Why Hitler Declared War On The United States

Craig B said:
Convoys and blackouts had previously been found to be indispensable in the U.K. That's what I mean by imbecility and stubbornness: having to rediscover things already learned by the Royal Navy.
Click to expand...

Though, of course, the Royal Navy also had to re-learn that one in the First World War, having previously forgotten it after learning it in the Napoleonic Wars.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Though, of course, the Royal Navy also had to re-learn that one in the First World War, having previously forgotten it after learning it in the Napoleonic Wars.

Dave
Click to expand...
It did, and the failure to establish convoys almost produced a catastrophe for the UK in WW1. Did Navy bosses in the USA never study the British experience of this?

Similarly, by the way, the US failed to learn from the 1914-17 experiences of the UK and France, and in 1917-1918 used outmoded and costly infantry tactics against the Germans, already abandoned by the other combatants.
 
Last edited:
Border Reiver said:
I agree.

Germany's forces were set up for Freddy the Great's preference for short, sharp wars - ready to deliver a series of quick hammer blows to drive the other side to the table before Germany's poor logistic and strategic situation kicked in.

It worked for them in 1870, not so much in 1914 and certainly not in 1939.
Click to expand...

1866 too
 
Argumemnon said:
I tend to think it ended on 1 September 1939, myself.
Click to expand...

Yes you could make that argument too, but without the Americans it might have gone on to 46 or 47 - before the Soviet's attrition campaign fully worked.

Actually that brings up another interesting question, if the US didn't join the war were would the British have conducted their landings - if they had taken Sicily and knocked Italy out of the war. Norway or Greece or still somewhere in France?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Yeah, its not as if he needed to invade the USSR for fuel and materiel... an an Axis Ally, Stalin was happy to sell him the stuff.
Click to expand...

I always felt he should have made a deal with the Soviets - they invade Persia and Turkey - gaining Istanbul and completion of the Russian dream of functional warm water port. Then cooperate in a an attack on the Middle East and later British India along with the Japanese and Germany.

Dividing the world up into a Fascist, Communist, GEACPS and America with the SA states, world
 
Hans said:
Yes you could make that argument too, but without the Americans it might have gone on to 46 or 47 - before the Soviet's attrition campaign fully worked.

Actually that brings up another interesting question, if the US didn't join the war were would the British have conducted their landings - if they had taken Sicily and knocked Italy out of the war. Norway or Greece or still somewhere in France?
Click to expand...

Up through the 'Soft Underbelly'

Take Italy and knock the Italians out then work through to the South of France. Retake Greece and secure the Middle East. It was important to keep the Axis and Russians out of the Med and secure the route through Suez. Churchill made sure the route to Empire was secured before anything else.
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
I always felt he should have made a deal with the Soviets - they invade Persia and Turkey - gaining Istanbul and completion of the Russian dream of functional warm water port. Then cooperate in a an attack on the Middle East and later British India along with the Japanese and Germany.

Dividing the world up into a Fascist, Communist, GEACPS and America with the SA states, world
Click to expand...

And paving the way for a four-way cold war! :)
 
Hans said:
I always felt he should have made a deal with the Soviets - they invade Persia and Turkey - gaining Istanbul and completion of the Russian dream of functional warm water port. Then cooperate in a an attack on the Middle East and later British India along with the Japanese and Germany.

Dividing the world up into a Fascist, Communist, GEACPS and America with the SA states, world
Click to expand...

Leaving aside ideology there was a more pragmatic reason Germany rejected any such alliance. The conquest of Western Europe in 1940 had actually made Germany's economic woes worse. The additional industrial capacity wasn't that great and it depended on imports of many of the same raw materials that Germany was already of short of. This meant that Germany was still dwarfed by the USSR in terms of industry, manpower and resources. The Germans recognized that whatever deal they made the Soviets would sooner or later become the dominant partner with Germany reduced to a client state. Far better to seize those resources for Germany and guarantee its dominance of Europe.
 
Garrison said:
Leaving aside ideology there was a more pragmatic reason Germany rejected any such alliance. The conquest of Western Europe in 1940 had actually made Germany's economic woes worse. The additional industrial capacity wasn't that great and it depended on imports of many of the same raw materials that Germany was already of short of. This meant that Germany was still dwarfed by the USSR in terms of industry, manpower and resources. The Germans recognized that whatever deal they made the Soviets would sooner or later become the dominant partner with Germany reduced to a client state. Far better to seize those resources for Germany and guarantee its dominance of Europe.
Click to expand...
One point was that the raw materials base of the economies of the Western powers wasn't located mainly in their European core areas, but in their colonial Empires, which Germany, not in possession of an ocean going Fleet, had no sure way of controlling or exploiting. By conquering France, Belgium and the Netherlands, they had, as it were, captured a music box, but did not possess the key that would rewind it when it ran down.
 
Craig B said:
One point was that the raw materials base of the economies of the Western powers wasn't located mainly in their European core areas, but in their colonial Empires, which Germany, not in possession of an ocean going Fleet, had no sure way of controlling or exploiting. By conquering France, Belgium and the Netherlands, they had, as it were, captured a music box, but did not possess the key that would rewind it when it ran down.
Click to expand...


Add to that the productivity was lousy in those countries. I believe the most effective use the Nazi's got out of the skilled labour of Western Europe was shipping 'guest workers' to Germany to make good manpower shortages in the industries there.
 
Craig B said:
One point was that the raw materials base of the economies of the Western powers wasn't located mainly in their European core areas, but in their colonial Empires, which Germany, not in possession of an ocean going Fleet, had no sure way of controlling or exploiting. By conquering France, Belgium and the Netherlands, they had, as it were, captured a music box, but did not possess the key that would rewind it when it ran down.
Click to expand...

And the Allies had countries with good access to both raw materials AND good manufacturing facilities (Canada, and most importantly the US) that the Axis nations couldn't touch, plus the necessary merchant fleet to get said goods to where the fighting meant that it was only a matter of time.
 
Border Reiver said:
And the Allies had countries with good access to both raw materials AND good manufacturing facilities (Canada, and most importantly the US) that the Axis nations couldn't touch, plus the necessary merchant fleet to get said goods to where the fighting meant that it was only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
That is so true, and even so predictably obvious, that one is baffled to understand why Hitler declared war on the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom