "We are fighting the wrong people. We ought to have the Anglo-American powers as our allies. But force of circumstances has compelled us to make a world-historical error." It was four days after Pearl Harbour that Hitler declared war. He had no need to do so. As Kershaw puts it in vol 2 of HITLER: "This unprovoked Japanese aggression gave Hitler what he wanted without having already committed himself formally to any action from the Japanese side."

Right, let's assume Hitler doesn't declare war. This strikes me as perfectly possible. There's a passage in the chapter, PEARL HARBOUR, in vol I of THE WHITE HOUSE PAPERS OF HARRY L HOPKINS which sums it up: "It seemed at the time that the German-Italian declaration of war was another "irrational act"; true, the Nazis and Fascists were in honour bound by their pledges to the Japanese, but they had not previously shown much inclination to let such bourgeois-democratic considerations interfere with their own conceptions of self-interest. Perhaps Hitler had completely taken leave of his senses and was now hysterically eager to fight all comers on all fronts; and perhaps he had been worn down by the psychological warfare that had been going on continuously for years between him and Roosevelt, and was at last glad of an excuse to abandon his sensible determination to avoid war with the United States until he had disposed of Britain and Russia. In any case, he seconded the Japanese in solving Roosevelt's sorest problems." But suppose he doesn't solves Roosevelt's problem? I have him making noises of support to America but we don't even need to go that far. He just declares strict neutrality. Day after day, disasters in the Pacific. The American Public turns away from Europe. Only a tiny minority now want anything to do with the European War. The Navy presses for all resources to devoted to the Far East. The Atlantic Fleet is reduced to a skeleton force. Any idea of a proactive role is abandoned. Roosevelt's domestic opponents are watching him like a hawk. Any sign of large scale aid to Britain will be used against him. And Roosevelt, a professional politician, shrugs his shoulders and goes with the flow.

 

[Norman]

Norman, can you explain to me in words of one syllable just why the hell Stalin should declare war on Russia six months after Pearl Habour? Stalin had already stripped the Siberian garrison to its minimum to provide the units which Zhukov used against Army Group Centre outside Moscow in December. So six months later, he declares war on Japan, just as the German summer offensive of 1942 is getting under way? Either he sends troops to Siberia (in which case Stalingrad might very well be a German victory) or relies on the forces he's got in the Far East (in which case the Japanese would probably win.)

You know I appreciate the 'passion' you bring to these discussions, it makes coming to the site that much more fun.

My comments are made within the context of my belief that if Hitler hadn't declared war against the USA, Roosevelt's first duty would have been to move against the Japanese, whether he wanted to move against the Germans or not. He was powerful, but he wasn't that powerful. Thus, it would take some time to get the exactly right set of circumstances to foster a declaration of war against Germany.

SO, if US material flows and war time build up are pointed to the Far East instead of Europe, it would have taken something to immediately bring the US against Japan. What?

Britain would naturally react to a US build up in the far east by moving troops to their European and African theaters, but this by itself wouldn't get the US in. In fact, it might even support a propaganda based belief that Britain was abandoning the US.

But the US is the source of much of the wartime material and supplies, and it is critical to an early end of the war to get its support. If the US is involved against the Japanese, however, and not against the Germans (and again remember while Roosevelt may have wanted to move against the Germans, his first priority would have to be the Japanese), there is now the question of what would it take to get the US into the European War earlier?

The only thing I can come up with is a declaration of war by Russia on Japan. If they do this, then the US will be forced that much sooner to supply them with much needed material and supplies.

Now it is true that much of this is merely hypothesis, but I believe the logic holds.

 

[Prunesquallor]

Norman, it's not "passion", it's rather the effect of years of drinking and the occasional ill judged view of the History Channel on a naturally bilious temperament. By and large I'd agree with your views on the limitations on Roosevelt's options and I've also argued that if Britain did effectively abandon Asia and leave everything in American hands this would leave her vulnerable to the gibe that she was "willing to fight to the last American." But I can't see Stalin declaring war on Japan, and even if he had I can't see it having the least effect on American actions. The only result would have been an invasion of Siberia. And Roosevelt's enemies, I think, would have been opposed to any large scale supply of materiel to Russia by this time. Leaving aside anti-communism, etc, they would have pointed out (we're in the summer of 1942 by now) that the Germans are flooding into the Caucasus and the Japanese are advancing from the east. Stalin's regime will be a Norwegian Blue before anything could be organised. Better keep the stuff for our own men. Besides, by now the Atlantic Fleet would have been totally run down and any attempt to get stuff through by the fastest route would have ended in disaster.

 

[Dave Howery]

my own thought on this is that the war would be extended for maybe another year, but Germany is still going down. A similar scenario to this was explored in "Rising Sun Victorious"... Germany still declares war on the US, but the US loses at Midway, so little aid is going to the other Allies. 1942 will be a tough year, as the US is still ramping up war production... but once it gets going, the US can produce enough material to swamp Japan and still send a lot to the Allies. In the meantime though, the war in Russia will be hard fought. Yet, I have to agree with the assessment of several authors that Germany just couldn't win there after 1941. They might win at Stalingrad... and then what? The USSR is still gaining a vast superiority in numbers, their factories are safe across the Urals, and they are going to slowly gain the edge.
In the meantime, the US is going to win in the Pacific. The battles might not run the same (although there's no reason they shouldn't), but Japan will be beaten. The US can only pack so many men, ships, and equipment there, even after giving tons of stuff to Australia... in 1943, the US factories are going to be producing more material than she can use. So, aid to the Allies will start flowing again. Even if the US isn't formally at war with Germany, the sentiment of the US was strongly on the side of the Allies, and FDR was bound and determined to defeat Hitler. This just might be what forces Germany into war against us. It's hard to imagine that they will just let all those US ships take supplies to the Allies untouched, and will probably use their Uboats to take out a few. War will be declared by FDR soon after....

 

[Melvin Loh]

Prunesquallor, all I was doing was to reiterate established historical fact: there WERE attempts by the ABWEHR in early 1942 to conduct strategic sabotage within the US of key munitions plants and other similar infrastructure- you have heard about the 8-strong team of German saboteurs who landed on L.I. in March 1942 IIRC and were gradually picked up by the FBI after the team-leader (whose name at this moment i don't recall, but which incident i did post on a few mths ago before I left Australia) decided to turn canary and rat on his buddies ? This incident was the subject of the courtmartial of these German spies by special Military Commission, in EX PARTE QUIRIN (and which was discussed in recent yrs during the controversy after 9/11 over trying captured AQ suspects by Military Commission). Now, without a declaration of war by Germany on the US, but evidence definitively arising of such cont'd sabotage attempts within the US, wouldn't FDR have a damn good reason for the US entering the war against Nazi Germany ? Remember, Germany also had a track record during WWI of conducting largescale sabotage within America prior to 1917, to prevent the US from supplying necessary materiel to the Western Allies, such as with the 1916 Black Tom Island munitions plant explosion in New Jersey, and with the release of glanders IIRC to kill large nos. of horses destined for the Western Front (as documented in SECRETS OF WAR).

 

[Prunesquallor]

Melvin- I'm just back fromn the pub but I'll attempt an answer- of course there were attempts by the Germans to sabotage (IOTL) American production. But why the hell would they do it in an ATL when America is neutral as far as Germany is concerned, when Hitler is busy with the war with Russia, and all Hitler wants to have is peace and quiet in the West?

 

[Dave Howery]

Hitler may have wanted peace and quiet, but FDR didn't.... he was bound and determined to bring Germany down. I have doubts about the earlier statement that any aid to the Allies would be bitterly fought in Congress. This might be true in '42, as the US was ramping up war production, but in '43, the US will be producing more than it can use. FDR should have an easy sell for sending aid to the Allies, as the US public opinion was pretty strongly in favor of them anyway.... all FDR has to do is proudly point out how productive we are, and that all the supplies we need are on hand, so the aid is only excess items. Hitler may want the west quiet, but if the US is blatantly sending aid to Britain and Russia, how long can he ignore it?

 

[Prunesquallor]

Dave, I think people tend not to understand just how bitter opposition to the Roosevelt Administration was. Take a minor example, the "Marshall Plot" of 1943 (when you suggest Roosevelt might have managed something) which I've just come across. You may remember that Marshall was slated to take command of OPERATION OVERLORD? It was alleged in various service journals, newspapers, and in the House of Representives, that this was an attempt to get him out of Washington and replace him with a more malleable chief of staff. It was alleged that was because Churchill objected to his strategic views and that he was to be replaced by an army engineer who'd worked for Harry Hopkins in the WPA as part of the New Deal scheme to use the war as a means of communising America. Headlines included "Global WPA seen in Marshall Plot" and "Hopkins's slimy hand." It was claimed in the House of Representives that Hopkins backed by a "sinister" clique (all members of the "clique" named were Jewish, incidentally) was aiming "to turn the War Department into a global political organisation " and that this was "nothing short of treasonous." And this is IOTL!

Support for Britain in an alternate 1943 such as here postulated. Confined to the hard core. European news will have been relegated to the back pages, all eyes are on the Pacific. For the last two years, the British role in the European War has been limited to area bombing (which the Germans will have made full use of in their propaganda) and the Desert War whose perpetual see-saws the American public will long have got tired of. In Asia, the British contribution to the war against Japan will have been even less than in our world (which is saying something). Episodes such as the Bengal Famine of 1943 (which IOTL may have caused the deaths of three million Indians) will have been made the most of. The usual American reaction- "Why should we be fighting for a British Empire which they can't defend themselves and can't even properly run?" And if Roosevelt wants to send large amounts of aid to Europe? His opponents will claim he's trying to involve America in the European War in order to procure a fourth term for himself. They will ask the voters, "What do you want, the boys back home or ploughed under for the greater glory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt?"

 

[Dave Howery]

I'm having a hard time seeing why support for the Allies would be less than in OTL... to be sure, in the hard times of '42, the US public would want all resources to be diverted to the Pacific, but in '43 and later, the US will be making way more than it needs. Plus, the Pacific can make use of only so many men and so much material... supplies would be piling up all over. If we make the reasonable assumption that the Pacific war runs more or less as in OTL, by late '43, Japan is no longer much of a threat. So long as the US is secure, I don't see why the US public would turn against the Allies so sharply as you suggest....

 

[Prunesquallor]

A few points.

First of all I think that hard core support for Britain was more or less balanced by hard core opposition to helping Britain. In both cases a minority. Note that this is not the same as support for Germany- the sampling of people whom I suggested as Isolationists included quite a few progressives and socialists. What matters is the swing voters, those who aren't really that concerned. As I remarked, for two years the war in Europe has been receding from most people's minds. When they bother thinking about it, it would probably be on the lines of "I see Hitler has made a peace offer. I can't see why the British won't take it. They're not losing anything and they've no chance of winning. Hitler doesn't even want the old colonies in Africa back. Sounds fair to me. They might even do something against the Japanese." Then there might be resentment at the way Britain had devoted all her resources to the European War and left America to fight the Japanese. "Why should the British expect anything from us?" And in some cases there might even be guilt at having stayed clear of Europe. You tend to take a dislike to people whom you suspect you could have done more for. The old line from Tacitus, "proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris."

By late 1943, Japan would not be a threat, agreed. But it would still be an undefeated presence.

The Allies. Remember, you're now really talking (in the eyes of many Americans) about the British Empire and Communism, neither especially popular.

Quite simply the average American would simply decide that it was not worth taking the risk of involvement in another war just to help Britain. The American soldiers and their families would say, "I've risked my neck, I may have to risk it again before Japan surrenders, but I'll be damned if Roosevelt's wants to risk it in Europe."