Why is Germany Declaring War on America?

[Carl Schwamberger]

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 once did a back of the envelope for US extension of the Neutrality zone/s. This had not been a static line OTL, but had been extended several times . The last extension I recall was the USN occupation of Iceland. Hitler had become aware of the US intent sometime in April or May, and was fairly pissed about it when the marines landed in June. But, he was deep into the preparations for the Barabarosa operation and tabled a DoW til later. (WI he had hammered the table harder and made a DoW on the US in June 1941?)

So, if there is no German DoW in December 1941? Extending the Neutrality Zone might look like this?

1. Negotiate or force the Portuguese to accept US occupation of the Azores & Maderia. Now there's no chance of the German submarines refueling there, and US neutrality patrols can interdict any they spot in those waters. OTL the US had a plan on the table for this, but the political situation did not justify the cost in 1941.

2. Extend the Neutrality Zone to Liberia & Sierra Leone. Both hosted US air bases during WWII. Supplements the Azores as a ASW base.

3. Extend the NZ to Angola. Same situation was #1. It might even be done as part of #1

4. Heres the big one. Negotiate with the Vichy government to make the Africa colonies a Neutrality Zone. Technically the French were neutral. More to the point they were pissed about the Germans giving the Japanese their blessing to occupy French Indochina, and they feared the British would invade the Africa colonies one by one. Allowing the US to 'protect' the French colonies is better than losing them to the Japanese & perfidious Albion, or the Spanish & Italians. The US would have the forces to do this by October 1942 if not sooner. At this point Hitler is likely fed up and goes for all out war with the US, but he is worse off than back in December and the US has a better ASW force built up.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

On Post's post #20,if the choice is Italy or France, Italy is the better choice because it offers a chance of knocking Italy out of the war.
This deprives Hitler of his main ally and effectively turns the Med into an allied lake. And if they do switch sides, they have experienced troops who already have weapons.
France isn't ever going to switch wholesale, isn't a German ally and doesn't have ready-equipped armies to adopt. And if invaded by allied forces Italy can send in troops by land and has a navy that poses a potengial threat.
OTL showed a flaw or two in the theory, but Italy was the smarter choice at the time.

 

[Jellico]

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.

It has been suggested that the US was the template for Hitler's version of lebensraum. How to ensure your race's security by harnessing the resources of a continent. It really does help to think of Hitler like a gamer. Like a gamer he is using the hindsight of the North American experience to speedrun his version without realizing these things take centuries for reasons. Like a gamer Hitler knows there can only be one victor in the end and the Americans will be coming for the Germans. Maybe not this year or decade, but they are coming. Look at all the icky American cultural influence preceding them. In that mindset a lot of German choices make sense. They are playing HOI4, not reality. Like a game, if you trigger the final boss too early you just have to deal with it.

 

[Moss]

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.

Speaking to that point, I read in the Goring interogation he clearly stated that Hitler believed Japan would tie down most of the American assests, and this would pull material away from Europe. Should've been able to read about American's industrial potential however, and come to a much smarter conclusion.

 

[Moss]

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.

My reasoning regarding Scicily being pushed back, is that if Torch isn't launched on time, but rather six months later, the conquest of North Africa should take roughly six months longer. That would put us near January 1944.

 

[Moss]

I once did a back of the envelope for US extension of the Neutrality zone/s. This had not been a static line OTL, but had been extended several times . The last extension I recall was the USN occupation of Iceland. Hitler had become aware of the US intent sometime in April or May, and was fairly pissed about it when the marines landed in June. But, he was deep into the preparations for the Barabarosa operation and tabled a DoW til later. (WI he had hammered the table harder and made a DoW on the US in June 1941?)

So, if there is no German DoW in December 1941? Extending the Neutrality Zone might look like this?

1. Negotiate or force the Portuguese to accept US occupation of the Azores & Maderia. Now there's no chance of the German submarines refueling there, and US neutrality patrols can interdict any they spot in those waters. OTL the US had a plan on the table for this, but the political situation did not justify the cost in 1941.

2. Extend the Neutrality Zone to Liberia & Sierra Leone. Both hosted US air bases during WWII. Supplements the Azores as a ASW base.

3. Extend the NZ to Angola. Same situation was #1. It might even be done as part of #1

4. Heres the big one. Negotiate with the Vichy government to make the Africa colonies a Neutrality Zone. Technically the French were neutral. More to the point they were pissed about the Germans giving the Japanese their blessing to occupy French Indochina, and they feared the British would invade the Africa colonies one by one. Allowing the US to 'protect' the French colonies is better than losing them to the Japanese & perfidious Albion, or the Spanish & Italians. The US would have the forces to do this by October 1942 if not sooner. At this point Hitler is likely fed up and goes for all out war with the US, but he is worse off than back in December and the US has a better ASW force built up.

I'm skeptical that the US is just going to take all of Vichy's colonies.I don't think Petain would like that one bit. Vichy was always willing to fight for her territory no matter who it was against. The exception being when the Torch was launched and the Axis were in a bad situation. Petain very well may join the fight over this, which would birth mothra sized butterflies. But even if as you suggest the war isn't declared until December 1942, the european axis get a whole year longer without having to fight the Americans, without having the massive bombing raids, and being able to field more forces against England and Russia. I'd argue this very well may still be better for the axis than otl. Doesn't mean they win. Just might put them in a better position then they were at that stage otl.

 

[Moss]

It has been suggested that the US was the template for Hitler's version of lebensraum. How to ensure your race's security by harnessing the resources of a continent. It really does help to think of Hitler like a gamer. Like a gamer he is using the hindsight of the North American experience to speedrun his version without realizing these things take centuries for reasons. Like a gamer Hitler knows there can only be one victor in the end and the Americans will be coming for the Germans. Maybe not this year or decade, but they are coming. Look at all the icky American cultural influence preceding them. In that mindset a lot of German choices make sense. They are playing HOI4, not reality. Like a game, if you trigger the final boss too early you just have to deal with it.

I love this post

 

[Post]

My reasoning regarding Scicily being pushed back, is that if Torch isn't launched on time, but rather six months later, the conquest of North Africa should take roughly six months longer. That would put us near January 1944.

So in those 6 months Montgomery and his 8th army are just sitting on their hands?

 

[Derek Pullem]

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.

The thing about the American bomber offensive was that it didn't really kick off in a strategic sense until April 1943. By April 1943 the Germans has already lost on the Eastern Front (they just didn't admit it yet). April 1943 is post Stalingrad and just before Kursk. The contribution of the British and the Americans up to that time was enough to ensure the Germans lost in the East. if Overlord had not happened Germany would still have lost unless USSR gave up.

Post War Europe may have been entirely communist which would not have been a good thing from my viewpoint but active American military involvement in Europe didn't defeat the Germans. Lend-lease did. American involvement military probably shortened the European war by 12-18 months.

Basically by the time of Pearl Harbor the Nazis knew they had to beat USSR before American Lend-Lease made it impossible for them to overcome the Soviets and kept the British bombing the industrial heartland and nibbling at the edges of Nazi Europe (Italy, North Africa). If they hadn't beaten the Soviets by the time the Americans arrived en masse (mid 1943 for air and land) they would have lost anyway.

 

[Moss]

So in those 6 months Montgomery and his 8th army are just sitting on their hands?

So how do you think it would've played out without the Torch landings? Surely it would've taken longer to win in North Africa.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

So how do you think it would've played out without the Torch landings? Surely it would've taken longer to win in North Africa.

i expect the thinking is that No Torch = No need to fight for French North Africa, specifically Tunisia. Instead, The German-Italian forces are cornered in Tripoli and defeated by the 8th Army. Roughly on the same time scale as OTL to occupy Tunisia.

I think the hypothesis needs fleshing out as to how Commonwealth logistics can be extended to allow a full scale assault to be launched on a defensive line before Tripoli. Or indeed, whether Rommel gets enough support and reinforcements to actually mount a defence of it. OTL he couldn’t and simply retreated into Tunisia. But if that line of retreat isn’t available, what will Hitler and Mussolini do?

So it’s a plausible outcome but not the sole one of “No Torch”

 

[Derek Pullem]

So how do you think it would've played out without the Torch landings? Surely it would've taken longer to win in North Africa.

Without active American involvement the Canadians probably play the role of the Americans in Torch instead of sitting on their hands in UK waiting for Overlord (which won't happen without the Americans)

 

[Post]

i expect the thinking is that No Torch = No need to fight for French North Africa, specifically Tunisia. Instead, The German-Italian forces are cornered in Tripoli and defeated by the 8th Army. Roughly on the same time scale as OTL to occupy Tunisia.

I think the hypothesis needs fleshing out as to how Commonwealth logistics can be extended to allow a full scale assault to be launched on a defensive line before Tripoli. Or indeed, whether Rommel gets enough support and reinforcements to actually mount a defence of it. OTL he couldn’t and simply retreated into Tunisia. But if that line of retreat isn’t available, what will Hitler and Mussolini do?

So it’s a plausible outcome but not the sole one of “No Torch”

I was going to type something similar, but you beat me to it.

Yes, I think that is what is going to happen, because no Torch, most likely means no Tunis occupation, or a later one. So by early1943 the Germans are cornered in Libya and have the choice to stand their ground, to evacuate or improve their situation by occupying Tunis. If they stand their ground, they're likely to be worn down by the British.

Edit: I'm assuming El Alamein happens on schedule ITTL, because I see little reason it would be butterlflied.

 

[Post]

Without active American involvement the Canadians probably play the role of the Americans in Torch instead of sitting on their hands in UK waiting for Overlord (which won't happen without the Americans)

So no Dieppe raid?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I was going to type something similar, but you beat me to it.

Yes, I think that is what is going to happen, because no Torch, most likely means no Tunis occupation, or a later one. So by early1943 the Germans are cornered in Libya and have the choice to stand their ground, to evacuate or improve their situation by occupying Tunis. If they stand their ground, they're likely to be worn down by the British.

Yes

I left out the “retreat into Tunisia” option but it is a distinct possibility. And it opens a whole new can of worms. Do the Vichy French intern the Italo-German forces to preserve neutrality? Would Hitler and Mussolini allow that? Or would they send over reinforcements to take over at least Tunisia? If the latter, what happens to Algeria and Morocco? Do their leaders opt to join the Free French or try to stay neutral?

Maybe we end up with a later Torch-lite to fight alongside the (now) Free French!

 

[Derek Pullem]

I was going to type something similar, but you beat me to it.

Yes, I think that is what is going to happen, because no Torch, most likely means no Tunis occupation, or a later one. So by early1943 the Germans are cornered in Libya and have the choice to stand their ground, to evacuate or improve their situation by occupying Tunis. If they stand their ground, they're likely to be worn down by the British.

I can't see the niceties of Vichy neutrality stopping the Germans from retreating into Tunisia. If alt-Torch hasn't happened by that point then it will a few months later.

A WW2 without American ground forces probably sees an Italian campaign as the "second front" run by the Commonwealth forces with possible late war landings in South of France once Germany is ground down by the Soviets.

 

[The Banker]

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'.

The Nazis planned to restore a 'Germanic democracy' after the war and apparently Hitler was to be the only Fuhrer with absolute power
His successor would be beholden to a one party state. Basically personalistic dictatorship vs one party state

 

[Post]

I can't see the niceties of Vichy neutrality stopping the Germans from retreating into Tunisia. If alt-Torch hasn't happened by that point then it will a few months later.

I agree. Soon after the Germans are in Tunis , Torch will happen. Probably because French North Africa joins the Free French and ask the US to come in. Torch will be much easier, but some of the lessons learned during the OTL landings won't be learned, so Sicily will be harder. But Sicily will happen roughly on OTL's schedule.

A WW2 without American ground forces probably sees an Italian campaign as the "second front" run by the Commonwealth forces with possible late war landings in South of France once Germany is ground down by the Soviets.

I think after Pearl Harbor at some point the US will be at war against Germany, and I'm fairly sure it won't take until 1943 until it happens. So I don't think there will be a war without US ground forces in Europe.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I agree. Soon after the Germans are in Tunis , Torch will happen. Probably because French North Africa joins the Free French and ask the US to come in. Torch will be much easier, but some of the lessons learned during the OTL landings won't be learned, so Sicily will be harder. But Sicily will happen roughly on OTL's schedule.

I think after Pearl Harbor at some point the US will be at war against Germany, and I'm fairly sure it won't take until 1943 until it happens. So I don't think there will be a war without US ground forces in Europe.

Oh I agree it is practically unimaginable for the US to stay out of the European war. But I guess the corollary of Nazi Germany not declaring war on the US is a potential alt-history where the US never become involved in direct conflict with the Germans, no matter how unlikely it may seem to us.

 

[Moss]

The Nazis planned to restore a 'Germanic democracy' after the war and apparently Hitler was to be the only Fuhrer with absolute power
His successor would be beholden to a one party state. Basically personalistic dictatorship vs one party state

I think it might be more akin to the Roman Senate. Hitler himself described his vesion for Germany democracy after him in these terms.