After the U.S. was attacked they agreed with the British and the other allies that Nazi Germany was the greater military threat so the U.S devoted most of their factory output and resources to fighting against the Germans and their fight against the Japanese was secondary. The Japanese were outclassed at Midway and from then on a U.S victory was inevitable. Kind of like when the Asians participate in international sports competitions today.

HItler deviated from his time table to go to war in 1939. Hitler was planning to make his move in 1942. I believe that he did so because he was ill. He probably was diagnosed with Parkinsonss diease, which was fatal. Hitler was known to be concerned with his health and said that if the Third Reich was going to accomplish the goals he set out he would have to be the one to do it. Hitler knew fully well the risk of a 2 front war from his experience on WW1. This is backed up by the signing of the German/Soviet Nonaggression pact in 1939, where he cleared the path to go to war with the West while protecting the east.. When it became obvious that he couldn't sink GB with bombs he was forced to turn to what he considered to be his real enemy the Communists and Libenstrum, because he knew his time was limited.

Hitlers knew from early 1943 that the war was lost and it was only a matter of time. So his strategy was one of delay as long as you could..keep the enemy as far away from Berlin for as long as you can, no matter what the expense in manpower and material. He made a complaint once to??? that all the frontline Generals wanted to take him aside and tell him the war is lost, and that it depressed him to hear of such talk. Hitler knew that the Allies would not allow him to stay in power nor deal so kindly with him if he surrendered, once the Holocost became public. So what did he really have to lose by fighting it out to the bitter end.

Germany was never a military threat of any kind to America, anyone saying that they were is no more than a propagandist.

Hitler had to send to troops to places like Greece to save the Italians butts and that delayed his attack on the USSR by months which resulted in German troops getting bogged down during the Russian winter.

I believe that Hitler declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941.

"I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization...... Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

Churchill had it right.

Fastpat, some see our obligations to others extending beyond our own borders. You do not. That is your right. The irony is that you are only free to hold such views because of the very actions you so vehmently oppose.

The propaganda of a fat old sociofascist, how sweet. Britain brought it on themselves with their demands at the end of World War One, France as well. America had no business participating in either war.

Quote:

Fastpat, some see our obligations to others extending beyond our own borders. You do not. That is your right.

Yes, it is my right, but "obligations to others extending beyond our own borders" is not your right. You have no right to demand tax funded, worldwide military adventurism for "the good of others" no matter who they are. It is socialist clap-trap that has no place in America. Europe and Asia have a long, bloody history of such bad ideas, America was structured to never have those problematic activities. That America has been turned into a "european-lite" sort of country must be reversed, the sooner, the better.

Quote:

The irony is that you are only free to hold such views because of the very actions you so vehmently oppose.

That is more statist mythology. Alchemy at work. You cannot turn the "warfare/welfare" lead into patriotic gold because the truth is knowable, and many know it. The US government hasn't defended America since the War of 1812, an easily proveable fact.

Learn and live with that.

Shhh...don't tell fastpaste that. It will ruin his schtick.

Funny he mentions alchemy...wasting ones life in search of an unobtainable goal...something with which he(and other LOSers) are quite familiar.

uh...

Isn't that what the United States did in WWII -- successfully?

Curious, but more people died on 9/11 then died at Pearl Harbor, and I think that it's safe to say that the overwhelming majority of those who died on 9/11 were civilians, once again -- unlike Pearl Harbor.

As far as Roosevelt going after the Germans first and then the Japanese -- that was simply a case of (forgive me for using this word again!) -- strategy. Roosevelt was faced with two threats (and then Italy too!) in two different directions. Rather then try to do two jobs at once, he made the very valid decision to complete one job before applying the nation's resources to the second. This is a successful strategy for defeating enemies on two fronts.

1st Job: Defeat the Germans. Why?
1) Multiple strong allies (UK, Russia) to help with the job.
2) Those allies were at greater peril of losing to Germany then to Japan. If they were to lose, then the US would be largely alone.
3) Logistically, there were fewer issues given that it was largely a land based campaign, and there were land based allies near by from which to base operations.
4) There was a weaker enemy -- the Vichy French -- against whom the US Armed forces could get their feet wet. So the first offensive in the "European" theater took place in Morocco -- for the very simple reason that it was an "Enemy (occupied country)" who we could defeat. Note one of the primary rules of strategy -- attack your enemy's weakest point. That was Morocco. (BTW, as far as the invincibility of the US, keep in mind that the US almost botched the Morocco offensive until they put Patton in charge).

2nd Job: Defeat the Japanese.
1) Only after Germany was defeated did Russia declare war on Japan, and that was basically just a land grab. Other then that, the only significant allies that the US could depend on in the Pacific were Canada, Australia and NZ. All good allies, but unfortunately not on the same level as UK and Russia when it comes to military resources.
2) The vast distances across the Pacific meant that Japan was only a limited threat to the US in immediate terms. Japan just did not have the manpower and resources to control the Pacific and threaten the US at the same time.

So Roosevelt did the prudent thing and took care of first things first. Sun Tzu anyone?

In 1942 alone, 7.6 million tons of merchant shipping was destroyed off of the east coast. No threat?

Don't mention the U-boats which were closing in off the East Coast either. Some of which are currently resting on the bottom in US waters.

I was just there.

jluetjen, you are very perceptive. The United States (and Allies) did fight 2 fronts during WWII, but not at the same time. As you wrote, Germany was our first target, then Japan. I am very impressed with your reference to Sun Tzu. I am a study of tactical, strategic warfare and have read as many books as I can get my hands on regarding the art of warfare.

Do you have any recommendations regarding the subject?

Thanks, David

I'm just a salesman with no military experience, and interests rangeing from daily life in ancient civilizations to Count Basie, 911's and competitive gaming theory. My advice would be to read as much as you can about as many varied topics as you can. Trust me, you'll be able to find tactical and strategic insights any time you learn about clever people and how they deal with problems and challenges -- both long ago and today.

Regarding Strategy and Tactics, there are some some secret texts that they have been trying to cover-up and hide from people for years because of their dangerous nature.**

* Sun Tzu -- The Art of War -- Translated and with an introduction by Samuel B. Griffith.
* Lao Tzu and Taoism (Kind of Taoism for non-Taoists) -- Kaltenmark
* The Wiles of War (36 Military Strategies from Ancient China) -- Compiled and translated by Sun Haichen
* The Prince -- By Niccolo' Machiavelli

** OK, I had to put the conspieracy thing in just to spice up these dusty old stand-bys. Let's be honest, there really isn't anything new under the sun.

I disagree slightly. The Allies did fight on two fronts, and they did do it at the same time. They just didn't do it with the same effort in each place. But the US did have significant resources allocated to the Pacific theater. The first victories took place in the Pacific. But sinking some air-craft carriers, or capturing a tiny spec of an island in the Pacific require a different level of resource commitement from invading Europe, and also result in a different level of strategic progress.

The Pacific was won or lost one island or ship at a time. Europe would be won or lost by who successfully invaded the other's landmass. So in that regard, Europe was an all-or-nothing contest, while the Pacific was more like a basketball game.

Tell that to the Marines who hit the beaches at Guadacanal, Tarawa and Iwo Jima....

FDR and Churchill decided in December of 1941 that Germany should be defeated first simply because Germany had the GREATER Industrial capacity.

My apologies to anyone for that remark. Basketball is a game of 2 and 3 point scores that total up to a winner often making more the 100. Each score is a real battle in and of itself, but rarely does any one score (except for the last one) make or break the game.

It was not my intention to belittle any contribution to the war efforts. They were all important. My point was to merely to point out that the geography of the struggle in the Pacific posed different strategic risks and opportunities from the struggle in Europe and Africa.

Then how do U explain Midway....the sinking of Japans 4 Carriers and the equally important loss of Aircrew effectivily ended Japans Offensive capabilty in the Pacific and sealed her fate. Yet the war would go on for over 3 more years.

Exactly what did Germany's declaration mean as far as strategic requirements for America's security?

Nothing.

The fact is that Roosevelt, a long-time anglophile, wanted to enter the war in europe to advance US corporate interests, like he had done during World War One as Under-secretary of the Navy, only much bigger.

Roosevelt had already commited many acts of war against Germany in attempts to bait them into war without success.

"America is overstretching our capabilities to sustain mass military operations in the world. That has nothing to do with conservative or liberal."

An argument could be made that we are 'overstretching" our military these days. But that's different from overstetching America's potential military capabilites. We haven't even scratched the surface of our capabilites. Remember, we're fighting with a relatively small volunteer military (a VERY small fraction of our fighting-age population). If we had the public will, there's nobody who can match US resources, technology and military might. The problem, as John pointed out, is that the American populace today seems unphased by even attacks on US soil!! We are so polarized and political these days, I have serious doubts whether we could ever fight a war like WWII again, even if we were nuked.