U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-16-2019, 07:05 AM
 
Location: London
4,018 posts, read 3,459,132 times
Reputation: 1740

Advertisements

The USA and British empire was attacked by Japan on Dec 7 1941; that is an overt declaration. Japan submitted a written declaration of war against the US and British on the 8th. Then the US courteously responded with a similar declaration.
https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/21/w...war-in-41.html

The Germans declared war on the USA first. The US had no intention of declaring war on Germany.

Romania, Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria also declared war on the USA. The US spent the next six months attempting to get Romania and Bulgaria to rescind their declarations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2019, 07:09 AM
 
Location: London
4,018 posts, read 3,459,132 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
Eh, a more interesting question to me would be if Germany would have continued with Russia as an ally instead of attacking it. Would most of Europe still be under Nazi control? Is there a bigger mistake that could have been made by the Axis Powers?
Most of Europe was not under Nazi control up until June 1941. Hitler was fearful of the British as he knew they would not stand still preparing for a larger conflict, especially the air war. Hitler was continually goading Japan to attack the British in the Far East to divert forces away from Germany. They kept refusing. Only when Hitler said he would declare war on the USA did the Japanese agree to attack the British.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 09:08 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,090 posts, read 4,429,461 times
Reputation: 830
Э
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
Assume that the history of Japan up to mid-1941 had gone as it actually did. That is, they had already invaded China, and the U.S. had already put its embargo of raw materials on Japan, thus leading the Japanese leadership to prepare to conquer other places to obtain the needed materials. However, let's say they conclude beforehand that there is no way that Japan can defeat the United States. Therefore, they diverge from actual history by deciding that under no circumstances will they attack anything American unless in self defense.

Thus, on December 7th, Japan launches its war of conquest in the Southwest Pacific. British and Dutch territories are attacked and fall. But Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and anything else American are completely left alone. American merchant ships are allowed to continue sailing the Pacific without interference. America's naval forces and army bases are left untouched.

How does the war go from here? Does America come to the aid of its European allies and fight on behalf of their conquered territories, or do our isolationist tendencies continue to hold sway? Do we provide material support to China, but don't get militarily involved? Does Japan manage to keep its conquered territories, take their resources for themselves, and decide that they've satisfied their war aims and stop further fighting? Does the Japanese Empire (excuse me, the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") become a long-term reality, like the British Empire was?

In other words, how would the Pacific War gone if America had not been attacked first?
Why do such nonsense write in the historical part of the forum? The forum is intended for history, not insinuations. There was no other way for the story to go, since it was the Soviet agents who ran the minds in the US white house.
This is the USSR made so that Japan attacked the United States, and the United States in Japan. Want to know why? because the United States wanted to support Germany during the Second World War.
If you want, I can describe how it was done.
But that war could have gone a different way in Europe is a fact. the fact is that Britain and France were preparing to attack the USSR, even before the German attack. but Germany was the first and it saved Britain and France from destruction.

Last edited by GreyKarast; 02-16-2019 at 09:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 09:22 AM
 
276 posts, read 160,961 times
Reputation: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
Assume that the history of Japan up to mid-1941 had gone as it actually did. That is, they had already invaded China, and the U.S. had already put its embargo of raw materials on Japan, thus leading the Japanese leadership to prepare to conquer other places to obtain the needed materials. However, let's say they conclude beforehand that there is no way that Japan can defeat the United States. Therefore, they diverge from actual history by deciding that under no circumstances will they attack anything American unless in self defense.

Thus, on December 7th, Japan launches its war of conquest in the Southwest Pacific. British and Dutch territories are attacked and fall. But Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, and anything else American are completely left alone. American merchant ships are allowed to continue sailing the Pacific without interference. America's naval forces and army bases are left untouched.

How does the war go from here? Does America come to the aid of its European allies and fight on behalf of their conquered territories, or do our isolationist tendencies continue to hold sway? Do we provide material support to China, but don't get militarily involved? Does Japan manage to keep its conquered territories, take their resources for themselves, and decide that they've satisfied their war aims and stop further fighting? Does the Japanese Empire (excuse me, the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere") become a long-term reality, like the British Empire was?

In other words, how would the Pacific War gone if America had not been attacked first?

technically japan invaded the Philippines on dec 10th...no difference at all
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 09:58 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,090 posts, read 4,429,461 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
Most of Europe was not under Nazi control up until June 1941. Hitler was fearful of the British as he knew they would not stand still preparing for a larger conflict, especially the air war. Hitler was continually goading Japan to attack the British in the Far East to divert forces away from Germany. They kept refusing. Only when Hitler said he would declare war on the USA did the Japanese agree to attack the British.
Hitler was never afraid of the British. So your statement does look ridiculous. At this time, All Europe was already under German control. But the British were very afraid of Germany, so much so that they destroyed the fleet of their allies - the French fleet. As they were afraid that these ships they will replenish the German fleet and they will attack Britain. But the fact is that the Hitler was never going to seriously destroy Britain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 10:26 AM
 
Location: London
4,018 posts, read 3,459,132 times
Reputation: 1740
That is pure opinion on your part. The facts are, Hitler tried a few times to make peace with Britain, each time they were turned down. Number two in Germany, Rudolph Hess flew to Britain in an attempt to make peace. Pure opinion again, Britain was never "afraid" of Germany, if they were they would have made peace. They never.

The German surface fleet was near non-existent as most for it was destroyed in Norway. The British never wanted the substantial French fleet to side with Germany for obvious reasons.

Look at a map of June 1941. Germany had allies, however never controlled those countries.

The point they could not win was when the British refused to make peace in June 1940. With Britain still in the war the Royal Navy blockade starved Germany, and the Axis, of vital resources, including food (animal & human) and oil. The Royal Navy controlled:
  • the Eastern Atlantic;
  • both entrances to the Mediterranean;
  • the Eastern Mediterranean;
  • Malta on the doorstep of Italy.
It's land forces were from Turkey to Libya. Essentially the British surrounded Europe, controlling the sea lanes. The Royal Navy ensured the conflict with Germany would continue. Britain was even buying up rare metals from Turkey to ensure the Germans did not have them. Germany could not win from this point onwards. Being a largely landlocked country, Germany's forces were heavily based on its army, while Britain's was heavily based on its navy and air force with a small highly mobile army. Germany could not remove Britain from the war having pretty well no surface fleet to Britain having the largest navy in the world.

Britain's approach was that every operation was to bleed Germany of resources, especially oil. The Italian fleet could never be at sea all together as the Royal Navy starved them of oil. Operations in Norway and Greece forced the Germans to deploy troops to these areas but also its very small surface fleet. The German occupied countries were also under the blockade, which were also a drain of German resources.

The British, because of its armed forces structure of massive navy, large air force and small highly mobile army were unable to engage the Germans on the European land mass, on which Germany had a massive army. Apart from the air, the two countries could not get at each other. Britain's war then was partially an economic war. Every German operation against the British had to be decisive whereas the British could lose to the Germans while still asserting economic pressure in its favour. This was the British way of war being very good at it. Britain used similar tactics against Germany in WW1 to devastating effects. This approach was used against the French on multiple occasions over 200 years. Smaller nations in Europe would follow Pax Britannica due British naval dominance. Britain could dictate any war's outcome by blocking trade and resources to one side or another.

The Germans like most of Europe relied on imported oil, raw materials and food (animal & human). For the Germans these resources can only come from two regions - the USSR or the rest of the world. By removing the rest of the world from the Axis, the British forced the Germans to acquire Soviet oil - Romania did not produce enough. Hitler had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 because of the resources situation. He needed the resources of the USSR to fight the coming air war with Britain.

In May 1940 Roosevelt stated the USA would produce 50,000 planes per year. Most of these would be directed towards Germany, with British pilots, with British aircraft production on top. Germany greatly expanded its U-Boat fleet. The popular view was that this fleet was to starve Britain into submission. That was valid but a high hope, however, it was also to divert and lock up Royal Navy resources in convoy protection and U-Boat hunting, allowing blockade running merchant ships to enter Germany and the occupied countries more freely.

Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from. Even if Germany had seized the Caucuses' oil fields intact (the Soviets sabotaged them to the point new deep bore holes would need to be drilled) the British would have focused them for their bombing campaign operating from the Middle East - there were plans to bomb them as Britain held nearby Iraq and occupied Iran. This was to drain Germany of vital oil. Every British victory in Africa was decisive and every German victory was not, even if Germany won an operation, they were still being bled. Unless Germany could seize the Suez Canal and beyond, the British could just come back year after year and counter attack with new tanks and new men, with resources not being a problem for them.

Germany knew that they could not invade Britain as the royal Navy was just too powerful. The RAF could replace losses far quicker than they could, as they found out in the air Battle of Britain. Germany could not put their large army on British soil.

After June 1940 Germany has an enemy it can’t defeat not entertaining peace, economically throttling the Germans every day of the war. Germany never had time, the British did. The German invasion of the USSR with an army short of resources due to the Royal Navy blockade, may have quickened the war's end for Germany, however it was not the point that Germany was doomed. Germany had already lost the war it was just a matter of time when Germany collapsed.

Last edited by John-UK; 02-16-2019 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2019, 11:33 AM
 
Location: State Fire and Ice
3,090 posts, read 4,429,461 times
Reputation: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK View Post
That is pure opinion on your part. The facts are, Hitler tried a few times to make peace with Britain, each time they were turned down. Number two in Germany, Rudolph Hess flew to Britain in an attempt to make peace. Pure opinion again, Britain was never "afraid" of Germany, if they were they would have made peace. They never.

The German surface fleet was near non-existent as most for it was destroyed in Norway. The British never wanted the substantial French fleet to side with Germany for obvious reasons.

Look at a map of June 1941. Germany had allies, however never controlled those countries.

The point they could not win was when the British refused to make peace in June 1940. With Britain still in the war the Royal Navy blockade starved Germany, and the Axis, of vital resources, including food (animal & human) and oil. The Royal Navy controlled:
  • the Eastern Atlantic;
  • both entrances to the Mediterranean;
  • the Eastern Mediterranean;
It's land forces were from Turkey to Libya. Essentially the British surrounded Europe, controlling the sea lanes. The Royal Navy ensured the conflict with Germany would continue. Britain was even buying up rare metals from Turkey to ensure the Germans did not have them. Germany could not win from this point onwards. Being a largely landlocked country, Germany's forces were heavily based on its army, while Britain's was heavily based on its navy and air force with a small highly mobile army. Germany could not remove Britain from the war having pretty well no surface fleet to Britain having the largest navy in the world.

Britain's approach was that every operation was to bleed Germany of resources, especially oil. The Italian fleet could never be at sea all together as the Royal Navy starved them of oil. Operations in Norway and Greece forced the Germans to deploy troops to these areas but also its very small surface fleet. The German occupied countries were also under the blockade, which were also a drain of German resources.

The British, because of its armed forces structure of massive navy, large air force and small highly mobile army were unable to engage the Germans on the European land mass, on which Germany had a massive army. Apart from the air, the two countries could not get at each other. Britain's war then was partially an economic war. Every German operation against the British had to be decisive whereas the British could lose to the Germans while still asserting economic pressure in its favour. This was the British way of war being very good at it. Britain used similar tactics against Germany in WW1 to devastating effects. This approach was used against the French on multiple occasions over 200 years. Smaller nations in Europe would follow Pax Britannica due British naval dominance. Britain could dictate any war's outcome by blocking trade and resources to one side or another.

The Germans like most of Europe relied on imported oil, raw materials and food (animal & human). For the Germans these resources can only come from two regions - the USSR or the rest of the world. By removing the rest of the world from the Axis, the British forced the Germans to acquire Soviet oil - Romania did not produce enough. Hitler had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941 because of the resources situation. He needed the resources of the USSR to fight the coming air war with Britain.

In May 1940 Roosevelt stated the USA would produce 50,000 planes per year. Most of these would be directed towards Germany, with British pilots, with British aircraft production on top. Germany greatly expanded its U-Boat fleet. The popular view was that this fleet was to starve Britain into submission. That was valid but a high hope, however, it was also to divert and lock up Royal Navy resources in convoy protection and U-Boat hunting, allowing blockade running merchant ships to enter Germany and the occupied countries more freely.

Germany had been forced into a situation by the British that they knew they could not escape from. Even if Germany had seized the Caucuses' oil fields intact (the Soviets sabotaged them to the point new deep bore holes would need to be drilled) the British would have focused them for their bombing campaign operating from the Middle East - there were plans to bomb them as Britain held nearby Iraq and occupied Iran. This was to drain Germany of vital oil. Every British victory in Africa was decisive and every German victory was not, even if Germany won an operation, they were still being bled. Unless Germany could seize the Suez Canal and beyond, the British could just come back year after year and counter attack with new tanks and new men, with resources not being a problem for them.

Germany knew that they could not invade Britain as the royal Navy was just too powerful. The RAF could replace losses far quicker than they could, as they found out in the air Battle of Britain. Germany could not put their large army on British soil.

After June 1940 Germany has an enemy it can’t defeat not entertaining peace, economically throttling the Germans every day of the war. Germany never had time, the British did. The German invasion of the USSR with an army short of resources due to the Royal Navy blockade, may have quickened the war's end for Germany, however it was not the point that Germany was doomed. Germany had already lost the war it was just a matter of time when Germany collapsed.
You know, here are the facts. Hitler was never afraid of England. Britain was afraid of Germany. After 41 years, Hitler could finish off Britain if he would like. And this is why he did not finish it off.If Hitler really wanted to destroy Britain, he probably would have destroyed: the Fuhrer had the strength and resources for that.
In1938, I recall that on September 30, immediately after the signing of the Munich Agreement.
A declaration of non-aggression and the peaceful settlement of disputes between Germany and Great Britain was signed (a similar agreement was concluded between Germany and France on December 6, 1938. "The German Führer and Chancellor (Hitler) and the English Prime Minister (Chamberlain) agreed that the question of Anglo-German relations is of paramount importance for both countries and for Europe, ”the agreement said, which was considered by the heads of the two countries as a“ symbol of determination ”of both peoples“ to never fight each other ruga. "
the fact that the Anglo-Saxons, that is, the United States and Great Britain, sponsored Hitler and his Nazi party, beginning in the 1920s, has not been a secret for a long time. And given the age-old habits of the British to drag chestnuts out of the fire with someone else's hands, it becomes clear: England was primarily interested in the German attack on the USSR. (Let me remind you that England and France itself planned an attack on the USSR before the attack of Germany).
The guarantee of Hitler’s aggression to the East, which England wanted, was this Anglo-German agreement, which was not noticeable against the background of the Munich Agreement, and not the Munich Agreement itself, which concerned Czechoslovakia alone.

However, after the signing of the most important documents for the fate of Europe, relations between England and the Third Reich also failed. Hitler, whom the Anglo-Saxons "fed", like a chained dog, who had to cling to the throat of the Soviets, suddenly went out of control and imagined himself equal to England. In London they could not understand and accept this. As planned by the Anglo-Saxon political technologists of the time, in order to get a more convenient base for aggression against the USSR, Hitler needed to join the Czech Republic and the Reich, and Slovakia, as well as to enter the Carpathian Ukraine in 1919-1939, respectively.
However, Hitler had already taken decisions on his own. In March 1939, he granted independence to Slovakia (unlike the Czech Republic, the remnants of which were annexed to the Reich under the name “Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia”), and gave the Carpathian Ukraine to his other satellite, Hungary. The partnership between Germany and England swiftly rolled down the slope, and Hitler turned for London from a "respectable politician" into a "brazen aggressor"
By the way, Hitler hated the USSR and Bolshevism much more than the Western "democracies." Therefore, until the last moment, he not only hoped, but also took various steps towards normalizing relations with London. That is why he did not finish off England.

The question arises: what about the bombing of British cities? But what about the air battle for England? Is this not proof of Hitler’s intention to destroy England? No, it's not!!! This whole "battle" was only a small episode, one inexpressive shot against the background of the monstrous tragedy that the Nazis would soon play out in the East. Hitler's directive on the invasion of the UK resembled preparation for the play, when, learning the lyrics, the artists are absolutely sure that the performance will not take place. Therefore, they actually do not teach their roles, knowing full well that the director is actually not going to put on a performance. Hitler did not really want the landing of the German troops in the British Isles, otherwise why the day before he disbanded 50 divisions and transferred another 25 to the staffing schedule of peacetime? Which leader of the country in the midst of hostilities is reducing its army? Only one who is confident that the war will end in negotiations.
But how is it to be with the air battle for England? A proper understanding of Hitler’s strategy is inseparable from an understanding of his goals. He does not want to fight with England, however, England refuses to conclude a peace treaty with Germany, despite the corresponding proposal from Germany. What in this situation remains to Hitler? Either go to the conditions of the British (which is stupid and unacceptable for the actual master of the situation), or try to persuade them to peace. It is to persuade, not to break or destroy. Another fact is curious: the first bombardment, and the enemy’s civilian target in the Anglo-German confrontation was not carried out at all by German, but by British aircraft. As soon as it became clear to the British that hopes to incite Hitler against the USSR at a convenient time for the British did not materialize - instead Hitler advances westward, invading Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and then France, the British bombs flew to the German city of Freiburg . This happened in May 1940. Killed civilians. So what? And nothing. Hitler did not react to this. Only after TWO MONTHS by bombardments by British aviation of German territory, in July 1940, German aviation would make its FIRST raid on British territory.
This will be the beginning of the “Battle of England”, which, according to official historiography, ended with the victory of the British, who, although they suffered heavy losses, forced the Germans, whose losses were even more serious, to abandon the plan to invade Britain from the sea and air . In fact, it was all a performance. In which, however, civilians and uninitiated in backstage intrigues, soldiers died for real. But who among the powerful of this world pays attention to such “trifles” when it comes to a grand operation aimed at destroying a common enemy — Russia? In July 1940, the development of the Barbarossa plan will begin, which will be approved in December of the same year. And in May, the 41st will be a strange "flight of Rudolf Hess to England," which was the last attempt of Berlin and London to agree on a joint strike on the USSR. The joint strike did not work out (England, we remind, loves to act with someone else’s hands), but Hitler became confident that England would not interfere with him - there would be no war on two fronts. Otherwise, he simply would not attack the USSR.
I can describe in detail how England and France were preparing for an attack on the USSR.
By the way, Great Britain and the Soviet Union became official allies in the war against Germany only on May 26, 1942, when the corresponding treaty was signed in London. For eleven months, since the invasion of Germany in the USSR, there was no “allies”, not even a formal union. England was waiting for the situation on the Soviet-German front to become clearer. And when there was a feeling that not only quick victory, but also no victory for Hitler in the USSR at all, it was here that England extended a “allied hand” to the country that she hated
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 10:16 AM
 
Location: London
4,018 posts, read 3,459,132 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast View Post
Hitler was never afraid of England. Britain was afraid of Germany.
Pure opinion not based on facts. Hitler did not have the capability to see off Britain. If he did he would have. The British surrounded the Axis and starved them of vital resources. Once the USSR was in the fight, access to resources for Germany was super critical. See above.

Britain and France planned no attack on the USSR before the attack by Germany in June 1941. They tried to get arms to the Finns in the 1939/40 winter war, but were too late. France did murmur to attack the USSR from the Middle East with bombers during the winter war, that was about it.

The air battle for England? That is proof of Hitler’s intention to destroy Britain - he failed. The reality is, few if any German craft would have made the beaches. The largest navy in the world was in front of them.

If nothing, your diatribe was entertaining.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 01:21 PM
Status: "POTUS Trump promises - not hot air" (set 10 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
14,343 posts, read 5,669,258 times
Reputation: 11430
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
Eh, a more interesting question to me would be if Germany would have continued with Russia as an ally instead of attacking it. Would most of Europe still be under Nazi control? Is there a bigger mistake that could have been made by the Axis Powers?
Germany always looked East, and Molotov-Ribbentrop was meant to be a diversion. It was never intended to be a permanent alliance, as is the U.S. and Britain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2019, 01:36 PM
 
225 posts, read 42,037 times
Reputation: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
The French and English would be speaking German
This is one of those notions that just will not die. And it's completely wrong.

Germany had no way to cross the English Channel. By the time of Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Britain was over a year in the past and the RAF had decisively won. And even had Germany somehow won air supremacy (a necessary prerequisite to invading Britain), the Kriegsmarine had no way of undertaking that invasion with one of the two mightiest navies in the world standing in the way. And they couldn't starve Britain out because even if they weren't in the war actively, the United States (and Canada) weren't about to let the UK's supply lifeline be severed.

And France? Outside of Alsace-Lorraine (where most of the population already spoke German anyway), the German occupiers of France made no substantive efforts at Germanification. The war in the West was about removing possible checks (France, the UK) to German ambitions in the East, not territorial acquisition.

The 'they'd be speaking German!' claim is a silly assertion that is wrong both in the details and generally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top