Why did Hitler declare war on US ?

Because he was a slave of his ego.

One of the big reasons was that the Japanese ambassador to Germany had hinted that if Germany declared war on the USA, the Japanese might declare war on the Russians and help him out of that sticky situation.  Obviously that never happened and Hitler got jipped.

Hitler also expected that sooner or later the US was going to go to war with Germany and the sooner that happened, the sooner he could unleash his U-boats against the Lend-Lease convoys sustaining British resistance to him.

Hitler was not cheated yb the Japanese, it was more liek the other way round. have a look at the events:

in 1937, Germany and Japan signed the antikomintern pact, a treaty of cooperation against the communist threat = Soviet Union.

in early 1939, Manchurian border cavalry clashed with Mongolian border cavalry, the conflict escalated in a mini war between the Soviet Union and Japan in which the Soviets were sucessfull and Japan signed a treaty of non-agression with Russia, while at the same time Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact...

so it was already obvious in 1939 that Japan would not assist Germanys invasion of russia but instead focus on the "southern" front. the Soviets also had a joker in the form of Richard Sorge, a Soviet agent in Japan of German descendance who did tell the STAVKA that Germany would invade the Soviet Union in summer 1941 (which was ignored) and also, more importantly, that Japan is not going to go to war with Russia, this enabled the Soviets to move their Siberian troops to europe.

I Think made many mistakes in his Rein of power, this just happens to be one of them......

Originally posted by Constantine XI From what I heard Hitler actually seemed to despise the USA on a very subjective level. The whole system of democratic elections and such must have seemed absurd to a fascist like Hitler. He also disliked their integration of so many races into the one nation, once referring to the USA as "half Jew and half negro".

 

-This reminds me of the notorious propaganda Hitler used against America. According to him, America was a "land of thieves" or under the influence of a "Jew President." Though I feel that he TRULY believed these things, the main purpose of these statements was to rally the people.

Not actually. As far as I know, the USA wasn't actually planning to declare war on Germany. US interest was to keep Britain and the British Empire safe and to supress the regionalist hegemony of Japan in Eastern Asia and the Pacific. The USA had planned to attack Japan prior to Pearl Harbour but had no inmediate plans to attack Germany. 

What I mean is that the USA considered the British Empire (together with Latin America, China and the Pacific rim) as part of the the Grand Area, a region on which US interests were prioritary and that they considered essential to keep an economic advantage over Germany, as it was in the peak of its military success: controlling virtually all Europe. This obviously doesn't mean that they intended to keep Britain as the leading power in that bloc but rather replace it. 

Originally posted by Maju What I mean is that the USA considered the British Empire (together with Latin America, China and the Pacific rim) as part of the the Grand Area, a region on which US interests were prioritary and that they considered essential to keep an economic advantage over Germany, as it was in the peak of its military success: controlling virtually all Europe. This obviously doesn't mean that they intended to keep Britain as the leading power in that bloc but rather replace it.

You are maing reference I think to the geopolitical thinking of Britain's Halford Mackinder, and the U.S. political scientist Nicholas Spykman.

Mackinder in around 1904 or 05 maintained that whichever power controlled the "Heartland," or the Eurasian landmass, controlled the world by being entrenched on the coasts and the strategic "narrow sea" lanes.  The importance of the narrow seas (English Channel, Gibraltar, Suez, Malacca, Tsushima) lay in their importance to commerce and economic dominance.

The "Rimland" or outer continents could only survive this by the maintenance of adequate sea power.  Mackinder had revised this view in 1943 in light of the developments of WWII, and came closer to N. Spykman's 1930s view that, rather than control of the Heartland, it was the control of the Rimland that was more important.....This was the eventual origin of the strategy of "containment" of the USSR.

Before about 1940, the United States did not have enough navy to maintain its interests other than in the Pacific, and that was a stretch.  Only the combination of U.S. and U.K. naval power could assure the containment of Germany, and only alliance with the USSR (on land) could assure its defeat.

Near the end of the war, it became obvious that Britain would not be able to maintain its former position world wide, and there was no longer any support for keeping India as an imperial presence.....without that, there was no point to the empire.  With the enormous increase in U.S. naval power 1940-45, it was a foregone conclusion that the "Rimland" would have to be controlled by the U.S.  No alternative. 

I don't think there was any plan to displace Britain, but as realities changed during the war, it came about due to circumstance.

 

I must confess I was not familiar with Dieterich, but I looked up a few things on his writing.  He seems nostalgic for 1960s style revolutions (none of which amounted to much), and he does not seem too familiar with the history or actual geo-strategy of World War II.  As for old Chomsky, his rhetoric is rather tired and moth-eaten.  He should have stayed a linguist.

The McCollum memo I am familiar with.  It is a position paper, not a war plan.  That is what military staffs do during periods of crisis - make contingency plans.

Ambassador Kurusu (in a 1942 piece) was an official of the Japanese foreign ministry.  Of course the war was someone else's fault.

I am not convinced, in spite of over 60 years of failed attempts at proving it, that either the navy or FDR knew of an imminent attack on Hawaii.  Of course they knew there was a possibility of a Japanese attack, but losing much of your fleet is hardly the preferred entree into a naval war.  The disclosure of a mere attempt at attacking the fleet would have been sufficient as a casus belli.

Just my argument though.

 

 

In 1941, the U.S. was indeed preparing for the war that they knew could not any longer be avoided.  The view was that Germany was by far the most important adversary, but that Japanese moves into south Asia, for all the strategic materials they needed, would further stress Britain and would endanger communications with Australia (a critical base and staging area in case of war).

At the same time as the Pearl Harbor operation, the Japanese moved on the Phillipines, as well as Guam, both U.S. possessions, to try to complete the pre-emptive strike on U.S. power in the Pacific.  It was assumed that a move on those places was most likely, as they were clearly indefensible.  I doubt an attack on Hawaii was thought likely...too far; and as you say, no forward deployed bases. 

Having said that, the Japanese operation was tactically brilliant and caught all the available battleships of the Pacific fleet in port.  If naval intelligence knew of the attack, the fleet would have been at sea and able to fight.  Any engagement at all would have been sufficient for war.

Incidentally, part of the suspicion that the navy was aware of this was the fact that naval intelligence broke the Japanese codes later, well into 1942. By Midway, June, 1942, they were more aware of Japanese plans and movements and better able to anticipate them.  I think a lot of people assume this was the case before Pearl Harbor, but it was not.