Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

They just dumped it in the ocean... Quite literally...

quote:

Thanks, all. The reason I'm asking is because, on a completely different forum-board, there is a thread where the OP postulates that the money the US currently spends on the military is better spent on domestic stuff.

In his/her mind, a large military leads to unnecessary wars. So, a small military leads to a peaceful (presumedly because your neighbors do not feel threatened) world, and no imperial ambitions.

I wished to counter with the data that, when the US was attacked in WW2, it's military was not large and threatening. (The USN and RN were in relative parity for the number one slot in size. But the US Army was relatively small.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The one factor this discussion fails to take into account is that the US Army KNEW that in peacetime they would be "sucking hint tit" for funds and support---but if war threatened the would be innundated with money and told to "get on with it!". They'd been through it before, which was why the US Army alone among the world's military maintained an "Industrial Mobilization School" with the sole job of preparing and updating piles of data on what industries could be rapidly co-opted for military production of what items.

When the tap was "turned on" , the military knew what it wanted, and who could produce it, and who would sub-contract the parts. And unlike most of the rest of the world, they knew that the quantities would be huge. One of the reasons for Japan's complacency in going to war was that the US had barely produced a single merchant ship during the decade of the '30's (the Depression). Based on that observation, the idea that it would produce over 50,000,000 tons of them in the next 4 years seemed remote. Only a few Japanese officers had listened to Sun Tsu's maxim to "Know your Enemy!"..., the majority clung to myths.

i think that proves the point of the original poster - this thread was all started to disprove the claim that the US having a huge army provoked the attack on the US... your post supports the claim that it was the weakness of the US that encouraged the attack (not the strength).

Not quite. It was the APPARENT weakness that they mis-read. Had they bothered to look at what was "in the pipeline" for 1919 when the First War ended, they would have been wiser. Or even at the figures for Aircraft production from 1939 to 1941, which had tripled and was exceeding that of all three Axis powers. Or the fact that of 3.5 million motor vehicles produced in the whole world in 1939, 2.5 million were produced in the US. Not realizing what such production could grow to in the event of being re-directed to military hardware was very short-sighted by the Axis.

The only "provoking" America provided (if you can call it that) was the "Two-Ocean Navy Bill" and it's supplements---which the Japanese realized meant that their 20-year Naval buildup was going to be swamped in 3 years by the US Fleet...., and their "Window of Opportunity" was closing fast.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

They just dumped it in the ocean... Quite literally...

More like "just left it" all over the world. People talk about the "Cargo Cult" of the Pacific Islanders..., but most of Western Europe was rebuilt using trucks and jeeps the US Army just abandoned in it's hurry to "get the boys home".

quote:

The poster postulated on how much "good" could be acheived by redirecting that money to other programs (education, infrastructure, health care, etc.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

An example:  We didn't have a clue about mobile, combined arms warfare until sometime after Kasserine.  Another? We ddn't figure out how to use airborne troops until sometime around Normandy.  (My uncle was a D-Day Screaming Eagle and said we never did figure it out.  But he was a little biased since his stick missed the drop zone by 13 miles.)  ANother?  Our knowledge of the use of airpower.  Another?  The use of carriers in naval operations.

quote:



1) Did the small size of the US Army cause the aggressive Axis powers to underestimate the US's ability to fight and win a war?

quote:


1a) Would a much larger US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy) in 1939 have restrained the aggressiveness of Germany or Japan?

quote:



2) Did the large US Navy actually aggravate the situation vis a vis Japan?

quote:


3) Would a smaller military have worked, but only if the USA had remained completely isolationist from events in Asia and Europe? (Remember, the oil embargo and Lend Lease acts could be seen by the Axis powers as provocative.)

quote:


Thanks again for the interesting view points.

I had not considered that the large USN might have been seen by Japan, as a dagger aimed at her. I always viewed the move of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii as a failed deterent, as Japan attacked anyway. I did not think much deeper than that. But then again, Japan had been training with the US in mind as the most likely enemy since the mid-20's... kind of a self fullfilling prophecy.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL:
I would like to know how much more money the education system/department needs as the high price being paid has yet to show it is a wise investment. Without competion, like vouchers, the educational system in the USA will never improve with just more money.

quote:

1) Did the small size of the US Army cause the aggressive Axis powers to underestimate the US's ability to fight and win a war?

quote:

1a) Would a much larger US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy) in 1939 have restrained the aggressiveness of Germany or Japan?

quote:

2) Did the large US Navy actually aggravate the situation vis a vis Japan?

quote:

3) Would a smaller military have worked, but only if the USA had remained completely isolationist from events in Asia and Europe? (Remember, the oil embargo and Lend Lease acts could be seen by the Axis powers as provocative.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL:
I would like to know how much more money the education system/department needs as the high price being paid has yet to show it is a wise investment. Without competion, like vouchers, the educational system in the USA will never improve with just more money.

I would like to know why - if we actually got our 'peace dividend' and had a small military - why the government would have to spend OUR money on something else to begin with?
We seem to assume the money is the government's to spend on some other project if not the military...I would like to know why the government has a god-given right to spend money it never earns?

Ok, I'm getting too political, just my 2c.

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

2) Did the large US Navy actually aggravate the situation vis a vis Japan?

I had not considered that the large USN might have been seen by Japan, as a dagger aimed at her. I always viewed the move of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii as a failed deterent, as Japan attacked anyway. I did not think much deeper than that. But then again, Japan had been training with the US in mind as the most likely enemy since the mid-20's... kind of a self fullfilling prophecy.

quote:

...
I *do* think that in the more general sense in which you intend this discussion, the need for a large US armed forces, now, is greatly overstated by conservatives. The USSR is gone. Russia is no threat. There are other wealthy highly developed allies who were in no position for self-defense in 1936-1941 that are now fully capable of shouldering their share of the burden. Yeah, it'd take some doing to get South Korea to stand up for itself, to get France to actually stand with democracies in general, and to get Japan to edit (or creatively interpret) their own constitution, and to get South Korea to step up in its own defense (given that they get so much from the US for free). But they COULD do it if pressed to do so.

At this time there are no organized military threats to the US, and our strategic nuclear retaliation capability gives us an overwhelming deterrance, and gives us the ability to eliminate any "rogue" nation that might "choose poorly" in imagining that an WMD released in the US would enhance their credibility on the world stage.

quote:

North Korea
Population - 2007 estimate 23,301,725
GDP 2006 estimate - Total $22.85 billion - Per capita $1,007
South Korea
Population - 2007 estimate 49,044,790
GDP 2007 estimate - Total $1.250 trillion[1] (12th) - Per capita $25,840 (2007)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

I thought I read somewhere that the size of the US Army in 1939 was smaller than Greece (or was it Portugal?). Can someone point me towards an online reference as to the numbers of folks in uniform (USA) pre-WW2?

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

The move of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii was certainly considered by Japan as an implied threat aimed at them; prior to that the fleet was based on the West Coast. The buildup of forces (especially the B-17's) in the Philippines was taken by them as a threat too. The Fleet at Hawaii, however, provided them an opportunity to neutralize it with the Pearl Harbor attack.

It would be interesting to game out what would have happened had the Pacific Fleet remained based at San Francisco in 1941 and never moved their HQ to Hawaii...

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Greece and Poland were bordered by countries a little more dangerous to them than Canada and Mexico were to the US.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/COS-Biennial/COS-Biennial-1.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Strictly speaking, it was the Japanese Navy that felt America was threatening. The Japanese Army was more concerned with the Soviets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: panzers

Actually, that's not true. By the time America entered, the canadians were much more equipped and,certainly more experienced than the Americans

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I don't think the Axis powers underestimated the US because of the small size of her military, but because they thought she was decadent and isolationist and lacked the will to fight. Classic case of Oops!

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the case of Japan in WW2 they thought the US weak and decadent and over estimated their own strength. (clearly not paying attention to Sun Tzu there!)...

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

quote:

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the case of Japan in WW2 they thought the US weak and decadent and over estimated their own strength. (clearly not paying attention to Sun Tzu there!)...

Sun Tzu was Chinese, hence the Japanese probably didn't recognize his concepts in a broad sense...

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I know mlees, and probably no one else is asking my opinion, but since the forum is slow these days I'll give it anyway.

quote:



1) Did the small size of the US Army cause the aggressive Axis powers to underestimate the US's ability to fight and win a war?

As far as axis Germany goes: After the joke that was the treaty of versailles, There was no one that was going to stop Germany from starting WWII(in europe). And, on top of that, if there was no Hitler, it would have been someone else. If the truth be known, France's stubborn will to completely make a proud Germany nothing but a third world country just out of spite, despite the strong arguments against it by The USA and The British, is the single biggest reason why WWII happened. In effect, the traty of versailles is the reason for WWII. I know people will debate that, but all you have to do is check out the history on that and it will clearly show that World war I and the treaty of versailles was the culprit, NOT HITLER!
In the end, what we have here is two proud and ethnically superior nations, one completely in control of the other. Never a good recipe.
Quoted from panzers





Almost certainly yes...but at least in the case of Japan it wasn't just the size of the military which led to the perceived weakness. Japan (the political military establishment) also considered Japanese people to be superior to pretty much everyone. It was the arrogance, as much as anything, that led to the war.

quote:


1a) Would a much larger US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy) in 1939 have restrained the aggressiveness of Germany or Japan?

NO. See the comment above. When ultra-national pride is the dominant thought process reason and judgment go out the window.

quote:



2) Did the large US Navy actually aggravate the situation vis a vis Japan?

No, the large Navy in and of itself did not aggravate the problem with Japan, if by aggravate you mean take aggressive action. However, the threat by the US and UK to blockade Japan, combined with the deployment of fleets to the Pacific did aggravate the situation. Had the US taken a more restrained posture it seems certain Japan would have been content to continue its war with China first.

quote:


3) Would a smaller military have worked, but only if the USA had remained completely isolationist from events in Asia and Europe? (Remember, the oil embargo and Lend Lease acts could be seen by the Axis powers as provocative.)

There was a small group advocating for maintaining a small military. They were isolationists. Would having a small military have discouraged FDR from threatening a blockade on Japan...possibly. Would this have prevented a preemptive strike by Japan, possibly. Would that ultimately have prevented a war? That's almost impossible to predict IMO, but personally I doubt it. Japan almost certainly would have attacked forces in the SRA.

quote:


Thanks again for the interesting view points.

I had not considered that the large USN might have been seen by Japan, as a dagger aimed at her. I always viewed the move of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii as a failed deterent, as Japan attacked anyway. I did not think much deeper than that. But then again, Japan had been training with the US in mind as the most likely enemy since the mid-20's... kind of a self fullfilling prophecy.

Well, certainly that was true after the embargo and the threatened blockade. The failure at Hawaii, IMO, was a failure to adequately assess the threat of carriers. I never saw the Hawaii move foremost as a deterrent. I believe it was a real step toward an actual blockade....apparently so did Japan.