Chief of Staff Choices 1939?

Discussions on all aspects of the United States of America during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Carl Schwamberger.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8627
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Chief of Staff Choices 1939?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 26 May 2021 02:49

rcocean wrote:
24 May 2021 00:31
I have no idea where you're getting the idea that "Congress" wouldn't have funded a Filipino mobilization, and I have no idea what your constant references to "America First" mean.
You may not have a useful understanding of US politics in that era.
BTW, if you have any sources for your statements & generalization I'd be glad to read them.
''The Borrowed Years' by Richard Ketchum I found useful 896 page primer on the shift of the US from Isolationism to participation in European affairs. Kleins 'A Call to Arms' is another 800+ page examination of the industrial mobilization of the US from the poverty levels of the 1930s & touches on the opposition to rearmament.

''The Warhawks' by Mark Chadwin is a brief 310 page survey of the interventionists who influenced Roosevelt & the US leadership in general. One of the important points Chadwin makes is how support of intervention or isolation cut across party lines a social/economic groups. The same thing is visible in Ketchums analysis. The divisions on this subject within the existing political & social groups created a degree of confusion that was not yet resolving in the first half of 1941 & had after effects that emerged post war.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 497
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

Re: Chief of Staff Choices 1939?

Post by rcocean » 27 May 2021 14:59

Thanks for the response. ''The Warhawks' by Mark Chadwin seems like it would be interesting.

Certainly various segments of the population felt differently about mobilization and getting into the European war prior to Pearl Harbor. But Gallup polls show the great mass of Americans (70-80%) never budged from two things (1) they were willing to give aid to England and (2) they didn't want to go to war.

The same is true of defense spending. The American public was in favor of a strong Air Force and Navy. We supposedly had the biggest and best Navy along with England, and the American public wanted to keep it that way. And we were in favor of Army that was adequate for our defense. However many people weren't so hot on a draft, thinking that volunteers if paid enough could fill out the ranks. Charles Lindberg for example wanted us to "arm to the teeth". Anyway, this is why FDR labeled lend-lease an act to defend America, and refused to ask for a declaration of war against Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor. Stimson wanted him to do that in April/May 1941 and FDR refused.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 8627
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Chief of Staff Choices 1939?

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 28 May 2021 04:04

rcocean wrote:
27 May 2021 14:59
Thanks for the response. ''The Warhawks' by Mark Chadwin seems like it would be interesting.
The Borrowed Years is the real meat. That largest thing I took away from th Warhawks was how the interventionists were distributed across political and social lines. They were not a conservative, or leftist movement.
rcocean wrote:
27 May 2021 14:59
Anyway, this is why FDR labeled lend-lease an act to defend America, and refused to ask for a declaration of war against Hitler prior to Pearl Harbor. Stimson wanted him to do that in April/May 1941 and FDR refused.
Hitler understood the intent to extend the Neutrality Zone further east and to put a US naval/airbase on Iceland. Distracted by the up coming war withe the USSR he passed on any substantial action. What would be the effect of Hitler approving a more aggressive naval action against the US in the Atlantic Some time in April through July?

Return to “USA 1919-1945”