The Root Causes of Pearl Harbor Serve as Important Lessons for America Today

DB Daily Update ^ | David Blackmon

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " Obama probably would have won a third term....are you going to say he was a good president?? "

Obama followed FDR'S economic game plan, and as with FDR, it failed, again.
Obama did not follow FDR's war winning strategy, and so unlike FDR's victory in WWII, Obama lost his "war on terror", especially against ISIS.

And there's a huge difference between Obama's very marginal wins and the overwhelming majorities who elected FDR FOUR times!

[ealgeone]

eagleone quoting BJK "That [meaning 1940's economic improvements] helped get FDR reelected for a THIRD term in 1940."

Uhhh…..that was YOUR statement. I never said that.

Get the facts, which you seem to confuse a lot, straight.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " The Soviets didn't need our assistance in WW2. Did Lend Lease help them? NO doubt. "

The Soviets never admitted, certainly not to their own people, how much their war effort depended on Western aid.

All told there were many billions of dollars worth (back when a billion was real money) sent to Stalin.
Without that aid Stalin's forces would not have been so effective, resulting in more Nazi troops fighting against Americans in Western Europe.
Both Hitler and Stalin are known to have considered making a separate peace with each other after June 1941.
It never happened because with massive Western aid, Stalin figured he could defeat Hitler's forces, even if at huge cost in lives to Soviet people.

And the rate of exchange was far from one to one -- for every Soviet soldier kept in the fight by FDR's aid to Stalin, more than one American life was saved.
I say that because the typical German soldier, especially in the beginning, was better armed, better trained, more motivated and more effective than US troops.
So every German soldier kept on the Eastern Front was more than one American life saved.

eagleone: "But the Russians had won the crucial early battles before the impact of Lend Lease was felt in the USSR. "

Both Stalin and Hitler considered making separate peace with each other.
Had they done so, the world would look very different today.
But Stalin was kept in the fight at least in part by FDR's "naive" diplomacy.

[ealgeone]

I'm saying FDR was an opportunistic politician. I believe he would have sold him mom to win an election. He had no qualms in giving Eastern Europe to the Russians. Had he not died there's no telling what he'd given the Russians in the Pacific...half of Japan maybe?

He knew the New Deal had failed and saw an opportunity to boost the economy via the War.

I see again you've moved the narrative from you saying the "economy was doing just fine in 1940" to now the American people believed it was doing "just fine".

You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall.

Indeed, the true economic issue for US war planners was not too much unemployment, but rather whether the U.S. still had enough SLACK capacity to meet all the manpower requirements of a total war? Turns out we did, but just barely.

Suggest you read this insightful article.

It's titled the 90 Division Gamble.

https://history.army.mil/books/70-7_15.htm

Additionally: During World War II, 49 million men were registered, 36 million classified, and 10 million inducted.[30] 18 and 19 year olds were made liable for induction on November 13, 1942. By late 1942, the Selective Service System moved away from a national lottery to administrative selection by its more than 6,000 local boards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_II

We had more than enough draftable men for WWII.

I'm really beginning to question your knowledge of the topic.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " Wow...do you ever move the goalposts in these discussions. "

No, FRiend, my goalposts are exactly where they've always been.
But you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and frequently mistake my clear meanings for something else entirely.

So you appear to be a slow learner, but I am a patient instructor, and will continue working with you so long as I have time and it seems worthwhile, FRiend.

[ealgeone]

Both Hitler and Stalin are known to have considered making a separate peace with each other after June 1941.

Stalin's criteria for "peace" was for Germany to withdraw completely from Soviet territory. Wasn't going to happen.

Seriously....have you read anything of substance on this topic??

[ealgeone]

No, FRiend, my goalposts are exactly where they've always been. But you seem to have a serious problem with reading comprehension and frequently mistake my clear meanings for something else entirely.

Dude...you've made so many factual errors it's becoming comical.

You've wrongly attributed your comments as mine.

You think 10% and 5% are roughly the same.

I could go on.

I'm really questioning your knowledge of the topic at hand.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " Uhhh…..that was YOUR statement.
I never said that.
Get the facts, which you seem to confuse a lot, straight."

Go back and read my words again, they say: "eagleone quoting BJK".
BJK is abbreviation for BroJoeK.
Now does it make sense to you?

The first line was my words (eagleone quoting BJK:), the second your response and the words following were my response to you.

Clear?

[Vermont Lt]

I agree with your comment.

I would only follow up with a question of “Why not?”

If your plan is to “push” the US back to the West Coast how else would you do it? Where else would you attack?

Pearl Harbor checked off all of the boxes: Fleet HQ, Berthing of ALL of the fleet. Supplies and logistics.

If you are looking to hamstring the US NAVY, wouldn’t you go after their ONLY large base between the Philippines and the West Coast?

You would think that at least one or two Intelligence folks would be assigned to defending against that option—crazy as it seems.

That question ALWAYS bugged me.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: "I see again you've moved the narrative from you saying the "economy was doing just fine in 1940" to now the American people believed it was doing "just fine"."

Is there a difference?
If so, which is more important in elections, the true reality, or what people perceive it to be?

You seem to have a big, big problem with my statement that in 1940 (as opposed to say, 1937), the US economy was doing "just fine".
The fact is that economy got FDR reelected for a THIRD term, so however you wish to define "just fine" it was in fact GOOD ENOUGH for most US VOTERS.

Please explain why that is so hard for you to "get".

eagleone: "You had the wrong numbers on unemployment recall."

Nonsense, because ANY unemployment numbers for that era are correct, at some point.
The question is, exactly when did one number become incorrect and a different number correct?
The answer is different sources give us slightly different time periods, and then there is the question of public perceptions -- how did VOTERS feel about the numbers they were hearing?

So you have desperately tried to "prove" I misstated numbers, when in fact it's just your comprehension that's all balled up, FRiend.

eagleone: " We had more than enough draftable men for WWII. "

The unemployment numbers you yourself posted show that there were barely enough Americans to meet ALL the wartime requirements for both troops and production.
This matters because had Stalin made a separate peace with Hitler, requiring, let's say, another 100 US Army divisions to defeat Hitler, we didn't have them.
And that helps explain why FDR made such nicely-nicely with Stalin.

What exactly is your problem with this?

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " Stalin's criteria for "peace" was for Germany to withdraw completely from Soviet territory. Wasn't going to happen. "

Early in the war there were inquiries from Sovites to Nazis about peace terms, all of which Hitler brushed aside, after all he was winning.

Later, when the tide of battle changed there were inquiries from Nazis to Soviets about peace terms, all of which Stalin brushed aside, after all he was winning.

Had any of those inquiries born fruit, the world would be a very different place today.
That is what FDR's "naive" diplomacy helped prevent.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: " Dude...you've made so many factual errors it's becoming comical.
You've wrongly attributed your comments as mine. "

Ah... "Dude", you are simply fantasizing your own lack of reading comprehension as my "factual errors".
Worse, you then harp on these alleged "factual errors" as if they can somehow win your points for you.

They don't.

eagleone: " You think 10% and 5% are roughly the same. "

They are a lot closer to each other than to the 20% or 25% then "normal" for the Great Depression.

In 1940 American voters were so happy with those numbers they reelected FDR for a THIRD term.

[ealgeone]

The unemployment numbers you yourself posted show that there were barely enough Americans to meet ALL the wartime requirements for both troops and production.

You really need to read the 90 division article.

[ealgeone]

You seem to have a big, big problem with my statement that in 1940 (as opposed to say, 1937), the US economy was doing "just fine".

Because it wasn't doing "just fine"...unless you're a democrat.

Now you've had to bring in the election to attempt to justify your position.

Hence one of the reasons I keep saying you continue to move the goalposts.

[ealgeone]

Early in the war there were inquiries from Sovites to Nazis about peace terms, all of which Hitler brushed aside, after all he was winning.

And those inquiries involved Germany withdrawing from Soviet territory. As I noted, that wasn't going to happen.

[BroJoeK]

Vermont Ltd.: "You would think that at least one or two Intelligence folks would be assigned to defending against that option—crazy as it seems.
That question ALWAYS bugged me."

The recent movie "Midway" answered that question by having Navy Intelligence chief Layton confess to Nimitz (played by Woody Harrelson!) that he (Layton) had not been forceful enough in warning Kimmel of what might be coming.
Layton then promised to do better the next time and Nimitz accepted it.

The movie left unanswered the question of what, exactly, U.S. naval intelligence knew before December 7, 1941?
There's no evidence I know of demonstrating our guys knew either the time, the place or the nature of the coming attack.
Washington apparently only thought "something" was coming and so warned ALL commanders to be ready.

And, you might even say Pearl Harbor was ready for something, just not for the actual time, place and nature of the attack.

[Vehmgericht]

Not one American should have died in World War II. And those idiots who say we would be speaking German today are totally ignorant. The Soviets and their philosophy have always been the greater threat. They have finally achieved victory. You will see the results in the next few years.

[BroJoeK]

eagleone post #124: "We had more than enough draftable men for WWII."

eagleone post #133: "You really need to read the 90 division article."

This morning I had time to read about half of it.
It says just what I've posted -- that a collapse of the Soviet forces would increase the requirements for US armies from around 100 divisions to over 200.
It says a Soviet collapse was still considered possible as late as the end of 1942, but was discounted from 1943 onwards, as the Soviets had more & more success.

"In the Victory Program of the fall of 1941, the War Department projected an Army with a peak strength of 213 divisions.
The Victory Program was premised on a strategic policy of offensive operations in Europe and on the assumption that the Soviet Army might collapse and the United States and Great Britain might have to defeat the huge armies of Germany unaided. [2]"

The article also says US planners considered 8,200,000 US Army troops as the practical limit, equivalent to the lower 100 division figure.
The reason is that US wartime production was just as vital to victory, and, in effect, those extra 100 US divisions (beyond the 100 approved) were already at work in US factories, turning out weapons & ammunition:

"In January 1943, G-3 warned that the 8,208,000-man Army might approach the limit of manpower available..."

The only way to increase the Army above 100 divisions was to reduce wartime production.
That's what made FDR's nicey-nicey with Stalin so important.

In 1943 manpower restrictions again reduced the projected maximum Army strength from 100 to 90 divisions, which planners then considered just barely enough, and possibly not enough should some major disaster happen.

All told, about 16 million Americans served in WWII -- Army, Navy, Coast Guard, etc. -- about 11% of the population, equivalent % to Britain, but far less than the 35 million Soviets who served = 18% of their population.

Which part of this do you not yet understand?

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: "Because it [the US economy] wasn't doing "just fine"...unless you're a democrat.
Now you've had to bring in the election to attempt to justify your position.
Hence one of the reasons I keep saying you continue to move the goalposts."

But I've moved no goalposts because "just fine" was the opinion of the majority of 1940 VOTERS who reelected President Roosevelt for a THIRD term.
Almost none of those 1940 voters wanted to go to war against Nazi Germany just to further reduce their unemployment numbers, and FDR promised them, saying "I hate war!"

Seriously, what exactly is your problem with this?

[BroJoeK]

eagleone: "And those inquiries involved Germany withdrawing from Soviet territory.
As I noted, that wasn't going to happen."

Maybe...
If you google "Soviet Nazi separate peace proposals" there are many articles discussing them -- different inquiries at different times -- not clear if all are historically verified.
In each case the inquiry was brushed aside by the opposing leader.
Here is a typical discussion:

"Historians debate as to how serious these feelers were, in part because Stalin attempted to suppress all evidence of the contacts after the War.
The problem for Stalin was not all the evidence was located in the Soviet Union or involved soviet officials.
There is evidence that the Soviets initiated quite a number of contacts to negotiate a separate peace.
Evidence has come from American, British Bulgarian, Japanese, German, and Swedish sources.
The Americans and British were of course not directly involved, but learned of the contacts through Magic and Ultra.
Some historians make the plausible argument that Stalin ordered reports of the contacts leaked to the Western Allies to improve his bargaining power with them.
Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union more details have become available from Russian sources, although there is considerable debate among historians about the circumstances.
Some of the revelations if accurate are startling.

The contacts between the Soviets and NAZIs resulted in a range of high level calculations and not just in Berlin and Moscow.
Churchill's and Roosevelt's war policy have to be seen with this threat in mind.
It appears to have been a major motive for Roosevelt's Unconditional Surrender dictum issued at Casablanca (January 1943)... "

There are fewer articles on Nazi feelers to Soviets at the war's end, but the bottom line is that had ANY of the numerous assassination attempts against Hitler succeeded, Germany's new rulers would have immediately sought peace with whichever enemy might accept it.

Loss of the Soviet war effort was calculated to increase the required US Army from 100 divisions to over 200, a size not thought sustainable given huge war-production requirements.

You disagree?