Personalities & Politics of WW2
- Thread starter pardus
- Start date
Well the first to come to mind is Harry Hopkins. Chief apostle of the New Deal and the go between for FDR & Churchill He was the consummate political adviser and inner circle confidant. I don't think his input can be understated.
Second, but not in order of importance, would be Sumner Welles, sent to Europe by FDR to gather as much information as possible before Europe turned to custard. The preamble to the trip was interesting. FDR wrote personal longhand introductions to Mussolini, Chamberlain & Dallier, the president of France. He did not write a reference for Hitler, nor did the itinerary include Moscow. Another point was that the State Dept. was conciliatory and wanted compromise for peace but FDR was of a different persuasion and wasn't interested in appeasement. So with several noses out of joint Welles was sent to Europe.
Second, but not in order of importance, would be Sumner Welles, sent to Europe by FDR to gather as much information as possible before Europe turned to custard. The preamble to the trip was interesting. FDR wrote personal longhand introductions to Mussolini, Chamberlain & Dallier, the president of France. He did not write a reference for Hitler, nor did the itinerary include Moscow. Another point was that the State Dept. was conciliatory and wanted compromise for peace but FDR was of a different persuasion and wasn't interested in appeasement. So with several noses out of joint Welles was sent to Europe.
Last edited:
I think Churchill was the best head of state in that war, hands down.
The French saga is an utter trainwreck.
There was a great deal of mistrust between the higher echelons of US and UK military leadership. GEN Marshall and his UK counterparts really didn't get along. Eisenhower's ability to bridge the political gaps During OP TORCH is what led him to further command.
I don't think Hap Arnold receives enough credit.
Stalin..loved or hated by the allies, the one thing everyone could agree upon: The war was won because of the East. Russia's tolerance for high casualties and subsequent ability to tie down most of the Wehrmacht ensued the West could defeat Germany. Without a war in the East, OVERLORD would never work. Now, our appeasement of Stalin (and he cited those casualties at Yalta as justification for his "share" of Germany. He no no intention of returning eastern Europe to its former "owners") led to the Cold War, but pulling up at the Elbe and allowing them to fight for Berlin saved tens of thousands of Allied lived. Right or wrong? Hard call to make.
The military won that war, but what is overlooked is how FDR reigned it in at times. We'd have self-destructed if given the chance and either by accident or design, FDR made made decisions which saved the US in that war.
As an aside, I have to have to laugh at the english in one respect: they wanted the Med secured to protect India (can't blame them), but were pissed at any attempt by the US to fight a war in the Pacific. Now, both sides agreed that Europe would come first, so I can understand any justification there. What the English failed to grasp was that the American people were less interested in Europe and more interested in repaying the Japanese. We agreed on "Europe first" to keep the UK interested and happy. We needed its bases and cooperation, but given our druthers we'd have gone after the Japanese first.
The French saga is an utter trainwreck.
There was a great deal of mistrust between the higher echelons of US and UK military leadership. GEN Marshall and his UK counterparts really didn't get along. Eisenhower's ability to bridge the political gaps During OP TORCH is what led him to further command.
I don't think Hap Arnold receives enough credit.
Stalin..loved or hated by the allies, the one thing everyone could agree upon: The war was won because of the East. Russia's tolerance for high casualties and subsequent ability to tie down most of the Wehrmacht ensued the West could defeat Germany. Without a war in the East, OVERLORD would never work. Now, our appeasement of Stalin (and he cited those casualties at Yalta as justification for his "share" of Germany. He no no intention of returning eastern Europe to its former "owners") led to the Cold War, but pulling up at the Elbe and allowing them to fight for Berlin saved tens of thousands of Allied lived. Right or wrong? Hard call to make.
The military won that war, but what is overlooked is how FDR reigned it in at times. We'd have self-destructed if given the chance and either by accident or design, FDR made made decisions which saved the US in that war.
As an aside, I have to have to laugh at the english in one respect: they wanted the Med secured to protect India (can't blame them), but were pissed at any attempt by the US to fight a war in the Pacific. Now, both sides agreed that Europe would come first, so I can understand any justification there. What the English failed to grasp was that the American people were less interested in Europe and more interested in repaying the Japanese. We agreed on "Europe first" to keep the UK interested and happy. We needed its bases and cooperation, but given our druthers we'd have gone after the Japanese first.
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
I have to agree with Free, Europe was the training ground for deployment and us of our military in WW II. The stage was set in Europe. The blunders of Hitler lost the war for the German Military. I believe Hitler would have been defeated in the long run, but the advance on Russia was so poorly timed and conducted. Stalin's push west was unstopable. No amount of diplomacy at Yalta would have called it of; or blunted Stalin. Even if FDR was at his best, he could not have talked Stalin out of what happened. That said, FDR's health while @ Yalta is more debate fodder than anything else.
I have to agree that FDR's decisions were sound. His decisions regarding what military leaders were also spot on, in the end. The placement of key military advisors and leaders was also war winning. Not so much so for the Brits. Montgomery, Patton's nemises, was probably a good field commander. He just made too many blunders in Africa, and with Market Garden, to retain the position he had. Ike was not going to sack Monty, and was stuck with him to the end. In that end, I think the Brits finally figured out Montgomery's worth; try to find his statue in London.
The war in Europe, as mentioned above, trained us to use our military with great results. I agree that Japan was seen by the US as Stalin's Germany. Japan was going to pay for Pearl Harbor, it was only a matter of time. It would be interesting to know FDR's plan for employing the Atomic Bomb.
I have to agree that FDR's decisions were sound. His decisions regarding what military leaders were also spot on, in the end. The placement of key military advisors and leaders was also war winning. Not so much so for the Brits. Montgomery, Patton's nemises, was probably a good field commander. He just made too many blunders in Africa, and with Market Garden, to retain the position he had. Ike was not going to sack Monty, and was stuck with him to the end. In that end, I think the Brits finally figured out Montgomery's worth; try to find his statue in London.
The war in Europe, as mentioned above, trained us to use our military with great results. I agree that Japan was seen by the US as Stalin's Germany. Japan was going to pay for Pearl Harbor, it was only a matter of time. It would be interesting to know FDR's plan for employing the Atomic Bomb.
Hitlers war effort was hampered by not employing women as daft as that sounds. Rosie the Riveter and the women who toiled away in the armament factories on both sides of the Atlantic really did make a difference, he preferred them on the home front being nice house fraus. He wasn't much of a diplomat either. Having only visited Paris briefly when it was occupied he didn't venture any further. Internationally, not much either, no real deal with Japan, an erstwhile Allie.
As for Pearl Harbour, it's pretty much a given that the powers that be knew the attack was on. FDR needed an excuse to come into the war but not look like an aggressor. The carriers were out to sea, which were the crux of the Pacific force. The raiders even missed the fuel depot. If those two were casualties, the result would have been far worse.
As for Pearl Harbour, it's pretty much a given that the powers that be knew the attack was on. FDR needed an excuse to come into the war but not look like an aggressor. The carriers were out to sea, which were the crux of the Pacific force. The raiders even missed the fuel depot. If those two were casualties, the result would have been far worse.
Popov supposedly warned Hoover about it but he took no notice. Whether this was deliberate or was because of a distrust of double agents it's hard to tell.
No, it was deliberate.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,534
I find it a stunning oversight that the Japs didn't get the carriers and the fuel depot. Maybe they had a short window to attack and had to go regardless, but really without hitting the carriers it was a waste of time and effort. In fact the only two worthwhile targets were the carriers and fuel depot.
US carriers on 07DEC41:
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htm
(Props to the Navy for "Carrioer Locations" as the Page Title)
Anyway, only 3 were in the Pacific with two at sea ferrying a/c and one in refit. I'm skeptical of a grand conspiracy allowing the Japanese to atack Pearl Harbor. I tend to think the US thought they would attack an outlying island chain or even the Philippines. It obviously knew that war was coming because it was fortifying the islands (which was forbidden under...a 1924 naval treaty? Something like that), but I don't think anyone expected 6 Japanese fleet carriers (ALL of them, no reserve), 2 BB's, 2 CA's, 11 escorts (CL and DD's), and 7 supply ships. The Japanese basically committed their entire Navy to the attack.
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/japan.htm
I think we knew it was coming, but we didn't believe the blow would be at Pearl...and certainly not with the bulk of the Japanese fleet.
Two factor ya'll are overlooking are the sub fleet and the repair facilities. These two would contribute far more to the war effort than the sunken BB's. The Japanese basically figured that it would destroy the fleet at Pearl and anything left over would be destroyed when the US went to the aid of the Philippines.
A bit of a read (26 pages) but very enlightening document: Of note is page 23 and "Plan Dog" (Plan D) which called for aiding England which Stark viewed as vital to the war effort while keeping Japan in check. Ultimately the US used a combination of Plan ORANGE and Stark's Plan Dog.
First page: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box4/a48b01.html
23: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box4/a48b23.html
A bit more on Stark and that an attack against the PI was expected, not Pearl Harbor:
http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Stark__Harold.html
Cheers!
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-9.htm
(Props to the Navy for "Carrioer Locations" as the Page Title)
Anyway, only 3 were in the Pacific with two at sea ferrying a/c and one in refit. I'm skeptical of a grand conspiracy allowing the Japanese to atack Pearl Harbor. I tend to think the US thought they would attack an outlying island chain or even the Philippines. It obviously knew that war was coming because it was fortifying the islands (which was forbidden under...a 1924 naval treaty? Something like that), but I don't think anyone expected 6 Japanese fleet carriers (ALL of them, no reserve), 2 BB's, 2 CA's, 11 escorts (CL and DD's), and 7 supply ships. The Japanese basically committed their entire Navy to the attack.
http://www.navsource.org/Naval/japan.htm
I think we knew it was coming, but we didn't believe the blow would be at Pearl...and certainly not with the bulk of the Japanese fleet.
Two factor ya'll are overlooking are the sub fleet and the repair facilities. These two would contribute far more to the war effort than the sunken BB's. The Japanese basically figured that it would destroy the fleet at Pearl and anything left over would be destroyed when the US went to the aid of the Philippines.
A bit of a read (26 pages) but very enlightening document: Of note is page 23 and "Plan Dog" (Plan D) which called for aiding England which Stark viewed as vital to the war effort while keeping Japan in check. Ultimately the US used a combination of Plan ORANGE and Stark's Plan Dog.
First page: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box4/a48b01.html
23: http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box4/a48b23.html
A bit more on Stark and that an attack against the PI was expected, not Pearl Harbor:
http://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/Stark__Harold.html
Cheers!
Red Flag 1
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 7,580
How true! The very weapon the Japanese used to destroy Pearl Harbor, they missed destroying; the flat top. In the end, the flat tops took out the Japanese Navy. How ironic.
Ta mate.
