Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.)
-
- Member
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43You 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.)
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
-
- Member
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
Nonsense, I've plowed it many times...and harrowed a bit of it.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑29 Oct 2019, 19:04Not one in a hundred will plow through this. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/re ... index.html
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.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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?Richard Anderson wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:59Nonsense, I've plowed it many times...and harrowed a bit of it.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑29 Oct 2019, 19:04Not one in a hundred will plow through this. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/re ... index.html
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.
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
Richard Anderson wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:55Well, 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.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43You 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.)
This has piqued my interest. Time to check out the newspaper archives.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.Gorque wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 19:39He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
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.
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
The Nye Committee Reports are probably online, they were published by GPO.Gorque wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 19:42Richard Anderson wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:55Well, 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.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43You 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.)
This has piqued my interest. Time to check out the newspaper archives.
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 19:44His 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.Gorque wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 19:39He must not've heard of the adage of getting a horse to water when it ain't thirsty.OpanaPointer wrote: ↑21 Jan 2020, 17:43He claimed the British were behind the spate of war movies appearing at the time.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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
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
-
- Financial supporter
- Posts: 5643
- Joined: 16 May 2010, 15:12
- Location: United States of America
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
Only if you don't win.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
- Location: Coral and brass
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10054
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: Why did the US Commit to "Total War?"
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.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑22 Jan 2020, 13:02...
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!...