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.
When they were fighting Britain alone, Germany was VERY close to eliminating the British air force, until they switched tactics and started bombing Britain's cities. Without an air force, Britain wouldn't have been able to defend herself from the skies. Her navy would have been destroyed from the air, along with any ship attempting to bring her supplies. Britain would have had to surrender or be starved to death.
Germany's invasion of Russia and Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor ended that possibility.
That may be the "standard" version of WW II from years ago, but more recent scholarship shows that the US was already involved in an undeclared naval war in the North Atlantic in 1941. The Roosevelt administration saw war in Europe as inevitable, and they wanted to get into it before Britain was defeated. You are correct that they could not get a declaration of war because of the isolationist sentiment in the US Congress, but they were primarily focused on the Atlantic.
That doesn't mean that they were unaware of the Japanese threat. They just didn't think it was as serious nor as imminent as the Nazi threat. Until the 1930s, the US and Japan had had good relations. There was a Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington, DC apparently attempting to deal with issues between the two countries in early December, 1941. That's what made the Pearl Harbor attack such a surprise.
As for why Hitler's declaration of war on the US was his stupidest move, it's simple: it brought the US into the European war. The US declaration of war on December 8, 1941 was only on Japan. I cannot see anyway that Roosevelt could have persuaded Congress to vote to go to war with Germany as well as Japan, at least not soon enough to save Britain, and Britain was key to going after Hitler because it provided the necessary land base for actions against all Europe. You have to remember that 70 years ago, the Atlantic Ocean was still a formidable barrier to invasion from either side.
The idea that Hitler was "forced" to declare war on the US because of his treaty with the Japanese is nonsense. He signed a treaty with Stalin promising not to attack the USSR, but he attacked anyways. He did what he did because he wanted to, not because he was bound by any rules, and it was stupid because Roosevelt didn't have to beg Congress to go to war with Germany. In fact, the US never did declare war on Germany.
Furthermore, you discount the role that American supplies played in aiding the Soviets against the Nazis beginning in 1942. Not only did the US supply Britain, it also supplied the Soviets through the port of Murmansk. The German declaration of war on the US also enabled the US Navy to hunt down and destroy the German U-boats which terrorized the Atlantic shipping lanes until they were put out of business.
You keep contradicting yourself. You say there was already undeclared naval warfare between the U.S. and Germany in 1941 before the declarations of war (which I agree with), then you later say that the German declaration of war enabled the U.S. Navy to hunt down U-boats. Well which is it? If the U.S. was already in a de-facto naval war, how did the declaration change things? Then you said earlier that the Roosevelt Administration ignored Japan as a threat. Now you are saying the opposite.
Now if the U.S. was already fighting Germany at sea, but not fighting Japan, wouldn't it make sense to view the Germans as the greater threat? It does not mean Roosevelt ignored Japan. Also, U.S.-Japanese relationships were not "good" prior to Pearl Harbor. There was lots of tension. The U.S. froze Japanese assets which was one of the driving forces behind Japan attacking the U.S.
Regarding the U.S. aid to Russia, it was barely a factor in 1942. It increased gradually during 1943 and 1944, but the war was already a stalemate by Winter 1941-1942. The fate of the Germans was decided by mid-1943 during the Battle of Kursk. The German Army's ability to launch an offensive was crippled in that battle. Up to that point, U.S. aid was barely a fraction of a percent of Soviet output. To say that U.S. aid had a major impact on the Soviets by that point defies logic when you examine the numbers. U.S. aid gradually increased after mid-1943, but the course of war had already been decided. The Soviets by that point were already producing exponentially more weapons, troops, tanks, and aircraft than the Germans. In the Battle of Kursk, Soviet tanks outnumbered the Germans like 4-1. The Soviets just had too many men, tanks, and aircraft. The Germans could not replace their losses like the Soviets could. This was the difference.
The bottom line is that U.S. aid was never a game-changer for the Soviets as popular American belief states. For decades, U.S. school children have been brainwashed into believing that American "won" the war for the Soviets based on our tremendous aid. While the aid was significant, it came too little too late to have an impact on the course of war.
As far as American troops, we barely fought the Germans before mid-1943 Invasion of Italy. even then, we were fighting a small contingent of German forces assisting Italian forces. The U.S. Army's contribution to the war against Germany was minimal until D-Day. D-Day forward is really the only significantly large engagement of U.S. forces against the Germans.
I also disagree with your take in Britain being such an important target for Hitler. First, Hitler never wanted war with the British. The British were Aryans just like the Germans. Hitler was forced to go to war against them after the Invasion of Poland and subsequent British declaration of war. Other than that, Britain was of little value in terms of resources. Second, the German attack on Britain came in 1939-1941, well before the U.S. entered the war. So to say Hitler attacked Britain based on it being a base for American troops is a bit of a reach. Third, a German invasion of Britain was a pipe-dream all along. The Germans were incapable of winning a naval engagement against the British and did not have the logistics to transport a large invasion force overseas. The only chance of victory would be to bomb the British into submission and force a negotiated peace. This is what Hitler wanted as the war progressed, but the British were unwilling to give up.
When they were fighting Britain alone, Germany was VERY close to eliminating the British air force, until they switched tactics and started bombing Britain's cities. Without an air force, Britain wouldn't have been able to defend herself from the skies. Her navy would have been destroyed from the air, along with any ship attempting to bring her supplies. Britain would have had to surrender or be starved to death.
Germany's invasion of Russia and Japan's attack at Pearl Harbor ended that possibility.
What evidence can you put forth that supports your claim that the Germans were very close to eliminating the British RAF? I've never heard nor read anything that supports that. From what I've read, the British were able to slowly beat the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe was switched to bombing tactics because they were losing planes at a rate of 2-1 versus British losses. The Germans switched tactics because they were getting their butts kicked, not because they were idiots.
As you said, Japan attacked us. We didn't attack them.
Of course, we were going to retaliate.
Japan did not attack "us". Japan attacked a US military base in the middle of a neutral ocean, which they (rightly) perceived to be a threat to Japan's legitimate interests in the Asian sphere. And Yes, school children always retaliate when someone makes a face at them.
Japan did not attack "us". Japan attacked a US military base in the middle of a neutral ocean, which they (rightly) perceived to be a threat to Japan's legitimate interests in the Asian sphere. And Yes, school children always retaliate when someone makes a face at them.
Sigh.
And what was Japan legitimate interests? That's right - the invasion of China. The rest of the world was apparently supposed to stand aside so Japan can carry out its "legitimate interests" unopposed.
In any case, when Japan, already in the 4th year of an imperialistic invasion China, launches even more assaults on neutral countries like America, Britain and the Netherlands, that's considered an attack.
Here is some examples of Japan carrying out its "legitimate interests" from 1894-1941. Note how Japan manages to be at war with almost every major power at least once and sometimes multiple times.
Nolefan - The British were losing pilots at a rate that they could not sustain. They were coming close to the tipping point when the Germans, who were also losing alot of pilots, changed tactics.
jtur - Hawaii was U.S. property. Militarily, it would have been a great advantage to eliminate the American navy in the Pacific, with the eventual conquest of Hawaii, but not losing our aircraft carriers was a huge advantage.
Losing over 2,000 Americans was a major reason to go to war with Japan.
I think the weirdest premise of this question was that the PRC wouldn't have come into being. The Chinese Civil War has been going on for quite a while and the Kuomintang was pretty incompetent and corrupt. If anything, the Japanese invasion likely forestalled the Communist takeover.
You keep contradicting yourself. You say there was already undeclared naval warfare between the U.S. and Germany in 1941 before the declarations of war (which I agree with), then you later say that the German declaration of war enabled the U.S. Navy to hunt down U-boats. Well which is it? If the U.S. was already in a de-facto naval war, how did the declaration change things? Then you said earlier that the Roosevelt Administration ignored Japan as a threat. Now you are saying the opposite.
Very simple: the US could openly deploy ships and planes to hunt down German u-boats without having to wait until the Germans attacked a US ship. In other words, it was the difference between being reactive/defensive vs proactive/aggressive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
Now if the U.S. was already fighting Germany at sea, but not fighting Japan, wouldn't it make sense to view the Germans as the greater threat? It does not mean Roosevelt ignored Japan. Also, U.S.-Japanese relationships were not "good" prior to Pearl Harbor. There was lots of tension. The U.S. froze Japanese assets which was one of the driving forces behind Japan attacking the U.S.
Ignore might be the wrong word, but the fact is that the Roosevelt administration was much more focused on Germany than on Japan. They thought the US would go to war with Germany sooner rather than later, and they didn't think that Japan was as big a threat as it turned out to be, primarily because the US assumed that it would have an intact Pacific fleet and that Japan wouldn't dare to challenge that fleet. Looking at the Japanese military moves and the US diplomatic moves in hindsight, it's easy to see trouble brewing, but in 1941, most US officials looked at the same facts but didn't come to the same conclusion. There might have been more than a little tinge of racism involved in this assessment, because most white Americans and Europeans looked down on Asians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
Regarding the U.S. aid to Russia, it was barely a factor in 1942. It increased gradually during 1943 and 1944, but the war was already a stalemate by Winter 1941-1942. The fate of the Germans was decided by mid-1943 during the Battle of Kursk. The German Army's ability to launch an offensive was crippled in that battle. Up to that point, U.S. aid was barely a fraction of a percent of Soviet output. To say that U.S. aid had a major impact on the Soviets by that point defies logic when you examine the numbers. U.S. aid gradually increased after mid-1943, but the course of war had already been decided. The Soviets by that point were already producing exponentially more weapons, troops, tanks, and aircraft than the Germans. In the Battle of Kursk, Soviet tanks outnumbered the Germans like 4-1. The Soviets just had too many men, tanks, and aircraft. The Germans could not replace their losses like the Soviets could. This was the difference.
The bottom line is that U.S. aid was never a game-changer for the Soviets as popular American belief states. For decades, U.S. school children have been brainwashed into believing that American "won" the war for the Soviets based on our tremendous aid. While the aid was significant, it came too little too late to have an impact on the course of war.
As far as American troops, we barely fought the Germans before mid-1943 Invasion of Italy. even then, we were fighting a small contingent of German forces assisting Italian forces. The U.S. Army's contribution to the war against Germany was minimal until D-Day. D-Day forward is really the only significantly large engagement of U.S. forces against the Germans.
I never claimed that US aid was a "game changer" on the Eastern Front. Certainly American aid helped boost Soviet morale, but it was hard to get supplies into Britain in 1942 and early 1943 much less to Murmansk. However, the US support of Britain made it impossible for the Nazis to make large scale transfers of men and materiel from western Europe to the Eastern Front. The victories of the Allies in North Africa and the push up the Italian peninsula would have never happened had Britain sued for peace, which it likely would have been forced to do if not for the flood of US supplies after the German declaration of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
I also disagree with your take in Britain being such an important target for Hitler. First, Hitler never wanted war with the British. The British were Aryans just like the Germans. Hitler was forced to go to war against them after the Invasion of Poland and subsequent British declaration of war. Other than that, Britain was of little value in terms of resources. Second, the German attack on Britain came in 1939-1941, well before the U.S. entered the war. So to say Hitler attacked Britain based on it being a base for American troops is a bit of a reach. Third, a German invasion of Britain was a pipe-dream all along. The Germans were incapable of winning a naval engagement against the British and did not have the logistics to transport a large invasion force overseas. The only chance of victory would be to bomb the British into submission and force a negotiated peace. This is what Hitler wanted as the war progressed, but the British were unwilling to give up.
The British may not have been a big target for Germany, but the loss of Britain -- simply forcing them out of the war -- would have made it impossible for the US to attack Hitler. I'm not talking about any of the Nazi's stategy but about US military logistics. If the Atlantic protected the US mainland from invasion from Europe, so the Atlantic protected Europe from invasion from the US. If Britain had been starved/bombed into submission, and at times in 1942, that was a serious threat because of the u-boat attacks on North Atlantic shipping, the US would have lost Britain as a stepping stone to France and as a base from which to bomb Germany. It also would have lost Gibraltar, North Africa, and the Suez, so there would have been no possible way to invade Italy.
What evidence can you put forth that supports your claim that the Germans were very close to eliminating the British RAF? I've never heard nor read anything that supports that. From what I've read, the British were able to slowly beat the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe was switched to bombing tactics because they were losing planes at a rate of 2-1 versus British losses. The Germans switched tactics because they were getting their butts kicked, not because they were idiots.
The Germans switched to terror bombing after the British bombed Berlin. This was in response to two German bombers going off course and inadvertently bombing London. Until then, the Germans were focusing on military targets. The Germans did not know it at the time, but the RAF was very close to being destroyed. If the Germans had continued to focus on British military targets and infrastructure, as they had been, they would have gained air supremacy.
Very simple: the US could openly deploy ships and planes to hunt down German u-boats without having to wait until the Germans attacked a US ship. In other words, it was the difference between being reactive/defensive vs proactive/aggressive.
Ignore might be the wrong word, but the fact is that the Roosevelt administration was much more focused on Germany than on Japan. They thought the US would go to war with Germany sooner rather than later, and they didn't think that Japan was as big a threat as it turned out to be, primarily because the US assumed that it would have an intact Pacific fleet and that Japan wouldn't dare to challenge that fleet. Looking at the Japanese military moves and the US diplomatic moves in hindsight, it's easy to see trouble brewing, but in 1941, most US officials looked at the same facts but didn't come to the same conclusion. There might have been more than a little tinge of racism involved in this assessment, because most white Americans and Europeans looked down on Asians.
I never claimed that US aid was a "game changer" on the Eastern Front. Certainly American aid helped boost Soviet morale, but it was hard to get supplies into Britain in 1942 and early 1943 much less to Murmansk. However, the US support of Britain made it impossible for the Nazis to make large scale transfers of men and materiel from western Europe to the Eastern Front. The victories of the Allies in North Africa and the push up the Italian peninsula would have never happened had Britain sued for peace, which it likely would have been forced to do if not for the flood of US supplies after the German declaration of war.
The British may not have been a big target for Germany, but the loss of Britain -- simply forcing them out of the war -- would have made it impossible for the US to attack Hitler. I'm not talking about any of the Nazi's stategy but about US military logistics. If the Atlantic protected the US mainland from invasion from Europe, so the Atlantic protected Europe from invasion from the US. If Britain had been starved/bombed into submission, and at times in 1942, that was a serious threat because of the u-boat attacks on North Atlantic shipping, the US would have lost Britain as a stepping stone to France and as a base from which to bomb Germany. It also would have lost Gibraltar, North Africa, and the Suez, so there would have been no possible way to invade Italy.
Linda,
"Very simple: the US could openly deploy ships and planes to hunt down German u-boats without having to wait until the Germans attacked a US ship. In other words, it was the difference between being reactive/defensive vs proactive/aggressive. "
The U.S. was already at naval war with Germany and was already openly hunting down U-boats. I'm not really sure what being reactive versus proactive has to do with anything we are arguing about or how it addresses your previous assertion.
"Ignore might be the wrong word, but the fact is that the Roosevelt administration was much more focused on Germany than on Japan. They thought the US would go to war with Germany sooner rather than later, and they didn't think that Japan was as big a threat as it turned out to be, primarily because the US assumed that it would have an intact Pacific fleet and that Japan wouldn't dare to challenge that fleet. Looking at the Japanese military moves and the US diplomatic moves in hindsight, it's easy to see trouble brewing, but in 1941, most US officials looked at the same facts but didn't come to the same conclusion. There might have been more than a little tinge of racism involved in this assessment, because most white Americans and Europeans looked down on Asians."
More contradictions. You keep changing what you're saying. First you said the Roosevelt administration ignored the Japanese threat, then you said they didn't ignore it, and now you're saying they ignored it again. I won't argue that the U.S. perceived Germany as the greater threat. Considering that the U.S. was already involved in naval warfare with Germany, wouldn't it stand to reason that Germany was considered the greater threat at the time? It doesn't mean that Roosevelt ignored Japan. Tensions between the U.S. and Japan were high 1-2 years leading up to Pearl Harbor. When the U.S. cut off Japanese oil, that was perceived as an act of war by the Japanese.
"I never claimed that US aid was a "game changer" on the Eastern Front. Certainly American aid helped boost Soviet morale, but it was hard to get supplies into Britain in 1942 and early 1943 much less to Murmansk. However, the US support of Britain made it impossible for the Nazis to make large scale transfers of men and materiel from western Europe to the Eastern Front. The victories of the Allies in North Africa and the push up the Italian peninsula would have never happened had Britain sued for peace, which it likely would have been forced to do if not for the flood of US supplies after the German declaration of war."
Oh boy. Where to start. You said attacking America was Hitler's stupidest decision of the war. That sounds like a game-changer to me. You threw in "on the Eastern Front" which was not what I said.
You say U.S. support prevented large scale transfers of Nazi's to the Eastern Front. That is totally backwards. Are you aware that 80% of German forces were engaged on the Eastern Front throughout the war? The remaining 20% of German forces were divided up between Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and occupational forces. What large-scale transfers of troops and materials were going to take place without British/American involvement?
American troops were not involved in fighting the Germans at all until 1942. Not even one American troop fought a German troop until 1942 in Operation Torch in North Africa. North Africa was a small scale campaign involving only a couple of divisions at any one time. American troops did not fight the Germans on a large scale really until D-Day. The British were fighting the Germans in North Africa, Norway, and the Middle East. These battles, while not insignificant, paled in comparison to the Eastern Front.
The American invasion of Italy had virtually zero impact on the German defeat. It certainly had a major impact on the Italian defeat, but not the German defeat. The American invasion forces barely penetrated into the Italian Alps. The terrain was so impassable and defensible that the Germans/Italians only needed a small force to defend them. The Americans in Italy were never a threat to Germany's mainland. The terrain provided a natural barrier.
I won't disagree about Britain being a critical base for American forces to launch attacks against Hitler, and Britain being reliant on American aid. But the Americans barely fought the Germans at all until D-Day. The German Army was already in retreat by mid-1943, so if U.S. forces barely fought the Germans until mid-1943 forward in proxy wars in Italy and North Africa, how decisive was American involvement really?
Your argument essentially relies upon making people believe that the less than 20% of German forces that the British/Americans tied up in proxy wars elsewhere are what allowed the Soviets to defeat the 80% of German forces on the Eastern Front. I just don't buy that. I think the Soviets had too many men, tanks, airplanes, and materials for the Germans to overcome. When the Germans failed to force a Soviet capitulation in Winter 1941-1942, that is really why the Germans lost. They could not sustain such a long term campaign against an enemy that could keep replacing their losses and in fact grow stronger over time.
"The British may not have been a big target for Germany, but the loss of Britain -- simply forcing them out of the war -- would have made it impossible for the US to attack Hitler. I'm not talking about any of the Nazi's stategy but about US military logistics. If the Atlantic protected the US mainland from invasion from Europe, so the Atlantic protected Europe from invasion from the US. If Britain had been starved/bombed into submission, and at times in 1942, that was a serious threat because of the u-boat attacks on North Atlantic shipping, the US would have lost Britain as a stepping stone to France and as a base from which to bomb Germany. It also would have lost Gibraltar, North Africa, and the Suez, so there would have been no possible way to invade Italy."
I won't argue Britain's importance as a U.S. base to launch attacks. The problem with this logic is that American forces launched zero ground attacks against Germany/France until 1944. Long before D-Day, the German Army had been dealt the decisive blow in 1943 at the Battle of Kursk. From that point onward, the Germans were in retreat on all fronts. D-Day's impact was it sped up the end of the war and it prevented the Russians from overrunning the entire continent. But it did not change the outcome of the inevitable German defeat.
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.
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.
