Originally Posted by Charge 7

You can argue the semantics if you like. Still it seems clear to me that the intent is only if they are first attacked and not if they are attacked in retribution for initiating an attack. Every article I can recall reading about that point says the same thing. I'm sure I can find sources if you wish.

Up to you Charge. I'm not arguing semantics - I've read the Article and that's what it states. Surely if the article specifically meant 'only if attacked first' it would have stated that somewhere? One can assume that either the article is poorly worded or that it was never meant to differentiate against aggressor or defender? Which do you think is more likely?

Germany was no more obliged to declare war on the US than Japan was to declare war on the Soviet Union. It is probably likely that since the US had been escorting British convoys and attacking U-boate that Hitler simply believed that this was inevitable and that the timing was appropriate. There may even been a hope that Japan would quickly sew up the Pacific diverting US Naval activity away from the Atlantic at the same time opening larger areas to attack the convoys.

Originally Posted by melkor the first

Germany was no more obliged to declare war on the US than Japan was to declare war on the Soviet Union. It is probably likely that since the US had been escorting British convoys and attacking U-boate that Hitler simply believed that this was inevitable and that the timing was appropriate. There may even been a hope that Japan would quickly sew up the Pacific diverting US Naval activity away from the Atlantic at the same time opening larger areas to attack the convoys.

This is pretty much my understanding as well, Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US however I think that Doppleganger is also correct in that the intent of the treaty was to support the other signatories in the event of a war with a party outside their existing opposition.

However isnt this getting a tad off topic?.

Yes, on the off subject with the caveat that I assume that this is a adjunct to the mention of Pearl Harbor as the decisive battle of WW2. I still don't think so in the light of which the subject was defined at the beginning of the thread. Thanks and best JWC

[quote]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Article III of the Pact deals with the mutual protection aspect. It merely states that "Japan, Germany and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on the aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means when one of the three Contracting Parties is attacked by a power at present not involved in the European War or in the Sino-Japanese Conflict."

It does not state that the Article is void if one of the signatories is the aggressor. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sorry, but you are.
the Article states quite clearly "if attacked"

Otherwise, Japan would not have been duty bound to come to Germany's aid when the latter attacked the Soviet Union in 1941.

They weren't and they didn't.
Japan went to great lenghts to to stay neutral in respect of the German/Soviet war. Japanese submarines even up to 1945 were forbidden to attack Soviet ships in the Pacific.

At the time of the signing on the Pact on 27 September 1940, the Soviet Union and Germany were of course at peace. So therefore, Germany was still duty bound to come to Japan's aid as they were now being attacked by the US, regardless of who started the conflict.

Then why didn't the Japanese aid Germany in the war against the Soviet Union ????.
Answer, the Japanese had read the articles of the pact.
Especially the "if attacked " bit.

Originally Posted by redcoat

Sorry, but you are.
the Article states quite clearly "if attacked"

They weren't and they didn't.
Japan went to great lenghts to to stay neutral in respect of the German/Soviet war. Japanese submarines even up to 1945 were forbidden to attack Soviet ships in the Pacific.

Then why didn't the Japanese aid Germany in the war against the Soviet Union ????.
Answer, the Japanese had read the articles of the pact.
Especially the "if attacked " bit.

Sorry, but that's just your interpretation of words. It's no more or less valid than mine. I think we should just agree to disagree and leave things here as the thread is getting de-railed. There are good reasons why the Japanese gave little practical aid to Germany but let's leave that for another time.

i think that the japanese were running on empty while they were conquering the pacific but i think that if the germans had managed to overrun russia up to the ural mountains they could have conquered all of the remaining empire. then thy could have focused more attntion on britiain and conquered it. who knows what would have happened then.

The Battle of Midway was the most impressive because just six months after we were attacked we pretty much defeated Japan.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Stalingrad certainly was decisive, no argument there. It would have been even more decisive had Manstein not pulled off the miracle recapture of Khar'kov just afterwards. I guess it hurts even more for those veterans when they're aware that Stalingrad could have been taken almost without a fight in July 1942.

Heinz-Gunther Guderian served in both the Wehrmacht (at one point in dad's Panzer Korps) and the Bundeswehr. Interestingly, he became Inspector General of Panzertruppen for the Bundeswehr, exactly the same role his famous dad served in for the Wehrmacht.

Hehe I am begining to think the History channel is confused as I have just got through a documentary where Kursk was declared the "most decisive battle of WW2" for pretty much the reasons you have put forward.
However I will stick with Stalingrad myself.

It wasn't The History Channel that said so, it was the German vets who were there on the Eastern Front who were saying it. They had several of them interviewed - including, as I said, if you actually read my post, Lt. Col. Heinz-Günther Guderian, General Guderian's son and a German officer on that front himself.