Alternate WWII?

[Ken Estes]

Ehem....

 

Perhaps a better question would be: Once France falls in 1940, and the UK is stuck behind the Channel, can Nazi Germany avoid having to fight a two-front War (specifically against the USA)? Or is American intervention inevitable at that point, once the Brits get attacked?

Falken

Oh, I see; back to the topic? Well, one normally does not assess inevitability, but isn't it going to be darned hard for FDR to obtain a declaration of war vs. Germany? Even U-boats torpedoing US DDs engaged in convoying Br ships was not going to tilt the Congress, more likely lead to Qs on what the USN might be doing out there? The Germans are respecting the Neutrality Zone, could have moved on to the Suez by using a portion of the eventual Barbarossa force to capture Malta and finish the Med options. After that, th pressures upon Turkey become really immense, perhaps opening the way to India. Now that's Drang nach Osten!

 

It still goes back to the miscalculations over the USSR; blinded by ideology, racism of course. Until then, no German mistake has irretrievable consequences....

[Conall]

I see, now you are accusing me of Holocaust denial and fabrications of events that never happened?

 

No, sadly you are proving his point by demonstrating poor comprehension and a notable degree of intellectual dishonesty. If you're going to quote someone you shouldn't just pick a single sentence (which you appear to have misunderstood anyway) but their whole piece in context. This is why professional historians quote their sources and submit their work for peer review. Please reread the following paragraph (slowly perhaps) and you will see that the point Bill is making is about the need to not only do the requisite research but to acknowledge your sources and to hold them up for peer review.

The other untruth in there is this stuff about academics treating their knowledge as personal property, which is utter nonsense. Openess about sources is hammered into you from the get go, which is why they have all those references in academic work - they aren't there for fun, but so that *anyone* can find and check the info - and FYI I used to do that long before I ever set foot in a university. Interestingly, the only time I've heard of someone hiding their sources was on this Grate Sight, in a discussion about some German tank books or other, and IIRC the author was *not* an academic. IME a lot of folk who whinge on about academics demonising outsiders or being nitpickers etc etc are making excuses for the fact that they are either too lazy or incapable of operating at the requisite standard. They also tend to be the folk who lack the wit to grasp the old truism that more you find out, the less you know. You only have to look at David Irving or the performance of JWB in the Mark Clark thread in this very forum for clear examples.

 

BillB

Not only is this a more intellectually honest approach but it also makes for a more interesting and well informed debate - sadly something of which on the basis of the Mark Clark thread you appear incapable of achieving.

[DesertFox]

What was FDR looking for to get involved? If I understand he tried to negotiate with the Japanese Emperor to find peace just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Is there any non conspiracy authors who have uncovered FDR's game plan?

[Ken Estes]

What was FDR looking for to get involved? If I understand he tried to negotiate with the Japanese Emperor to find peace just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Is there any non conspiracy authors who have uncovered FDR's game plan?

 

Nothing to uncover, the game plan remains to guarantee the survival of the UK, not necessarily the empire. For that, FDR has succeeded: Lend Lease, Destroyers for Bases and, after the Fall of France, the National Emergency, Two Ocean Navy, etc. The renewal of the emergency - esp. keeping the guard & reserve on active duty - was a close-run thing in 1941. He could not have done more. The utter convenience and miracle of the Japanese attack simply spawns conspiracy grubbing where none exists. The US severely underestimates the Japanese desperation, but nobody could have imagined they would so seal their doom, dragging the rest of the Axis with them. I suppose they are the model for the rogue state parlied by the poly sci crowd, but it does not fit.

[DesertFox]

I assume he expected an attack on the Philippines, if anywhere. I don't think I would have expected an attack on Pearl Harbor myself in his shoes if with the modern sources. It seems a desperate gamble. Did he have a realistic view generally of their capabilities or did he see them through the lens of prejudice?

[Tony Williams]

I don't think I would have expected an attack on Pearl Harbor myself in his shoes if with the modern sources. It seems a desperate gamble. Did he have a realistic view generally of their capabilities or did he see them through the lens of prejudice?

I suspect that the Russo-Japanese War was behind Japan's catastrophic error of judgment in attacking the US fleet. After all, Japan won that war by destroying the Russian fleet, so they presumably thought that the same would apply...

[Luckyorwhat]

I suspect that the Russo-Japanese War was behind Japan's catastrophic error of judgment in attacking the US fleet. After all, Japan won that war by destroying the Russian fleet, so they presumably thought that the same would apply...

 

Thought the attack on PH was a diversionary tactic, to ensure that the US fleet didn't interfere with the real operation, which I read well-described good as 'swallowing an empire in a gulp'. With their land-based air assets in place they'd expect to be immune from any foreign fleet afterwards. Plus it wasn't all Japanese who made the error, it was a power struggle and the Army was calling the shots for a decade already, so the Navy wanted to open up a theater where they'd be the star.

[Guest aevans]

What, no attempt to point out how I'm totally wrong from your vast experience and Limitless Knowledge of All Things? The only person with a burr up his butt here is you, because the fact you have fallen back on pathetic schoolyard insults provides pretty conclusive proof that you've lost the adult end of the argument and you know it.

 

BillB

 

You still don't get it, Bill. Had you offered similar criticisms about the Marine Corps or computer programmers, I'd have said, "I can see why you'd say that; nobody's perfect." What did you do?

[BillB]

You still don't get it, Bill. Had you offered similar criticisms about the Marine Corps or computer programmers, I'd have said, "I can see why you'd say that; nobody's perfect." What did you do?

Once again, the only one not getting it here is you, and you are the one ladling out the criticisms, not I. All I did was what nobody seems to have taught you to do in your sojourn in Higher Education - I addressed and demolished your sweeping and inaccurate statements with a cogent, properly thought out argument supported with evidence. The best you have been able to come up with in response twice now is some schoolyard cat-calling and a bit of backpedalling. Again, if that's the best you can do you have clearly lost the grown-up end of the argument.

 

BillB

[DesertFox]

I suspect that the Russo-Japanese War was behind Japan's catastrophic error of judgment in attacking the US fleet. After all, Japan won that war by destroying the Russian fleet, so they presumably thought that the same would apply...

 

I mean FDR's judgment not Japan

[Assessor]

Ehem....

 

Perhaps a better question would be: Once France falls in 1940, and the UK is stuck behind the Channel, can Nazi Germany avoid having to fight a two-front War (specifically against the USA)? Or is American intervention inevitable at that point, once the Brits get attacked?

Falken

 

I wouldn't say so. As I understand it, there were very many "heavy hitters" on the non-intervention side in the US. If Hitler is very careful, and assiduously avoids attacking anything the Americans can constue as a "serious" target, he can probably avoid a head to head with the US. He might be able to reach an accomodation with the UK (but not if Churchill remains in power), at which point a US intervention becomes vastly less likely.

 

The main thing he has to do is distance himself from anything the Japanese do!

 

Question: Assuming Hitler manages to keep the US at arms' length, but doesn't have any real accomodation with Britain, what happens in the US when verifiable evidence of the Final Solution comes to light?

[swerve]

...

Question: Assuming Hitler manages to keep the US at arms' length, but doesn't have any real accomodation with Britain, what happens in the US when verifiable evidence of the Final Solution comes to light?

 

Weellll - US attitudes were very different then. Jews were still discriminated against in many spheres, & racism was respectable - even legally required in many states. The US military still practiced segregation. There might be horror & disgust, but less so, I would think, than now. Also, "verifiable evidence" - where would it come from, without the occupation of Germany? Remember that during the war, the USA & UK were reluctant to believe in it, when presented with strong evidence, & did not make that evidence public.

[Ken Estes]

I suspect that the Russo-Japanese War was behind Japan's catastrophic error of judgment in attacking the US fleet. After all, Japan won that war by destroying the Russian fleet, so they presumably thought that the same would apply...

Disabled, not destroyed, at Port Arthur, but maybe you refer to the final outcome? In the initial attack, only 1 BB became a total loss, the rest were patched, served the highly regarded Adm Makarov, who was mined, his successor fighting the Battle of the Yellow Sea vs. Togo, withdrawing to P. Arthur and their eventual fate [some raised for service later in the IJN].

 

Back to the Q of what did FDR expect in the Far East in late 1941? Intell was reporting the Japanese move south, and one could easily suspect trouble for the British and Dutch. As King Sargent will assert, we had Big Mac and the B-17 as our bulwark in the Phil., and there was no apparent JA need to go to war vs. the US in any case just to capture the southern resource area. FDR remains focused on Europe, clearly underestimates the Japanese penchant for irrational military moves, as do others.

[Guest aevans]

Once again, the only one not getting it here is you, and you are the one ladling out the criticisms, not I. All I did was what nobody seems to have taught you to do in your sojourn in Higher Education - I addressed and demolished your sweeping and inaccurate statements with a cogent, properly thought out argument supported with evidence. The best you have been able to come up with in response twice now is some schoolyard cat-calling and a bit of backpedalling. Again, if that's the best you can do you have clearly lost the grown-up end of the argument.

 

BillB

 

Bill, your entire "cogent, properly thought out argument supported with evidence", reproduced below, is founded on nothing but your opinion. It was nothing but a long winded diatribe about how right you think you are, and how publicly offended you could appear to be:

 

Leaving aside that it is almost complete bollocks (being based on extremely partial and unsupported personal opinioon) no it is not "hyperbolic" in the slightest, as your assertion meets the criteria of blanket condemnation absolutely by my reckoning. I'd also suggest that if anyone is doing any "demonizing" it is you, for reasons best known to yourself. I've worked in the academic field/environment you are talking about for over a decade, and in all that time I have come across precisely *two* individuals who exhibited any leaning toward that tendency. So instead of woolly and unverifiable generalities, assertions and subtle slurs, let's see you provide some proper, specific and verifiable evidence to back up your position.

 

While we are at it, let's just clear up these canards about academic historians v. "outsider" historians. IMO The latter is a false division, and the real one is simply between doing the job properly and doing the job to a lesser standard. Let's use Shirer being a journo as an example. I understand you work in IT - if you need to take someone on in your area, would you go for for someone with the requisite IT qualifications or a journalist? Similarly, would you employ a journalist to service your car or a qualified mechanic? Who do you turn to for dental work, a journo or a qualified dentist, or for contruction work - a journo or a qualified tradesmen? So why is it automatically assumed that a journo should be any good at writing history? It has to be the qualified specialist every time, yet when it comes to history that seems to go out the window, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that everybody and his dog seem can do it despite an infinite amount of clear evidene to the contrary. Ironically given the undercurrent of anti-intellectualism, I frequently came across exactly the same attitude in my eighteen years laying bricks - I was always being told how it wasn't a proper trade and how anyone could do it. Until you gave them a the trowel and spirit level or asked them to do sonething like setting out an arch, and lo, you got a pig's ear and some tail between legs bcktracking in no time flat. That's not to say that some DIYers/non-academically trained historians aren't every bit as good as the trained item, or that there are no incompetent specimens among the latter. But generally speaking the former are the exception rather than the rule and the properly trained item is superior as in every other field of endeavour.

 

The other untruth in there is this stuff about academics treating their knowledge as personal property, which is utter nonsense. Openess about sources is hammered into you from the get go, which is why they have all those references in academic work - they aren't there for fun, but so that *anyone* can find and check the info - and FYI I used to do that long before I ever set foot in a university. Interestingly, the only time I've heard of someone hiding their sources was on this Grate Sight, in a discussion about some German tank books or other, and IIRC the author was *not* an academic. IME a lot of folk who whinge on about academics demonising outsiders or being nitpickers etc etc are making excuses for the fact that they are either too lazy or incapable of operating at the requisite standard. They also tend to be the folk who lack the wit to grasp the old truism that more you find out, the less you know. You only have to look at David Irving or the performance of JWB in the Mark Clark thread in this very forum for clear examples.

 

BillB

 

Let's look at the authorities in the above ("I", "my", and "M" as in "my" all referring to yourself, Bill B ):

 

"by my reckoning"

 

"I have come across"

 

"IMO"

 

"I frequently came across"

 

"I was always being told"

 

"I used to do"

 

"IIRC"

 

So, you set out to demolish my "sweeping and inaccurate statements", based on my "extremely partial and unsupported personal opinioon" [sic], and your entire foundation is The Word ex officio yourself.

 

You see, Bill, you accuse me of relying on my self-assumed infalibility, then you declare yourself the winna an' still champeen on the strength of that very dodge. As for name calling, well, I ain't begun to call you names, Bill, despite what you claim. I haven't had to. You're just too good at naming yourself for me to compete.

Edited December 10, 2007 by aevans

[Tony Williams]

I wouldn't say so. As I understand it, there were very many "heavy hitters" on the non-intervention side in the US. If Hitler is very careful, and assiduously avoids attacking anything the Americans can constue as a "serious" target, he can probably avoid a head to head with the US. He might be able to reach an accomodation with the UK (but not if Churchill remains in power), at which point a US intervention becomes vastly less likely.

 

The main thing he has to do is distance himself from anything the Japanese do!

 

The really clever move would have been for Hitler to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, in solidarity with the (more or less) Aryan races!

[Assessor]

Swerve wrote: “Weellll - US attitudes were very different then. Jews were still discriminated against in many spheres, & racism was respectable - even legally required in many states. The US military still practiced segregation. There might be horror & disgust, but less so, I would think, than now. Also, "verifiable evidence" - where would it come from, without the occupation of Germany? Remember that during the war, the USA & UK were reluctant to believe in it, when presented with strong evidence, & did not make that evidence public.”

 

Hmmm. Fair points. I just wondered how that would play with public sympathies in the large cities of the US. For what it’s worth, what I had in mind as “evidence” was a medium-ranking official having a Damascene moment and defecting with a suitacse full of documents and photographs that go straight to the press in a neutral country.

 

 

 

 

 

Tony Williams wrote: “The really clever move would have been for Hitler to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, in solidarity with the (more or less) Aryan races!”

Nothing like keeping it simple! Ouch! Condemning the Japanese action and not supporting them would, at a stroke, reduce Britain’s chances of US support versus Germany to very small. The moment Germany declares war on Japan and a single KM ship moves into the Atlantic to rendesvous with the US fleet, the chances of Britain receiving American support versus Germany would drop to zero. With Germany and Britain de facto co-belligerents, the very best Britain could hope for would be that the US would act as an honest broker in any future dealings with Germany. The very obvious fly in this particular ointment would be the DEI, whom, iirc, the US was arming and supporting before the Japanese attack.

[dpapp2]

Interesting, Germany declaring war on Japan. The most important change is that the USSR won't get any more stuff from US lend-lease. Japan and the USSR makes a secret pact. Japan receives a transfer of mostly obsolete Soviet light tanks (BT-5/7 and T-26s) and some oil to help in China and in Burma.

[DesertFox]

From what I read and have seen on Television on such places as the History Channel, Hitler did not have to declare war on the United States except in case of the United States attacking Japan.

 

What did Hitler's assistants suggest if that is recorded anywhere? Were they for declaring on the United States?

[Gabe]

This was never going to happen. Germany had urged Japan to attack the US. They made a secret deal to jointly declare war against the US and to seek no seperate peace.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411129b.html

 

Ribbentrop: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is absolutely no possibility of Germany's entering into a separate peace with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is determined on that point."

[Tony Williams]

This was never going to happen. Germany had urged Japan to attack the US. They made a secret deal to jointly declare war against the US and to seek no seperate peace.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411129b.html

 

Ribbentrop: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is absolutely no possibility of Germany's entering into a separate peace with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is determined on that point."

 

I never claimed it was feasible, just that it would make an interesting basis for an alternate WW2. Hitler's alliance with Japan was always rather bizarre, given his extreme racism.

[Luckyorwhat]

I never claimed it was feasible, just that it would make an interesting basis for an alternate WW2. Hitler's alliance with Japan was always rather bizarre, given his extreme racism.

 

Not so clear though. For instance Hitler was very close with Amin al-Husseini the Mufti of Jerusalem. In fact the Mufti was mass-killing Jews (and Arabs who opposed his plans for Jews) before Hitler could grow a mustache, and was instrumental to the plans of the holocaust, stayed in Germany as a special guest until 1945 became a hero of the Arabic world, and was never tried for war crimes because this would upset too many Arab countries. His nephew Yassir officially declared him a hero, and he's felt to be instrumental to the formation of radical Islam as it's known today. So while the basic premise of naziism may have been racist, naziism clearly was a philosophy that could be shared among diverse cultures with over-riding hatreds, as it still seems alive and well today.

 

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...6e-a3c06a460e73

Edited December 11, 2007 by Luckyorwhat

[Ken Estes]

This was never going to happen. Germany had urged Japan to attack the US. They made a secret deal to jointly declare war against the US and to seek no seperate peace.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/411129b.html

 

Ribbentrop: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately. There is absolutely no possibility of Germany's entering into a separate peace with the United States under such circumstances. The Fuehrer is determined on that point."

 

Any deal between them was secret, even the true operative paragraphs of the Tripartite Pact, which -it was hoped - would keep the US out of the war. There was no plan to jointly declare war, but Ribbentrop's promise to not seek a separate peace gave support to Japan that they would not be alone.

 

Hitler in 1941 began to fear that the intervention of the US in the war had become inevitable [there's that word!], feared even more being at war against the Anglo-Americans without the support of Japan. This where the great paradox in German diplomacy reared its ugly head: Hitler forbade any antagonism toward the USA, instructed the German Navy to stay out of the neutrality zone. On the other hand, Germany strove to overcome Japanese ambiguity, urging them to take action against Britain in the Far East, suggesting that the US would not be able to respond. But with Roosevelt's success in repealing the Neutrality Act [13 Nov 41], the greatest fear of the Germans becomes the last minute Japanese 'peace' mission to the US. The Germans even began to fear that Tojo was not a tough enough replacement as prime minister! Fortunately, the Japanese enter the war and Hitler resigns to the need to support them, sensing that failure to begin war immediately with the USA simply postponed the inevitable [again!], revealed to the German people a fear of the US, and at least the German Navy could begin to attack US shipping while the US antisubmarine defenses remained weak.

 

The world of Hitler thus unravels in the second half of 1941 and he is left unable to finish off the USSR and with the war vs. the US that he had tried to avoid for two solid years.

[yak_v]

Disabled, not destroyed, at Port Arthur, but maybe you refer to the final outcome? In the initial attack, only 1 BB became a total loss, the rest were patched, served the highly regarded Adm Makarov, who was mined, his successor fighting the Battle of the Yellow Sea vs. Togo, withdrawing to P. Arthur and their eventual fate [some raised for service later in the IJN].

 

No BBs were lost in the initial attack. Two BBs (Tsesarevich and Retvizan) and a protected cruiser (Poltava) were torpedoed, Retvizan was beached but refloated and repaired in under 4 months. The other BB and a cruiser entered Port Arthur under their own power and were repaired in the same 4 months or so. The final outcome for the battleships of the first Pacific Squadron during the war were:

Tsesarevich - Interned in Tsingtao Aug 1904

Retvizan - sunk in PA by Japanese siege guns Nov 1904, later raised and repaired by the Japanese

Petropavlovsk - hit a mine and blew up with Admiral Makarov on board Mar 1904

Poltava - sunk in PA by Japanese siege guns Nov 1904, later raised and repaired by the Japanese

Sevastopol - damaged while attempting to break out of PA and sctullted before surrender Dec 1904

Pobeda - sunk in PA by Japanese siege guns Nov 1904, later raised and repaired by the Japanese

Peresvet - sunk in PA by Japanese siege guns Nov 1904, later raised and repaired by the Japanese

 

Vladimir

[Gabe]

There was no plan to jointly declare war...

Not so, Ribbentrop said: "Should Japan become engaged in a war against the United States Germany, of course, would join the war immediately."

 

Furthermore, earlier in the conversation this allegedly was said:

 

Ribbentrop: "It is essential that Japan effect the New Order in East Asia without losing this opportunity. There never has been and probably never will be a time when closer cooperation under the Tripartite Pact is so important. If Japan hesitates at this time, and Germany goes ahead and establishes her European New Order, all the military might of Britain and the United States will be concentrated against Japan.

 

"As Fuehrer Hitler said today, there are fundamental differences in the very right to exist between Germany and Japan, and the United States. We have received advice to the effect that there is practically no hope of the Japanese-U. S. negotiations being concluded successfully, because of the fact that the United States is putting up a stiff front.

 

"If this is indeed the fact of the case, and if Japan reaches a decision to fight Britain and the United States, I am confident that that will not only be to the interest of Germany and Japan jointly, but would bring about favorable results for Japan herself."

 

I: "I can make no definite statement as I am not aware of any concrete intentions of Japan. Is Your Excellency indicating that a state of actual war is to be established between Germany and the United States?"

 

Ribbentrop: "Roosevelt's a fanatic, so it is impossible to tell what he would do."

 

Concerning this point, in view of the fact that Ribbentrop has said in the past that the United States would undoubtedly try to avoid meeting German troops*, and from the tone of Hitler's recent speech as well as that of Ribbentrop's, I feel that German attitude toward the United States is being considerably stiffened. There are indications at present that Germany would not refuse to fight the United States if necessary.

 

Ribbentrop implied that Germany's entry into the war against the US was conditional on US declaring war on Japan. He urged Japan to attack the US, and hoped the US would back down and settle for a three way division of the world between Germany, Japan, and the USA. However, since "Roosevelt's a fanatic", he might insist on going to war with Japan. In which case Ribbentrop assured Japan that its German ally would join the war against the US. The objective was, of course, not to conquer the US but to force it to accomodate Germany and Japan.

 

Hitler had always viewed the US as Germany's biggest rival. Britain, France, and the Soviets he planned to crush but the Americans were there to stay. He was extremely impressed with American industry and innovation and was dismayed by the emmigration of what he viewed as the best and brightest of Germanic peoples to America which would make Germany uncompetitive in the long run. Conquering Russia was essential to turn Germany into a true peer competitor with the US.

 

Before 1941 Hitler was very careful to keep US out of the war in Europe. However by late 1941 he was pretty confident with the progress in Russia. According to his estimates the war in the east would be over in a year. With this in mind the prospect of going to war with US did not unduely intimidate him, if he could be sure that Japan would be fighting the British and Americans. With the war won in Europe, Hitler believed a united front with Japan would secure US accomodation.

[Gabe]

In continuation...

 

If Hitler were to declar war on Japan, two things would happen. First the British Empire, rather than being finally smothered would be given a new lease on life. To Germany this would be wrestling defeat in the jaws of victory. Second, while Germany would avoid war with the US in the short term, there can be no certainty that a US victorious in the aftermath of the Pacific War would be inclined to accept the new European order. Germany would then have to face the US alone, with the British still in the game, and a large empire of disgruntled new subjects who would turn on the Germans at any opportunity.