Lunatock

Actually, I saw a program on the Axis which claimed that Hitler's original idea for a partnership was with Italy and Britian. Germany would take mainland Europe, Italy the Med, and Britian would keep control of it's colonies.

Japan was instead sought out and procurred as an ally as a plan b for what alliance Hitler had really wanted. And as far as the apparent lack of trust, might be due at least in part to the Japanese possibly reading and hearing master race propaganda. And maybe knowing they'd be as secure with their treaties as Russia was.

Dreadnought

All very possible Tock. I tend to waste alot of time watching past war documentries and such. Im addicted...lol but am very far from seeing them all.

Yes, I always wondered how the Japanese could sort of partner with an ally that would surely not find them up to the mark of "the master race" had Germany won?

A very interesting question to ponder.

lwarmonger

While you are absolutely correct that Hitler didn't want to go to war with England for several more years, he also needed to keep conquering new territories in order to keep his economy afloat. Even if England hadn't decided to put up for Poland, it would have been a year at most before Germany's economy ran into a wall again, and needed fresh conquests to feed it. As things were, the war against the Western allies started at exactly the right time for Hitler (presuming that he couldn't take Poland or any additional territory without war)... any later and his economy would begin to fail for being militarily top heavy, any earlier and the correlation of forces would be too far against him for Germany to win.

lwarmonger

I don't believe that Hitler wanted so much an alliance, as a division of the globe. I don't think he ever expected the British to be his allies, more he just wanted them to be neutral and content maintaining order outside of Europe, while he controlled all of Europe (to the Urals).

Anon

Do you really need me to explain to you why that is all completely unfeasible?

Anon

I have read many times that hitler deeply respected the british, and did actually want an alliance with them.

Of course, an alliance on GERMANYS terms, but an alliance nonetheless.

Confed999

I guess it would depend on what one believes a person's life and liberty are worth. For me it's simple, if one has the ability to help, help.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Parihaka

Hope you don't mind but thought I'd drop in on this one.

Winston Churchill informing His Majesty on December 8, 1941 of his decision to visit Washington:


"blah de blah I remain blah de blah servant and subject, Winston S Churchill

PS. - I am expecting that Germany and Italy will both declare war on the United States, as they have bound themselves by treaty to do so. I shall defer proposing my visit to the President until this situation is more clear."

Translation Japanese Ambassador to Berlin despatch to Japan.

"The day after Pearl Harbour at one o'clock I called on Foreign Minister Ribbentrop and told him our wish was to have Germany and Italy issue formal declarations of war on America at once. Ribbentrop replied that Hitler was then in the midst of a conference at General Headquarters [in East Prussia], discussing how the formalities of declaring war could be carried out so as to make a good impression on the German people, and that he would transmit your wish to him at once and do whatever he was able to have it carried out properly".

Jodl's Nuremburg trial testimony. Hitler "came in the middle of the night to my chart room in order to transmit this news to Field-Marshal Keitel and myself. He was completely surprised. On the morning of December 8 however he gave the German Navy orders to attack American ships wherever found."

This was three days before the official declaration of war by Germany on the United States and is a pointer towards why he may have done so.

Churchill states of himself on December 8 in his personal diary, "Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that hey would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyse their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend and foe alike. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought out to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before - that the United States is like 'a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate." Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

I think Hitler was one of those who believed poorly of the United States. He believed, as did some of Churchill's cabinet and to a certain extent the great man himself that the Pacific War would consume all Americas attention and they would have little to spare for Europe for several years. By attacking American shipping even before he formally declared war his main concerns were made visible: the supply of resource and war material to Britain and especially the Soviets from America.

Churchill notes in his History of the Second World War, volume 4 p96 that "For six or seven months the U-boats ravaged American waters almost uncontrolled, and in fact almost brought us to the disaster of an indefinite prolongation of the war"

Remember Hitler's main concern was the eastern front, and by killing the supply of material across the Atlantic he was denying the Soviets the materials they desperately needed to prosecute the war.

Churchill goes on to a rather scathing criticism of American Navy and Air Force efforts in protecting the eastern seaboard.
He than states that it was only Hitler's one track mind which prevented total disaster. Hitler believed that Britain intended to attack Norway and so concentrated his surface raiders there, rather than letting them loose in the Atlantic. If he had allowed them out then the American seaboard, with most of its battleships called to the Pacific, would have been a sitting duck.

President Roosevelt, under some strain, requested on the 20 March 42 that the British step up air attacks on submarine and repair bases in an effort to "checking submarine activities at their source and where submarines perforce congregate"

In a little less than seven months Allied losses in the Atlantic were over 3,000,000 tons from U-boats alone, and only 14 U-boats sunk in the Atlantic and Arctic.

So to cut a long story short. Hitler declared war because 1) he had a treaty obliging him to. 2) it was to his advantage to do so as he was then free to attack American shipping at will and severely disrupt the Allied supply lines to the Soviet Union and 3) he probably believed that the Americans would have little significant impact directly on the European and African theatres, being firstly tied up in the Pacific and secondly a little bit as Flashman would put it "wiffy".

Dreadnought

I can imagine because of timing it would never work?

Swift Sword

Hi Guys,

On the World War II thing, IIRC, in a footnote in the 1937 edition of his opus, Guderian opined that the Germans would lose a war with Russia based on projections of economic output for both countries. This is essentially exactly what happened in the end.

By the end of the war, Russian economic production in all key areas (coal output, electricity production, etc.) was basically half of its prewar levels if I read the numbers correctly. Essentially, the Russians crushed the German armies at Stalingrad and Kursk and drove them in retreat across Eastern Europe with one hand tied behind their back.

Some of you are WWII scholars I see so I will defer to you for confirmation or rebuttal as I am by no means an expert in that field.

Moving back to topic, I do not think there is any really good military solution to Iran's weapon ambitions (though it might come to pass if it boils down to bomb or do nothing which looks kind of like where we might be headed).

The thing is, the United States very well may not be able to advance some of its current foreign policy objectives by pre-emptive strikes or regime change.

For purposes of argument, lets consider the following loosely worded objectives as US foreign policy goals:

1. combat terrorism
2. energy security
3. regional stability
4. counter proliferation

Bombing the Iranians is probably going to increase terrorism in the near through long term because it is their chosen offset and we would be giving a wide range of non-Iranian actors and excuse to blow things up. Outright regime change in Iran might remove a terror sponsor for a long term net gain but in the near to medium term I suspect it would exasperate the situation to the point where the opportunity costs would exceed any long term profit.

Destroying infrastructure in Iran and disrupting their daily oil output would in its own right threaten the energy security of the US through higher global prices and it would threaten our allies with reduced supply. How long this situation would last is debatable but other supplies would need to be brought on line which could take months or years.

As to regional stability, a weakened Iran would in its own right cause a power vacum which might have very undesirable consequences.

A maddened Iran would do no favors for regional stability given the Shi'ite majority in Iraq and the sizeable Shi'ite majorities in Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf States. These populations do not get the best of treatment in many instances and may look sympathetically on their Shi'ite brothers in the event of an attack.

Too, economic repercussions on fragile economies that have sizeable trade with Iran would be a destabilizing influence in the region as well as the inevitable refugee flows that could likely be the case in the event of a "10,000 punch beat down".

Finally, pre-emption and/or regime change in Iran would probably be a setback for counterproliferation in general. In the near term we would be removing a known proliferator but in the long term we would probably spur on several others.

Several actors who are currently engaged in proliferation and others who might be considering it might use US action against Iran as a pretext to accelerate their own efforts to secure a nuclear detterent as the U.S. treats nuclear armed powers differently than non nuclear powers.

In general, it is worth noting that the previous government in Iran under the Shah had some sort of nuclear weapons ambitions.

This to me implies that Iraninan politicians in general regardless of their stripe or color consider possession of nuclear weapons to be fundamental policy imperative. This being the case, it is doubtful that surgical strikes or regime change will deter current or future governments from pursuit of WMDs and their delivery systems.

A bell weather change in the Iranian security calculus is the only thing that is going to make them not want to pursue these weapons; if not, we will be playing the same game again in twenty years.

At this point, even though the U.S. may come to a conclusion that justifies military action against Iran and it does come to pass, it has all the appearances of quite possibly taking three steps backwards to go one step forward.

Military action may be the last resort but there is little or no margin for error in any Iranian scenario as near as I can tell.

We ought to at least consider the contingnecy plan: do nothing. The U.S. has sat on its hands before in matters of proliferation and it might do so again whether any of us as individuals likes it or not.

This position relies on two assumptions.

First, the acquisition of fission weapons will most likely alter the behavoir of the regime as it has done to other regimes in the past.

Secondly, the Iranian threat is ill defined as being between vaporware on the one hand and hardware three to thirteen years down the road on the other.

This makes it pertty difficult to asess the best course of action. Once the threat materializes and is concrete, we might actually find that it is easier to deal with via deterrence, containment, balancing power and other tools.

The international State system has proven remarkably adept at absorbing and balancing proliferators in the past so there is a fall back position at any rate.

If it is any comfort, the cases of South Africa, Libya, Argentina and Brazil show that it is possible for states to renounce intentions and capabilities or even completed weapons themselves. This means that there is still room for future negotiated settlements if the situation continues to that point.

Ye Gods! What a pickle! We might accomplish nothing by doing something but than again we might accomplish something by doing nothing...or it might work out the other way around.

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Parihaka

Come sit down beside me,
I said to myself
and although it doesn't make sense,
I held my own hand as a small sign of trust
and together I sat on the fence.

Dreadnought

As to Hitlers relationship with Japan during the end of WWII. I have recently read an article about Hitlers U869. There are many myths about U869 as when she was found off the coast of New Jersey (USA) neither Germany or the United States claimed to know anything about her being there.

One of these myths claimed that as Germany was falling to the allies Hitler directed this sub head for Japan among its cargo was jet engine technology, radar technology and of all things uranium. Supposedly german scientists had already configured a design for an atomic bomb made from this uranium but had no place to construct or test it due to the allies advancing on Germany.
From what the myth read when Germany surrendered to the Allies and a cease hostilities was announced the sub and most others like her surfaced and surrendered to allied navies. Now heres the strange part of the myth.

Supposedly when U869 was captured her cargo and the uranium fell into American hands and the cargo was lost from there. No records were to indicate exactly what was on board at this time or where it had been taken too. Well according to myth that uranuim would play a very important role in Japans very near future as a main ingredient in the first atomic bombs that would be dropped on Japan an bring about her complete and total surrender.

If this was the case and she was found off new jersey they why was she reported by the german navy to have been sunk off Gibraltar over a half a century ago. And why didnt the U.S. navy recognize the existence of her present location?

The sub is said to lye upright with her conning tower beside her. It is told that perhaps she became a victim of one of her very own torpedoes during a firing mishap. Or did the U.S. navy capture her, steal her cargo and then sink her without the germans knowing her location?

Could these stories about U-869 be true? Your guess is as good as mine I will try to do more homework on this to see how we made or aqquired the uranuim for the atomic bombs that we used. Pretty interesting read even if only a myth.

Swift Sword

Parihaka,

You funny guy!

Old poacher says "that which sits upon the fence is often shot" .

The more I run Iran scenarios backwards and forwards through my head, the more it looks like there are basically two possible choices.

They both look bad and they both have uncertain outcomes at best. I am glad I am not one of the President's men.

Regards,

William

Amled

Re. U 869, there was a Discovery program about this a while ago.
One of the surviving crewmembers appeared in and said that it was indeed carrying uranium, and apparently it was confiscated and used in one of the bombs dropped on Japan.
Will try to find out the name of the program!

__________________
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

Anon

To say the least bro.

The realities of warfare would be conspiring against you at every turn.

Plans that need everything to go just right are usually abject failures when actually tried in real battle.