what if Germany had not declared war on USA

After Pearl Harbour there was a strong thirst of revenge among American public and Japanese indeed "had woken up a sleeping giant" but it was aimed to Japanese not Germans. Even decleration of war by congress was aimed against Japan. If Roosevelt wanted to declare war on Germany he might have serious opposition. During that time there was a strong sentiment among US public about not to enter war in Europe.

But Adolf Hitler ( throught US decleration of war was imienent ) more interested in prestige he would gather if he declares war on US first , wanted to keep Axis Allience intact ( to keep Japanese happy. What good it did I don't know. They didn't attack to Siberia ) and to punish USA for aiding Great Britain ; declared war on US at 11 December 1941. He never throught highly about USA. ( "half-negro , half-Jewish nation" he said once ) and gravely underestimated them. But by declaring war on USA he made Roosevelt's work about concentrating Germany much easier. ( after war was over German citizens said they couldn't understand why USA declared war on Germany. When invading GI's said it was actually Germany which declared war on US they were shocked. )

If Hitler hadn't acted so recklessly who knows ? There would be no "Germany First" policy ( Could Roosevelt risk to cross public opinion about taking Pearl Harbour's revenge especially after rapid Japanese victories in Far East ) , all US might would be gathered in Pasific and Japan would be brought its knees much sooner. Of course there would be no Operation Torch either ( at least allied version ) , Italy might stay in war at Axis side and there would be no Second Front either. Great Britain might have survived with US help and cleaned North Africa from Axis forces by itself but British were too weak to open a Second Front.

So there would be an additional 50 or 60 divisions for Wehrmacht ( they were kept at West against an Allied invasion ) during Stalingrad summer. However there was no way to prevent encirclemnt of 6th Army in Stalingrad due to Hitler's imbecility these additional divisions would be a powerful reserve for Manstein's attack to relieve 6th Army during December 1942. Even this hadn't work again these division might have been a strong reserve force during Kursk Offensive or if this also had failed they could be used to stop Russian advance in Ukranie and White Russia .

So there are two future options

1) Wehrmact ( with help of wonder weapons like rockets , jets ) would be able to stop Red Army and ( with "no retreat" policy and counterattacks like Kharkov ) inflict crippling losses enough to force Stalin sue a negotieted peace ( Russians are realistic , they did so in WW1 besides Soviet Russia was not a very bright place during war I wonder they could go on without US help ) So nearly all Western Europe would be under Nazi domination or influence. USA and Great Britain would be complately isolated. They might even ally with Third Reich in a few years against Soviet Union. So Robert Harris's "Fatherland" could have been true. Wait where are the Jews , has anyone seen them ? ( they would vanish and disappear , fade from memory )

2) Red Army defeats Wehrmaht complately after much bloodier battles then we know and drives into Paris. Nazi Germany falls apart. And welcome to Great Soviet Union ! It is worker's paradise stretching from Vlodivostok to Brest. Stalin would be unquestionable leader. He starts purges along whole Europe which would show Hitler like a fanatic football fan. A lot of Europeans would immigrate to Great Britain , USA , South America , Australia and Soth Africa. USA and GB again isolated. And they would form some kind of allience
with Commonwealth states against Communism. A slightly different version of Cold War.
What do you think ?

It woulp happen later!

I think that the only thing that might change would be the timing. I don't believe the USA would just go on fighting the Japanese. Eventually they would enter the European War theater. But the delay on doing that would have as a consequence a much different post-war Europe. Maybe the Sovietes would have time to march all the way to the Rhur region and take half of italy as well as Greece. The outcome would be a much diferent corld-war era.

USA Declares Peace Scenario

If the US were only fighting the Japanese Empire, supplies to the European Allies would have dwindled. Based on the question, "Why supply Russia when we have our own War to fight."

Without the supplies, Germany would have been able to resist the Soviets longer.

The US would have created and dropped bombs on Japan, and ended that war.

What would it have done next? I think it is likely the US would have declared peace, telling all the warring parties to lay down their weapons or face the BOMB!

With the example of Japan in shambles, it is likely that the more rational elements of the warring parties would press for just that, but the concept here is 'more rational elements' and it is possible that either Germany (Hitler was at a minimum pretty crazy), or Russia (Joe Stalin might have felt the vast territory of Russia would protect him) would balk and continue the war.

Desert Fox said:

So there would be an additional 50 or 60 divisions for Wehrmacht ( they were kept at West against an Allied invasion ) during Stalingrad summer. However there was no way to prevent encirclemnt of 6th Army in Stalingrad due to Hitler's imbecility these additional divisions would be a powerful reserve for Manstein's attack to relieve 6th Army during December 1942. Even this hadn't work again these division might have been a strong reserve force during Kursk Offensive or if this also had failed they could be used to stop Russian advance in Ukranie and White Russia .

Click to expand...

50-60 divisions seems too large number. But even small part of that could make an impact. Germans get bogged down in Stalingrad as in OTL but now you have German forces holding flanks so Saturn and Uranus don't fall on Romanian and Italian divisions. Can they hold the line? Maybe, maybe not. Even if they don't there is ample time to see how big a force sovs have so there is more realistic assesment. Also more forces remain outside, but close to, encirclement so relief operation can be launched sooner and before Sovs cement forces separating 6. and other armies. They can battle to the city but question is what next.

Desert Fox said:

So there are two future options

1) Wehrmact ( with help of wonder weapons like rockets , jets ) would be able to stop Red Army and ( with "no retreat" policy and counterattacks like Kharkov ) inflict crippling losses enough to force Stalin sue a negotieted peace ( Russians are realistic , they did so in WW1 besides Soviet Russia was not a very bright place during war I wonder they could go on without US help ) So nearly all Western Europe would be under Nazi domination or influence. USA and Great Britain would be complately isolated. They might even ally with Third Reich in a few years against Soviet Union. So Robert Harris's "Fatherland" could have been true. Wait where are the Jews , has anyone seen them ? ( they would vanish and disappear , fade from memory )

Click to expand...

Depending on when Sovs and Germans make peace and how much thus has cost Germans. The longe rit takes and more Germans bleed in better position Brits are. Some sort of stalemate emerges. No side is strong enough to defeat other. IMO sort of like no-war-no-peace or peace with all sides suspicious of other and arms for next round.

Desert Fox said:

2) Red Army defeats Wehrmaht complately after much bloodier battles then we know and drives into Paris.

Click to expand...

This is a contradiction. In OTL Sovs were at the end of their strenght and only thirst for revenge and making sure Nazi Germany will be destroyed propelled them forward. If battles are bloodier then this means more casualties for RA and can't go on further. Besides with Germans sustaining losses and focusing their attention on east Brits invade anyway and are IMO likelly to take W Europe.

Desert Fox said:

Nazi Germany falls apart. And welcome to Great Soviet Union ! It is worker's paradise stretching from Vlodivostok to Brest. Stalin would be unquestionable leader. He starts purges along whole Europe which would show Hitler like a fanatic football fan. A lot of Europeans would immigrate to Great Britain , USA , South America , Australia and Soth Africa. USA and GB again isolated. And they would form some kind of allience
with Commonwealth states against Communism. A slightly different version of Cold War.
What do you think ?

Click to expand...

Unlikelly. Remember LL was instrumental in giving SU aid in areas they were bad (like communications, trucks...) so they could concentrate on where they were good (tanks, arty....). NO LL means instead of armor SU has to produce trucks instead of tanks. Or suffer lack of mobility and no being able to exploit breakthroughs and react to German counter strokes which depend on maneuver and good communication.

I think America would declare war on Germany anyway, Germany and Japan were working together and America would want Britain to help against Japan rather then both of them try their own thing. Also without Britain the American nuclear bomb project would be delayed a few years.
Also the president had been wanting to go to war with Germany all the time, it was just other idiots stopping him.

Leej said:

I think America would declare war on Germany anyway, Germany and Japan were working together and America would want Britain to help against Japan rather then both of them try their own thing. Also without Britain the American nuclear bomb project would be delayed a few years.
Also the president had been wanting to go to war with Germany all the time, it was just other idiots stopping him.

Click to expand...

Probably the most likely scenario since you are right that FDR and most of his foreign policy advisors had been looking for a reason to go to war with Hitler for some time anyway. Perhaps the declaration of war could have been styled as one against the "Japanese Empire and all nations allied with it". This would have been controversial, however, and it is not outside the realm of possibility that a large segment of Congress and the public might balk at it, making the resultant war against both Germany and Japan divisive and controversial. Also, if the USA went ahead with a "Germany first" strategy in alliance with the UK, this would be much less popular than it was in OTL. A possible compromise US outcome could be a policy of no offensive action against the Germans and Italians until the Japanese were finished off - allowing the US to supply the UK and USSR with lots of equipment but no committment of US troops in offensive action for several years.

The United States crushes Japan no later than 1944. Of course, the civilian death toll in Japan is drastically increased following the invasion of Kyushu and the famine that claimed millions of lives, since there was no atomic bomb to shock Japan into surrender AND no Soviet declaration of war.

No doubt historians in the 1960s begin suggesting that the US deliberately delayed deployment of the nukes to gain an advantage over the USSR, without caring for the number of Japanese who would die while Japanese hard-liners refused to surrender.

Also note the obvious way for the Brits to regain some of the strength diverted from Lend-Lease. Pull out of the British territories(India and such)! If the US doesn't take over the defense, Japan gains valuable ground. If it does, the British gambit works! The same holds for Soviet forces in the Pacific area by about 1943.

So by 1944 the British still have the Med. and key islands, possibly even Sicily/Sardinia/Corsica. The Germans are still obliged to maintain 50-70% of their OTL garrisons, for fear the Brits might get an invasion on the cheap, or perhaps Vichy or Italy might try to take a dive. Then Operation Bagration sends the Germans flying into disaster. By this point, of course, no Russian fears Japanese intervention, so they can pull in everything. Late 1944 sees the Russians held on the Vistula(at best), while most of the Balkans are either occupied by the Russians or cut a deal with the British. If Italy is still in the war, or if Vichy France survives, they are frantic to make a deal.

As the battle of Berlin(summer 1945) becomes a meat-grinder, the Germans are forced to reduce their contingents elsewhere to skeletal levels. The British landings in France/Italy are a walkover.

By 1946 the war is over, and the Russians(if the West is fortunate) can add all of Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Yugoslavia to their empire. If not, presume that Scandinavia is forced into a neutral posture, and France, the Low Countries, and Spain/Portugal are all the British can salvage.

Grimm Reaper said:

The United States crushes Japan no later than 1944. Of course, the civilian death toll in Japan is drastically increased following the invasion of Kyushu and the famine that claimed millions of lives, since there was no atomic bomb to shock Japan into surrender AND no Soviet declaration of war.

No doubt historians in the 1960s begin suggesting that the US deliberately delayed deployment of the nukes to gain an advantage over the USSR, without caring for the number of Japanese who would die while Japanese hard-liners refused to surrender.

Also note the obvious way for the Brits to regain some of the strength diverted from Lend-Lease. Pull out of the British territories(India and such)! If the US doesn't take over the defense, Japan gains valuable ground. If it does, the British gambit works! The same holds for Soviet forces in the Pacific area by about 1943.

So by 1944 the British still have the Med. and key islands, possibly even Sicily/Sardinia/Corsica. The Germans are still obliged to maintain 50-70% of their OTL garrisons, for fear the Brits might get an invasion on the cheap, or perhaps Vichy or Italy might try to take a dive. Then Operation Bagration sends the Germans flying into disaster. By this point, of course, no Russian fears Japanese intervention, so they can pull in everything. Late 1944 sees the Russians held on the Vistula(at best), while most of the Balkans are either occupied by the Russians or cut a deal with the British. If Italy is still in the war, or if Vichy France survives, they are frantic to make a deal.

As the battle of Berlin(summer 1945) becomes a meat-grinder, the Germans are forced to reduce their contingents elsewhere to skeletal levels. The British landings in France/Italy are a walkover.

By 1946 the war is over, and the Russians(if the West is fortunate) can add all of Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Yugoslavia to their empire. If not, presume that Scandinavia is forced into a neutral posture, and France, the Low Countries, and Spain/Portugal are all the British can salvage.

Click to expand...

I think that in your scenario Japan would surrender before millions died. But the necessary invasion of the islands would push that war into 1945, even with little commitments to Europe. Its not how I'd see the war devellop, though.

I like the idea of the British threatening to pull out of their Eastern Empire as a leverage against the Americans, as crazy as it sounds. It would *have* however to be an empty threat, as the mere mention would probably be political suicide for any British leader until post-war. The Empire still mattered ALOT to the Britons, and they really needed to go through the trauma of the whole war, and the realization they were now dependent on their former US colonies, to be willing to give it up. They wont leave India during the war...

About this part: "By this point, of course, no Russian fears Japanese intervention, so they can pull in everything." Stalin DID pull in everything from the Far East. He was *sure* through his spies by November 1941 that the Japs would stay out. Of course if he had been wrong, it could have hurt alot, but he left close to nothing in Siberia.

These forces allowed the 41 winter offensives. Without them, by the time Winter hit hard, the Soviet Army in Europe was down to 100,000 men around Moscow. Its little known but true that Operation Typhoon was wildly sucessful at first; 600,000+ prisoners as the Germans advanced on Moscow, almost as much as in Ukraine. All there was to save Moscow in case of a more sustained offensive, was these far-east divisions.

Now as for the actual consequences of Hitler not declaring war?

Well, IMO, Roosevelt would be in trouble at first, would need to divert ressources to the pacific, which would give a big boost to Germany in 1942. Roosevelt would lobby like MAD for a DoW though, and US presidential authority is known to climb in war times. I suspect that by late 1942, the USA will declare war on Germany, using some sunk destroyer as a pretext.

Meanwhile, the extra forces available to Germany in the east have allowed a swifter conquest of Stalingrad, while much less lend-lease put the British and the Russians in worse positions. The USSR has trouble building up its forces for a decisive counterattack in the Caucasus, and must put back offensives to 1943. In North Africa, Rommel overruns El-Alamein, seize oil deposits in Alexendria, and is barely stopped before overrunning Cario and the Suez Channel.

Once the US declares war, though, priorities rapidly shift to Europe. German submarines wreck the US East Coast, but only for a time. Japan ultimately surrenders about on time, after nuclear explosions. Its debatable how much Germany would benefit in the rest of the war from the late US entry. Maybe little, considering the US war production still started running full spin as fast as in OTL thanks to Japan. Maybe much, considering much stronger Caucasus and North African positions could allow crippling blows, forcing the British to dsetroy Suez, or even the Soviets to make a truce?

Ultimately, though, the TRUE long-term question there would be; would the Germans "benefit" enough from this to get nuked? With a POD this late, the US will fight I'm sure, and end up using the bomb when its available.

The only way I can see this not happening is a drastic reversal of Germany's position following Pearl Harbor. Although it would be a ploy, a severe condemnation of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, followed by the annulation of the Tripartite Pact, could move US opinion too far agaisnt war in Europe to make it possible for Roosevelt to declare it, despite occasional naval clashes in the Atlantic.

This has been done before. Still, here's a brief summary of what happens in a book I've been working on for years. Very long, totally unpublishable. It's a supposed manuscript, "CEREMONIES OF THE HORSEMEN: ASPECTS OF WORLD HISTORY, 1919-1965", by New Zealand writer. I won't bother arguing here about the way things go. Suffice it to say, that I've thought a lot about it. I'm not saying that this is how things would have gone, just that this is a reasonably likely course of events.

Hitler is informed about Pearl Harbour. He's much more concerned about the fighting before Moscow. After some hesitation, at the Kroll Opera House he offers the American People (not the Roosevelt Administration, he stresses), "all help short of war." He also offers peace to Britain on the basis of the status quo. A milch cow submarine arrives in New York with various bits of military technology. Very little of it is of any real value, but the American public aren't to know that. Following the Wannsee Conference, the Von Schirach Declaration is issued. After the war, a Jewish National Home will be set up. Roosevelt, true politician, recognises facts and cuts his losses. The bulk of naval units in the Atlantic are transferred to the Pacific. Lend Lease expires.

America is fighting a single front war. In Australia, MacArthur, escaped from Corregidor, is forced to resign by Roosevelt's emissary, the young congressman Lyndon Johnson. Quezon's payments are the lever used. Once MacArthur resigns, Roosevelt leaks the information about Quezon to Drew Parsons to discredit MacArthur. Midway doesn't go quite as it did here. The Japanese are forced to scuttle one carrier, the rest survive. The Americans don't realise that these no longer matter, the Japanese have lost the bulk of their naval air crews and have no way of replacing them. Roosevelt's strategy is to avoid casualties, slowly strangle Japan through blockade. When Taft accuses him of deliberately prolonging the war for political reasons, Roosevelt makes mincemeat of him, the amateur strategist with a history of mistaken prophecies calling for the sacrifice of American lives simply to attack a political opponent. Very little British resources go to the far east, Europe is Churchill's main concern. Australia has already recognised that America is the paramount power in the region. The popularity of Eisenhower, American commander in the South Pacific, is another factor here. India is being kept under control only with great difficulty. The Bengal Famine, widely publicised, is another factor hardening American opinion against Britain. The Chinese Nationalists are sidelined, information leaked about their corruption and incompetence. In the end, Yamashita is sent by Japan to conduct negotiations. He's been in a remote posting since Singapore. He runs rings round the other side. To the politicians, he talks about the need to keep these crazy generals on a tight rein, to the military he presents himself as a simple soldier doing his best for his country. His message is simple. You want us to stop the war and become a democracy? Fine, we'll do it. Hirohito has abdicated in favour of his son and retired to a monastery. The warmongers, Tojo, Homma, Yamamoto, and the rest, are prisoners or have committed seppuku. We have a new government. We accept your will. But don't push us to extremes. We still have a massive army and fleet. We'll lose, but we'll take Asia down with us rather than be totally humiliated. Roosevelt hails the new "democratic" Japanese government. Yamashita, "the first of the new genro", becomes Prime Minister. In the post war chaos in Asia, Japan adopts the role of America's gendarme. Under less pressure than in OTL, Roosevelt lives on till 1949. He husbands his strength. His one self indulgence is to retain Henry Wallace as his running mate in 1944. As Saul Alinsky later put it, "it was like a champion pool player using a bent cue. When you win, it feels so good." He secures the Democratic nomination for George Marshall in 1948. Looking back on Marshall's unsuccessful presidency, cynics wonder whether it was Roosevelt's last joke, to show the need for real politicians in office.

The war in Russia. Bit by bit, things diverge from OTL. Guderian is sacked after not committing his armour to take Stalingrad. Model manages to get a free hand from Hitler. His armour is kept for mobile defence. By the end, there are very few first line German troops in the occupied parts of Stalingrad, it's the satelite units which are used in the city. The suspicion long lingers that they've been deliberately sacrificed. The Russian winter offensive is less successful than in OTL. When the spring thaw brings it to a halt in March 1943, the front line runs south from Leningrad, down the Volkhov river, then straight from Lake Ilmen to the Don bend, curving back down the Don for a hundred miles, then south to Stavropol and west to the Black Sea. This will persist with little variation till the end of the war. Zhukov's offensive in the summer of 1943 is a costly failure. The Russians have lots of tanks, but lack things like trucks and radios. Limited mobility. There's also the German use of increasingly sophisticated anti tank weapons. Hitler increasingly withdraws from the running of the war.

The desert war. Rommel is killed in a British commando raid, somewhat to Kesselring's relief. Malta is starved into surrender, but the German presence in North Africa is reduced to a token force.

Britain. Churchill ends up pinning his hopes on Bomber Command. Harris is sacked after a disastrous raid on Berlin. The Battle of the Atlantic is being lost. By passing all normal chains of command, Churchill orders an invasion of Southern Ireland to secure the Treaty Ports, claiming that he's doing this to pre-empt a German invasion. It's a fiasco. The British forces are withdrawn after a couple of days and Churchill resigns as PM, replaced by Halifax who seeks terms from Germany. This is done quickly, helped by the fact that Ribbentrop has caught pneumonia and negotiations are conducted by Von Weizacker. The basis is the status quo, apart from Palestine which will be administered by Britain till the end of the European Conflict when it will be under temporary German control till it becomes the Jewish National Home.

The end of the war. My supposed writer is not quite sure what happened, but by supplying bits from OTL the reader should be able to work it out. Briefly, Hitler is lured to Smolensk to sign the armistice with Russia (both sides know they can't beat the other), on the way back his plane blows up. The Army and the SS announce this was a plot by a small clique of Nazi party members led by Martin Bormann who wanted to hold on to power. Hitler had intended, they claim, to retire into private life at the war's end but Bormann and co thought they could take over in the confusion following Hitler's death. Goering becomes temporary National Leader before Carl Goerdeler becomes Chancellor. As pay-off Himmler gets the Ukraine to play with, to found his ideal state. The League of Berlin is set up, a Christian, Conservative, version of the Common Market.

Book One: THE ROAD TO PEARL HARBOUR, Book Two: THE EUROPEAN CONFLICT, Book Three: THE ASIAN CONFLICT, Book Four: THE POST WAR SETTLEMENT. Book Four is supposedly unfinished, with chapters on such things as Stalin's last years, the libel case brought against Corelli Barnett by General Percival, Orson Welles and Joe Kennedy, Mountbatten's bothched military coup of 1947, Robert Zimmerman's trial for defaming the organs of state by his poem, THE LONELY DEATH OF ABRAHAM STERN, written after Stern was killed in a "hunting accident" by Rumkowski's adopted son.

The world that results is one lacking nuclear weapons or space travel, the development of jets and computers much slower, no Black Power, Women's or Gay Lib, anti imperialism. America is far more concerned with the Pacific than the Atlantic, the southern states of Africa are white controlled, there's been a massive influx of British immigrants.

Seen from a pre-PH viewpoint the US policy of lend-lease, escorting convoys half way across the Atlantic and declaration about being the arsenal of democracy appear like a vert straight forward copy of the way USA was brought into WWI - provoke the Germans into provocing us into getting into war with them.

If Japan hadn't attacked I guess that plan would have worked as well as in 1917 probably meaning a US declaration of war on Germany somewhen in 1942, in good distance from the presidential elections of 1944.

The Japanese attack however, disturbed the scheme, not that war wouldn't have been declared on Germany sooner or later, but it would be much more difficult to advocate for giving the war in Europe 1st priority. The main issue would be over deploying the still limited logistical capacity of the allies, and this could mean the allied campaigns in the Med. being less ambitious in 1942-43. Perhaps the Germans are allowed to cling onto Tunis a little longer and landings in Sicily and Italy a little later. That really doesn't matter, as long as the Germans are kept engaged.

I doubt if the Americans can speed up the Pacific campaign without taking big risks. A "Pacific 1st" priority might give extra supplies, men and equipment, but the huge naval programme would not be ready any earlier. So instead of doing the island jumping campaign with overwhelmingly superior naval forces you risk starting it with only marginally superior naval cover. It might work OK, but you also risk a huge defeat.

If the resources sent to the Pacific mean that Overlord isn't ready by June 44, the Soviets are probably going to reach the Rhine, if not the Channel. That would give some Cold War. I'm not sure if a Pacific 1st strategy will mean postponing Overlord though, as the Pacific campaign mainly relied on naval forces which weren't that much in demand in Europe, and more scarce resources might motivate innovation - for instance also the Americans seeing the use of specialised engineer equipment.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

If they go with Japan first, the navy is not ready and there is less co-operation with Britain they might go with mainland asia. I know there was a lot of people shouting out for American troops to land in China.

There is a loophole to keep aiding the Allies -

I am really on the fence as to whether Germany and the USA can end up not fighting each other given this PoD. I think it's somewhat plausible either way.

However, I am pretty sure Lend-Lease will not be cut-off. And massive US operations, as others have mentioned, will provide indirect relief for the Allies in Europe. The first six months after Pearl Harbor will probably actually be a net plus for the European allies, because it took at least that long for the US to become an asset in the European war in any way shape or form. Hitler will not be free to have his submarines hunt in the western Atlantic, unlike their "happy time" of OTL 1942.

Regarding Lend-Lease - High, even increased levels, of Lend-Lease to the UK are justifiable on the basis that the British Empire is a co-belligerent against Japan. If it's more efficient to aid the UK by sending stuff across the Atlantic while the British divert their own resources east towards the Indian Ocean and Pacific, so be it.

There will be no direct US aid to the USSR but Britain, buoyed by US aid, can transfer whatever resources it thinks it should to the USSR.

No. If Hitler is offering help to the US against Japan, there is no way Lend-Lease could continue. Even before Pearl Harbour, a couple of congressmen were trying to have Roosevelt impeached. As I pointed out the last time this topic came up, think of the situation- America is fighting Japan, Germany offers "all help short of war" to America, Germany offers peace on the basis of the status quo to Britain. Do you really think, all things being considered, Roosevelt could have got off with (or even considered) divering resources to Britain?

Prunesquallor said:

No. If Hitler is offering help to the US against Japan, there is no way Lend-Lease could continue. Even before Pearl Harbour, a couple of congressmen were trying to have Roosevelt impeached. As I pointed out the last time this topic came up, think of the situation- America is fighting Japan, Germany offers "all help short of war" to America, Germany offers peace on the basis of the status quo to Britain. Do you really think, all things being considered, Roosevelt could have got off with (or even considered) divering resources to Britain?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so, absolutely.

Your scenario strikes me as rather unlikely to be honest. First of all a "status quo" peace that leaves Germany in control of Europe is not a good deal, and the US would never press the UK to accept that, short of annihiliation.

The USA and Germany are already de-facto at war in half the Atlantic since late 1940; in these conditions, offering help against Japan, though I've pointed out the option myself as a way to create political dissent in the United States, would NOT be credible to the vast majority of the american intelligentia.

I'd suspect Roosevelt would rebuke the offer, denounce opportunism and try to put Germany in the same bed as Japan by pointing out the war in the Atlantic. In parallel to this, the peace camp would press for impeachment and generally sabotage in every way possible plans for a US DoW on Germany. This would, IMO, gain the Germans a year, give or take a few months, before all out war.

It would certainly not stop lend-lease. It would certainly not boost the UK for six months either, however. And the "happy hunting" on the East coast would merely be delayed a little; it would still happen.

Sorry, but this is all hindsight. What do you mean by "the vast majority of the American intelligentsia"? Pacifists, anti-communists, isolationists, the pro-German, the anti-British, the anti-Imperialist, until June 1941 the Communists? Are you seriously suggesting that- Hitler offers support against Japan and Roosevelt answers, no, I'm already fighting an undeclared war against you in the Atlantic? And Britain accepts a status quo peace (in 1944) because that's the best it can hope for. It's nothing to do with American pressure.

As I've pointed out before, every country has its own myths about WWII. Britain (we stood alone). Yes, through an incredibly mismanaged series of military and diplomatic blunders. Russia (we tore the guts out of the German Army). Yes, but only after Hitler attacked, Stalin was quite happy to keep on supplying Hitler with raw materials. France (the Resistance). Yes, but the German occupation was carried out using the French administrative system. America (we intervened in Europe). Yes, but only after Hitler declared war. If Hitler had not done this, I've little doubt that America would not have entered the European war.

Prunesquallor said:

Are you seriously suggesting that- Hitler offers support against Japan and Roosevelt answers, no, I'm already fighting an undeclared war against you in the Atlantic?

Click to expand...

Since it somehow failed to be clear enough the first time...

Yes.

A lot of FDR's admin. officials were hard-core anti-German, especially Morganthau and Wallace. Those two delayed accepting Italy's side-switch long enough for Germany to occupy Rome and everything North; what's to stop them from push-push-pushing Roosevelt (who, judging from his own views on various things, be inclined to listen to them anyway) into rejecting a German offer?

Valamyr- Thanks for making it clear. I just simply couldn't accept that anybody could hold such a strange view. This is the situation- America has been attacked by Japan, things are bad and getting worse. Hitler, going over Roosevelt's head, is offering help to the American people (and couching this in terms that more or less echo what Roosevelt's domestic critics have been saying.) Hitler'd have become a national hero. Imagine what the Republicans would have said had Roosevelt stated, yes, we're fighting a losing naval war in the Pacific but even so I intend to keep sizeable naval forces in the Atlantic because I don't like Nazi Germany, even if it has offered us all help short of war. Leaks from the Navy to the press, possibly threats of concerted resignation from Navy brass, all reverses in the Pacific blamed on diversion of resources to the Atlantic. He'd be lucky to get off with impeachment.

Matt- This sounds like more "new dealers' war" stuff. So Morgenthau and Wallace were responsible for the delay in accepting the Italian surrender? News to me. One of the best kept secrets of the war, so secret it doesn't turn up in the standard histories. Do you know these poor benighted historians actually think it was the ditherings of the Italian leadership, their playing for time, which caused delays? As for 1941, Morgenthau had little influence outside the treasury and his main concern, in foreign policy, had been trying to stop oil exports- to Japan. His importance towards the end of the war only arose because of the decline in the status of Harry Hopkins. As for Wallace, it's doubtful how much effect he had on Roosevelt at any time.

I'd be curious to hear the opinion of a few people on your ideas about this.

Say, Faaelin, for exemple.

Assuming, of course, that we accept the concept that Hitler could and would "offer all help short of war", that is.

I tend to be sceptical that such an offer could be met by anything else than the derisive laughter of the new world.

Valamyr- a few points.

I think what peope tend not to understand is how much Hitler dismissed American military and economic potential. At the time of Pearl Harbour what was really concerning him was the opening of the Russian winter offensive outside Moscow. To Hitler, American help to Britain was no more than a nuisance. IIRC, after the German surrender, when various teams of American investigators were sent in to survey such things as the effects of bombing, one group examined Hitler's declaration of war. They could find no real reason for it. I've always suspected that it was impelled by a desire to get a problem out of the way, to make a decision, any decision, just to get back to more important matters. That, and perhaps a feeling for the Wagnerian, the attraction of turning a local war into a world one, the desire to play the decisive role on the world stage.

Hitler declared war. Could he have done otherwise? He'd flip-flopped strategically before. Look at the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. He was profoundly ambiguous about the Japanese. He admired the attack on Pearl Harbour for its surprise and ruthlessness but referred to the Japanese as "laquered monkeys" and Hirohito as "a fitting companion piece to the late tsars." He expressed doubts to his staff about the Japanese alliance, that the loss of Asia to the white man might be more than the distraction of America from Europe was worth.

"the derisive laughter of the new world..." Which new world? The mid west, the isolationists, the extreme right, the west coast (just now rounding up the Japanese), the Roosevelt haters?

And the help Hitler gives- I have it as a supply submarine loaded with blueprints and specimens of various military devices. Low grade stuff, but enough to have cheering crowds as it enters New York.