It's customary and infact required by this board I believe to give sources when you are quoting an article or web page. I'm not sure which of the sources I listed this is from but I'm pretty sure it's from one of them.
Alixanther wrote:LWD:
Please read this fragment:
Although President Roosevelt neither shared nor pandered to this viewpoint, he understood the strength of the isolationist position. With one eye on his upcoming reelection bid in 1940, he acted carefully. Some of his New Deal supporters, notably labor leaders, feared that a preparedness drive centered on a powerful War Resources Administration would undermine much recent social legislation. So, rather than begin a massive central rearmament effort, he launched a limited preparedness campaign at the start of 1939, with his emphasis on increasing the striking power of the Army Air Corps.
And this one:
Although full-scale mobilization remained politically impossible, the government started the financial transition from parsimony to abundance.
Note the "politically impossible" aspect. You cannot wage a war without a cassus belli in a country hostile to extra-continental wars.
And your point is? The US wasn't at war yet so why would you expect them to be have implemented a fully wartime economy. No one else did either that I can see.
And this one:
A calculated risk, lend-lease ultimately delayed mobilization by reducing, for example, the number of aircraft available to the U.S. Army Air Corps; the program slowed training. Later foreign munitions aid also became a problem to other Army elements.
Which doesn't speak to the US economy at all.
And this one:
At first, increases in the force for the protective mobilization plan and the procurement of the equipment to meet this expansion were made piecemeal. But the desperate need for a coherent plan became plain as the Army went through eight separate expenditure programs between August 1940 and June 1942. (...)
??? What is your point? The US started shifting to a wartime economy prior to the pointit enter the war. By 6 months after it entered all the pieces were in place. Germany certainly didn't do that well.
And this:
Troop construction ultimately mushroomed into a $7.5 billion program, but the lack of industrial facilities constituted a greater barrier to mobilization during the defense period. The Depression had created much idle but largely obsolete industrial capacity. With demand low, there had been no incentives to modernize. The government had to encourage industrial expansion before its armed forces were engaged.
6 months, huh? I wouldn't say so.
Which 6 months are you talking about to do what?
Other things:
I didn't say "more stuff" period. I said "more stuff related to their resources".
Did they? How do you define "more stuff" and how do you relate it to resources? And how is that important? And of critical importance over what time period? (The US for instance could have increased production of both tanks and aircraft in 44 and 45 but started cutting back because it realized they weren't needed)
US economy could not be shifted to war "at a push of a button" because of the political situation, your own sources said it.
Neither could the German, British, Soviet, Italian, French, etc.
I never said US couldn't have done it if they would (and probably with a 3rd Reich-style government they would).
You should have. No government can.
Your piecemeal arguing style is much more effective against "targets" who pretend they know everything. I don't.
It is an entirely reasonable style where what is said is important. You may get to the right answer using bad data and poor logic but it's not at all clear that you indeed have the right answer if that's how you did it. If you make a statement on this board that someone questions prepare to be challenged on it. If you can't back it up your better off sayings so and dropping it or better yet not saying it at all. If you are not sure of something ask a question rather than making a statement. It might help if you read the FAQs for this site. The moderators frequently make the point that these boards are not for just stating opinions.
