What if Hitler didn't.....

Factual Questions
21

Two points of detail:

Doug Bowe said:

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

22

***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

23

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

24

Rich Bar:

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.

25

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.

26

***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

27

Rich Barr:

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

Rich Barr:

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.

28

Rich Barr:

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~

29

***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

30

“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

31

Rich Barr,

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

Rich Barr:

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:

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:

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.

32

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!

33

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.

34

Beijing?

35

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.

36

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
37

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

38

***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