Why Hitler proclaimed war on US?

[Moreno]

It is widely bellieved that Hitler wanted to avoid or delay war on US at any cost. So, why did he proclaime war on US in 1941? Wasn't it one of his fatal mistakes?

[Endy0816]

He was allied with Japan and we were providing support for his enemies, despite technical neutrality.

[swansont]

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, how would a declaration of war from the US have been avoided?

[Delta1212]

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, how would a declaration of war from the US have been avoided?

Nazi Germany's alliance with Japan was a defensive one, so technically they were not obligated to declare war on the US as Japan was the aggressor. While FDR certainly wanted to go to war with Germany, he would have had to get a declaration of war through Congress, which would not have been a sure thing with attention being focused on Japan. Hitler's pre-emptive declaration made things much simpler in that respect.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Delta1212

[Velocity_Boy]

He was allied with Japan and we were providing support for his enemies, despite technical neutrality.

Well, this is the best answer so far but still only partially correct.

 

By declaring war on the US three days after Pearl Harbor and just a couple days after FDR declared war on Japan, Hitler..As well as italy.. Declared war on the US because he was hoping that Japan would provide some assistance on his eastern front, with Russia.

 

You'll recall that Russia and Japan were old enemies, going back to the Japanese Russo War some 35 years earlier.

 

And also he knew anyway it was only a matter of time before we entered the war in Europe, as we had been supplying Great Brittain with arms and materiel for over a year, via the Lend Lease Act. Thus, he figured that any other diversion of troops and weapons for the US, like a protected Pacific Theater war, could not be anything other than beneficial to Germany and its quest for world domination.

Edited April 22, 2017 by Velocity_Boy

[Moreno]

He was allied with Japan and we were providing support for his enemies, despite technical neutrality.

 

Did Hitler have agreement with Japan about mutual attack against any country? If yes, then why Japan

didn't proclaim war on USSR in June 1941? Japan seriously failed Hitler when they decided not to open the

second front against USSR. If Japan failed to fulfill its obligations, then why Hitler felt himself forced to came

to Japan rescue? It seems Nazi Germany lost much more than gained from their alliance with Japan, because

Japanese involved them in fatal and unnecessary war with US instead help them to attack USSR.

[Endy0816]

 

Did Hitler have agreement with Japan about mutual attack against any country? If yes, then why Japan

didn't proclaim war on USSR in June 1941? Japan seriously failed Hitler when they decided not to open the

second front against USSR. If Japan failed to fulfill its obligations, then why Hitler felt himself forced to came

to Japan rescue? It seems Nazi Germany lost much more than gained from their alliance with Japan, because

Japanese involved them in fatal and unnecessary war with US instead help them to attack USSR.

 

Neither had to, no(see Delta's Post).

 

I think it was part strategy like Velocity_boy mentioned("I declare war on the US, hopefully Japan declares war on the USSR") and partly based on his personal admiration for the Japanese people that led him to do what he did.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan#To_the_Japanese

 

Fog of war probably played a large role as well. The Attack on Pearl Harbor appeared much worse than it was in terms of recovery.

 

It definitely wasn't the smartest move.

 

I agree we probably would have ended up involved anyways. A ship sinking could be blamed on German U-boats and suddenly we're all, "Remember the ________!"

Edited April 23, 2017 by Endy0816

[Danijel Gorupec]

It definitely wasn't the smartest move.

 

Well, not that Hitler planned it that way... but it seems to me that, at the end, German people can be lucky that the USA entered the war. Without this power balance I wonder what would Russians do to them (Revenge is very much glorified in Slavic culture, I should know... Remember that Nazi-germans regarded Slavic people as non-humans, and for this the punishment could become unspeakable.) Under USA 'protection' at least one part of Germany had the opportunity to develop strong economy and healthy democracy.

 

Yes, it is my opinion is that Nazis would lose the war even without USA involvement (with even more damage on all sides).

[Sriman Dutta]

Hitler was aiming at world conquer. Moreover, his regime in Germany witnessed oppression on a severe scale. US could not keep quite after the Japan's bombardment of Pearl Harbour on 7th December 1941. The only course left open to US was to crush the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis, of which the Nazi and Hitler were a part.

[Moreno]

Revenge is very much glorified in Slavic culture, I should know...

Interesting... I never heard of that. Where did you take it from? Maybe you can give some examples?

 

Remember that Nazi-germans regarded Slavic people as non-humans, and for this the punishment could become unspeakable.

 

And which exactly kind of punishment?

Edited April 23, 2017 by Moreno

[Handy andy]

I understand Japan was given no choice but to go to war with America. America was threatening Japans fuel supply or something like that. Also the US had advanced warning that Japan was going to attack but did nothing. The Teaching Company in the states have loads of lectures on this stuff.

[quickquestion]

Japan was already spreading itself thin by attacking other nations and America. Hitler was absurd, he wanted Japan to attack America as well as Russia, the 2 major world superpowers. Japan, a small tiny island, he expected to defeat Russia and America. And he betrayed Russia far too early in the game. Hitler was crazy.

[Manticore]

Japan was already spreading itself thin by attacking other nations and America. Hitler was absurd, he wanted Japan to attack America as well as Russia, the 2 major world superpowers. Japan, a small tiny island, he expected to defeat Russia and America. And he betrayed Russia far too early in the game. Hitler was crazy.

Congratulations - concise and sensible. Keep to this standard of reply and you will find your reputation rising rapidly.

Re-reading this, It might sound rather patronizing - it's not intended to be

Edited April 23, 2017 by Manticore

[CharonY]

It is widely bellieved that Hitler wanted to avoid or delay war on US at any cost. So, why did he proclaime war on US in 1941? Wasn't it one of his fatal mistakes?

 

There are various reasons, but ultimately it was based on his personal decision. While individual motives are difficult to ascertain there is a host of books out there that have speculated about various aspects of it.

As has been noted, the tripartite pact itself (von Ribbentrop reminded him of that) was not the reason as it was a defensive pact. Among the various reasons:

 

- Germany and the US were already close to being at war due to the material supply the US provided as well as involvement of US citizens in the Spanish war as well as in China. It is speculated that Hitler wanted to pre-empt an eventual declaration by Roosevelt.

 

- A show of strength as diversion from the stalling Soviet campaign and to fuel his sense of grandiosity

 

- A deep lack of knowledge regarding the industrial and military potential of the US

 

- A desire to take the offensive before the US military capacity could be increased to threaten the European theatre.

 

I understand Japan was given no choice but to go to war with America. America was threatening Japans fuel supply or something like that. Also the US had advanced warning that Japan was going to attack but did nothing. The Teaching Company in the states have loads of lectures on this stuff.

 

Not quite, Japan had pan Asian ambitions and the US intended to limit their offensive abilities by enforcing embargoes. So for Japan to continue their military expansion, they needed that oil.

 

 

Japan was already spreading itself thin by attacking other nations and America. Hitler was absurd, he wanted Japan to attack America as well as Russia, the 2 major world superpowers. Japan, a small tiny island, he expected to defeat Russia and America. And he betrayed Russia far too early in the game. Hitler was crazy.

 

As noted above, the attack on the US was a strategic decision by Japan. At that point in time Japan had a well-trained war machine underway and had ambitions to emerge as a superpower uniting East-Asia under their rule. Note what tiny Germany achieved to the then British superpower and the fact that at that time the US was not yet one.

[Danijel Gorupec]

Interesting... I never heard of that. Where did you take it from? Maybe you can give some examples?

 

And which exactly kind of punishment?

Sorry, maybe it is better if I refrain for commenting it further. I can easily be wrong as so many times before. (I was thinking on some folk tales, myths and legends spoken in Slavic culture where revenge is a common motivator, but I cannot compare them to other groups so these might be nothing special. I was also under personal experience of the recent war in my country.)

[Moreno]

Sorry, maybe it is better if I refrain for commenting it further. I can easily be wrong as so many times before. (I was thinking on some folk tales, myths and legends spoken in Slavic culture where revenge is a common motivator,

 

Very interesting... Which exactly legends?

[Danijel Gorupec]

 

Very interesting... Which exactly legends?

[ Off-topic, but because you are the original poster: When I have an opportunity, I like to read mythology. I am mostly familiar with Croatian and Serbian mythology, much less so Russian (yesterday I read a synopsis of the "Tsarevitch Ivan, the firebird and the gray wolf" which is a pale example, but still contains motives of revenge). A hero is often on a revenge mission, although sometimes the act of revenge can be executed by nature or super-nature. The revenge is often bloody and can be worse than the original sin... There are many other motives, including forgiveness, in mythological stories, but somehow I noticed this revenge. This got me thinking if revenge is regarded in higher esteem in some cultures than in others... If one would need to estimate how high the revenge (or forgiveness) is regarded in a certain culture, I think that analyzing myths and legends of that culture would be a good way to go.]

[Sensei]

After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, how would a declaration of war from the US have been avoided?

US did everything to Japan have to start war.. f.e. freezing (so basically stealing) Japanese assets and embargo.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

 

"Jul 26. On this day in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China."

 

 

The Attack on Pearl Harbor appeared much worse than it was in terms of recovery.

 

It definitely wasn't the smartest move.

From the above link:

"Japans oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years, and only half that time if it went to war and consumed fuel at a more frenzied pace."

[Endy0816]

 

US did everything to Japan have to start war.. f.e. freezing (so basically stealing) Japanese assets and embargo.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

 

"Jul 26. On this day in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China."

 

 

 

From the above link:

"Japans oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years, and only half that time if it went to war and consumed fuel at a more frenzied pace."

 

Meant for Hitler it wasn't all that wise. We didn't really want to go off and fight in the trenches of Europe. With our new focus on the Pacific, he may of even had time to solidify his position.

 

 

In contrast with theft, frozen assets can be unfrozen.

 

Japan had already invaded several countries at that point. If you were there, what would you have recommended we do instead to encourage Japan to back off on the aggression and withdraw to their home islands?

Edited April 24, 2017 by Endy0816

[CharonY]

 

 

Japan had already invaded several countries at that point. If you were there, what would you have recommended we do instead to encourage Japan to back off on the aggression and withdraw to their home islands?

 

One should note that it was not exclusively Japanese aggression in itself that lead to conflict with the US. One has to remember that Western powers at that time were heavily involved in carving out Asia for themselves and Japan was a threat to that. The initial attacks on China were pretty much ignored, though the threat level of Japan rose with entering the Tripartite Pact and a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union. It was then clear that Japan intended to expand into South-East Asia (after signing an agreement with Vichy France) allowing Japan to station units in Indochina. That, however, threatened US ambitions in that region (including the threat of a possible attack on the American Philipines). Together with the fact that it was known that Japan sought autarky (by means of seizing resources from East and Sout-East Asia) and had intention to drive out Western imperialist forces, it was in the end less a move to curb aggression in itself, but rather a move to maintain a sphere of influence and limiting that of an emerging power.

[Endy0816]

One should note that it was not exclusively Japanese aggression in itself that lead to conflict with the US. One has to remember that Western powers at that time were heavily involved in carving out Asia for themselves and Japan was a threat to that. The initial attacks on China were pretty much ignored, though the threat level of Japan rose with entering the Tripartite Pact and a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union. It was then clear that Japan intended to expand into South-East Asia (after signing an agreement with Vichy France) allowing Japan to station units in Indochina. That, however, threatened US ambitions in that region (including the threat of a possible attack on the American Philipines). Together with the fact that it was known that Japan sought autarky (by means of seizing resources from East and Sout-East Asia) and had intention to drive out Western imperialist forces, it was in the end less a move to curb aggression in itself, but rather a move to maintain a sphere of influence and limiting that of an emerging power.

Yeah, I was thinking about specifying that it was our economic interests that we were mostly concerned about, but ended up leaving it out. They did have alternative options though. Prior to Pearl Harbor we tried negotiations for the longest time and nonviolent means of persuasion.

 

I've always thought Japan has a number of unique strengths that would have ensured something similar to modern Japan coming about, no matter what.

 

It was good that they kept up their neutrality with the USSR. Russia(after not insignificant spying) was able to pull troops to help thwart Hitler's ambitions.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Endy0816

[swansont]

 

US did everything to Japan have to start war.. f.e. freezing (so basically stealing) Japanese assets and embargo.

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets

 

"Jul 26. On this day in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China."

 

 

 

And Japan's occupation of French territory was the US's fault? Freezing assets as part of diplomatic maneuvers is not war, and not unheard of.

[Handy andy]

 

 

And Japan's occupation of French territory was the US's fault? Freezing assets as part of diplomatic maneuvers is not war, and not unheard of.

 

Controversially

 

Global policing costs money, and attracts attention of persons policed.

 

Global policing could be considered to be not in the interests of the electorate and tax payers living in countries paying for the global police force.

 

If a government is not behaving in the interests of its people, it could be regarded as treason.

 

No one elects a government to police the world, or initiate regime changes at the otherside of the planet.

 

Governments globally could be considered to be committing treason, against their own electorate.

 

Regime changes cost lives of innocent people who would be happier if they were still alive living under a dictator ship.

 

Various governments globally could be considered to be dictatorships either benign or violently.

 

The Shah of Iran was a dictator, who fell allegedly trying to modernize his country. He was supported by a police state.

 

The same police state is still messing with politics in the region.

 

The Nazis were anti jewish this is a well known and much published fact. They also apparently tried to irradicate masonry in Nazi Germany according to sites if you care to google the subject.

 

Little known fact in America, WW2 started in 1939, America did not join in until 1940, when a U boat sank a passenger liner full off wealthy Americans possibly by mistake. Many of the German U boats that sank shipping around the coast of America were crewed by Americans of German descent, who came ashore went to cinemas ate in restaurants chatted with people, and found out when the cargo ships were leaving for europe. They then went out in the u boats and sank the cargo ships. Many U Boat crews had stubs of cinema tickets of films they had watched in the USA etc in their possesion when captured. It is a very interesting subject to look into, if you ever get the chance, there is a very good naval museum dedicated to the WW2 in norfolk virginia.

[swansont]

Is any of that actually relevant to the point? A month earlier, the US froze German assets in the US (and ordered consular staffs pulled from Germany and Italy). It's a diplomatic approach to hostile actions taken by countries. Economic sanctions. One can also embargo trade with some countries, for similar reasons.

[Handy andy]

Is any of that actually relevant to the point? A month earlier, the US froze German assets in the US (and ordered consular staffs pulled from Germany and Italy). It's a diplomatic approach to hostile actions taken by countries. Economic sanctions. One can also embargo trade with some countries, for similar reasons.

 

Apologies: When looking at the causes of the WW2 and the rise of the Nazi Party you have to take into account the history behind it. Starting with the end of the first world war, and the marshall plan which was put into place, and was extremely punitive. It was part of the cause for the rise of the nazi party in germany at that time. If the Marshall plan had not been so punitive the Nazi party may not have been so succesful, and WW2 may have been avoided.