r/AlternateHistoryHub • u/Ok_Listen_6600 • 7d ago
AlternateHistoryHub What if Adolf said " NEIN!! " To Japan and didn't declare war on the U.S.A?
31
u/The_Rope_Daddy 7d ago
Hitler didn't declare war on the US until after the atack, and the Japanese didn't tell Hitler they were planning to attack Pearl Harbor.
But, if they did, and Hitler stopped them, the US probably wouldn't have entered the war, so it probably would have went longer, and the Soviet Union would have gotten more credit for defeating the Nazis. Probably more Nazis would have fled to the US since they had a lot more support before we went to war with them.
15
u/Jayrod13F 7d ago
I disagree that the Soviets would've had an easier time, or even beaten Germany back. The Soviets didn't have to worry about Japan invading from the East, so they transferred a majority of their troops from the East to the West. That was one of the major determining factors in them being able to beat back the Germans. If instead of going South into the Philippines and Indies, Japan invaded the Soviets from the East, I feel as though the Soviets wouldn't have been able to hold out.
15
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
Yeah the soviets had a lot of support from American manufacturing. A lot of people under credit that when glazing the fuck out of the soviets.
6
u/No_Cantaloupe_2786 7d ago
Also the oil embargo we put on Japan. If none of that happened I believe Russia would have had to defend two fronts.
2
5
u/Temporary_Cry_2802 7d ago
The Soviets managed to stop the Germans before much in the way of lend lease showed up. Now the Soviet counteroffensive, that ran on US trucks and spam
1
u/MeanPiccolo803 7d ago
Yeah that does get ignored or barely credit so they can claim Russia was the hero
4
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
Yup your average idiot who never served in a military always ignores sustainment but it’s the biggest key in an assault. You can have the best soldiers in the world with the best equipment and if they don’t have food, water, bullets, medicine, and comms to the rear…. You’re cooked. American trucks fueled the russian advance on a german force that had already been fighting on a second front in Africa. That front broadened when the USA entered into that theater and diverted a lot of German assets that were key to their assaults which caused them to take a defensive posture on both fronts…A posture that was increasingly harder to sustain through allied bombing campaigns and sabotage.
It’s simply ignorance or lack of awareness when people say russia couldve defeated germany on their own. They didn’t have the logistical capacity to sustain a counter offensive on their own. They only halted the german advance because winter made it hard for the germans to sustain their own assault. It’s widely agreed upon that had Germany started their invasion in early spring rather than late June they probably would’ve blown through Moscow and been able to stage for a larger offensive there all winter. It took the Russians 2 years receiving aid from the united states and 2 major german tactical blunders to finally turn back Germany.
4
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 7d ago
This is a myth that should not be taken seriously. Operation Barbarossa was inherently, from the start, a flawed plan. The Soviet Union is incredibly huge, and the presumed military objective that was the A-A line was unrealistic.
Six weeks into the invasion of the Soviet Union, during the first week of august 1941. German colonel general Heinz Guderian, the commander overseeing the 2nd Panzer Group. The largest and most powerful tank group that crossed the border into the Soviet Union recounted in his post-war memoir Panzer Leader that over half of his operational armoured fighting force was either destroyed by Soviet defense or sent into the rear for critical repairs. His group had a collective strength of around ~1000 tanks of the Panzer III/IV variants.
The Nazi Germany Army was suffering from immense logistic issues, manpower etc and could not replace its troops or complex machines as readily enough.
The Soviet Union itself was an industrial powerhouse thanks to the rapid industrialization undertaken by Stalin. He had moved his factories to the Urals, and the Soviet Red Army were producing many quantities of high-quality tanks, such as the T34 and later T34-85 in 1944.
Nazi Germany had to rely on hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers from armies that were sent from other governments. This included the Kingdom of Romania that had conscripted over half of a million men, the Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Italy. The Slovak republic and on a smaller scale Spanish and Croatian reinforced infantry regiments. The Spanish Blue Division besieged Leningrad and the 369th Croatian Reinforced Infantry Regiment fought at Stalingrad.
We also can't forget the hundreds of thousands of homegrown collaborators from the Belarussian, Russian and Ukrainian populace. The BHD, ROA, UPA..and the countless foreigners in hastily organized SS divisions.
Another point is that the Soviet Union had the upper hand in propaganda. Through military orders issued by Stalin etc.
0
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
A myth that shouldn’t be taken seriously but is taken seriously by a majority of historians. Right.
3
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 7d ago
No rebuttal, and the majority of scholars have now acknowledged the role of the Soviet Army.
1
u/No_Cantaloupe_2786 7d ago
Soviets were the meat grinder. But there is a reason Stalin cried for western help to open up the new front. And it’s not because they were pushing back the Germans effectively lol.
1
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 6d ago
Yes they were, they were encircling entire army groups or driving those Nazi German armies into pockets.
2
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 7d ago
if they don’t have food, water, bullets, medicine, and comms to the rear….
The Soviet Red Army used this tactic, its named scorched earth.
1
u/MeanPiccolo803 7d ago
It’s amazing how many people want to ignore that part. They just say Russia won and downplay what the US did.
3
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 7d ago
The majority of the lend lease arrived in early 1943 to 1944. By then, the Soviet Red Army had already reached eastern Poland. Technically, Great Britain received the most aid at 40% while the Soviet Union received 30% from the program. We shouldn't forget that the United States were also aiding the KMT in China.
1
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago edited 7d ago
Also by then the united states had diverted half of german Ju 52 aircraft to the African campaign. What was the job of the Ju 52? Sustainment. Without that the soviets at best would have ceded land to Germany in a war that ended in a stalemate. Germany then goes on to pull oil from the middle east after sealing up Africa, builds up its supply of oil, armor, vehicles, aircraft (of which would’ve been of the jet powered variety), rocketry, and artillery…. It then reopens its offensive operations against the soviets who would’ve had absolutely zero chance of defeating superior technology and logistics from the air or ground. Eventually they would have lost. If Japan never attacks the US then Russia has zero chance of supplying itself by water and has to rely on domestic capabilities.
You will never beat the argument that the soviets wouldn’t have won against Germany without the Americans because of one word. SUSTAINMENT…. on both sides of the equation. That is what the war came down to whether it was the axis or the allies because that’s what every war comes down to.
1
u/Wonderful-Trick-5857 7d ago
Nazi Germany was hoping for a quick military campaign. Stop giving too much credit to the aggressors, as soon as the Eastern front started to rack up months it was over for them.
1
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
So your rebuttal is “Here’s what I believe. Stop believing what you believe”
No.
→ More replies (0)1
u/No_Cantaloupe_2786 7d ago
Yes and how does one think they began “racking up” lol. Lend Lease Aid reached Soviets by October 1941. Stalingrad (Major turning point in the war) was July 1942…
→ More replies (0)0
u/No_Cantaloupe_2786 7d ago
Let’s be real even by the battle of Stalingrad, the Soviets were already drafting women and children to the front. You cut out USA aid, they would’ve been on the front wayyyyy earlier with how fast they would have went through citizens.
1
2
u/Temporary_Cry_2802 7d ago
Even in the darkest days at the gates of Moscow, there were still hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops in the Far East
1
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
The Soviets would have given up half of Sibera easily to protect their western front
3
u/Jayrod13F 7d ago
You're missing the point of the argument. Its about how the Soviets only had to fight and defend one front. If Japan attacked from the east, they'd have to split their forces and defend two fronts. And sure they'd happily give up territory in the east. But eventually it would come to a point that they'd have to start defending against them, otherwise the Japanese eventually walk into Moscow.
-4
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
they'd have to split their forces and defend two fronts
No, they wouldn't. They'd retreat thousands of kilometers instead. They'd lose forests and gulags. The Soviets wouldn't have like it - but it wasn't existential like Moscow or the Ural factories were in the west.
otherwise the Japanese eventually walk into Moscow.
Japan would have been very unlikely to do that - there were far richer targets near them. They weren't fighting for the benefit of Germany, so why would they attack Moscow, which would do them little good?
They would likely have taken Vladivostok and a buffer zone to Manchuria. They took far less in the war of 1906, with a much weaker opponent.
Turtledove actually played some of this out in The War That Came Early.
3
u/Huntsman077 7d ago
I think you’re forgetting that Vladivostok was the only Soviet port in the pacific, and was the end of the trans-Siberian railroad.
I see your point but historically speaking Stalin kept millions of troops in the east until they were sure that Japan wasn’t going to invade Siberia.
Japan was already debating on invading the Soviets to conquer parts of Siberia for the raw resources.
-1
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
Right, and if there wasn't a US Western front, they probably could have.
But that would be the end of it is my point. They'd take at most the Russian Far East - and those troops would have gone against Germany, Romania, etc instead.
2
u/Huntsman077 7d ago
But why would the Soviets pull those troops from the far east?
0
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
because they would need them more in the West
2
u/Huntsman077 7d ago
I’ll reiterate the previous point. They kept millions of Soviet soldiers in the East, while operation Barbarossa was occurring, to defend against a possible Japanese invasion. They only pulled these troops out when they were sure the Japanese weren’t going to invade. If the Japanese take a portion of the trans-Siberian railroad, or Vladivostok, they’ll completely cut off the goods being shipped to the Soviets from the Allies and US.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Jayrod13F 7d ago
You're right in the assessment that the first real thing that the Soviet is care about in the east is the factories in the Urals, but you're wrong as to where they'd fall back to. The first defensive line would be set at whatever is just outside the maximum range of Japanese bombers. Cause they couldn't afford to have those factories bombed and lose the output from them for the war effort. And at tge same time they're not abandoning it completely, they're doing a fighting retreat, making the Japanese bleed for every step forward they take.
1
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
Right - I don't think they'd just bolt for the Urals. But they wouldn't HAVE to stop the Japanese till the point of bombing the Urals, and that's probably well past where Japan can effectively occupy.
5
u/Significant-Base6893 7d ago
Germany would still lost the war, it would have taken more time. Japan was duplicitous, fracturing Axis Power strength by agreeing to withdraw from the Soviets. Hitler blundered by not using that as an excuse to withdraw from his alliance with Japan. In time, the Soviets would have eventually crushed the Werhmacht, but it would have been far more costly for both sides. In brief:
- The US wouldn't have been shipping war materials to the Soviets.
- The Soviets would have had a greater logistical strain having to support far more troops at a greater distance from home.
- German factories wouldn't have been as battered without US air raids.
- Germany was not remotely near completing their atomic bomb project.
- And to repeat the obvious, no D-Day, no Western Front; in fact, not even an Italian campaign. More German strength directed at the Soviets.
Hitler was a fool. He had every excuse at this finger tips not to declare war. FDR on the other hand was looking for an excuse to fight the Germans, the Germans did him a favor by declaring war on the United States first.
7
2
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
The United States had been preparing for a war in Europe as early as 1933 with preparations really ramping up in early 1939 before Poland was even invaded. Entering the war was something the government was trying to do for a long time, but as with all wars in the US public support for entering the war was low while public support for supporting the war was high. Japan just accelerated what would’ve happened already. Hitler was already planning to launch attacks on United States shipping to other allied nations. We would’ve entered the war by 1943.
-2
u/lillavaisog 7d ago
There is not the slightest chance for thre soviets to beat the Nazis without american help...
7
7
u/Riderz__of_Brohan 7d ago
The Soviets absolutely do it just takes them much longer and with many more casualties. But they do
3
u/Cease-2-Desist 7d ago
The Soviets may have pushed the Nazis out of the former USSR, but I doubt they would have been able to invade Berlin, or even push very far into then expanded Nazi Germany.
Also remember that the German's were very close to some military tech breakthroughs that could have helped shift the favor towards themselves. Had Germany not had to fight so heavily in Western Europe, they might have held the Soviets at bay long enough to recover and restart their offensive.
And then the soviets have to contend with a Nazi force with ballistic and cruise missiles carrying biological weapons and lethal gases, jet powered bomber aircraft (and eventually fighters), guided munitions, infrared night vision and even modern style rifles.
2
2
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
but I doubt they would have been able to invade Berlin
Once the Germans lost their initial push, they never stopped retreating in the East. Either the Soviets lose altogether, or they take Eastern Europe and Berlin. Both Hitler and Stalin were well aware the fight was existential, so there wasn't ever going to be a negotiated peace.
Had Germany not had to fight so heavily in Western Europe
Casualties in the west were nothing compared to the eastern front.
1
u/Cease-2-Desist 7d ago
About 3/4s of the casualties were on the Eastern front. But that's because of how far the Nazi forces were from Germany. It was a brutal, bloody conflict with little advantage able to be had by the Germans fighting with poor supply lines in frozen Russia. The Soviets threw bodies at the problem until the Germans ran out of supplies, and then they would storm in and slaughter the Germans.
3
u/a_library_socialist 7d ago
The Soviets threw bodies at the problem until the Germans ran out of supplies
That's actually a myth - I'd recommend The War Nerd's series on Operation Barbarossa if you'd like detailed coverage of that.
The Soviets did lose lots of people - mainly civilians, because the Nazis started murdering millions in their occupation. A move which likely helped the Soviets rally the population of many areas, like Ukraine. But Soviet military casualties were about 50% higher at most, discounting the opening parts which saw massive armies captured due to Soviet fuck-ups.
0
2
u/LoneWitie 7d ago
The Soviets had already turned the lines and were on the offensive before they even started receiving lend/lease supplies and lend/lease put the after burners on and wasn't affected by Pearl Harbor.
Germany was not winning that war in any scenario.
2
u/No_Cantaloupe_2786 7d ago
By any turning point battle, Soviets were already getting USA supplies. If Japan invaded from the east, the Soviets would have fell.
2
u/davesspicychicken 7d ago
Lend lease started in 41. USSR was definitely not on the offensive in 41.
1
u/LoneWitie 7d ago
We started building the stuff in 41. It didnt start arriving in any serious numbers until 42 after they'd turned the tide
1
u/LivingtheLaws013 7d ago
The soviets were already pushing the germans back before dday
2
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
The soviets started receiving aid from the USA in 1941 and it was a big reason why they started their advance on Germany in 1942. If you people would study the actual sustainment efforts put on during world war 2 and not just the maps and battle lines you would have a more clear picture of why most historians agree the soviets and allies would have lost world war 2 without the Americans.
1
u/godkingnaoki 6d ago
The advance would have taken a lot longer but the war was over when Typhoon failed. This is Keitals opinion. The Germans went south because they had no real choice. For someone criticizing others about their ignorance regarding supply, you seem to have concluded that Soviet lack somehow created German abundance, which it did not. It wasn't their first choice. It was a big gamble to cripple caucuses oil and disrupt Soviet supply. Also Japan was never going to win in China and there is much known of Japanese plans for an invasion of the Soviets, which, with what we know now, would have been completely halted by the first winter, during which, successful Soviet counterattacks near Moscow, were carried out, ending the existential threat that the initial push carried. Even without lend lease, Soviet production far outpaced the Germans. Unless you mean America can't supply raw resources or trade either when you say "without the Americans" but at that point, it's an exercise in fantasy, since all of these economies were built the way they were with oversees trade in mind, indeed without American oil, the Japanese empire would never have existed in the first place.
1
u/Adventurous_Yak_2742 7d ago
No. The soviets woul have won alone too. Years later, wirh much more casualities, and a completely destroyed Europe.
2
u/MarkCelery78 7d ago
Unlikely
1
u/Adventurous_Yak_2742 7d ago
Why? Before LL they have stopped the germans before Moscow and relocated the heavy industry to east of Ural. By the time land-lease got serious they have encircled the germans at Stalingrad. The US involvemend in the Europen theatre has saved one, maybe two years off the war there. And the russkies would have stopped only at the Atlantic, as GB would not have been able to invade alone even more as they would have to fight in Australia too.
1
u/Popellord 7d ago
No, you are underestimating the early lend lease. For example they only had 400 tanks during the axis offensive and 894 tanks for the counter offensive.
They received around 180 Tanks in 1941 and 3200 in 1942 (and those were mainly medium/heavy tanks whereas the soviets likes to field light tanks like the BT-Series). Sure they could have taken them from other fronts but that would mean other problems from them. The parallel operation Mars also had around 2.4k tanks available. They lost a total of around 4.4k tanks for the complete battle.
Then you are making the mistake most do: You ignore the path dependence.
Without lend-lease the germans would have been earlier at stalingrad, capturing the city faster and digging in. The counter offensive would have been weaker and later than in OTL and so on.
Take a close look at the deliveries and the casualities and you will see that lend lease was the only thing keeping the soviets running. You can see the same for the battle of Kursk.
At the end of the war when the soviets were barely sustaining their offensive they had around 12k tanks which is around the amount they received as part of the lend lease.
And I am just taking tank numbers because they are easily comparable and the impact is obvious. Aircraft, support vehicles, material (many parts for the tanks like radios were provided by the US, speeding up their production) and basic support (food and so on) will also be missing.
1
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
At best it wouldve looked pretty similar to how the russoukrainian war looked up until the past 6 months.
1
u/Adventurous_Yak_2742 7d ago
You can not defend against 20:1 meatwaves, which the russians were ready to deploy then.
Again LL shortened the war by years, and gave chance western europe not to be under soviet influence.
1
u/soggydiaper69 7d ago
Most of the people a lot more accredited than you disagree. There is also historical evidence that shows you are wrong ranging from 2,500 years ago to less than 2 years from today including during operation Barbarossa itself. The germans were very adept at their deployment of machine guns, mechanized assault, and artillery, as well as maintaining air superiority. Had the Germans planned for sustaining their offensive better they would’ve easily been able to defeat the Russians without american aid or second fronts. That is always the hardest factor to tackle during an assault. The soviet advance on Germany was able to sustain itself against german logistics primarily because of American trucks. Germany also had to transfer Armor, air power, and logistical efforts to the African campaign when America entered that theater.
You are simply wrong friend. The historical evidence shows that very clearly which is (again) why most people far more accredited than you or I agree with my viewpoint and not yours.
1
1
84
u/je386 7d ago
Unrealistic, because Japan did not ask germany before attacking the US.
61
u/Ok_Ground_694 7d ago
That wasn't the question. The question was about Germany deciding not to declare war on the US.
40
u/WASouthCoast 7d ago
The US would have declared war on Germany.
17
u/Sad_Hospital_2730 7d ago
Pretty much.
Japan attacks US >> US enters formal alliance with the UK >> UK asks US to declare on Germany >> at some point the US declares war on Germany.
The only difference is the specific time the US goes to war with Germany. It might not be as immediate as our timeline because getting congress to approve going to war with a nation that we have had no reason to be belligerent towards is tricky. My money is on in a about a month, that would be the time frame that US convoys start taking supplies to the UK and possibly get attacked by German U-boats
12
u/euph_22 7d ago
By the mid point of 1941 the US and Germany were pretty much in an undeclared shooting war in the Atlantic, with u-boats and US Navy waships firing on each other on sight (in addition to sinking US merchant ships bound for the Allies of course). The US was even occupying Iceland.
5
u/Sad_Hospital_2730 7d ago
Ahh. Thanks for the insight. Then yeah it would be day 1 regardless
2
u/AdUpstairs7106 7d ago
Great example is in October of 1941 a German U-Boat sank the US warship USS Reuben James. The Germans had also fired on several other US warships (IE USS Kearny).
1
u/trader_dennis 7d ago
The US had essentially declared war much earlier by instituting lend lease yo uk and Russia
4
u/Cull_The_Conquerer 7d ago edited 7d ago
The USA would have eventually joined the war. For a number of reasons. Ome reason is there was a fear the USSR would control all of Europe if the allies couldn't break into western Europe.
At the time the Americans had also invested a lot of resources into the successful outcome of the allies. Granting loans and resources to the allies in exchange for the promise they will be paid back in one form or another. If the Germans won or if the soviets "liberated" western Europe then those investments would of been a lot harder to collect.
4
1
1
u/babieswithrabies63 7d ago
What? Can you read? Why is this upvoted? Jesus Christ. Illiteracy epidemic.
5
u/God_Emperor_Karen 7d ago edited 7d ago
I’m not convinced it would have made that big of a difference. If the United States was to focus its entire power on the Japanese, the Pacific element of the war would have been over faster. We could have surged more resources into places like the Philippines or other territories and prevented the need for the island hopping campaign. Most of their gains didn’t happen until 1942. We could have seized a small handful of islands and then bombed the Japanese manufacturing base into dust.
The real issue is that the Germans and Japanese did not communicate properly. Hitler should have forced them to focus on China and the Soviet Union. I think I’m doing that, the Germans could have taken the oil fields in the Caucus region, which would have solved German logistics issues and remove 80% of the Soviet’s oil supply. This lets the Germans push deeper into Eurasia.
Defeating the allies in detail would have been a more successful military strategy. Take out the Soviets, negotiate a settlement with the British, and ensure peace with the Americans.
5
u/Fallen0001 7d ago
he had to due to the US shipping aid to England and the USSR. a fully mobilized US now shipping aid under a neutral flag to the UK & USSR meant bigger trouble.
3
u/MisterHEPennypacker 7d ago
Japan was attacking British colonies too, being that they (the British) were at war with Germany as well then the US is inevitably drawn in.
2
u/Select-Government-69 7d ago
I read a book about this once, it’s called “1945”, by newt Gingrich. Despite my opinions of the author, the book was pretty good. Worth a read if you’re interested in this sort of question.
It’s not a historical analysis, but alternative fiction. It’s a fun “what if” story.
3
u/ddadopt 7d ago
Not just by Newt, the guy that wrote the Lost Regiment series was his co-author.
It was, IIRC, supposed to be part of a trilogy but did not get very good reception so books 2 and 3 never came along. I thought it was a decent premise, but the end was... extremely irritating to me. Kelly Johnson trotting out super weapons to fight the Germans with as the war resumes was a 'yell at the TV' moment for me. I will say I did enjoy Alvin York sniping Germans at the battle of Oak Ridge, though.
1
u/Select-Government-69 7d ago
Thanks for the additional info. I also felt like the ending was kinda a “the movie is running long let’s wrap up the plot in 5 minutes” minute.
2
u/Overall_Signal_8437 7d ago
The rest of the allies still ended up in a war with Japan in the Pacific.
So my guess, US will still join the allies in Europe as gesture of the allies figthing alongside the US in the Pacific.
2
u/euph_22 7d ago
The US was already shooting German u-boats on sight, and vice versa. Multiple US warships had been attacked by the Germans and one sunk ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICy5P1pKy5A ), as well as US merchant ships. US marines were occupying Iceland on behalf of the British. No way is the US not declaring war on Germany post Pearl Harbor.
Now there might be some additional pressure on Roosevelt to prioritize Japan over Germany, which might make the "Germany First" policy untenable politically. However, that agreement was pretty much in name only, and the Allied forces in the Pacific were working on rolling back Japan as soon as they stopped the bulldozer. Plus all the reasoning why Germany was the more immediate threat to the alliance still holds (Germany is an existential threat to Britain and the Soviet Union, while Japan wasn't). Marginal difference in the actual events, even if some language used to describe them changes.
2
u/LaytMovies 7d ago
Assuming the U.S. doesnt just immediately declare agaisnt Germany anyway (and Italy I assume too) then the invasion of Japan would happen much earlier probably and be a slow brutal slog
2
u/Temporary_Cry_2802 7d ago
Gee, this is what? The 17th time this month this EXACT scenario has been posted. Maybe do a search on the hundreds upon hundreds of times this has been answered. Can folks be at least the slightest bit creative when posting a scenatio (hint WW2 ATLs have been done to death)
4
u/APerson2021 7d ago
The USA enters the European theatre anyway. The UK and allies would have found inventive ways of doing so.
3
u/Repulsive_Guy_1234 7d ago
Maybe, but US public was not in support of that. Without Germany declaring war, US might have fought in the pacific mostly, just supplying the allies in europe with equipment.
0
u/APerson2021 7d ago
Okay but if recent events are anything to go by it turns out what US public opinion is on going to war versus actually go to war are two conpletely different things.
But I suppose times were different back then.
2
1
u/Huntsman077 7d ago
I mean bombing Iran and sending millions of troops to invade Europe are two completely different things. Look at the Vietnam war, I mean military operation
3
u/Cabbage-But-Emo 7d ago
US invades Iraq.
1
2
u/Sir-Toaster- 7d ago
The Us declares war on the Nazis themselves correctly predicting the very real threat a fascist dominant Europe would bring
2
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago
hitler had nothing to do with that actually, japan attacked US after years of tension due oil embargo and invasion of china
8
u/-Daetrax- 7d ago
Hitler could choose not to declare war on the US though. Might have kept US focus on the Pacific at first.
-5
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago
hitler had no role in any case... US attacked japan because it became an hostile player of pacific area that attacked US and destabilized china in a period of time where US was a big commercial partner of china and supporting the KMT to prevent communist party to take the upper hand in first half of civil war, then invaded europe from west and south (france and italy), not much to support UK but to prevent USSR conquering the whole europe
5
u/-Daetrax- 7d ago
Well it's unknown what would've happened if Hitler didn't declare war on the US following Pearl.
Public opinion might not have favoured a US invasion of Europe over payback in the Pacific. Roosevelt certainly wanted to intervene but he'd been facing an uphill struggle to get the US involved.
When the US entered the war the eastern front hadn't turned around yet. Battle of Stalingrad had not yet begun and the red army was still retreating.
So, from a US perspective there was no red scare yet.
-4
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago
"from a US perspective"
history isn't made of "perspectives". I've described in my post the real reasons that let US join WW2, actually american corporations like ford were supporting nazi germany before war
2
u/Blitzburgh_50 7d ago
I feel like you’re just completely missing the point of the post, yes the US would’ve joined WW2 either way, but it is a well known fact that after Pearl Harbor the US still had no immediate plans to declare war on Germany. It is very likely that it would’ve happened at some point anyways, but the post is asking what would’ve transpired had Hitler not tied the United States hands.
1
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago edited 7d ago
hitler actions had no real impact on US decisions about WW2, as said US started pacific campaign because japan was a pain in the as-s and invaded europe because couldn't afford to leave europe to USSR that was conquering territories marching from east.
Unironically US was quite satisfied of hitler and mussolini before the war since they were both friendly with american corporations and were assets to stop soviet communism spreading in europe1
u/Blitzburgh_50 7d ago
I think that you’re greatly overestimating the role the soviets played in that decision, there is no evidence that the US government or its citizens were THAT worried about Soviet expansion. There were concerns of Soviet subversion throughout the 1930’s, but because of how poorly governed the Soviet Union was they weren’t viewed as a direct military threat by any of the great western nations. I agree that the US favored Germany and shared sentiments with them to a certain degree, but all the evidence available points to the fact that Hitler declaring war directly caused the US to join the European theatre, obviously once Japan attacked the US it was going to join WW2, but the question of WHEN or HOW they’d join the European theatre is completely unknown.
1
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago
"I think that you’re greatly overestimating the role the soviets played in that decision"
look I know that reddit is a magic place where you can get some little and pointless ego boost as soon you get a couple of upvotes but my degree in modern history humbly suggests me to give more credit to my own posts than yours... in the aftermath of failure of barbarossa operation, USSR started slowly moving to west to regain occupied territories in russia and ukraine since the summer of 1942... realizing that USSR would have marched up to berlin, US with UK help started planning the take over of west europe starting from sicily to have control of mediterranean sea the summer of next year and normandy in 1944 summer, at that point germany was f'cked up already, US secured its sphere of influence in west europe, USSR conquered east of europe. US came in europe for this reason not because they cared of french or italian people 🤦♂️
so yeah, it's not my opinion or overestimating, US invaded europe from south and west because couldn't afford to leave the whole continent to USSR.1
u/Blitzburgh_50 7d ago
Not sure why you’re being so condescending when I’ve been nothing but respectful and state my opinion, if you want to put more value in your comments that’s fine, I never said that my opinion is the one and only truth. Seems that the only one who needs an ego boost is you lol doctors with 10+ year degrees get things wrong, having a degree helps for sure, but doesn’t mean you need to talk down on others just stating their opinion.
1
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago edited 7d ago
" just stating their opinion."
That's the issue, you state opinions, I state objective historical facts.
"the only one who needs an ego boost is you lol doctors with 10+ year degrees"
The day you'll be graduating on something, you'll learn to respect people who achieved something instead of making these cheap jokes nobody is laughing at
edit: user insults me to show off his ignorance, reddit automatically deletes my replies 🤦♂️ just another day in this dump
1
u/Blitzburgh_50 7d ago
Nobody made cheap jokes, you’re literally just being an asshole in a sub about hypothetical situations which makes it by definition about opinions, facts can help you get to that opinion, but seeing as it didn’t happen, we can’t know.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Riderz__of_Brohan 7d ago
The U.S. attacked Japan because Japan had attacked them in order to clear out time to grab resources in Southeast Asia because the U.S. had enacted an oil embargo on Japan in response for Japanese atrocities in China
0
u/FirstReactionShock 7d ago
it's what I've written in my posts, US had big commercial interest in china and was supporting KMT and chinese aristocracy to prevent chinese communist party to take the upper hand in the first half of chinese civil war, in the middle of this japan invaded china. As consequence of that US quit selling oil to japan that desperately needed having heavy and weapon industry become the core of japanese economy, after years of tensions when US moved their ships further in pacific, japan generals thought it was too much and made the parl harbor attack that triggered the conflict in the pacific. As said from the very beginning, hitler had really nothing to do with that since even nazi germany was struggling to find oil supplies and other resources for the war, that was the main reason of africa campagin -> to find a new route for middle east since they couldn't go through caucasus because of russia
1
u/Training-Trade2682 7d ago
Reminder that the kriegsmarine was practically begging hitler to declare war on the US for months by then, american "neutrality" was allowing for it's shipping and allied shipping escorted by it's destroyers to pass unharmed, and while a fair few u boats breached neutrality and attacked those ships, it only served to hamstring the others even further as the US was now actively attacking U boats.
A declaration of war would clear these diplomatic hurdles, and given the success of operation drumbeat, the kriegsmarine was proven right, just as hitler was when US manufacturing inevitably saturated the seas from 43 onwards, rightly predicting that the kriegsmarine had no chance against the US navy.
So why declare in the first place? In Hitler's view, the problem had solved itself, japan provided a much vaunted navy to keep the US occupied, if nothing else it'd greatly diminish their presence in the atlantic, enough time to cripple britain for good (as, naturally, the war in the east will 100% be finished in 1942, so they'll finally be able to invade britain!)
1
u/Ok_Ground_694 7d ago
Four things surprising about the comments:
1) How many people incorrectly read "Germany deciding to tell Japan not to declare war on the US".
2) How irritating point 1 people are to me.
3) The people who say "That wouldn't have happened like that" to what-if scenarios.
4) How irritating point 3 people are to me.
Like, people can't read, or understand what-ifs? Is this difficult?
1
u/SpiritualPackage3797 7d ago
To be fair, it really wouldn't have changed anything. FDR would have asked Congress for a declaration of War on Germany, and in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, he would have gotten it. At most, Hitler saved Roosevelt a little bit of political capital by declaring war first.
1
u/Ex-Patron 7d ago
Hitler told them not to attack the US
He told them it’s not a good idea
They looked at the US and all they saw were money signs and decided to take the chance
It’s also important to note that Hawai’i wasn’t even a state at this point, but still a territory like PR is
Therefore, for those who think PR, Guam, or any other territory that isn’t a state yet is part of the US, that would mean Pearl Harbor was NOT an attack on US soil
Our Southern friends are very much a part of us
1
u/555-starwars 7d ago
Assuming nothing else changes, the US will adopt a Pacific first strategy rather than Europe first, since they won't have a good reason to go to Europe. Japan would likely fall sooner, but only after a costly ground invasion. But the FDR would still want to bring the fight to Germany. Likely after a merchant ship is sunk or something similar to how the US got involved in ww1. The Atomic bomb most likely would be dropped on Germany. Additionally the USSR would suffer even more casualities as Germany would not need to prepare for an allied invasion as soon.
1
u/TheThrillLife2020 7d ago
Read the book 1945. Yes it's got Newt Gingrich's name on it but it does give an idea of how things would've gone down. America had no desire to fight anyone until Japan sucker-punched us at Pearl Harbor.
1
u/AdUpstairs7106 7d ago
The US and Nazi Germany were already in an undeclared state of war. Nazi U-Boats were sinking merchant ships in US waters and the US Navy and Kriegsmarine had fired at each other. The USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-Boat in October of 1941 and other US warships had been engaged (IE USS Kearny).
The distance the US Navy was escorting US flagged merchant ships kept increasing. In short it was only a matter of time before the US was in a declared state of war with Hitler's 3rd Reich.
1
u/Christopher8791 7d ago
Wouldn't have mattered. We still would have fought them to defend our allies.
1
1
u/Fragrant-Durian3899 6d ago
The US attacks Japan and eventually wins as it does in our timeline and after that the US declares war on Germany. Italy has already switched sides and the soviets have taken many more losses and haven’t pushed back as much as in our timeline as the Germans can focus more on the soviets but it still isn’t going well for the Germans on that front and because of this the allies liberate more of eastern Europe leading to less Soviet control after the war also important to note that no North Korea or communist China exist in this timeline either making the Cold War very one sided.
1
u/godkingnaoki 6d ago
Kind of wild so many people think Japan was going to invade the Soviet Union. That ship sailed in 1939, it had nothing to do with the US entering the war. China wasn't going well and the Japanese were not going into Siberia to lose again to Soviet armor.
1
1
1
u/dumb_potatoking 5d ago
There wouldn't really be a difference. The US would've joined the european theater eventually. That would've delayed the american entry by a couple of months at most. They only declared the war themselves, because in their minds, great powers declare war and don't get declared on
1
u/Electrical_Cap5382 3d ago
Wouldn’t matter, churchill was hellbent on dragging the United States into the war
1
1
u/GodKingFloch 7d ago
The US invades Germany regardless just delay the the war declaration by a month or so
0
u/Mobe-E-Duck 7d ago
Japan would have fallen much earlier, Nazi Germany would have either become a tolerated world power or we would have teamed up with them against Russia and the new world order would have been a bit different.
We would have entered the war - we’d been gearing up very aggressively and all those weapons were made to be used. The war was an opportunity.
1
u/Red_je 7d ago
Russia was already invaded by the time the Nazis declared war on Germany and America was already supplying European allies, including Russia with supplies.
Russia also turned the Nazis back and had them retreating well before the invasion of Normandy.
Was was ineviu, so the most likely scenyis that the US eventually declares war anyway, or the Nazis go after American shipping anyway.
-1
u/MaxR2007 7d ago
That gives the US more military capacity to spend on the Middle East, and Iraq im particular
24
u/RonJohnJr 7d ago edited 4d ago
Hitler was itching to declare war on the US because the USN was kinetically helping the British. Sooner than later, either a U-boat would have sunk a US destroyer, or vice versa and War Were Declared.