Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
My point is that a better planning would not increase the number of available U Boats which was a given .
Magenheimer in "Hitler's War" gives on 1 january 1942 a number of 91 front-line boats, of which only 55 were available for the Atlantic,and only 22 were on patrol(the others were in the harbours,going to the operation zone,leaving the operation zone).
I am also very sceptical to the claim that Drumbeat was a success:the principal aim of the U Boats was Britain, not the US,and a U Boat patrolling in the Caribeans,was not available on the Atlantic .Besides, the successes of Drumbeat did not interrupt the convoys to Britain (and their return).
Magenheimer in "Hitler's War" gives on 1 january 1942 a number of 91 front-line boats, of which only 55 were available for the Atlantic,and only 22 were on patrol(the others were in the harbours,going to the operation zone,leaving the operation zone).
I am also very sceptical to the claim that Drumbeat was a success:the principal aim of the U Boats was Britain, not the US,and a U Boat patrolling in the Caribeans,was not available on the Atlantic .Besides, the successes of Drumbeat did not interrupt the convoys to Britain (and their return).
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
And it's a point that I have quite clearly refuted.ljadw wrote:My point is that a better planning would not increase the number of available U Boats which was a given .
The list on uboat.net are boat's on patrol i.e. at sea on any given day.Magenheimer in "Hitler's War" gives on 1 january 1942 a number of 91 front-line boats, of which only 55 were available for the Atlantic,and only 22 were on patrol(the others were in the harbours,going to the operation zone,leaving the operation zone).
Whether or not it was a success would depend on what criteria one used. It's irrelevant to my point in any case which was that good pre planning could have resulted in the loss of more ships along the coast of the US and likely greater impact on the war. Probably (indeed almost assuredly) not enough to have turned things around but that's looking back on it with 20:20 hindsight. War with the US was in the works and a prudent opponent would have an op plan ready especially if they had a good idea when the war would start.I am also very sceptical to the claim that Drumbeat was a success ...
Again this is off topic.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
NO:you didn't : you disagreed,but this is not the same thing as refuting.LWD wrote:And it's a point that I have quite clearly refuted.ljadw wrote:My point is that a better planning would not increase the number of available U Boats which was a given .
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Not really, it was obvious the US wanted war and acted accordingly. The Nazis DID NOT understimate the US (America is a continent btw), just read Tooze's book, they were quite aware of their capabilities and potential, the invasion of the USSR was in no small part meant to secure the means to undertake war against the anglos, they knew they pretty much needed all of Europe to battle the US with some hope of success.ChrisDR68 wrote:It's one thing for the US to take the actions it took above and quite another to actually become an active belligerent especially on the scale it did from mid 1943-mid 1945. Hitler's faulty grand strategy and gross underestimation of US economic and military power were the underlying reasons he took the fateful step and declared war on America.JAG13 wrote:You mean after the US had declared half the Atlantic US waters, attacked German subs, banckrolled Britain and finally started giving them weapons for free?In World War Two it was much simpler. Hitler declared war in December 1941 after Pearl Harbor meaning the American government didn't have to make a decision about whether to fight Germany or not. It was made for them.
Yeah... crazy Germans thought the US hostile, go figure...
As I said, poor US, somehow there are always people around that"hate their freedom" so much that they cant resist attacking them... will the hate ever end?
Sure, Churchill would just roll over and give up, right? And hot wheels would cease to be a warmonger since he was such a loving person...A more considered and subtle strategy towards Britain (generally a defensive and containing one with minimal or no use of u-boats) and I think the US stays out of the war.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
I am also very sceptical to the claim that Drumbeat was a success ...
I agree with the critera point. John Ellis in 'Brute Force' provides data showing how in 1942 the percentage of cargo embarked to the UK and sunk went from around 5% in 1941 to over 12% in 1942. Op Drumbeat is shown as the largest contributor to this in Ellises presentation of ship tonnage sunk each quarter of 1942. Huges & Costellos 'Battle of the Atlantic' supports this in its descriptions of where the Allied ships were sunk each annual quarter. Both books also show the Allies were not yet directly winning the race between cargo ships sunk vs built during the 'Drumbeat' months. While there was improvement from the Allied leaders PoV of March 1942 the situation was still very poor.LWD wrote:Whether or not it was a success would depend on what criteria one used. It's irrelevant to my point in any case which was that good pre planning could have resulted in the loss of more ships along the coast of the US and likely greater impact on the war. Probably (indeed almost assuredly) not enough to have turned things around but that's looking back on it with 20:20 hindsight. War with the US was in the works and a prudent opponent would have an op plan ready especially if they had a good idea when the war would start.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
I disagree : Ellis is swollen-headed .
The fact is also that the mission of the U Boats was not to sink allied GRT,it was to hurt the allies where they would be hurt most ,and,this was not in the Caribbeans.Any attack on the US merchant shipping was a wast of means : every gallon of oil, torpedo,U Boat which was used to attack the navigation on the south coast of the US ,could not be used to attack the convoys going to and returning from the UK .Only these attacks could have any (decisive) impact .
The fact is also that the mission of the U Boats was not to sink allied GRT,it was to hurt the allies where they would be hurt most ,and,this was not in the Caribbeans.Any attack on the US merchant shipping was a wast of means : every gallon of oil, torpedo,U Boat which was used to attack the navigation on the south coast of the US ,could not be used to attack the convoys going to and returning from the UK .Only these attacks could have any (decisive) impact .
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Do you have a reference point to American public opinion surveys on WW2 from 1940 and 1941?LWD wrote:While obviously not on the scale of its post PH activity the US was in some areas an active "belligerent" all be it not a declared one. It was also rather obvious that the US would be entering the war at some point. Arguably Hitler decide to force it at a time he chose rather than one that the US did.
I would be interested to know when a majority of Americans went from being against the US becoming an active belligerent in the European war to a majority being in favour of such a policy.
From what I've read on the internet FDR had to pussyfoot somewhat due to his need to be in line with US public opinion despite his obvious desire to get his country actively involved in the war.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
The Gallup Polls are on the net in a number of places. Hyperwar is one of the best locations to look them up IMO, some of the others are pay sites. I think all of Opanna Pointer's post have it linked. One does have to be careful reading them though because the wording was often rather poor. For instance they may ask something to the effect "Do you want to go to war with Germany?" or "Will the US soon be at war with Germany?" when a better question would have been "Is it necessary for the US to go to war with Germany?". Very few rational people really want to go to war but many of the same may see the need.
Re: Uboat production by year
From the amazing UBoat.net.
U-boat production:
1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (238)
1943 (286)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)
So, there was significant ramping up of production, but due to lag-time from production to ocean duty, just "not in time" for Drumbeat.
U-boat production:
1935 (14)
1936 (21)
1937 (1)
1938 (9)
1939 (18)
1940 (50)
1941 (199)
1942 (238)
1943 (286)
1944 (229)
1945 (91)
So, there was significant ramping up of production, but due to lag-time from production to ocean duty, just "not in time" for Drumbeat.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Hyper War is a very hard site to navigate. However I found these very interesting Gallup poll numbers here http://67.228.115.45/showthread.php?s=8 ... 152&page=2LWD wrote:The Gallup Polls are on the net in a number of places. Hyperwar is one of the best locations to look them up IMO, some of the others are pay sites. I think all of Opanna Pointer's post have it linked. One does have to be careful reading them though because the wording was often rather poor. For instance they may ask something to the effect "Do you want to go to war with Germany?" or "Will the US soon be at war with Germany?" when a better question would have been "Is it necessary for the US to go to war with Germany?". Very few rational people really want to go to war but many of the same may see the need.
DECEMBER 30, 1940
EUROPEAN WAR
Interviewing Date 12/1-6/40
Survey #225-K Question #5
If you were asked to vote on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war or to stay out of the war?
Go in............................. 12%
Stay out.......................... 88%
Survey #226-K Question #1
Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win even at the risk of getting into the war?
Keep out......................... 40%
Help England.................... 60%
Given this is December 1940 (ie after the fall of France and the Battle Of Britain) these numbers look amazingly isolationist to me.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
From http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201941.htm
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup.pdf
it's essentially all photo copies so I can't cut and past very well but start on page (pdf page) 30.
Then the following pages 34, 38 (slight shift probably not significant), 49, 66, 69 (1st after the attack on Poland), 70-75 (in the latter note that opinions seem to be changeing), 82, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118-120, 122, 126-127, 129 (This is Sept 1940 and ~2.5 times as many think that the UK will win as compared to Germany winning), 132 (note this one the majority say helping England win is more important than styaing out of the war), 134 (They still don't want to get in the war by a ratio of 87:13 though), 141 (an even larger percentage 63:7 expect a British victory), 145 (still want to stay out of the war), 146 (first in 1941 majority think the safety of the US depends on a British victory), 149 (62:38 think helping Britain win is more important than staying out of the war), 152 (still about the same percentage won't vote to go to war though), 157 (40% risk war with Japan over the Dutch East Indies and Singapore 39% against, 21% no opinion), 162 ( March of 41 Help England vs stay out of war now stands at 67:33), 164-165 (more although not many favor voteing for war 81:19 but 82% expect the US to end up in the war), 168 (May of 41 now its 79:21 against going to war), 170-171, 177 (pro/anti war numbers holding about the same), 179, 185-186 (70% are willing to risk war with Japan to limit her power, 69:6 expect a British victory), 188 (shoot on sight popular), 189 (70:30 ehlping England more important than staying out of war), 220 (Nov 41 back to 68:32 for helping Britain)
It looks to me like the population recognised that an allied victory was in their best interest and were willing to risk war to get it. However for much of the period a British victory was expected so many didn't see the need for US intervention but over time more and more expected the US to get into the war. Guess it depends on what you call isolationist. There are more somewhat relevant pages and I think I've see others that aren't here.
Here's a link to the HTML versions by year. It may be easier to look things up there.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
Interviewing Date 12/18-23/40
Survey #226-K Question #3
Do you think our country's future safety depends on England winning this war?
Yes................................ 68%
No................................26
No opinion......................... 6
Interviewing Date 1/2-7/40
Survey #227-K Question #7
Which of these two things do you think it is more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of the war ourselves, or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?
Keep out........................... 40%
Help England...................... 60%
Enteresting tha the numbers are the same but the dates are different. Perhaps it's better to look atInterviewing Date 1/2-7/40
Survey #227-K Question #6
If you were asked to vote on the question of the United States entering the war against Germany and Italy, how would you vote — to go into the war, or to stay out of the war?
Go in.............................. 12%
Stay out............................ 88
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup.pdf
it's essentially all photo copies so I can't cut and past very well but start on page (pdf page) 30.
Then the following pages 34, 38 (slight shift probably not significant), 49, 66, 69 (1st after the attack on Poland), 70-75 (in the latter note that opinions seem to be changeing), 82, 109, 111, 113, 115, 118-120, 122, 126-127, 129 (This is Sept 1940 and ~2.5 times as many think that the UK will win as compared to Germany winning), 132 (note this one the majority say helping England win is more important than styaing out of the war), 134 (They still don't want to get in the war by a ratio of 87:13 though), 141 (an even larger percentage 63:7 expect a British victory), 145 (still want to stay out of the war), 146 (first in 1941 majority think the safety of the US depends on a British victory), 149 (62:38 think helping Britain win is more important than staying out of the war), 152 (still about the same percentage won't vote to go to war though), 157 (40% risk war with Japan over the Dutch East Indies and Singapore 39% against, 21% no opinion), 162 ( March of 41 Help England vs stay out of war now stands at 67:33), 164-165 (more although not many favor voteing for war 81:19 but 82% expect the US to end up in the war), 168 (May of 41 now its 79:21 against going to war), 170-171, 177 (pro/anti war numbers holding about the same), 179, 185-186 (70% are willing to risk war with Japan to limit her power, 69:6 expect a British victory), 188 (shoot on sight popular), 189 (70:30 ehlping England more important than staying out of war), 220 (Nov 41 back to 68:32 for helping Britain)
It looks to me like the population recognised that an allied victory was in their best interest and were willing to risk war to get it. However for much of the period a British victory was expected so many didn't see the need for US intervention but over time more and more expected the US to get into the war. Guess it depends on what you call isolationist. There are more somewhat relevant pages and I think I've see others that aren't here.
Here's a link to the HTML versions by year. It may be easier to look things up there.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Thanks for those references.
What explains the US public expecting Britain to win her war with Germany?
Germany was the more powerful country in terms of her industrial strength with a larger army and air force. She also had a bigger population by roughly 30 million people.
Britain had the more powerful navy (by a large margin) and a better geographical position enabling superior international connections.
Given all this it doesn't seem obvious to me how Britain could have defeated Germany in the year she was alone (June 1940-June 1941) when most of these surveys were conducted.
What explains the US public expecting Britain to win her war with Germany?
Germany was the more powerful country in terms of her industrial strength with a larger army and air force. She also had a bigger population by roughly 30 million people.
Britain had the more powerful navy (by a large margin) and a better geographical position enabling superior international connections.
Given all this it doesn't seem obvious to me how Britain could have defeated Germany in the year she was alone (June 1940-June 1941) when most of these surveys were conducted.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
You seem to be forgetting the Empire. No American in 1940-1941 would make that mistake. Indeed, I rather suspect they'd probably overstate its importance.ChrisDR68 wrote:Thanks for those references.
What explains the US public expecting Britain to win her war with Germany?
Germany was the more powerful country in terms of her industrial strength with a larger army and air force. She also had a bigger population by roughly 30 million people.
Cheers,
Angus
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
Did the British Empire do much of anything in practical terms to defend the British home islands from a potential German invasion?amcl wrote:You seem to be forgetting the Empire. No American in 1940-1941 would make that mistake. Indeed, I rather suspect they'd probably overstate its importance.ChrisDR68 wrote:Thanks for those references.
What explains the US public expecting Britain to win her war with Germany?
Germany was the more powerful country in terms of her industrial strength with a larger army and air force. She also had a bigger population by roughly 30 million people.
Cheers,
Angus
I would contend that it did not so American public opinion being influenced by the existence of the empire in this context is puzzling to say the least.
Re: Operation Barbarossa Launched In May 1942
These statements are not correctChrisDR68 wrote:
Germany was the more powerful country in terms of her industrial strength
She also had a bigger population by roughly 30 million people.