Why Hitler Declared War On The United States

[Garrison]

There is also Italy which can't be ignored in all this:

Title of the thread is 'Why Hitler Declared War On The United States', so yes it can be ignored, unless you care to present some evidence that Mussolini influenced Hitler's decision? I find it unlikely you will do so since you've already admitted:

I have never made any profound study of the historical literature with regard to the matter of Hitler's war on America

 

[abaddon]

Do you have any evidence of that?

Yup. Hitler stated it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

German-American bund was the closest thing to a Nazi party in the USA prior to the war.

Which leader of theirs was murdered?

 

[Venom]

German-American bund was the closest thing to a Nazi party in the USA prior to the war.

Which leader of theirs was murdered?

Yeah RecoveringYuppy answered my quest it was Rockwell and the "American Nazis". It shocked me when I first heard about it. Seemed so out of place in that period in America.

 

[Brainster]

Additionally, we should bear in mind that, although Hitler's action undoubtedly made things easier for FDR politically, in the final analysis, it mattered little. Even without Hitler's declaration (and for that matter, even without a Japanese attack), the US would certainly have declared war on Germany and Italy by mid-1942 at the latest, and full-scale mobilization would have proceeded at about the same pace it did historically, even if Japan had been the only "official" enemy for the first several months of the conflict.

You misjudge the depth of isolationist sentiment that the US went into following WWI (then known as the Great War), not entirely without cause. It was definitely the sense in America that our involvement in WWI had been a colossal blunder. Indeed, the conspiratorially-minded hinted that perhaps the vast munitions industries were behind the war, since they seemed to be the only ones who profited by it. At any rate, getting involved with Europe's problems was definitely a third-rail at that time.

Only a shocking attack on the US directly like Pearl Harbor would have convinced the American public to go to war with Japan, and if Hitler had not declared war on the US, Roosevelt would have had difficulty convincing the country that a two-front war was a good idea or even justified.

 

[Hans]

Was Hitler influenced to any degree by Mussolini declaring war on the USA before Germany did?

 

[Border Reiver]

Only a shocking attack on the US directly like Pearl Harbor would have convinced the American public to go to war with Japan, and if Hitler had not declared war on the US, Roosevelt would have had difficulty convincing the country that a two-front war was a good idea or even justified.

In the absence of Gawdzilla-sama, opinion polls on entry into WWII Figure 5 which puts support for intervention in Europe starting at 30ish% in mid 1940 and rising to over 60% support by November 1941 - that rather puts the isolationist arguments in perspective.

 

[ddt]

In the absence of Gawdzilla-sama, opinion polls on entry into WWII Figure 5 which puts support for intervention in Europe starting at 30ish% in mid 1940 and rising to over 60% support by November 1941 - that rather puts the isolationist arguments in perspective.

Fixed your link.

 

[Brainster]

In the absence of Gawdzilla-sama, opinion polls on entry into WWII Figure 5 which puts support for intervention in Europe starting at 30ish% in mid 1940 and rising to over 60% support by November 1941 - that rather puts the isolationist arguments in perspective.

The support on that chart is for Helping England vs. Staying Out of the War. Obviously there are quite a few ways to help England that do not involve joining in the war against Germany. It is arguable that the support was for the way the USA was already helping Great Britain, Free France, China and the USSR under the lend-lease program.

I also note that Congress authorized war against Japan on December 8, 1941 and against Germany only on December 11.

Don't get me wrong; in retrospect it would have been a terrible mistake not to take on Nazi Germany. I have my doubts as to whether the English could have mounted a D-Day invasion without the USA. Without the second front in Europe, it is unlikely the Russians would have pursued the Germans back to Berlin, and the situation seems like it might have become a stalemate, with the Nazis still in control of much of Europe.

 

[lobosrul5]

The support on that chart is for Helping England vs. Staying Out of the War. Obviously there are quite a few ways to help England that do not involve joining in the war against Germany. It is arguable that the support was for the way the USA was already helping Great Britain, Free France, China and the USSR under the lend-lease program.

I also note that Congress authorized war against Japan on December 8, 1941 and against Germany only on December 11.

Don't get me wrong; in retrospect it would have been a terrible mistake not to take on Nazi Germany. I have my doubts as to whether the English could have mounted a D-Day invasion without the USA. Without the second front in Europe, it is unlikely the Russians would have pursued the Germans back to Berlin, and the situation seems like it might have become a stalemate, with the Nazis still in control of much of Europe.

0% chance really. Yes the Russians would've pursued Germany all the way back to Berlin and then kept going right into France and the low countries, it might've taken 2 extra years though. The German Army's "back was broken" in summer of 1943 at Kursk, before the Allies even invaded mainland Italy. Keeping all of mainland Europe from being taken over by Stalin was essentially what the US Army (ground force) did. Just the strategic bombing campaign, the supply mission of the Soviets, and the mere threat of an invasion would've been plenty to ensure the Soviets won.

I know I've read that early on in the war against Germany there was quite a bit of sentiment from US soldiers of why am I fighting these guys and not the Japs, they're the real enemy (to paraphrase)! I believe I'm remembering from Rick Atkinson, "An Army at Dawn". But not sure.

 

[Giz]

0% chance really. Yes the Russians would've pursued Germany all the way back to Berlin and then kept going right into France and the low countries, it might've taken 2 extra years though. The German Army's "back was broken" in summer of 1943 at Kursk, before the Allies even invaded mainland Italy. Keeping all of mainland Europe from being taken over by Stalin was essentially what the US Army (ground force) did. Just the strategic bombing campaign, the supply mission of the Soviets, and the mere threat of an invasion would've been plenty to ensure the Soviets won.

I know I've read that early on in the war against Germany there was quite a bit of sentiment from US soldiers of why am I fighting these guys and not the Japs, they're the real enemy (to paraphrase)! I believe I'm remembering from Rick Atkinson, "An Army at Dawn". But not sure.

Given the losses the soviets took in 1944 on, despite half of German armor being deployed in Normandy, virtually all air assets being deployed against the west and strategic bombing cutting german production by a third, I don't know that it would have been quite that simple.

 

[lobosrul5]

Given the losses the soviets took in 1944 on, despite half of German armor being deployed in Normandy, virtually all air assets being deployed against the west and strategic bombing cutting german production by a third, I don't know that it would have been quite that simple.

I know I've read somewhere that the Soviets took such losses because they were in a damned big hurry to get to Germany before the W Allies got there. If they'd taken their time a bit more it would've helped. Also, like I said, there needed to be a threat of invasion so at least a few Panzer divisions would be stationed in France, and the strategic bombing campaign as well. ETA: I can only find one Panzer division that was transferred from the Eastern front to Normandy. The 10th SS Panzer, there was also another Heer division in France at the time, but they were sent to refit before the invasion, after being largely destroyed at Kursk.

 

[Giz]

ETA: I can only find one Panzer division that was transferred from the Eastern front to Normandy. The 10th SS Panzer, there was also another Heer division in France at the time, but they were sent to refit before the invasion, after being largely destroyed at Kursk.

Just snippets from my reading:

13 Panzer divisions suffered crippling losses in Normandy. The Germans lost c. 2,200 tanks/assault guns (compared to c.750 at Kursk - and that's including the Soviet counter attack).


Note: The Soviets did kill the most Germans and deserve the lions share of credit for breaking the Wehrmacht.... But:
- their fight was made vastly easier by the West's strategic bombing and second front
- The Soviets had acute man power issues by war's end
I am unconvinced that a Germany which was free to fight a one front war, would be a push over (not that the Soviets wouldn't/couldn't win... just that I wouldn't be blasé about it.)

 

[dudalb]

Was Hitler influenced to any degree by Mussolini declaring war on the USA before Germany did?

No. Apparently it leaked out that Hitler was going to declare war, and Musso saw a chance to, for once, to beat Hitler to the punch.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Just snippets from my reading:

13 Panzer divisions suffered crippling losses in Normandy. The Germans lost c. 2,200 tanks/assault guns (compared to c.750 at Kursk - and that's including the Soviet counter attack).


Note: The Soviets did kill the most Germans and deserve the lions share of credit for breaking the Wehrmacht.... But:
- their fight was made vastly easier by the West's strategic bombing and second front
- The Soviets had acute man power issues by war's end
I am unconvinced that a Germany which was free to fight a one front war, would be a push over (not that the Soviets wouldn't/couldn't win... just that I wouldn't be blasé about it.)

They'd still run out of fuel, suffer poor steel quality, and all of the other problems that doomed them. And they couldn't just fight a one-front war without leaving one flank open to the British. Plus, redirecting troops to be sent into the Eastern meatgrinder, against a USSR, generally outperforming the Germans on the operational level, hell-bent on revenge? I can't see morale being very good either.

 

[Segnosaur]

0% chance really. Yes the Russians would've pursued Germany all the way back to Berlin and then kept going right into France and the low countries, it might've taken 2 extra years though.

The problem I see with any of these "what if" scenarios is that they sometimes assume all other factors remain the same except for the single "if..." factor.

In this case... Stalin was a dictator with a pretty strong grasp on the Soviet Union. The "If the U.S. didn't enter the war the Russians would still defeat Germany" assumes that Stalin would maintain his grip on power.

However, I figure there is only so much patriotic fervor a leader can rely on, and there is a chance that if the war dragged on, even a leader like Stalin might end up suing for peace once the Germans had been kicked out of the Soviet Union, lest his own people start to question "why are we still at war?"

 

[lobosrul5]

The problem I see with any of these "what if" scenarios is that they sometimes assume all other factors remain the same except for the single "if..." factor.

In this case... Stalin was a dictator with a pretty strong grasp on the Soviet Union. The "If the U.S. didn't enter the war the Russians would still defeat Germany" assumes that Stalin would maintain his grip on power.

However, I figure there is only so much patriotic fervor a leader can rely on, and there is a chance that if the war dragged on, even a leader like Stalin might end up suing for peace once the Germans had been kicked out of the Soviet Union, lest his own people start to question "why are we still at war?"

But, my "what if" is not if the US didn't enter the war. My "what if" is if the US/UK/Commonwealth troops never invaded mainland Europe. But still supplied the Soviets (and defeated the Uboat threat), still bombed Germany, still retook Africa, and still used subterfuge to make Germany think a cross-channel invasion was coming (ie the fictitious First US Army Group). You could also add all the equipment that went into Italy and Normandy could've been sent to the Soviets. The USA was instrumental in the downfall of the Nazi's. US Army Ground Force? No. What they did was prevent nearly all of Europe from falling under Soviet overlordship. That's still a very worthy sacrifice.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The problem I see with any of these "what if" scenarios is that they sometimes assume all other factors remain the same except for the single "if..." factor.

In this case... Stalin was a dictator with a pretty strong grasp on the Soviet Union. The "If the U.S. didn't enter the war the Russians would still defeat Germany" assumes that Stalin would maintain his grip on power.

However, I figure there is only so much patriotic fervor a leader can rely on, and there is a chance that if the war dragged on, even a leader like Stalin might end up suing for peace once the Germans had been kicked out of the Soviet Union, lest his own people start to question "why are we still at war?"

You could say the same thing about Hitler's position with Germany losing a one-front war against the USSR though...

 

[Segnosaur]

They'd still run out of fuel, suffer poor steel quality, and all of the other problems that doomed them. And they couldn't just fight a one-front war without leaving one flank open to the British. Plus, redirecting troops to be sent into the Eastern meatgrinder, against a USSR, generally outperforming the Germans on the operational level, hell-bent on revenge? I can't see morale being very good either.

Yes, Germany had limited resources in many areas (fuel, population base, etc.) On the other hand:

- At least part of their resource problems were due to either attacks by the U.S. on german production, or losses in combat with the Americans. (Without that, the Germans would still have losses due to combat with the Russians, but the losses would not be as great.)

- At least part of the reason the Russians did so well at the operational level is because of materials provided by the Americans. If the U.S. had not entered the war, they may not have been willing to supply the Russians with as much as they did.

- Its true that Germany couldn't leave its western flank open and needed at least some troops stationed in France regardless of whether the U.S. had entered the war. But having the troops standing guard in Western Europe uses less resources than having them in active combat.

 

[Garrison]

Yes, Germany had limited resources in many areas (fuel, population base, etc.) On the other hand:

- At least part of their resource problems were due to either attacks by the U.S. on german production, or losses in combat with the Americans. (Without that, the Germans would still have losses due to combat with the Russians, but the losses would not be as great.)

A small part, Germany had serious issues with the availability of steel, fuel, food etc. for reasons that had nothing to do with US action.