1958showtime
1958showtime t1_j63pmk8 wrote
Reply to comment by bacharelando in ELI5: How is donating equipment to participate in war, not considered going to war? by lloyd705
Eventually, probably. But that's what I meant and that's the point. Hitler did the US a favour. And until he did, the US was jumping through hoops to justify sending all the aid and kit they were sending to England.
When the US joined the war in Europe, England was the last one standing and super close to defeat. Any later and the war could have turned out VERY differently.
Edit - on top of that, the US were already at war with Japan. If Hitler didn't declare, there was a huge possibility that congress and public opinion would have forced the administration to stop sending aid to England, so all resources could be focused on the actual war with Japan. But as it turned out, Hitler was his own worse enemy and declared war on the US 'cuz reasons', and the US did what it did.
1958showtime t1_j636vxl wrote
Reply to comment by mmmmmmBacon12345 in ELI5: How is donating equipment to participate in war, not considered going to war? by lloyd705
Yup, WW2 was the perfect example. Hitler didn't need to declare war on the US, the US were only at war with Japan. Hitler did the US a favour by declaring war. Once he did, the US no longer had to jump through hoops to participate or keep sending aid.
1958showtime t1_j63wz6t wrote
Reply to comment by bacharelando in ELI5: How is donating equipment to participate in war, not considered going to war? by lloyd705
Even if the UK could continue to hold out, they could barely afford to counterattack, which effectively means they're a non factor and Hitler can focus all of his forces east, and those soviet casualties would be MUCH higher.
Point is,
isif Hitler didn't declare war on the US, those few extra weeks/months could have resulted in a significantly different outcome. But as it is, Hitler did, and the rest is history. Literally.