Would the US have declared war on Germany?

[Gilmer]

We would have declared war eventually.

I think after our Civil War, we went a really long time where we knew the horrors of war and didn't want to get involved in European wars. Wilson was re-elected on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of The War". We didn't want to be in WW1 and we didn't want to be in WW2 as a nation.

But eventually events overtake you.

I always get the feeling that somehow the USA is being criticized for being "late". I'm not sure we're to blame for the desire not to be in a war. Europe had seen major conflicts pretty much every century from when? 1200 on? In recent months, I have read up on a few of these wars and read "a lot consider this the world's first World War". I have read that about the 7 years war. I have read it about the Crimean War. I have read it about 2-3 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What is the USA's responsibilities in the face of that?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Gilmer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What is the USA's responsibilities in the face of that?

warspite1

I think this is just typical head in the sand three wise monkeys approach. I've looked at the list and sure, the US was not late or responsible for all of these - that would be a ridiculous assertion. But come on, are you seriously arguing against the US and the following:?

c. 5000 BC Talheim Death Pit - late
538–522 BC Polycrates wars - late
267–261 BC Chremonidean War - that's easy for you to say
306–324 Civil wars of the Tetrarchy - late
735–737 Georgian-Umayyad Caliphate War - responsible
830s Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus' - what?
1144–1162 Baussenque Wars - is this a made up name?
1159–1345 Wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines - seriously?
1205 Battle of Zawichost - oh come on.....
1256–1258 War of the Euboeote Succession - er definitely US were late
1350–1490 Hook and Cod wars - sounds fishy
1356–1375 War of the Two Peters - ?
1437 Budai Nagy Antal revolt - Someone is defo having a laugh
1543–1550 Rough Wooing - you saucy minx
1546–1547 Schmalkaldic War - oh for f..........
1618–1639 Bündner Wirren - aren't they a Goth band
1803–1815 Napoleonic Wars - Ah that's more like it. Rod Steiger was American - The US were definitely responsible for that one
Every war since then - US responsible and late. FACT.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Gilmer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What is the USA's responsibilities in the face of that?

warspite1

I think this is just typical head in the sand three wise monkeys approach. I've looked at the list and sure, the US was not late or responsible for all of these - that would be a ridiculous assertion. But come on, are you seriously arguing against the US and the following:?

c. 5000 BC Talheim Death Pit - late
538–522 BC Polycrates wars - late
267–261 BC Chremonidean War - that's easy for you to say
306–324 Civil wars of the Tetrarchy - late
735–737 Georgian-Umayyad Caliphate War - responsible
830s Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus' - what?
1144–1162 Baussenque Wars - is this a made up name?
1159–1345 Wars of the Guelphs and Ghibellines - seriously?
1205 Battle of Zawichost - oh come on.....
1256–1258 War of the Euboeote Succession - er definitely US were late
1350–1490 Hook and Cod wars - sounds fishy
1356–1375 War of the Two Peters - ?
1437 Budai Nagy Antal revolt - Someone is defo having a laugh
1543–1550 Rough Wooing - you saucy minx
1546–1547 Schmalkaldic War - oh for f..........
1618–1639 Bündner Wirren - aren't they a Goth band
1803–1815 Napoleonic Wars - Ah that's more like it. Rod Steiger was American - The US were definitely responsible for that one
Every war since then - US responsible and late. FACT.

You left out the 1587-1589 War of the Three Henry's. The US evidently didn't have enough Henrys to participate.
1739-1748 War of Jenkins' Ear - But who got the Ear?

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

You left out the 1587-1589 War of the Three Henry's. The US evidently didn't have enough Henrys to participate.
1739-1748 War of Jenkins' Ear - But who got the Ear?

His Mum...she pickled it and kept it under her bed.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Gilmer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe

What is the USA's responsibilities in the face of that?

warspite1

I think this is just typical head in the sand three wise monkeys approach. I've looked at the list and sure, the US was not late or responsible for all of these - that would be a ridiculous assertion. But come on, are you seriously arguing against the US and the following:?
...
1803–1815 Napoleonic Wars - Ah that's more like it. Rod Steiger was American - The US were definitely responsible for that one
Every war since then - US responsible and late. FACT.

And don't forget that Middle East has had some wars or revolts or other conflicts going on most of the time for the past 1000+ years. Some have had European (Napoleon), American (you know those), or even Asian (Mongols) involved, but great majority have not.

[Simulacra53]

The US was at war with Germany before the official declaration of hostilities.

In today’s parlance there was economic and information warfare (example, why did the Hindenburg not use Helium?)
Once the shooting started the US was eagerly selling weapons to Britain and France, needless to say not trading with Germany.
During the Battle of Britain the US was supplying high octane fuel and Hamilton Standard variable pitch propellors to the RAF, not to the German Luftwaffe.
The US supplied old WW1 destroyers, the US declared half of the Atlantic as its responsibility and the USN started to actively escort British convoys - serving as a force multiplier for the stretched RN.

That’s before December 1941.

So, with the US actively supporting Britain, including convoy warfare, and the events of WW1 still fresh, why would Germany have expected anything other than an American entry when it was ready to do so? The Nazis were not that naive.

The US Europe first policy supports this logic.

Same in China. The US was planning to wage a war against Japan via proxy in China, but when events on the ground changed that resulted in the Flying Tigers operating from Burma. You should read Daniel Ford’s excellent book on this topic - many interesting parallels to Air America in SEA, or even some of the proxy wars today.

[Simulacra53]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen
And don't forget that Middle East has had some wars or revolts or other conflicts going on most of the time for the past 1000+ years. Some have had European (Napoleon), American (you know those), or even Asian (Mongols) involved, but great majority have not.

Hmm, so how many conflicts were there in the middle east, during the last 150 years, not involving Europeans (I’ll include Israel under that label)?

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen
And don't forget that Middle East has had some wars or revolts or other conflicts going on most of the time for the past 1000+ years. Some have had European (Napoleon), American (you know those), or even Asian (Mongols) involved, but great majority have not.

Hmm, so how many conflicts were there in the middle east, during the last 150 years, not involving Europeans (I’ll include Israel under that label)?

I don't have a count, but I'm confident with little research I could name a dozen. From the top of my head:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Accountability (found this by accident)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

+ uprisings and the likes where Saddam Hussein rose from terrorist to president of Iraq, and I remember something about Egypt military doing a coup few years ago.

I don't quite understand what you mean with "include Israel under that label". According to Wikipedia, Israel is in the Middle East.

[edit]
Remembered something more: Syrian civil war, Iraq against ISIL/ISIS, Saudi-Arabia fighting Yemen... I bet there is something for any given year.

[Simulacra53]

Iranian Revolution was not a conflict, but a popular revolt against the Shah, a regime that was installed by the CIA after overthrowing the elected government of Mossadegh..

The Iran-Iraq War was at least partially a proxy war to defeat / weaken the Islamic Republic after the revolution.

Israel is a settler state, in the early period mostly consisting of European Jews.
1947/48, 1967, 1973 etc are result of this resettlement. 1956 Suez was Anglo-French together with Israel.

So all these conflicts have either a significant European, Western or External factor.
Same with the Arab uprising against the Ottomans (WW1 British influence) and the creation of most modern borders in the region (Balfour declaration, Sykes-Picot agreement).

[Gilmer]

Jocularity, jocularity!!! said Father Mulcahy!

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
that it can be argued "one discussion [not] look like the other"?

Yeah. I can.

By not narrowing the topic of conversation to that which is germane to the OP's question, threads like this one quickly become a laundry list of non-sequitor talking points. Your need for deep background discussion quickly becomes someone else's need to point to Goering as a nutjob that cost the Third Reich the victory becomes discussion of the number of Middle Eastern wars that are allegedly caused by European meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Eventually it becomes unfair to the OP and too difficult to follow the circuitous or fallacious logic connecting point A (the OP question) and point B (whatever point du jour gets layered onto sub-responses).

Sorry, altipueri, but I'm going to bow out of this conversation at this point. This thread-like many others here-has ceased to be relevant to the question asked by yourself. PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

By not narrowing the topic of conversation to that which is germane to the OP's question, threads like this one quickly become a laundry list of non-sequitor talking points. Your need for deep background discussion quickly becomes someone else's need to point to Goering as a nutjob that cost the Third Reich the victory becomes discussion of the number of Middle Eastern wars that are allegedly caused by European meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Eventually it becomes unfair to the OP and too difficult to follow the circuitous or fallacious logic connecting point A (the OP question) and point B (whatever point du jour gets layered onto sub-responses).

Sorry, altipueri, but I'm going to bow out of this conversation at this point. This thread-like many others here-has ceased to be relevant to the question asked by yourself. PM me if you'd like to discuss this further.

warspite1

Then we can agree to disagree. I say that in order to come up with a reasoned view on what would have happened had Hitler not declared war, one needs to understand what actually happened (and so from there, view possibilities about what may have happened). It’s kind of how a reasoned answer (right or wrong) is formed. You say that is not necessary. Okay, one can always flip a coin I suppose. To the OP’s question – Heads its yes and Tails its no.

As for the rest of the post, this is just disingenuous because you have a beef with me.

In your response to Capt. Harlock you refer specifically to my post being tangential (despite the fact I was answering the question). You now state it is “[my] need for deep background discussion becomes someone else’s need to point to Goering as a nutjob”. Why did you not mention that post then previously? That was before my first post. You think that my comments (which, I repeat, were completely germane to the OP’s question) are to blame for everyone else that took this thread off track? So why didn’t you comment when said post from IslandInland was responded to directly by Curtis Lemay? That had precisely nothing to do with me. When MrsWargamer said Hitler was the Allies secret weapon, and was responded to by Lobster, why not comment then?

If you have a problem with the direction this thread has taken then pick it up with those posting – don’t keep posting directly to others Capt. Harlock or altipueri or whoever, in order to make your points about other people. I mean you could have simply said “guys and gals, can we keep this on topic please?”

[altipueri]

Well that took off in a somewhat different direction than expected, but thanks for your replies to my original post.

An early post mentioned a plane crash which reminded me of a couple incidents that led to different appointments that had far reaching consequences in history.

The two that come to mind are:

Franco became head of the Spanish Nationalists when the designated leader Sanjuro was killed in a plane crash.

Montgomery was appointed Commander of the Eighth Army after the death of General Gott on the way to take up that appointment. (I thought it was an accident but on just checking his plane was shot down)

[Simulacra53]

https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/Framework/ch05.htm
https://history.army.mil/books/wwii/Framework/ch06.htm

Some interesting reading regarding 1941 and your original question.
Share with us if you think the situation was as simple as in your original question.

[altipueri]

Thanks for those links simulacra.

From the first:

"The real impact of the German invasion of the Soviet Union on the security of the Western Hemisphere derived not from the immediate but from the longer range development of the situation. Instead of a breathing space of one to three months duration, the United States and the rest of the New World were to be free henceforth from any great danger of German surface or air aggression in the western Atlantic. The Nazi-Soviet conflict had a contrary effect in the Pacific. Japanese decisions and actions from early July 1941 onward showed that the Japanese also considered this conflict a "providential occurrence," and they proceeded to take full advantage of it by pushing the erection by force of a "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" with all speed. The United States in consequence was to be brought fully into the war not as a result of measures taken to combat the Nazi menace in the Atlantic, but by Japanese aggression in the Pacific."

Both Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor were spectacular blunders which is good for us war nerds.

[Simulacra53]

That would not be my primary choice of quote, but interesting nonetheless.

IMO the decisions made by Germany and Japan were not made in a vacuum and have their own logic.
They may appear to be blunders with 20/20 hindsight, but that’s not the luxury available then.

The alternatives in both cases are not as straightforward.

Japan would have had to concede defeat in China and its government would have to swallow being humiliated by Washington’s economic boycot. If there was a time to change the balance in Asia it was 1940/41.

Germany would have had to prepare for strategic warfare in the west, including an increasingly piwerful and active US, while losing its optimal window of opportunity to defeat the Soviet Union, not only that but the latter would continue to grow more powerful and threaten Germany and its allies in the East (although I do not believe that Stalin was planning an attack as later claimed by the Germans and again in the books like Icebreaker).

Back to the article it clearly documents the active role the US played against Germany to the point of waging an undeclared naval war in the Atlantic.
With that in mind, what difference did the official declaration make, other free the rules of engagement and speed up events?

[philabos]

There was little interest in the European War either before or after PH. Supply convoys and their escorts fall far short of the efforts employed after Germany declared war. The Germany first strategy was agreed upon in joint UK US discussions shortly after PH, but in a matter of months was adjusted because of the absolute debacles in the Pacific.
King and Roosevelt convinced Churchill that transports earmarked for Europe would have to be diverted to the Pacific.
Given the state of the IJN in 1940/41, no western power was in a position to seriously challenge them. That would change after Midway and Guadalcanal, but at a high cost.
I do not think the late to the party claim is either stated or implied here.
Roosevelt may have tempted the Axis powers with the destroyers in the Atlantic and sanctions on Japan, but always knew he would have to wait for them to make the first move. He could not lead an unwilling country to war, despite his accurate vision.
The war in all but fact theory before PH is quite an over statement, just IMHO. The chances of Congress agreeing to a declaration of war before PH were nil. As long as Germany and Japan stayed in their respective neighborhoods.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: philabos

Supply convoys and their escorts fall far short of the efforts employed after Germany declared war.

I do not think the late to the party claim is either stated or implied here.

Roosevelt may have tempted the Axis powers with the destroyers in the Atlantic and sanctions on Japan, but always knew he would have to wait for them to make the first move. He could not lead an unwilling country to war, despite his accurate vision.

The war in all but fact theory before PH is quite an over statement, just IMHO. The chances of Congress agreeing to a declaration of war before PH were nil. As long as Germany and Japan stayed in their respective neighborhoods.

warspite1

+1

[Simulacra53]

There was an undeclared war in practice and preparation, both in the East and West.
That congress and the American people were not aware or receptive is something else - there are parallels even today.

The US was a non-belligerent participating in the war against Germany by supporting Britain actively to the point of fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic.
Neutrality patrols etc were like many of today’s humanitarian missions. They are euphemisms for being involved in an undeclared war.

Neutrality Patrols
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Patrol

Roosevelt's initiation of the Neutrality Patrol, which in fact also escorted British ships, as well as orders to U.S. Navy destroyers first to actively report U-boats, then "shoot on sight", meant American neutrality was honored more in the breach than observance.[2]


Battle of the Atlantic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Atlantic

By 1941, the United States was taking an increasing part in the war, despite its nominal neutrality. In April 1941 President Roosevelt extended the Pan-American Security Zone east almost as far as Iceland. British forces occupied Iceland when Denmark fell to the Germans in 1940; the US was persuaded to provide forces to relieve British troops on the island. American warships began escorting Allied convoys in the western Atlantic as far as Iceland, and had several hostile encounters with U-boats.


Atlantic Charter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

The Atlantic Charter made clear that the United States was supporting the United Kingdom in the war. Both the US and UK wanted to present their unity, regarding their mutual principles and hopes for a peaceful post-war world and the policies they agreed to follow once the Nazis had been defeated.


USS Niblack
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Niblack_(DD-424)

On 10 April 1941, as she was nearing the coast, the ship picked up three boatloads of survivors from a torpedoed merchantman. When a submarine was detected, the division commander, Denis L. Ryan, ordered a depth charge attack which drove off the U-52. This bloodless battle apparently was the first action between American and German forces in World War II.


USCGC Northland
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USCGC_N ... d_(WPG-49)

The first American hostile action against Axis forces that resulted in physical destruction was on 14 September 1941, when USCGC Northland destroyed a German weather station in northeast Greenland.


USS Greer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Greer_(DD-145)

The incident led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue what became known as his "shoot-on-sight" order. Roosevelt publicly confirmed the "shoot on sight" order on 11 September 1941, effectively declaring naval war against Germany and Italy in the Battle of the Atlantic.


USS Kearny
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearny_(DD-432)

In October 1941, while the U.S. was still officially neutral in World War II, Kearny was docked at Reykjavík, in U.S.-occupied Iceland. A "wolfpack" of German U-boats attacked a nearby British convoy, and overwhelmed her Canadian escorts. Kearny and three other U.S. destroyers were summoned to assist.


USS Reuben James
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reu ... s_(DD-245)

On 23 October, she sailed from Naval Station Argentia, Newfoundland with four other destroyers, escorting eastbound Convoy HX 156. At daybreak on 31 October, she was torpedoed near Iceland[2] by U-552 commanded by Kapitänleutnant Erich Topp. Reuben James had positioned herself between an ammunition ship in the convoy and the known position of a German "wolfpack", a group of submarines poised to attack the convoy.


So how many Reuben James incidents does it take to sway the people and congress?
The war in the atlantic would have escalated, albeit at a slower pace.

When peace and neutrality are actually war.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

There was an undeclared war in practice and preparation, both in the East and West.

That congress and the American people were not aware or receptive is something else - there are parallels even today.

The US was a non-belligerent participating in the war against Germany by supporting Britain actively to the point of fighting an undeclared war in the Atlantic.

So how many Reuben James incidents does it take the sway the people and congress?

The war in the atlantic would have escalated, albeit at a slower pace.

When peace and neutrality are actually war.

warspite1

Sorry it is unclear to me what point you are trying to make?

We appear in agreement that a few more 'Reuben James' type incidents would bring the US into the war with a declaration.

There is no disagreement about the 'facts' that the US were on the side of the Commonwealth and the USSR in terms of support being given.


But in addition to the above previously you said

"With that in mind, what difference did the official declaration make, other free the rules of engagement and speed up events?"

There is a MASSIVE difference between a declaration of war and what was happening in the Atlantic and with the supply of Lend-Lease to the Commonwealth and the USSR prior to the declaration. MASSIVE.

Without the US being at war with Germany there would have been no Torch, no VIII Bomber Command strikes, no build up of troops in the UK in preparation for D-Day (and certainly no D-Day), no Husky let alone the invasion of mainland Italy, no USN ships assisting the RN in the Arctic or Mediterranean. no US aircraft in North Africa.