U.S & Germany

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

Bare in mind that Great Britain won the battle of Britain with damn near no help from us in a military sense.

Really, So where did Britain get its 100 octane fuel that The RAF so desperatly needed.  From the US.

In terms of raw manpower, yes I agree.  Otherwise I disagree

wrong

They Lacked High Quality Aviation Fuel

@Nickiow:

The US simply shipped UK aviation fuel to the UK btw, not US aviation fuel to the UK

I Need not say More.

You said it for Me.

If It wasn’t for the Good Old USA, Britain Was Sunk.

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

Bare in mind that Great Britain won the battle of Britain with damn near no help from us in a military sense.

the US also sent planes to help with the battle of britain.  old design planes, but they were used.

Winston Churchill said it himself, “if america doesnt enter the war, Britain is finished”

Blah Blah Blah

I have never met any such as you, who can Cut, COPY AND pASTE WITH YOUR sKILL.

So to back up my Statement.

Again, this table does not include numerous other aircraft such as trainers, transports, and utility types in British service, as well as general aeronautical equipment furnished from America, such as engines, propellers, instrumentation, tires, tools, parts, and the like. (Overall, by August 15, 1940, Great Britain had already placed orders for 20,000 American airplanes and 42,000 engines). Further, thanks both to prewar agreement and wartime sales arrangements, American suppliers delivered sufficient quantities of performance-enhancing 100 octane fuel to England in time for use by RAF Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain, a contribution of profound significance to the operational success of both the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters.

There it is in Black and White.

where did I find this

http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/EARS/Hallionpapers/battleofbritainsep98.htm

Seriously, Nickiow

Using the D&D spell “Cast Wall of Text” is not exactly constructive or useful. I read your argument, and there is some good info in their but it is swamped and lost.

Might i suggest you check out this link, the skills shown here will greatly increase our understanding of what you want to say.

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/01/

PS. This is my History teacher coming out in me ;)

I voted that shipping would determine the outcome.  I’ve changed my mind.

The American people viewed WWI as a waste.  There was no way they would enter what was practically the same war.  After Pearle Harbor, the only enemy was Japan.  In fact, US aid to Britain would have most likely stopped, since resources would have shifted to fight Japan.

Correct, ShadowHAwk.  That’s how we got drawn into WWI as well.  Perhaps FDR would have pulled us into WWII one way or another, regardless.

What part of Europe are you from?

I would not say we were “just as bad.”  The fact remains that the Japanese bombed Pearle Harbor first, not the US bombing Tokyo Bay.  Nor did the US soldiers do anything as barbaric as burying people alive or machine gun hospital patients and nurses, as the Japanese did in China.

That is not to say that it was justified to drop napalm and nukes on Japanese cities.  It wasn’t.

That is not to say the 1937 embargo was a wise political move.  It wasn’t.

However, the fact remains that if it weren’t for the United States, you Europeans would still be fighting World War I.

The United States is not a perfect nation.  We are not Peace Doves.  Still, this fact cannot be denied about the Two Great Wars, the most horrific and bloody nightmares the world has ever seen: Europe started them.  America ended them.

There are fallen soldiers on your continent who never came home.  Show some respect.

Hmm.  Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you.  You were connecting two actions which were an act of war, yet no war was declared (Pearle Harbor, and shipping war materials).  You were stating that the US was “just as bad” as Japan in only that respect.  Still, if it’s true that the Japanese only committed a timezone error, then you really can’t connect the two after all.

Also, what do you mean by “sloppy with paperwork?”  Are you saying the US failure to declare war on Germany was literally a problem with paperwork, or is this some European figure of speech I’m missing?

Interresting, interresting…

The U.S. would have enterd the war sooner or later it was just to determind how…
and like allready mentioned in here they were already involved it just needed to be official.

another point is the debate about england.
I don’t think that hitler ever wanted to conquer england at all.
he never mentioned england as a place for his race in “mein kampf” and it was more likley the opposite way that he wanted to come to an agrrement w. them to fight his war against russia for his goal and have his back free!!!

in the end he was still unpredictable and changed his mind often on things…

Hitler declared war on the US in the hope that Japan would declare war on Russia and alleviate the some  of the pressure on his Moscow  front. Stalin counterattacked with his siberians on Dec 6.

@Battlingmaxo:

Hitler declared war on the US in the hope that Japan would declare war on Russia and alleviate the some  of the pressure on his Moscow  front. Stalin counterattacked with his siberians on Dec 6.

And you base this on what?

I’ve never come across this theory being seriously put forward by a historian. If you have some basis for this I’ll be real interested in reading through it.

I read it. It was put forth as a possible explanation for why Hitler would do something so stupid. I cant remember the actual source. Try Hitler by John Toland or The German Army1933-1945 by Matthew Cooper. Considering Hitlers impulsive behavior it seems entirely plausible, don’t you agree?

True true, ill track it down.

Being a historian at heart i love checking sources

I’d be interested to know what you find.

I just went through both texts in a cursory fashion for the dec 41 passages and could not find the quote. I did read it as I am not smart enough to have made it up. I certainly would not want to be guilty of academic/forum fraud

If the United States “declared war” on Germany by supplying Britain as a friendly-neutral, then the USSR “declared war” on the UK by supplying Germany with Oil, ore, etc.

Please.

Hehe, you people never seem to realize entirely that Hitler, while a political genius and mastermind, totally let power corrupt him once he had it.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and Hitler was definitely the man in charge in 1941, failures in taking Moscow non-withstanding.  It was inevitable that he would of declared war on the United States in 1941; for him jumping the gun early was always better than later.  In his mind everyone really was after Germany.  “Rationality” was not a word in his vocabulary, “Teppichfresser” (carpet chewer) was endearing nickname the press gave him once he became Fuerher.

Britain and the “West” were totally cool with Hitler mucking up the territorial boundaries of Europe as long as he provided a buffer state against World Communism; the Munich Agreement cooked up by Chamberlain ceding the Sudetenland to Germany was hailed as “Peace in Our Time.”  The Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 let him wage complete war with absolute safety against the West in 1940.  Which he then used to launch a surprise invasion of Russia in June 1941.  Somehow he believed he could switch alliances on or off again with complete abandon; even his generals believed this to some extent, Goering was trying to work out a peace deal with the Western allies in the end days of WWII.  So to him declaring war was no big deal, he would of forged some new treaty/ceasefire somewhere along the way to patch things up, with his deluded thinking.  His forces were stuck in Russia too by this point, and knowing he was in for the long haul, he probably expected some help from the Japanese if he joined in their war.  (Of course which the Japanese had no interest in, and had just signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia earlier that year…)

@SgtBlitz:

Britain and the “West” were totally cool with Hitler mucking up the territorial boundaries of Europe as long as he provided a buffer state against World Communism; the Munich Agreement cooked up by Chamberlain ceding the Sudetenland to Germany was hailed as “Peace in Our Time.”  The Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in 1939 let him wage complete war with absolute safety against the West in 1940.  Which he then used to launch a surprise invasion of Russia in June 1941.  Somehow he believed he could switch alliances on or off again with complete abandon; even his generals believed this to some extent, Goering was trying to work out a peace deal with the Western allies in the end days of WWII.  So to him declaring war was no big deal, he would of forged some new treaty/ceasefire somewhere along the way to patch things up, with his deluded thinking.  His forces were stuck in Russia too by this point, and knowing he was in for the long haul, he probably expected some help from the Japanese if he joined in their war.  (Of course which the Japanese had no interest in, and had just signed a non-aggression treaty with Russia earlier that year…)

Yeah I think he started to get a deluded idea of how people thought about alliances. He seemed to be under the impression that crushing the USSR would cause the UK to “come around” and become his ally at some point.

Hitler wrote in his unpublished book that he expected the UK and Germany to take on the USA during the reign of his successor in the 1980s. Go figure.