After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany was in no position to do much to us aside from uboat attacks on our ships. Also, we weren't staying neutral. FDR's Lend Lease program was a de facto program to join the allies. Germany was well within its rights to declare war on us. The better argument to make, isn't about trying to exonerate the U.S. by saying we were the aggrieved nation by Nazi Germany's aggression because we weren't. Quite the reverse. The better argument is that Germany aggressed the world, again, by invading Poland and that the allies had no choice but to push Germany back into its own borders by force. That argument makes sense, but trying to say that somehow Germany was a direct aggressor of America is about as dumb as saying we should go into a hot war with Iran because Iran chants Death To America on a regular basis since 1979. We largely ignore that because for most of the time since 1979, it has been an empty threat. Hitler declaring was on us in December 1941 was even more empty than that and we had already done everything short of declaring war against Germany prior to Hitler's declaration of war. Our aggressor in WWII was not Germany. It was Japan. We joined the allies against Germany, not because Germany was a threat to us or aggressing us in any substantial way but because Germany was a threat to European nations and the left wing of the U.S. only jumped on board the war effort because Nazi Germany attacked the USSR.
You're correct in that Germany wasn't initially physically threatened by America and vis versa. I have no doubt that a war with Germany was inevitable, if not for ideological, pragmatic reasons. Germany declared war on the US first (we both agree on this) and Germany almost immediately began Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat), attacking shipping off the US coast in January of 1942. In contrast, the Eighth Air Force didn't start its strategic bombing campaign in Europe until July of 1942.
When you remove ideology from the equation, even in a practical sense, out of the Axis powers, focusing on Germany first was the logical decision. Japan already blew its offensive load within the first six months of the Pacific War, culminating at Midway. The US, like some in the Japanese Navy in particular, understood that a protracted war against the US was impossible to win due to economics alone. Germany on the other hand, was undoubtedly the stronger of the two (Italy was too inept to count) major Axis powers and it makes sense it would take the most effort to defeat (Japan after Midway was more or less a turtle, heavily defended fortress but lacking freedom of movement). Germany on the other hand, even in 1942, could still punch hard against the Soviet Union (as evidenced in Case Blue).
I do agree (like I mentioned in my first comment) that America did everything short of declaring war on Germany. But near war, isn't the same as war. In terms of actively engaging in war actions, Germany punched first through U-Boat operations off the coast of America. If actions taken under the Neutrality Act of 1939 are considered aggression, the same argument could be applied to Japan. That we were the aggressor against Japan, due to economic sanctions at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The left of American politics didn't just jump onto the bandwagon after Barbarossa. They were always the hawkish entity. Democrats controlled both chambers during the depression and the presidency through FDR. It was New Deal politicians who pushed the Neutrality Act of 1939 through. And it was the America First Committee (sound familiar?) that opposed interventionism. That being said, I would have preferred America get involved as little as possible until directly threatened, but that didn't happen. And it's been a double edge sword since. It brought America great prosperity (for a while at least), but at the same time, crippling baggage that we still carry around in the form of being the world's police.
For the record, Nazi Germany didn't bomb us at Pearl Harbor. The Japs did.
Germany declared war on America, not the other way around. (Although the US was violating neutrality with trade. That was sus.)
After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Germany was in no position to do much to us aside from uboat attacks on our ships. Also, we weren't staying neutral. FDR's Lend Lease program was a de facto program to join the allies. Germany was well within its rights to declare war on us. The better argument to make, isn't about trying to exonerate the U.S. by saying we were the aggrieved nation by Nazi Germany's aggression because we weren't. Quite the reverse. The better argument is that Germany aggressed the world, again, by invading Poland and that the allies had no choice but to push Germany back into its own borders by force. That argument makes sense, but trying to say that somehow Germany was a direct aggressor of America is about as dumb as saying we should go into a hot war with Iran because Iran chants Death To America on a regular basis since 1979. We largely ignore that because for most of the time since 1979, it has been an empty threat. Hitler declaring was on us in December 1941 was even more empty than that and we had already done everything short of declaring war against Germany prior to Hitler's declaration of war. Our aggressor in WWII was not Germany. It was Japan. We joined the allies against Germany, not because Germany was a threat to us or aggressing us in any substantial way but because Germany was a threat to European nations and the left wing of the U.S. only jumped on board the war effort because Nazi Germany attacked the USSR.
You're correct in that Germany wasn't initially physically threatened by America and vis versa. I have no doubt that a war with Germany was inevitable, if not for ideological, pragmatic reasons. Germany declared war on the US first (we both agree on this) and Germany almost immediately began Operation Paukenschlag (Drumbeat), attacking shipping off the US coast in January of 1942. In contrast, the Eighth Air Force didn't start its strategic bombing campaign in Europe until July of 1942.
When you remove ideology from the equation, even in a practical sense, out of the Axis powers, focusing on Germany first was the logical decision. Japan already blew its offensive load within the first six months of the Pacific War, culminating at Midway. The US, like some in the Japanese Navy in particular, understood that a protracted war against the US was impossible to win due to economics alone. Germany on the other hand, was undoubtedly the stronger of the two (Italy was too inept to count) major Axis powers and it makes sense it would take the most effort to defeat (Japan after Midway was more or less a turtle, heavily defended fortress but lacking freedom of movement). Germany on the other hand, even in 1942, could still punch hard against the Soviet Union (as evidenced in Case Blue).
I do agree (like I mentioned in my first comment) that America did everything short of declaring war on Germany. But near war, isn't the same as war. In terms of actively engaging in war actions, Germany punched first through U-Boat operations off the coast of America. If actions taken under the Neutrality Act of 1939 are considered aggression, the same argument could be applied to Japan. That we were the aggressor against Japan, due to economic sanctions at the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War.
The left of American politics didn't just jump onto the bandwagon after Barbarossa. They were always the hawkish entity. Democrats controlled both chambers during the depression and the presidency through FDR. It was New Deal politicians who pushed the Neutrality Act of 1939 through. And it was the America First Committee (sound familiar?) that opposed interventionism. That being said, I would have preferred America get involved as little as possible until directly threatened, but that didn't happen. And it's been a double edge sword since. It brought America great prosperity (for a while at least), but at the same time, crippling baggage that we still carry around in the form of being the world's police.