Our adversaries have learned this lesson, we have forgotten it.
The former Warner & Swasey machine tool works, Cleveland OH
Posted on 06/10/2015 8:11:38 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
...
First, the history. Although by 1944 the war’s outcome was never in doubt, if all efforts failed the Soviet Army would eventually have crushed the Reich by itself. Victory at that point was a national and industrial effort, and would belong to the countries with the most steel plants and masses of citizens under arms.
Midway was different. It was not a national effort but instead a battle of individuals, a rickety shootout by a few highly trained people under extremely confused conditions, and — incredibly — the underdog won. There’s no reason the United States, with a second-string commander, green troops and two-and-a-half aircraft carriers, should have been able to defeat the Japanese with their four carriers and the most experienced planes, pilots and admirals in the world.
Had Japan annihilated the rest of the Pacific Fleet carriers, it would have taken Midway. With land-based planes on Midway, it would have taken Hawaii. With Hawaii…well, who knows? Maybe San Francisco, maybe Alaska. Maybe pause in the Pacific and knock out the British in India. And then maybe peace, under a new Pax Japania.
...
In the long run, the Battle of Midway and other boldface WWII names like D-Day and the Bulge have perhaps warped America’s national memory of conflict. War in the public consciousness — the right wars, anyway — became a mostly clean duel of professionals, what we are pleased to call the “American way of war,” rather than the extended contests of national will and resources they more accurately resemble.
World War II erased every memory of the groaning exertion of the Civil War, which was something similar to what the Soviets were fighting against the Nazis.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
The author nonsensically states that Soviet victory was inevitable because of a larger population and more resources, but then disregards both those factors in asserting that Japan could have defeated the U.S.
He has a point in their somewhere, but picked a very poor analogy to wrap it around.
Your point is only partially valid as an analogy. The geographies are totally different, and the definition of victory is totally different. In other words, the author is not saying Japan could have ever beaten the US to the point of invading and occupying.....and it's pretty damned tough to drive tanks across the Pacific. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges...
Assume the scenario unfolded as described American war production would have stepped up and those resources would have been shifted to the Pacific.
There is an interesting website that allows for this situation but shows US and Japanese carrier/plane production.
Even if Midway would have been lost, we were going to swamp Japan in terms of production.
They were going to lose.
I don't agree at all. Yes, the Soviets were prepared to struggle forever, but imagine if Hitler never faced a two-front war? Or imagine that Japan, unengaged with the USA, was able to send 1 million troops into Russian the Russian Far-East, and Stalin faced a two-front war?
” Soviet Army would eventually have crushed the Reich by itself”
BS.
If we are re-writing history... if Germany only had one front (the Russian) they would have kicked Stalin’s butt. What killed the Reich was two fronts and a poorly executed winter offensive in Russia.
If "by itself" the author actually includes American technology gifts and contribution of 1/3 of the Soviet GNP... sure, maybe.
Our adversaries have learned this lesson, we have forgotten it.
The former Warner & Swasey machine tool works, Cleveland OH
People seem to forget that the Germans were desperately fighting the British (and Americans to a smaller extent) in North Africa at the time the Soviets turned the Nazis back at Stalingrad. The two front situation did NOT start on June 6th, 1944.
Correct and they had to occupy France and the low lands that takes resources.
The thinking here is that our leaders, and the country in general, came to believe that any conflict the US got involved in would inevitably lead to a decisive US victory.
The “nearness” of the US victories in WW II were forgotten. Only the results were remembered. The US won in the past. Therefore it must win in the future.
Imperial Rome suffered from that same line of thinking, and that contributed to Rome's downfall.
Doesn't the author realize that much of the industrial might supporting the Soviet war effort was based in America? I'm sure that there are others here who are far more qualified and who could enumerate all the war goods (armaments and foodstuffs) which the U.S. sent to the U.S.S.R. to be used against the Axis.
Regards,
Yep. German troops were in view of the Kremlin by December 1941. Things went so swimmingly well in the south that they also sent the larger part of their force down to occupy the oil fields and Caucasian region rather than securing Stalingrad. At the time, it was thought that Stalingrad was within days, a couple of weeks tops of being secured.
Even when it was clear that Stalingrad was lost a year or so later, Hitler refused to allow the 6th army to make a tactical withdrawal. Stalingrad was a pile of rubble at the time and of zero strategic importance. Soft Romanian troops were guarding the flanks when the Red Army counterattacked.
Yes, except for the food, clothing, steel, and weapons from the US to Russia. Midway was won by breaking Japan's military code, US ingenuity (The 'sunken' Yorktown was repaired in three days, and sent to play a vital role in the Midway battle(and then sunk 'again')), The US 'Arsenal of Democracy', skilled troops and leaders, and yes, a little bit of luck. It seems the more of the first items, the 'luckier' we got.
You, and everyone else who’s commented, are probably right in questioning the author’s assumption about a Soviet victory. His main point, however, was that Germany was fighting a slow retreat by the time of D-Day. Their expansion days were over.
Key question: Who had an atomic bomb program? Answer: The Germans.
Bingo.
If I remember my history correctly Japan’s goal was to knock out our fleet and force us to the negotiating table for a quick victory. When that didn’t happen Yamamoto and others knew they would be crushed by our industry. You could argue that Japan’s strategy was lost when they bombed Pearl Harbor while our carriers were out to sea.
The author states, "Had Japan annihilated the rest of the Pacific Fleet carriers, it would have taken Midway. With land-based planes on Midway, it would have taken Hawaii. With Hawaii…well, who knows? Maybe San Francisco, maybe Alaska."
...and it's pretty damned tough to drive tanks across the Pacific. You are trying to make a point with apples and oranges...
Its not hard to drive ships across the Pacific. Our ship building capacity dwarfed Japan's. Note these tanks that we "drove" across the Pacific.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.