USA won World War Two and saved England ?

Just Chancellor?
As for the misconception, we all have them. One of the nice things about this group is that we tend to clear up some especially for those willing to have them cleared up. I've learned a lot in the time I spent here and been called on a fair number of misconceptions or out right wrong positions as well.

 

Well before being named furor. Thank you IWD

 

It appears that Hitler was indeed for peaceful solution to the problems caused by the Versailles treaty. Perhaps he was misunderstood or deliberately ignored. Here is a passage from Hitler's speech on 21st May 1935 proposing peace and disarmament directly to the United States. This is quite remarkable:

Germany, fairly renouncing herself, on her part created all the conditions for cooperation of a collective nature to meet the ideas of the American President. Well, at least after this German disarmament had taken place, the world in its part ought to have taken the same for restoring equality. What, however, happened? While Germany loyally fulfilled the obligations of the treaty dictated to her, the so-called victory States failed to fulfil what the treaty obliged them subsequently to fulfil. If one attempts today to apologize for the negligence through excuses, then it is not difficult to contradict these lame explanations. We know here, to our surprise, from the mouths of foreign statesmen, the intention for fulfillment existed, but the time for doing so had not yet come. But how? All conditions for disarmament of other States existed at that time without exception. Germany had disarmed.

Adolf Hitler 21st May 1935

 

That's the speech I had been mistaken by. But neither the less with out all parties envolved thing would definitely have ended differently.

 

But, Hitler also stated:

"Where Napoleon failed, I shall succeed, I shall land on the shores of Britain."

Isn't that quite straightforward? His primary objective was Britain.

 

When did he say this? In any case it doesn't mean it was his primary objective although it certainly sounds like one. I suspect on the other hand that the quote comes from some time in 1940.

 

Hitler is not "proposing peace" directly to the United States with the passage you quoted.

The "American President" that Hitler is talking about is Woodrow Wilson, not FDR, and the "ideas" is Wilson's famous "14 Points"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points

 

I can't say that Hitler attempted many times to get America to join his cause, further, he tended to keep the well-know German-American Bund at arm's length and only paid them the requisite "lip service" to keep them towing the Nazi Party line.

As to oil, that was less important to the Imperial Japanese Army than it was to the Imperial Japanese Navy. The IJA was never really a mechanized army, not to mention that the Americans had turned off the export of aviation gasoline to Japan a few years earlier, but to the IJN, the lack of American oil would mean an almost total cessation of operations. Also, Japan could have chosen to acquise to American demands to quit China and then the oil flow would be resumed, however, this most certainly would have meant the fall of the militaric government.

Hitler was opportunistic, and was never a strong ally to anyone but Hitler. For instance, Germany was equipping and training the Nationalist Chinese Army to fight the Japanese and Chinese Communists until shortly after the Japanese opened their invasion in mid-1937. He did this, despite signing the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan in 1936. Thus, Hitler was playing both sides up until the Japanese proved that they were far better organized, politically & militarily than the Chinese were. At which point, Nazi Germany moved to strengthen the ties between Germany and Japan.

As to German promises of an oil-rich unnamed middle eastern nation, this would be quite laughable for the US, since, at the time, the United States was quite self-sufficient in oil. Not only were we adequately providing for ourselves, but we were exporting oil to many countries - after all we exported to Japan somewhere around 80% of their necessary oil. So, I don't think that any "empty" German promises of oil will sway the United States.

I would point out the fact that the British did, in fact, give us the jet engine. The first American jet engine, the GE I-A was an essential copy of a British Whittle jet engine. The rocket engine is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, but suffice to say that von Braun did not participate in the Manhattan Project.

I can't really speak as to psychologically induced fear, but to a lot of Allied soldiers, every German tank was a Tiger, and every German gun was an 88.

 

Why the USA should have joined the Hitler's Reich in the first place? What would be a common objective of these two fundamentally different countries? What would be the benefit for the USA? Let me guess the idea behind the alliance between the USA and the 3rd Reich: annihilation of the common enemy: the USSR. But the Red peril came later, at the end of the WW2, when the USSR emerged much stronger than anticipated at the beginning of the war.

America entered the conflict in Europe when the lack of action became too dangerous. "Alliance" among the USA, Britain and the USSR was more or less a "marriage without love" – a co-belligerence with the primary objective to defeat the Nazi peril.

 

I've always seen the relationship between the US and England as more of a sibling rivalry then a discontent relationship. We've had the same objectives in more then just one situation and our alliance has been more or less beneficial to both parties. That's one reason we keep the relationship solid. As far as Russia, the United States has two completely different views on economics and social welfare. So we really never were able to see eye to eye until recently. But I put most of that blame on the blind ignorance that my country is sooo well known for. But thank you for enlightening me!

 

I think you'll find that there are still vast differences in how many Russians and many Americans view political events, history, and economic power.

 

Yes I agree

 

It is impossible to dissagree on this. There are different views on the American involvement in the war in Europe, the German too. Below I have quoted a snippet from the Führer's speach on December 11th 1941. This snippet is a bit longer but it is absolutely worthy reading it carefully. If there is even a bit of the truth in this text, then the present time view on the history of the World War 2 should be carefully re-evaluated.


The American president increasingly used his influence to create conflicts, intensify existing conflicts, and, above all, to keep conflicts from being resolved peacefully. For years this man looked for a dispute anywhere in the world, but preferably in Europe, that he could use to create political entanglements with American economic obligations to one of the contending sides, which would then steadily involve America in the conflict and thus divert attention from his own confused domestic economic policies.

His actions against the German Reich in this regard have been particularly blunt. Starting in 1937, he began a series of speeches, including a particularly contemptible one on October 5, 1937, in Chicago, with which this man systematically incited the American public against Germany . He threatened to establish a kind of quarantine against the so-called authoritarian countries. As part of this steady and growing campaign of hate and incitement, President Roosevelt made another insulting statement [on Nov. 15, 1938] and then called the American ambassador in Berlin back to Washington for consultations. Since then the two countries have been represented only by charges d'affaires.

Starting in November 1938, he began systematically and consciously to sabotage every possibility of a European peace policy. In public he hypocritically claimed to be interested in peace while at the same time he threatened every country that was ready to pursue a policy of peaceful understanding by blocking credits, economic reprisals, calling in loans, and so forth. In this regard, the reports of the Polish ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels provide a shocking insight.

This man increased his campaign of incitement in January 1939. In a message [on Jan. 4, 1939] to the U.S. Congress he threatened to take every measure short of war against the authoritarian countries.

He repeatedly claimed that other countries were trying to interfere in American affairs, and he talked a lot about upholding the Monroe Doctrine. Starting in March 1939 he began lecturing about internal European affairs that were of no concern of the President of the United States. In the first place, he doesn't understand these problems, and secondly, even if he did understand them and appreciated the historical circumstances, he has no more right to concern himself with central European affairs than the German head of state has to take positions on or make judgments about conditions in the United States.

Mr. Roosevelt went even beyond that. Contrary to the rules of international law, he refused to recognize governments he didn't like, would not accept new ones, refused to dismiss ambassadors of non-existent countries, and even recognized them as legal governments. He went so far as to conclude treaties with these ambassadors, which then gave him the right to simply occupy foreign territories [Greenland and Iceland ].

On April 15, 1939, Roosevelt made his famous appeal to me and the Duce [Mussolini], which was a mixture of geographical and political ignorance combined with the arrogance of a member of the millionaire class. We were called upon to make declarations and to conclude non-aggression pacts with a number of countries, many of which were not even independent because they had either been annexed or turned into subordinate protectorates by countries [Britain and France] allied with Mr. Roosevelt. You will recall, my Deputies, that then [on April 28, 1939] I gave a polite but straightforward answer to this obtrusive gentleman, which succeeded in stopping, at least for a few months, the storm of chatter from this unsophisticated warmonger.

 

Given that there are vast differences between how many Americans and many other Americans view the same how could we expect otherwise?

 

Think you#'ll find that with a few of us Brits too Green Slime....As for siblings Baron..mutual benefit is everything even today. Don't ever go with the emotions the media and politicos would have you believe about the Special Relationship mate.

 

Well said.

 

Americans are just weird like that. Have a "freedom fry" as a consolation prize...