PDA

View Full Version : After Pearl Harbor...Why did the USA prioritise Germany as the Biggest Threat?



MB_Avro_UK
03-09-2008, 06:00 PM
Hi all,

My post sums it up.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

HotelBushranger
03-09-2008, 06:58 PM
Good question. IIRC Roosevelt wanted to go after Hitler even before Pearl Harbour but Congress didn't agree, so no doubt he would have found a way to accord Hitler some of the blame and find it necessary to go after him.

PhantomKira
03-09-2008, 07:23 PM
I suspect Roosevelt as well. Remember, he had the US escorting convoys to Britian half way across the Atlantic in mid 1941, before Pearl Harbor (with orders to fire upon any U-boat that presented a threat... self defense really, but if you're escorting a convoy, you'll get shot at). He also had something like 90% of Lend Lease Aid going to the Allies despite the fact that it was an open program.

Bottom line, while America was Isolationist, Roosevelt, certainly, was not. This goes to show the power of an American president, for better or worse.

Patriot_Act
03-09-2008, 07:51 PM
Roosevelt already had the US at war, there is no doubt about that.
Hitler helped out in a big way within only 4 days........
December 11, 1941 - Germany Declares War on America.
No BS or propaganda needed after that.

From a logical tactical standpoint Germany was the bigger threat.
Japan was an island nation. It was far easier to
isolate Japan and kill it later.
Germany had the continental advantage. With
every victory Germany won manpower, fuel and other natural resources.
So did Japan, but Japan had to ship it all home.

FDR was indeed correct. Japan was cut off and being starved.
Hitler was dealt an over kill beating.
Japan was never going to be easy,
As horrible as it was, the A-Bomb probibly saved millions of lives.

P.A.

Ratsack
03-09-2008, 07:58 PM
Because the American and British Chiefs of Staff had already met and discussed the possibility in mid 1941. They settled the matter before the Nippones ever got to Pearl Harbour.

I'll find you a reference later in the week (I'm out of town right now). If somebody else wants to look, you'll find reference to this conference in the West Point military history of WWII, in Churchill's multi-volume WWII, and I think it's also discussed in Arthur Bryant, The Turn of the Tide, based on Field Marshal Brooke's war diaries.

cheers,
Ratsack

Tater-SW-
03-09-2008, 08:09 PM
The US never viewed Japan as a war that could possibly be lost. Germany was clearly the greater threat.

I have a quote someplace from a US Admiral talking to an IJN Admiral serving in the US as a diplomat. He told him in no uncertain terms that while the japanese in a future war might have their initial victories, the war would turn against them, and win or lose any given battle, they would get weaker, and we would only grow stronger. He finished by suggesting that such a conflict would leave Japan in ruins.

His view was pretty much boilerplate for the US. Even the japanese believed this, BTW. Yamamoto was by no means alone in thinking a conflict with the US was folly. Their own IGHQ just before the war gave Japan a 10% chance of victory (negotiated after short conflict), and a 90% chance of "national death."

Viper2005_
03-09-2008, 10:03 PM
IIRC the Germans actually declared war on America in response to the Allies declaring war on Japan.

Logically it made sense to prioritise Germany because Britain served as a very big, and relatively cheap aircraft carrier...

As such, Germany was within instant reach of available B-17s, whereas Japan was not and required the use of more advanced bombers (B-29s were eventually selected) which were not yet ready.

Also the USSR was not at war with Japan, and displayed remarkable reluctance to join in on that front until the outcome was utterly certain.

Logically Japan had no more hope of invading the USA than Germany did, so FDR could afford to dictate the course of events.

I think that in large part he was influenced by Churchill, since Germany posed a much more immediate threat to the UK than Japan, and anyway Britain was valuable as an ally, especially since American assistance could be arranged so as to dismantle the British Empire, which was an implicit policy of the USA since its formation. Had Britain fallen to the Axis powers then her Empire would have fallen with her, the consequences of which would have been unpredictable. Allied victory offered the prospect of allowing FDR to dismantle the British Empire in a controlled manner via the application of financial pressure.

Britain was by no means out of trouble in 1941/2, so there was a strong incentive for FDR to protect his latent opportunity on that front.

As it was, Japanese actions resulted in the collapse of China, and its subsequent shift towards Communism, which in turn fomented wars in Korea and Vietnam, not to mention the continuing tensions around Taiwan. One may only wonder what the world would look like had Britain collapsed instead...

WOLFPLAYER2007
03-09-2008, 10:11 PM
Germany and Japan were allies, but not so close as Italy was with Germany....Hitler would never accept split the world with japanese people and you know why.

Also if Japan was so called allied with Germany, why didnt they help them invading the URSS and making 2 fronts for the russians? the japanese denyed help them.

One thing that i dont understand is why Hitler declared war on America, if England was a hard job, imagine another faction in Europe fighting them...This was one of the main reason that Nazi Germany failed.

Patriot_Act
03-09-2008, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Because the American and British Chiefs of Staff had already met and discussed the possibility in mid 1941. They settled the matter before the Nippones ever got to Pearl Harbour.

I'll find you a reference later in the week (I'm out of town right now). If somebody else wants to look, you'll find reference to this conference in the West Point military history of WWII, in Churchill's multi-volume WWII, and I think it's also discussed in Arthur Bryant, The Turn of the Tide, based on Field Marshal Brooke's war diaries.

cheers,
Ratsack

I find that EASY to believe.
As I said, Hitler added lubricant to the gears of the Propaganda machine saving much effort.
He made himself a legitimate target.

The US made a mistake in underestimating the Japanese.

Hitler made a fatal mistake in underestimating the US.

I believe most in high positions in Japan knew a fight with the US was
hopless if the US came out fighting with conviction.
The Japanese mistake was to believe the US was incapable of a war
on the same level of intensity as Japan was capable of.
In a macabre twist, they were correct. Given the option Americans prefer to live to fight another day.

P.A.

fordfan25
03-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
Germany and Japan were allies, but not so close as Italy was with Germany....Hitler would never accept split the world with japanese people and you know why.

Also if Japan was so called allied with Germany, why didnt they help them invading the URSS and making 2 fronts for the russians? the japanese denyed help them.

One thing that i dont understand is why Hitler declared war on America, if England was a hard job, imagine another faction in Europe fighting them...This was one of the main reason that Nazi Germany failed. well that and the porked frount veiw of the 190

PBNA-Boosher
03-09-2008, 11:33 PM
I think all the reasons cited are good ones and quite legitimate, but I also wonder what role racial prejudice had to play in this category. The more European country, Germany, may have been viewed as a larger threat because it was easier for a combined American mindset at the time to view a European country as powerful over Japan.

Of course, realistically, this mindset holds absolutely no merit in the actual situation, but I believe I am right in that America largely viewed Japan based on its caricatured stereotype, and therefore, not as deadly? Discussion on this would be great.

csThor
03-10-2008, 12:20 AM
Didn't want to say it, Boosher, but I think there was a decent dose of racist disdain for the japanese in the equation. Just look at how US wartime propaganda portrayed the japanese opponent - racism is easily detectable.

Skycat_2
03-10-2008, 01:40 AM
Who says the US prioritized Germany as 'the biggest threat'? I'd argue the US population was very aware that it was fighting a two-front war. Early recruiting and bond drives seem especially mindful of defeating the Japanese. Wartime coastal defenses prepared with the mindset that the Japanese Navy could appear on the horizon at any moment. Also, remember that the Japanese had actually captured US holdings in the Pacific. The US government was so afraid of a Japanese invasion that it interned 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps throughout the American West to prevent spying and collusion.

I'd argue that at the beginning of the war the front against Germany and Italy was seen as a distraction by many Americans. The US's military leaders wanted to invade France directly in 1943 and force an end to the war in Europe (and put full concentration into the war against Japan) but bowed to the other Western Allies' desire to push the Germans and Italians out of North Africa first. Maybe the other Allies had a sound strategy that was meant to weaken the Axis ability to get raw materials and petroleum needed for warfare; maybe Britain and France were hoping to preserve and expand their colonial holdings before considering any truce with Hitler. Either way, the European Allies wanted Hitler defeated before committing fully to defeating Japan, and they wanted North Africa secured before invading Europe. The US was outvoted.

If Germany was perceived as the greater threat to the security of the United States, it might have been because U-boats were brazen enough to attack merchant vessels inside the Gulf of Mexico as well as the Atlantic.

In the end all the Allies needed each other to achieve individual agendas as well as to defeat their common enemies.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-10-2008, 01:47 AM
The racial aspect surely was big factor IMHO. Remember the official reports from the Ministery of Defense that stated clearly Japanese pilots could be treated as a minor thread, because the form of their eyes blockes a great amount of vision...

But I doubt the US underestimated the Japanese threat. Never before was a war THAT close to the US and never before had another country from half across the globe attacked US soil. If you look at doctrines and homeland-defense-programs, a lot of what we see going on in the US today is based on the fear of the US being under attack. And this fear was renewed with 9/11.

As a result in WW2 a lot of US citizens with Asian heritage were taken prisoners in camps just because they were feared to be spies. Hundreds of them died from starvation and lack of medical care during WW2. Beyond that, remember the Flying Tigers who participated in defending China from the Japanese attacks! They were inofficially there, but surely not without the inofficial "OK" from the US. I also doubt that the US thought Japan would be an easy enemy, because the island could be isolated easily, because at the time the war started, Japan had a big foothold on the Asian mainland.

But IMHO the most important reason for the US to be more active in Europe was simply the fact that Germany was going to overrun Russia at that time and a definite threat to the UK. If both had fallen, it would have been the US against the nationalist rest of the world and THAT was the biggest threat for the US.

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 02:19 AM
Was it 1813 that had a British ship shell the Capitol Building?
Later on there was the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt and San Juan Hill and all that?
When did Hawaii become a State?

No I don't think that the Japanese got closest and for sure could not spare the troops.
With so much tied up in holding the different Chinese States and in the Pacific operations
they didn't have enough to take Oahu even. That would have put a real crimp in the US.
It was a raid to show warning but all it did was wake the Isolationists up, the noise is HERE.

Attack a country and the result is pretty certain. Hitler FAKED an attack by Poles on a German
radio station as his final excuse to attack all of Poland. What is that quote that starts with "Tell them they've been attacked...", it doesn't just apply to Germany or the 20th century.

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 02:42 AM
People can dwell on racial attitudes back then but they should have a good look at the same
in every country. Check the Japanese attitude then, what was done with non-Japanese. Some
highly placed Japanese with approval treated Koreans and Chinese the way that the Nazis did
to Jews. Look at what they did with the Bataan survivors and other POWs.

Once Einstein was allowed to get through to FDR and explain the significance of a discovery
made in Germany in 1939, FDR knew where the priority lay and could not tell.

If you don't include that then why bother? Heavy water production and a shipment were destroyed
although the drums have been found since and still do contain heavy water. There was a race
on that few ever knew of.

Why else is because Joe Stalin was asked what could be done and he said attack Europe NOW.
So they waited and then attacked Africa which drew troops off Russia, they say, and in the
end a huge capture almost as many as killed in one big Stalingrad battle to get proportion.

And about no doubt in beating Japan, go watch Flags of Our Fathers -- the war budget was
running on drives and contributions as the Treasury did not just print more money back then.
Yeah without the atom bombs it might have ended up in a conditional treaty or Russia moving
in, finishing the job and keeping the islands.

R_Target
03-10-2008, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Skycat_2:
Who says the US prioritized Germany as 'the biggest threat'? I'd argue the US population was very aware that it was fighting a two-front war. Early recruiting and bond drives seem especially mindful of defeating the Japanese. Wartime coastal defenses prepared with the mindset that the Japanese Navy could appear on the horizon at any moment. Also, remember that the Japanese had actually captured US holdings in the Pacific. The US government was so afraid of a Japanese invasion that it interned 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps throughout the American West to prevent spying and collusion.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The Germans weren't considered a huge threat to the continental U.S. The Japanese showed they could not only attack from 4,000 miles away, but also that they could occupy U.S. territory.

Pirschjaeger
03-10-2008, 03:26 AM
There may be a few reasons but here's one that almost seems to be forgotten. The Nazis were already in America and were a real threat to certain politicians.

Here's a tidbit from Wiki;

The German American Bund or German American Federation was an American Nazi organization established in the 1930s. Its main goal was to promote a favorable view of the Nazi German government.

NSDAP member Heinz Sponknobel merged two older organizations, Gau-USA, and the Free Society of Teutonia, which were both small groups with only a few hundred members each, into Friends of New Germany. Soon thereafter, the Friends came under attack from two fronts: The first was a Jewish boycott of German goods in the heavily German neighborhood of Yorkville on the Upper East Side of New York City. The second came from Congressman Samuel Dickstein, a Democrat.

The Friends of New Germany tried to counter this boycott with propaganda. Simultaneously, an internal battle was fought for control of the Friends in 1934; Sponknobel was ultimately ousted from leadership. At the same time, the Dickstein investigation concluded that the Friends supported a branch of German dictator Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party in America.


After the investigation, Hitler advised all German nationals to withdraw from the Friends of New Germany. On March 19, 1936, Hitler placed an American citizen, Fritz Julius Kuhn, at the head of the party, hoping to gain some degree of American favor. The group's name was then changed to the German American Bund. At this time, the Bund established a training camp - named "Camp Nordland" - in Sussex County, New Jersey.[1]

After taking over in 1936, Kuhn started to attract attention to the Bund through short propaganda films that outlined the Bund's views. Later that year, Fritz Kuhn and some fifty Bund members boarded a boat to Germany, hoping to receive personal and official recognition from German Chancellor (Reichskanzler) Adolf Hitler during the Berlin Olympics. However, according to historian Charles Higham, Kuhn was one of the last people Hitler wanted to meet. Hitler wanted the American Bund to remain non-aggressive and relatively obscure. However, Kuhn did briefly meet with Hitler during a reception before the opening ceremonies. Kuhn later falsely reported to other Bund members that he met with Adolf Hitler and that Hitler had recognized him as the "American Führer."

Arguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 19, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Franklin D. Roosevelt by repeatedly referring him as "Frank D. Rosenfeld"¯, calling his New Deal the "Jew Deal", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership. Most shocking to American sensibilities was the outbreak of violence between protesters and Bund storm troopers.

The Bund was one of several German-American heritage groups; however, it was one of the few to express National Socialist ideals. As a result, many considered the group anti-American. In the last week of December 1942, led by journalist Dorothy Thompson, fifty leading German-Americans including Babe Ruth signed a "Christmas Declaration by men and women of German ancestry" condemning Nazism, which appeared in ten major American daily newspapers. In 1939, a New York tax investigation determined Kuhn had embezzled money from the Bund. The Bund operated on the theory that the leader's powers were absolute, and therefore did not seek prosecution. However, in an attempt to cripple the Bund, the New York district attorney prosecuted Kuhn. New Bund leaders would replace Kuhn, most notably with Gerhard Kunze, but these were only brief stints. Martin Dies and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) were very active in denying any Nazi-sympathetic organization the ability to freely operate during World War II.

With the start of World War II, most of the Bund's members were placed in internment camps, and some were deported at the end of the war. Fritz Julius Kuhn was both interned and then deported. The Bund itself failed to become a major force in American politics and eventually died out. However, its influence is still felt in a number of American neo-Nazi groups.

Had Hitler been victorious in Europe by achieving his dream of an EU the American Nazi parties would have had a huge boost.

Here's a partial list of active and non-active fascist organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country_U-Z).

Fritz

Capt.LoneRanger
03-10-2008, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Was it 1813 that had a British ship shell the Capitol Building?
Later on there was the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt and San Juan Hill and all that?
When did Hawaii become a State?

In 1872 Hawaii became an independent state of the United States. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Neither the American-Spanish War from 1813 nor the British-American War from 1812 were fought on US-American soil, except a few incidents, maybe, that rather had a propaganda-effect, if any. The first was about Havanna and other states around the Mexican Gulf, the later was about Canada.

Due to doctrine, possibilities and resources none of those attacks were conducted from the main land (Spain or England), not even daring to speak of threateing the US with an invasion.


In WW2 the situation was different, as Japanese foothold and rapid success in Asia was a clear indicator that they were an offensive force and they were feared in the US for the treatment of their victims and prisoners. Sure this was partially propaganda, but we all know, that Japanese troops were going a different approach in matters of modern warfare at that time.

And to your question about the few Japanese taking the US: Well, surely, that wasn't possible, but consider how a few hundred misslead idiots with bombs strapped to them, put half of the globe in panic of an attack.

Feathered_IV
03-10-2008, 05:23 AM
After Pearl Harbor...Why did the USA prioritise Germany as the Biggest Threat?

I always assumed that it was economic reasons. The European market wasn't really accessible to the US once the Nazi's took over the place. America was doing alright out of Britain for a while, but once the money ran out from them, the overseas revenue would slow down to a trickle. It was in America's interests to trounce the Nazi's as fast as possible and restore their European markets. I guess thats what the advisors would have said at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
03-10-2008, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After Pearl Harbor...Why did the USA prioritise Germany as the Biggest Threat?

I always assumed that it was economic reasons. The European market wasn't really accessible to the US once the Nazi's took over the place. America was doing alright out of Britain for a while, but once the money ran out from them, the overseas revenue would slow down to a trickle. It was in America's interests to trounce the Nazi's as fast as possible and restore their European markets. I guess thats what the advisors would have said at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's another big reason, yes. But let's not forget, that Nazi-Germany was getting engines and other machine parts especially for trucks and machines, from the US, even after they declared war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 05:45 AM
I think Patriot Act has hit the nail on the head.

Japan lacked natural resources, and was reliant on them coming in by sea. The war was preciptated (the USA and Japan were heading towards war anyway, though) by further embargoes by the USA on oil imports and rubber. This explains why Japan quite quickly tried to acquire Indonesian supplies of both of these, but the import of these supplies to the Japanese mainland would have been via sea, and thus vulnerable to being cut off by the USN and RN.

On the other hand Germany had the possibility, in 1941/2 of gaining access to oil resources in the Caucasus, along with vast mineral resources and agricultural resources in the Ukraine. These could have been transported back to the industrial heartland overland, and thus been more or less impervious to attack, especially if things in the middle east and North Africa had gone badly and meant that the supply routes were even more inaccessible to long range bombers.

Also in theory a Russia winning against Germany was also a threat to Japan and could tie troops up in Manchuria, although that didn't really become a threat until 1945, although the Russians did sweep through Manchuria and onto the Japanese home islands in pretty short order. (The Japanese considered, and some still do, that the Kuril Islands were part of the home islands).

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 05:47 AM
That's another big reason, yes. But let's not forget, that Nazi-Germany was getting engines and other machine parts especially for trucks and machines, from the US, even after they declared war. Wink2

AFAIK that was from plants originally built by US companies, but on German soil, and had been taken over by that point.

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 05:56 AM
The US government was so afraid of a Japanese invasion that it interned 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent in concentration camps throughout the American West to prevent spying and collusion.

There's little evidence that the US government had any realistic expectation of a Japanese invasion of mainland USA (Aleutians and Hawaii being another matter), but it was aware that there was a theoretical potential for sabotage of the wider war effort. It also had a political dimension - the USA was not ready in the first six months, to fight an offensive war as it needed to fully mobilise and ramp up production, so it could be viewed as doing -something- in a period of military set backs. A similar thing occured in the UK two years before. To some extent it may also have acted as a form of protective custody, although saying that is fairly controversial.

The Japanese would not have had the means to fight a war in China-India-Burma, the Pacific Islands, -and- send an invasion force to the USA that would have had any realistic chance of doing anything. The USA has a large amount of space to retreat its forces into to regroup, much like Russia had, and we know how that ended, and that was with Germany having very much shorter supply lines.

That the USA was able to fight a long-distance two-front war is a testament both to its larger population, and its great industrial and agricultural capacity and large natural resources (no. 1 oil producer, massive coal reserves) that was geared up.

Hkuusela
03-10-2008, 06:57 AM
How much did the Americans put weight on blocking communists from taking over whole Europe?

Skycat_2
03-10-2008, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Was it 1813 that had a British ship shell the Capitol Building?
Later on there was the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt and San Juan Hill and all that?
When did Hawaii become a State?

In 1872 Hawaii became an independent state of the United States. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Neither the American-Spanish War from 1813 nor the British-American War from 1812 were fought on US-American soil, except a few incidents, maybe, that rather had a propaganda-effect, if any. The first was about Havanna and other states around the Mexican Gulf, the later was about Canada.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Siege of Baltimore. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baltimore)
Battle of New Orleans. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans) The Louisiana Purchase made this US territory a few decades prior. I don't recall the Spanish being involved.

The Spanish-American War was in 1898 and was started by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pullitzer upping each other on stories about Spanish atrocities in Cuba to sell newspapers. When the US battleship Maine exploded under mysterious circumstances, it was all the excuse America needed to send in its military. The US gained not only Cuba but also Puerto Rico and the Phillipines from Spain as a result.

Keeping the Phillipines would prove to be the real problem, however. Some Filipinos thought that after winning independence from Spain they should be able to govern themselves instead of being a US protectorate. How silly of them. Anyhow, the Phillipines Insurrection became a real quagmire for the US military. It wasn't a popular occupation, and the fighting went on for years. So embarrassing it was at the time that it basically was whitewashed from our history books.

Hawaii became an independent republic in the 1870s when American businessmen decided they'd be better off running the monarchy. The 'bayonet constitution' was enforced by American troops sent to protect the Americans as a result. Hawaii became an important coaling station for the US Navy and therefore remained a territory. Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959.

Now I'm late for work. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Tater-SW-
03-10-2008, 07:53 AM
Aaron is right. Most of the war effort on the home front was to get the population engaged, not because it was a serious threat. The US war plan (we judged a war in the Pacific to be virtually certain, BTW, we just didn't expect the target to be Pearl) included exactly what happened, abandon the Philippines, concentrate on Europe first.

While I think there was some racism in out overall view of the Japanese, I don't think it was a large factor. Europe (the UK) was on the ropes, and by any rational measure Germany was the greater threat.

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 08:17 AM
The target was expected to be the Philipines, and the garrison there had been strengthened. Arguably not strengthened enough, but given that the US forces were still relatively small, there was only so much that could be sent there. And from a strategic point of view holding large forces in reserve for a counter attack made more sense than spreading them out so they were relatively weak (compared to a concentrated attack) everywhere.

It takes a while to expand forces, and train them, etc. The USA had some victories in 1942, but it wasn't really up to speed with forces in place and trained until 1943. Rearmament hadn't really begun until the very end of the 1930s in the USA, mid 1930s in the UK, so the timescales are pretty similar and probably about as fast as it was possible to do things. The USA still used a number of mid-1930s designs (P-38, P-40, B-17) but also a number of aircraft skipped a generation (P-51, B-24).

berg417448
03-10-2008, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:


As a result in WW2 a lot of US citizens with Asian heritage were taken prisoners in camps just because they were feared to be spies. Hundreds of them died from starvation and lack of medical care during WW2. Japan had a big foothold on the Asian mainland.



I don't know why people always leave out the fact that people of European descent were also placed into camps.

64% of all those arrested by the FBI between December 7, 1941 and June 30, 1945 were European or European Americans.

About 600,000 Italian Americans were placed under travel restrictions such as not being allowed to travel more than five miles from their homes without police permission.

The U.S. government apologized in 1988 to the Japanese-Americans interned during World War II and paid reparations. No similar action was taken regarding thousands of German and Italian Americans who were also placed in camps.

joeap
03-10-2008, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
IIRC the Germans actually declared war on America in response to the Allies declaring war on Japan.



Actually not the case, as I've said before, the Tripartite Pact only obliged one of the parties to declare war on the other if one were attacked by a third party which was not the case with Pearl Harbour. Hitler really did make things easier for FDR.

bzc3lk
03-10-2008, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">After Pearl Harbor...Why did the USA prioritise Germany as the Biggest Threat?

I always assumed that it was economic reasons. The European market wasn't really accessible to the US once the Nazi's took over the place. America was doing alright out of Britain for a while, but once the money ran out from them, the overseas revenue would slow down to a trickle. It was in America's interests to trounce the Nazi's as fast as possible and restore their European markets. I guess thats what the advisors would have said at any rate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Suspected this for years.Smacks of Saddams plan to use Euros for oil transactions instead of the US dollar.Imagine what this would do to the value of the US dollar,especially if the rest of the oil producing nations adopted this point of view.

You would have to be certifiably insain or just plain stupid to believe Bush's load of **** about "weapons of mass destruction" scenario.Has anyone actually found these weapons yet?

The bottom line is that modern governments fight wars purely for the economic high ground.It's a pity that he average american soldier is being used as a pawn in the dangerous Bush/Chaney get rich show.

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's another big reason, yes. But let's not forget, that Nazi-Germany was getting engines and other machine parts especially for trucks and machines, from the US, even after they declared war. Wink2

AFAIK that was from plants originally built by US companies, but on German soil, and had been taken over by that point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no, there were corporations and people that had to be ordered by Congress to stop in 1942.
Trade was just a bit too sweet, hard to concentrate on politics ya know? Fortunes made and all.

joeap
03-10-2008, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:

That's another big reason, yes. But let's not forget, that Nazi-Germany was getting engines and other machine parts especially for trucks and machines, from the US, even after they declared war. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Oh I doubt the US was making money from that. First of all the US government was not as it was illegal, and as someone pointed out, these were made by foreign plants taken over. I've read, and am not too sure about the details, some companies and individuals tried to trade AFTER the war started (including a relative of a certain US current politician) but were charged.

Point is the US (as did the USSR and UK) traded with Nazi Germany before they went into war and there is no reason the US would not have continued, albeit much less as a Nazi Europe would have been at least a manufacturing competitor.

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 09:45 AM
I'd assumed the reference was to Ford, and in that case the Nazi state had, AFAIK, taken over the plants. The things you are referring to I have no knowledge of.

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
How much did the Americans put weight on blocking communists from taking over whole Europe?

Communists did not take over whole Europe, must have been enough then?

It is only a shame that US and English did not meet the Communists on the old Russian border,
each looking across a field of defeated Germans perhaps? Just pick up and rebuild as you were.

joeap
03-10-2008, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by bzc3lk:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Suspected this for years.Smacks of Saddams plan to use Euros for oil transactions instead of the US dollar.Imagine what this would do to the value of the US dollar,especially if the rest of the oil producing nations adopted this point of view.

You would have to be certifiably insain or just plain stupid to believe Bush's load of **** about "weapons of mass destruction" scenario.Has anyone actually found these weapons yet?

The bottom line is that modern governments fight wars purely for the economic high ground.It's a pity that he average american soldier is being used as a pawn in the dangerous Bush/Chaney get rich show.

Please this is hardly the same thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 09:56 AM
I'll try again.

FDR was told that the Germans were working towards an Atom Bomb.
And then he was told what they believed one would do, not terribly off the mark BTW.

Now why would FDR be concerned with shutting the Germans down first?

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 10:21 AM
The decision to take out Germany first was taken in 1941, during the cold war period with Germany, and prior to any detailed knowledge of a German atomic weapons programme, which in any case didn't exist until 1942. It was probably assumed that given it was apparent that it might be possible to create such a weapon that the Germans would have been working on it, although luckily a good number of European scientists had been driven out by the Nazis and other repressive regimes before and during the war, and so weren't available to be coopted into the German programme.

So it's unlikely that FDR decided on a 'Germany first' policy in 1941 to deal with a German atomic weapons programme that didn't yet exist.

Tater-SW-
03-10-2008, 10:47 AM
Rainbow 5 (including war plan orange) was approved in July, 1941. AFTER the invasion of the Soviet Union. Before that, Stalin was an ally (and co-belligerent) with Hitler. Because the Soviets had powerful allies (agents, actually) in the FDR Administration, that certainly could have played a role in the late adoption of a "Germany first" policy to the extent that the State Dept. (Hiss) had any hand in possible war planning.

My personal take is that such concerns were secondary to the plain military reality that Japan losing the war was a foregone conclusion.

The only possibility for a negotiate peace with Japan (which was their goal in waging the war), would have been:

1. No "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor. Even had the declaration of war preceded the attack as planned, it would have been too close, and would have had the same effect on public opinion. PH was a showstopper for the Japs, IMO. There was no possibility of negotiated peace with the PH harbor attack. None.

2. Even taking PH rage off the table (no attack), the Japanese would have required massive German successes past 1941 to have a hope of negotiated peace with the US.

tater

R_Target
03-10-2008, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by berg417448:
I don't know why people always leave out the fact that people of European descent were also placed into camps.

Ubi forum S.O.P. is to leave out the parts that don't fit.

Aaron_GT
03-10-2008, 11:23 AM
My personal take is that such concerns were secondary to the plain military reality that Japan losing the war was a foregone conclusion.

Even many in the Japanese military felt this from the moment Pearl Harbour was attacked. (A few in the German military had similar misgivings about Russia).

Hkuusela
03-10-2008, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
How much did the Americans put weight on blocking communists from taking over whole Europe?

Communists did not take over whole Europe, must have been enough then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I meant was how big a role did it play in the decision to fight in Europe...

MB_Avro_UK
03-10-2008, 06:29 PM
Hi all,

Thanks for the replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I posted this thread as I have read that US forces in the Pacific suffered initially from US military resources being diverted to the European theatre.

The USA was attacked by Japan and not Germany.

But the potential industrial might of the USA dwarfed the capabilities of both Germany and Japan.

Perhaps the USA was playing the 'long game'.

Maybe the US realised from a strategic perspective that the US could not be beaten by either Japan or Germany as regards production of military hardware.

Wish I could remember the source, but there was a graph showing the US war production compared to Japan and Germany. Made interesting comparisons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

R_Target
03-10-2008, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
I posted this thread as I have read that US forces in the Pacific suffered initially from US military resources being diverted to the European theatre.


Army and Army Air Forces suffered from lower equipment priority, but for the USN and USMC, the Pacific was the primary theatre.

Sergio_101
03-10-2008, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Thanks for the replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I posted this thread as I have read that US forces in the Pacific suffered initially from US military resources being diverted to the European theatre.

The USA was attacked by Japan and not Germany.

But the potential industrial might of the USA dwarfed the capabilities of both Germany and Japan.

Perhaps the USA was playing the 'long game'.

Maybe the US realised from a strategic perspective that the US could not be beaten by either Japan or Germany as regards production of military hardware.

Wish I could remember the source, but there was a graph showing the US war production compared to Japan and Germany. Made interesting comparisons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Got them in front of me.
The US gross production rivaled the rest of the world combined.
Actually is exceeded it.
Potentially the USSR and others could have caught up.
It's just that the US had mass production facilities in place, and did not need to use them all.
Germany and Japan could never have hoped to catch up without using siezed territories and
manpower.

That is the crux of the bisquit. The German had to be stopped
BEFORE he could get the captured assets on line.

Japan was more easily stifled because sea lanes could be cut off.

Sergio

MB_Avro_UK
03-10-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

Thanks for the replies http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I posted this thread as I have read that US forces in the Pacific suffered initially from US military resources being diverted to the European theatre.

The USA was attacked by Japan and not Germany.

But the potential industrial might of the USA dwarfed the capabilities of both Germany and Japan.

Perhaps the USA was playing the 'long game'.

Maybe the US realised from a strategic perspective that the US could not be beaten by either Japan or Germany as regards production of military hardware.

Wish I could remember the source, but there was a graph showing the US war production compared to Japan and Germany. Made interesting comparisons.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Got them in front of me.
The US gross production rivaled the rest of the world combined.
Actually is exceeded it.
Potentially the USSR and others could have caught up.
It's just that the US had mass production facilities in place, and did not need to use them all.
Germany and Japan could never have hoped to catch up without using siezed territories and
manpower.

That is the crux of the bisquit. The German had to be stopped
BEFORE he could get the captured assets on line.

Japan was more easily stifled because sea lanes could be cut off.

Sergio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Sergio,

Could you please post the figures http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

astro_ninja
03-10-2008, 08:46 PM
Cause we had alot allies in Europe, and it was ground, not lots of ocean. We had to save them. And after that was over all those allies could help with Japan, like England with its navy.

jarink
03-10-2008, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by bzc3lk:
You would have to be certifiably insain or just plain stupid to believe Bush's load of **** about "weapons of mass destruction" scenario.Has anyone actually found these weapons yet?

Yea, we found them (and blew up quite a bit of them - I got to see a couple dumps blow up, thankfully from upwind) in '91. We also found, inspected and watched the Iraqis dismantle several of the plants that made those weapons. However, the general consensus from several international teams of inspectors was that the plants that were found and dismantled/destroyed were not the sole remaining sources of Chemical and possibly Biological weapons possessed by Saddam. It's very possible that there are still some forgotten caches of chemical warheads buried somewhere in the desert.

M_Gunz
03-10-2008, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hkuusela:
How much did the Americans put weight on blocking communists from taking over whole Europe?

Communists did not take over whole Europe, must have been enough then? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What I meant was how big a role did it play in the decision to fight in Europe... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time the US entered which was North Africa and then up through Sicily and Italy, the
idea was to do something to allow relief for the Communists to not be taken over by Facists.
They were worried Stalin would lose, not worried about who would end up with what except that
Hitler and Pals ended up with nothing.
Stalin wanted an immediate attack on Europe even at the price of failure, the US boys were
fired up and the Brits advised caution on the basis of they'd been at it up front longer.

Trust that some will always make political profit from pithy observations regardless of fact.

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Trust that some will always make political profit from pithy observations regardless of fact.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.

The reason I'm asking is because there were those who thought that the USA should have continued the war against the Russians after Germany surrendered. And one of the major reasons for the Marshall plan was to prevent the communist from taking over the ruined European countries. But you are saying that the communist threat did not have any affect on the American actions until later?

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 05:12 AM
Wish I could remember the source, but there was a graph showing the US war production compared to Japan and Germany. Made interesting comparisons.

The book 'Brute Force' is a good source for several graphs of this nature collected together.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 05:18 AM
The reason I'm asking is because there were those who thought that the USA should have continued the war against the Russians after Germany surrendered.

Chief among these was Churchill, who had the Ministry of War draw up plans for it, starting July 1945. He was disuaded by the other Allies who had no particular stomach for more fighting while there was still work to be done in the Far East, and not being reelected finally scuppered such plans.

Churchill was a noted anti-communist and this was a stronger conviction than anything else. He was also full of sometimes fanciful ideas, such as the UK becoming the 49th state of the USA in 1945, which was not taken very seriously by Roosevelt and Truman, just as his idea for dozens of landings in Europe in 1943 to create a 'revolt' or his plan to attack Germany via the Dardenelles was equally not taken very seriously. In fact Churchill was very nearly replaced by Eden in 1942 as these ideas, plus a desire to use mustard gas on German cities, amongst other schemes, provoked concern that he was losing the plot, ditto his desire to land on the D-Day beaches ON D-Day. There are suggestions that he was bipolar, and that some of his odder schemes were a sign of mania.

He was exactly the leader Britain needed 1940-2, though, no doubt.

Blutarski2004
03-11-2008, 05:18 AM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:
Got them in front of me.
The US gross production rivaled the rest of the world combined.
Actually is exceeded it.
Potentially the USSR and others could have caught up.
It's just that the US had mass production facilities in place, and did not need to use them all.


..... Hi Sergio. Although the US had undertaken to re-arm around 1938, the great majority of US wartime mass production factories were largely erected after the declaration of war. Even the Pentagon was built after the declaration of war.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 05:23 AM
Wasn't it 'Plan A' or 'Project A' that began in 1938?

In the UK the requirement for prototypes to be built before ordering aircraft was removed in 1935, so serious UK rearmament can be dated from then, as that is the point when the ordering process was streamlined.

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
The reason I'm asking is because there were those who thought that the USA should have continued the war against the Russians after Germany surrendered. And one of the major reasons for the Marshall plan was to prevent the communist from taking over the ruined European countries. But you are saying that the communist threat did not have any affect on the American actions until later?
Hmm... After some reading, it seems that the American attitude towards the Soviets changed a great deal only after Truman became president.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 06:18 AM
Hmm... After some reading, it seems that the American attitude towards the Soviets changed a great deal only after Truman became president.

If you do more reading it becomes apparent that the USA was pretty anti-Soviet (especially 1917-24) apart from the 1941-early 1945 period. Truman could afford to be more bold, post Trinity, but the rot set in at Yalta.

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If you do more reading it becomes apparent that the USA was pretty anti-Soviet (especially 1917-24) apart from the 1941-early 1945 period. Truman could afford to be more bold, post Trinity, but the rot set in at Yalta.
I don't think there's any doubt of the USA being anti-Soviet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif However, it seems that even without the a-bomb, Truman was a lot more anti-Soviet than FDR, and that the feeling was, that the Soviets had gotten too much at Yalta. Not that being the only nuclear power in the world would hurt the negotiating position... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Schwarz.13
03-11-2008, 07:32 AM
'Plans drawn up by the United States armed forces before that nation's own entry into World War II always envisioned the use of Great Britain as the major staging area in any war against Germany. At the Arcadia Conference, held only weeks after Germany and Italy declared war on the United States following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the American and British political and military high commands confirmed a policy of "Germany first". This would govern Allied strategy for the rest of the war. However, the immediate need to reinforce the Pacific Theater, a lack of resources, and disagreement within the Allied High Command as to the proper strategy for the European Theater prevented any appreciable build-up of American forces in Great Britain during the first half of 1942.'

- Donald Caldwell (p.49, The Luftwaffe Over Germany)

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 08:23 AM
However, it seems that even without the a-bomb, Truman was a lot more anti-Soviet than FDR, and that the feeling was, that the Soviets had gotten too much at Yalta.

That's a fair point, although if anything the person offering Stalin things at Yalta was probably Churchill who was probably the most anti-Communist of the three (FDR, Truman, Churchill) or at least equal with Truman.

Kocur_
03-11-2008, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
How much did the Americans put weight on blocking communists from taking over whole Europe?

How much? Not at all. Soviet zone of influence in Europe, to call it gently, was decided between the three powers in general in December 1943 in Teheran and specifically in February 1945 in Yalta. Funny and sad as it is Soviet Union got even larger piece of Europe from FDR et consortes than they did from Hitler.


Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Before that, Stalin was an ally (and co-belligerent) with Hitler. Because the Soviets had powerful allies (agents, actually) in the FDR Administration, that certainly could have played a role in the late adoption of a "Germany first" policy to the extent that the State Dept. (Hiss) had any hand in possible war planning.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
No that military concerns werent primary.
"Before that" makes almost exactly 1/3 of WW2, that is Soviet Union was nazi ally for a third of WW2 and western powers ally for the remaining 2/3.

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
How much? Not at all. Soviet zone of influence in Europe, to call it gently, was decided between the three powers in general in December 1943 in Teheran and specifically in February 1945 in Yalta.
But when the USA entered the war, there was no agreement between the three powers. So the agreement could not have had effect on the American strategy that was decided in the end of -41 and beginning of -42.

Kocur_
03-11-2008, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hmm... After some reading, it seems that the American attitude towards the Soviets changed a great deal only after Truman became president.

If you do more reading it becomes apparent that the USA was pretty anti-Soviet (especially 1917-24) apart from the 1941-early 1945 period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'd say that US and SU had rather warm relations after mid 1920s. At least US did nothing to control export of US technologies to SU. Most of Soviet industry created in 1930s was of US origin, I mean American engineers building entire plants full of US machinery, Soviets studing at MIT and technical universities, licensing advanced aviation technologies. Little known fact is that the most severe US sanction afer SU invaded Finland was calling off US specialists working in oil fields in Crimea.

Kocur_
03-11-2008, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
But when the USA entered the war, there was no agreement between the three powers. So the agreement could not have had effect on the American strategy that was decided in the end of -41 and beginning of -42.

Huh? How much stopping comunism in Europe effort do you see in sending supplies to Soviet Union (directly or via UK)...?

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Huh? How much stopping comunism in Europe effort do you see in sending supplies to Soviet Union (directly or via UK)...?
I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but your argument just didn't make any sense. Of course the Americans did not want Germany to win, but did they want the communists to take over Europe? I don't think so.

Patriot_Act
03-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Anti Communist paranoia did not take hold in the US untill
after WWII.
There was a free and open relationship with the soviets involving
all manner of exports untill after WWII.

The blame for the problems lie squarely on Harry Truman and Joe Stalin.

Joe Stalin siezing most of Eastern Europe and Harry S Truman's
distaste for all things Communist
got the cold war into high gear.
Winston Churchill was no minor player in that role.

P.A.

Hkuusela
03-11-2008, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Patriot_Act:
Anti Communist paranoia did not take hold in the US untill
after WWII.
There was a free and open relationship with the soviets involving
all manner of exports untill after WWII.

The blame for the problems lie squarely on Harry Truman and Joe Stalin.

Joe Stalin siezing most of Eastern Europe and Harry S Truman's
distaste for all things Communist
got the cold war into high gear.
Winston Churchill was no minor player in that role.

P.A. Well, you can be opposed to communism without being paranoid. At least that's what I think... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But there was the period of Red Scare after WW1 in the USA and it should be noted, that the USA recognized the Soviet government only as late as 1933. The McCarty witch hunts are a whole different matter.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 01:25 PM
Well I'd say that US and SU had rather warm relations after mid 1920s. At least US did nothing to control export of US technologies to SU.

Letting businesses take opportunities after 1924 doesn't mean that the US government was in any way pro Soviet, more that business was seen as more important, perhaps.

In terms of condemnation over Finland, Churchill in the end did nothing despite being very anti-communist. He was talked out of action by the war cabinet on the basis that there was little that Britain could do and the strategic risk wasn't worth it. I suspect that some of the same thinking went on in the USA, and I think the idea that Hiss's influence was all encompassing overstates things - there were a lot of people involved at the upper echelons.

Aaron_GT
03-11-2008, 01:27 PM
Anti Communist paranoia did not take hold in the US untillafter WWII.

Actually there were some instances of quite strong anti-communist rhetoric in the 1920s and 30s, including some in the press right up until June 1941. It wasn't prevalent in the mid 1940s, though, as it wasn't expedient to have bad things said about allies.

That having been said I once came across, in a second hand bookshop, a WW2 diatribe from the British Communist Party against Churchill, and despite the austerity measures it was printed, with all the austerity marks and all. I should have bought it really as it was quite a find.

Blutarski2004
03-11-2008, 04:48 PM
The US had harbored, to a degree, a certain sentimentality toward "Uncle Joe" Stalin in the years immediately following WW2 - perhaps an afterglow of friendly wartime propaganda. Then came the the McCarthy hearings, the Rosenberg atomic spy case, Soviet annexation of the eastern European states and incursions into Iran, the Berlin Blockade, and Korea.

M_Gunz
03-11-2008, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Hkuusela:
I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but your argument just didn't make any sense. Of course the Americans did not want Germany to win, but did they want the communists to take over Europe? I don't think so.

They were in a fight for life and possibly to lose the SU efforts to stop Hitler was not a good
thing at all. When in such a fight you think of today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

Who in the world was ready or able to take on Stalin anywhere up to Berlin around May 1945?
I don't think any one or two could have managed it and if they did, how do you hold onto and
manage what you 'took'?

World Cop is a stupid game for children with no idea how big the world is. Of course the stupid
children send others to actually do it, but that's how it always is. Politicians = stupid children.

Aaron_GT
03-12-2008, 06:29 AM
Who in the world was ready or able to take on Stalin anywhere up to Berlin around May 1945?

There are suggestions that if Eisenhower had been given more latitude then the US forces could have got closer to Berlin and created 'facts on the ground'. Eisenhower himself seemed rather more equivocal about the practicalities of that, though. Plus I am not sure the Western allies would have been able to get to Berlin and take it before the Soviet forces, and it was a very bloody affair. And in any case the deal was partially already done in Yalta (although it was somewhat fudged). I think the war in the Far East (seen as very winnable) was more of a priority than a hot war against the USSR in 1945 in addition to the war in the Far East. It probably seemed like a sensible priority then (and not necessarily a case of pro-Soviet feeling).

Aaron_GT
03-12-2008, 06:34 AM
The US had harbored, to a degree, a certain sentimentality toward "Uncle Joe" Stalin in the years immediately following WW2

Not in all quarters - not in Truman's case, but a certain amoount of gloss regarding Stalin was probably needed to keep the alliance together. The same happened in the UK.

It's worth noting that on the left in the UK Stalin was not popular in the late 1930s as his failure to fully support the Republican movement in Spain was followed by the non-agression pact in 1939. There was a programme on TV in the UK a little while back examining the rifts and how they were papered over for the duration of the war.

Back in the 1980s Channel 4 showed a series 'America at War' or a similar title, on the US experience of WW2. This ranged from war films to documentaries. (There was a sister series 'Britain at War'). One of the slightly strange things shown was a documentary shown to US troops before the victory in Europe to prepare them for the following occupation during which the threat from the USSR was mentioned. I was quite surprised. I wish I had more information, but it was something that stuck in my mind, but it's been a while so I'd love to track down a copy to make sure my recollections aren't off.

dbuff
03-12-2008, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

My post sums it up.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Because Germany was the bigger threat at that time.

Patriot_Act
03-12-2008, 10:37 AM
General George S Patton makes it clear in his diaries "The Patton Papers" that Berlin was an easy
objective.
They were halted for political purposes to let Stalin take berlin.

Given the choice the Germans would gladly have opened
the city to Patton rather than have
the Soviets take it.
There is overwhelming evidence that the western Allies could
have marched on Berlin with little or no opposition.
Of note is the fact that in Hitler's bunker everyone who decided
to flee, ran west....
Better to surrender to the Americans if possible.

P.A.

Rammjaeger
03-17-2008, 09:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VPAjDhRK-4

Tater-SW-
03-17-2008, 09:55 PM
Joe Stalin siezing most of Eastern Europe and Harry S Truman's
distaste for all things Communist
got the cold war into high gear..

His distaste didn't include firing known Soviet agents in his administration (known at the time due to intelligence that was only declassified in the mid 1990s).

The McCarthy "witch hunts" are overblown"”certainly in their attribution to HIM, IMO. The worst stuff was HUAC, and Senator McCarthy had noting to do with the House un-American Activities Committee. HUAC in fact predated McCarthy even being elected to office. McCarthy's hunt was for Communist Party members in the employ of the Federal government alone. The CPUA was totally under the control of the Soviets, so party membership made you at the very least an unwitting tool of a foreign intelligence service. Belonging to a political party is totally acceptable in the US, if the party is known to be under the control of a foreign power, that certainly becomes a dicier issue. Particularly one responsible for tens of millions of murders. A good reality check would be to imagine the Senate and House were searching for Nazis. If it sounds abhorrent for them to look for Nazis, then it would be for commies, too.

To be fair to all of them, the CPUSA was the paid for creature of Soviet Intelligence. Even if many of the members were unwittingly connected to a foreign power, the organization was absolutely used to facilitate Soviet espionage.

Regarding Ike and Berlin, I recall reading that Stalin asked for the US plans, and Ike had a copy sent to the Soviets"”who assumed it was fake to fool them and take Berlin, and they rushed to get there first. Ike's plan was the agreed upon stop of US forces at the Elbe, and the plan sent to Stalin was entirely real. Guess a lying mass murderer assumes everyone is like himself, lol. Funny he didn't see Hitler that way when he was cobelligerent with him before Barbarosa.

tater

M_Gunz
03-17-2008, 09:57 PM
Thanks, RJ!

I guess that's a case of one (motion) picture being worth ALL the words!

M_Gunz
03-17-2008, 10:15 PM
Tater, McCarthy was a liar and he got caught in the act.
The Red Scare was a true witch hunt that like every other witch hunt burned a lot of innocents.
How many people who ever went to or expressed interest in CP meetings were controlled by USSR
for a fact? How much was -actually- reported that wasn't available information?

If there was anything to fear it was loss of freedom in the name of the country. They wouldn't
have had to manufacture lies if there was anything but speculation and next election BS.

Communism is a fairy tale anyway, what country since Marx has made it past Socialism? None.

Patriot_Act
03-18-2008, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Tater, McCarthy was a liar and he got caught in the act.

----I think Tater is well aware of that----.

The Red Scare was a true witch hunt that like every other witch hunt burned a lot of innocents.

----No doubt----

How many people who ever went to or expressed interest in CP meetings were controlled by USSR
for a fact? How much was -actually- reported that wasn't available information?

----Very few...----

If there was anything to fear it was loss of freedom in the name of the country. They wouldn't
have had to manufacture lies if there was anything but speculation and next election BS.

----There was a legitimate fear of Stalinism.----
----Sadly most modern Europeans have forgotten the evil of the Stalinist brand of "communism".----

Communism is a fairy tale anyway, what country since Marx has made it past Socialism? None.

----Take a look at Sweeden, very close to true Marxism.----

====There are no true "Communist" nations. What we call communism can
not survive without despotic dictatorship and a wall...
Current examples are North Korea and Cuba. Cuba has a huge moat (ocean) and North Korea has the DMZ fence.
Neither could have survived with an open border.====

P.A.

M_Gunz
03-18-2008, 07:27 AM
P.A. -- it's pretty clear you haven't learned from Marx's manifesto but instead someone else's
ideas about "communists". I can say that because by "the book" you have socialism with a
central committee as transition to true communism which has no central government. You can't
have that as long as there is any other system on the planet -- it has NEVER happened.

They may call themselves communist states but according to Marx it just ain't so. Even if
such a non-state did occur it would break up soon due to simple human nature. It's a fairy
tale on the order of a little girl's fantasy to think that BS could work and last.

For all that matter we have a Constitution that gets violated in many ways every day by the
people supposed to protect and serve it by oath. Easy to figure, the majority don't know
the document and don't care a whizz about it since other people's rights just gets in the way
of how they want to do things.

When people's careers and lives are destroyed just for checking out IDEAS as was done then
and now, the basis of our country is eroded and we are on the trail to fascism. The Enemy
is within, it's the one that says "screw your freedoms if you ain't like me". There is no
bigger threat, including CPUSA, to the real USA and not just a bunches trying to take over
and tailor things to suit themselves -- I won't name names, just look at the 'choices' we
get come November and vote for the agenda you want.