Why Hitler proclaimed war on US?

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

The Marshall plan was put in place after WWII.

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

 

Perhaps you mean the Treaty of Versailles?

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

[Handy andy]

 

 

The Marshall plan was put in place after WWII.

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

 

Perhaps you mean the Treaty of Versailles?

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

 

Bugger, you got me again The Nazi party benefited from it and won popularity, which they may not have had otherwise. They managed to highlight a the Jews as a national enemy, along with gays, and anyone who disagreed with them.

 

Herman Gering WW2 "If you are not for us you are against us". Most people did not speak out, those that did, often wound up in concentration camps, or having to leave the country. Einstein being one those who left I understand.

[Sensei]

And Japan's occupation of French territory was the US's fault?

 

Obviously not "fault of US". But you are missing bigger picture.

 

You have to remember that France didn't exist at that time.

Half was taken by Nazi, and half was under political control by Nazi.

France surrendered 25 June 1940.

Japan invaded Indochina in September 1940.

 

France was occupying these territories, didn't own them.

For people living there it was replacement of one occupant by another occupant.

 

The First Indochina War began just a bit later, to liberate from French occupation:

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

 

Freezing assets as part of diplomatic maneuvers is not war, and not unheard of.

Some call "killing other country leader" as "aggressive diplomatic"..

 

[swansont]

 

Obviously not "fault of US". But you are missing bigger picture.

 

You have to remember that France didn't exist at that time.

Half was taken by Nazi, and half was under political control by Nazi.

France surrendered 25 June 1940.

Japan invaded Indochina in September 1940.

 

France was occupying these territories, didn't own them.

For people living there it was replacement of one occupant by another occupant.

 

The First Indochina War began just a bit later, to liberate from French occupation:

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

 

 

 

The fact that Germany had conquered France somehow makes this OK? And that a US response was undeserved? The US should not have aided an historical ally, in any way?

[CharonY]

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.

 

Oh yes, the embargo was in many ways a means to strongarm Japan into negotiations. However, there were certain demands on both sides that were deal-breakers for the others. From what I remember Roosevelt himself (and part of his administration) were pushing for a retreat from China, which was unacceptable to the Japanese leadership (am not sure whether that was the biggest issue in itself, though). Likewise, the Japanese assumed that there was no compromise to be had and decided to set a deadline for an end of the negotiations.

[Sensei]

In my reply, I was not judging actions of politicians of these countries, but presenting raw facts.

Their actions and reactions were quite predictable.

One offensive action was replied by another country predictable in advance reply.

Tense between countries were arising to the level war was inevitable.

 

The fact that Germany had conquered France somehow makes this OK? And that a US response was undeserved? The US should not have aided an historical ally, in any way?

 

May I reply with questions:

Did US declare war with Germany after conquering France.. ? Attacking England? Attacking and occupation of eastern countries in '39 ?

Did US freeze German's assets after conquering France.. ? etc. etc. like above..

Freezing German's assets happened in June'41, 2 years after the first attack (without including overtaking of Austria and occupation of Czech..)

 

What is so special in taking little Vietnam by Japan, from taking entire Europe by Germany,

so freezing assets happened exactly just because of this action.. ?

 

[Delta1212]

In my reply, I was not judging actions of politicians of these countries, but presenting raw facts.

Their actions and reactions were quite predictable.

One offensive action was replied by another country predictable in advance reply.

Tense between countries were arising to the level war was inevitable.

 

 

May I reply with questions:

Did US declare war with Germany after conquering France.. ? Attacking England? Attacking and occupation of eastern countries in '39 ?

Did US freeze German's assets after conquering France.. ? etc. etc. like above..

Freezing German's assets happened in June'41, 2 years after the first attack (without including overtaking of Austria and occupation of Czech..)

 

What is so special in taking little Vietnam by Japan, from taking entire Europe by Germany,

so freezing assets happened exactly just because of this action.. ?

 

The freezing of German and Japanese assets happened within a month of each other. Without having looked more deeply into the circumstances, that seems more like a case of the political will being present at that time to respond to the on-going military actions moreso than as a direct response to what the nations whose assets were frozen did immediately prior.

[swansont]

 

May I reply with questions:

Did US declare war with Germany after conquering France.. ? Attacking England? Attacking and occupation of eastern countries in '39 ?

Did US freeze German's assets after conquering France.. ? etc. etc. like above..

Freezing German's assets happened in June'41, 2 years after the first attack (without including overtaking of Austria and occupation of Czech..)

 

What is so special in taking little Vietnam by Japan, from taking entire Europe by Germany,

so freezing assets happened exactly just because of this action.. ?

 

 

 

No, we didn't want to get involved directly in the war. AFAICT Europe was though to be Europe's problem, at the outset. But relations with the Axis powers had deteriorated by mid-1941, and we were sending aid to the targets of Axis hostilities (Britain and China). Freezing assets was another step to try and check the aggression.

 

Some wondered at the time we froze European assets why we didn't freeze Japan's as well

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1941/06/15/page/9/article/f-d-r-freezes-all-u-s-assets-of-axis-nations

[HB of CJ]

Who knows for sure. Maybe he was trying to honor the failed axis treaties. Maybe he was trying to get Russia to declare war on Japan. How that would work I do not know. Lots of things Hitler did in WW2 make little sense today. If he had done several things differently and had communicated better with Japan we would all be speaking German today.