On December 11, 1941 Adolf Hitler declared war on the United States. Almost everyone who has analyzed this decision has been puzzled. Why go out of your way to antagonize the United States when it’s consumed with fury against Japan?
The leading reply: At this point, Hitler saw that war was inevitable, so he might as well take the moral high ground for propaganda reasons.
I’m unconvinced. In the absence of Hitler’s war declaration, there must have been at least a 5% chance that the U.S. would have delayed war with Germany for at least another year. And even if the U.S. seized the initiative and declared war, there must be at least a 10% chance that the U.S. would have focused more on Japan in this scenario. Even if war was “inevitable,” timing and intensity matter.
In any case, I maintain that Hitler had a simple way to dramatically reduce the risk of war with the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Namely: Instead of declaring war on the United States, he should have declared war on Japan. Something along the lines of, “While we have had grave differences with the Americans in the past, I was horrified to see fellow Aryans attacked by Asian Untermenschen. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans – and I offer my sincere condolences to President Roosevelt.”
“War with Japan” would be a token military commitment for Germany. They already lost all their Asian colonies after World War I. Just sink a stray Japanese vessel or two in the Atlantic and wage a second Sitzkrieg, a “Phony War.” It is hard to see Japan doing much to retaliate. Germany and Japan almost totally failed to coordinate their war effort. And despite their common border in the East, Japan wasn’t in much of a position to Soviet resistance.
I say this strategy would have at least a 25% chance of keeping U.S. troops out of the European theater until 1944.
Am I wrong?
READER COMMENTS
Don Dale
Oct 25 2021 at 10:17am
Bryan, the US was already at war with Germany in the Atlantic, and had been for about a year prior to Pearl Harbor. US destroyers and search planes were actively coordinating with Allied ships and planes in the battle against U-boats; US units would inform Allied units of U-boat location and assist with search. But the Germans couldn’t fire on the Americans as they were constrained by neutrality and rules of engagement. Sometimes the US would drop depth charges on the U-boats and sometimes the U-boats would fire on the Americans ‘by mistake’. The USS Reuben James was sunk on October 31 1941, and several others were fired upon. See here for a summary: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nmusn/explore/photography/wwii/wwii-atlantic/battle-of-the-atlantic/pre-us-entry-into-wwii.html
One thing missing from that summary is the air assets that Roosevelt had sent to Britain, including 200 Catalina reconnaissance planes and several US Navy pilots ‘on loan’ to the British. One such pilot flying one such plane was Ensign Leonard B. Smith of the US Navy, who was the pilot who spotted the Bismarck on May 26, 1941, enabling the critical attack by torpedo planes from the British carrier Ark Royal that crippled the German battleship. Officially, a British officer was the pilot for that mission, and Smith was co-pilot.
All of this was hidden from Congress; Roosevelt acknowledged that if Congress had discovered any of it, he should have been impeached.
Hitler’s declaration of war was, more than anything, an acknowledgement of a state that already existed. Even absent a German declaration of war, it’s hard to imagine a European theater without continued hostilities between US and Axis forces, with or without a DoW by either party.
Midas Mulligan
Oct 25 2021 at 10:36am
Bryan,
Interesting thought experiment, but I believe you are wrong.
First, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where the US continued to tolerate the de facto state of war that existed between the Kriegsmarine and US vessels in the Atlantic without escalating this into a formal war. Even in your scenario where the Germans attempt to show sympathy; this would be hard to reconcile with their desire for unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic.
Second, the Atlantic Charter signed by Roosevelt/Churchill earlier in 1941 explicitly says that defeating “Nazi tyranny” is a priority for their nations. In the wake of this the US became increasingly provocative in the Atlantic hoping to paint the Germans as the aggressors for a propaganda victory (a la WWI). To wit, the US assumed the occupation of Iceland on behalf of the British.
Third, by the time of Pearl Harbor the US and British governments had already been in direct communication with the Soviet Union and all recognized that keeping the Soviets in the war was the best hope for defeating the Germans. And in the days after Pearl Harbor it is no exaggeration to say that the West believed the USSR could fall at any moment. You state that timing and intensity matter; so too do gestures and public commitments. Failing to join the USSR’s and UK’s struggle against Germany would (likely) have produced serious political consequences for the Western allies towards the end of the war. Roosevelt was aware of this.
All that to say; even if Germany had declared war on Japan… I don’t believe its fair to say this would have “dramatically” decreased the chances of going to war with the US once the US was already at war. The declaration may have come in very early 1942 but the overall outcome would not have been much different.
Jon Murphy
Oct 25 2021 at 11:03am
To add to what Don Dale says above, there are two things to consider:
First: Germany had a written agreement that stated they would go to war against the US if Japan did, which was formalized on 4 December 1941.
Second: as Don Dale says, Germany was furious at the US for essentially claiming neutrality while aiding the Allies. The declaration makes sense if you assume that war with Japan would spread the US thin and soak up resources. Essentially, you force the US to fight on two fronts (Europe, Asia) while you focus on just one front (Europe).
Jeremy N
Oct 25 2021 at 4:00pm
I don’t think #1 is exactly right. The agreement was defensive, and Germany would go to war IF US attacked Japan. They didn’t have to go, according to their treaty, if Japan was the aggressor. (Not that this really mattered to Hitler, of course).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact
Jon Murphy
Oct 26 2021 at 9:55am
There was a secondary pact (I’m not sure if it has a formal name) where Germany promised aid if Japan attacked the US
AMT
Oct 25 2021 at 11:11am
I could also imagine that Germany might have thought it was helpful to them to have the US divide up military forces between multiple opponents at once. Otherwise the whole divide and conquer thing is a lot easier. If the US faces no immediate threat from Germany it might send far more forces to Japan and have a much faster victory by achieving critical mass. Then that entire force could be later retrained on Germany.
Disclaimer, this is just theory, I have no particular insight. and it still seems like the US faced almost zero immediate threat from Germany and thus could have done this anyway…so maybe the US felt the same way, that it needed to keep the UK alive.
Mark Bahner
Oct 25 2021 at 12:22pm
Yes, except that “Europe” wasn’t one front. (Or Germany was not just fighting in “Europe.” ;-)) Germany was fighting on its east and west (two fronts), rather than just one front.
It sure is good that Hitler did so many really stupid things. And probably the most fortunate and stupid thing he did was breaking his non-aggression pact with Stalin, and instead attacking the Soviet Union.
Jon Murphy
Oct 25 2021 at 12:30pm
Agreed, and that is a good point. But logistically I think my comment stands. There’s quite the distance between Japan and Germany. Where troops could (fairly) easily be reallocated within Europe, it was much harder to reallocate troops from Asia to Europe
Matthias
Oct 25 2021 at 10:48pm
Stalin would have probably broken the pact later anyway, but yes, keeping it up for longer would have bought Nazi Germany more time, probably.
Andrew_FL
Oct 25 2021 at 12:42pm
You are mistaken in two respects. First, Nazi racial ideology did not regard the Yamato race as Untermenschen, but rather as the Master Race of the Orient, their racial peers. Second, you underestimate the delusional ambition of the Nazis, whose ultimate goal and actual expectation was that their border with the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere would approximately split Eurasia in half.
Andrew Clough
Oct 25 2021 at 1:03pm
When the US switched from Cash & Carry to Lend Lease Germany was doomed by default. By declaring war the Germans were able to attack US intra-coastal shipping, which the absolutely massacred for 3 months, and diverted US war production from propping up the Soviets to creating new US divisions that wouldn’t enter the war for months. Germany was still quite doomed but after declaring war on the US they needed a somewhat smaller miracle to win on the Eastern Front after which they would have been in a good position. So within the overall incompetence of Germany’s wars declaring one on the US at that point was one of their smarter moves.
Jeremy N
Oct 25 2021 at 4:04pm
I think you overestimate Hitler’s rationality. One book I read on WWII surprised me in just how irrational Hitler was, especially regarding race. He considered US an inferior nation because of our racial makeup. He may have thought that he should declare war on US while Japan did, so that Japan would help Germany vanquish US (and save German lives), then once it defeated US, it would go after Japan (which was even more inferior to the Aryan race in his mind). I don’t think he ever thought that non-Aryans stood a chance against Aryans so this is how he conducted the war.
John hare
Oct 25 2021 at 4:32pm
The irrational attitudes towards race was one of the causes of defeat for Germany. The percentage of the Soviet population under German control was over 35% by one source I read. Immigrants I have talked to are quite certain that that population, properly handled would have been German allies instead of a troublesome occupation. Same for many of the Soviet POWs which numbers in the millions in the first few months.
Mark Z
Oct 25 2021 at 4:42pm
Hitler may not have known that Japan did not intend to contribute much to the war against the Soviets. He was deep in war with Russia at the time and may have figured if he kept Japan happy, they would at least help divide the Soviet forces (the Soviets of course already knew this wasn’t going to happen through their spies in Japan, but Hitler may not have known it yet). Just some idle speculation.
Joss Delage
Oct 25 2021 at 4:51pm
If Hitler had had the option to think that way, he wouldn’t have done many, many things that he did actually do before that point.
Andrew_FL
Oct 25 2021 at 5:23pm
It appears that my comment was moderated, but I have not received any email explaining what I may have said wrong. It can be a delicate topic to discuss the details of the ideology in question here and their attitudes toward certain groups, especially without creating the incorrect impression of endorsing it. So I will try more delicately:
They did not regard the Mainland Japan ethnic majority as inferiors. Also they expected, delusionally, to be able to conquer half the Eurasian continent which would have put their border on that of the expanded Empire of Japan’s.
Andrew_FL
Oct 25 2021 at 5:24pm
NVM my comment reappeared
Doug Bennett
Oct 25 2021 at 5:51pm
This is an amazing idea. It is Hansonian in its unconventionality.
The reason why it is great is that it buys tons of time for the American public to become exhasted of war and for the conflicts of interest between U.S and USSR, UK and other Allies to become more glaring.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Oct 25 2021 at 7:31pm
Of course there was no reason for Germany to have been at war with the Soviet Union either. He had already secured their neutrality with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Philip George
Oct 26 2021 at 1:07am
Japan kept a large chunk of British resources engaged in Asia and thus unavailable for use in Europe.
Jose Pablo
Oct 27 2021 at 10:12pm
“Germany and Japan almost totally failed to coordinate their war effort.”
That has always puzzled me. Why not a coordinated attack on the USSR forcing it to fight in two fronts?
One of the main reasons for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the US embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan (the US was providing 80% of Japan’s oil at the time). Access to Russian oil would have solved Japan’s (and Germany’s) problem.
Why were they unable to coordinate such a clearly winning strategy? (While as Bryan suggests. at the same time, trying to appease the US with every measure they could think of).
This attack on USSR would have allowed them to claim they were primarily fighting communism. A claim that sure would have found some sympathizers in the US.
Comments are closed.