What if the US had Never Declared War on Germany in WWII?

Historical counterfactual is always tricky. We are guessing. But I note that the US press secretary remarked this week that without the US, the French would all be speaking German. Is that right? Supposing that, following Pearl Harbor, the US had contented itself with defeating Japan, and not troubled itself with the war in Europe?

My guess is that the result would have been something like the following:

• Germany would have lost the war anyway, very substantially to Russia.
• Germany would not have invaded mainland Britain, with or without American intervention. The British success in the Battle of Britain was helpful in seeing off that threat, but in reality, the German operation Sealion to invade Britain was always pie in the sky. Germany never had the naval superiority that would have been necessary to launch, let alone sustain, such an invasion.
• Britain would have thrown Germany out of North Africa in any event, with or without American help.  Obviously, the American Sherman tanks were useful, but Rommel never had the supply chain that was necessary to sustain his campaign. As Russia put more and more pressure on Germany’s eastern front, Rommel’s problems would have got worse and worse.
• The Russians would probably have invaded the whole of Germany, by which time the German army and the Luftwaffe would have been a spent force. The Brits would eventually have landed in France, either in the north or in the south, and France today would be French, speaking French.
• Germany, on the other hand, might well have been speaking Russian. At least in the corridors of power. At least for a while.
• The UK would have been rather less impoverished by the war as a whole, because apart from its efforts in North Africa, it would have largely sat back, waiting for Russia to defeat Germany on the eastern front and for the United States to defeat Japan in the Far East.
• Russia might well have helped itself to quite a bit of Scandinavia.
• What would have happened to all the territory that Russia would have assumed control over in central and eastern Europe? That is very hard to say. Probably, it would have broken up, as the USSR did in fact break up, but rather earlier, and in a rather more spectacular fashion?
• And what would have happened in the Far East, following Japan’s defeat at the hands of the Americans? Unburdened by any obligations in Europe, the United States might well have defeated Japan rather more swiftly. It is possible that Britain might have retained rather more of its prewar influence and control? But probably, the picture would have been much the same as today.

So no. The French do not have the United States to thank for the fact that they do not speak German today.

The French do have a better claim, however, to the return of the Statue of Liberty. Having beggared themselves supporting the rebels in the American War of Independence, the French have never received any real thanks from the United States; the Americans rebels have never had the grace to say “Thank you”.

Gotcha Dull

There has been criticism recently at the way in which Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin. I do not agree with that criticism. Here is why.

Techniques of interviewing political figures have varied over the years. It used to be pretty respectful. These days, the prevalent method has been the relentless asking of aggressive pre-formulated questions, designed to trick the interviewee into saying something which can be presented the next day as a gaffe. Or at any rate, something which can be presented as running counter to the current shibboleths.

One can understand why journalists want to do this these days. They want to emulate greats of the past like Brian Walden, Jeremy Paxton and (without wishing to hasten his departure from the scene) Andrew Neil. It is perfectly true that these people did, from time to time, extract some juicy examples of telling nonsense from their interviewees. But this was by the by. Their main purpose was to provide insight into what their interviewees were doing, and why.