U.S. World War II strategy - was this the right call?

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

whipassmt

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

I think if more funding and focus was sent to the Pacific theater, we would have dropped two nukes on Germany instead of Japan.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

frannkzappa

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

Squeets

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

Well, yea, we had to bail out all of our European allies. Plus, we had to rebuild much of our navy after pearl harbor. They did the right thing, obviously.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

Squeets

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

frannkzappa

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

Yes but Japan couldn't have mounted a successful invasion of the U.S. mainland (though maybe they could've eventually knocked China out of the war), whereas Germany might've been able to knock the Soviets out of the war, gain control of the Middle-East oil fields, or possibly invade Britain or Greenland.whipassmt

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with germany started first.

 

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

frannkzappa

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

1. With Europe.

2. Pacific interests aren't just the US West Coast.

I think if more funding and focus was sent to the Pacific theater, we would have dropped two nukes on Germany instead of Japan.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

Squeets

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

1. With Europe.

2. Pacific interests aren't just the US West Coast.

1... and america.

2 there were far more US interests in Europe then in Asia.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yes but Japan couldn't have mounted a successful invasion of the U.S. mainland (though maybe they could've eventually knocked China out of the war), whereas Germany might've been able to knock the Soviets out of the war, gain control of the Middle-East oil fields, or possibly invade Britain or Greenland.wolverine4262

I don't know if the Kuomintang were democrats though, they were nationalists.

I think the Chinese front was more of a minor one than a strategic one for the U.S., but it helped tie down Japanese troops and other assets that could've otherwise been used in the Pacific Theater.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

frannkzappa

1. With Europe.

2. Pacific interests aren't just the US West Coast.

1... and america.

2 there were far more US interests in Europe then in Asia.

Germany was at war in Europe since 1939... They didn't declare war on the United States until a few days after Pearl Harbor... On December 11, 1941.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

1. With Europe.

2. Pacific interests aren't just the US West Coast.

Squeets

1... and america.

2 there were far more US interests in Europe then in Asia.

Germany was at war in Europe since 1939... They didn't declare war on the United States until a few days after Pearl Harbor... On December 11, 1941.

declaration means nothing. the US were fighting Germany before japan bombed pearl harbor.

If the Germans defeated the Soviets the war would have been over. The Allies (after Pearl Harbour) couldn't defeat 20% of Germany's armed forces, how would they have coped with 100%? Not very well is my guess.Englandfc1966

Stalin had considered surrendering to Hitlers for a few fleeting moments, but was talked out of it. 

If the Germans defeated the Soviets the war would have been over. The Allies (after Pearl Harbour) couldn't defeat 20% of Germany's armed forces, how would they have coped with 100%? Not very well is my guess.Englandfc1966

In order for Germany to successfully invade Britain they would've needed naval and aerial superiority (maybe even air supremacy), if Germany did not have air superiority any invading force they tried to send across the channel would've probably been sunk from the air.

Not to mention that the U.S. would've been very difficult to invade due to its size, population, variety of terrains and climates, and distance from Europe, and the U.S. had such Industrial capability and a large amount of farm land that we and population that we could recruit and supply vast armies with relative ease, especially when all these farms and factories and population centers were out of the reach of the Axis powers ability to attack them.

Also The Third Reich and Imperial Japan were just such evil entities (look at their policies), that they couldn't have lasted. They had to have fallen.

[QUOTE="Englandfc1966"]If the Germans defeated the Soviets the war would have been over. The Allies (after Pearl Harbour) couldn't defeat 20% of Germany's armed forces, how would they have coped with 100%? Not very well is my guess.WhiteKnight77

Stalin had considered surrendering to Hitlers for a few fleeting moments, but was talked out of it.

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

frannkzappa

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

I think the basic strategy was to take down the Axis in the following order: 1. Italy (they were the weakest and the easiest to knock out of the war and doing so would deprive Germany of their main European ally) 2. Germany (the biggest threat) 3. Japan

My thoughts.

One could say WWII started with the invasion of Manchuria and then attacking further into China which resulted with the Rape of Nanking and one could say that Germany started their war with the annexation of Austria even though no shots were fired. It was made even worse when England and France let Hitler annex the Sudatenland in Czechoslovakia. 

Still, once the US entered, they did what they had to do the way they did until production could be ramped up (and people wonder why we need such a large military today, we didn't have much of one nor the industry though it had been previously kickstarted due to lend-lease) to meet the needs of a two theater war. Since we already had aircraft and vehicular construction moving and were able to get more of those vehicles out faster compared to ships, it made sense to use the Germany first doctrine.

Now, we had a few battles in the Pacific during that time, but we were really short on ships, especially with the the loss of ships at Pearl. The one good thing we had were the 4 carriers at the onset, but we needed more, as well as other ships including cargo ships which would be needed in mass compared to actual combatant ships. So we put our subs out as well as the carrier groups we had and took back a few atolls here and there as well as Midway. We almost ran out of ships again during the Solomon Islands action of Gualdalcanal, but once we won the island, we needed to keep pressure on the Japanese and Nimitz and others knew that and kept pressing for more war materiel and got it, even though we still had the Germany first doctrine in place. It would have been foolish to let the Japanese the ability to regroup for not continuing to hound them and keep taking back islands on the way to Japan.

Still, due to the size of the theater, it was going to take longer for us to beat our way across the Pacific. As to what percentage of forces needed to be allocated to each theater, I can't say, but what were used worked out just fine.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

frannkzappa

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Squeets"]

1. Japan actually attacked us and was a threat to our Pacific interests.

2. By 1941, Japan controlled most of Southeast Asia and her navy and military both outsized our own, it was only later that our forces became vastly larger.

lightleggy

1 the war with Germany started first.

2 japan never had any intention of invading America and the pearl harbor incident was rather out of the blue.

My thoughts.

One could say WWII started with the invasion of Manchuria and then attacking further into China which resulted with the Rape of Nanking and one could say that Germany started their war with the annexation of Austria even though no shots were fired. It was made even worse when England and France let Hitler annex the Sudatenland in Czechoslovakia.

Still, once the US entered, they did what they had to do the way they did until production could be ramped up (and people wonder why we need such a large military today, we didn't have much of one nor the industry though it had been previously kickstarted due to lend-lease) to meet the needs of a two theater war. Since we already had aircraft and vehicular construction moving and were able to get more of those vehicles out faster compared to ships, it made sense to use the Germany first doctrine.

Now, we had a few battles in the Pacific during that time, but we were really short on ships, especially with the the loss of ships at Pearl. The one good thing we had were the 4 carriers at the onset, but we needed more, as well as other ships including cargo ships which would be needed in mass compared to actual combatant ships. So we put our subs out as well as the carrier groups we had and took back a few atolls here and there as well as Midway. We almost ran out of ships again during the Solomon Islands action of Gualdalcanal, but once we won the island, we needed to keep pressure on the Japanese and Nimitz and others knew that and kept pressing for more war materiel and got it, even though we still had the Germany first doctrine in place. It would have been foolish to let the Japanese the ability to regroup for not continuing to hound them and keep taking back islands on the way to Japan.

Still, due to the size of the theater, it was going to take longer for us to beat our way across the Pacific. As to what percentage of forces needed to be allocated to each theater, I can't say, but what were used worked out just fine.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Stalin had considered surrendering to Hitlers for a few fleeting moments, but was talked out of it.

whipassmt

I first alluded to that fact last year in the Why did Germany lose World War 2? and What if Germany had won World War 2? threads with the John Mosier book, Deathride.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

If I remember correctly, during World War II, U.S. decision makers in the Roosevelt Administration decided during WWII to devote 20% of U.S. military resources to the Pacific front against Japan and 80% to the fight against Germany and Italy in Europe and Africa. Do you think this was the right decision?

Should the U.S. have diverted more resources to the Pacific Theater?

On the one hand, Germany seemed to be more of a strategic threat in the war and to be the most powerful Axis country (indeed, though I don't think the U.S. knew it, Germany was able to develop rocket technologies, which if done earlier could've been a serious threat). With Germany there was the risk that Germany could've perhaps defeated the Soviets and that they could've taken Egypt (gaining control of the Suez) and advanced into the Middle East gaining control of the oil fields.

Japan didn't seem capable of any major attack on the U.S., maybe some air-raids on the West Coast or air raids on Naval bases or oil fields (such as in Alaska).

00-Riddick-00

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

frannkzappa

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Are you a fvcking moron?frannkzappa

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

Which assests? If you mean U-boats, only if the U-boats were attacking US assets and Hitler expressly forbid the attacks of US warships though one was sunk. 

I would say so, With the Pacific it was a large area, but mostly ocean so you don't need to allocate that many resouces. Europe is a large part land so you need bombers and fighters to cover the bombers, tanks, a larger number of troops. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] Are you a fvcking moron?00-Riddick-00

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

yes it does. we were both militarily engaged with each other.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]Are you a fvcking moron?WhiteKnight77

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

Which assests? If you mean U-boats, only if the U-boats were attacking US assets and Hitler expressly forbid the attacks of US warships though one was sunk.

i'm talking about the US actively destroying U-boats and other German naval hardware.

Yes as it helped free up our allies to cooperatively take on Germany and minimize future US casualties.

And its really hard to say we had a majority of our forces focused on Europe (your 80 to 20 ratio) when they were two completely different wars requiring different resources.

Europe & Africa were almost completely land based theaters of war, and the Pacific primarily naval and coastal fighting.

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

Flubbbs

the germans were the bigger threat.

they were in no way "close" to the atom bomb but they were actively working on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4598955.stm

atom bomb + german rocketry skill = bad news.

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

Flubbbs

At the end of World War II, one of America's top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable

http://rense.com/general85/pats.htm

Hmm good question and a tough call. But I say we ended up with "victory" right? I know hindsight is 20/20, so I think any discussion would have to be looked at subjectively, like a person who lived in those times.

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

Flubbbs

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

Riverwolf007

At the end of World War II, one of America's top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable

http://rense.com/general85/pats.htm

Still, Stalin's actions played a part in the downfall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. 

The situation was more dire in Europe.  If the remaining European powers fell, they would have been in big trouble.  Plus, the US was aiding England even before open hostilities broke out.  Roosevelt and Churchill had a very good relationship, so that was inevitable.

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

the real enemy should of been the soviet union

Riverwolf007

At the end of World War II, one of America's top military leaders accurately assessed the shift in the balance of world power which that war had produced and foresaw the enormous danger of communist aggression against the West. Alone among U.S. leaders he warned that America should act immediately, while her supremacy was unchallengeable

http://rense.com/general85/pats.htm

The situation was more dire in Europe. If the remaining European powers fell, they would have been in big trouble. Plus, the US was aiding England even before open hostilities broke out. Roosevelt and Churchill had a very good relationship, so that was inevitable.

sonicare

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Yes but Japan couldn't have mounted a successful invasion of the U.S. mainland (though maybe they could've eventually knocked China out of the war), whereas Germany might've been able to knock the Soviets out of the war, gain control of the Middle-East oil fields, or possibly invade Britain or Greenland.wolverine4262

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1 the war with germany started first.

2 japan was a much smaller threat.

frannkzappa

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

Japan was a much smaller threat to the US and its allies. Also the Japanese army wasn't nearly as well equipped or dangerous as the Nazis were. They had the advantage of fortifications on islands, but the actual army wasn't nearly the threat the Nazis were. The Japanese navy was the real threat but the US navy and the shear size of the Pacific ocean really minimized that threat.

Also without diverting tons of supplies to the western theater, there was a very real possibility that the Soviets would have fallen and the Nazis would have gained control of the Middle Eastern and Russian oil supplies. 

The British did a damn fine job of stopping Rommel from getting to the bulk of the oil in the Middle East. If the Brits would have failed in Egypt at El Alamein, it would have been a much different war.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] Are you a fvcking moron?lordreaven

how so?

The US were actively attacking German assets before pearl harbor.

There was far more at stake in terms of US assets in Europe than in Asia.

that was one event not a continual state.

should have never been invovled in the war in th 1st place

tell that to pearl harbour and the Nazi take over of mainland Europe...