Why is Germany Declaring War on America?

[Moss]

I was recently reading from the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and within that book, as well as many other sources, it seems that the leadership or the Reich were rather celebratory after Pearl Harbor, and full of geniune enthusiasm for war with America. This has baffled me because it was such a profoundly stupid thing to do.

First of all the navy shouldn't have championed war. They hadn't stopped the RN for the last two and a half years, and now thinks they can take on the US? The Admirals should've been the first to do everything in there power to stop old Adolf from doing something stupid.

Secondly the Generals were in deep shit (and snow) in Russia with their short victorious war not panning out, their panzer divisions at a third capacity, and a Soviet counter offensive threatening to do to them what Russia did to Napoleon. These men should've been adamant that the eastern theater needs to come to a close before adding another tally to their list of present enemies.

Third. Did no one learn from the Great War? I know its been hotly debated here wether or not the Entente still manage to slog to victory with out the US, but surely American involvment all but sealed the deal for the Kaiserreich. Despire the lame promises of Tirpitz "On my honor as a solider not a single American will land on the continent" (lot of good that promise did) the US showed up and was a major factor in the defeat. Surely the men who were there fighting the Americans and their trench shot guns should've remembered "Hey that didn't work out so well last time" or perhaps its better in meme form

Regardless it seems bizzare to me that even without the benefit of hindsight, it should've been painfully apparent this wasn't a good idea. Therefore I have to pose to the forum this question. What positive outcome did OKW really believe would be obtained fighting the US, and what were their arguments in its favor?

 

[Captain Seafort]

Quite simple - they were already fighting the US, both directly and indirectly, and declaring war did nothing except formalise the existing situation.

 

[nbcman]

1. The US was already in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the Germans for months. The German DOW allowed them to attack inside US territorial waters.
2. The Germans didn’t fully appreciate the industrial output of the US and the speed that the US could influence the European war. They gambled that the could win the war against the Soviets before the US could get geared up.
3. Germany was also hoping the Japanese would join their war against the Soviets since their gamble in launching Barbarossa failed.
4. Nazi racial theory. The decadent Americans and their ‘corruption’ of the Nordic race with other inferior races.

 

[lionhead]

The Nazis were sooo sure the democracies were weak, too weak to properly respond to their aggression. They thought they wouldn't be quick enough, not committed enough, still endlessly debating in their senates and forums whilst their armies and navies and fleets would be defeated.

Boy were they wrong.

 

[Crueldwarf]

Strategically it is all about Battle for the Atlantic. Declaring war on US allows Germans to operate freely in the Western Atlantic, attacking everything and therefore be more effective at interdicting shipping that goes to UK. US were already doing a lot to protect British trade to a point of directly engaging German submarines and vice versa.

Keeping this situation indefinitely was not advantageous to the Germans because their whole thing was a decisive action to achieve victory in the shortest possible time frame. So they declared war on the US to win Battle for Atlantic quicker. They failed.

 

[Crueldwarf]

The Nazis were sooo sure the democracies were weak, too weak to properly respond to their aggression. They thought they wouldn't be quick enough, not committed enough, still endlessly debating in their senates and forums whilst their armies and navies and fleets would be defeated.

Boy were they wrong.

Only they didn't of course. Nazis had zero issues with democracies as a principle form of government. This thing is almost entirely Western (British/American) self-framing of the World War 2 as 'autocracies versus democracies' but this view was not only not shared by the Germans (or their allies) but also by the Soviets who always considered themselves democratic too.

German declaration of war on US had nothing to do with their perception of America as 'weak', 'corrupt' or 'ineffective', the whole conquest of Europe was in the mind of Hitler is just a prelude to fight an apocalyptic war against the US in some indeterminate future for the sake of Aryan race survival. This decision was not born out of 'we just brush them aside easily', it was 'fuck, we have to do it much earlier than we have planned previously'.

 

[lionhead]

Only they didn't of course. Nazis had zero issues with democracies as a principle form of government. This thing is almost entirely Western (British/American) self-framing of the World War 2 as 'autocracies versus democracies' but this view was not only not shared by the Germans (or their allies) but also by the Soviets who always considered themselves democratic too.

German declaration of war on US had nothing to do with their perception of America as 'weak', 'corrupt' or 'ineffective', the whole conquest of Europe was in the mind of Hitler is just a prelude to fight an apocalyptic war against the US in some indeterminate future for the sake of Aryan race survival. This decision was not born out of 'we just brush them aside easily', it was 'fuck, we have to do it much earlier than we have planned previously'.

what i mean is almost exactly like your last sentence. They thought they could do it because they thought the US would take some time to respond in a way that would threathen German operations in Europe, giving them free reign in the ATalntic for at least a year. But Us reponse happened much quicker than they thought. Same with a lot of other countries they faced of course. Except France.

I still stand by the idea that they thought democracies were weak. Not in terms of ability to wage war, but response time and aggression.

 

[Post]

As others mentioned declaring war meant that U-boats could now attack merchants in US waters. Operation Drumbeat was the second happy time for the U-boats.

Not declaring war would have meant they'd need to play the war in the Atlantic by the rules Roosevelt would have set. And I'm sure that within a few months of Pearl Harbor that would include the US Navy escorting convoys all the way to the UK. And if U-boats kept attacking convoys, at some point it would lead to an US declaration of war. I give it maximum a year to happen, but probably it'll happen in 3-6 months.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

3. Germany was also hoping the Japanese would join their war against the Soviets since their gamble in launching Barbarossa failed.

Unfortunately for Germany, Japan had no intention of striking north unless Moscow had fallen and the Kwantung Army had been strengthened to three times the size of the Soviet Far Eastern forces. One has to wonder if the Japanese themselves knew that both these goals were unattainable.

 

[Popcorn]

Really didn’t matter, if they hadn’t declared war then the US would have. After Pearl Harbor the British were an official wartime ally and any attacks against them in the Atlantic were an attack against our own war effort.

 

[Gillan1220]

The USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-boat in October 1941 and the U.S. Navy were ordered to retaliate against any enemy vessel if they were under attack.

There's that.

 

[NoMommsen]

... always interesting to see how much 'rationalisation' is tried to interprete into some maybe on misperception founded (japanese 'willingess' to attack the SU) 'emotional' to 'ideological' (assumed control of the US of A by jews making them an even more dangerous threat to be countered) decision taken by Hitler and by Hitler alone
... or the question simply avoided ("not necessary", "already fighting", etc.).

To answer more the quesion of the OP:

The KM ... tried to make the best out of the decison wihtout actually questioning the decison at all.​

The OKW might have hoped for a 'second front'.​

Also they weren't actually 'involved' into the making of the discision as it was made by Hitler alone. They only 'received' the memo (maybe).

Why didn't anybody oposed it?

Nodody simply dared to. "The Führer's always right!"

Hitler still was the GRÖFAZ (Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten - greatest general of all times) having 'proved' his 'greatness' with the victories over Poland as well as France.
(... and ... the largest extension of Nazi-occupied territory was still to come ... but that's hindsight)
Also there was at this time no resitance to speak of rather the fear for vanishing within the cellars of the Prinz-Albrecht-Palais NOT playing the flute after the dirigent Hitler.

 

[Moss]

1. The US was already in an undeclared war in the Atlantic against the Germans for months. The German DOW allowed them to attack inside US territorial waters.
2. The Germans didn’t fully appreciate the industrial output of the US and the speed that the US could influence the European war. They gambled that the could win the war against the Soviets before the US could get geared up.
3. Germany was also hoping the Japanese would join their war against the Soviets since their gamble in launching Barbarossa failed.
4. Nazi racial theory. The decadent Americans and their ‘corruption’ of the Nordic race with other inferior races.

I'm aware of the conflict already underway in the atlantic. But the real threat isn't US shipments to England. The UK on her own even with American material will never be able to launch bombing raids resembling anything close to the level of destruction the Americans wreaked OTL. Alone the UK could never achieve Normandy. Heck, she would be hard pressed to move into Italy. Therefore, the only real ways to lose the war for the Reich, are in Russia in the east, and by the Americans in the west. England was a nuisance not a mortal enemy. The other two had the capacity to destroy the "1000 year Reich" and thats exactly what occured. Therefore what I'm arguing is that it would've been much smarter to marshall all resources to the war in the east, which very well may bring about a more positive result for the Nazis than the Red Flag over Berlin.

As far as industrial output, it should've been obvious that the US was the largest manufacturer in the world, and their industrial centers were untouchable to the axis. Therefore Germany has not even a prayer of stopping it.

I'm not so sure the Nazi's looked down on the US racially. Sure they didn't much care for jews in the US, and said that the jews run the US, but Hitler actually spoke of the Americans as people to be admired. He once lamented his worry the US might eclipse Germany racially, due to its policy of "bringing in the best elements of all europe" into the american bloodline. He also believed the americans rather strong and intelligent due to the victories over the natives, and the hardships braved by the settlers and pioneers.

 

[Moss]

My other point is that I cannot fathom why the Kreigsmarine, who couldn't stop the Royal Navy in the first world war, hasn't been able to stop it thus far during the second world war, now feels its a grand idea to add another major fleet to its ever growing list of enemies. It just seems to obvious. There were those who were against the invasion of Russia for obvious reasons, those who voiced strong concern over the gamble in France, yet it seems none of those same voices spoke up here and I find that odd. Although I suppose I'm viewing this from hindsight and not through ideological glasses tainting my perspective.

 

[Post]

My other point is that I cannot fathom why the Kreigsmarine, who couldn't stop the Royal Navy in the first world war, hasn't been able to stop it thus far during the second world war, now feels its a grand idea to add another major fleet to its ever growing list of enemies. It just seems to obvious.

Because USN vessels were already escorting convoys, and U-boats were not allowed to attack them.

So what do you think is happening after Pearl Harbor? My guess Roosevelt extends the neutrality zone all the way to the UK, more USN vessels are going to escort convoys, more US merchants are to transport goods to the UK (and USSR), and at some point too many of those are getting sunk and the US declares war . So Germany can either shelve the U-boat war alltogether, or accept that they're going to get into war with the US at some point. And if it's the latter they might as well do it now, because delaying it plays in the hands of the US.

Now I'm more of the opinion that Germany shouldn't have bothered with the war in the Atlantic at all, because they were never going to win it, but that's another topic.

 

[Moss]

Because USN vessels were already escorting convoys, and U-boats were not allowed to attack them.

So what do you think is happening after Pearl Harbor? My guess Roosevelt extends the neutrality zone all the way to the UK, more USN vessels are going to escort convoys, more US merchants are to transport goods to the UK (and USSR), and at some point too many of those are getting sunk and the US declares war . So Germany can either shelve the U-boat war alltogether, or accept that they're going to get into war with the US at some point. And if it's the latter they might as well do it now, because delaying it plays in the hands of the US.

Now I'm more of the opinion that Germany shouldn't have bothered with the war in the Atlantic at all, because they were never going to win it, but that's another topic.

I'd strongly agree with you that the BOA was a fools errand from the begining.

However, the material support to England will never be enough for he to defeat Germany. And even if the US joins 6 months later the Germans will be in a much stronger position. For one they will not have to deal with Torch OTL and the panzer divisions dispatched to counter the landings would be available during the height of Stalingrad, further the divisions transfered to France after the US joined would be available for Nordlicht or again to be sent south. Either way the Reich is in a stronger position.

If Torch is pushed back 6 months, (and it would probably be longer because the US would've been more Pacific oriented and therefore would've encountered a more trying time swinging everything back east from west) then the landings in Italy cannot happen on schedule, at least not until 1944. This would be a huge benefit to the axis. 6 months further back and Normandy cannot happen for another YEAR. This is because weather would not permit such a cross channel invasion in december or january. Again all these changes would add potentially war changing benefits to the Reich.

All in all any gains made during the "Second Happy Time" are negligable compared to the gains enjoyed by delaying the american entrance as long as possible.

 

[TDM]

I was recently reading from the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and within that book, as well as many other sources, it seems that the leadership or the Reich were rather celebratory after Pearl Harbor, and full of geniune enthusiasm for war with America. This has baffled me because it was such a profoundly stupid thing to do.

First of all the navy shouldn't have championed war. They hadn't stopped the RN for the last two and a half years, and now thinks they can take on the US? The Admirals should've been the first to do everything in there power to stop old Adolf from doing something stupid.

The KM really weren't calling the shots, they are definitely the red haired step child of the German armed services

Secondly the Generals were in deep shit (and snow) in Russia with their short victorious war not panning out, their panzer divisions at a third capacity, and a Soviet counter offensive threatening to do to them what Russia did to Napoleon. These men should've been adamant that the eastern theater needs to come to a close before adding another tally to their list of present enemies.

They still think they going to win, yes the "rotten edifice" is taking longer to collapse than they thought, but it's only going to be a matter of time if they just keep pushing (this isn't just Hitler). Dec 1941 is still relatively early in the eastern campaign and while they haven't achieved victory according to schedule they've not had a major defeat yet.

Plus they think it will take the US time to get everything spun up (and well it will, but maybe not as slow as German high command think).

Third. Did no one learn from the Great War? I know its been hotly debated here wether or not the Entente still manage to slog to victory with out the US, but surely American involvment all but sealed the deal for the Kaiserreich. Despire the lame promises of Tirpitz "On my honor as a solider not a single American will land on the continent" (lot of good that promise did) the US showed up and was a major factor in the defeat. Surely the men who were there fighting the Americans and their trench shot guns should've remembered "Hey that didn't work out so well last time" or perhaps its better in meme form

Regardless it seems bizzare to me that even without the benefit of hindsight, it should've been painfully apparent this wasn't a good idea. Therefore I have to pose to the forum this question. What positive outcome did OKW really believe would be obtained fighting the US, and what were their arguments in its favor?

Thing is there are some key differences in play in 1941 and 1917. The big one is the Battle of France. Now I bang on about this a lot here but I seriously do not think it is possible to underestimate how big a deal this was!

In 1940 they had in 6-8 weeks done what they couldn't do in 4 years in 1914-1918, this has two effects:

1). The German Army now considers itself if not unbeatable but without peer, and certainly capable of feats it's predecessor in WW1 wasn't capable of. They also now have far more faith in Hitler not just as ideological leader but as a practical one making military assessments and decision about campaigns etc

2). With France defeated and the UK chased off the continent the US will have to land in Europe by seaborne invasion, don't underestimate what a big deal that is. And correspondingly what a big deal in terms of preparations etc D-Day was, and why the Italian Campaign was a thing despite the obvious downsides. This is very different prospect to the 'Dough boys' turning up in 1918 to be trained on French soli and often equipped with French gear.

Plus as has been pointed out to further support the above there is all ideological drivel, aka:

'America is a weak, self obsessed, socially splintered democracy that doesn't have the stomach for a real fight, National socialism gives us the opposite of all that'

(many in Japan had their own version of this)

So you know the saying don't believe your own bullshit, will not only did many in Germany and German high command start believing their own bullshit, but well they'd just had two years of succusses they could point at to justify doing so.


remember also that going back to WW1 many in Germany considered the US as late comers who didn't really get the full test and taste of industrial war

My other point is that I cannot fathom why the Kreigsmarine, who couldn't stop the Royal Navy in the first world war, hasn't been able to stop it thus far during the second world war, now feels its a grand idea to add another major fleet to its ever growing list of enemies. It just seems to obvious. There were those who were against the invasion of Russia for obvious reasons, those who voiced strong concern over the gamble in France, yet it seems none of those same voices spoke up here and I find that odd. Although I suppose I'm viewing this from hindsight and not through ideological glasses tainting my perspective.

Pretty much as per above

but a couple of other points

1). German high command weren't thinking of winning at Sea anyway

2). the US going to war was a problem for later in terms of actual fighting, because 3m US troops aren't going to magically appear in front of the German army the day after the US declares war

3). there was already some political belief the the US were going to come in at some point so it was just a matter of time so the dilemma of going to war with the US or not was kind of moot or at most just a matter of timing.

EDIT 3). sometimes you have to deal with the situation dropped in your lap. Germany doesn't control Japan but Japan is one of Germany's few allies, so Japan makes it's move (that also distracts the UK @ Co) and Germany can't undo pearl harbour, so Germany makes the best of a bad situation and welcomes a co-belligerent and hopes Japan can pull it off and then help with the USSR even if it's just the shipping.

 

[The Red]

I'm aware of the conflict already underway in the atlantic. But the real threat isn't US shipments to England. The UK on her own even with American material will never be able to launch bombing raids resembling anything close to the level of destruction the Americans wreaked OTL. Alone the UK could never achieve Normandy. Heck, she would be hard pressed to move into Italy. Therefore, the only real ways to lose the war for the Reich, are in Russia in the east, and by the Americans in the west. England was a nuisance not a mortal enemy. The other two had the capacity to destroy the "1000 year Reich" and thats exactly what occured. Therefore what I'm arguing is that it would've been much smarter to marshall all resources to the war in the east, which very well may bring about a more positive result for the Nazis than the Red Flag over Berlin.

As far as industrial output, it should've been obvious that the US was the largest manufacturer in the world, and their industrial centers were untouchable to the axis. Therefore Germany has not even a prayer of stopping it.

It goes back to American entry being seen as inevitable at this juncture, which was something Hitler briefly became fatalistic about given the protracted Soviet resistance, allegedly he even considered a peace offer to the UK. The Japanese entry into the war changed the strategic picture in this regard. A lot was banked on the Japanese being able to draw away the majority of American efforts for the forseeable future, allowing Germany to complete the conquest of the Soviet Union in 1942 and then harness the resources gained by this to go toe to toe with the US. What wasn't anticipated was that the Japanese offensive would stall, that the Soviet winter offensive wouldn't exhuast Red Army reserves and that the US had already laid the foundations for an unprecedented level of war production which would allow it to maintain a war on several fronts.

 

[TDM]

I'm aware of the conflict already underway in the atlantic. But the real threat isn't US shipments to England. The UK on her own even with American material will never be able to launch bombing raids resembling anything close to the level of destruction the Americans wreaked OTL. Alone the UK could never achieve Normandy. Heck, she would be hard pressed to move into Italy. Therefore, the only real ways to lose the war for the Reich, are in Russia in the east, and by the Americans in the west. England was a nuisance not a mortal enemy. The other two had the capacity to destroy the "1000 year Reich" and thats exactly what occured. Therefore what I'm arguing is that it would've been much smarter to marshall all resources to the war in the east, which very well may bring about a more positive result for the Nazis than the Red Flag over Berlin.

As far as industrial output, it should've been obvious that the US was the largest manufacturer in the world, and their industrial centers were untouchable to the axis. Therefore Germany has not even a prayer of stopping it.

Thing is as important as industrial output is (and it is exceptionally important) if you can't apply it, or you look at the situation and think it's not worth the loses we'll suffer to win by outproducing your opponent, then it's nullified. and the Germans thought they could engineer this

I'm not so sure the Nazi's looked down on the US racially. Sure they didn't much care for jews in the US, and said that the jews run the US, but Hitler actually spoke of the Americans as people to be admired. He once lamented his worry the US might eclipse Germany racially, due to its policy of "bringing in the best elements of all europe" into the american bloodline. He also believed the americans rather strong and intelligent due to the victories over the natives, and the hardships braved by the settlers and pioneers.

The things is Hitler at times said all sorts of contradictory things, the trick is to look for the ideas he keep's coming back to.

So yes at times he probably said nice things about American society. but in general it's 'the US is weak, decadent, racially compromised' (all the usual crap)

 

[Post]

I'd strongly agree with you that the BOA was a fools errand from the begining.

However, the material support to England will never be enough for he to defeat Germany. And even if the US joins 6 months later the Germans will be in a much stronger position. For one they will not have to deal with Torch OTL and the panzer divisions dispatched to counter the landings would be available during the height of Stalingrad, further the divisions transfered to France after the US joined would be available for Nordlicht or again to be sent south. Either way the Reich is in a stronger position.

If Torch is pushed back 6 months, (and it would probably be longer because the US would've been more Pacific oriented and therefore would've encountered a more trying time swinging everything back east from west) then the landings in Italy cannot happen on schedule, at least not until 1944. This would be a huge benefit to the axis. 6 months further back and Normandy cannot happen for another YEAR. This is because weather would not permit such a cross channel invasion in december or january. Again all these changes would add potentially war changing benefits to the Reich.

All in all any gains made during the "Second Happy Time" are negligable compared to the gains enjoyed by delaying the american entrance as long as possible.

I'm not so sure everything turns out so much better for the Axis as you suggest.

Until the Battle of Midway the forces used for Torch aren't going anywhere in the Pacific. And even after Midway probably not before november 1942. I'm fairly sure that in the meantime Roosevelt will be planning for what to do when there's a war with Germany. So it's possible Torch happens regardless in november (assuming by june the US is at war with Germany).

Further the funny thing about Torch is that it massively improved the logistics of the Axis in North Africa, due to the taking of Tunis and opening up the ports there. If that hadn't happened their logistics would have remained troublesome. My guess is that without Torch the British take NA at about the same time as OTL.

As you mentioned the forces deployed in Tunis are avaiable elsewhere. I'm not sure they could be deployed in Stalingrad however, because the Germans had issues with logistics anyway. But if they would be able to send them there, what would they do? I think there are two options. 1. To stalingrad. Probably not a good idea. 2. Towards Baku. Probably not brilliant either, because if the Battle of Stalingrad evolves as OTL (which I think is likely), they're not going to make a difference there, and there's even a risk that the Germans advance further, which sounds great, but enhances the risk of them not being able to retreat after Stalingrad.

Meanwhile in the Atlantic there's no operation Drumbeat, so the U-boats sent there get sent to the rest of the Atlantic. Instead of ships sailing alone without escort, they meet convoys with escort. Net result: less merchants sunk, and more U-boats lost. This likely means the BotA is won sooner than OTL.

Regarding Overloord being postponed a year due to (according to you) NA and Italy being postponed. Well, even Africa takes loonger than OTL, it still would be wrapped up in 1943 either way, and Sicily too. Simply because there's because you can perfectly invade there 6 months later and don't have to postpone it another 6 months. After Africa and Sicily the discussion between the British and the UK will be whether to invade Italy or France next (like it was in OTL). Given that you're assuming the Germans do better in the USSR, there's all the more reason to invade France, and not Italy. OTL a major reason it was decided to invade Italy after Sicily, was because the Allies thought they hadn't won the BotA yet* (although by the time Sicily was invaded they kinda had in hindsight). But in 1944 they had, and also ITTL. So chances are that Marshall and Eisenhower get what they want: invasion of France, and not Churchill.

Overall you're suggesting several way why the Germans do better, and I'm where the Allies do better. Most likely in some theatres/decision the Germans will do better, but in others the Allies. One thing I'm fairly sure of is a better BotA for the Allies, and that is the important one. Overall most likely the timetable will be rooughly the same as OTL, because frankly by mid 1942** the Germans had too many things going against them to improve much. And that doesn't really change if war between Germany and the US is postponed by half a year, because frankly in that half year the US was mostly just busy building up their army and airforce, and not really contributing to actual action in the European and NA theatres of war.

* and because they hadn't achieved airsupremacy in France yet. They're capable of doing that in the same timeframe as OTL.
** or actually december 1941.