Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942

[ChrisDR68]

The US wasnt "reluctant", its government maneuvered to enter the war in both occasions, no German action would change their intent.

World War One started in August 1914. The United States declared war on Germany in April 1917. By my calculations that's a gap of 32 months. The rest of the war lasted another 19 months ending in November 1918.

Pretty slow "maneuvering" in my book :roll:

My point about World War Two is that without a u-boat campaign (or only a very minor one) I don't see the US congress or senate voting for a declaration of war. The isolationists were still a powerful voice in 1940 (perhaps even a majority) and without unnecessarily aggressive air and naval German strategy in the west I think they stay that way.

[JAG13]

The US wasnt "reluctant", its government maneuvered to enter the war in both occasions, no German action would change their intent.

World War One started in August 1914. The United States declared war on Germany in April 1917. By my calculations that's a gap of 32 months. The rest of the war lasted another 19 months ending in November 1918.

Pretty slow "maneuvering" in my book :roll:

Yes, pretty slow, but Woody did it anyway because he wanted to appear as the great peacemaker stopping those hated militarist Prussians... he didnt even care that the Entente was grossly violating neutral rights, but why would he? This prince of peace had by then invaded several countries under different pretenses...

My point about World War Two is that without a u-boat campaign (or only a very minor one) I don't see the US congress or senate voting for a declaration of war. The isolationists were still a powerful voice in 1940 (perhaps even a majority) and without unnecessarily aggressive air and naval German strategy in the west I think they stay that way.

Hot Wheels wanted war as well, he had been in fact Woody's sec of the Navy during the Veracruz fiasco and invasion of Mexico, so this other prince of peace didnt care about whatever the Germans did or did not do, he wanted war, just as before.

This is why when he ordered Japanese assets frozen he explicitly allowed for continued oil purchases from Japan since he knew such an action would prompt a Japanese attack on SE Asia, when he was informed that the embargo was total he basically said "Oh well..."

Lol, what is unnecessarily aggressive strategy in a war?

[ChrisDR68]

Hot Wheels wanted war as well, he had been in fact Woody's sec of the Navy during the Veracruz fiasco and invasion of Mexico, so this other prince of peace didnt care about whatever the Germans did or did not do, he wanted war, just as before.

This is why when he ordered Japanese assets frozen he explicitly allowed for continued oil purchases from Japan since he knew such an action would prompt a Japanese attack on SE Asia, when he was informed that the embargo was total he basically said "Oh well..."

Lol, what is unnecessarily aggressive strategy in a war?

In the American constitution the President cannot declare war on another country. Only both houses of congress can do that so Roosevelt could only try to influence the politicians there but he couldn't force them to do something they (or their electors) may not have wanted to do.

Unnecessarily aggressive military strategy in this case is provoking a reluctant United States to get more and more involved in a war many ordinary Americans saw as none of their business.

Britain on her own didn't have the military power to liberate western Europe so Hitler's strategy should have been to placate the US in order to prevent her becoming an active belligerent against Germany.

[JAG13]

Hot Wheels wanted war as well, he had been in fact Woody's sec of the Navy during the Veracruz fiasco and invasion of Mexico, so this other prince of peace didnt care about whatever the Germans did or did not do, he wanted war, just as before.

This is why when he ordered Japanese assets frozen he explicitly allowed for continued oil purchases from Japan since he knew such an action would prompt a Japanese attack on SE Asia, when he was informed that the embargo was total he basically said "Oh well..."

Lol, what is unnecessarily aggressive strategy in a war?

In the American constitution the President cannot declare war on another country. Only both houses of congress can do that so Roosevelt could only try to influence the politicians there but he couldn't force them to do something they (or their electors) may not have wanted to do.

Unnecessarily aggressive military strategy in this case is provoking a reluctant United States to get more and more involved in a war many ordinary Americans saw as none of their business.

Britain on her own didn't have the military power to liberate western Europe so Hitler's strategy should have been to placate the US in order to prevent her becoming an active belligerent against Germany.

Sure, he can only prove so hostile that the other country has no choice but to attack them since the US has already undertaken actions way, way outside of acceptable neutral behavior...

Poor US, always forced into wars it didnt neither want or cause...

Either your country is full of warmongers, or your governments are very adept at getting your country into war regardless... what is it'? Nevermind, the point is that you as a country do...

[ChrisDR68]

Sure, he can only prove so hostile that the other country has no choice but to attack them since the US has already undertaken actions way, way outside of acceptable neutral behavior...

Poor US, always forced into wars it didnt neither want or cause...

Actually the US had almost no other option in World War One but to declare war on Germany. The crucial episode wasn't the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 or even unrestricted u-boat warfare that began at the start of 1917 (although it helped a lot). The crucial episode was the Zimmerman telegram where the Germans tried to incite Mexico into launching a war against the US to win back New Mexico.

Sounds mad doesn't it?

That's what the German high command tried to do though.

In World War Two it was much simpler. Hitler declared war in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor meaning the American government didn't have to make a decision about whether to fight Germany or not. It was made for them.

[JAG13]

Sure, he can only prove so hostile that the other country has no choice but to attack them since the US has already undertaken actions way, way outside of acceptable neutral behavior...

Poor US, always forced into wars it didnt neither want or cause...

Actually the US had almost no other option in World War One but to declare war on Germany. The crucial episode wasn't the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 or even unrestricted u-boat warfare that began at the start of 1917 (although it helped a lot). The crucial episode was the Zimmerman telegram where the Germans tried to incite Mexico into launching a war against the US to win back New Mexico.

That is just too funny!

It all began when the US allowed Britain to break every neutral trade right including US ones while, at the same time, threatening Germany with war if hey sank any ship with Usians on them, regardless of flag, regardless of whether they were actually carrying weapons, and regardless of their armament.

Sounds mad doesn't it?

Yeah, it was, people still think the US didnt want war when it was trying hard to get into it.

That's what the German high command tried to do though.

Yes, they felt out of options since the US had abandoned any pretension of neutrality. Still silly.

In World War Two it was much simpler. Hitler declared war in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor meaning the American government didn't have to make a decision about whether to fight Germany or not. It was made for them.

You mean after the US had declared half the Atlantic US waters, attacked German subs, banckrolled Britain and finally started giving them weapons for free?

Yeah... crazy Germans thought the US hostile, go figure...

As I said, poor US, somehow there are always people around that"hate their freedom" so much that they cant resist attacking them... will the hate ever end? :roll:

[ChrisDR68]

In World War Two it was much simpler. Hitler declared war in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor meaning the American government didn't have to make a decision about whether to fight Germany or not. It was made for them.

You mean after the US had declared half the Atlantic US waters, attacked German subs, banckrolled Britain and finally started giving them weapons for free?

Yeah... crazy Germans thought the US hostile, go figure...

As I said, poor US, somehow there are always people around that"hate their freedom" so much that they cant resist attacking them... will the hate ever end? :roll:

It's one thing for the US to take the actions it took above and quite another to actually become an active belligerent especially on the scale it did from mid 1943-mid 1945. Hitler's faulty grand strategy and gross underestimation of US economic and military power were the underlying reasons he took the fateful step and declared war on America.

A more considered and subtle strategy towards Britain (generally a defensive and containing one with minimal or no use of u-boats) and I think the US stays out of the war.

[LWD]

It's one thing for the US to take the actions it took above and quite another to actually become an active belligerent especially on the scale it did from mid 1943-mid 1945. Hitler's faulty grand strategy and gross underestimation of US economic and military power were the underlying reasons he took the fateful step and declared war on America.

A more considered and subtle strategy towards Britain (generally a defensive and containing one with minimal or no use of u-boats) and I think the US stays out of the war.

While obviously not on the scale of its post PH activity the US was in some areas an active "belligerent" all be it not a declared one. It was also rather obvious that the US would be entering the war at some point. Arguably Hitler decide to force it at a time he chose rather than one that the US did. Of course we are lucky that he really didn't plan for it Operation Drumbeat being a rather spur of the moment operation for instance which didn't entail the use of many resources. No uboats might have and indeed probably would have delayed the US entry but that doesn't mean that it would have greatly benefited Germany and indeed it might well have been to her detriment. There was clear recognition in the US (public, buisness, and government) that a German victory would not in the US interest. The US wasn't really going to be ready for WW2 until mid 42 and not ready for much in the way of offensive operations until late 42. Allowing the US in at a time and place of their choosing might have been quite detrimental to Germany.

[ljadw]

Of course we are lucky that he really didn't plan for it Operation Drumbeat being a rather spur of the moment operation for instance which didn't entail the use of many resources.

???????????????

[LWD]

From what I've read Drumbeat was planed after the declaration of war and it only involved 5 uboats. If the KM had started planning for a similar operation against the US but say started in the fall of 41 planning on going operational in late 41 or early 42 and possibly been in position in early Decemeber anticipating the Japanese attack the results could have been much worse.

By the way you messed up your quoteing again.

[ljadw]

From what I've read Drumbeat was planed after the declaration of war and it only involved 5 uboats. If the KM had started planning for a similar operation against the US but say started in the fall of 41 planning on going operational in late 41 or early 42 and possibly been in position in early Decemeber anticipating the Japanese attack the results could have been much worse.

.

Why could the results have been much worse ? In the OTL,Drumbeat was executed by 5 U Boats, there is no proof that in the ATL,more U Boats could have been committed .


Besides, one can argue that Drumbeat was not a wise decision :the only chance Germany had was to attack the convoys on the Atlantic going to /returning from Britain and Drumbeat was not attacking these convoys .

An attenuating circumstance for Drumbeat is that at the end of 1941,the U Boats had lost the battle of the Atlantic,and that Drumbeat was a desperate try to score elsewhere .

Drumbeat was a wast of means (it took a U Boat almost a month to go to the Carribeans .

[LWD]

Why could the results have been much worse ?

IN general a well planned operation with supperior resources will produce more results than a hastily planned one with minimal resources.

In the OTL,Drumbeat was executed by 5 U Boats, there is no proof that in the ATL,more U Boats could have been committed .

??? Just common sense like the above but given that on 7 Dec there were 43 Uboats on patrol it's pretty clear isn't it?

Besides, one can argue that Drumbeat was not a wise decision :the only chance Germany had was to attack the convoys on the Atlantic going to /returning from Britain and Drumbeat was not attacking these convoys .

That's a seperate argument. Furthermore a well planned version of Drumbeat could have had more impact on the convoys. For instance mining the approaches to some of the ports that the convoys originated in. Sinking ships and pulling escorts away from the mid Atlantic also had some impact on what reached Britain even if the ships weren't headed directly there.

...Drumbeat was a wast of means (it took a U Boat almost a month to go to the Carribeans .

Perhaps but you have a ways to go to prove it and when you consider that the Germans deployed uboats as far away as the Indian Ocean they must have seen some utility in these deployments.

[ljadw]

The number of 43 is irrelevant : on 1 jauary only 22 U Boats were patrollig in the Atlantic,and only those were available for Drumbeat .

[ljadw]

Only the Type IX U Boats could get it to the south of the US,ad there were only 12 of them,6 were tied at Gibraltar,and 1was in repair . Thus in your ATL,not more U Boats would be available for Drumbeat .

[LWD]

The number of 43 is irrelevant : on 1 jauary only 22 U Boats were patrollig in the Atlantic,and only those were available for Drumbeat .

How do you come up with that? Just because a certain number were historically available on a specfic date doesn't mean that more couldn't have been with a bit of preplanning. By the way uboat.net has 33 boats at sea durilng that period. See http://www.uboat.net/boats/patrols/search.php

Only the Type IX U Boats could get it to the south of the US,ad there were only 12 of them,6 were tied at Gibraltar,and 1was in repair . Thus in your ATL,not more U Boats would be available for Drumbeat .

Looking at uboat.net 3 of the 8 type IX boats were left at that point, as were 8 of the 14 type IXB boats, not to mention well over a dozen type IXC boats as of 7 Dec 1941. Again if you look at my previous post I suggesed planning start in the fall of 41 that being the case most of these boats could have been made available and the Drumbeat alternative could have started in Dec as well.

But this is getting more and more off topic.