Speaking of military history, the latest Nation includes a review of what sounds like a fascinating Ian Kershaw book on ten "fateful choices," in 1940 and '41, that determined how the Second World War turned out. (I'm particularly interested in the argument that Hitler was right to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor - or at least that he didn't have any better options.)
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Eh...interesting, so may have to take a look, but I'm not buying the "Hitler was right to declare war thing". I'm not sure the UK had the shipping to invade Italy--or North Africa for that matter, and even if they would have (via Lend Lease), they would never have had the troops to get into France.
What did Hitler gain with a declaration? The ability to torpedo ships in convoy in the western Atlantic. What did he lose? Eventually, 300,000 troops in North Africa, the need to garrison Italy after Mussolini's collapse, removal of the Med as a contested theatre of war, the need to divert resources and troops in making the Atlantic Wall, and the need to beef up air defenses over Germany (above and beyond that needed to combat RAF night bombing). And all this is before D-Day. Those were all resources that were desperately needed on the Eastern front--not that I think it would have done any good.
Like I said, I'll look into the book, but I think Hitler made a blunder. Even if he torpedoes a lot of American ships in an undeclared war, America still focuses on beating the daylights out of the Japanese. FDR had enough trouble fending off occasional calls for reducing commitment to a "Europe First" strategy in a declared war, much less an undeclared one.
Of course, no Hitler war declaration, perhaps Red Army tanks roll all the way to the Channel, and history is quite a bit different.
Posted by Horatius | May 22, 2007 10:59 PM