Odd forces/ Conflicts

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:57 am

What the US does to its allies behind their back is just as bad. It's called diplomacy. Countries don't have 'friends', they have interests.

To give an example, as late as December1st 1941, when Britain tried to co-ordinate defence in the Pacific with the US, they were denied; Britain had agreed to come to America's aid if America was attacked, but the US had made no such promise to Britain. If Japan had NOT attacked Pearl Harbour or the Philippines and concentrated on Malaya and Singapore and Indonesia (Dutch territory), there was NO guarantee the US would have got involved. Friends?

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:38 am

piersyf wrote:What the US does to its allies behind their back is just as bad. It's called diplomacy. Countries don't have 'friends', they have interests.

To give an example, as late as December1st 1941, when Britain tried to co-ordinate defence in the Pacific with the US, they were denied; Britain had agreed to come to America's aid if America was attacked, but the US had made no such promise to Britain. If Japan had NOT attacked Pearl Harbour or the Philippines and concentrated on Malaya and Singapore and Indonesia (Dutch territory), there was NO guarantee the US would have got involved. Friends?

I suppose providing US convoy escorts, before Pearl Harbor, doesn't count

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Sun Jun 15, 2014 12:12 pm

Not saying it doesn't count, saying that it was in the US interest to do so. Still not a given; plenty of US people were keen to stay out of the war, several favoured Nazi Germany (Kennedy), and certainly Admiral King was against helping the UK. It was the President making an executive decision. Doesn't negate what I posted. Not saying its bad, either, just how it is. No government is elected to put their own interests second to a 'friends', you expect your government to look after you first.

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:19 am

piersyf wrote:Not saying it doesn't count, saying that it was in the US interest to do so.

uh... why was it in the US interest?

Certainly it was in the President's interest to do so, but doesn't that fact contradict your argument?

No government is elected to put their own interests second to a 'friends', you expect your government to look after you first.

Certainly yet, apparently, the US was putting other country's interests before it's own. A 'neutral' convoying war material to a combatant would appear to be acting as an ally to one of the combatants and inviting military intervention by the other.

CG2 · Post by **CG2** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 3:03 am

The US would almost certainly have been drawn in anyway at some stage in my opinion. Imagine that the US hadn't intervened at all and Britain had fallen - I believe the British would have fought on from the rest of Empire, notably in this case, Canada (not to diminish any of our other friends), and I can't see the US putting up with Nazis submarines and V3s etc that close to home. That leaves aside considerations such as trade and public reaction once the US public found out about concentration camps.

Certainly it might well have made a very situation if the US had joined the war earlier - imagine US reinforcements based in France in 1940 or assisting in the defence of Singapore - certainly Rommel would have been 'foxed' in North Africa. Of course, Germany probably wouldn't have attacked Russia in that case......

This could lead to all sorts of additional interesting scenarios.

Finally, thank God the US did join in when it did (and thank you!).

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:54 am

CG2 wrote:The US would almost certainly have been drawn in anyway at some stage in my opinion.

I think you are correct.

I agree with piersyf that a government should put it's own citizens affairs first but often that seems not to happen.

This could lead to all sorts of additional interesting scenarios.

Finally, thank God the US did join in when it did (and thank you!).

I doubt it would have been possible earlier and FDR was pushing it with the convoy escorts. Earlier the US army was tiny as was the army air corp (soon to be the army air forces) so it would not have been possible to intervene much earlier... unless it was to swell the POW camps

The navy was the only branch large enough to fight, effectively, in late '41. That didn't seem to work out as well as expected

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Mon Jun 16, 2014 5:50 pm

I think useful to remeber a few facts and dates

Neutrality Acts. Only the 1939 one allowed selling of war material to belligerant countries (Fance and UK) o a cash and carry basis.

Lend nad lease of March 1941 allowed US ships to deliver war material.

August/September 1941 escort to convoy allowed but oly in October it was allowed the active use of the escort ships.

December 9, 1841 Germany and Italy declare war to United States.Ã¹

I think that the most important fact is this one. If Germany had not declared war, US will probably concentrate against Japan, forgetting Europe at least for the moment.

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:20 am

TAMMY wrote:I think useful to remeber a few facts and dates

Neutrality Acts. Only the 1939 one allowed selling of war material to belligerant countries (Fance and UK) o a cash and carry basis.

Lend nad lease of March 1941 allowed US ships to deliver war material.

August/September 1941 escort to convoy allowed but oly in October it was allowed the active use of the escort ships.

December 9, 1841 Germany and Italy declare war to United States.Ã¹

I think that the most important fact is this one. If Germany had not declared war, US will probably concentrate against Japan, forgetting Europe at least for the moment.

April saw the first, inconclusive, combat between the USN and the DKM and then again in August before Ruben James was sunk in October.

But I believe you are correct. Without a German declaration of war Roosevelt would have been forced to concentrate on Japan. He would have continued to support the UK but, absence the declaration, with less emphasis.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:14 am

For what I know the official engagement of the NAVY was anounced by Roosevelt on 11 September 1941 when he ordered the U.S. Navy to attack German and Italian war vessels in the "waters which we deem necessary for our defense".

Before that date the US escort could (or should) only react to attack by German submarines but could not chase them freely

And on November 17, 1941 itwas allowed to US merchants to be armed and to carry any type of cargo.

These dates simply show the slow modification of the official neutrali posture of the United States.

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 3:53 am

The US did gain from providing equipment to the UK (so called 'arsenal of democracy'). The UK's debt (financial) from aid was the only debt the US did not forgive, and the UK paid back every cent, although the US forgave debt to Germany and Japan, their enemies. Why? because it was politically expedient to do both. Churchill drew up the Atlantic Charter, but Roosevelt wanted a clause added that guaranteed market access to Commonwealth countries for US businesses. Essentially, dismantling the British Empire was a condition of US aid (even before Germany declared war and brought the US in). This despite the US having a colony of its own (Philippines).
Why did the US support China over Japan? Japan was more of a democracy than China was... it was because China was a bigger market (worth more in trade terms) and because Japan was getting imperialist ideas (that threatened China).

Mk 1 · Post by **Mk 1** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:32 am

Roosevelt anticipated a world war, and set up a joint commission to develop plans for US participation in that war in 1940. Remember, this was before the existence of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff ... a day when the Navy Department (Navy and Marines) was separate from the War Department (Army and Army Air Corps), with each having their own hierarchy, planning, and development/purchasing. It was an impressive for-sight to bring this planning together at all, much less doing so more than a year and a half BEFORE the US entered the fight. The Germans, in comparison, did not take this step until late 1942, three years AFTER they entered the fight.

The US plans laid out general expectations for the course of conflict, identifying multiple scenarios for how the war might develop and highlighting potential threats to the US, as well as articulating strategic priorities for development/production of new weapons, force structures, and overall strategy for the conduct of the war.

It is useful to bear in mind that at that time, the US Army was smaller than the Army of Portugal.

We speak of the US as the "arsenal of democracy", as if that were a foregone conclusion. Let us recall that the US Expeditionary Force in WW1 was equipped with French-built airplanes, British helmets, French light tanks, British medium tanks, French artillery, and mostly British rifles.

When the French purchasing commission came to the US in late 1939 with a request to buy 500 medium tanks, they were approaching a country that had built about 20 medium tanks in the prior 20 years, with a peak production rate of 4 tanks in any one year, none of which were good enough to be considered combat-worthy by the French!

The summer of 1941 version of the plans (which I have, and have partly read, although at many hundreds of pages not completely read and comprehended) anticipated the fall of the Soviet Union by mid-1942. It was anticipated that it would take 2 years or more for Germany to digest and mobilize the combined resources of the territory, manpower and industries of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, with Germany then becoming over-master of the combined resources of what was, at that time, the entire rest of the industrialized world (outside of the US and Japan). By 1944/45 Germany was expected to become an existential threat to the US.

Japan, on the other hand, had an economy that was smaller than France's, but with almost no natural resources. It was overwhelmingly engaged in China, which had manpower but almost no industry. Within this context Japan was seen as a nuisance, but not an existential threat.

It was hoped that the UK would be able to avoid invasion, but while highly desirable it was not seen as assured that the UK would be able to stay in the fight or make a significant contribution. However it was viewed as critical to US interests to keep the UK and the Soviet Union in the fight as long as possible without providing too much in the way of resources that might weaken the US or aid Germany in the case of their fall, in order to allow the US the time to create the forces needed to face a hostile combined Eur-Asia: a multi-million man Army created from nothing, a Navy and Merchant Marine that could support a multi-million man force in combat on the other side of the world (never achieved before or since), and an Air Force that could destroy key industries with or without bases in the same hemisphere as their targets (the B29, B32 and B36 programs).

With that in mind as the US administration's model of national self-interest, it is not at all difficult to see why the administration stepped right up to the limits of neutrality, and even beyond, to provide support for the UK and the Soviet Union as far as could be achieved without actually drawing a declaration of war from Germany, or why the US Navy and Coast Guard were ordered to take progressively more active roles in protecting shipping to the UK (and the Soviet Union). These steps were seen as critical to the protection of US national interests, not only in some abstract issues of influence or image, but in the very concrete interest of national survival.

dragon6 · Post by **dragon6** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:10 am

piersyf wrote:Why did the US support China over Japan? Japan was more of a democracy than China was... it was because China was a bigger market (worth more in trade terms) and because Japan was getting imperialist ideas (that threatened China).

Sorry, Japan was a bigger market, China was poor. So why? The reason was China had lots of American missionaries in China doing "God's Work" and China received a lot of good press because of this in the '20s and '30s. google Pearl S Buck or Herbert Hoover president of the USA

Also maybe because Japan kept stomping the living h*ll out of China and we like underdogs.

That's also why China has a seat on the Security Council. It was stupid but China was looked on as good 'un by Roosevelt.

The UK's debt (financial) from aid was the only debt the US did not forgive, and the UK paid back every cent

Would you have wanted Britain to come, hat in hand, "excuse me guvnor, but wodja forgive my debt?" and knuckle it's forehead? The UK was an equal, not a client.

This despite the US having a colony of its own (Philippines).

The Philippines was set for independence in 1946 before WW2 occurred. When the war came the US wanted to postpone Philippine Independence but the Philippine government insisted the prewar treaty be ratified and so it was.

Essentially, dismantling the British Empire was a condition of US aid (even before Germany declared war and brought the US in).

Well... uh, if you say so

piersyf · Post by **piersyf** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:36 am

I didn't say so, Dragon6, I was quoting. Read "The Struggle for Europe" by Chester Wilmot, (pp 633-634, 637-639). Goes into the cables and conferences pretty well. Wilmot's book is considered one of the best, least biased books on the politics of WW2. Churchill was furious at Roosevelt, but was powerless to do otherwise. As Mk1 said, the US acted in its own self interest (and self protection is a pretty strong self interest). I say again, this behaviour isn't bad, it's what is expected. All governments do it. I'm not 'Yank bashing' here, I just find it tedious when some people make claims of "America can do no wrong" (and I'm not aiming that at anyone on this forum... I like this forum because we can actually have these conversations, to a point).

We've gone WAY OT here though...

DRPgeneral · Post by **DRPgeneral** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:59 am

Now there might be cooperation between US and Iran to beat ISIS back to syria. What do you guys think?

Severaral questions

Is Iraq divided by kurds and the other 2 main groups?

Will Iran deploy troops in the region?

What are the numbers of ISIS?

CG2 · Post by **CG2** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:19 am

I did notice on the news that ISIS had a long column of what looked like brand new identical Toyota pickups (perhaps a word with Toyota's sales team might be appropriate) and they also seem to have captured (had donated?) a large amount of Iraqi army equipment. This could be an unusual modern scenario with US equipment on both sides - this would really show up the value of training. A US/Iranian joint command is also something people would have bet heavily against only a few years ago.

It also looks like the Syrian situation would have to be resolved to defeat ISIS as they are strong there too. Then the US would have to stop Iran filling the vacuum....

I'm also wondering if anyone has set up any rules for a cyber warfare game - the money behind these forces is clearly not coming from the countries in which they are based and covertly cutting off the funding has got to be a new part of wargaming that bears investigation.