Quicker US victory over Japan in WW2

[1bigrich]

Apr 6, 2023 22:47:13 GMT stevep said:

  If there's no L-L then the US is on its own against the European as well as the Asian axis.  It would be dropping the two big power blocs that carried the bulk of the load in Europe.  Also it might well mean that Japan doesn't have to go to war to gain raw materials from Malaya/DEI and related areas.

Hi Steve,

No Lend Lease doesn't mean no equipment to the Allies; it just means things will be as they were before Lend Lease, mostly cash-and-carry.

  Much of what Roosevelt was saying was wrong, although he might have believed that.  There was a belief at the time in fascist efficiency and a 'master-plan' for world conquest but we know nowadays how incompetent and disorganised they actually were.  Both internally and between themselves.

I have a rather low opinion of FDR. His admiration for Mussolini included, calling him a 'fine Italian gentleman.'

 

Attacking Pearl Harbour was undoubtedly a huge mistake for Japan and probably they would have been better off not attacking any US possessions at all - but having forces in place to isolate and destroy US aligned ones in the Philippines and Guam.  This would have put the onus on the US to declare war on Japan which if Roosevelt could get a dow past Congress would have lead to a much more divided US on the war.  If he does manage then the isolated Philippines and Guam are going to be mopped up pretty much as they were.  A great danger for the USN might be that - despite the WPO decision to abandon the Philippines as indefensible - there would be strong pressure for the USN to 'do something'.  Which given the qualitative edge that the Japanese had in ship attack at the time and the fact any relief operation would have to move deep into Japanese controlled waters could mean a far worse disaster than OTL Pearl Harbour.  [Even a sustained raid on Japanese held islands could turn nasty, especially if the fleet was slowed to the speed of the old BBs]  Which might in turn prompt further opposition to the war.

 

If the US has to start basically from an advance across the Pacific its always going to be a long war and doubtful you can do it much quicker than OTL unless you assume a lot of luck somewhere I think. 

The fleet that can go anywhere it wants at 21 knots is a cliché, but it's a cliché because it is true. I think the war in the Pacific would be much shorter without the distraction of the war in Europe. Imagine the 8th Air Force operating out of Quteenland and New Guinea instead of Britain. Imagine the 9th Air Force operating out of the Aleutians. I think there will still be costs, but even with them, the weight of men and materiel will be too much for Japan to resist.

The problem with not attacking the US is the Philippines are now a dagger pointed at the Japanese supply lines between the home islands and the 'Southern Resource Area'. And with war, the 'no fortifying Pacific islands' evaporates, even if the US is not involved. So the prospect is an increasingly strong US presence in the Philippines able to cut Japan off from southeast Asia and the NEI at any time of its choosing.

The IJN had war-gamed attacking Pearl Harbor as early as 1927, when it was just an anchorage and not a base.

Yamamoto's desire to attack the base comes from a mis-interpretation of the US position during the Washington Treaty negotiations. The Japanese delegation was told to press for a 10:7 ratio, but settle for 10:6. The US was reading the Japanese diplomatic code, so they knew this and held for 10:6. Absent the knowledge of the cryptographic failure, the IJN interpreted this as thinking the US would not undertake a cross-Pacific offensive if the ratio of capital ships were as high as 7:10.

With the end of the Treaty holiday, battleship construction resumed in the US. Yamamoto figured he needed six months to consolidate Japanese gains, so he had to get four US battleships at Pearl Harbor (figuring another would be completed during the six months after the initiation of hostilities. He did a little better; his carrier planes put five out of action, though three of those were later returned to service.

Yamamoto had been naval attaché in Washington. He was all too familiar with US industrial might, even in the throws of the Great Depression. Why he would cast his lot with the army in what essentially was national suicide, I cannot fathom.

Regards,

[stevep]

Apr 10, 2023 17:35:32 GMT 1bigrich said:

Apr 6, 2023 22:47:13 GMT stevep said:

  If there's no L-L then the US is on its own against the European as well as the Asian axis.  It would be dropping the two big power blocs that carried the bulk of the load in Europe.  Also it might well mean that Japan doesn't have to go to war to gain raw materials from Malaya/DEI and related areas.

Hi Steve,

No Lend Lease doesn't mean no equipment to the Allies; it just means things will be as they were before Lend Lease, mostly cash-and-carry.

  Much of what Roosevelt was saying was wrong, although he might have believed that.  There was a belief at the time in fascist efficiency and a 'master-plan' for world conquest but we know nowadays how incompetent and disorganised they actually were.  Both internally and between themselves.

I have a rather low opinion of FDR. His admiration for Mussolini included, calling him a 'fine Italian gentleman.'

 

Attacking Pearl Harbour was undoubtedly a huge mistake for Japan and probably they would have been better off not attacking any US possessions at all - but having forces in place to isolate and destroy US aligned ones in the Philippines and Guam.  This would have put the onus on the US to declare war on Japan which if Roosevelt could get a dow past Congress would have lead to a much more divided US on the war.  If he does manage then the isolated Philippines and Guam are going to be mopped up pretty much as they were.  A great danger for the USN might be that - despite the WPO decision to abandon the Philippines as indefensible - there would be strong pressure for the USN to 'do something'.  Which given the qualitative edge that the Japanese had in ship attack at the time and the fact any relief operation would have to move deep into Japanese controlled waters could mean a far worse disaster than OTL Pearl Harbour.  [Even a sustained raid on Japanese held islands could turn nasty, especially if the fleet was slowed to the speed of the old BBs]  Which might in turn prompt further opposition to the war.

 

If the US has to start basically from an advance across the Pacific its always going to be a long war and doubtful you can do it much quicker than OTL unless you assume a lot of luck somewhere I think. 

The fleet that can go anywhere it wants at 21 knots is a cliché, but it's a cliché because it is true. I think the war in the Pacific would be much shorter without the distraction of the war in Europe. Imagine the 8th Air Force operating out of Quteenland and New Guinea instead of Britain. Imagine the 9th Air Force operating out of the Aleutians. I think there will still be costs, but even with them, the weight of men and materiel will be too much for Japan to resist.

The problem with not attacking the US is the Philippines are now a dagger pointed at the Japanese supply lines between the home islands and the 'Southern Resource Area'. And with war, the 'no fortifying Pacific islands' evaporates, even if the US is not involved. So the prospect is an increasingly strong US presence in the Philippines able to cut Japan off from southeast Asia and the NEI at any time of its choosing.

The IJN had war-gamed attacking Pearl Harbor as early as 1927, when it was just an anchorage and not a base.

Yamamoto's desire to attack the base comes from a mis-interpretation of the US position during the Washington Treaty negotiations. The Japanese delegation was told to press for a 10:7 ratio, but settle for 10:6. The US was reading the Japanese diplomatic code, so they knew this and held for 10:6. Absent the knowledge of the cryptographic failure, the IJN interpreted this as thinking the US would not undertake a cross-Pacific offensive if the ratio of capital ships were as high as 7:10.

With the end of the Treaty holiday, battleship construction resumed in the US. Yamamoto figured he needed six months to consolidate Japanese gains, so he had to get four US battleships at Pearl Harbor (figuring another would be completed during the six months after the initiation of hostilities. He did a little better; his carrier planes put five out of action, though three of those were later returned to service.

Yamamoto had been naval attaché in Washington. He was all too familiar with US industrial might, even in the throws of the Great Depression. Why he would cast his lot with the army in what essentially was national suicide, I cannot fathom.

Regards,

  From everything I've read there would be a forced peace in Europe without L-L because Britain was drained of reserves so cash and carry would have been impossible.  Britain - and hence its allies would have been forced to make peace so that the war costs could be removed and Britain could export good to pay for things like food.  Without Britain similarly the US has no real capacity to directly threaten Nazi Germany, at least until its got a trans-ocean nuclear capacity which couldn't really be predicted at the time nor would it be able to aid Russia that much at least in the short term.

  The US fleet can't operate from New Guinea if that's already been occupied by Japan which is all too likely if it doesn't attack US possessions - whether or not the US declares war on Japan after it attacks the allies.    Plus also its a huge logistical task if they try and operate with the existing fleet against Japan in the face of deep Japanese defences.  Especially something as slow as the old BB fleet as that gives so much more capacity for Japan to concentrate forces against it and its supporting units.  Also:

i)  If the US declares war almost immediately after a Japanese attack on the allies then Japan still has plenty of opportunity to seize the Philippines and Guam.  Wake might be reinforced in tine to make it a very tough nut but it could also be a considerable drain on US resources to keep it supplied - rather like Malta was for Britain albeit that Wake doesn't have a substantial civilian population to keep supplied as well.

ii)  If the US doesn't declare war until after the allies are defeated and forced to make peace then not only would they have to fight alone but also would there be the political will to do so?

  As I understand it the fight over a 6:10 or 7:10 ratio was because both nations were fixated with a limited view of Mahanism.  Under this a 7:10 ratio would give Japan security against a US attack from a standing start whereas a 6:10 ratio would leave it vulnerable.  However the Japanese government of the time was still sane enough to gamble it could live with a 6:10 ratio because for all the hostile rhetoric they didn't think the US was that eager to actually start a war.

  I agree that given his knowledge of the US's capacity and also presumably of his understanding of the western viewpoint that Yamamoto was stupid to support attacking the US.  Possibly he felt he was desperate enough to try and maintain some influence on the government or even for his own life - as I've read he was at one point based on ship pretty much continually as the best way to protect him from army hard liners who wanted to kill him.

  Steve

[miletus12]

Apr 10, 2023 17:35:32 GMT 1bigrich said:

No Lend Lease doesn't mean no equipment to the Allies; it just means things will be as they were before Lend Lease, mostly cash-and-carry.

Or how WWI worked when the British ran out of money in June 1916. Wilson allowed American banks to extend credit on the faith and solvency of the USG. That is J.P. Morgan and crew socked it to the American taxpayer in the short bonds while HMG used that as collateral for deferred payment until after the war in long term treasuries. Those are the "WWI loans" the British paid off in 2010 or thereabouts.

FDR's LL was a quite different way to skin the no collateral credit cat, by making the USG the actual underwriter of the long bonds upfront instead of the British government as the creditees, with the British promising to repay the long bond loans at some future date. The American taxpayer never saw a dime back from the British. But the USG did, direct treasury to treasury.   

[stevep]

Apr 12, 2023 3:33:11 GMT miletus12 said:

Apr 10, 2023 17:35:32 GMT 1bigrich said:

No Lend Lease doesn't mean no equipment to the Allies; it just means things will be as they were before Lend Lease, mostly cash-and-carry.

Or how WWI worked when the British ran out of money in June 1916. Wilson allowed American banks to extend credit on the faith and solvency of the USG. That is J.P. Morgan and crew socked it to the American taxpayer in the short bonds while HMG used that as collateral for deferred payment until after the war in long term treasuries. Those are the "WWI loans" the British paid off in 2010 or thereabouts.

FDR's LL was a quite different way to skin the no collateral credit cat, by making the USG the actual underwriter of the long bonds upfront instead of the British government as the creditees, with the British promising to repay the long bond loans at some future date. The American taxpayer never saw a dime back from the British. But the USG did, direct treasury to treasury.   

  It was very unlikely that the US political system would have accepted the 1917 approach.  That would also have been far more crippling for Britain than the L-L system which meant that only items still maintained in service once the war ended had to be paid for.  Which was to the benefit of both nations.

[miletus12]

Apr 12, 2023 19:18:24 GMT stevep said:

the L-L system which meant that only items still maintained in service once the war ended had to be paid for. Which was to the benefit of both nations.

1. Everything had to be paid for since it was built. That the US taxpayer took it in the shorts (pun based on short term treasuries, and still not funny because It is happening again in the Ukraine War.) was understood.
2. 

Which is why scrapping was a favorite postwar pasttime. It was not maintained in service, so it was not "paid for".

[stevep]

Apr 12, 2023 21:29:06 GMT miletus12 said:

Apr 12, 2023 19:18:24 GMT stevep said:

the L-L system which meant that only items still maintained in service once the war ended had to be paid for. Which was to the benefit of both nations.

1. Everything had to be paid for since it was built. That the US taxpayer took it in the shorts (pun based on short term treasuries, and still not funny because It is happening again in the Ukraine War.) was understood.
2. 

Which is why scrapping was a favorite postwar pasttime. It was not maintained in service, so it was not "paid for".

  To clarify I meant paid in monetary terms by the UK.  [Although the US got a lot of freebies out of it as well as it got free basing in the UK and I think elsewhere in the empire].  The US had to pay for the items consumed in combat, although technically it was paying itself as the money went to its own people.  However it did mean that other nations paid in blood as they were able to continue fighting and this saved a lot of US lives.

[miletus12]

Apr 12, 2023 22:16:39 GMT stevep said:

Apr 12, 2023 21:29:06 GMT miletus12 said:

1. Everything had to be paid for since it was built. That the US taxpayer took it in the shorts (pun based on short term treasuries, and still not funny because It is happening again in the Ukraine War.) was understood.
2. 

Which is why scrapping was a favorite postwar pasttime. It was not maintained in service, so it was not "paid for".

  To clarify I meant paid in monetary terms by the UK.  [Although the US got a lot of freebies out of it as well as it got free basing in the UK and I think elsewhere in the empire].  The US had to pay for the items consumed in combat, although technically it was paying itself as the money went to its own people.  However it did mean that other nations paid in blood as they were able to continue fighting and this saved a lot of US lives.

1. In war, there is no capital return, only wastage and loss (^^^ See photo for material costs, and look at cemeteries of war dead for human costs in lives wasted.).   
2. 

Apr 7, 2023 15:15:28 GMT miletus12 said:

Lend Lease substituted British and Russian infantry, tank and truck drivers, and other effects operators for American ones. That is a callous cynical way to read Lend Lease and so far as that goes, I actually agree that Lend Lease made the war easier.

[stevep]

Apr 12, 2023 22:23:39 GMT miletus12 said:

Apr 12, 2023 22:16:39 GMT stevep said:

  To clarify I meant paid in monetary terms by the UK.  [Although the US got a lot of freebies out of it as well as it got free basing in the UK and I think elsewhere in the empire].  The US had to pay for the items consumed in combat, although technically it was paying itself as the money went to its own people.  However it did mean that other nations paid in blood as they were able to continue fighting and this saved a lot of US lives.

1. In war, there is no capital return, only wastage and loss (^^^ See photo for material costs, and look at cemeteries of war dead for human costs in lives wasted.).   
2. 

Apr 7, 2023 15:15:28 GMT miletus12 said:

Lend Lease substituted British and Russian infantry, tank and truck drivers, and other effects operators for American ones. That is a callous cynical way to read Lend Lease and so far as that goes, I actually agree that Lend Lease made the war easier.

1) So no US businesses and industrial plant charged for the equipment they supplied to the US government?

2)  Yes its cynical but the US government was and it achieved their aims.

[miletus12]

Apr 12, 2023 22:28:06 GMT stevep said:

Apr 12, 2023 22:23:39 GMT miletus12 said:

1. In war, there is no capital return, only wastage and loss (^^^ See photo for material costs, and look at cemeteries of war dead for human costs in lives wasted.).   
2. 

1) So no US businesses and industrial plant charged for the equipment they supplied to the US government?

2)  Yes its cynical but the US government was and it achieved their aims.

Of course they charged. That is how money economies worked.

but... it is not how war works.

Just as an enviromental catastrophe, the non-recoverable costs in human beings and material was and is appalling. 

 Some parts of Hiroshima are still "hot" and by that I mean the human DEAD in their graves. 

[stevep]

Apr 12, 2023 23:23:19 GMT miletus12 said:

Apr 12, 2023 22:28:06 GMT stevep said:

1) So no US businesses and industrial plant charged for the equipment they supplied to the US government?

2)  Yes its cynical but the US government was and it achieved their aims.

Of course they charged. That is how money economies worked.

but... it is not how war works.

Just as an enviromental catastrophe, the non-recoverable costs in human beings and material was and is appalling. 

 Some parts of Hiroshima are still "hot" and by that I mean the human DEAD in their graves. 

  War is very costly and no disagreement there but many in the US - as the last nation left standing by 1945 in a healthy condition - did benefit from the war materially.  That is also a fact.

[miletus12]

Apr 13, 2023 9:13:54 GMT stevep said:

Apr 12, 2023 23:23:19 GMT miletus12 said:

Of course they charged. That is how money economies worked.

but... it is not how war works.

Just as an enviromental catastrophe, the non-recoverable costs in human beings and material was and is appalling. 

 Some parts of Hiroshima are still "hot" and by that I mean the human DEAD in their graves. 

  War is very costly and no disagreement there but many in the US - as the last nation left standing by 1945 in a healthy condition - did benefit from the war materially.  That is also a fact.

As a matter of fact, the USG still carries WWII "debt" on the books as an operating cost. So how did the US profit?:  

[stevep]

Apr 13, 2023 14:58:49 GMT miletus12 said:

Apr 13, 2023 9:13:54 GMT stevep said:

  War is very costly and no disagreement there but many in the US - as the last nation left standing by 1945 in a healthy condition - did benefit from the war materially.  That is also a fact.

As a matter of fact, the USG still carries WWII "debt" on the books as an operating cost. So how did the US profit?:  

 1)  A massively increased domination of industrial production in the non-Soviet world from the destruction of capacities in rival countries.

 2)  Helping to finally complete the ending of the depression coming from the 1929 crash.  Initially by heavy allied spending in the US and then by the USG taking over as the big player there.

  Many people in the US as individuals suffered due to the war but the US's involvement in the conflict meant it Sept 45 it was in a much stronger economic position than it could have been without that involvement.

[miletus12]

Apr 13, 2023 18:39:38 GMT stevep said:

Apr 13, 2023 14:58:49 GMT miletus12 said:

As a matter of fact, the USG still carries WWII "debt" on the books as an operating cost. So how did the US profit?:  

 1)  A massively increased domination of industrial production in the non-Soviet world from the destruction of capacities in rival countries.

 2)  Helping to finally complete the ending of the depression coming from the 1929 crash.  Initially by heavy allied spending in the US and then by the USG taking over as the big player there.

  Many people in the US as individuals suffered due to the war but the US's involvement in the conflict meant it Sept 45 it was in a much stronger economic position than it could have been without that involvement.

1. Not our fault. We did not start the futile terror bombing or invade anybody until we were attacked. What followed was the fault of the Japanese, Italians, Germans and the Russians. in that sequential order. They got what they deserved for their warcrimes. Innocent France was collateral damage to the main German Russian War. The other European states were satrapied against their wills into the  German scheme of conquest and thus their industries were targeted in the strategic bombing campaigns to break Germany.  They were victims, like France. As for Britian, she was revenge bombing for a whole two years before the USAAF showed in force in early 1943.  Her industry was humming away like mad.    
2. US unemployment is 1955 was a staggering 14% in the "Rust Belt". How does that prove the depression was over?.
3. Refer to 2. PLUS a half million of our best and brightest were dead.l
  

[simon darkshade]

To argue that the US did not benefit materially from the outcome of the Second World War is to push and twist matters well past the point of being disingenuous.

Citing unemployment in one part of the USA in a single year does not amount to an argument, just an isolated example dressed up as one.
Here are unemployment rates as a whole: www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506
US economic growth in GDP can be found in Angus Maddison's works; I can't dig it out right now, as I've got to go to work, but there is a huge contrast between the Great Depression and the mid 1950s.
Industrial production and farm production was also markedly higher and, once we take into account improvements of technology, a great deal of this can be deduced as being a byproduct of NOT being in a depression.

If you meant 1945, that is a different matter - terminologically speaking, there wouldn't have been a Rust Belt at that point, as that term emerges in the 1970s in general parlance - as it would depend on *when* in 1945 the statistics came from. The end of the war lead to the massive cancellation of production orders and some momentary dislocation; this process had begun back in 1944 as production started to be ratcheted down.

Insofar as world trade, the percentage of world economic and industrial outputs, percentages of exports and half a hundred other measures go, the USA was in a considerably better state post WW2. When we throw in the geopolitics and strategic gains, it is an even greater profit.

I would suggest tacking back towards the topic, rather than sailing directly towards the rocks of increasingly disjointed argument. Smooth sailing lies in the former direction.

[miletus12]

1. US supposed domination of industrial output and finance was always transitory and temporary. It was planned to be as obviously Europe could not be allowed to lie in ruins.
2. US unemployment was cited for a region and a period of the US Eisenhower administration to show in context what Europeans really do not know about the United States postwar. It is a myth that we were a juggernaut. It is more correct to state that we had socioeconomic problems, major ones, that the war exacerbated. You do not dislocate 17 million workers and then return to normalcy immediately. Our wae industry base collapsed.
3. The Rust belt was noted as early as Sputnik. Refer to 2.
4. By 1971, the US was the leading debtor nation and still is. A major policy blunder (VIETNAM) was the reason. It ties in with the central theme and thesis of war as pure waste.

To tack back to the topic, a shorter time path to victory over Japan only reduces the total cost of the waste of war to humanity in general, not the process of the waste that is that war.