R011 Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 18 hours ago, Murph said: US Generals in the Korean War seem to be a particularly uninspired breed. None really stand out other than Ridgeway and O.P. Smith as possibly being half way competent For guys with combat experience in WW2, most post war US Army higher leadership seems to have been rather underwhelming. Creighton Abrams seems to be about the best of the lot, and he was only a battalion commander during the war rather than a division, Corps, or higher. The former Army Air Force ended up with some decent, if sometimes frightening leadership. I'm thinking of people like LeMay and Powers.
Murph Posted January 2, 2023 Author Posted January 2, 2023 1 hour ago, R011 said: For guys with combat experience in WW2, most post war US Army higher leadership seems to have been rather underwhelming. Creighton Abrams seems to be about the best of the lot, and he was only a battalion commander during the war rather than a division, Corps, or higher. The former Army Air Force ended up with some decent, if sometimes frightening leadership. I'm thinking of people like LeMay and Powers. No kidding! My great uncle served under LeMay on Tinian, and he said that LeMay had big bold brass ones, and he was a hard man to work for unless you gave him 100% all the time. But he really respected the man.
Rick Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 Pardon me if this has been covered before, but if Germany did not declare war on the U.S. on Dec. 11, 1941 ... ?
Murph Posted January 2, 2023 Author Posted January 2, 2023 That is going to be the 64 dollar question, Roosevelt WANTED to go to war with Germany, because he, possibly correctly, determined that Germany was the greater threat.
17thfabn Posted January 2, 2023 Posted January 2, 2023 55 minutes ago, Rick said: Pardon me if this has been covered before, but if Germany did not declare war on the U.S. on Dec. 11, 1941 ... ? I've seen this what if before. Some insist that the U.S. would have went to war with Germany eventually. To me it would be hard to sell the U.S. public on a war with Germany. If Germany did not do any thing over the top and were intent on avoiding war with the U.S.
R011 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 50 minutes ago, 17thfabn said: I've seen this what if before. Some insist that the U.S. would have went to war with Germany eventually. To me it would be hard to sell the U.S. public on a war with Germany. If Germany did not do any thing over the top and were intent on avoiding war with the U.S. Not that hard. Opinion was moving in that direction, America was at war with a close German ally, and at some point, Hitler is extremely likely to provide a casus belli or something that could be spun as a casus belli.
17thfabn Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 29 minutes ago, R011 said: America was at war with a close German ally, and at some point, Hitler is extremely likely to provide a casus belli or something that could be spun as a casus belli. How close allies were Germany and Japan in reality? When I think about it I just see that they had agreed to spheres of influence. But how much did they in fact actually aid each other? Italy and Germany were much closer allies. Germany had came to Italy's aid in Greece and North Africa. What had they done for Japan, or had Japan done for them? I agree with a big enough provocation war with the U.S. would happen. On the other hand Germany had gone over two years in the war with out a major incident. Why would that change if the Germans made the decision they did not want a war with the U.S.?
R011 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, 17thfabn said: How close allies were Germany and Japan in reality? In reality? It didn't matter. As far as the American public were comncerned, they were as close or closer as the US and Britian. Indeed, it was widely rumoured that Pearl Harbor was at least palanned by the Germans (as obviously the racially inferior Japanese couldn't have done it themselves) As for it having been two years and the Germans not yet provoking the US public into demanding war, recall that it took three years to do so last time. How many more USN ships could the Germans sink before Ameriucans got annoyed? How many German submarines could the US sink before Hitler lost his temper? Edited January 3, 2023 by R011
17thfabn Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 1 hour ago, R011 said: As for it having been two years and the Germans not yet provoking the US public into demanding war, recall that it took three years to do so last time. How many more USN ships could the Germans sink before Ameriucans got annoyed? How many German submarines could the US sink before Hitler lost his temper? By my count the Germans had sunk one U.S.N. ship the USS Reuben James, and damaged a couple of others. Their is little doubt that President Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany. The question is could he convince congress, out side of a major provocation. How eager was the majority of the U.S. Congress to go to war with Germany in late 1941 early 1942? RO11 I understand you are Canadian, and not British. It seems like when I have seen these types of discussions on different forums the British seem to assume that U.S. entry into the war with Germany is inevitable. I tend to think that very little is inevitable. If Hitler in his twisted mind had decided that he wanted to avoid war at all cost with the U.S. he could have cut down on the chance of encounters between the USN and German Subs, the most likely flash point between the two countires.
R011 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 2 hours ago, 17thfabn said: By my count the Germans had sunk one U.S.N. ship the USS Reuben James, and damaged a couple of others. Their is little doubt that President Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany. The question is could he convince congress, out side of a major provocation. How eager was the majority of the U.S. Congress to go to war with Germany in late 1941 early 1942? RO11 I understand you are Canadian, and not British. It seems like when I have seen these types of discussions on different forums the British seem to assume that U.S. entry into the war with Germany is inevitable. I tend to think that very little is inevitable. If Hitler in his twisted mind had decided that he wanted to avoid war at all cost with the U.S. he could have cut down on the chance of encounters between the USN and German Subs, the most likely flash point between the two countires. In late 1941? More eager than in early 1941 but not there yet. In early 1942 in real life, they had been at war with Germany since 11 December 1941 so it would really depend on what happened between the historical DoW and then. A US passenger ship sunk near US waters? Another destroyer or two? A whim of Hitler or advice from his military advisors?
R011 Posted January 3, 2023 Posted January 3, 2023 SOme contempoerary polling: https://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm These polls taken in November are indicative: Quote EUROPEAN WAR Interviewing Date 11/7-12/41 Survey #252-K Question #11 It has been suggested that Congress pass a resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and Germany. Would you favor or oppose such a resolution at this time? Favor.............................. 26% Oppose.............................63 No opinion......................... 11 Quote EUROPEAN WAR Interviewing Date 11/15-20/41 Survey #253-K Question #13 Which of these two things do you think is the more important — that this country keep out of war, or that Germany be defeated? Keep out of war..................... 32% Defeat Germany..................... 68 Americans didn't want war now, but they expected it and understood defeating Germany was more important than staying out.
Murph Posted January 5, 2023 Author Posted January 5, 2023 Good point. Now what would have been the effect of removing Stillwell from China and moving him to say Italy in place of Mark Clark?
17thfabn Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 On 1/3/2023 at 1:41 AM, R011 said: Americans didn't want war now, but they expected it and understood defeating Germany was more important than staying out. If the U.S. was Machiavellian enough it could fight the Japanese first. Let the Germans and Soviets grind it out in the east. Once Japan was to the position it found it self in late 1945, with most of its merchant marine ships and navy sunk, cut off from imports, with another city being firebombed each month. The U.S. could continue their naval blockade of Japan, and continue burning down cities. Maybe capture one of the smaller home islands to improve their air coverage over Japan. At that point the U.S. could declare war on Germany and push in from the west into Europe. Germany would be have ground down pretty well by the USSR at that point. The U.S. Britain and other allies could have probably gotten a lot further East. Imagine a post World War II world were all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and much more of Eastern Europe is not under Soviet nomination. Then the U.S. could go back and deal with Japan. Of course in hind site we know that the atomic bombs would be ready by then.
FALightFighter Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 (edited) 24 minutes ago, 17thfabn said: If the U.S. was Machiavellian enough it could fight the Japanese first. Let the Germans and Soviets grind it out in the east. Once Japan was to the position it found it self in late 1945, with most of its merchant marine ships and navy sunk, cut off from imports, with another city being firebombed each month. The U.S. could continue their naval blockade of Japan, and continue burning down cities. Maybe capture one of the smaller home islands to improve their air coverage over Japan. At that point the U.S. could declare war on Germany and push in from the west into Europe. Germany would be have ground down pretty well by the USSR at that point. The U.S. Britain and other allies could have probably gotten a lot further East. Imagine a post World War II world were all of Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and much more of Eastern Europe is not under Soviet nomination. Then the U.S. could go back and deal with Japan. Of course in hind site we know that the atomic bombs would be ready by then. Without the lessons learned from North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, I think that an invasion of Europe would be an utter shitshow. And if the US focused on Japan for two years, or even a year, before beginning to attack Germany, I think the USSR will get at least as far as it did. I think that we forget how short the US involvement in WW2 really was. Midway was June, 1942, only six months after Pearl Harbor, and we landed on Guadalcanal in August, 1942, even before we landed in North Africa (November, 1942). Even if we'd sent the 6 divisions (1,3,9, & 34 Infantry, 1,2 Armor) from Torch to the Pacific, how much further/faster does that allow counterattacks to progress. Can we even get 6 mos ahead? And what does that buy in Europe? How does a delay in operations effect the outcome? The Soviets aren't going to be slowed that much, I don't think. If the US/UK wait until spring to invade North Africa (say, March 1943 instead of November 1942), does that impact German ability much? Edited to add: The US could have actually advanced further east in Europe, and chose not to because of agreements with the Soviets. So I don't think a delay would actually gain any additional eastward advances. Edited January 5, 2023 by FALightFighter Additional Thought
17thfabn Posted January 5, 2023 Posted January 5, 2023 44 minutes ago, FALightFighter said: Without the lessons learned from North Africa, Sicily, and Italy, I think that an invasion of Europe would be an utter shitshow. And if the US focused on Japan for two years, or even a year, before beginning to attack Germany, I think the USSR will get at least as far as it did. I think that we forget how short the US involvement in WW2 really was. Midway was June, 1942, only six months after Pearl Harbor, and we landed on Guadalcanal in August, 1942, even before we landed in North Africa (November, 1942). Even if we'd sent the 6 divisions (1,3,9, & 34 Infantry, 1,2 Armor) from Torch to the Pacific, how much further/faster does that allow counterattacks to progress. Can we even get 6 mos ahead? And what does that buy in Europe? How does a delay in operations effect the outcome? The Soviets aren't going to be slowed that much, I don't think. If the US/UK wait until spring to invade North Africa (say, March 1943 instead of November 1942), does that impact German ability much? Edited to add: The US could have actually advanced further east in Europe, and chose not to because of agreements with the Soviets. So I don't think a delay would actually gain any additional eastward advances. Without the lessons learned in Africa and Italy the U.S. would have been behind. But some lessons would have been learned in the campaigns in the Pacific. Especially the most important lessons of all ...... logistics. As important as the Divisions that fought in North Africa would be the logistical support that went with them and would now be going to the Pacific. Same with the U.S. aircraft in Britain and there logistical support that would now be going to the Pacific. The resources that went in to Lend lease that was going to Britain and the USSR may have been sent to the U.S. efforts against Japan. The Soviets would be slowed some. The debate is how much. The British may have won in North Africa with out the U.S. Would they have gone on to Invade Sicily and Mainland Italy with out the U.S.? With out an Invasion of Italy more German divisions are available to fight the USSR. With out the threat of an invasion of France, more German divisions are available to go east. Britain alone may be seen as a threat, but would be perceived as less of a threat than a combined Anglo American force. How many German resources were tied up fighting the strategic bombing campaign? Again the Brits were conducting a bombing campaign, but the combined UK / U.S. campaign was more of a threat, and pulled of more German resources from the east. In this alternate universe would there have been the same agreed to divisions in Europe?
Angrybk Posted January 7, 2023 Posted January 7, 2023 (edited) On 1/2/2023 at 10:41 PM, R011 said: SOme contempoerary polling: https://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm These polls taken in November are indicative: Americans didn't want war now, but they expected it and understood defeating Germany was more important than staying out. The main thing is that without the double shocks of Pearl Harbor and Germany declaring war on the US, the country would have been vastly more divided and maybe half-assed about the war. There was still a pretty sizable isolationist camp. It wasn't like we were just itching to get in the fight in Nov. 1941 (ok maybe Roosevelt). Edited January 7, 2023 by Angrybk
Murph Posted January 21, 2023 Author Posted January 21, 2023 Was it Hitler who was to blame, or was it the German General Staff and its nodding yes donkeys? I wonder how much Halder, Jodl, Keitel, etc had to do with it, and later putting the blame solely on Herr Adolph? Not that Hitler needed any help being a dumb@ss. So could it be said that Halder, Jodl and Keitel were the German "donkeys"?
RichTO90 Posted January 21, 2023 Posted January 21, 2023 2 hours ago, Murph said: Was it Hitler who was to blame, or was it the German General Staff and its nodding yes donkeys? I wonder how much Halder, Jodl, Keitel, etc had to do with it, and later putting the blame solely on Herr Adolph? Not that Hitler needed any help being a dumb@ss. So could it be said that Halder, Jodl and Keitel were the German "donkeys"? To blame for what? Declaring war on the U.S.? That was entirely Hitler's decision IIRC. He was likely acting on his intuition.
Murph Posted January 21, 2023 Author Posted January 21, 2023 No I mean the conduct of operations on the Eastern Front that regularly in the late war period allowed units to be either trapped or destroyed.
RichTO90 Posted January 22, 2023 Posted January 22, 2023 16 hours ago, Murph said: No I mean the conduct of operations on the Eastern Front that regularly in the late war period allowed units to be either trapped or destroyed. Um, there is plenty of blame to go around there. Guderian's actions for example probably should have resulted in a court martial.
Murph Posted January 22, 2023 Author Posted January 22, 2023 Could you point out the specifics on that one?
RichTO90 Posted January 22, 2023 Posted January 22, 2023 2 hours ago, Murph said: Could you point out the specifics on that one? As a corps and group commander? Constant insubordination, failure to follow orders, attacking without adequate preparation or reconnaissance, the foot-dragging, it goes on and on. As Generalinspektur der Panzertruppen? Empire building, insubordination, and an abject failure at getting troops equipped and trained, which was his primary duty. The problem is, pretty much everyone looks at it through the lens of Panzer Leader.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now