WI: Nazi Germany doesn't DoW on the USA?

Wouldn't the US declare War on Germany simply because Britain was also fighting Japan? It seems silly that they would ONLY fight one of their ally's enemies. Once the war with Japan is over, does the US just pick up sticks and leave the British to keep fighting alone? Sounds ridiculous to me and FDR would capitalize on that to the public, "Our British Allies helped us against the Yellow menace and now we shall return the favour against the Hun" something like that is going to happen.
 
Some very good theories and discussion going on.

Hypothetically if the Nazi's abandon the Battle of the Atlantic (after all they were never going to win like that, the Allies were simply building more ships than the Nazi's could sink) on December 7th, 1941 and Hitler doesnt declare war on the United States finding justification for war against Nazi Germany would be politically difficult especially if the Nazi's make an effort to distance themselves from the actions of the Japanese.

With no justification for war (because no more US ships are being sunk by U-boats) and the war time mentality of protecting the interests of the Allies of the United States I would imagine that aid to the USSR would be reduced to non-military aid or stopped entirely. This effects the outcome on the Eastern Front in a large way, the effect of American made equipment on the Soviet war effort is not to be underestimated especially in 1941-42 when the Soviets were on the back foot.

With the aid pulled from the Soviets I can imagine that aid would be sent to Britain, Canada and Australia/NZ. In my opinion the Torch landings would of still occured only with troops of the British and her colonies doing the fighting pushing the Nazi's out of North Africa. The Afrika Korp was never going to get the supplies and vehicles it needed to win the war in North Africa from the moment Barbarossa began, from that moment on it was an almost pointless sideshow and quite frankly a waste of the Reich's resources.

In the long term the war in Europe would likely turn into a bloody war of attrition between the Nazi's and the Soviets. Battles like Kursk would be fought by possibly over a million extra German soldiers and even if the Italians were just there as part of the supplying force it frees up Werchmarcht soldiers up for frontline combat. Also as others have said the impact of allied (American) strategic daytime bombing is not to be underestimated especially once the stratergy changed from fighters escorting the bombers to going after the Luftwaffe fighters by themselves both in the air and on the ground. The Allied bombing campaign broke the back of the Luftwaffe, with a stronger Luftwaffe, more resources especially oil (due to no American involvement in bombing campaigns) leads me to conclude that a Nazi victory would be a likelyhood.


In the end no American involvement in Europe (including no Lend-Lease to the Soviets) would mean a Nazi victory on the Eastern Front and likely a negotiated peace between the Axis powers and Britain.

As much as I would like to say that Britain and her empire could of opened up another front in the West alone, I really dont think that would of been possible without at least another 2 years+ on top of the historical D-Day timetable.

Also Churchill was relying on the U.S for support against the Nazi's, with a battered Soviet Union and no U.S support all of a sudden January 1942 doesnt look so rosy for the British. Sure they can hold on especially if U-Boat attacks stop but for the British to win the war on the Western Front alone while the Soviet Union crumbles I cant really see it happening. To me Chruchill would of tried to push FDR into a declaration of war but if that didnt transpire within a year I can imagine the British coming to the negotiating table. Afterall they were on equal terms with the Nazi's, the British didnt have the resources or manpower to take all of Western Europe alone and Nazi Germany didnt have the navy or airforce to invade the British isles. With war ended between the Western powers and Nazi Germany the USSR would be finished within a year.
 
Again, the sinkings had been occurring for over a year and the US still didn't want a DoW on Germany.

Sure! This is based on the rather naive idea that sinking three ships or thirty is the same, and that there isn't a straw-camel-back effect, and also that the Pearl Harbor attack doesn't raise the overall level of bellicosity of the US population.

Again the sinkings and deaths had been going on for over a year and the US papers had not run with it. Don't you think said 'tribunal of newspapers' would have already indulged in yellow journalism and whipped up public outcry by now?

And what happened at Pearl doesn't change the newspapers' outlook, either. And the White House's encouragement doesn't, either. Sure?

Remember that this is a public jaded by newpapers and warmongers after WW1. The public isn't willing to fight in Europe again.

Look, if your simplistic take on the US public opinion were true, then the German DoW wouldn't change it. How is a DoW worse than a few more sinkings without a DoW? The public and their elected representatives should have insisted that the Germans should just be ignored, that the USA are already at war with Japan, japan first, and so on.
It didn't happen, eh?
Then again, the Germans also began sinking merchant ships all along the US coast. But you claim that additional sinkings don't make the US public angry, don't you?

Right, ever stap short of war. You're misinterpreting what 'even if war is more likely' means; it means even if Germany declares war, not the US declares war. The US public wanted to aid the Allies materially, not by joining in on the war; instead they wanted to push their neutrality as far as it would go. If Germany declared war, then that is there problem, if not then the US gets to help while being neutral.

You are overlooking the fact that the increase of the percentage of those who wanted to help the British "even if this makes war more likely" shows an increase in the willingness to have a war, whatever side declares it. If the majority of the US public had wanted to stay out of an European war no matter what, that percentage would have never increased.

That's a big difference from wanting to declare war, because if they wanted that they had plenty of Casus Belli in 1941.

Yes - which did not come after a Pearl Harbor attack, though. Your basic mistake is the notion that Pearl Harbor only changed the US stance towards Japan. It changed the US stance towards the whole affair.

Sure, but see above. The US did not want to declare war, but if they provoked Hitler into declaring war the public was okay with that, because then THEY would be the 'innocent' party. The problem is that if the US public really wanted to declare war, they had plenty of reasons to enter the war prior when the Germans killed US servicemen and sailors throughout 1941. Instead FDR had to answer questions about why there was a US ship in a war zone.

Also the public was unaware of the extent to which the US was violating international law and putting US servicemen in harms way. If they die deep in a warzone, that could be politically damaging to FDR not Germany.

I admit that the reasoning stands, per se, but it is based on a rather complex analysis of the events. You yourself are aware that the general public lacked many details. The analysis would be rather more fundamental and raw than this.

Also a bit of family history: my grandmother's brother was in the coast guard and was part of the delivery of war goods to Allied harbors in 1940-1. He kept a journal of his travels and his mother had them published in 1941 in the local newspaper before US entered the war. The Navy had him arrested and thrown in jail and his family was investigated by the FBI. Eventually he was released because he didn't authorize the publication of the diaries and my great-grandmother had no idea that they contained 'national secrets'. The point is the Roosevelt administration didn't want the public to know that the US was involved in shipping these goods in warzones directly to the Allies against the will, at that time, of the public.

Interesting story, but it tells us something about yourself and your take on the issue, too.

So further sinkings as a result of willfully pressing deep into warzones against the will of the public is not going to provoke as strong a reaction as you seem to think, at leas not against Germany.

Same objections as above. The US public would largely consider the sinkings as taking place in a "US defense zone", and Pearl Harbor changed things.
Some of the other things you write below still are about the same points and get the same answers.


Proof for this? I've never read this.

The impressive thing about this thread is that I quoted extensively a speech given by Roosevelt, but nobody of the contributors to the thread seems to have read it.
While the fact that the US President says something is no evidence that the majority of the US public believes him, at least those who voted for him and support him are likely to - which means a majority. Add those who feel willing to go along with their head of state simply because a war is on and that makes them feel more patriotic.

President Roosevelt said:
I repeat that the United States can accept no result save victory, final and complete. Not only must the shame of Japanese treachery be wiped out, but the sources of international brutality, wherever they exist, must be absolutely and finally broken.

"wherever they exist" = in Europe = in Germany and Italy.

President Roosevelt said:
Your Government knows that for weeks Germany has been telling Japan that if Japan did not attack the United States, Japan would not share in dividing the spoils with Germany when peace came. She was promised by Germany that if she came in she would receive the complete and perpetual control of the whole of the Pacific area-and that means not only the Far East, not only all of the islands in the Pacific, but also a stranglehold on the west coast of North, Central, and South America.

We also know that Germany and Japan are conducting their military and naval operations in accordance with a joint plan, That plan considers all peoples and nations which are not helping the Axis powers as common enemies of each and every one of the Axis powers.

That is their simple and obvious grand strategy. That is why the American people must realize that it can be matched only with similar grand strategy. We must realize for example that Japanese successes against the United States in the Pacific are helpful to German operations in Libya; that any German success against the Caucasus is inevitably an assistance to Japan in her operations against the Dutch East Indies; that a German attack against Algiers or Morocco opens the way to a German attack against South America.

(...)

Remember always that Germany and Italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the United States at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with Britain and Russia.
Then there are newspapers reports mentioning German planes at Pearl Harbor.


The Japanese had their own problems with the US and that was widely known. The embargo against Japan wasn't exactly obscure news, nor was the increasing Japanese hostility to the US over said embargo, nor the Japanese war in China that the US heavily opposed.

Again, quite accurate - and not the way the average US citizen would see it.


Yeah, get it over with against Japan. A war the US declares against Germany makes the war last longer and is unnecessary so long as Germany doesn't declare war. Let the Reds and Brits fight the Nazis, we've got the Japanese!

This boils down to being your opinion, sorry.

Note BTW that by taking this stance, you have the British doing more than the USA, as they are at war not just with Germany but with the Japanese too. The USA are in the same position as the USSR, at war with one of the enemies but not with the other, however the USSR has the enemy into its own territory, unlike the USA. I think many Americans wouldn't feel proud of such a position.

The rest is getting repetitive. Sure the Germans had good reasons to sink ships in those convoys and warships that cooperated with British warships in keeping the U-Boote at bay. This isn't the way the US public is going to see the issue, however. If nothing else, out of good old nationalism.
 
Hypothetically if the Nazi's abandon the Battle of the Atlantic (after all they were never going to win like that, the Allies were simply building more ships than the Nazi's could sink) on December 7th, 1941 and Hitler doesnt declare war on the United States finding justification for war against Nazi Germany would be politically difficult especially if the Nazi's make an effort to distance themselves from the actions of the Japanese.

If the Germans not only don't DoW, but they also give up the fight in the Atlantic, yes, it would be harder for the USA to DoW. Then again, the Germans, by forfeiting in the Atlantic, lose the war.

With no justification for war (because no more US ships are being sunk by U-boats) and the war time mentality of protecting the interests of the Allies of the United States I would imagine that aid to the USSR would be reduced to non-military aid or stopped entirely. This effects the outcome on the Eastern Front in a large way, the effect of American made equipment on the Soviet war effort is not to be underestimated especially in 1941-42 when the Soviets were on the back foot.

No. That's just plain wrong. First, the Soviets weren't on the "back foot" in "1941-42". They were so until October 1941. Then they gave the Germans a bloody nose in December 1941. Then they suffered the German summer offensive in 1942, but fighting back. Then, before the end of 1942, comes the begining of the Stalingrad encirclement.
Second, the LL aid factually had no effect in 1941, and the effects were negligible in 1942.
Third, the aid did have effects from 1943 on - and the effect wasn't that of making the Soviet victory possible. It was making the Soviet victory faster.

So, while it would still take a brain transplant for Hitler, a TL in which the Germans don't DoW and don't wage war in the Atlantic might, as a very low probability result, turn out to prevent US troops from entering the ETO.
But the consequences are more rubble in Germany (as more bombers follow the Bomber Command area bombing policy than in OTL; the bombers that in OTL were under the USAAF are still there in Europe as LL to the British) and more Communism in Europe, if not by 1945, then by 1946-47.
 
If the Germans not only don't DoW, but they also give up the fight in the Atlantic, yes, it would be harder for the USA to DoW. Then again, the Germans, by forfeiting in the Atlantic, lose the war.

No. That's just plain wrong. First, the Soviets weren't on the "back foot" in "1941-42". They were so until October 1941. Then they gave the Germans a bloody nose in December 1941. Then they suffered the German summer offensive in 1942, but fighting back. Then, before the end of 1942, comes the begining of the Stalingrad encirclement.
Second, the LL aid factually had no effect in 1941, and the effects were negligible in 1942.
Third, the aid did have effects from 1943 on - and the effect wasn't that of making the Soviet victory possible. It was making the Soviet victory faster.

So, while it would still take a brain transplant for Hitler, a TL in which the Germans don't DoW and don't wage war in the Atlantic might, as a very low probability result, turn out to prevent US troops from entering the ETO.
But the consequences are more rubble in Germany (as more bombers follow the Bomber Command area bombing policy than in OTL; the bombers that in OTL were under the USAAF are still there in Europe as LL to the British) and more Communism in Europe, if not by 1945, then by 1946-47.

Stalingrad was a strategic blunder of epic proportions that much is true. However in 1942 a Soviet victory was far from a certainty.
In my opinion the lend lease was a crucial part of Soviet Unions survival and mobility in the early years of the war on the Eastern front. As I said in my previous post American radio's provided to the Soviets played a huge role in coordinating battlefield movement and lightning advances which made tanks like the T-34 so famous.

Its all well and good to look at Soviet industrial production in 1944-45 but in 1942 it wasnt so rosy, the factories that made Soviet equipment fell into Nazi hands and those that didnt had to be moved to near the Urals to prevent them from being bombed by the Luftwaffe. This is when the Lend-Lease proved crucial to final Soviet victory, when the Eastern front reached its tipping point the lend lease sent it over the top.

For example (numbers are total Soviet built and number of lend lease vehicles that reached the USSR)
Fighter Aircraft - Soviets 63,000 - Lend Lease 17,000
Jeeps and Trucks - Soviets 343,624 - Lend Lease 501,660
Tanks - Soviets 92,595 - Lend Lease 19,510


During 1942-1943 this equipment would of proved vital as the Soviet war machine began to spin up to its height. This equipment bought the time the Soviets needed to unleash its industrial juggernaut that would outproduce Nazi Germany hugely towards the end of the war.
 
let's assume that Hitler not DoW the USA and they stay Neutral, if you ask me a very unrealistic scenario

Means no huge USAAF bomber fleet, bombing the Third reich beck into stone-age, No support to Soviet Union, Only "economic" support to the British Empire.
the USA will concentrate full on Japan Empire after Pearl Harbor

IMHO the WW2 will end as long depletion battle between British Empire, the Third Reich, and Soviet union.
were Third Reich collapse first (do Hitler stupidity, lack of resource and Authority wrangling on NAZI top and Military)
the Soviet Union will Overrun the Third Reich after long battles and will collapse also after Stalin Death.
because he push the soviet economy to the collapse in order to win the War
in the End the British Empire disintegrate with independence of India and Great Britain is ruin oneself financially, because high war cost.

by the way
With long depletion war, i mean more as 5 five years of TL WW2
 
let's assume that Hitler not DoW the USA and they stay Neutral, if you ask me a very unrealistic scenario

Means no huge USAAF bomber fleet, bombing the Third reich beck into stone-age, No support to Soviet Union, Only "economic" support to the British Empire.the USA will concentrate full on Japan Empire after Pearl Harbor

Are people even reading this thread? US lend-lease support to the Soviet Union started before Pearl Harbour happened.

Bomber Command is quite capable of rearranging the rubble in Germany's cities (and the countryside!). Especially with supplies of US aircraft. Losses of crew will be painful, but Germany is not getting away scot-free. The British Empire alone doesn't have the manpower to do Overlord in 1944, but it probably would be able to pull off an invasion in 1945 as Germany stripped the West to shore up the east.
 
Are people even reading this thread? US lend-lease support to the Soviet Union started before Pearl Harbour happened.

Bomber Command is quite capable of rearranging the rubble in Germany's cities (and the countryside!). Especially with supplies of US aircraft. Losses of crew will be painful, but Germany is not getting away scot-free. The British Empire alone doesn't have the manpower to do Overlord in 1944, but it probably would be able to pull off an invasion in 1945 as Germany stripped the West to shore up the east.

Sorry, i'm only so good as my Sources.

So that USA give lend-lease support to the Soviet Union. will prevail there Collapse.
and no operation Overlord (aka D-Day) that means the Soviet Union could conquer west europe totally !
a very unpleased vision...
 
As I said in my previous post American radio's provided to the Soviets played a huge role in coordinating battlefield movement and lightning advances which made tanks like the T-34 so famous.

Your previous post is wrong. American radios did not start arriving in the USSR in bulk until 1943. Same for the trucks and jeeps.

Even so, in the Summer of 1943 the Soviets had only enough radios to equip 150 divisions... out of a total of roughly 500.

Fighter Aircraft - Soviets 63,000 - Lend Lease 17,000
Jeeps and Trucks - Soviets 343,624 - Lend Lease 501,660
Tanks - Soviets 92,595 - Lend Lease 19,510

As you can see, the overwhelming number of Soviet aircraft and tanks were produced by the Soviets (with lend-lease accounting for approximately 21% and 17%, respectively, of the total inventory). The number is even more lopsided when you consider some of those Lend-Lease tanks and aircraft came not from the US, but from the UK. Furthermore, Soviet tank crews mostly* derided the quality of Western AFVs and had mixed feelings about the aircraft.

The trucks are a different matter, but as previously stated they didn't start really flowing in until 1943.

During 1942-1943 this equipment would of proved vital as the Soviet war machine began to spin up to its height. This equipment bought the time the Soviets needed to unleash its industrial juggernaut that would outproduce Nazi Germany hugely towards the end of the war.

The Soviets own "Industrial Juggernaught" part of the equation was already unleashed by the 1943. The Soviets produced 24,000 AFVs in 1942 using almost entirely their own resources.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Your previous post is wrong. American radios did not start arriving in the USSR in bulk until 1943. Same for the trucks and jeeps.

Even so, in the Summer of 1943 the Soviets had only enough radios to equip 150 divisions... out of a total of roughly 500.



As you can see, the overwhelming number of Soviet aircraft and tanks were produced by the Soviets (with lend-lease accounting for approximately 21% and 17%, respectively, of the total inventory). The number is even more lopsided when you consider some of those Lend-Lease tanks and aircraft came not from the US, but from the UK. Furthermore, Soviet tank crews mostly* derided the quality of Western AFVs and had mixed feelings about the aircraft.

The trucks are a different matter, but as previously stated they didn't start really flowing in until 1943.



The Soviets own "Industrial Juggernaught" part of the equation was already unleashed by the 1943. The Soviets produced 24,000 AFVs in 1942 using almost entirely their own resources.

The US provided most of the aluminum used to make those aircraft and a huge variety of other raw materials to enable Soviet production.


“ Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement: The USA shipped 2.3 million tons of steel to the USSR during the WWII years. That volume of steel was enough for the production of 70,000 T-34 tanks. Aluminum was received in the volume of 229,000 tons, which helped the Soviet aviation and tank industries to run for two years. One has to mention food deliveries as well: 3.8 million tons of tinned pork, sausages, butter, chocolate, egg powder and so on. The lend-lease agreement provided orderlies with 423,000 telephones and tens of thousands of wireless stations. Deliveries also included oil distillation equipment, field bakeries, tents, parachutes, and so on and so forth. The Soviet Union also received 15 million pairs of army boots.”

lend-lease supplies accounted for:
> 80% of all canned meat.
> 92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.
> 56% of all aluminum.
> 53% of all copper.
> 53% of all explosives.
> 57% of all aviation fuel.
> 74% of all truck transport.
> 74% of all vehicle tires.
> 14% of all combat aircraft.
 
Ultimately I think that the United States would have been drawn into the European war. I agree with the commentators who say that if Hitler had called off the submarine war that would have delayed United States entry. To do so, however, would also have been a virtual abandonment of the war against the United Kingdom. With the RAF night bomber campaign Hitler needed to show action against the UK over and above fighting in North Africa. To me that is too implausible.

One of the unanswered questions is what if Hitler had insisted upon a Japanese Russian war as the quid pro quo for declaring war on the United States. Would Japan have done so and when? I don’t see an immediate move north because they were too committed and too desperate for the Dutch East Indies oil. So the earliest I would see a commitment to move north would have been spring of 1942. Once the USSR is at war with Japan lend lease aid would be the same, although much easier to get to northern Russia if there were no u boat operations.

If the alternative scenario involves a continuation of the u boat war it would be much like 1917. Eventually the United States would declare war on Germany. In a funny sort of way I don’t think this would have impacted the actual course of the war. During the first six months of 1942 the United States was building forces and equipment which would have continued if the war was only against Japan. The u boat offensive on the east coast presumably would not have happened so the force build p would have been slightly higher. A latter start to the war in the Atlantic for the US would have seen a better equipped U.S. Navy for convoy duty. I don’t see the absence of war with Germany as impacting the course of what happened in the Pacific in 1942. Army divisions, tanks, aircraft and vehicles were not was needed. The first of the Essex carriers came down the ways in December 1942 and it’s hard to believe it could have been much sooner, war or no war with Germany.
 
The US provided most of the aluminum used to make those aircraft and a huge variety of other raw materials to enable Soviet production.

The very paragraph you quoted is certainly not discussing Soviet production in 1942...

Back in those years, it was said that the Soviet Union had produced 30,000 tanks and 40,000 planes since the middle of 1943. Well, as a matter of fact, this was true. However, one has to take into consideration the fact that lend and lease deliveries were made to the USSR during the most difficult period of the war - during the second half of 1942. In addition, the USSR would not have been capable of producing its arms without the lend-lease agreement:

(emphasis bolded)

And the Soviet surge in war production took place in the first half of 1942, a period which coincides with the Russians bringing those factories transferred in 1941 back online.

Furthermore, the Soviets had the capacity to produce more trucks then they did (although they probably wouldn't reach the quantity and quality of the trucks they got from Lend-Lease), although it would have meant less T-60s... but I'm pretty sure the Red Army can live with that if they alternative is no new trucks. Also, the Russians were able to make better use of their own raw materials by clever improvization in the production of their equipment... like substituting wood for aluminum parts and using airplane engines that could run on the otherwise terrible-quality of their aviation fuel.*

In any case, there is no reason to suspect lend-lease will be cancelled. Indeed it might even be increased, since the United States will have more excess production now that it doesn't need to equip an army to invade Europe.

*Source for both claims on this paragraph: "The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945" by Walter Scott Dunn.
 
Last edited:
Top