Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Yarbles on March 25, 2025, 11:57:23 AM
-
I am not sure if this is politics now as it was 70 years ago so I will call it history.
Just finished reading a book about the fall of France in 1940 and its aftermath.
Do people in the USA think that would have been the time to declare war on Germany rather than wait until Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941 ?
From my own perspective Britain and France went to war over Poland which was probably not a smart move strategically but without actually being at war it is very hard to fully mobilise in a democracy. If Britain had not gone to war over Poland, Germany would have eventually invaded the Soviet Union and that would have been the ideal time to join the fight but it would have been hard to do that without the massive re armament only war in a democracy supplies.
I would suggest unlike most of its allies the USA remains now permanently ready for war and so ensures peace. This is a lesson in Europe we have failed to learn.
As you may have guessed I am like your president surprised how much Europe currently and historically thinks it is ok to rely on the USA for its security some smaller nations particularly having virtually no military. NATO membership in my opinion should be contingent on matching USA levels of per capita defence expenditure.
-
American citizens did not want to join the war and felt the war in Europe was just that, a war in Europe. I don’t think the U.S. would’ve declared a formal war until Germany committed a true attack on American soil. Seems like we handled the war then just like we are now with other countries, send equipment to help and maybe a drop a missile here or there
-
American citizens did not want to join the war and felt the war in Europe was just that, a war in Europe. I don’t think the U.S. would’ve declared a formal war until Germany committed a true attack on American soil. Seems like we handled the war then just like we are now with other countries, send equipment to help and maybe a drop a missile here or there
I have read though that there was a clear concern in government that Germany might create sympathetic fascist states in south America soon after the fall of France. France prior to the German invasion was considered the strongest army in the world.
The fall of France was a massive geo political shock to the sense of the world order. In a sense a huge confidence trick on Germanies behalf as it only had 10 truly modern mechanised divisions which were the spear head the other 80 or so relying on horses for transport.
-
Just finished reading a book about the fall of France in 1940 and its aftermath.
Which book?
- oldman
-
Which book?
- oldman
"When France Fell"
Michael S Neiberg I have to admit I listened to it as an Audio Book through Audible but it does allow me to digest a book a week while going about chores etc
I recommend it
£6.99 per month incredible value and free for the first 3 months I think. (I don't have shares in the company) My main interest is WW2 history military and political. I would advise anyone to try it. Sitting down with a book is unlikely but doing stuff around the house or driving and its easy to digest a 20 hour book a week.
There are books about all the major campaigns in WW2. Midway, The Pacific in general, The Ardennes, Normandy etc and many are free within the £6.99 basic subscription but you get one free book from the non free catalogue a MONTH. There are also interesting fictional alternative history novels.
From my perspective very interesting to see how the UK as the Major maritime and world power was succeeded by the USA in WW2.
btw from a European perspective Biden was very comforting to the European mentality but I believe on the World Stage now Trump is exactly what we need.
Domesticly that is your business.
-
I have never used audio books before. I jave listened to some YouTube videos on WWII that worked very well. Usually naval and naval air. A few of those tubers are good speakers.
-
From my own perspective Britain and France went to war over Poland
I might have reacted more favorably to this statement had you included the contributions of Canada, South Africa and Australia. The Battle of Britain was over while the USA was still thinking Japan was a pal. The Americans would tell you that they won the war against Germany... I suggest that they only shortened the time to VE day.
-
I might have reacted more favorably to this statement had you included the contributions of Canada, South Africa and Australia. The Battle of Britain was over while the USA was still thinking Japan was a pal. The Americans would tell you that they won the war against Germany... I suggest that they only shortened the time to VE day.
Good point about the commonwealth nations :salute
-
I know we had pilots volunteer to help with the Battle of Britain before the US even thought about entering WW2. We didn’t actually enter until Japan attacked us when they hit Pearl Harbor. I forget the Movie I watched where Americans went over to fly spitfire’s. I think the same thing also happened in WW1 where pilots went to fight that movie was FlyBoys. But I could be wrong
-
I appreciate that question was targeted at Americans but speculation can be fun and I've just finished my second cup of coffee and have nothing better to do until lunch so here is my take on it anyway.
Background
In 1939, Britain faced a growing threat from Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler had already annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, and his expansionist goals were clear. Poland, situated between Germany and the Soviet Union, was an important target for Hitler. Britain, along with France, wanted to prevent Nazi domination of Europe and maintain the balance of power. This led to the formation of the Anglo-Polish Military Alliance.
The treaty was not based on the long-standing friendship between Britain and Poland but on strategic necessity. Britain needed to ensure that Poland didn’t fall under German control, as that would have significantly strengthened Hitler's position in Europe.
Why Did Britain Enter the Treaty?
- Preventing Nazi Expansion: By 1939, Germany’s expansion was clear. Britain saw Poland as a buffer and key to stopping further German aggression. The treaty promised that Britain would defend Poland if it was attacked by Germany.
- Failure of Appeasement: The policy of appeasement had failed to stop Germany. After the Munich Agreement (1938), it became clear that Hitler’s goals were much broader than Britain had anticipated. The invasion of Czechoslovakia showed Britain that Germany was not content with small territorial gains.
- Maintaining European Stability: Britain’s involvement in the treaty showed its commitment to upholding the post-World War I order and preventing the collapse of Europe into a Nazi-controlled continent. Britain understood that letting Germany take Poland would leave it exposed.
- Strengthening Alliances: Britain’s alliance with Poland was also meant to show France and the Soviet Union that Britain was serious about resisting German expansion. If Britain had failed to act, it risked losing credibility with these allies.
How Did Britain Benefit?
- Moral and Political Commitment: By entering into a treaty, Britain was making a clear commitment to stop Germany, and this was something that could not easily be dismissed by Germany or the rest of Europe.
- Prevention of German Dominance: The treaty was Britain’s way of trying to contain Germany without letting it become too strong. If Germany had taken Poland, it would have dominated much of Eastern Europe, further threatening Britain’s security and influence.
- Deterrence: The treaty sent a signal to Germany that Britain would not allow Nazi aggression to go unchecked. While it was a defensive measure, it was a necessary one to prevent the war from being fought on Britain’s shores.
- Coordination with Allies: By formalizing the commitment to Poland, Britain strengthened its alliances, particularly with France, who had a similar pact with Poland. This helped create a stronger front against Germany.
Why Speculation Is Difficult
- Logistical and Military Challenges: Even if the U.S. had entered the war earlier, in 1940 its military was not yet ready for a large-scale conflict. The U.S. was still recovering from the Great Depression, and it took time for its military to mobilize.
- Public Opinion and Isolationism: The U.S. had a strong isolationist sentiment after World War I. Most Americans didn’t want to get involved in another European war. President Roosevelt’s efforts to support Britain through the Lend-Lease Act were already controversial, and asking the public to support a full military engagement would have been difficult.
- Germany's Military Advantage: In 1940, Germany’s military was highly effective, with quick victories using blitzkrieg tactics. Even if the U.S. had intervened earlier, it’s unclear if the outcome would have been drastically different, especially considering that Britain was fighting alone in the early stages.
What Might Have Happened?
- Support for Britain: If the U.S. had entered the war after the fall of France, Britain would have received immediate military support. This could have sped up the process of preparing for a counter-offensive, though Britain still faced significant challenges defending itself.
- Impact on the War in the Pacific: A focus on Europe would have meant less attention on Japan in the Pacific. However, Japan’s own expansionist policies would likely have drawn the U.S. into conflict with Japan eventually.
- Germany's Strategy: If the U.S. had entered earlier, it might have forced Germany to fight on multiple fronts sooner. However, the German strategy of rapid, aggressive warfare (blitzkrieg) might still have proven effective for a while, especially against unprepared forces.
- Soviet Union's Role: An earlier U.S. entry would have likely changed the timing and nature of U.S. support for the Soviet Union after they were drawn into the war by Germany's invasion in 1941, impacting their ability to resist the German forces. This, in turn, could have affected the post-war relationship between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, potentially altering the course of the Cold War that developed in the following decades.
Conclusion:
While it’s intriguing to imagine what could have happened if the U.S. entered the war after the fall of France, it’s unlikely that the outcome would have been vastly different. History unfolded the way it did due to a series of interconnected decisions. The U.S. was not ready for war in 1940, and its entry was primarily forced by events, such as the Pearl Harbour attack in December 1941. The combination of military, political, and public factors meant that earlier involvement was not a realistic possibility.
Lastly, speculating about an alternate history where the U.S. entered earlier will always overlook many of the complexities of the situation. The world was moving toward war, and while different choices could have been made, the timing and course of the war were shaped by forces beyond anyone’s control.
Just my take on the question.
-
I think it is reasonable to suggest we are facing in Putin's Russia another aggressor with territorial ambitions. One that plays on Nationalistic emotions and the idea of ethnic Russians being rescued from persecution.
-
I think it is reasonable to suggest we are facing in Putin's Russia another aggressor with territorial ambitions. One that plays on Nationalistic emotions and the idea of ethnic Russians being rescued from persecution.
My guess is Russia will be happy with whatever becomes the final peace plan and their aggression is over for the foreseeable future...their populous is just as war weary as the rest of us..
But feel free to continue with the global ambition paranoia...
Eagler
-
My guess is Russia will be happy with whatever becomes the final peace plan and their aggression is over for the foreseeable future...their populous is just as war weary as the rest of us..
But feel free to continue with the global ambition paranoia...
Eagler
Eagler
My concern there is not about what the populous feel about war as much as what keeps the ruling elite in power. The overwhelming sentiment in Germany after the fall of France was that the war was over but it wasn't. There is a kind of gentlemens agreement even in the democracies that once troops are deployed even the independent media and politicians get behind "our boys". War tends to align a populace and justify repression of decent.
We saw it in The Falklands here and everywhere in the subsequent middle eastern conflicts.
-
Middle East is its own incubator of hate and death
War is too profitable so we'll always find an excuse to have one..or two..or more..direct or indirectly
Eagler
-
I know we had pilots volunteer to help with the Battle of Britain before the US even thought about entering WW2. We didn’t actually enter until Japan attacked us when they hit Pearl Harbor. I forget the Movie I watched where Americans went over to fly spitfire’s. I think the same thing also happened in WW1 where pilots went to fight that movie was FlyBoys. But I could be wrong
Even though Britain was mostly dependent on shipments of supplies from the US before the US became militarily involved.
If Japan had not attacked the US, D Day may never have happened.
-
If Japan had not attacked the US, D Day may never have happened.
That’s an interesting and thought-provoking idea! The claim that D-Day might never have happened if Japan had not attacked the U.S. raises important questions about the interconnection of the events leading up to the United States' full involvement in World War II. My initial reaction to it was to nod slowly in cautious agreement while scratching my head. Here’s a breakdown of some of the thoughts and factors that sprang to mind:
The Argument for D-Day's Possible Non-Occurrence
The premise behind this idea is clearly based on the assumption that the U.S. was primarily drawn into World War II because of the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan on December 7, 1941. Before this, while the U.S. had been providing material aid to the Allies (through Lend-Lease) and was clearly sympathetic to their cause, it was still officially neutral and focused on domestic recovery from the Great Depression.
Key Points to Consider:
- U.S. Entry into the War: The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was the tipping point that directly led the U.S. to declare war on Japan, and shortly after, Nazi Germany declared war on the U.S. in response. Without Japan's attack, the U.S. may have continued with its policy of isolationism and provided only limited support to the Allies, without full-scale military involvement.
- Impact on European Theater: Without U.S. entry into the war, Britain and the Soviet Union would have been left to face Germany largely on their own. While both were formidable in their own right, it’s highly uncertain whether they could have successfully launched a cross-Channel invasion (D-Day) without the immense logistical, financial, and military support from the U.S. that was critical to the success of the invasion.
- U.S. Military Support: The U.S. provided significant resources for the Allied forces, including troops, equipment, food, and materials. The U.S. industrial base was also crucial in supplying weapons and vehicles that supported D-Day.
The American Role in Strategy: The U.S. was crucial in developing the planning, coordination, and leadership for D-Day. For instance, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, an American, was appointed Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, which planned and executed D-Day. - The Soviet Front: Another important element is the Eastern Front, where the Soviet Union was engaged in fierce combat with Germany. The pressure of fighting the Soviet Union, along with other factors, may have eventually caused Germany to weaken, but this is speculative. The second front (D-Day) was crucial in relieving pressure on the Soviet forces, who were engaged in some of the heaviest fighting of the war. Without the U.S. and the Allied invasion in the West, it’s possible the Soviets would have had to bear the full brunt of the Nazi war machine.
Would D-Day Have Happened Without the U.S.?
It's highly unlikely that D-Day would have occurred in the way we know it if Japan had not attacked the U.S., for several reasons:
- U.S. Military Power: The U.S. played a decisive role in the eventual success of D-Day. The resources, manpower, and logistics provided by the U.S. were critical to the success of Operation Overlord. Without the U.S. entering the war, the Allies may not have had the resources to carry out such an ambitious and complex invasion.
- British and Canadian Involvement: Britain and the other Allied forces (including Canada) certainly played a significant role in D-Day, but without the U.S., the operation would have been much smaller in scale. The massive land, air, and naval forces required for D-Day were only made possible through the support of the U.S.
- The Role of Lend-Lease: The Lend-Lease Act allowed the U.S. to send military aid to Allied nations, including Britain and the Soviet Union. Without this, Britain would have struggled to keep up the fight against Germany, and the Soviet Union would have been much less equipped to fend off the German invasion.
- Alternative Strategies: If the U.S. hadn’t been involved, the Allies might have focused on different strategies for defeating Germany. There were other options, such as launching a direct assault from the Mediterranean or focusing on bombing campaigns, but the scale and success of D-Day were largely due to the collaborative efforts of the U.S. and Britain.
Conclusion: The Role of Japan's Attack in U.S. Entry into the War
While it’s true that Japan’s attack on the U.S. was the direct catalyst for U.S. involvement in the war, it’s unlikely that D-Day would have happened without U.S. participation. The military, logistical, and industrial support from the U.S. was essential in the planning and execution of Operation Overlord. The entry of the U.S. into the war, prompted by Japan’s attack, significantly changed the dynamics of the European and Pacific theaters.
Without the U.S., it’s possible the Allies might have been forced to adopt different strategies, but the magnitude of the effort involved in D-Day, and the scale of resources required, would have been insurmountable for Britain and its allies alone. The attack on Pearl Harbour not only drew the U.S. into the war but also set in motion the events that made D-Day, and the ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany, possible.
So, while "D-Day might never have happened" is an interesting speculative thought, it’s more likely that without the U.S. involvement triggered by Japan’s attack, the path to victory in Europe would have been significantly different, possibly far more drawn-out.
Final Thoughts
Having said all that, there is one final very important point here.
Japan was almost certainly going to engage the U.S. in the Pacific, and this makes the situation even more complex. The attack on Pearl Harbour, while a defining moment that brought the U.S. into World War II, was part of a larger pattern of Japanese expansionism and the conflict with the U.S. over interests in the Pacific. So, in a way, the question of whether the U.S. would have entered the war due to Japan's actions was less a matter of "if" and more a matter of "when".
Even if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbour, the U.S. would have likely been drawn into the Pacific conflict at some point. Japan’s aggressive expansion, particularly into the Dutch East Indies and Southeast Asia, was bound to cause direct confrontations with U.S. interests. The economic embargoes and Japan’s territorial ambitions were unsustainable without conflict.
If Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbour directly, the U.S. might have taken a more gradual approach, potentially responding with naval actions or blockades against Japan. The U.S. may have provided more support to China or the British and Dutch in the region, but an eventual conflict with Japan was likely inevitable.
I think the U.S. was always going to enter the war, Pearl Harbour was just the event that accelerated American military involvement. It transformed the public mood and shifted U.S. policy from neutral to engaged. Before Pearl Harbour, public opinion was deeply divided on whether the U.S. should get involved in another European conflict or in the Pacific. After the attack, there was a clear sense of national unity and urgency to defeat Japan, and later, Germany.
The attack on Pearl Harbour may have hastened U.S. involvement in World War II, but conflict between the U.S. and Japan was practically unavoidable.
Japan’s ambitions in the Pacific, combined with U.S. economic actions, made war likely.
The timing and the dramatic nature of the Pearl Harbour attack, however, propelled the U.S. into full-scale involvement in the war.
Without the attack, the U.S. might have engaged in a less immediate, more gradual confrontation with Japan, but it’s almost certain that the U.S. and Japan were on a collision course due to Japan’s expansionist policies.
Which leads full circle to my previous point that the path to victory in Europe would have been significantly different and possibly far more drawn-out.
Badboy
-
Henry Ford lobbied heavily that US should not enter the war with anybody who would listen.
There was a lot of political pressure within the united states to not enter the war and “Bones” lost his shot at Joan Collins because her character lobbied like Ford but succeeded which allowed germany to win the war.
-
Quite an essay Badboy but you neglected to factor into your discussion that Germany had isolated itself from the rest of the world and was seen globally as a pariah. I have no doubt that WW2 would have lasted much longer without the USA's involvement but I do believe that England and it's commonwealth countries would have ultimately prevailed. D-day invasion - probably not.. but I suspect with Soviet Union and the allied countries in denying Germany access to the resourses it needed to make war, the end for the Third Reich was pre-ordained.
In any case, we are both speculating about what might have been.
-
Without the attack, the U.S. might have engaged in a less immediate, more gradual confrontation with Japan, but it’s almost certain that the U.S. and Japan were on a collision course due to Japan’s expansionist policies.
Which leads full circle to my previous point that the path to victory in Europe would have been significantly different and possibly far more drawn-out.
All very good points. Hitler did FDR - and all the rest of Europe - a great favor by declaring war on the US.
An important book, fairly recent book by Phillips Payson O'Brien, "How the War Was Won," is a must-read, IMHO.
- Oldman
-
Quite an essay Badboy but you neglected to factor into your discussion that Germany had isolated itself from the rest of the world and was seen globally as a pariah.
My apologies, I didn't mention that because I don't entirely agree with it.
The suggestion that Germany was isolated globally by the time of World War II is somewhat misleading. While it's true that Germany's actions under Nazi leadership led to its being politically ostracized by certain nations, it was by no means isolated or a total pariah, and in fact, it had several strategic allies that played significant roles during the war.
Allow me to expand on that:
Germany's Isolation in the 1930s
In the early 1930s, particularly after Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany’s aggressive actions started to put it at odds with other major European powers:
- Treaty of Versailles: The Treaty of Versailles (1919), which ended World War I, placed heavy reparations and territorial losses on Germany. This contributed to a sense of humiliation in Germany and fuelled resentment towards the Allied powers, particularly France and the United Kingdom. Hitler’s rise to power and his repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles started isolating Germany diplomatically from the countries that had imposed the treaty.
- League of Nations: Germany initially joined the League of Nations in 1926, but by the time Hitler took power, it had begun to defy international agreements, including rearmament and military occupation of previously demilitarized areas, such as the Rhineland in 1936. This further alienated Germany from most of the world, as it violated international norms.
- Appeasement and Growing Tensions: In the 1930s, European powers, notably Britain and France, initially tried to avoid confrontation with Germany, engaging in policies of appeasement. However, as Hitler expanded his ambitions (Austria, Czechoslovakia), this increasingly led to Germany being seen as an aggressor, especially after its invasion of Poland in 1939.
However, despite this diplomatic isolation from some countries, Germany was far from being fully isolated.
Germany’s Allies During World War II
Although Germany’s actions made it unpopular or even hostile to many countries, it had significant allies and partners, especially after the outbreak of World War II:
- Italy (The Rome-Berlin Axis): One of Germany’s most important allies during the war was Italy, initially led by Benito Mussolini. Mussolini and Hitler formed the Rome-Berlin Axis in 1939, creating a formal alliance between the two nations. Italy played a significant role in the war, including its military campaigns in North Africa, the Balkans, and its invasion of Greece, although it faced significant military setbacks that often required German support.
- Japan (The Axis Powers): Germany also allied itself with Japan, which was expanding its empire in Asia and the Pacific. In 1940, the Tripartite Pact was signed, bringing Japan into a formal alliance with Germany and Italy, creating the Axis Powers. Japan’s military strength and strategic position in the Pacific gave Germany a crucial ally. Japan’s attack on the U.S. in 1941 opened up a second front for the Allies, taking pressure off Germany.
- Other Smaller Allies: Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria joined the Axis later, supporting Germany's military operations in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Finland, while not officially part of the Axis, had a co-belligerent status with Germany during the Continuation War against the Soviet Union. Finland was motivated by its own desire to recover territory lost to the Soviets in the Winter War of 1939-1940.
Germany's Global Relationships: Isolation or Strategic Diplomacy?
While Germany’s actions in Europe made it increasingly isolated diplomatically from many countries, particularly after its invasion of Poland in 1939, its strategic alliances with Italy, Japan, and other nations meant that it was by no means a global pariah. Germany managed to forge strong alliances with powerful nations (Italy and Japan), and it had significant influence in the Axis-controlled areas during the war. It is important to note that these alliances were largely driven by shared ambitions for territorial expansion, military dominance, and a desire to challenge the existing global order.
Moreover, the Soviet Union’s initial agreement to not oppose Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact further complicates the narrative of Germany's isolation, as it shows that Germany was able to cooperate with the Soviet Union for a time, despite ideological differences.
Conclusion: Was Germany Isolated?
The idea that Germany was isolated is inaccurate when looking at the broader picture. While it was diplomatically ostracized by many countries, especially after its invasion of Poland in 1939, it maintained strong alliances with Italy, Japan, and several other smaller European countries. It was diplomatically isolated from certain major powers, but strategic alliances and military partnerships allowed Germany to pursue its goals during the early years of World War II. It wasn't truly isolated in the sense that it had no allies or partners, as these alliances played a crucial role in the war's early years.
Germany was certainly viewed as an aggressor and pariah by many countries, especially in the West, but it had significant allies who were critical to its military strategies and territorial goals, making the claim of isolation misleading.
While Germany was isolated diplomatically from certain nations, it was far from isolated in the broader scope of its military and strategic alliances. The Axis Powers, particularly Italy and Japan, provided Germany with valuable support in its quest for dominance in Europe and beyond.
Badboy
-
Again an amazing essay but I'll simply ask.... as the Reich's eastern reach began to shrink in February of 1943, their access to essential war resources like oil, iron ore and most importantly, food also began to shrink. Italy and Japan were not going to be significant suppliers of fundamental resources so how was an isolated Germany going to survive indefinitely?
-
All very good points. Hitler did FDR - and all the rest of Europe - a great favor by declaring war on the US.
Agreed, Hitler’s declaration of war on the U.S. after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour effectively forced the U.S. into a full commitment to defeating the Axis powers. It allowed the Allied powers to rally their efforts in a more unified and effective way, with the U.S. playing a decisive role.
Hitler’s decision to declare war on the U.S. was at best a strategic miscalculation... Here's why:
Hitler's Strategic Miscalculation
- The U.S. Industrial Power: By declaring war on the U.S., Hitler essentially brought the full industrial and military might of the United States into the conflict. The U.S. had the world’s largest economy and was able to produce vast amounts of war materials, weaponry, and supplies for the Allies. This was something Germany had not fully accounted for, and it quickly turned the tide in favor of the Allies. Germany was already stretched thin fighting the Soviet Union in the east and Britain in the west, and it was facing a monumental challenge by engaging the U.S. in the war.
- The U.S. Was Already Focused on Japan: Before Germany's declaration of war, the U.S. was primarily focused on Japan and had not fully committed to a European conflict, though it was aiding Britain and the Soviet Union indirectly. Had Germany not declared war, the U.S. might have been more reluctant to focus on Europe. The U.S. might have continued to provide material support to the Allies, but it could have been slower or less direct in joining the fight against Germany.
- The Two-Front War: By declaring war on the U.S., Germany was forcing the U.S. to fight on two fronts: the European theatre and the Pacific theatre. This was a huge strategic burden for Germany, as it meant diverting American resources and attention to Europe, speeding up the defeat of Germany. If Hitler had refrained from declaring war on the U.S., it might have allowed Germany to focus on its ongoing battles with the Soviet Union and Britain, without the immediate threat of the full U.S. military entering the conflict in Europe.
Conclusion
In essence, Hitler’s declaration of war on the U.S. can be seen as a strategic miscalculation because it hastened U.S. entry into the war, which ultimately overwhelmed Nazi Germany. The U.S.'s massive industrial output and military strength played a key role in the Allied victory. Had Germany avoided declaring war, the U.S. might have been less focused on Europe and more focused on Japan, potentially slowing the speed of the conflict’s resolution in favour of the Allies.
Hitler's decision inadvertently strengthening the Allied side by bringing the U.S. in full force, which was a decisive contribution to Germany's defeat.
Badboy
-
Again an amazing essay but I'll simply ask.... as the Reich's eastern reach began to shrink in February of 1943, their access to essential war resources like oil, iron ore and most importantly, food also began to shrink. Italy and Japan were not going to be significant suppliers of fundamental resources so how was an isolated Germany going to survive indefinitely?
While it's true that Germany's access to essential resources, like oil, iron ore, and food, began to shrink after the losses in the east, it's important to note that Germany's alliances with Italy and Japan, along with its occupation of resource-rich territories, helped to mitigate this.
For example, Germany controlled much of Europe, including Romania's oil fields and the Balkans, and was receiving resources through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the Soviet Union until 1941. Japan also contributed by maintaining access to resources in the Pacific, though these contributions were limited.
However, Germany's prolonged war efforts eventually stretched its ability to sustain itself, especially as Allied bombing and the increasing pressure on both fronts took a toll. So, while it was not isolated, Germany’s resource situation became dire, which contributed to its eventual downfall.
This was clearly not about isolation, rather the idea that sustained military conflict, especially when spread over multiple fronts, can strain a nation's resources, leading to its eventual downfall, it is a recurring lesson in history. This concept is seen not only in World War II but also in numerous other conflicts throughout history.
Badboy
-
Quite an essay Badboy but you neglected to factor into your discussion that Germany had isolated itself from the rest of the world and was seen globally as a pariah.
I'm fairly certain most of not all of the text is AI generated.
-
I'm fairly certain most of not all of the text is AI generated.
Thought the same thing
Thought - Was the war over by August of 42? It just prolonged for a few more years..
-
This was clearly not about isolation, rather the idea that sustained military conflict, especially when spread over multiple fronts, can strain a nation's resources, leading to its eventual downfall, it is a recurring lesson in history. This concept is seen not only in World War II but also in numerous other conflicts throughout history.
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu
-
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu
Well Spotted.
Mol
-
There's a key element that I think everyone is overlooking.
Japan did not only attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. They also attacked The Philippines (a U.S. territory) as well as struck British territories in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. They also attacked Dutch territories in Indonesia, mainly Java.
Does Japan still conduct these actions in your scenario?
In my opinion, nothing changes in the grand scheme if Japan does everything sans the Pearl Harbor attack. Attacking The Philippines is still a direct declaration of war on the U.S.
Had Japan only attacked the British and Dutch holdings, the U.S. may have entered the war at that point in aid of Britain anyway, triggering Germany to declare war on the U.S. based on the mutual protection clause of the Tripartite pact.
So unless Japan sits on it's hands completely, I see events unfolding pretty much unchanged from 1942 onward.
-
All very thought provoking indeed. Glad we do not have to live through it again.... hoping we do not repeat.
-
There's a key element that I think everyone is overlooking.
Japan did not only attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7. They also attacked The Philippines (a U.S. territory) as well as struck British territories in Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. They also attacked Dutch territories in Indonesia, mainly Java.
Does Japan still conduct these actions in your scenario?
In my opinion, nothing changes in the grand scheme if Japan does everything sans the Pearl Harbor attack. Attacking The Philippines is still a direct declaration of war on the U.S.
Had Japan only attacked the British and Dutch holdings, the U.S. may have entered the war at that point in aid of Britain anyway, triggering Germany to declare war on the U.S. based on the mutual protection clause of the Tripartite pact.
So unless Japan sits on it's hands completely, I see events unfolding pretty much unchanged from 1942 onward.
Good points and I have to agree in general but I don't think events would have unfolded in quite the same way. The outcomes may not have changed but the journey, timings and cost may have been very different.
The Philippines was a U.S. colony at the time, and Japan’s invasion of the Philippine Islands on December 8, 1941 (the day after Pearl Harbour), would have directly challenged U.S. sovereignty and interests in the Pacific. The Philippines was strategically important to the U.S., both for its proximity to Southeast Asia and its role as a base for U.S. military operations in the region. An attack on the Philippines would have triggered a strong U.S. military response, even without the Pearl Harbour attack, as the U.S. could not afford to let an enemy invade its territory.
Japan's attacks on British territories like Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong were significant in undermining British colonial control in Asia. President Roosevelt was already providing material support to Britain through the Lend-Lease program and while the U.S. had not declared war on Japan yet, an attack on British territories would have led to further diplomatic strain. The U.S. would likely have been forced to act, especially given its strategic interests in countering Japanese expansion in the Pacific.
Japan’s attack on Dutch-controlled Java and the Dutch East Indies was also highly significant because of the region’s rich oil resources. The U.S. had strong economic ties with the Netherlands and its colonies, and the attack on Indonesia would have raised alarms over access to vital resources in the Pacific. The Dutch East Indies was strategically important to both Japan and the Western Allies, and Japan’s move to take control of these areas was seen as a direct challenge to U.S. interests in securing access to natural resources like oil.
If Japan had attacked only the Philippines, British territories, and Dutch colonies (without Pearl Harbour), it’s highly likely that the U.S. would have responded in kind, especially given the economic sanctions, geopolitical tensions, and strategic importance of these regions. The attack on Pearl Harbour accelerated the U.S. entry into the war, but Japan's broader actions across the Pacific were already pushing the U.S. toward military involvement. Roosevelt had already committed to supporting the Allies, and Japan's direct attacks on U.S. interests would have likely drawn the U.S. into war, even without the devastation at Pearl Harbour.
So while the attack on Pearl Harbour was the catalyst that unified U.S. sentiment and led directly to the declaration of war, Japan’s actions across the Pacific would have likely caused the U.S. to engage militarily in the conflict anyway.
However, events after that point may have played out very differently. The attack on Pearl harbour served as a unifying catalyst for U.S. involvement in the war. The attack on a U.S. territory and its military infrastructure led to a quick, decisive declaration of war by the U.S. against Japan, followed by Germany's declaration of war on the U.S.
Without Pearl Harbour, the U.S. would still likely have been drawn into conflict with Japan due to its attacks on U.S. interests, particularly in the Philippines. The U.S. would have likely declared war in defence of its territories and strategic interests in the Pacific. However, without the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour, the public sentiment for entering the war might have taken longer to build, and U.S. action could have been more gradual, possibly starting with military support to the Philippines or other Allied nations in the Pacific.
Without the shock of Pearl Harbour, the U.S. might have focused more heavily on Japan’s expansion and attempted to contain it militarily and economically. The Philippines was a vital U.S. territory, and Japan’s invasion would have prompted a swift military response.
Without the attack on Pearl Harbour, the U.S. may have been less immediately involved in European theatre, focusing more on countering Japan’s actions in the Pacific. This could have delayed direct U.S. military engagement with Germany and Italy, though it’s likely that the U.S. would still have provided aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in the form of Lend-Lease.
Without the U.S. entering the war immediately after Pearl Harbour, Britain and the Soviet Union would have had to continue fighting largely on their own. The pressure on Britain, in particular, would have been immense, as it had already been under siege by German forces.
The Battle of the Atlantic would likely have continued with Britain relying more heavily on U.S. industrial production for supplies, but there would have been more delays in American entry into the European conflict.
The timing of D-Day may have been delayed without U.S. involvement. U.S. troops, supplies, and leadership were critical in planning and executing Operation Overlord. If the U.S. hadn’t entered the war until later, the Allies might have had to rely more on British and Soviet forces, and the invasion might have been delayed or postponed.
Soviet forces would have continued their offensive against Germany on the Eastern Front, but without U.S. involvement, it’s possible that Germany’s ability to resist the Allies might have been prolonged, as the Western Front would have been slower to develop.
In short, history would likely have played out similarly, but there would have been delays in U.S. involvement and a different sequence of events. Japan’s other attacks would have inevitably pulled the U.S. into the war, but the timing and scale of U.S. involvement would have been altered.
The Allied war effort would have been delayed, particularly in the European theatre, and the U.S. industrial and military contribution would have been slower to materialize.
The Soviets might have faced even more strain on the Eastern Front without U.S. support, and D-Day would have been delayed.
So, while the eventual Allied victory would still likely have occurred, the path to that victory could have been longer and more complex without the shock of Pearl Harbour to unite the U.S. and galvanize its military response.
The entry of the U.S. into World War II after Pearl Harbour was critical in accelerating the defeat of the Axis powers, but it’s plausible that U.S. action in the Pacific would have led to a similar involvement, albeit with more gradual timing.
Badboy