Who Was The MVP (Nation) of WW2

That they were expecting to make up through their conquests, especially from Indonesia. And a lot of that area also had rubber, another component they were lacking. Iron was an issue, but they were already scavenging huge areas of China for that, and there was enough to keep them going for a while.

But they were aware politically that the US was moving closer and closer into joining the war on the side of the UK. And a second Axis attack on them might well have had us revoking our neutrality and joining them in the conflict.

That would have put Japan in a highly vulnerable position. With the large numbers of forces in the Philippines (which were rapidly growing in strength), it was quickly becoming a "strike now or never" situation. The US was starting to send a lot of troops over there, and the plans approved in August 1941 were very impressive.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-PI/USA-P-PI-3.html

The Philippine National Guard was to be fully mobilized, almost a division worth of various support troops (from tanks and artillery to infantry and coastal artillery) were either arriving, en-route or making plans to go to the islands. In addition, plans were made for the possability of a second Army Infantry Division to be moved there. And this is in addition to plans for a large increase in the number of fighters, bombers and ships that would be based in the Philippines.

Japan saw this as well, and knew they had to strike soon or loose the initiative. If they had just waited another 3 months to start the war in the Pacific, there is a real chance they might have lost the Battle for the Philippines.

And think of what that would have done to their plans to attack Burma, Indonesia, and other territories. With over 150 bombers able to strike out at shipping anywhere between the Philippines and China.

 

The Japanese were not going to get the bomb. They had 2 competing projects which were fighting for scarce resources and so neither was getting what they needed.

 

Well I think we have found true agreement.

 

Russia...

... they lost more soldiers and civilians...

... than any other Allied force.

 

Solzhenitsyn estimated that between purges, normal NKVD operations, deliberate starvation and the Germans over 66 million Soviet citizens perished between 1935 and 1945. No wonder they were nearly out of manpower by 1945.

 

So, the Commonwealth lose most in terms of shipping tonnage. So did the Commonwealth do the most in naval terms.

 

I think both Japan and Germany, with the exceptions of a handful of commanders on both general staffs, completely under-estimated American supply chain management expertise and didn't realize how quickly it could mobilize, organize, and ramp up industrial output to high levels in very short time frames.

The main reason Japan wasn't much of a concern was that the U.S. had been selling them their oil and scrap metal fro years before hostilities began, and our planners knew they weren't much of a threat, and only had about three years worth of operational capabilities, and it was easy enough to tie down and over-extend their supply lines on top of that. The mere appearance of bombers in Burma drew a million Japanese troops further and further south into China, for instance, even though that was a short-lived operational area for air power projection onto the Japanese islands. The Japanese Navy wasn't very large, and losses couldn't be replaced very quickly, whether ships, planes or troops. This is why the U.S. focused on the European theater. The Japanese had no capability to invade the U.S., not to mention they were put off by the 'rifle behind every blade of grass' theory, given Americans' private firearms in civilian hands tradition.

This is not to disparage the intense combat and the like that went on in the Pacific, not by any means, just that the U.S. could have suffered losses a lot easier than Japan could, and would have mopped up Asia easily after the war in Europe was settled even without any action there if it had lost every battle in the Pacific. It turned out we got lucky and the Japanese were easily baited into committing forces where they were least effective, plus having a young, inexperienced Navy Admiral in charge at a crucial time, knocking a year or two off the timelines.

 

It all came down to a miscalculation of isolationism.

In the 1920s the US became aware of the fact they were duped into intervening in the Great War. The US came out of that war with absolutely nothing to show for it but 450,000 casualties. Hence isolationism. Not the true pacifism that swept a lot of Europe because the US kept its Navy strong enough to deter a real threat, but marshalling US public opinion to support intervention in Europe had eluded FDR (a pretty good political operator) for 27 months. If the Japanese were mopping the floor with Britain in Malaya and the Dutch in the East Indies but leaving the PI alone, I don't think FDR could have gotten the US to intervene. If Japan made some concessions in China (say withdrawing to north of the Yangtze River) the US could easily have sat this one out.

With the US sitting it out the Japanese need not have worried about US planes interdicting the Formosa Straits.

 

You don't win wars by dying for your country, you win wars wars by making the other poor, dumb, SOB die for HIS country - Gen. George S. Patton

 

What you say is true , but only because it never came to an invasion of the Home Islands. That would have been a blood bath to rival, or surpass, any thing that happened in Europe. I disagree,however, that Isoroku Yamamoto was inexperienced.

 

How was the Zimmerman Telegram (a proposal from Germany to Mexico to invade the US and keep them out of the war) and the sinking of US ships by Germany being "duped"? Either of those is essentially a declaration of war in and of itself, done to or against the US by Germany.

 

The Germans wanted us out of the war, and wanted to close the Atlantic, because we were supporting the British and French. If we had actually maintained a policey of neutrality, as we claimed, this situation would never have arisen.

 

Do not confuse "neutrality" with "idiocy".

You may be "neutral" if your sister is fighting with her husband, but do you really think you are neutral? If your sister slapped her husband, would you smack her one?

No, of course not. But let her husband smack her, and I dare anyboy do not try and smack the living snot out of them.

"Neutral" simply means not actively participation in a war. That is not the same as "not supporting one side over the other". Only children think that way. We did violate that neutrality in several ways, but that is still not the same as a declaration of war.

However, in any book, encouraging one country to declare war upon another is indeed a hostile act, and cause for a declaration of war. And that is exactly what the Zimmerman Telegraph was.

 

To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, and they sure as Hell don't have family. At the time we had already fought two wars with Britain, versus none with Germany, so I don't think we owed the British anything.

'Neutral" simply means not actively participation in a war. That is not the same as "not supporting one side over the other".'

Wrong. What you're describing is non-belligerency, which is not the same as neutrality:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp

See Articles 7, 8, and especially 9.

 

Neutrality means we could trade with anybody we wanted to, when we wanted to; just because Germany didn't like that doesn't mean we were magically obligated to allow Germany to dictate who we traded with, and certainly doesn't mean Germany is allowed to run around and lobby neighboring countries to attack us without our being disturbed by that activity. We didn't attack Sweden and Switzerland for trading with the Nazis, or the Dutch in WW I for trading with Germany. Neutrality doesn't mean one side gets to dictate our trade policies or means we're targets for your torpedoes.

 

But we had not fought England in over 100 years by this time. You are really having to stretch this, both going back to the War of 1812, and ignoring everything that had gone on in the 20 years prior to the outbreak of World War I (Spanish-American War, Boxer Rebellion) in order to come up with this mindset.

You are also missing some very important things in US-German relations. For example, the almost-war between the two nations in 1901 when Germany almost invaded the US in order to secure Cuba and Puerto Rico for themselves. We also never reallt had stable relations with them in the first place until the latter half of the 19th century (remember, there was no "Germany" when the US was founded, it was various warring Prussian territories).

Finally, remember that the largest block of immigrants into the US is from Germany. And a lot of immigrants do not trust or have fond memories of their homeland (or else they would still be in their homeland). A large number of these were "Fourty-Eighters", which flooded into the US after a failed revolution in Germany.

If we had not faught a war with Germany, that is primarily because up until that time, there was no "Germany" for most of the history of the US. And the rest of the time either Germany was to busy fighting itself, or it actually was planning on attacking the United States.

And the plans for the Invasion of the United States are not exactly a secret. I even talked about them recently in another thread in here. However, in the last year a lot more has become known about them because the actual invasion plans have been discovered in a military archive in Germany.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050902a.htm

So trust me, at the time of World War I, our relations with the UK were actually at a high point. However, our relations with Germany were already pretty well in the crapper. Add to that the Zimmerman Telegraph, and war was unavoidable.

 

I largely ignored this, because it did not apply.

If you read those articles more closely, it deals with what beligerants can and can not do in relationship with a Neutral Power. Not with how the Neutral Power should treat the beligerants.

Article 7:
A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Did we prevent other nations from trading with Germany? In a simple word, no. We simply did little trade with them ourselves. In essence, that is talking about an embargo, which the US was not involved in prior to it's entry in the war.

Article 8:
A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Well, this sure as hell did not apply. The Transatlantic Telegraph Cable was owned first by the Atlantic Cable Company, then later by the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, both British Companies. It ran from Ireland to Canada. So that does not apply, the UK and Germany were indeed beligerants, and England had every right to restrict telegraph traffic across their cable.

Here was their letterhead, notice something?



All cables run to Newfoundland. Not the United States. So we could not have prevented traffic even if we wanted to, since England already did that.

Article 9:
Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents.

A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Once again, irrelevant. We did not place an embargo on Germany, therefore this does not apply. The simple desire of a government to not trade is simple freedom of trade, and it is not in and of itself an act of war.

I have a basket of apples, and I decide to sell them to my neighbor to the north. Does this mean I hate my neighbor to the South, or that I have to split the basket in half and sell each an equal number? Of course not, I am still free to conduct trade as I see fit.

And the thing is, the US did try to continue trade with Germany during the war. However, France and England did place an embargo around German ports, so all trade was turned back to the US. But the blockade was noy by the US.

And in return, Germany declaired unrestricted warfare on all ships going to France and England, even that by neutral powers. This is an act of war, and along with the previously mentioned Telegraph was one of the 2 eventual causes for the US to enter the war.

England and France refused entry and turned ships around heading to Germany. Germany sank ships going to or from England and France. See the difference?

You may try to hide whatever fancy talk you like, I am stating simple facts. Please feel free to look them up yourself.

 

I don't really think the Soviet Union should be up there. They made continuous, serious blunders and were really only successful because they could afford to send out wave after human wave.

 

A debt of gratitude is due Russia...

... for keeping Germany tied up on the eastern front...

... until we got the logistics and materiel worked out...

... to open up the western front.

 

I think the gratitude should go to everyone. A small Australian Militia force holds up a Japanese advance long enough for the Japanese to decide of a seaborne invasion of Port Morsby. The US see an opportunity and the battle of the Coral Sea starts. And I am sure every country can show similar examples. Some famous some largely forgotten.

Australia has a debt of thanks for the US giving the Japanese a bloody nose. The US has a debt to those Australian forces for creating an opportunity to exploit

 

Sorry, but the rally cry for entering WW1, was the sinking of the Lusitania, which enraged Americans and hastened the United States' entrance into World War I, and was nothing but a propaganda coup by the Wilson admin. It's a well known fact that the RMS Lusitania was carrying munitions, and in declared hostile waters. So no, a half assed and unrealistic plan of Mexico invading the US, or the sinking of a ship carrying military supplies under the guise of being a civilian passanger ship was not worth entering WW1.

 

How about billions of dollars of debt the British Empire/French Empire/Russian Empire owed the US? I always thought that was one of many reasons, that's the point the US had many reasons to go to war with the German Empire in WW1.

 

That could have been a motivation by the American government, but I don't think that would have compelled the American public to war.

 

You screwed up the order. The Battle of the Coral Sea was before Kokoda. Coral Sea was in May, 1942. Kokoda was from July to November, 1942.

 

This is what happens from reading to many bad history books, and not doing enough reasearch yourself.

I also believed this myself for a long time, until I looked into the timeline.

7 May 1915 - Sinking of the RMS Lusitania (a British ship_)
4 January 1917 - Germany starts unrestricted submarine warfare on any ships traveling to or from the Allied powers (and the sibsequent sinking of 7 US freighters within 2 weeks)
18 January 1917 - Public release of the Zimmerman Telegraph

Now look at that timeline critically. Do you really think that an almost 2 year old sinking would matter more then a series of recent attacks, as well as a proposal of Mexico to attack the US (so shortly after the Poncho Villa raids) would have mattered?

I have absolutely no idea why the Lusitania sticks in the mind of so many people, it was almost 2 years prior to the US entering the war. And doing some research into the US propaganda posters and editorial cartoons of the era, I did not find a single US poster or editorial cartoon that even mentions the RMS Lustiania (but I did find a lot of British ones, especially those targeted at getting the Irish involved). But I find scores that talk about the submarine warfare and Zimmerman Telegram.





Those are fairly typical editorial cartoons of the era. Notice the references to the sinking of ships, and the attempt by Germany to get Mexico to get involved. I could find not a single editorial cartoon that dates to within 3 months of the US entering the war that mentions the Lusitania. Nor did I find a single US propaganda poster that mentions it.