99 years ago today history was being made on a small river in France...

[Gutshot John]

But if Germany defeated France in 1914 I don't think there would have been another European war for us to get into.

True...maybe but I don't think Germany had any hope of winning WWI anymore than Japan had a hope of winning WWII.

The Schlieffen plan's strategic "genius" was a bit overstated.

Ultimately while WWI might have played out longer, I doubt very much Germany could have maintained control of France any more than they did in 1871.

That said people forget that it was Mussolini, and not Hitler, who invented Fascism.

[SteyrAUG]

I suppose it is interesting, if near-impossible, to consider how a Imperial German rule of the Continent would have played-out differently to the Third Reich rule that followed. It is tempting to over-simplify things, but I'm not sure that a win by Germany would have left much impetus for the discontent that led to National Socialism -- and all that came with it.

What I'm missing here is an answer to the rather fundamental question of what Germany's aims were in the Great War to begin with. I don't recall any overt expansionist aims. They did have a point, didn't they?

AC

Alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, kinda like how alliance with Poland got France and England into the war after Germany invaded.

If Imperial Germany and the Central powers defeated France in 1914 and we assume the same outcome in the East the only real potential for war would be a later war between Western Imperial and Communist countries as Stalin would have likely made power moves to gain land.

Of course this assumes a successful Russian revolution in 1917. Russia might have remained a Imperial power under the Czar and marxism might have been simply another "never attempted" political ideology.

Imperial European and Russian governments would likely eventually evolve into something similar to the symbolic monarchy of the UK. It would be a very different 20th century.

[SteyrAUG]

True...maybe but I don't think Germany had any hope of winning WWI anymore than Japan had a hope of winning WWII.

The Schlieffen plan's strategic "genius" was a bit overstated.

Ultimately while WWI might have played out longer, I doubt very much Germany could have maintained control of France any more than they did in 1871.

That said people forget that it was Mussolini, and not Hitler, who invented Fascism.

I don't think Japan could have won WWII, but we didn't exactly get an unconditional surrender either. If our carriers were at Pearl Harbor the Japanese might have achieved a negotiated settlement.

Additionally if Japan confined their territorial aspirations to the Asian mainland we probably would not have gone to war with them.

By the same token, anything could have happened in 1914, but you are correct that it is unlikely Germany would have maintained a complete occupation of France. They would have taken a few choice bits on their border and gone home as before.

[Gutshot John]

I don't think Japan could have won WWII, but we didn't exactly get an unconditional surrender either. If our carriers were at Pearl Harbor the Japanese might have achieved a negotiated settlement.

Ever wonder why all the carrier's were at sea that day? Things that make you go hmmmm????

There is a book called "Day of Deceit" which you absolutely need to read. It pretty much blows the myth of a "surprise" at Pearl Harbor clear out of the water.

Additionally if Japan confined their territorial aspirations to the Asian mainland we probably would not have gone to war with them.

We were unlikely to go to war with Japan had it not been for two things: 1. Germany; 2. Long standing ambition of an "asia for asians." which was their explicit policy. The latter of which alone would probably not have drawn us in. The British, Dutch, and French however...

[SteyrAUG]

Ever wonder why all the carrier's were at sea that day? Things that make you go hmmmm????

There is a book called "Day of Deceit" which you absolutely need to read. It pretty much blows the myth of a "surprise" at Pearl Harbor clear out of the water.

Read it, I don't think it makes the case that FDR sacrificed Pearl.

Certainly FDR knew we were gonna get hit, so did a lot of people. They simply assumed it was gonna be confined to places like Guam and the Philippines.

I think the carriers weren't at Pearl because everybody knew war was coming, same reason the planes were grouped together to guard against enemy sabotage.

FDR almost certainly expected Japan to attack us in places we couldn't hold and he expected to use that as justification for war.

Nobody really expected Pearl, we didn't think the Japanese were capable of such carrier attacks and only the British had really done it before at Taranto in 1940. This is probably where Japan got the idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...n_Pearl_Harbor

Keep in mind I'm hardly a fan of FDR, but I don't think there is anything the proves conclusively he sacrificed Pearl. It was simply too important and if he knew it was coming there would have been more preparation.

[Safetyhit]

Also not a big FDR fan but I'd bet my life the stated theory is a fallacy. The conditions for potential war were always looming on the horizon and anyone with a lick of common sense would have waited it out rather than attempt such a disgraceful and unthinkable enablement.

[Gutshot John]

Read it, I don't think it makes the case that FDR sacrificed Pearl.

It's not that he sacrificed Pearl, (indeed he doesn't point to a smoking gun and Pearl rebounded nicely) but it's that he instigated the war with Japan. The author doesn't blame FDR for doing so and in fact says FDR did what he had to do. His only objection was that men's careers were sacrificed at the alter of getting into war with Japan. Likewise just because FDR probably knew that Pearl was to be attacked (where else would the Japanese attack to inflict serious damage on the US) doesn't mean he could forsee the scale of the damage.

The sum total of circumstantial evidence points convincingly that the US, if they didn't know explicitly an attack was coming at Pearl, pretty much should have.

He documents pretty well that the US had broken Japanese diplomatic codes well before Pearl (indeed the US had decoded the Japanese declaration before the Japanese Embassy in DC had), FDR knew what would cause the Japanese to attack and there were only a few places they could have in the Pacific. Yet none of those places was placed on alert. Likewise the Conference at Placentia Bay (before the war) FDR agreed with Churchill that when war came (with Japan and Germany) that the US would focus on Germany first.

I'd check the appendices of the book, they are quite informative and with plenty of primary source material.

[Moose-Knuckle]

There is a book called "Day of Deceit" which you absolutely need to read. It pretty much blows the myth of a "surprise" at Pearl Harbor clear out of the water.

Bingo, the American people would have never agreed to another war in Europe with out such an attack. They new the next war would be won with carriers, guess what wasn't at Pearl.

[SteyrAUG]

It's not that he sacrificed Pearl, (indeed he doesn't point to a smoking gun and Pearl rebounded nicely) but it's that he instigated the war with Japan. The author doesn't blame FDR for doing so and in fact says FDR did what he had to do. His only objection was that men's careers were sacrificed at the alter of getting into war with Japan. Likewise just because FDR probably knew that Pearl was to be attacked (where else would the Japanese attack to inflict serious damage on the US) doesn't mean he could forsee the scale of the damage.

The sum total of circumstantial evidence points convincingly that the US, if they didn't know explicitly an attack was coming at Pearl, pretty much should have.

He documents pretty well that the US had broken Japanese diplomatic codes well before Pearl (indeed the US had decoded the Japanese declaration before the Japanese Embassy in DC had), FDR knew what would cause the Japanese to attack and there were only a few places they could have in the Pacific. Yet none of those places was placed on alert. Likewise the Conference at Placentia Bay (before the war) FDR agreed with Churchill that when war came (with Japan and Germany) that the US would focus on Germany first.

I'd check the appendices of the book, they are quite informative and with plenty of primary source material.

I misunderstood.

We did indeed do things that forced Japan to make a decision with oil embargoes and refusing to sell scrap metal, etc. But I don't think those actions make FDR responsible for the war as Japan was using those raw materials to wage war in China and FDR was within his rights to cut them off.

So Japan was forced to either cease Imperial expansions and negotiate with the United States or attempt to limit our ability to do anything about it by taking out the Pacific fleet. They tried to go with Option B.

I completely agree he knew war was coming. And many places such as the Philippines were waiting on it. We were reading the Japanese diplomatic codes and if the bureaucracy moved a little faster even Pearl Harbor would have received a timely "war is imminent" warning.

But we have to remember the Japanese fleet went out under radio silence and we lost track of them and there was no mention of the fleet or it's mission in any of the Japanese diplomatic traffic. The warning we got was when the Japanese diplomats in Washington were told to destroy their documents and records, sending a very clear message in the process.

I think everyone agrees FDR knew war was coming. I think everyone knew Japan would hit us at bases in the Pacific. But I don't think FDR had the justification to seek a declaration of war prior to any attack nor the means to prevent an attack as the Japanese were expected, and indeed attacked, several locations over the course of those first weeks in December.

I'm not sure what FDR should or could have done differently. I only wish the means existed for a full evacuation of the Philippines, we left a lot of guys behind at Bataan.

We should also keep in mind FDR didn't ask Congress to declare war on Germany. Adolf Hitler did him the favor on December 11. But given the Japanese alliance with Germany and Italy, I'm sure FDR woudl have found a way to get us involved in the European war regardless. As you noted, it was his priority even though it was Japan who attacked us.

[MountainRaven]

Being a WWII enthusiast, I don't think it would've changed much. The seeds of WWII in the pacific were sewn already when WWI was taking place.
There is the argument that nazi-ism was born in the armistice of WWI, but German aggression would've eventually been dealt with, regardless.

It may have looked a little differently on maps and in books today, but the gist of it wouldn't have changed much i don't think.

It is an interesting question though, for sure.

Germans have been killing French, Italians, Poles, and Russians for millennia. Much of Germany's history consists of Germany invading France, France invading Germany, Germany invading Italy, Italy invading Germany, Germany invading Poland, Poland invading Germany, Germany invading Russia, Russia invading Germany, &c., &c., &c.

Save for nuclear weapons, we probably would have seen Russia/Germany/Poland/France go to war with one another again. And we will probably see them go to war in the not too distant future. Probably not today, probably not tomorrow, but eventually.

Hell, it's this millennia-long history of invasion and counter-invasion that informs much of, say, Russia's attitudes toward the rest of the world. They look at China and Mongolia and still remember the Golden Horde riding unstoppably over the steppe. And they look at the Germans and they see everything from the Teutonic Knights and Christian Crusaders to Nazis. They still see the former two when they look at Sweden and Finland (which is probably why both of those Nordic countries, despite their neutrality during the Cold War, always practiced as though it was the Soviets invading their countries and not Americans or NATO going through Norway). Hell, they probably still see viking marauders raiding across the Baltic. And pseudo-Scandinavian countries like Estonia probably don't help them feel any more comfortable about that. Not to mention looking toward their southern border at lands that Turkic Jihadists once rode across. And then you have America becoming close friends with everything they have feared throughout their long history: The Chinese, the Germans, the Turks, &c., &c., &c.

Bingo, the American people would have never agreed to another war in Europe with out such an attack. They new the next war would be won with carriers, guess what wasn't at Pearl.

Even after Pearl, we might not have gotten involved in Europe if Germany hadn't had the balls to declare war on us.

At least, unlike Great Britain, we never declared war on Finland, despite their status as Axis allies.