 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / July 2004Why did Germany declare war on U.S. in W.W. II?
Why did Germany declare war on U.S. in W.W.II? Bradwell Jackson THe short answer. Germany never really established a foriegn policy vis a vis the USA. The best anyone can figure is that when the USA declared war on Japan, Hitler was being loyal to an allie. There is a better than even chance that some pathetic nazi wannabe will post that Rooseveldt kept pushing Hitler until all he could do was declare war, Thats hogwash. > THe short answer. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that Rooseveldt kept pushing Hitler until all he could do was declare war, > Thats hogwash. Thank you for your answer. Did Germany and Japan have an actual treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as France was allied to Russia in WWI? > > THe short answer. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as France was allied > to Russia in WWI? Yes. See the following: ------ http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/31nazidiplomacy.html F. "Anti-Comintern Pact" The first phase of Nazi foreign policy ended with a further spectacular success. On November 25, 1936 Hitler signed a treaty with Japan-the so-called "Anti-Comintern Pact"-for their common struggle against the Third International. Its propaganda effect was greater than its political substance. But it paved the way for future German-Japanese collaboration with far-reaching possibilities. ----------- http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-09-index.html Collaboration with Italy and Japan and aggressive war against the United States: November 1936 to December 1941 a.. Formal German-Japanese-Italian alliances b.. Nazi encouragement of aggression by Japan a.. (Continued) b.. (Continued) Basic Order No. 24 regarding collaboration with Japan c.. (Continued) Diplomatic conversations d.. (Continued) e.. (Continued) c.. Nazi preparations and collaboration with the Japanese against the United States a.. (Continued) b.. (Continued) c.. (Continued) d.. Legal references and list of documents relating to collaboration with Italy and Japan... -------- http://www.japan-101.com/history/anti_comintern_pact.htm Anti-Comintern Pact - Nazi-Germany & Japan Align Against Soviet Union The Anti-Comintern Pact was concluded between Nazi-Germany and Japan on November 25th, 1936. The pact was ostensibly directed against the Communist International (Comintern) but was specifically directed against the Soviet Union. In case of an unprovoked attack by the Soviet Union against Germany or Japan, the two nations agreed to consult on what measures to take "to safeguard their common interests". It also agreed that neither nation would make any political treaties with the Soviet Union, and Germany also agreed to recognize the Japanese puppet regime in Manchuria. In 1937 Italy joined the Pact, thereby forming the group that would later lead be known as the Axis Powers. Italy's joining was more or less a reaction against the failed Stresa Front, the Franco-British initiative of 1935 designed to keep Nazi-Germany from extending beyond her borders, primarily the Anschluss of Austria, where the Nazis recently had assassinated the Italy-oriented dictator Engelbert Dollfuss. However, in June 1935 an Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed, followed by mistrust from the unknowing France and Italy. Meanwhile, Italy invaded the African State of Abyssinia, an act of unprovoked aggression. Nevertheless, Britain and France hashed out a secret agreement with Italy to give her two-thirds of Abyssinia. When this information was leaked to the public in Britain and France, their governments collapsed in scandal. Mussolini realized that future governments of France and the United Kingdom will be less accommodating. After Italy's signing the Anti-Comintern Pact, the Franco-British initiative is failed, and soon Anschluss of Austria is to be realized. Adolf Hitler broke the terms of the pact when he signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939. He did this because he was attempting to avoid a war on two-fronts. By 1940 Hitler once again began to consider invading the Soviet Union and the German foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, was sent to negotiate a new treaty with Japan. On September 25th, 1940, Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Vyacheslav Molotov, the Soviet foreign minister, informing him that Germany, Italy and Japan were about to sign a military alliance. Ribbentrop pointed out that the alliance was to be directed towards the United States and not the Soviet Union. "Its exclusive purpose is to bring the elements pressing for America's entry into the war to their senses by conclusively demonstrating to them if they enter the present struggle they will automatically have to deal with the three great powers as adversaries." The Anti-Comintern Pact was revived in 1941, after Germany's assault on the Soviet Union, (Operation Barbarossa), and on November 25th its renewal for another five years was celebrated. This time the parties were: Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Spain, Manchukuo, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Rumania, Slovakia, and the Nanking regime in China. ------ Googling "Anti-Comintern Pact" gets the following listings: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Anti-Comintern+Pact%22&btnG=Goo gle+Search >>Germany never really established a foriegn policy vis a vis the USA. The best >>anyone can figure is that when the USA declared war on Japan, Hitler was being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as France was allied > to Russia in WWI? An even better question would have been; "Did Germany and Japan have an actual treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as Germany and Russia were?" > An even better question would have been; "Did Germany and Japan have > an actual treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as Germany > and Russia were?" Japan wasn't much of an ally of Germany. Japan could have helped Germany a LOT by attacking the USSR. But, I understand, Japan got a bloody nose in some clashes and made the calculation that it would gain more by taking terriroty to the South. I am in the midst of reading yet another book about Hilter, but I strongly believe that Germany declaring war on the US made little or no practical difference. The US was already giving the UK "all aide short of war." With a formal declaration, Germany was free to sink American shipping ANYWHERE. Had Germany sunk the US ships without a formal declaration, the US would have made the formal declaration. Either way, it would have been the US and the UK against Germany. >>An even better question would have been; "Did Germany and Japan have >>an actual treaty? Were they allies on paper, just the same as Germany [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some clashes and made the calculation that it would gain more by taking > terriroty to the South. Attacking Russia on the ground is, was, and always will be sheer, unadulterated madness. The Japanese simply weren't that crazy. China was easier pickings... Russia would not have slaked Japan's thirst for fuel. > I am in the midst of reading yet another book about Hilter, but I strongly > believe that Germany declaring war on the US made little or no practical > difference. No difference at all. We'd been proxy warring with 'em anyway, on the production front. > The US was already giving the UK "all aide short of war." > With a formal declaration, Germany was free to sink American shipping > ANYWHERE. They had been, anyway. I forget the loss rates for Liberty ships, but remember them being substantial. But submarines as tactical, antiship weapons was past its prime at the end of WWI. Destroyers were simply too effective. Had it not been for nuclear payloads, Rickover's Nuclear Navy would have been uninteresting ( regardless of propulsion improvements ). I don't think Hitler, nor any of Germany ever really trusted the German Navy, after how WWI ended. Naval superiority is impossible when your codes are compromised. > Had Germany sunk the US ships without a formal declaration, the > US would have made the formal declaration. Either way, it would have been > the US and the UK against Germany. -- Les Cargill > They had been, anyway. I forget the loss rates for Liberty ships, but > remember them being substantial. But submarines as tactical, > antiship weapons was past its prime at the end of WWI. Destroyers > were simply too effective. Had it not been for nuclear payloads, > Rickover's Nuclear Navy would have been uninteresting ( regardless > of propulsion improvements ). Les, didn't you ever hear the expression that the navy builds two kinds of ships; targets and submarines. Destroyers are pretty effective but so are Exocets and Silk Worms. There was a whole new form of mathematics invented in WWII to try to optimize submarine sinkings called Linear Programming. Airplanes played a major role in reducing the submarine risks in the North Atlantic also. >> They had been, anyway. I forget the loss rates for Liberty ships, but >> remember them being substantial. But submarines as tactical, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Les, didn't you ever hear the expression that the navy builds two > kinds of ships; targets and submarines. Yes - it's a great one-liner - but I'm unsure that subs ever proved to have any real, lasting tactical or strategic value until the boomers happened. Had battleships lasted, that might have been different. I suspect 'Das Boot' is pretty much the truth. Loss rates were horrendous. > Destroyers are pretty effective but so are Exocets and Silk Worms. Very much so. Those were not in evidence in 194x, though. > There was a whole new form of mathematics invented in WWII to try > to optimize submarine sinkings called Linear Programming. Yup! > Airplanes > played a major role in reducing the submarine risks in the North > Atlantic also. Double yup! I hadn't though about those - sub hunting was a nascent science, and range restrictions played. Modern electronics changed that, though. Aircraft carriers are just very powerful, ultimately. -- Les Cargill > >> They had been, anyway. I forget the loss rates for Liberty ships, but > >> remember them being substantial. But submarines as tactical, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Aircraft carriers are just very powerful, ultimately. Note that the US Navy CAPTURED a German sub using aircraft from a small ("jeep") carrier. > Note that the US Navy CAPTURED a German sub using aircraft from a small > ("jeep") carrier. Dan Gallery. He made admiral for that. His daughter and my wife were close friends at one time. > Why did Germany declare war on U.S. in W.W.II? Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the bad side of dictatorship as a form of government. In a democracy there are structures in place to catch very bad ideas like this and stop them before they are implemented. However, the bigger question of History from this is not why, but what did Hitler have in mind? Hitler always wanted living space in the east, ie Russia. However, he got a major boost by capturing most of Europe so quickly. Would he have stopped after Russia, or did he by this point, have views on world domination, which would mean defeating the last big force in the world, the US. The logic answer is clearly yes, backed up by the fact that he encouraged the Japanese to attack the Americans. However, looking in more depth, it is importatnt to remember that Hitler wont have seen the strains on the anglo American relationship. From his perspective it probably looked like it would only be a matter of time before the US joined the war against him, and so he probably acepted that. Put simply, he probably realised that within a year or so he'd have defeated Russia, and thus would have vast resources at his disposal for the eventual confrontation, and the Japs would keep the US busy and distracted until then. Hence the debate, which will probably never be answered, would he have stopped at Russia, or did he want world domination? > Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the bad > side of dictatorship as a form of government. In a democracy there are > structures in place to catch very bad ideas like this and stop them before > they are implemented. Like the 98 to 2 vote in the US Senate on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. >> Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the bad > side of dictatorship as a form of government. In a democracy there are > structures in place to catch very bad ideas like this and stop them before > they are implemented. So how was Blair able to declare war on Iraq - against, then, over 80% of the UK population's wishes? I excuse Bush - it appears that he *was* following the US population's wishes (at the time). Democracy is a sham when a party has been given a majority position (although by no means necessarily majority votes), and the leader's personality then dominates the Cabinet - as under Thatcher, too. Thatcher and Blair in particular - supposed opposite ends of the political spectrum, but are they really so? - were both in these potentially dictatorial positions, and used 'em. Surreyman >>side of dictatorship as a form of government. In a democracy there are >>structures in place to catch very bad ideas like this and stop them before [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > spectrum, but are they really so? - were both in these potentially > dictatorial positions, and used 'em. Yeah, Blair followed the US population's wishes. We are all dumb sh.ts as compared with you very smart Brits. We have a long history of the party in power lying to Congress and the people ( the population's wishes ) when it is time to wrap themselves in the flag and go to war. We are still arguing over the Japanese raid on Hawaii. Clearly we had the message that spelled it out at 7:30 PM on Friday night and could not find a way to warn the troops in Hawaii before Sunday morning. Lyndon Johnson got a 98 to 2 vote in his favor to send fighting troops to Vietnam after his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Bush got 16 desenters on the Iraq invasion. Now tell us about Neville Chamberlain. > >> Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the bad > > side of dictatorship as a form of government. In a democracy there are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Surreyman Democracy is not perfect, but it's much better than all those other systems. I am of course talking in genral. Throughout history, there are some staggering examples of a dictator having his will implemented only to find that he did a very silly thing, and that, had he not been absolute ruler, with subordinates fearfull of their life, someone might have stood up to him and told him that it's probably a bad idea. Hitler declaring war on America is one example. Another is Stalin seizine eastern Europe to gain security for the USSR. In doing so he started a cold war which long term, massivley reduced the USSR's secutiry and ultimatly caused an arms race which finished it off. > Democracy is not perfect, but it's much better than all those other systems. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > reduced the USSR's secutiry and ultimatly caused an arms race which finished > it off. But it only looks silly with hindsight, in the wake of Nazi defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk. In December 1941, it was not at all a fantastic or silly proposition to Hitler, a) Hitler believed and the evidence seems to warrant his conclusion, that the USA was already involved in an undeclared war against Germany(see my original post) b) In the early months of Barborosa, the defeat of the Soviet Union was a real possibility. With it's defeat and the marshalling of Russian raw materials especially oil, to the Nazi war machine, with total Nazi domination of the European continent, Germany would have presented a formidable enemy to the USA. Geoff. > a) Hitler believed and the evidence seems to warrant his conclusion, that > the USA was already involved in an undeclared war against Germany(see my > original post) Yep! That's the KEY element. US ships and planes were on active anti-sub patrols in the North Atlantic. The US had a "peacetime" draft in place. US manufacturing was already ramping up to a 100% war footing. With the US at war with Japan, the US would have gone to 100% war condition regardless. The only "detail" remaining was whether the Japs would attack Russia. With Germany and the US at war, the Japs might have been more willing to attack Russia again. Thus, it made sense for Germany to declare war on the US. > > >> Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the > bad Hitler really had no choice. His Allie..Japan had declared war on US and he was honor bound to follow them into the abyss. I also think that he didnt properly evaluate the power of American industry. > > > >> Probably a moment's insanity by Hitler. This is a good example of the > > bad > > Hitler really had no choice. His Allie..Japan had declared war on US and he > was honor bound to follow them into the abyss. I also think that he didnt > properly evaluate the power of American industry. The flaw there being that Hitler actually encouraged Japan to attack the USA. Not the other way round. > Why did Germany declare war on U.S. in W.W.II? > > Bradwell Jackson The short answer: Hitler thought that the US was already making war with Germany. Hitler announced his declaration of war against the United States in the Reichstag on December 11, 1941. He made his reasoning clear during his speech, "From November 1938 onwards, his[Roosevelt - GS] systematic efforts were directed towards sabotaging any possibility of an appeasement policy in Europe. In public, he was hypocritically pretending to be for peace; but at the same time he was threatening any country ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding with the freezing of assets, with economic reprisals, with demands for the repayment of loans, etc. Staggering information to this effort can be derived from the reports of Polish Ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels." http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Adolf_Hitler/ I am a violent opponent of Hitler and what he stood for, but in this summing up of the US position, he was essentially correct. Whilst Roosevelt appears to have been personally hostile to Hitler from quite early on, the policy of his administration until Oct 1938, was a preference for action in the Pacific, where American interests were directly threatened by the Japanese. In terms of Europe, Roosevelt hid behind the British policy of appeasement. Any discussion of this subject can not ignore US 'isolationism' or 'neutrality' but if the Roosevelt administration embraced these policies in public, it appears to be primarily because the US was unprepared for war. From Oct 1938, Roosevelt sought to change this situation with a massive rearmament programme, whilst encouraging belligerency on the part of France and Poland. Hitler cited amongst other things Lend-Lease, which led from April 1940 directly to US participation in the Atlantic war. The Roosevelt administration however, seemed to be concerned in both the Pacific and European arena's, that the other side should shoot first. Hitler was also a victim of his own vile prejudices - he believed that Roosevelt's position was dictated by Jewish interests, a completely bankrupt idea, born of Hitler's rotten ideological outlook. Geoff. re: U.S.participation in European theatre The popular, heroic Colonel Charles Lindbergh led the "America Firsters," a large movement against overall U.S. intervention There is a fictional, speculative, projective novel supposedly coming-out this fall by Philip Roth, which bashes Lindbergh, and hypothesizes the election of Lindbergh to the Presidency A pre-review (he had access to a galley of the novel) may still be available at www.nyobserver.com The interesting article about the upcoming book is by Ron Rosenbauam (if I recall correctly) b-t-w: Pat Buchanan's controversial book, which makes the America First case by way of the hindsights of the Cold War, was published a coupla years ago my comment: I was born in the U.S. in 1944. I doubt if I (a Jew) would be alive if the U.S. hadn't intervened, as my interpretation of WW II is that it's reason-to- be was to primarily eliminate all Jews <snip>> > Hitler cited amongst other things Lend-Lease, which led from April 1940 > directly to US participation in the Atlantic war. The Roosevelt > administration however, seemed to be concerned in both the Pacific and > European arena's, that the other side should shoot first. <snip> Correction, that should read 'April 1941'. Geoff. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.