Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Discussions on the economic history of the nations taking part in WW2, from the recovery after the depression until the economy at war.
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Gorque » 21 Jan 2020 16:28

I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by OpanaPointer » 21 Jan 2020 16:43

Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
You have to calculate the effect of Senator Gerald P. Nye's "war profiteer" investigation. His committee sought to prove the US got into WWI because munitions makers had fronted a huge amount of arms to the warring parties and would have taken a great loss if the Allies hadn't won. This caused them, according to Nye, to get the US into the war. In Sept. 1941 he opened another investigation into whether or not the British were in cahoots with "Jewish and other" concerns to get the US into the current war. He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time. THe investigation sputtered to a halt when it was discovered that none of the committee members had seen ANY of the movies that Nye claimed supported his view. They adjourned, to reconvene in January of 1941. (Oddly, that never happened.)
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2828
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2020 16:55

OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
You have to calculate the effect of Senator Gerald P. Nye's "war profiteer" investigation. His committee sought to prove the US got into WWI because munitions makers had fronted a huge amount of arms to the warring parties and would have taken a great loss if the Allies hadn't won. This caused them, according to Nye, to get the US into the war. In Sept. 1941 he opened another investigation into whether or not the British were in cahoots with "Jewish and other" concerns to get the US into the current war. He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time. THe investigation sputtered to a halt when it was discovered that none of the committee members had seen ANY of the movies that Nye claimed supported his view. They adjourned, to reconvene in January of 1941. (Oddly, that never happened.)
Well, the committee did eventually manage to get the Miranda brothers and some of their cohorts indicted, convicted, and jailed, which apparently had zero effect on the supposedly nefarious activities of the American Armaments Corporation and Brewster Aircraft. Too bad. :lol:
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 2828
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2020 16:59

OpanaPointer wrote:
29 Oct 2019 18:04
Not one in a hundred will plow through this. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/re ... index.html
Nonsense, I've plowed it many times...and harrowed a bit of it.

Seriously though, the U.S. commitment to "total" war remained tepid at best compared to that by the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Great Britain. Lower level of long-term mobilization, especially in terms of manpower (not even counting the large-scale waste of manpower due to racial policies), compared to the other major combatants.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by OpanaPointer » 21 Jan 2020 17:56

Richard Anderson wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:59
OpanaPointer wrote:
29 Oct 2019 18:04
Not one in a hundred will plow through this. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/re ... index.html
Nonsense, I've plowed it many times...and harrowed a bit of it.

Seriously though, the U.S. commitment to "total" war remained tepid at best compared to that by the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Great Britain. Lower level of long-term mobilization, especially in terms of manpower (not even counting the large-scale waste of manpower due to racial policies), compared to the other major combatants.
The US decided to limit their Army division to 90, in order to give them the most gear they could handle. But the question would be did we actually need to go to totaler krieg?
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Gorque » 21 Jan 2020 18:39

OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty. :D

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Gorque » 21 Jan 2020 18:42

Richard Anderson wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:55
OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
You have to calculate the effect of Senator Gerald P. Nye's "war profiteer" investigation. His committee sought to prove the US got into WWI because munitions makers had fronted a huge amount of arms to the warring parties and would have taken a great loss if the Allies hadn't won. This caused them, according to Nye, to get the US into the war. In Sept. 1941 he opened another investigation into whether or not the British were in cahoots with "Jewish and other" concerns to get the US into the current war. He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time. THe investigation sputtered to a halt when it was discovered that none of the committee members had seen ANY of the movies that Nye claimed supported his view. They adjourned, to reconvene in January of 1941. (Oddly, that never happened.)
Well, the committee did eventually manage to get the Miranda brothers and some of their cohorts indicted, convicted, and jailed, which apparently had zero effect on the supposedly nefarious activities of the American Armaments Corporation and Brewster Aircraft. Too bad. :lol:

This has piqued my interest. Time to check out the newspaper archives. :thumbsup:

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by OpanaPointer » 21 Jan 2020 18:44

Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 18:39
OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty. :D
Nye wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box, but he was a good goat for this kind of thing. If it worked his handlers would get the credit, if it fail it was "that damn fool" once more.

Nye was giving a speech to an American First crowd on Dec. 7th, 1941. A note was put on his podium reporting the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nye kept on with his speech, perhaps confusing Pearl Harbor with Pearl S. Buck? When he was done he was given more extensive reports on the then ongoing battle. His reaction to the events was typical, "FDR must have tricked 'em!" It's not often that we can pin down the moment a conspiracy theory is born.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by OpanaPointer » 21 Jan 2020 18:46

Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 18:42
Richard Anderson wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:55
OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
You have to calculate the effect of Senator Gerald P. Nye's "war profiteer" investigation. His committee sought to prove the US got into WWI because munitions makers had fronted a huge amount of arms to the warring parties and would have taken a great loss if the Allies hadn't won. This caused them, according to Nye, to get the US into the war. In Sept. 1941 he opened another investigation into whether or not the British were in cahoots with "Jewish and other" concerns to get the US into the current war. He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time. THe investigation sputtered to a halt when it was discovered that none of the committee members had seen ANY of the movies that Nye claimed supported his view. They adjourned, to reconvene in January of 1941. (Oddly, that never happened.)
Well, the committee did eventually manage to get the Miranda brothers and some of their cohorts indicted, convicted, and jailed, which apparently had zero effect on the supposedly nefarious activities of the American Armaments Corporation and Brewster Aircraft. Too bad. :lol:

This has piqued my interest. Time to check out the newspaper archives. :thumbsup:
The Nye Committee Reports are probably online, they were published by GPO.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1077
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Gorque » 21 Jan 2020 18:48

OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 18:44
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 18:39
OpanaPointer wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:43
Gorque wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:28
I would think as a supplier of manufactured goods to replace that which was destroyed as well as a financier of those purchases to the purchaser.
He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty. :D
His reaction to the events was typical, "FDR must have tricked 'em!" It's not often that we can pin down the moment a conspiracy theory is born.
:thumbsup:

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6863
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Sid Guttridge » 22 Jan 2020 11:39

Hi Opanapointer,

You ask, "But the question would be did we actually need to go to totaler krieg?"

I would refer you to my earlier reply:

"Why would (the USA) want to conduct a half-@r5ed war effort?

War is not a handicap event.
"

Once a decision has been made for war, anything less than total commitment is foolish.

Cheers,

Sid

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 4142
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by OpanaPointer » 22 Jan 2020 11:40

Only if you don't win.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 6863
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Sid Guttridge » 22 Jan 2020 12:02

Hi Opanapointer,

Nobody enters a war in order not to win because, "War is not a handicap event"!

Once embarked upon, anything less than total commitment is madness.

The US way of running WWII was in the finest British tradition - get allies on the European continent to do most of the fighting and dying, and keep them in the field by supplying finance and materiel.

By that metric, I suppose the USA wasn't conducting "total war" because it wasn't as committed on the ground as it might have been. Nor, as things turned out, did it need to be.

To win a world war so decisively while suffering only 1% of collective global fatalities is no mean feat!

Cheers,

Sid.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by daveshoup2MD » 01 Feb 2020 23:02

Because nobody in the US who had gone through 1914-19 and was planning and executing the plans in 1939-46 wanted to face a third go-round in the 1960s, presumably.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7158
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 04 Feb 2020 03:33

Sid Guttridge wrote:
22 Jan 2020 12:02
...

The US way of running WWII was in the finest British tradition - get allies on the European continent to do most of the fighting and dying, and keep them in the field by supplying finance and materiel.

By that metric, I suppose the USA wasn't conducting "total war" because it wasn't as committed on the ground as it might have been. Nor, as things turned out, did it need to be.

To win a world war so decisively while suffering only 1% of collective global fatalities is no mean feat!...
Another way of considering his is the time scale. The US started actual military mobilization in the autumn of 1940. From ten badly understrength Regular Army Divisions & 25 undertrained and badly equipped National Guard divisions, totaling 600,000 men, plus 80,000 Reserve officers the US Army went to 90 divisions and over six million men by latter 1943. It took the nazi leaders five years to mobilize & train 3+ million men in a similar number of ground combat divisions. Over a similar time span the US went from less than 1000 operational Army aircraft to the largest airfare on the planet. There was also a space problem, of moving that new & untried military across a ocean onto a hostile shore.

Return to “Economy”