Did Britain and France Consult with the USA before Entering World War II?

In the early days of World War II, when nations like France and Britain were facing the existential threat of German invasion, the United States maintained an ambiguous stance. This article delves into the reasons behind this decision and highlights the United States' relationships with Nazi Germany before 1941. It also examines how American companies and studios contributed to the war effort indirectly.

The Ambiguity of the United States

While France was being invaded and Britain was defending itself against the Blitz, the United States was more focused on maintaining its neutrality and economic interests. This period of American non-committal stance was not driven by a lack of awareness but rather a strategic decision to delay direct involvement in the conflict. By 1940, France had fallen, and Britain was facing an acute existential threat, yet the US maintained its neutral position.

Why the US Delayed Its Involvement

Several factors contributed to the United States' delayed entrance into the war:

Economic Interests: Prior to 1941, the US had significant economic ties with Nazi Germany. Companies like Ford, Coca-Cola, and IBM had operations and business dealings in Germany, supplying military equipment and technology. Hollywood Studios: Major Hollywood studios were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany by adjusting films to align with Nazi tastes, despite American public opposition. Business Engagement: Companies like General Motors, Kodak, and General Electric had complex relationships with Nazi Germany, often benefiting from Adolf Hitler's regime, and engaging in activities that indirectly aided the war effort.

Companies Involved with Nazi Germany

Several American companies were complicit in Nazi Germany's war effort, often through forced labor and the exploitation of war resources:

Ford Motor Company

Ford was one of the major companies with extensive operations in Germany, both Ford Werke and Ford SAF produced military vehicles and equipment, and some operations used forced labor. After the US Army liberated Ford plants in Cologne and Berlin, they found slave laborers working under inhumane conditions.

American Motors

General Motors, through its subsidiary Opel, supplied Nazi Germany with vehicles and had a complex business relationship. The head of GM at the time was an advocate of Nazi ideals, reflecting a deep level of collaboration.

Photographic Companies

Kodak: Kodak's European subsidiaries continued operations during the war. Kodak AG, its German subsidiary, employed slave labor at its plants in Stuttgart and Berlin-Kopenick. These subsidiaries produced materials essential for the Nazi war effort.

Financial Institutions and Companies

Chase-Manhattan Bank: Known today as JP Morgan Chase, the bank maintained a controversial relationship with Nazi Germany, providing financial support that fueled the regime's activities.

Dow Chemical: Dow Chemical had significant dealings with Nazi Germany, providing raw materials and resources vital for the war effort.

Retail and Consumer Goods

Woolworth: The retail giant did business with Nazi Germany, which invoked mixed reactions from Americans and German citizens. Protest movements against this collaboration were a part of the broader societal engagement with the war.

General Electric and Alcoa: Both companies played crucial roles in supplying Nazi Germany with materials, including aluminum, which the war effort desperately needed.

IBM's Role

IBM: The German subsidiary, Dehomag, provided Nazi Germany with technology and data management solutions. This was instrumental in the efficient execution of the Holocaust, as IBM's systems allowed for the identification, tracking, and organization of Jewish populations and other "undesirables." IBM's involvement has been widely documented and condemned.

Conclusion

The United States' relationship with Nazi Germany prior to 1941 was complex and intertwined with significant business ties. Companies like Ford, IBM, and Dow all played a part in maintaining those ties, often to their detriment and to the broader context of the war. This article serves as a reminder of the interwoven nature of business and politics during a time of global conflict.