What if Hitler didn't.....

declare war on the USA on Dec 7th, 1941 or whenever he did? As I recall, he did declare war before FDR addressed congress.

Here's my point... the country sure was up in arms (sorry) about Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, but there were mixed feelings about getting involved in another European war. If Hitler hadn't declared war against the US, suppose the US only went to war against Japan? All that industrial might and military forces would have gone to the Pacific Theater of Operations. Would there have been much or any to spare to send to Europe? Wouldn't Lend Lease have shut down? And sure, the Soviet Union fought quite well against Germany, but remember, they had material support from the US too.

Ok, there's the seed. Let's water it and see what sprouts. :)



------------------
Ranger Jeff
The Idol of American Youth

[ellis555]

interesting idea.
i think Hitler, being the idiot that he was, would have "forced" us to enter the war, probably through unrestricted submarine warfare. my reasoning is that there is no kind of way we would have stopped trade with Britain (too lucrative for our arms manufacturers; can probably get better prices from John Bull than Uncle Sam), and Hitler/Germany would have had to attempt to blockade Britain. i see a re-run of WWI.
still, it probably would have given Germany a little more breathing room. who knows. i recall reading somewhere that in computer simulations of WWII in which Germany captures Gibralter, and thus the Med., Germany wins, as the U.S. never gets into Africa, and thus the Allies never attack up Italy.
lets just be glad he did declare war on us, and us on him.

ellis

[Rich Barr]

Yes, Germany (and Italy) declared war on the United States, rather than vice-versa. I think it's a mistake to assume we wouldn't have ended up at war otherwise, however. It might have happened with different timing, but it would have happened.

I base this opinion on several factors.

(1) FDR was much more interested in suppressing the Nazis than the Japanese, even though we were more a Pacific power than a world power at the time. US foreign policy has always been very Euro-centric--this is still true--and there wasn't much chance that we'd stay out of the war in Europe permanently.

(2) US forces had already been engaged in action against German forces, mainly in the Atlantic--part of keeping the Lend-Lease routes open. This wasn't going to stop, and would likely have escallated even with a declaration of war.

(3) The Japanese attacked British possessions in the Pacific at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor--we and the Brits were already de facto allies, and now we were going to be outright military allies against Japan. It's not likely we could have fought a war with the British in the Pacific and remained neutral in Europe.

(4) Hitler already had a two-front war on his hands--a very bad maneuver on his part. Knowing that the US would most likely be at war with Germany eventually, it was better for him to start the festivities earlier, when we weren't yet really prepared. If he waited, and allowed us to wipe up the Japanese first, he'd be facing a fully-mobilized opponent who could then turn it's attention to him with no distractions.

As I said before, the timing of events might have been altered if Hitler had held off. We might have beaten the Japanese earlier, before turning our attention to the Germans. Maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have been A-Bombed...but maybe Berlin and Dresden would have been.

Alright, I've written enough to give people something to dispute me about. Have at it.



------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[mangeorge]

When analyzing WWII, you have to consider racism. The Germans look like us. The Japanese don't. And how fast did the U.S. move to aid the Jews?
Peace,
mangeorge



------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! ....(Paraphrased)

[Doug Bowe]

Recall that by December, 1941 most of Europe was occupied. Franco was a Fascist(and considered a friend of AH). Britan was alone and in her "darkest hours." FDR needed an excuse to get in.
Japan was a recognized member of the Axis.
An attack by one could be considered an attack by all. Hitler just did what FDR would have done anyway.

[Big Iron]

[[Nice politically correct pronouncement, but what does it have to do with the question? Are you suggesting that we would not have gone to war with Germany because they "look like us?" Or are you suggesting we wouldn't have used A-Bombs on German cities? Neither claim makes sense in light of history. ]] RichBarr


I dunno about those questions (although the expression "politically correct" makes my spider sense tingle), but we did intern Americans of Japanese descent without doing the same to Americans of German descent.

[pldennison]

I dunno about those questions (although the expression "politically correct" makes my
spider sense tingle), but we did intern Americans of Japanese descent without doing
the same to Americans of German descent.

Although this is true (and horrid), IIRC there was quite a bit of outright bigotry and discrimination practiced back East against Americans with last names of Italian and German derivation, along with some calls for their deportation.

[mangeorge]

"Politically correct" has become such an easy tag to throw at any non right-wing statement one doesn't agree with. So much so that that the expression itself has become almost politically correct.
To deny the influence of racism on the readiness of the American people at the time of WWII to make war on Japan is naive. There was a quite lot of opposition to the war in Europe, almost none to the war on Japan. As mentoined above, only people of Japanese descent (American citizens!) were placed in concentration camps. Even the official propaganda toward the Japanese was much nastier than toward the Germans. And the Italians were hardly mentioned.
Peace,
mamgeorge

[Skullar]

The US entered the war too late (in the case of Germany) to make a difference? In 1940 the Germans already lost The Battle of Britain and by December 1941 were cut off and fighting a losing battle in Stalingrad. As well, the British were on the verge of their victory at El Alamein.

It would seem that without the US the Germans would have lost or would have at least been confined to Germany and little more. At the time of American intervention the combined resources of Britain (and her colonies) and the Soviet Union in manpower, oil and iron ore production, as well as weaponry manufacturing was sufficient to defeat, or drive back Germany and her allies.

According to "Oppenheimer", the movie shown on PBS featuring Sam Waterson in the lead role, a recently sent over (after US entered the war) British scientist played a significant role in the success of the Manhattan Project.

The "What if" question is asked too late in the event to make much difference.


------------------
Kobolde, die sich mit rotheissen Schuereisen unter Aussenaborten verbergen.

[tomndebb]

mangeorge:To deny the influence of racism on the readiness of the American people at the time of WWII to make war on Japan is naive. There was a quite lot of opposition to the war in Europe, almost none to the war on Japan. As mentoined above, only people of Japanese descent (American citizens!) were placed in concentration camps. Even the official propaganda toward the Japanese was much nastier than toward the Germans. And the Italians were hardly mentioned.

While I believe the basic statement that racism played a serious part in our attitudes toward the war with Japan is true, this quote needs some fine-tuning to be factually correct.

The opposition to the war in Europe vs the war against Japan has more to do with timing than racism. From 9/39 through 12/41, "the war" (meaning a multi-national war including countries that had been our allies and our foes) was in Europe and our isolationist policies focussed on that conflict. The war that had broken out between Japan and China in 1937 was considered a regional conflict, and the fact that China was in the midst of a concurrent (and confusing) civil war made it hard for the "man in the street" to get excited about it. Germany's U-boat campaign, together with Germany's declaration of war on the U.S. changed that drastically. That I am aware of, involvement in the European War was not specifically protested at all after December 8, 1941. (There was a lingering pacifist movement, that died rather quickly, but it did not distinguish between Atlantic or Pacific theatres of action.) There was even a fairly famous (at the time) book published, damning the pre-war congress with their own isolationist (or anti-Soviet Union) speeches: The Magnificent Dunderheads.
Another aspect that did nothing to reduce racism, but was independent of it, was the very nature of the Pearl Harbor attack. The Germans and Italians did declare war on us, the Japanese, technically, did not.

The shame of the Japanese internment was not that only Japanese were interned. It was that the internment included U.S. citizens--and nisei who had lived in the U.S. for multiple generations who had been denied citizenship, by law. A very large number of Europeans were interned during the war--and a number of them were not released until 1948. The difference from the nisei situation is that the detainees from European countries were, generally, recent immigrants (and merchant seamen), not citizens.

I believe that the statements regarding propaganda are basically correct, although those ads that targeted the Axis usually included the triumvirate of Hitler, Mussolini, and either Tojo or Hirohito. Ads that singled out a specific country were liable to be much more racist if they targeted Japan.

------------------
Tom~

[Rich Barr]

mangeorge: [[When analyzing WWII, you have to consider racism. The Germans look like us. The Japanese don't.]]

Nice politically correct pronouncement, but what does it have to do with the question? Are you suggesting that we would not have gone to war with Germany because they "look like us?" Or are you suggesting we wouldn't have used A-Bombs on German cities? Neither claim makes sense in light of history.

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[Cardinal]

As an amateur, wanna-be know-it-all about WWII, I must say that I have read in many places how the Normandy invasion barely succeed, and then only with some very good deceptions paving the way (not that the Americans were much help in that department).

Does anyone really think that the British could have given the Germans such a threat of a water-borne invasion as to give the Russians the two-front war they needed?

I personally don't think so. It was an enormous undertaking even with half of America's (actually more than half) industry and military strength poured in.

On another, more preaching note, I hope this and other recent wars have shown us that there are real consequences for bad political ideas.

"History is philosophy with examples."

[Mr.Sparkle]

Hitler had already signed the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome treat making them allies of mutual defence. It would be a lack of face on Hitler's part if he hadn't declared war alongside his ally. Hitler was already cocky anyways, correctly figuring that it would take a year before the US assembled a fighting army. By then, he thought incorrectly, Europe and Russia would be his.

Russia was a decisive factor in the war. Stalin had found a proven general in Zhukov after many years embarassing losses and begin to take the offensive (with the help of lend-lease). What someone pointed out before was that the US came out a little late. But they did provide morale, supplies and men to the bankrupt British and the unequipped Russians. In fact, before American aid many of the Russians had to use rifles from the fallen just to fight on the field.

Racism is always be prevalent in society. The Japanese committed many attrocities that aren't heavily publicized. Who remembers the human guinea pigs or the Rape of Nanking which destroyed the city of over a million? Hell they expect an apology from the U.S for nuking them but won't even admit these crimes to China... The identification with white Jews among Americans will make them think, "that could've been someone I know", whereas the Chinese where just foreigners from the other side of the world.
Is this really hard to imagine? The 'colored' were still in the back. Jessie Owens won the Gold in Berlin a decade before against the threats of many and who could forget the raising of the fists in the medal ceremony? The civil rights movement hadn't reached its peak until the 60s.
Politcal correctness today is just a sham to cover up the hypocrisy of America's past.

[HeadlessCow]

We were much more eager to declare war on Japan because they actually made an attack on our soil. Also Germany was a European country and most of the politcially powerful people of the US are of European descent. It's like attacking your neighbor or attacking a guy from two towns over.

[PunditLisa]

When analyzing WWII, you have to consider racism. The Germans look like us. The Japanese don't.

Some of the bloodiest wars in history have been civil wars (e.g. the American civil war, the French revolution, the Russian revolution), where people are fighting people that look just like them.

While a backlash against Germans didn't occur to the same degree as it did against the Japanese, it did occur. For instance, during WWI, all germanic or bavarian street names in Cincinnati were replaced with innocuous sounding names. In Great Britain, George V changed the family name to "Windsor" to disassociate himself from his germanic ties to the House of Hanover and the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

And while the U.S. government did not round up the 1st and 2nd generation German immigrants and put them in interment camps, like we did the Japanese, that may have more to do with the sheer number of German immigrants during the late 1800's and early 1900's than a lack of anti-Germanic sentiment.

[nhaerens]

The US intervention in Europe helped very much to defeat the Germans...

Hitler would have declared war eventually against the United States, which he considered as controled by Jewish interests (newspapers, bankers, or even the movies, of all things) - where did he get that idea?
Talk about racism....
Another question might be - what if Hitler hadn't gone after the Jews, what if he had invaded Britain, which he really could have done - and what if he had waited to invade Russia or had invaded Russia first or if..

[Madjkd]

If germany didn't declare war on us when they did, britian would have been defeated in about 3 months. Even with supplies being shipped to the brits they were down to a 6 week period afterwhich their fuel and munitions supply would have been depleted heavily. Keep in mind hitler was one of the worst leaders who ever lived, he basically caused germany to lose. Germany at the start of the war was the most highly train ,best equipped , and motivated military force in europe. With a 12-13 million strong army, and high technological advances. If germany didnt declare war on us a invasion of japan might have happened(since we would have defeated them much quicker, before we had the atomic bomb), causing nearly a million american casulties, in a single invasion, the germans would have to face the russians on one front, once britian was out of it. Russia couldn't stand up to germany one on one. Rommel would have reach the rich oil fields of the middle east, probally with the result of germany getting the atomic bomb first. Germanies greatest enemy was hitler himself, he cause so much failures that could have been vicories(remember normandy he didnt release the 12 panzer division that could have destroyed the invasion. And dont forget stalingrad or kursk, or the russian offensive bagration.

[Konrad]

Skuller: Actually the Stalingrad and the victory at Al Amein both happened in late 1942. Not that it matters, a real second front only opened up in 1944, when the Germans were in full retreat.

[According to Pliny]

Two very important factors seem to have been overlooked in this thread:

1)For all practical purposes the US and Germany were already at war with Germany in the Atlantic at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. A few more U-Boat attacks on American supply and warships was all the excuse FDR would need to get Congress to declare war.

2)The Japanese declared war on the UK as well as the US on 12/7/41. This made the two countries wartime allies.

Even if Hitler was a totally rational and pragmatic leader he would have seen the inevitability of war with the US. Better to declare war and maintain the goodwill of an ally in the Pacific (Japan) than to tie his military's hands with the task of having to avoid conflict with his enemy's defacto ally and munitions supplier.

Well, I really don't think Hitler thought much of his Axis mutual defense pact. He had a treaty with Russia, remember? Remember how well he kept that one? He did hope that Japan would start more stuff up in the far eastern Soviet Union to siphon off Soviet forces, but Japan didn't. Seems to me that Germany and Japan did whatever they wanted to do without much consultation with each other.

I guess I phrased my original question poorly. Would FDR have asked Congress to declare war against Nazi Germany if Hitler hadn't first? You think there was that much support for pulling France's chestnuts out of the fire AGAIN?


------------------
Ranger Jeff
The Idol of American Youth

[Northern Piper]

Two points of detail:

Doug Bowe said:

Britan was alone and in her "darkest hours."

Britain was not alone. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa had all declared war on Germany (not sure about Newfoundland, as it was under the commission government at the time.) Troops from these countries were in Britain, and these countries were providing support to the British. The Canadian contingent was large enough by the summer of 1942 to play a major role in the "raid" on Dieppe.

skullar referred to:

the combined resources of Britain (and her colonies)

the countries referred to above were not colonies, but independent nations (again, the status of Newfoundland was somewhat uncertain.)

***mangeorge: {{"Politically correct" has become such an easy tag to throw at any non right-wing statement one doesn't agree with. So much so that that the expression itself has become almost politically correct.}}

Ok, then try "anti-American sloganeering unrelated to the question that was asked and answered." You've established no connection with what racism had to do with the US going to war in Europe, despite my explicit question on the matter. I also don't see you looking for a discussion of racism in WWII in general, since there would be lots of examples...including the Japanese, who were themselves extremely racist.

{{To deny the influence of racism on the readiness of the American people at the time of WWII to make war on Japan is naive. There was a quite lot of opposition to the war in Europe, almost none to the war on Japan.}}

It's already been pointed out by others, but let me do it again. The Japanese attacked US military forces on US territory, without a previous declaration of war--this kind of behaviour is guaranteed to engender hate. The Germans didn't do that. Are you suggesting that a similar action by the Germans--an attack on US forces in Puerto Rico without a declaration of war, say--would NOT have caused the American people to support immediate war, because the attackers "look like us?"

{{As mentoined above, only people of Japanese descent (American citizens!) were placed in concentration camps.}}

Not entirely true, as others have pointed out, but close enough. You're right, but what's your point? How does this relate to whether we would have gone to war against GERMANY?

{{Even the official propaganda toward the Japanese was much nastier than toward the Germans.}}

Again, the Japanese were the ones who sneak-attacked us, not the Germans--this is hardly surprising. Further, the Japanese invaded and attacked US territory, including two instances of surfaced submarines shelling the West Coast--until the Battle of Midway there were serious fears that Japan would actually invade the continental United States. The Japanese were more immediately dangerous to this country than were the Germans...despite which the US main effort was in Africa and Europe against Germany.

***Skullar: {{The US entered the war too late (in the case of Germany) to make a difference? [...] It would seem that without the US the Germans would have lost or would have at least been confined to Germany and little more.}}

Winston Churchill disagreed with you--he considered it vital that the US intervene.

tomndebb: {{The war that had broken out between Japan and China in 1937[...].}}

Japan started tearing chunks out of China in 1931, which resulted in the establishment of a Japanese puppet government in Manchuria. Inner Mongolia was occupied in 1933.

***Dave Swaney: {{Does anyone really think that the British could have given the Germans such a threat of a water-borne invasion as to give the Russians the two-front war they needed?}}

No. If you postulate no US military involvement beyong protecting its own shiping, everything changes. The British couldn't have mounted a large-scale invasion of Western Europe or Italy by themselves, especially since they too were at war with Japan after December 7, 1941. The UK/Axis war would then most likely have been fought in Africa and the Med, with the Germans and Brits bombing each other's cities.

Meanwhile, the Russians would have ejected the Germans from the Soviet Union itself, but they might have stopped at that point--a fear Churchill and Roosevelt both had. With no fronts in Italy--and later France--to draw off troops, and with much less threat of invasion, the Germans could have concentrated their forces more on the Russians. The Russians would then have taken greater losses--and they took far more casualties among the Allies in Europe than everyone else put together as it was.

***Mr.Sparkle: {{Hell they expect an apology from the U.S for nuking them but won't even admit these crimes to China...}}

Several years back (I belive it was in the 1970s) there was a controversy over Japanese school books glossing over WWII. Apparently they won't even admit it to themselves.

On the other hand, in the late '70s a school district in Western New York State ordered some history textbooks from a Southern publisher...and discoved these books claimed the CONFEDERATES won the US Civil War.

nhaerens: {{Another question might be - what if Hitler [...] invaded Britain, which he really could have done[...].}}

Could he? The Battle of Britain failed to destroy the Royal Air Force, which was originally the point, and the Royal Navy was stronger than the German Navy. The invasion of Normandy in 1944 was a close thing--this was with no naval opposition, virtually no air opposition, and entry onto land in which the inhabitants were sympathetic to the invasion. Could the Germans, with none of these advantages and less resources, have successfully invaded Britain?

Churchill claimed that under these conditions Britain could never be successfully invaded. Hitler cancelled Operation Sea Lion--the planned invasion--because he didn't think it could succeed with British air power still in existence.

Madjkd: {{If germany didn't declare war on us when they did, britian would have been defeated in about 3
months.}}

No. Once the Germans invaded Russia, the British were safe. They couldn't have WON the war by themselves, but they wouldn't have LOST--not in the sense of being occupied or forced to surrender.

PapaBear: {{Two very important factors seem to have been overlooked in this thread:

1)For all practical purposes the US and Germany were already at war with Germany in the Atlantic at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. A few more U-Boat attacks on American supply and warships was all the excuse FDR would need to get Congress to declare war.}}

I quote my own first post in this thread: {{(2) US forces had already been engaged in action against German forces, mainly in the Atlantic--part of keeping the Lend-Lease routes open. This wasn't going to stop, and would likely have escallated even with a declaration of war.}} (I meant to say withOUT a declaration of war, but you get the idea.)

In effect, this was the situation that led to US entry into World War I. But we weren't facing a major war in the Pacific in 1917--that changes things somewhat.

{{2)The Japanese declared war on the UK as well as the US on 12/7/41. This made the two countries
wartime allies.}}

Again from my first post: {{(3) The Japanese attacked British possessions in the Pacific at the same time they attacked Pearl Harbor--we and the Brits were already de facto allies, and now we were going to be outright military allies against Japan. It's not likely we could have fought a war with the British in the
Pacific and remained neutral in Europe.}}

{{Even if Hitler was a totally rational and pragmatic leader he would have seen the inevitability of war with the US. Better to declare war and maintain the goodwill of an ally in the Pacific (Japan) than to tie his military's hands with the task of having to avoid conflict with his enemy's defacto ally and munitions supplier.}}

You have a point, though I don't know that maintaining Japanese goodwill had much to do with it. Japan didn't go to war with the Soviet Union when the Germans attacked, despite the fact that the German-Italian-Japanese alliance was supposedly anti-communist in nature.


Ranger Jeff: {{I guess I phrased my original question poorly. Would FDR have asked Congress to declare waragainst Nazi Germany if Hitler hadn't first? You think there was that much support for pulling France's chestnuts out of the fire AGAIN?}}

Do you mean would the US have declared war on Germany immediately BECAUSE of Pearl Harbor? I doubt it--I don't think it would have been possible, politically, though FDR would certainly have liked to. War would have come about eventually, but not immediately.

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com

[typertrphy]

PunditLisa-
RIGHT ON! My kids are South Korean-born adoptees, and so I have read up on Korean History.<<shudder>>-talk about racism. The Koreans have been invaded alternately by the Chinese and Japanese for centuries.
"Looking alike" is relative. I can tell a Korean, or a Japanese , or Chinese person within a few moments, at about 75% accuracy. But, to Asians, the differences are startling and clear. It's all perspective, yanno?
I would posit that Anti-Asian sentiments were widely fomented in these here Yew-Nigh-Ted States at least 100 years before WWII. I have a fascinating book here called "Strangers From Another Shore" about the immigration patterns from Asia to the USA. The sadly virulent racism levelled at Asians was in place long before Pearl Harbor......

Typer

[Skullar]

Rich Bar:

***Skullar: {{The US entered the war too late (in the case of
Germany) to make a difference? [...] It would seem that without the
US the Germans would have lost or would have at least been
confined to Germany and little more.}}

Winston Churchill disagreed with you--he considered it vital that the
US intervene.


Thanks Rich Barr for your "appeal to authority" (a logical fallacy). Does the fact that Winston Churchill said anything, take away from my argument. No.

Why did Winston Churchill consider it vital that the US intervene? To keep the Russians from gaining control of all of continental Europe? When was this statement of Winston's made? 1940,1941, it does make a difference.

Winston Churchill did not disagree with me. He died before I was born.


------------------
Kobolde, die sich mit rotheissen Schuereisen unter Aussenaborten verbergen.

[kknick34]

Please correct me if this is wrong. But didn't FDR & Churchill agree to a Germany first policy when they agreed on the Atlantic Charter which occured before 12/7/41?

In light of this FDR could have created an incident or used U-Boat activity to move public opinion towards this option.

[Rich Barr]

***Skullar: {{Thanks Rich Barr for your "appeal to authority" (a logical fallacy). Does the fact that Winston Churchill said anything, take away from my argument. No.}}

If I'm going to choose between Churchill and you as being more likely to be right on this subject, I'm gonna take Churchill.

{{Why did Winston Churchill consider it vital that the US intervene?}}

Because the US had the manpower and resources, of course. (Though Churchill was half American, which may have colored his thinking somewhat.)

{{When was this statement of Winston's made? 1940,1941, it does make a difference.}}

You were on a first name basis? I'm impressed. Churchill conveys this in his series of books on the Second World War, which he wrote after it was over. Indeed, he pretty much comes out and says the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the best thing that could have possibly happened, especially after Hitler declared war afterwards. (The UK declared war on Japan BEFORE the US, incidentally--partially because British possessions were attacked, but also partially to make it clear to Roosevelt and the American people that Britain was an eager ally.)

{{Winston Churchill did not disagree with me. He died before I was born.}}

This means his opinions on a subject he should have known about no longer count?

***kknick34: {{Please correct me if this is wrong. But didn't FDR & Churchill agree to a Germany first policy
when they agreed on the Atlantic Charter which occured before 12/7/41? In light of this FDR could have created an incident or used U-Boat activity to move public opinion towards this option.}}

No, you're not wrong, and this is probably what would have happened--defending the rights of neutrals (as long as said neutrals were American, anyway) on the high seas was essentially why the US entered the First World War, and actually goes back to the War of 1812. I don't dispute that. What I'm saying is that under the circumstances it would not have been an immediate thing--there would have been a delay of unknown length, probably at least until the public no longer thought the US was losing in the Pacific. That could be seen as the Battle of Midway...but it could also be seen as retaking the Philippines, which was still a US colonial possession. War with Germany would have happened, just not when it did.

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[Skullar]

Rich Barr:

If I'm going to choose between Churchill and you as being more likely to be right on this subject, I'm gonna take Churchill.


Who you choose to believe is your problem. I just mentioned that quoting an important figure in history wasn't an argument.

Rich Barr:

Because the US had the manpower and resources, of course.


The British Empire and the Soviet Union combined had more manpower and resources than Germany and her allies.



------------------
Kobolde, die sich mit rotheissen Schuereisen unter Aussenaborten verbergen.

[tomndebb]

Rich Barr:tomndebb: {{The war that had broken out between Japan and China in 1937[...].}}

Japan started tearing chunks out of China in 1931, which resulted in the establishment of a Japanese puppet government in Manchuria. Inner Mongolia was occupied in 1933.
By which statement I take it that you believe that the war in Europe began with the annexation of the Sudetenland or the Anschluss with Austria? Your statements of Japan forcibly annexing large areas of China are correct, but China did not begin a resistance that could be in any way considered a war until July, 1937. Prior to that time, Japan simply marched in, shot a few resisters, and camped where they wanted.

------------------
Tom~

[Rich Barr]

***Skullar: {{Who you choose to believe is your problem. I just mentioned that quoting an important figure in history wasn't an argument.}}

You make take it that I am effectively agreeing with Churchill, who knew far more about the matter than you--he was there, and you weren't. You could also try reading the rest of my posts, and those of others--I think the reasons for disagreeing with your stand are fairly clear. Some people go further than I, and say the Britain would have gone under shortly without US intervention--I disagree with that, too, but the school of thought is out there.

{{The British Empire and the Soviet Union combined had more manpower and resources than Germany and her allies.}}

If it was just a matter of counting numbers, Israel lost every war it ever fought...and we won in Vietnam.

***tomndebb: {{By which statement I take it that you believe that the war in Europe began with the annexation of the Sudetenland or the Anschluss with Austria?

I think you could make a case for that.

{{Your statements of Japan forcibly annexing large areas of China are correct, but China did not begin a resistance that could be in any way considered a war until July, 1937. Prior to that time, Japan simply marched in, shot a few resisters, and camped where they wanted.}}

So it's only a war if the weaker group can resist enough to hurt the invaders? As far as I'm concerned, occupying part of a foreign country is a war--whether there are thousands being killed, or only "a few resisters."

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[mangeorge]

"anti-American sloganeering"
---Rich Barr
---------------------------
Where do you see any of this?


"I also don't see you looking for a discussion of racism in WWII in general, since there would be lots of examples...{including the Japanese, who were themselves extremely racist.}"
---Rich Barr
-------------------------------------
{Exactly.} I thought that was my point. Nowhere did imply that only America was racist. What country wasn't?
And you can't seriously compare the official treatment of Japanese-Americans to that of European-Americans during WWII.
There were two major "different-looking" groups in America, Asians and blacks. The Asians got camps and the blacks got Port Chicago. Being a Latin-American was not so great either.
You appearantly know your history. I don't understand why you slant the facts of history to cloud the truth of history.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Skullar]

Rich Barr,

I agree with most of what you say but some of your reasoning is faulty and not thought through enough.

Rich Barr:

You could also try reading the rest of my posts, and those of others--I think the reasons for disagreeing with your stand are fairly clear.


Most of the posts deal with the inevitability of the US entering the war, and racism and not with my point: that the US entered the war too late to make a difference IN HISTORY. Sure the heroics of the US soldiers, sailors, and air crew did shorten the war, but by December 1941 the writing was on the wall for Nazi Germany. Britain had stood alone during The Battle of Britain and survived, and a couple of days before the bombing of Peril Harbor the Russians had pushed the Germans back from the gates of Moscow. Hitler had already made his two biggest mistakes: Change the targeting of airfields and radar installations to cities in the Battle of Britain, losing an opportunity to gain air superiority, and not driving straight to Moscow where the bulk of new divisions in the Red Army were forming, instead trying to capture large areas of land which Russia has much of. Before turning back to Britain Hitler would have had to defeat the Russians to free the bulk of his forces. The Russians were not ill prepared as Mr.Sparkle says:


In fact, before American aid many of the Russians had to use rifles from the fallen just to fight on the field.


Under Stalin Russia was very prepared for war, at least equipment wise. The major problem at the beginning of the war was that most of the experienced and effective generals and field marshals were in jail or removed from command. Every division had a commissar (appointed for political reasons) who was responsible for military decisions. And as for the tanks used by the Russians in the fall of '41, they are said to have been superior. Inexperienced Russian officers/commissars didn't use the tanks in formations making then easy picking for German artillery. And at most battles the Germans had numerical superiority in troop strength. Only after the Battle of Moscow did Stalin realize he needed his old army commanders. Zhukov and his peers were back in their jobs and by the time of Stalingrad they had parity in the air and on ground.

Rich Barr suggests:


...the Russians would have ejected the Germans from the Soviet Union itself, but they might have stopped at that point...


Hitler's dream was always to seize Russia's land and resources. One of the things that made a country great in Hitler's mind was colonies which could provide all that Hitler's Third Reich could want. The ultimate goal for Hitler was to defeat Russia and gain breathing space for an expanding German population and to have required oil, coal, and iron resources that Russia had and Hitler thought necessary. Hitler would go all out for this end believing that all that was necessary was one last sacrifice (Kursk?) and the Soviet Union would fall. Stalin was also willing to sacrifice the Russian people for his own greed and would push on to Berlin, and maybe even the Atlantic.

To summarize my answer to what if Hitler didn't declare war with the US (interpreting this as no US involvement in Europe): it would have been winner take all, Germany or the Soviet Union.




------------------
Kobolde, die sich mit rotheissen Schuereisen unter Aussenaborten verbergen.

[Beruang]

Wow. Great thread. A couple of small notes:

The Chicago Reader, which carries The Straight Dope in this neck of the woods, has in the past carried a couple of articles on the "racism" issues. One was an interview with a German-American in Chicago who was interred during the war. Another was a comparison between anti-German and anti-Japanese war propaganda in the U.S. The anti-german propaganda was always aimed at "Nazis," rather than at the people as a whole. Anti-Japanese propaganda *was* aimed at the people, who were often referred to as "Nips" or "the Yellow Horde" or such.

Secondly, I may be mistaken, but I thought the House of Windsor changed it's name during the first World War. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me.

Thanks!

[PunditLisa]

Secondly, I may be mistaken, but I thought the House of Windsor changed it's name during the first World War. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me.

You are correct. That's what I said in my post, btw. My point was that anti-Germanic sentiment indeed existed in Europe during both wars. Interestingly, 50 years later, we are quite friendly with the Japanese. I often wonder if the WWII vets feel a bit betrayed by our turn-around.

On Fresh Air recently there was an interview with a gentleman who wrote a book describing the American occupation of Beijing after WWII. Said that the friendly relations between America and Japan today has a lot to do with the allies pro-democratic policy in Beijing. Unlike other wars, the "victors" didn't pour salt in the "losers" faces. Rather they encouraged local and national elections and basically acted kindly towards the Japanese. The Japanese people responded positively to the American presence and embraced our culture. Their campaign was successful as is evidenced by our relationship today.

[According to Pliny]

Beijing?

[Sofa King]

Just to set the record straight:

1) In response to continued Japanese incursion into China, the United States in July 1939 ended it's thirty-year old commercial treaty with Japan, giving the U.S. free reign to use trade embargo as a diplomatic tool against expansionist Japanese foreign policy.

2) The following year, the U.S. Pacific Fleet was moved from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, a move obviously directed toward the Japanese.

3) Japan's response to these two moves was to sign the Tripartite Pact, which recognized German-Italian hegemony in Europe and Japanese dominance in Asia. It further pledged mutual assistance to any signor attacked by a foreign nation not then involved in the European War. Russia was specifically excluded from this pact, owing to the German nonagression pact with Russia and Japan's smoldering border war with the same along the Manchurian border. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the pact was signed specifically with the United States in mind. As a side note, Yammamoto Isoroku, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack, was so opposed to this pact that the Japanese Army purportedly put up a bounty for his assasination.

4) Apparently, Hitler viewed Japan's preemptive attacks on the U.S. and U.K. as inconsequential to the terms of the treaty. Japan certainly would be attacked as a result, legitimizing Hitler's response.

Perhaps the greater question is, "why didn't Japan declare war on Russia as well?" In an ironic twist, shortly before Hitler invaded Russia, Japan concluded its own nonagression pact with Stalin. This allowed Marshal Zhukov and his Siberian veterans to be shipped west, where they arrived just in time to halt the German advance on Moscow.

Although they had had no formal defensive alliance at the time of the German-Russian nonaggression pact of 1939, Japan was somewhat miffed that Germany concluded such a treaty without consulting them, especially since Japan was in the midst of Corps-level fighting with Russia at the time. As a result, Japan felt no obligation to consult with Germany when concluding a similar agreement in 1941.

Japan and the Soviet Union warily adhered to the terms of their agreement until August, 1945, when Stalin declared war against Japan only hours after the detonation of the atomic bomb over Hiroshima.

[PunditLisa]

<ducking> Oops. My ignorance is showing. Make that Tokyo. :)

[Rich Barr]

***mangeorge: {{Where do you see any of this?}}

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions. My problem is that I didn't--and still don't--see any connection with racism and whether we would have gone to war in Europe without Hitler & Mussolini declaring war first. We were ALREADY at war with Japan.

{{And you can't seriously compare the official treatment of Japanese-Americans to that of European-Americans during WWII.}}

Nor did I try.

{{You appearantly know your history. I don't understand why you slant the facts of history to cloud the truth of history.}}

I don't understand where you get the idea that I do any such thing. I don't claim racism wasn't a factor in the treatment of Japanese-Americans, and in wartime propaganda against Japan as opposed to Germany. What I DO say is that there were other factors involved that were more important--the sneak-attack, the fact that the US and Japan were already military rivals whereas the US and Germany were not, and the fact that the Japanese were more of a direct threat to the US.


***Skullar: {{I agree with most of what you say but some of your reasoning is faulty and not thought through enough.}}

Aw shucks. I guess you like me after all.

{{Sure the heroics of the US soldiers, sailors, and air crew did shorten the war, but by December 1941 the writing was on the wall for Nazi Germany.}}

I'll agree that by that time any chance the Germans had of defeating Britain (occupation or forcing the British to sue for peace) was gone, and that they weren't going to have a very pleasant stay in Russia, either. I disagree that the Germans would necessarily have been themselves defeated--forced to surrender or driven back to their own borders.

Also keep in mind that without the US shortening the war, the Germans have more time to get their wonder-weapons out in force--particularly their jet fighters. There is also the atomic bomb to consider--the Germans turned out to be less advanced on this than expected, but a couple more years might have changed that.

{{Hitler had already made his two biggest mistakes}}

Actually, his BIGGEST mistake was going to war some seven years before his original planning called for it. This was particularly fatal for the German Navy--they had been told to prepare for war by 1946, and were not prepared to challenge the Royal Navy in 1939.

{{Stalin was also willing to sacrifice the Russian people for his own greed and would push on to Berlin, and maybe even the Atlantic.

To summarize my answer to what if Hitler didn't declare war with the US (interpreting this as no US involvement in Europe): it would have been winner take all, Germany or the Soviet Union.}}

Once again, the lack of pressure on the Western Front means more resources for the Germans on the Eastern Front--the Russians take even heavier losses than they did. The lack of US air power means the RAF is alone in the west--the Luftwaffe is left considerably healthier that way. And, instead of being squeezed from both directions, the Germans are retiring on their supply bases. Also remember that the British weren't exactly big fans of the Russians--Churchill dispatched troops to Greece at one point to make sure the Russians didn't take over after the Germans evacuated--and that therefore the possibility of an "understanding" between the Brits and Germans exists.

It's certainly legitimate to conclude that the Russians end up taking everything in this situation...but it's equally legitimate to conclude they wouldn't have.

***Beruang: {{The anti-german propaganda was always aimed at "Nazis," rather than at the people as a whole. Anti-Japanese propaganda *was* aimed at the people, who were often referred to as "Nips" or "the Yellow Horde" or such.}}

I think "Nazis" was meant as a slap at all Germans, in much the same way as "Krauts" or "Huns"...EUROPEAN Germans, that is. As somebody mentioned earlier, there was a lot of German immigration to the United States dating all the way back to the Pennsylvania Dutch--slandering Germans in general could aggravate a significant part of the electorate. Japanese-Americans were less numerous, had less political power--and, yes, looked different--so slandering the Japanese was politically safer.

(They were also very forgiving--the number of Japanese-Americans who were willing to volunteer to fight in Europe while their families were interned in camps has always amazed me. In a similar situation, my response would be to tell the god ol' USA to go straight to hell.)

------------------
Rich Barr
massivemaple@hotmail.com
AOL Instant Messenger: Hrttannl

[Bluepony]

SofaKing---

One of the best reasons for Japan never declaring war on the USSR stemmed from a little "border incident" at a place called Nomonhan, Mongolia-- the date, August 20, 1939, ten days or so before the Nazis invaded Poland.

Detailed very accurately in The Iron Cavalry by Ralph Zumbro, the final border clash took place between the Imperial Japanese Army 23d Division and at least two combined-arms divisions under the later famous General Zhukov.

The Japanese Kwantung Army was a primarily infantry centered force with armor playing a support role. The Red Army was beginning to test the combined-arms concept pushed by Zhukov. Nomonhan was the first test ground for this idea.

It was not a replay of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. There was no Tsushima. At the end of the Battle of Nomonhan, the Imperial 23d Division, and a large part of the Imperial 7th Division had ceased to exist under combined Red Army air, infantry and armor assaults. Losses to IJA forces amounted to 45,000 dead alone. Almost approaching our combined dead in the Vietnam War. This was just one battle.

The ironic part was that some of these survivors, since Japan could not admit the horrendous losses to its public, were shipped to a distant outpost of the Empire where they could rest and recuperate. Also they could not let news out of the debacle. The place where they were sent to was a tropical island called Guadalcanal and the 1st Marine Division in 1942. Talk about going from one shitty assignment to another.

The part that is interesting is that when the Neutrality Pact was signed between Japan and the USSR in March 1941, Stalin turned to Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka and said "We are both Asiatics, Japan can now turn south." Zhukov returned to the west and Japan freed her forces to face Burma, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Another crazy part of this was that the treaty guaranteed the USSR access to Vladivostok, where over half of her Lend Lease material from the US was shipped via the Trans-Siberia, right under Japan's nose and her Imperial Navy. The Axis treaty was more of a farce than a true treaty. Any attempts by Japan to knock out Vladivostok would've brought an end to her Kwantung Army.




------------------
"...send lawyers, guns, and money..."

Warren Zevon