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.
Germany was DOA in their invasion of the USSR. Their declaration of war on the USA was a desperate gamble by Hitler to have Japan invade Siberia and relieve pressure on German troops. So the answer is yes it was a bad idea.
Germany was DOA in their invasion of the USSR. Their declaration of war on the USA was a desperate gamble by Hitler to have Japan invade Siberia and relieve pressure on German troops. So the answer is yes it was a bad idea.
????
In December of 1941 the German Army was far from being defeated and any defeat was hardly written on the walls of Leningrad, Stalingrad or Moscow. But if it was Hitler's intent to bring Japan into the war against the Soviets, it is hard to figure out how he would come to such a conclusion seeing how the Japanese Ambassador to Berlin, Yosuke Matsuoka had been rather clear that Japan wasn't interested in hostilities with the Soviets much less declaring war with then as well.
No one understands precisely why Hitler declared war on the U.S. it was one of those great mysteries because there is no record of Hitler discussing this issue with anyone and when he did announce that he would declare war on the U.S. there was pretty much universal shock in the German Army, the Navy had been arguing for war for sometime but had been previously held back by Hitler for the expressed reason as to not drag the U.S. into the conflict. I guess we have to chalk his decision up to just one of those crazy, insane things that fed Adolph's delusions.
No one understands precisely why Hitler declared war on the U.S. it was one of those great mysteries because there is no record of Hitler discussing this issue with anyone and when he did announce that he would declare war on the U.S.
1. Hitler made an agreement to assist the Japanese in their war effort.
2. FDR gave orders for American vessels and aircraft to attack German aircraft and U boats a month before Germany declared war on the U.S.. America was basically at war with the Nazis before anyone declared war, outside of the Japanese of course.
3. FDR was a known critic of the Nazi regime. He had been verbally attacking them in this manner long before war was formally declared.
[quote=ovcatto;31629471][quote=Rush71;31623580]1) But what came first? the oil embargo or Pearl Harbor?......wasn't the oil embargo and asset freezes an act of war?
Quote:
As for Finland, there is no excuse or alibi for the Soviet invasion of neutral Finland and as a result the Soviets were expelled from the League of nations which of course wasn't even a pin-prick but about the only thing that the West could do at that point.
In Finland, Stalin wanted align the border of Finland and offered territory twice more than he wanted to pick up. So it happened. But, Is do not have an excuse.
If we are going to say that my position is an "opinion" at least it is my "opinion". Last I checked you have offered no analysis of your own, merely posted an essay by Buchanan. I could accept my stance being considered an "opinion" if you could at least provide your own analysis of the facts and form your own cogent argument. See, I have already provided facts that show that Buchanan's analysis was flawed which led to his opinion being wrong. So, offer up the facts (or take mine I conveniently posted), provide your own analysis and opinion.
True or False
In order to avoid war the US's only option was a complete capitulation to the demands of Japan which included ceding the US's existing interests in SE Asia and recognizing Japanese hegemony over the territory including territories controlled by the Dutch and British that the US had no control over or right to speak about.
See, that statement, based on the facts and my analysis, is absolutely true. The question then becomes not one of "was it possible to avoid war", but "was the cost of avoiding war worth the price"? Buchanan and I will assume you, offer that it was; by claiming the future conflicts over communism into which the US was drawn would not have happened. He believes there would have been no PRC, DPRK and PRV. The problem here is that the facts presented by Buchanan do nothing to support that this would have been the case.
He builds his case that peace was possible without divulging what the cost of that peace was. That is strike one, because most people would not believe that capitulation and appeasement of Japan were good choices for the US in 1941. He then leaps forward a decade and says accepting this "peace" via "negotiation" would have met we avoided two wars in SE Asia and China would not be communist. Of course, he offers zero evidence that this would be the case. Probably because any such evidence would be nothing more than conjecture.
At the end, you can't weigh the costs of a decision based on a future supported by nothing more than conjecture. What mattered was the situation at hand in 1941 and what each side knew and what was or wasn't in their interest. Any elementary reading would see that the conflicting interests between the two nations could only be resolved by the complete capitulation of one to the other. Just because peace was possible, does not mean it was really a choice.
Exactly what was FDR caving to Stalin over? If your argument would be Eastern Europe and the post-war situation, then perhaps that had more to do with 13 million Red Army troops occupying that territory than it was FDR's soft spot for Stalin. I seriously doubt Stalin would have done more than chuckle if FDR tried to force him to do anything. If anything, FDR knew that bellicose rhetoric wasn't going to phase Stalin as Churchill had been using plenty of it. FDR believed that he may be able to get through to Stalin on a more personal level and compromise with the man. It wasn't a bad tactic considering those 13 million Soviet troops and all.
As for the British and French, exactly what aggression did they engage in? One could argue that their lack of aggression led to WW2.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? The US has been quite aggressive with foreign policy since WW2. Prior to that we were a rather insular nation.
Again, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? There wasn't even a "military industrial complex" in the US prior to WW2. Our military was beyond unprepared for war and poorly equipped.
What came first was the unilateral siezure of French Indochina by the Japanese. France had capitulated to Hitler and the Vichy government was formed. French Indochina was nominally pro-Vichy, given that they didn't have much of a choice. Indochina was a primary transit point for supplies going to Chinese forces resisting the Japanese invasion. Japan threatened an invasion and the Vichy French government yielded to the Japanese demands and crafted a treaty shutting down the supply route and agreeing to allow Japanese troops to be stationed in northern Indochina and also allowed for the transit of military supplies. That wasn't good enough for Japan and they promptly invaded. The French forces fought back, but were simply overwhelmed. This was important, because an even more vital area, Dutch East Indies, was in the same situation and Japan was laying her aim squarely at it.
Additionally, this article (from an academic source) provides great detail on the back and forth between Japan and the US between 1938 and 1941. The culmination of the enforcement of an embargo came following many other steps to attempt to convince Japan to change their policies. The interesting part, if you bother to read it, is that it highlights where the tenor shifted in Japanese policies. Once the war was decisively sliding in Hitler's favor in 1940, the Japanese became more aggressive. The US sensed this change and was well aware that the Japanese military viewed the situation as a "golden opportunity" to take what they wanted. It was even theorized that the military would most likely simply do what it wanted regardless of the position of the civilian government of Japan.
Again, you constantly want to introduce other examples into a situation that don't really apply to the period we are talking about. The article and my post above detail the long slide into the embargo and eventually war that was going on. These were not unilateral acts carried out in a vaccuum.
Britain and France openly supported Poland militarily and issued guarantees on its sovereignty. In the run-up to the the German invasion (Danzig Crisis) it was made very clear to Germany that while Poland, France and Britain were willing to negotiate over territory, the sovereignty of Poland would not be surrendered to Germany. The price for violating Polish sovereignty was war. Germany initiated hostilities with full knowledge of what that meant.
Now, the Soviet question requires a brief background...
Early in 1939 the Soviets had approach Britain, France, Romania and Poland to form an anti-Nazi alliance. The treaty required that Soviet forces be given free access rights to Poland and Romania in order to ensure security. Essentially it would involve Poland and Romania giving up a portion of their sovereignty and being occupied by Soviet troops. The effort fell apart. It is important to note here that this was essentially the same demand that Hitler placed on Poland, allow free access of German troops, that was rejected.
Having been rejected by France and Britain, the Soviets turned to negotiations with Germany to attempt to prevent war. The culmination of these negotiations was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. While it divided territory into spheres, the Soviets were less interested in the territory itself as they were with having a greater security buffer. Soviet war doctrine was a "defense in depth" of three echelons. When war broke out, the first echelon was to advance into enemy territory and take the war to them, while the other two moved forward in support. Having portions of Poland gave the Soviets somewhere to fight that wasn't on their own territory.
When the Soviets invaded Poland, it was viewed this way by each of the players...
The Soviets - Saw it as a way to ensure a greater buffer between Soviet territory and Nazi Germany. They were also happy to regain what they viewed as "traditional" Russian territories in the Baltic states. They viewed war between the Nazis and Soviets as inevitable, but wanted to delay it as long as possible.
The British - Britains treaty with Poland contained a secret clause that Britains support was only in effect in the case of a German invasion. The British also needed to be practical and were already at war with Germany and trade with the Soviet Union was important for the British war effort. The British also viewed the Soviet-German "alliance" as fragile and wanted to avoid pushing them closer together. Essentially Britain was following centuries of standard policy for continental affairs. Build a coalition against the largest threat, take it down and then work to maintain balance.
The French - While their treaty obligations would require them to come to Polands defense, they viewed the situation through a practical lense, the same as the British. They saw the Soviet action more about ensuring Soviet security, then anything to do with taking Poland. They also knew that the alliance between the Soviets and Germans was fragile and any action against the Soviets would just push them closer together. The French ultimately realized that the best choice for France and Poland was to not denounce the Soviet action.
Churchill summed it up rather well..
The Soviet action was seen as a necessity in light of the Nazi aggression, not an opportunistic siezure.
The only thing I will say is that I find your incessant reductionist arguments to be annoying. You want to reduce everything to simple processes and microcosms (when you're not building strawmen), but history is far more nuanced and the processes come together to form something that is more than the sum of the parts. You cannot reduce everything down to one moment, one decision and argue the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" of that moment while ignoring everything that built up to it.
too much shiat to respond but if you find my opinions annoying, why do you keep responding? .......all that book that you wrote is basically saying your opinion is better than mine.
No one understands precisely why Hitler declared war on the U.S. it was one of those great mysteries because there is no record of Hitler discussing this issue with anyone and when he did announce that he would declare war on the U.S. there was pretty much universal shock in the German Army, the Navy had been arguing for war for sometime but had been previously held back by Hitler for the expressed reason as to not drag the U.S. into the conflict. I guess we have to chalk his decision up to just one of those crazy, insane things that fed Adolph's delusions.
This is far to complex an issue to be answered here, but I'll over-simply and summarize.
FDR was anything but a neutral before December 7. His increasingly provocative behavior in Europe can be tracked through the various Neutrality Acts to Cash and Carry to Boats for Bases to Lend-Lease. His "arsenal of democracy" speeches made it clear to the world that he wanted war with Germany and that he had involved the US in the war already. During his Fireside Chat of September 11, 1941, he all but declared war when he announced that he had ordered the US Navy to fire on German and Italian warships, without provocation, whenever they were sighted in US "defensive waters". He went on to describe those waters as the entire Atlantic, especially from US ports, along the Canadian shores, past the Greenland and Iceland coasts to the beaches of the British Isles. Then he transferred several ships from the Pacific Fleet to the Atlantic Fleet to engage in "neutrality patrols" (that is, he ordered them to search out and destroy Axis vessels).
In the Pacific, the provocations were more blatant. He created an entire new army, the USAFFE and its air wing, the USAAFE and stationed it astride vital Japanese shipping lanes. He beefed up bases in Guam, Midway, Pearl and the Philippines. He moved the fleet from San Diego to Pearl (CinCPac Adm James Otto Richardson so opposed the move that he was relieved of command - He claimied it was an unnecessary provocation likely to induce an attack, and he made it clear that the fleet was a sitting duck for a carrier launched air attack and could not be defended)
FDR knew he could not get a declaration of war against Germany from the Congress or the American people. He also knew that if Japan attacked, he'd be able to get into the war in Europe. The McCollum Memo is just one of the smoking guns that make it fairly clear that the US wanted to provoke an attack. The seizure of all Japanese assets in the US, the aid to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietminh, the embargoes, especially the oil embargo and the Hull Note were gasoline on the fire.
Germany and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact as a mutual defense treaty. It was intended to stop US provocations by letting FDR know that if the US declared war on any of the parties, he would be involved in a two front global war across two oceans. Hitler also pledged outside the agreement that if Japan attacked the US, he would declare war on the US as well. It was only a 'gentleman's agreement', but Hitler kept his word.
Had the US not been involved in the war in Europe, the outcome would have been the same. It would have taken longer (maybe a year, maybe less) but the Red Army still would have won. By the time the US finally got into the shooting war in November 1942, Barbarossa had been repelled, the German defeat at Moscow had crippled the overall invasion plan and the tide at Stalingrad was turning. By the time the US/UK troops landed in Italy, the end of the war had already been determined. If Stalingrad didn't prove the point, Kursk and Smolensk did.
In the East, China would have held on in a war of attrition for years. Without the naval war, Japan could have continued the fight for some time, but without vital resources, she'd have had to reach a political end of the conflict.
Hitler wanted Japan to concentrate on the Indian Ocean. This would have cut India out of the British Empire and would have closed the Suez. That would have given the Germans the Middle East with its oil and a second route into the Soviet Union. He knew Japan was not going to declare war on the USSR, but his goal was to reach an accord with the UK. He never wanted war with the British and he was not overly concerned about the US military (which was one of the weakest and most poorly equipped armed forces in the war in 1941). He was worried about the US industrial strength, but FDR had already unleashed that against anyway. The formal declaration of war put the factories on war production full-time, but the 'arsenal of democracy' had already been devoting a large share of its output against the Axis.
As I said, this is over-simplified. There is a whole lot more. You won't get it from biased 'histories'. Look at the official documents and the events as they unfolded if you are truly interested.
Was Japanese aggression in China and southeast asia morally reprehensible? Yes or No.
Was it the morally correct thing to do to cease providing Japan with the fuel and credit to pursue that aggression? Yes or no.
.
.
As to the legit justifications of Japan bombing Pearl Harbor obviously from the Japanese or a neutral perspective, there was:
the creation of USAFFE, stationing it astride vital Japanese shipping lanes and attaching to it the largest collection of US warplanes outside the US;
The seizure of all Japanese assets in the US the very day USAFFE was established.
The buildup of bases in Guam, Midway, Wake, Subic Bay, Pearl and elsewhere with the clear threat of using them against Japan;
Blatantly false US claims of "neutrality", while FDR was overtly aiding, with money, arms, supplies and "unofficial" troops China and the forces of Ho Chi Minh in Indochina. (FDR promised to help Ho and the Vietminh in their struggle for independence and unification, then stabbed Ho in the back at Tehran. Additional insults and double-crosses of Ho by Uncle Sam followed in 1945, 1946, 1954 and 1956, eventually culminating in the Vietnam War.)
Embargoes of vitally necessary materials and goods, such as rubber, steel and oil, and the refusal of the US (at least from the Japanese perspective) to negotiate in good faith. The clear perception was that the US intended to keep Japan a second-rate nation and US pawn, as had been US policy since the days of Matthew Perry and The Black Ships.
Moving the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl, in spite of the warnings of CinCPac James Otto Richardson that such a move would be an unnecessary provocation, likely to provoke an attack and that, as US war games had well established, the fleet in Pearl would be a sitting duck, defenseless against a carrier launched air attack. Richardson several times disobeyed the order, then finally acquiesced but continue to voice his disapproval and concerns and was relieved of command for his efforts. Chester Nimitz was offered the job, but since he shared Richardson's concerns and knew that CinCPac would be the fall-guy when the fleet was destroyed, he declined. Husband Kimmel also shared Richardson's views, but he took the job and when the attack came, he took the fall. This time around, much to the great good fortune of the US Navy, Nimitz accepted the post, rebuilt the fleet and planned and directed the strategy the won the naval war.
The Japanese believed (with good reason - although from sources such as the McCollum Memo, it is more likely that FDR's goal was to provoke an attack by Japan) that FDR wanted war, a war they knew they could not win, and was planning his own attack on them. They hoped that by attacking first, the fleet could be destroyed and the US would be forced to the bargaining table in good faith. Had Genda been allowed to launch the third wave against the oil storage facilities, the sub pens, the drydocks and maintenance yards, had the carriers been in port or had Nagumo been authorized to take out Midway on the way home, the plan might have worked.
The Hull Note.
Morality really has no place in a discussion about war. What war has ever been "moral" by any universal standard. The belligerents on either side generally believe (are led to believe) that their cause is just.
In December of 1941 the German Army was far from being defeated and any defeat was hardly written on the walls of Leningrad, Stalingrad or Moscow. But if it was Hitler's intent to bring Japan into the war against the Soviets, it is hard to figure out how he would come to such a conclusion seeing how the Japanese Ambassador to Berlin, Yosuke Matsuoka had been rather clear that Japan wasn't interested in hostilities with the Soviets much less declaring war with then as well.
No one understands precisely why Hitler declared war on the U.S. it was one of those great mysteries because there is no record of Hitler discussing this issue with anyone and when he did announce that he would declare war on the U.S. there was pretty much universal shock in the German Army, the Navy had been arguing for war for sometime but had been previously held back by Hitler for the expressed reason as to not drag the U.S. into the conflict. I guess we have to chalk his decision up to just one of those crazy, insane things that fed Adolph's delusions.
Although the Germans were at the gates of these major cities, their casualty rates and equipment lost in Barbarrossa and Typhoon were more than they could sustain. Germany was much weaker in December 1941 than June 1941. Hitler AND his generals miscalculated the industrial potential and sheer size of the Red Army in the prelude to the invasion. Germany, unprepared for long term war in June 1941, could not defeat the USSR despite obviously being the stronger army in many respects. Hitler and his generals were commenting throughout 1941 how they did not expect Soviet resistance at such a high level and their overall strategic position was diminishing as the invasion further advanced.
The Soviets had numerous divisions in Siberia throughout 1941 thinking the Japanese would invade. That did not happen. Hitler wanted them there and not against his troops. In part, Declaration of war was a hope by Hitler to have Japan send troops into Siberia since the Axis were all in it together now.
Last edited by jobseeker2013; 10-03-2013 at 03:31 AM..
Although the Germans were at the gates of these major cities, their casualty rates and equipment lost in Barbarrossa and Typhoon were more than they could sustain. Germany was much weaker in December 1941 than June 1941. Hitler AND his generals miscalculated the industrial potential and sheer size of the Red Army in the prelude to the invasion. Germany, unprepared for long term war in June 1941, could not defeat the USSR despite obviously being the stronger army in many respects. Hitler and his generals were commenting throughout 1941 how they did not expect Soviet resistance at such a high level and their overall strategic position was diminishing as the invasion further advanced.
The only problem with that is that your initial comment was with regards to the German's perception of the situation which guided their actions. At the time, no matter what difficulties that they faced Hitler nor the general staff were feeling any sense of "desperation." If your argument was that in November of 1943 the Nazi's felt they were in a desperate situation as to declare war on Japan your argument might have some saliency, but it doesn't in December of 1941.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobseeker2013
Germany was DOA in their invasion of the USSR. Their declaration of war on the USA was a desperate gamble by Hitler to have Japan invade Siberia and relieve pressure on German troops.
How was it a "desperate" gamble when you already know what the cards are and you are not holding the winning hand? Japan was very clear that they were not going to initiate offensive operations against the Soviets. The Tripartite Pact of September 27, 1940 clearly outlines that mutual defense rested solely on coming to aid of a member nation if they were attacked by parties not already involved in the ongoing conflict. During the planning stages of Operation Barbarossa Hitler had suggested that Japan would join in the fight against the Soviets and Japan declined. Japan again declined to come to Hitler's aid after the invasion of Russia had begun. And in what should have been the final warning, in December of 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hitler proposed an amendment to the Tripartite Pact specifying that if any member was attacked by or chose to attack the U.S. that it would trigger a mutual defense pact, to which Japan in absolutely no uncertain terms stated that, "In case Germany demands that we participate in the war against the Soviet Union, we will respond that we do not intend to join the war for the time being." Yet despite all of that Hitler still declared war on the U.S.!
too much shiat to respond but if you find my opinions annoying, why do you keep responding? .......all that book that you wrote is basically saying your opinion is better than mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobseeker2013
Germany was DOA in their invasion of the USSR. Their declaration of war on the USA was a desperate gamble by Hitler to have Japan invade Siberia and relieve pressure on German troops. So the answer is yes it was a bad idea.
I have no argument over your statements regarding the losses in Barbarossa and their impact on the ability of Germany to wage war. However, this statement is incorrect. When Hitler declared war he still believed that the Soviet Union was close to collapse and had more to do with his hubris and belief that the US was weak than anything else. It was ultimately a poorly calculated move, but it had nothing to do with trying to bribe the Japanese to go to war with the Soviets.
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.
