would the anti-war folks have supported war against Germany?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

Colonel Olrik wrote:
irishmick79 wrote: Even though Germany declared war against the US, there was still a fairly strong segment of society that thought war against the Germans was a bad idea.
You do realize how monumentally stupid that sounds, don't you?

*Captain, the German sub is firing at us*
*Never mind, they're at war with us, but we're not at war with them*

That's not what I'm saying at all. There was still a good portion of society in America, not necessarily the military, that was against further war with Germany, DESPITE the fact that the government was already conducting a limited, expanding war with the nazis. I'm not talking about mr congressman in washington sticking his head in the sand, I'm talking about Joe Average from Topeka, kansas sticking his head in the sand.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Post by K. A. Pital »

irishmick79
War and people's opinion have less to do together than you suppose.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Colonel Olrik
The Spaminator
Posts: 6121
Joined: 2002-08-26 06:54pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Colonel Olrik »

irishmick79 wrote: I'm not talking about mr congressman in washington sticking his head in the sand, I'm talking about Joe Average from Topeka, kansas sticking his head in the sand.
Then it was high time for Joe to stop playing the ostrich and start paying attention to the world, because a superpower had just declared war at their country. Anyway you see it, comparing the situation with Iraq is making a flawed analogy.

Nazi Germany: Controlled continental Europe. Had just declared war to the US.

Saddam's Iraq: Controls half its territory, declared war to Koweit once and got spanked for it. Currently being butchered by forces that entered their territory outpowering them a thousand to one.
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

But, Iraq has taken a similar pro-actively agressive approach to the United States, and does assosiate itself with terrorist goups that are decidedly hostile to the united states, much the in the same way that Germany committed itself towards a belligerent stance to the US, and much the same way that Germany allied itself with Japan.

Granted, the German military threat was on a much larger scale than Iraq's military threat. Iraq's WMD programs do provide a bit of an equalizer when making the threat assesment however, should those programs prove to actually be in place. That doesn't change the fact that both nations acted in a similarily agressive manner towards the United States. In Germany's case, the United States answered by targeting the source - Germany's regime itself. Is the United States not justified in targeting the same source of agression in Iraq?
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
Colonel Olrik
The Spaminator
Posts: 6121
Joined: 2002-08-26 06:54pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Colonel Olrik »

irishmick79 wrote:But, Iraq has taken a similar pro-actively agressive approach to the United States, and does assosiate itself with terrorist goups that are decidedly hostile to the united states, much the in the same way that Germany committed itself towards a belligerent stance to the US, and much the same way that Germany allied itself with Japan.


No. Germany had a formal international alliance with the Empire of Japan. It meant that if Japan went to war, then Germany would be forced to follow, and viceversa. A group of terrorists does not make formal alliances with countries. At most, the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" saying would apply. However, it is also known that Alqaeda hates Saddam's guts, and would more than welcome an islamic revolution in Iraq. Also, those links were never proven to be of a threatening level (spies exchanging info, for example, is not exactly the same as providing WMD).
Granted, the German military threat was on a much larger scale than Iraq's military threat. Iraq's WMD programs do provide a bit of an equalizer when making the threat assesment however, should those programs prove to actually be in place.


And, since the inspections didn't find that proof, invade Iraq. Just to be on the safe side, lets invade all the potential threats, and imprision all the potential terrorists.
That doesn't change the fact that both nations acted in a similarily agressive manner towards the United States. In Germany's case, the United States answered by targeting the source - Germany's regime itself. Is the United States not justified in targeting the same source of agression in Iraq?
GERMANY: declared WAR on the U.S
IRAQ: .. Got ass kicked by the U.S?
Next of Kin
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2230
Joined: 2002-07-20 06:49pm
Location: too close to home

Post by Next of Kin »

irishmick79 wrote:How can anybody argue that Iraq is not a belligerent country? Just take a look at their involvement in the Iran-Iraq war.
The west counting on Saddam to pummel the Iranians and supported him.
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

Yes, Germany and Japan did have a formal alliance with each other. But a closer examination of that alliance reveals that the alliance was not as strong as the title suggests. The two nations were virtually unable to provide anything other than intelligence and moral support in their war efforts. Hitler's goals for a german "super race" did not exactly make for "asia friendly" diplomacy, and Japan's own anti-western policies made the two nation odd bedfellows. It was more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then an actual working partnership. It's that exact same principle that makes men like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein odd bed fellows as well. A common enemy is a very powerful motivator when it comes to making new friends....

And as far as the threat goes, you can also turn around and argue that the United States at the time of World War two was not entirely aware of the threat of the nazis when it came to the holocaust. For along time, the United States refused to accept European Jews, despite the fact that they were being persecuted in large numbers. Many in the United States seemed perfectly willing to stick their heads in the sand when it came to the nazis, and thought that a more peaceful coexistance could have been possible, despite the evidence that they were slaughtering large portions of the European population.

While WMD's isn't exactly the same thing, the attitude and approach to the threat is similar. Some people seem to be perfectly willing to ignore the possibility of WMD's in Iraq until the proverbial "smoking gun" shows up. Others prefer to take action about the possibility quickly without full confirmation of the threat's existance. The only way the United States woke up to the concentration camps was by sending armed troops into occupied Europe and liberating the camps themselves. The only way the United States would realize extent of the WMD threat in Iraq would be to send in armed troops and find the sites within Iraq.


oh, and one other thing....
Hitler - declared war on US.....got ass kicked by allied forces....did not survive the war

Hussein - openly participates in Jihad against the US (nobody goes for formal declarations of war nowadays....kind of sad actually), got ass kicked by coalition forces in 1st gulf war.....still in power
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Post by fgalkin »

irishmick79 wrote:And Hitler was invading countries for two years, before we gave a damn. Saddam was invading his neighbors as well, and we didn't do anything to contain him until he went into Kuwait.
We didn't do anything? What are you talking about? We supplied him with WMDs. :roll:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

I think you missed the full sentence there, Fgalkin.

We didn't do anything to CONTAIN him until he invaded Kuwait. Giving hussein chemicals isn't exactly what I would call a containing measure....
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Post by fgalkin »

irishmick79 wrote:I think you missed the full sentence there, Fgalkin.

We didn't do anything to CONTAIN him until he invaded Kuwait. Giving hussein chemicals isn't exactly what I would call a containing measure....
You're right. Sorry. :oops:

Nonetheless, the fact that the west gave Iraq chemical weapons is important, because many protesters today feel that the only reason Saddam has WMDs in the first place is because we gave them to him. This was not the case back in 1941.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

You're right. It wasn't the case in 1941. In 1941, we were denying European Jews asylum into the United States, and elsewhere, and sending them back to occupied Europe, where they were consequently slaughtered.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
Colonel Olrik
The Spaminator
Posts: 6121
Joined: 2002-08-26 06:54pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Colonel Olrik »

irishmick79 wrote:Yes, Germany and Japan did have a formal alliance with each other. But a closer examination of that alliance reveals that the alliance was not as strong as the title suggests. The two nations were virtually unable to provide anything other than intelligence and moral support in their war efforts. Hitler's goals for a german "super race" did not exactly make for "asia friendly" diplomacy, and Japan's own anti-western policies made the two nation odd bedfellows. It was more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," then an actual working partnership. It's that exact same principle that makes men like Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein odd bed fellows as well. A common enemy is a very powerful motivator when it comes to making new friends....
Germany, Japan and Italy formed the Axis. Inherent friends or not, a declaration of war by one of them equaled a declaration of war by the others. IIRC, Germany didn't even like Japan's strike at the U.S, and didn't want to go at war with the U.S, but were forced by the treaty to do it, nonetheless.

And as far as the threat goes, you can also turn around and argue that the United States at the time of World War two was not entirely aware of the threat of the nazis when it came to the holocaust. For along time, the United States refused to accept European Jews, despite the fact that they were being persecuted in large numbers. Many in the United States seemed perfectly willing to stick their heads in the sand when it came to the nazis, and thought that a more peaceful coexistance could have been possible, despite the evidence that they were slaughtering large portions of the European population.
The U.S population opinion is irrelevant. The U.S had no choice other than to fight the Nazis, since Germany first declared war on them. Although The fact that the U.S didn't enter the war earlier (before the war came to them) is related to the apathy you mentioned.
While WMD's isn't exactly the same thing, the attitude and approach to the threat is similar. Some people seem to be perfectly willing to ignore the possibility of WMD's in Iraq until the proverbial "smoking gun" shows up. Others prefer to take action about the possibility quickly without full confirmation of the threat's existance. The only way the United States woke up to the concentration camps was by sending armed troops into occupied Europe and liberating the camps themselves. The only way the United States would realize extent of the WMD threat in Iraq would be to send in armed troops and find the sites within Iraq.
Germany didn't allow inspectors in the concentration camps, nor the U.S had the power to demand them in. Iraq, on the other hand, was forced to give unconditional access to all locations, and still the inspectors found nothing worthy of invasion.
oh, and one other thing....
Hitler - declared war on US.....got ass kicked by allied forces....did not survive the war

Hussein - openly participates in Jihad against the US (nobody goes for formal declarations of war nowadays....kind of sad actually), got ass kicked by coalition forces in 1st gulf war.....still in power
Actually, that's wrong. In GW1, Saddam invaded Koweit fully expecting U.S blessing, or at least not interfering. He was, after all, America's man. The war was not against the U.S, was against his neighbours, much like Iran's war, which was backed by the U.S.

Saddam's dislike for the west comes from us spoiling his fun.
User avatar
Montcalm
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7879
Joined: 2003-01-15 10:50am
Location: Montreal Canada North America

Post by Montcalm »

irishmick79 wrote:You're right. It wasn't the case in 1941. In 1941, we were denying European Jews asylum into the United States, and elsewhere, and sending them back to occupied Europe, where they were consequently slaughtered.
I heard about the deportation that it was an experiment Hitler did,and since no country wanted to let them enter,only then he decided since noone wanted to recieve the jews he`ll kill them all :shock: might have only been a rumor i don`t know. :?
Image
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004
Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
User avatar
Shinova
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10193
Joined: 2002-10-03 08:53pm
Location: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Post by Shinova »

fgalkin wrote:
irishmick79 wrote:And Hitler was invading countries for two years, before we gave a damn. Saddam was invading his neighbors as well, and we didn't do anything to contain him until he went into Kuwait.
We didn't do anything? What are you talking about? We supplied him with WMDs. :roll:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
I've read figures showing that total US sales to Iraq summed up to around 5 million dollars. That's not a lot.

On the other hand, France and Russia have given billions.

I don't think we know exactly what it was that the US gave Iraq. I'm not sure, but I don't recall the Iraqis having ever fired "Made by USA" weapons at us recently. If we did supply him in anyway, it'd have to be simply samples of chemicals and know-how information on how to build the weapons.


By the way, the US was doing cash-and-carry for both Iran and Iraq, until Iran went muslim fundamentalist.
What's her bust size!?

It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

Colonel Olrik-

So, while Osama and Saddam might not exactly like the way each other does their business, similar to the way Germany and Japan worked together, that still means they can find it in their hearts to be friends because they both hate the US. Hell, when it became clear that the US was going to go into Iraq, Bin Laden came out and had Al Queda declare solidarity with the Iraqi people (aka-the government of hussein). While this doesn't necessarily mean that Hussein is giving Al Queda all sorts of WMD goodies, it does mean they've probably found a way to temporarily put aside their differences.

While the US public opinion wasn't exactly relevant in determining the US entry into the war after the Germans declared war, it was quite relevant in determining the course of that war, and it affected the military commanders in the field a great deal in the sense that the commanders had to pay serious attention to war weariness, and had to work against public opinion when planning the Normandy invasion to a degree.

In the current case with war with Iraq, public opinion didn't necessarily affect Bush's decision making process when he gave the "go" order. But it will shape the war's conduct, and it will affect the goals of the military when it comes to execution of planning (the desire for minimization of civilian casualties, finding WMD's, capturing hussein, and the like). Because so many in America are apathetic about supporting the war unless it becomes clear that Iraq had WMD capabilites, it is a top priorty of the armed forces to find those things to appease public opinion and gain support for the war, for example.

And as far as that last thing goes, you're right. I did put it down wrong....
it should read

Hussein....got his ass kicked by coalition forces in 1st gulf war....pursues Jihad against the United States.....still in power

That better?


Montcalm-

For a time, Hitler openly allowed the Jews to leave Germany. Until about 1937-38, Jews could still leave relatively freely. Once Hitler decided to go ahead with his conquest aims, did he decide that the borders should be closed. After all, if he was going to conquer all the places the Jews would be going to, why should he let them leave in the first place?
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

Colonel Olrik wrote:
irishmick79 wrote: I'm not talking about mr congressman in washington sticking his head in the sand, I'm talking about Joe Average from Topeka, kansas sticking his head in the sand.
Then it was high time for Joe to stop playing the ostrich and start paying attention to the world, because a superpower had just declared war at their country. <snip>
Even so, one senator did vote against the declaration of war. The person was a total pacifist (read: idiot) and did not feel war was ever right :roll: .
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
User avatar
fgalkin
Carvin' Marvin
Posts: 14557
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:51pm
Location: Land of the Mountain Fascists
Contact:

Post by fgalkin »

The Dark wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:
irishmick79 wrote: I'm not talking about mr congressman in washington sticking his head in the sand, I'm talking about Joe Average from Topeka, kansas sticking his head in the sand.
Then it was high time for Joe to stop playing the ostrich and start paying attention to the world, because a superpower had just declared war at their country. <snip>
Even so, one senator did vote against the declaration of war. The person was a total pacifist (read: idiot) and did not feel war was ever right :roll: .
Jeanette Rankin was the only member of congress to vote against the US entry into both WWI and WWII. Both times she wasn't reeelected (it figures). She had also protested the Vietnam war.

That's one big peacenik. :shock:

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin
User avatar
Colonel Olrik
The Spaminator
Posts: 6121
Joined: 2002-08-26 06:54pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Colonel Olrik »

irishmick79 wrote:Colonel Olrik-

So, while Osama and Saddam might not exactly like the way each other does their business, similar to the way Germany and Japan worked together, that still means they can find it in their hearts to be friends because they both hate the US. Hell, when it became clear that the US was going to go into Iraq, Bin Laden came out and had Al Queda declare solidarity with the Iraqi people (aka-the government of hussein). While this doesn't necessarily mean that Hussein is giving Al Queda all sorts of WMD goodies, it does mean they've probably found a way to temporarily put aside their differences.


That is true. however, like you said, it was not until the U.S radicalized the situation and was evidently going in. In that situation, of course Saddam would take any potential advantage to win. In the same sense the U.K allied with the Soviet Union in WW2, despite the hatred that existed before the war. Following that reasoning, the U.S war policy provoked the events the war wanted to avoid, a rise on the Jihad.
While the US public opinion wasn't exactly relevant in determining the US entry into the war after the Germans declared war, it was quite relevant in determining the course of that war, and it affected the military commanders in the field a great deal in the sense that the commanders had to pay serious attention to war weariness, and had to work against public opinion when planning the Normandy invasion to a degree.
True.
In the current case with war with Iraq, public opinion didn't necessarily affect Bush's decision making process when he gave the "go" order. But it will shape the war's conduct, and it will affect the goals of the military when it comes to execution of planning (the desire for minimization of civilian casualties, finding WMD's, capturing hussein, and the like). Because so many in America are apathetic about supporting the war unless it becomes clear that Iraq had WMD capabilites, it is a top priorty of the armed forces to find those things to appease public opinion and gain support for the war, for example.


Also true. But I see no other similarities with Germany. And remember, the U.S had the capability of sending inspectors anywhere they wanted, to look for forbidden material, which would give just cause to start a war/avoid it.
And as far as that last thing goes, you're right. I did put it down wrong....
it should read

Hussein....got his ass kicked by coalition forces in 1st gulf war....pursues Jihad against the United States.....still in power

That better?
Yeah. The coalition forgot an old rule. You don't turn your back to a wounded enemy. Saddam should have been deposed and help should have been provided to form a new government and reconstruct Iraq as a prosper democratic country. Now, the situation is much worse.
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2272
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Wisconsin

Post by irishmick79 »

Colonel Olrik wrote:That is true. however, like you said, it was not until the U.S radicalized the situation and was evidently going in. In that situation, of course Saddam would take any potential advantage to win. In the same sense the U.K allied with the Soviet Union in WW2, despite the hatred that existed before the war. Following that reasoning, the U.S war policy provoked the events the war wanted to avoid, a rise on the Jihad.
But, in 1941 you could also make an argument that the United States was provoking the Germans and the Japanese to ally as well. The United States embargo of Japan certainly was taken as provocation by the regime in Tokyo, and in September of 1941 (Sept 11th, ironically enough) Roosevelt authorized the US military to open fire on German ships without warning. Along with the massive lend lease packages to the UK and the USSR, the nazis clearly registered the american approach as a provocative one. The american's pro-actively agressive approach towards the axis powers is widely today accepted as necessary response to agression, but the pro-active agressive measures the americans took after 9-11 against Iraq and the Taliban were widely condemned, and decried as unjustified.
Also true. But I see no other similarities with Germany. And remember, the U.S had the capability of sending inspectors anywhere they wanted, to look for forbidden material, which would give just cause to start a war/avoid it.
International Red Cross inspectors were allowed by Germany to view certain sites, including early concentration camps. Naturally, the Germans made an effort to demonstrate that the prisoners were well taken care of, and that nothing was drastically out of the picture. As the war started, these inspections stopped, however, and the allies were limited to overhead surveillance using recon aircraft. They knew the camps existed, and I imagine certain photos probably revealed their true nature. But, the only way the allies were able to realize the full extent of what was happening in the camps was to send their troops into the camps themselves.

In Iraq, the inspectors were limited, like the Red Cross inspectors were, by the government's unwillingness to fully cooperate. The inspectors never really enjoyed full, unfettered access, and were closely monitored by the Iraqi regime. Naturally, the inspectors draw inconclusive conclusions about the Iraqi weapons capabilities, and it becomes clear that the only way for the US to fully verify the extent of the Iraqi capabilities is to send armed troops to the suspected sites and inspect them without interference from the Iraqi regime in place.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying
User avatar
paladin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1393
Joined: 2002-07-22 11:01am
Location: Terra Maria

Post by paladin »

Colonel Olrik wrote:

The U.S population opinion is irrelevant. The U.S had no choice other than to fight the Nazis, since Germany first declared war on them. Although The fact that the U.S didn't enter the war earlier (before the war came to them) is related to the apathy you mentioned.
Before the US entered WW2, it was agreed that Germany would be defeated first before defeating Japan.
User avatar
Ignorant twit
with no dick
Posts: 148
Joined: 2003-03-27 09:31pm

Post by Ignorant twit »

Saddam cannot fairly be compared to Hitler in '39. However comparing him to Hitler in say '35. Like Hitler he pisses on the conditions that ended the last war. Like Hitler he treats his minorities like crap. Like Hitler, Saddam has dictatorial powers and actively purges those who threaten him.

Imagine the world having the balls to invade Germany when they piss over the ceasefire terms. Without the build-up Germany collapses like a house of cards. Preemption is not anathema, the ends may very well justify the means.
User avatar
Perinquus
Virus-X Wannabe
Posts: 2685
Joined: 2002-08-06 11:57pm

Post by Perinquus »

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Germany, Japan and Italy formed the Axis. Inherent friends or not, a declaration of war by one of them equaled a declaration of war by the others. IIRC, Germany didn't even like Japan's strike at the U.S, and didn't want to go at war with the U.S, but were forced by the treaty to do it, nonetheless.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong. The Tripartite Pact, which all three Axis powers signed on 26 September 1940, did not obligate any member to come to the aid of the others in a war started by those same powers. It obligated its members to come to the aid of the others if they were attacked by another country.

Japan was not attacked by the United States; Japan did the attacking. This relieved Germany of any obligation to declare war on the United States. Others in the German government were stupefied by Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S. anyway. The pact was intended to discourage the United States from entering the war on the side of the Allies. It's important to note that the pact did not obligate Japan to aid Germany against the Soviet Union, whom Germany attacked first. The Japanese were happy to leave Russia alone, as they wanted no part of a war with the U.S.S.R., whom they had clashed with in a battle at Khalkin Gol around the Manchurian border. The Japanese got spanked. Stalin was glad the Japanese decided to stay out, since this freed up some of his eastern divisions for use against the Germans.
User avatar
Colonel Olrik
The Spaminator
Posts: 6121
Joined: 2002-08-26 06:54pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Post by Colonel Olrik »

Perinquus wrote:
Colonel Olrik wrote:
Germany, Japan and Italy formed the Axis. Inherent friends or not, a declaration of war by one of them equaled a declaration of war by the others. IIRC, Germany didn't even like Japan's strike at the U.S, and didn't want to go at war with the U.S, but were forced by the treaty to do it, nonetheless.
Sorry, but you are dead wrong. The Tripartite Pact, which all three Axis powers signed on 26 September 1940, did not obligate any member to come to the aid of the others in a war started by those same powers. It obligated its members to come to the aid of the others if they were attacked by another country.

Japan was not attacked by the United States; Japan did the attacking. This relieved Germany of any obligation to declare war on the United States. Others in the German government were stupefied by Hitler's decision to declare war on the U.S. anyway.
OK, correction noted. Anyway, it doesn't change the reasoning.
Post Reply