He would have had to abrogate his Treaty with the Japanese. But in the end he never got anything out of it anyway. He was looking for the Japanese to invade the far eastern Soviet Union, and force them to fight on two fronts. But it never happened.

If after Pearl Harbor and the US declaration of war on Japan, Hitler released a communique decrying the Japanese attack, renouncing any agreements with them and wishing the US luck in our war with Japan, Roosevelt would have been stuck. He was looking to get into the war in Europe in the worst way. But if Hitler screwed the Japanese, Roosevelt would have lost his excuse. And given that the US had to fight the Japanese, I don't think he could sell congress on declaring war on Germany at that point. We could have kept trying to supply England and the Soviets, but we would have had to concentrate on Japan.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
To turn the original question on its head, if you were Hitler o. 12/8/41, would you have declared war on the US? The war in Europe would have been vastly different if he didn't.

Clearly a bad move on his part but it probably would have happened anyway.
I believe he had a treaty with the Japanese to do that but we were already supplying the Allies and December 7th was just the push over the edge that was needed to get the public behind the war in the US.
His biggest blunder was double crossing the USSR although that's another war that would have eventually happened.

Based on my reading of history (Hastings, Beevor, McMeekin, etc.), RogueJSK's take is spot on.

I voted no on both, but with the caveat that I'd have begun preparing for the inevitable by firing up the Military.
Peace through superior firepower would have been my creedo.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Political murder was a very common thing in Germany in the 20s-30s. Hitler knew there were people looking to kill him, and took precautions. So what you're talking about might not have been as viable as you may be thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I’m a skip-to-the-end kind of guy. I would have sent assassins.

Anyone can be assassinated. It would be a whole lot less costly in blood and treasure than conventional war. Not saying an assassination would end it. Might take several. But I’d rather fight a war from the top down. Eventually no one would be willing to command.

It's not like there weren't attempts. None were successful. And he had no problem using that technique himself.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Political murder was a very common thing in Germany in the 20s-30s. Hitler knew there were people looking to kill him, and took precautions. So what you're talking about might not have been as viable as you may be thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
I’m a skip-to-the-end kind of guy. I would have sent assassins.

Anyone can be assassinated. It would be a whole lot less costly in blood and treasure than conventional war. Not saying an assassination would end it. Might take several. But I’d rather fight a war from the top down. Eventually no one would be willing to command.

quote:

Knowing what you do about everything that happened before that day*

At that time (Sept 1939) the international community knew Hitler was a compulsive liar that did not follow his international agreements (Munich) and used force to expand his territory (Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia) and so it would have been (and was) a no-brainer to declare war at that time.

Yes, the West could have immediately thrown what they had (admittedly not much) against the defense the Germans had in the West at that time (nothing) and changed the course of history. But they did not know that.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

I’m a skip-to-the-end kind of guy. I would have sent assassins.

[...]

Anyone can be assassinated. It would be a whole lot less costly in blood and treasure than conventional war. Not saying an assassination would end it. Might take several. But I’d rather fight a war from the top down. Eventually no one would be willing to command.

I don't believe for one second that we didn't try that repeatedly. I don't think the answer is that simple.

Who knows? Maybe the allies did send assassins. Someone got to Kennedy. Again, anyone can be assassinated. The question is how to avoid the consequences and what are you willing to sacrifice? Those are the limitations. Once you know where and when and are willing to suffer any consequences, success is just a matter of course. There were attempts on Hitler’s life but the conspirators were also focused on escape and being covert. Were I king, I’d likely not be so limited. Even if Hitler were a hard target, I’d hit generals etc. Again, top down. Why waste time with legions of expendables and civilians?

I've always understood that it was considered uncivilized (if warfare can ever be civilized) to take out generals and presidents. It does seem rather counterintuitive. Cut the head off the snake and problem solved. It's rarely if ever done though...the current war apparently being an exception.

War does have rules, ie Geneva Convention but they go out the window pretty quick. For example we agreed to not use Napalm anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I've always understood that it was considered uncivilized (if warfare can ever be civilized) to take out generals and presidents. It does seem rather counterintuitive. Cut the head off the snake and problem solved. It's rarely if ever done though...the current war apparently being an exception.

Who would have created that standard? Generals and presidents? I think if I had to be viscous, I’d have to be ruthless. This why I’d have to be certain I was righteous in my campaign. It is also why I am not a bellicose man and why I wouldn’t want political power. But, if I’m looking through my reticle at an invading force, my target is the highest rank I can see. Theoretically speaking.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:


You mean like Britain and France also had helped?

Britain, France, Germany, and Italy met in Munich the year before in 1938 to come to an agreement about the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. The Poles weren't even invited. Neither were the Czechs.

Hey, RogueJSK, did you get my email? It might have gone to your spam folder.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Hey, RogueJSK, did you get my email? It might have gone to your spam folder.

Found it in my spam folder and replied. Thanks!

The “Regulars” in the US War of Independence (both sides considered themselves British at the beginning) thought it was improper for officers to be specifically targeted by sharpshooters. A tale in the literature is that the inventor of a breechloading rifle, Patrick Ferguson, had George Washington in his sights during one battle, but thought that deliberately shooting an officer like that in the back was dishonorable. But even in that war, at least one British general was reported to have been deliberately targeted and killed by an American sharpshooter at the direction of his commander.

Since then, “Don’t shoot the officers” (including generals) hasn’t been a concept in any major war I’m familiar with. Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart was specifically targeted by Custer’s men with rifle fire in the Civil War, and the second shooter was successful in mortally wounding him. Union General Sedgwick was killed by a head shot from an estimated distance of 1000 or so yards, and although it was probably mostly chance, rifle fire was no doubt being directed at his command group that would have been conspicuously mounted on horses. At least one Confederate army veteran proudly claimed years later to have been the one who made the shot. It’s very unlikely that anyone could have been certain of that, but it illustrated the attitude toward such a feat—and it wasn’t that it was dishonorable.

Military sniping came back into common practice during WW I and again in WW II and all sides specifically considered officers to be primary targets. German snipers in the “Great War” were able in the early days to identify British officers due to their distinctive uniforms. And it wasn’t just snipers. Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was specifically targeted following a communications intercept and was killed when his aircraft was shot down by American fighters.

I know of nothing in any law of warfare treaties or agreements that prohibits such practices.

Killing Hitler or, after a first few incidents, even German generals by targeted assassination would have been very difficult. The high-ranking SS leader Reinhard Heydrich was killed that way, but he wasn’t protected at anywhere near the level as Hitler. Despite numerous plots and attempts, including by suicide bombing, none were successful against Hitler and even by trusted officials who had frequent close contact with him. The likelihood of success by an assassin who was “sent in” would have been extremely low even if they volunteered for what would have normally been a suicide mission.

Added: Different Presidents have promulgated executive orders banning “assassinations,” starting with Gerald Ford in 1976, but that was long after WW II, and even today I doubt that they would apply to the leadership, and especially not the military leadership, of a country with which we were at war.

Edited for spelling.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

Thanks for the lesson sigfreund. Perhaps I was thinking back to colonial history with my comment and not so much modern day.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

That fact is that of the two nations, France was considered - and considered itself - to be more ready for war in September 1939. They had the strongest and best equipped army in the world at that point. Their eventual problems in 1940 stemmed from more esoteric issues like inflexible leadership and tactics, including an overreliance on static fortifications, leaders' inability/refusal to adapt to intelligence that contradicted their expectations, inadequate interunit radio communications, a general discouragement of improvisation and initiative among small unit leaders, the doctrine of parceling out their armored vehicles in piecemeal dribs and drabs for infantry support instead of concentrating them into larger armored formations, and a lack of combined arms training.

But in 1939, nobody (save perhaps the Germans) knew that those would be crucial flaws in the coming type of war. And France simply didn't have time to learn and adapt before they were quickly overrun. The British and Americans had to relearn how to fight a modern mobile combined arms war too... They just were allowed more time in which to do this.

VERY good analysis.

Traditionally, Britain had a crap army with the world's greatest Navy. They could afford to not maintain a huge ground force, as compared to the 'continental powers (mainly Germany and France), since nobody could cross the Channel with the Royal Navy standing guard. This was the case since before the American Revolution. This is also why, after France joined the Colonists in 1777, the Brit's main concern was defeating France, not the US - they fought the Battle of Ushant to keep the French Navy from launching an invasion of Britain.

On paper, France had a huge army. Based on their performance in WWI, nobody (not even the Germans) could have guessed they would collapse like they did.

Germany got inside France's OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), and attacked faster than France could react. This is basically what Patton did to the Germans in 1945 - he kept the enemy on the run so they could not make an organized retreat and prepare defended fall-back positions.

People also claim Chamberlain should have confronted Hitler well before Sept 1939, but at the time, Britain could not have done so. Had the war started a year earlier, Germany may have won the Battle of Britain since the Royal Air Force was still not built up enough to provide a decent defense.



I have always wondered what would have happened had Hitler NOT declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941. Roosevelt was escorting British convoys with US warships; this was an act of war. A U-boat had already sunk a US destroyer and killed US sailors. Roosevelt was trying to provoke a war with Germany. Hitler declaring war on us must have been like a Christmas Miracle to FDR.

Just because Germany had an alliance with Japan did NOT mean either the US or Germany had to declare war after Pearl Harbor. Treaties are typically moot if a signatory actively attacks somebody else - they are typically only good for defense (if Poland attacks Russia, then NATO would not get involved; but if Russia attacks Poland, it might).

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

Killing Hitler or, after a first few incidents, even German generals by targeted assassination would have been very difficult. The high-ranking SS leader Reinhard Heydrich was killed that way, but he wasn’t protected at anywhere near the level as Hitler. Despite numerous plots and attempts, including by suicide bombing, none were successful against Hitler and even by trusted officials who had frequent close contact with him. The likelihood of success by an assassin who was “sent in” would have been extremely low even if they volunteered for what would have normally been a suicide mission.

The closest the Allies came to doing this was the kidnapping/capture of General Heinrich Kreipe on occupied Crete by an SOE group led by Paddy Fermor and Bill Moss in 1944. After evading German searches for over a month assisted by Cretan partisans, they were finally evacuated by sea with Kreipe spending the rest of the war as a POW in Canada and Wales. Ultimately the kidnapping saved his life. Two other German generals on Crete were tried by the Greeks as war criminals because of their reprisals both before and after Kreipe's abduction and executed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Blackmore,

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

I’m a skip-to-the-end kind of guy. I would have sent assassins.

[...]

Anyone can be assassinated. It would be a whole lot less costly in blood and treasure than conventional war. Not saying an assassination would end it. Might take several. But I’d rather fight a war from the top down. Eventually no one would be willing to command.

I don't believe for one second that we didn't try that repeatedly. I don't think the answer is that simple.

I understand that there was a plan to assassinate Hitler and it was about to happen when it was called off. It was late in the war and the folks in charge thought he was doing so badly in command that it was better to leave him in charge than to put the military under the control of sane people.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I understand that there was a plan to assassinate Hitler and it was about to happen when it was called off.

If you’re referring to an action by the Allies, I never heard of that. Late in the war Hitler became more and more of a recluse and less susceptible to anything in public. Can you provide any details?

In retrospect it’s true that there were reasons to not interfere with the greatest mistake-maker of the war, but although his status in that regard was recognized by much of the rest of the German leadership, I’m not sure what bearing it would have had on the Allies’ decisions. But even that wasn’t that clear in my own mind. I believe it’s possible that if Hitler hadn’t been around, whoever took over in his stead might have been willing to surrender earlier and thereby saved innumerable lives on both sides. That’s just speculation of course, including whether some sort of surrender deal could have been possible earlier that would have been accepted by the German military.

flashguy is likely referring to Operation Foxley. It was a British SOE plan to assassinate Hitler in late 1944 by inserting a sniper pair near the Berghof, his vacation home in the Bavarian Alps, to shoot him on one of his daily morning walks near the woods.

The plan was submitted and the sniper team was recruited, but it was never executed because the British government didn't want to make Hitler a martyr for the Nazi cause and because they thought that his successor could prove to be a better strategist and could extend the length of the war in Europe.

https://www.warhistoryonline.c...hitler.html?chrome=1