Would the US have declared war on Germany?

[altipueri]

Would the US have joined the war against Germany if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on them on 11th December 1941 - 4 days after Pearl Harbour?

Probably Churchill's (and England's) luckiest break. After that he felt certain of the outcome even though years of struggle lay ahead.

[rommel222]

Greetings altipueri,
Interesting question/speculation. Passive Intervention(Lend-Lease) vs Isolation policy President Roosevelt vs Charles Lindbergh.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... ii/277572/

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... tervention

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/modern ... n-history/

[Blond_Knight]

1945 (the Gingrich and Forstchen novel) is an alternative history novel in which der fuhrer was recovering from a place crash and didnt declare war on us on Dec11.
I thought it was a surprisingly good story about <spoiler> Skorzeny leading a raid against The Oak ridge nuclear laboratory.

[Chickenboy]

By December 7, 1941, the writing was on the wall for American involvement in the European war. We had enacted Lend-Lease and convoy protection and were beginning to ship needed arms and armaments in bulk to the UK. Like Wilson in 1917, enough collateral damage would have been wrought by German submarine warfare on American assets that we would have had to draw a line in the sand about our involvement. And if we didn't back off on helping the Brits, I think the route to war was inevitable. How manyRueben James' (sunk by a u-boat October 1941) would we have tolerated? How many dozens of American flagged cargo ships would have to be sunk by an unapologetic Germany before we said enough was enough? I don't know, but it is not an infinite figure. Would a 1941-1942 version of the Lusitania have done the trick? Would a bunch of Athenia incidents (British flagged civilian ship with 28 American citizens killed). Eventually, I think so.

Clay Blair's excellent Hitler's U-boat War(volume I) spends a fair amount of time detailing the Kriegsmarine machinations about American casualties in the submarine war. Initially, the Germans were very concerned about American casualties on the high seas. Then, after awhile, the diplomatic niceties slackened and the Germans became unrepentant-blaming the victims for being in a war zone. That sort of hubris in the face of a growing list of American casualties would have worn thin.

Now, could war with the United States have been pushed back some months? Absolutely.

[Lobster]

Hitler never wanted a world war. His aim was a European war. After the European war was won his plan was to address the American problem. So many would have could have should have.

Read up on the Kwangtung Army's plans for Soviet Asia. It's very enlightening.

[Halsey]

The United States will always make a hard decision to protect democracy when they are on the precipice.

I think Winston Churchill judged American character correctly.
US involvement in the global conflict was going to happen.
The question was when?

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Would the US have joined the war against Germany if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on them on 11th December 1941 - 4 days after Pearl Harbour?

Probably Churchill's (and England's) luckiest break. After that he felt certain of the outcome even though years of struggle lay ahead.

Churchill's and the UK's "luckiest break" was Hitler appointing Goering as head of the Luftwaffe and also GROFAZ's idiotic decision to invade the USSR and thus fight a two front war.

[philabos]

Roosevelt's December 8 address to Congress after PH did not mention a word about Germany.
That was intentional. The American people wanted to go after Japan.
I agree something would have eventually set off the war against Germany, but when?
Fortunately Hitler solved the problem for him a few days later.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Would the US have joined the war against Germany if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on them on 11th December 1941 - 4 days after Pearl Harbour?

Probably Churchill's (and England's) luckiest break. After that he felt certain of the outcome even though years of struggle lay ahead.

warspite1

I think this is a very interesting question – and very welcome coming on the back of certain comments made in the Did Neville Chamberlain Do The Right Thing thread. Thanks to rommel222 for posting the links to the articles on the topic too.

I would like to remain on the Chamberlain theme just for a moment though because (and no hindsight allowed) the OP’s very question makes criticism of Chamberlain unfathomable to my mind. Whatever Roosevelt was or wasn’t as a President of the US (and I leave that judgement to those who know about the country and his domestic policies during the thirties and forties), as a statesman he ranks as one of the greats. Why? Because he understood – when so many of his contemporaries didn’t - what Nazi Germany was about and he understood what Nazi Germany conquering Europe meant for the world generally and the US in particular (Lindbergh’s thoughts at the time - that it didn't matter who won the war - are really quite sad).

Roosevelt doesn’t get much criticism (not that I’ve seen) because of America’s late entry into the shooting war. I think this is correct – he was a democratic politician and the polls were clear; the American public did not want involvement in another overseas war. He rightly gets a free pass. Chamberlain deserves the same understanding, but apparently to some, different rules apply to British and French public opinion and what British and French democratic leaders should do….

But because of the way WWII panned out, the US position perhaps doesn’t need to come under the microscope. Of course had Hitler succeeded in Barbarossa (and all military thinking at the time was that he would) then Britain and the Middle East was next. Spain and Turkey would likely have declared for the Axis. What a nightmare vision. And all potentially before the US had entered the war. “Churchill's (and England's (sic)) luckiest break”? In such a scenario it would have been everyone’s luckiest break – including the US. But the above is not what happened and Barbarossa failed at the gates of Moscow.

So back to the question. Hitler wakes up that fateful morning and, in a rare moment of clarity, decides not to declare war on the US without promises from Japan for assistance against the USSR.

Now what happens? Well as said, the Germans are repulsed on the Eastern Front and pushed back. Operation Crusader succeeds in pushing Rommel back. The US remains committed to assisting both the UK and the USSR with material aid (and convoy escort in the Western Atlantic). Germany goes again in 1942 and nothing materially changes. The Soviets stop von Paulus at Stalingrad and launch Operation Uranus. Rommel is stopped at El-Alamein. There is nothing that the US being in the shooting war really changes at this stage – or at least not such it makes a difference to what has just happened.

But there is no doubt that things will be tougher – much tougher – for the USSR and the Commonwealth going foward. Torch doesn’t happen for one thing. The Afrika Korps may still fall back on Tunisia but they aren’t going to be dislodged easily and the retreat will be more ordered. Malta will likely have to be abandoned. This does not have a major strategic effect but became a symbol of defiance. It is safe I think to say there will be no Husky, let alone an invasion of the Italian mainland in 1943. More likely there is either a stalemate in Tunisia or the Axis fall back from North Africa – either way the Med remains closed. There is also a detrimental effect on the Battle of the Atlantic and the bomber offensive over Germany. American merchant ships became increasingly more prevalent in the Arctic Convoys – could these be replaced? All of this means the Soviets have a much tougher time.

At this point in the real war there were more German aircraft in the west than in the east. Without the US in the war there will be more of everything in the east: aircraft, artillery (less 88mm needed for AA in Germany) more troops – no invasion of Italy, less losses of u-boats etc.

To what extent these changes to the Eastern Front OOB allow the Germans to alter the situation there is debateable. I don’t think that it would make such a difference that Germany could win in the east – with hindsight that ship sailed in 1941. But the Soviets would pay an even heavier price than they did and at some point that could be a problem.

Countries, people, can’t maintain a state of total war, without sight of it ever ending, forever. At some point something is going to break – if that break comes from the Allied side then things could change to Germany’s advantage. Who knows?

But I agree with earlier comments that the US would have got involved before long – and before all this came to be tested. I repeat Roosevelt, like Churchill, knew the score. The US president would continue to squeeze and squeeze until he got what he wanted – and what democracy needed – which was US involvement in the shooting war in Europe. I agree the most likely event would have been US losses in the Atlantic. With the US at war already getting agreement to declare war on Germany would not have been anywhere near as difficult.

[MrsWargamer]

Hitler was the Allies secret weapon.

His actions were never reliably smart. Most of his choices would never occur to a wargamer. North Africa a side show, never going to happen. Stalingrad, nope not doing that either. Jets as bombers, give me a break. Kursh, nope. Battle of the Bulge, nope.

The Germans lost, because Hitler thought he was a great military mind. He wasn't. Great politician, great orator. Lousy general.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Would the US have joined the war against Germany if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on them on 11th December 1941 - 4 days after Pearl Harbour?

Probably Churchill's (and England's) luckiest break. After that he felt certain of the outcome even though years of struggle lay ahead.

Churchill's and the UK's "luckiest break" was Hitler appointing Goering as head of the Luftwaffe and also GROFAZ's idiotic decision to invade the USSR and thus fight a two front war.

Hitler nixing the use of Sarin.

[Lobster]

Hitler and the OKH refusing to listen to their advisors.

[Capt. Harlock]

Rommel is stopped at El-Alamein. There is nothing that the US being in the shooting war really changes at this stage – or at least not such it makes a difference to what has just happened.

But there is no doubt that things will be tougher – much tougher – for the USSR and the Commonwealth going foward. Torch doesn’t happen for one thing. The Afrika Korps may still fall back on Tunisia but they aren’t going to be dislodged easily and the retreat will be more ordered. Malta will likely have to be abandoned. This does not have a major strategic effect but became a symbol of defiance.

The above is not at all clear to me. The fall of Malta would have dramatically changed the situation in North Africa. There is good reason to believe that with sufficient fuel and other supplies, Rommel would have broken through and captured Alexandria and Cairo. From there, the Axis could have advanced further into the Middle East (where there were a number of Arabs willing to fight against the British), closed off the southern supply route to Russia through Iran and Iraq, and seized the oil fields. And yes, Malta might well have fallen without the Spitfires delivered by the Wasp and especially without the fuel delivered by the SS Ohio.

One last point: after Singapore and Tobruk, Malta might have been the last straw for the British public, and Churchill might have been forced to resign as Prime Minister.

That being said, I believe that Roosevelt would have found a way to get a declaration of war against Germany, because it was an ally of Japan, and because the U-boats would likely have continued to sink American destroyers escorting the Atlantic convoys. It would have taken longer, and there would not have been the same enthusiasm and mobilization of the economy, but at a wild guess the outcome would have been delayed only a few months.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

Rommel is stopped at El-Alamein. There is nothing that the US being in the shooting war really changes at this stage – or at least not such it makes a difference to what has just happened.

But there is no doubt that things will be tougher – much tougher – for the USSR and the Commonwealth going foward. Torch doesn’t happen for one thing. The Afrika Korps may still fall back on Tunisia but they aren’t going to be dislodged easily and the retreat will be more ordered. Malta will likely have to be abandoned. This does not have a major strategic effect but became a symbol of defiance.

The above is not at all clear to me. The fall of Malta would have dramatically changed the situation in North Africa. There is good reason to believe that with sufficient fuel and other supplies, Rommel would have broken through and captured Alexandria and Cairo. From there, the Axis could have advanced further into the Middle East (where there were a number of Arabs willing to fight against the British), closed off the southern supply route to Russia through Iran and Iraq, and seized the oil fields. And yes, Malta might well have fallen without the Spitfires delivered by the Wasp and especially without the fuel delivered by the SS Ohio.

One last point: after Singapore and Tobruk, Malta might have been the last straw for the British public, and Churchill might have been forced to resign as Prime Minister.

That being said, I believe that Roosevelt would have found a way to get a declaration of war against Germany, because it was an ally of Japan, and because the U-boats would likely have continued to sink American destroyers escorting the Atlantic convoys. It would have taken longer, and there would not have been the same enthusiasm and mobilization of the economy, but at a wild guess the outcome would have been delayed only a few months.

Capt. Harlock,

Warspite1's post is filled with outcome conjecture. The war, in the absence of the Americans, could have gone myriad different directions. No outcome that he conjectures is clear and quantifiable, merely reasonable possibilities.

These 'what-ifs' detract from the OP question, IMO. The question is not, "what would WWII have looked like if the United States had never joined the fracas in Europe", but "would the US have declared war on Germany?" One discussion doesn't look at all like the other.

Not being pissy here, but just wanted to stick to the OP question / discussion, not devolve into what tangential thread respondents like to pull at.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Would the US have joined the war against Germany if Hitler hadn't gratuitously declared war on them on 11th December 1941 - 4 days after Pearl Harbour?

Probably Churchill's (and England's) luckiest break. After that he felt certain of the outcome even though years of struggle lay ahead.

Of course Hitler was stupid in declaring war on the U.S. He could have bought some time by not doing so. He could have forced FDR to conjure up a reason to declare against Germany. On the other hand U.S. material was already reaching the Soviets and had been sent to the U.K. long before. So the war had already been joined on the side of the U.K. just not in a direct way. The U.S. was certainly in no condition to do anything meaningful in the way of using force at the time except at sea. A declaration was a mere formality.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: IslandInland

Churchill's and the UK's "luckiest break" was Hitler appointing Goering as head of the Luftwaffe and also GROFAZ's idiotic decision to invade the USSR and thus fight a two front war.

Did you take into account that Hitler needed the oil from Caucasus and tried to sue peace with Britain? Or is TIK wrong about it?

[edit]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Barbarossa failed at the gates of Moscow.

In linked video above is said that Barbarossa failed at Germany being unable to secure and hold oil sources in Caucasus, and Hitler had deemed Moscow unimportant in comparison. Is this incorrect?

Some food for thought: What if Germany would had have enough fuel to produce and mobilize enough trucks and armour to compete with Soviet Union in numbers?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

The above is not at all clear to me. The fall of Malta would have dramatically changed the situation in North Africa.

warspite1

Why? We are talking about the period from 10th December 1941, when the US haven’t come into the war, to the end of 1942 when I suggested that the effect of the missing US forces would be less pronounced than from Torch onwards.

I would be interested to know what percentage of Axis supplies you believe the RN interdicted in that time. You appear to be under the impression that it was substantially more than was actually the case. You also appear to have neglected the actual port capacity limitations of the Italian North African ports and what the Germans could afford to throw into North Africa in the middle of Blau.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

There is good reason to believe that with sufficient fuel and other supplies, Rommel would have broken through and captured Alexandria and Cairo.

warspite1

Well I’m quite sure with ‘sufficient fuel and other supplies’ Rommel would have broken through. But what supplies did the Axis forces not have that a) would have been available without Malta in British hands and, b) would have made the difference?

Fact was, Rommel lost very little in terms of supply by the time his advance was blunted by Auchinleck. Even if your best case scenario comes to pass and Germany proceeds with the invasion of Malta in early/mid 1942, then this does not materially affect Rommel's situation for the battles of Alam Halfa and El-Alamein.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

From there, the Axis could have advanced further into the Middle East (where there were a number of Arabs willing to fight against the British), closed off the southern supply route to Russia through Iran and Iraq, and seized the oil fields.

warspite1

Where is all the oil, shipping and supplies coming from for all this? How much of the oil that the Germans capture (even if that was even possible) is going to be available for use anytime soon?

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

And yes, Malta might well have fallen without the Spitfires delivered by the Wasp and especially without the fuel delivered by the SS Ohio.

warspite1

So you agree with me, although I’ve said I believe Malta would likely have to be abandoned – I was referring to later when the Germans either fell back and held Tunisia or retreated to Sicily, but it could have been a bit earlier sure.

But in order for Rommel to have achieved a different outcome in Egypt then you are talking about a defeat of Malta in early to mid-1942. How does that happen? Look at what happened to Malta from the time of the Luftwaffe return in December 1941, to the removal from Sicily. Look at German/Italian planning for the taking of Malta in 1942 and why it was cancelled. Look too at what happened to half the Spitfires delivered by Wasp.

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

One last point: after Singapore and Tobruk, Malta might have been the last straw for the British public, and Churchill might have been forced to resign as Prime Minister.

warspite1

So again you agree with me. As said, a state of total war with no hope of an end cannot be endured forever. Yes, maybe the loss of Malta would have been the straw that broke the camel’s back and lead to a bonus for Germany?

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

That being said, I believe that Roosevelt would have found a way to get a declaration of war against Germany, because it was an ally of Japan, and because the U-boats would likely have continued to sink American destroyers escorting the Atlantic convoys.

warspite1

Yes, this seems to be the general consensus.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Barbarossa failed at the gates of Moscow.

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

In linked video above is said that Barbarossa failed at Germany being unable to secure and hold oil sources in Caucasus, and Hitler had deemed Moscow unimportant in comparison. Is this incorrect?

warspite1

The reference to 'failed at the gates of Moscow' is a bit of poetic licence. Hitler was intent on destroying the USSR in one campaigning season. We know with hindsight that he needed to do so and that this failure - along with the huge losses of men and material during the Soviet counter-attack was the beginning of the end.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

These 'what-ifs' detract from the OP question, IMO. The question is not, "what would WWII have looked like if the United States had never joined the fracas in Europe", but "would the US have declared war on Germany?" One discussion doesn't look at all like the other.

warspite1

You pointedly answered to Capt. Harlock, and so am only responding as you've commented upon what I've written.

The OP's question was "Would the US have declared war on Germany"?

To form a view on this one needs to be able to look at what may have happened in the war subsequently, for without that basic knowledge, then how can one try and form a reasoned response? One doesn't have to set out their thinking, although I have chosen to do take this approach, but is hardly tangential.

The most likely answer - as per the general consensus on this thread - is yes, the US would have and the reason is that Germany would inflict losses on US merchants or warships (whether intentionally or not) and that would be enough to get the US into war with Germany.

But that is only one possibility and may not have come to pass. After all, if the OP's scenario is that Hitler was suddenly imbued with such common sense that he doesn't declare war, then why not add to that that he also has the sense to order Donitz to do nothing to antagonise the US?

So in that scenario what else could bring the US into the war? For that, I looked at possible effects of no direct US involvement and what would make America change its mind about declaring war on Germany in the absence of a declaration against her?

Halsey wrote "The United States will always make a hard decision to protect democracy when they are on the precipice."

So I was simply running through a possible scenario to see if the Commonwealth/USSR would have been either on the precipice, had it all in hand, or many, many points in between. Tangential? I don't see why the approach I've taken is so very wrong and that it can be argued "one discussion [not] look like the other"?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: philabos

I agree something would have eventually set off the war against Germany, but when?

warspite1

Exactly.