Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2012, 03:03 AM   #31

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,062

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobbie View Post
Roosevelt was already crossing swords with Germany prior to the Pearl Harbor attack with the "Neutrality Patrols", escorting merchant vessels carrying supplies to England. the US lost the destroyer USS Ruben James to a U boat attack near the end of October 1941.
And it wasn't only the Reuben James. The noted Greer incident also heightened American/German issues. Because of these types of incidents, isolationism was waning, though clearly still the majority view in America. If Roosevelt waits long enough, there was almost certain to be Lusitania-like event that would break the isolationist's collective backs in 42 or 43.
diddyriddick is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:08 AM   #32
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 620

Thank you all posters for an excellent and educative response to my original question. I have learned a great deal from various respondents -for which, thanks!.
What I've read here confirms my own gut reaction to these conspiracy theories which have F.D.R. -in full Machiavellian mode- sacrificing ''Battleship Row'' in Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941 in order to get the U.S.A. into the war to be utter nonsense.
Also, while it is true that F.D.R. as Commander-in-Chief, committed exclusively American forces to liberate his Brittanic Majesty George VI'S Crown colony of Tarawa/Betio in 1943, with significant loss of U.S. Marine lives the fact that Tarawa was a British colony was both subordinate and incidental to ''Operation Galvanic '' in November 1943-U.S. strategic interests -not British colonial concerns were paramount in the planning and execution of the Tarawa/Betio operation.
Although, as a Brit, I regard the American action in undertaking ''Galvanic'' as a very generous act towards his British allies by FDR-he and the American brass could have said to our British leaders ''Wait a minute you guys- this is your colony- why don't you provide the ground troops for the actual assault? (although I know ther would have been logistical problems in that approach)
It is also a matter of record that while many American Moms of the dead of Tarawa raised protests about the level of casualties for Tarawa with FDR and through their Congressmen none-as far as I know- protested about their sons dying to liberate a British colony as Tarawa/Betio was.
To my Oklahoma friend-I repeat-I was not trolling/baiting Republicans in any way , shape or form in my original posts-two of my all-time favourite American Presidents -Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower were Republicans!.
P.S.-Given U.S. Admiral Ernest King's well known Anglophobia I'm suprised that King didn't bitch about using U.S. Marines to liberate the British colony of Tarawa/Betio. n 1943.!
Toomtabard is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:18 AM   #33
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 620

To the poster who posted the humourous post about maybe ir was the British in disguise who mounted the attack on Pearl on Decemberv 7 1941 I enjoyed the absurdity of your post which made me laugh.
However, many a truth is said in jest-the Japanese who planned the sneak Pearl Harbour acknowledged their debt to the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm's equally devastating sneak aerial attack with Fairey ''Swordfish'' at Taranto, Italy, in 1940, as being at least part of the inspiration for the December 7 attack on Pearl.
Toomtabard is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #34
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,648

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomtabard View Post
To the poster who posted the humourous post about maybe ir was the British in disguise who mounted the attack on Pearl on Decemberv 7 1941 I enjoyed the absurdity of your post which made me laugh.
However, many a truth is said in jest-the Japanese who planned the sneak Pearl Harbour acknowledged their debt to the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm's equally devastating sneak aerial attack with Fairey ''Swordfish'' at Taranto, Italy, in 1940, as being at least part of the inspiration for the December 7 attack on Pearl.
Well we knew it wasn't the French navy.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 07:05 AM   #35

Spartacuss's Avatar
Western Philistine
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,862

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomtabard View Post
Thank you all posters for an excellent and educative response to my original question. I have learned a great deal from various respondents -for which, thanks!.
What I've read here confirms my own gut reaction to these conspiracy theories which have F.D.R. -in full Machiavellian mode- sacrificing ''Battleship Row'' in Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941 in order to get the U.S.A. into the war to be utter nonsense.
Also, while it is true that F.D.R. as Commander-in-Chief, committed exclusively American forces to liberate his Brittanic Majesty George VI'S Crown colony of Tarawa/Betio in 1943, with significant loss of U.S. Marine lives the fact that Tarawa was a British colony was both subordinate and incidental to ''Operation Galvanic '' in November 1943-U.S. strategic interests -not British colonial concerns were paramount in the planning and execution of the Tarawa/Betio operation.
Although, as a Brit, I regard the American action in undertaking ''Galvanic'' as a very generous act towards his British allies by FDR-he and the American brass could have said to our British leaders ''Wait a minute you guys- this is your colony- why don't you provide the ground troops for the actual assault? (although I know ther would have been logistical problems in that approach)
It is also a matter of record that while many American Moms of the dead of Tarawa raised protests about the level of casualties for Tarawa with FDR and through their Congressmen none-as far as I know- protested about their sons dying to liberate a British colony as Tarawa/Betio was.
To my Oklahoma friend-I repeat-I was not trolling/baiting Republicans in any way , shape or form in my original posts-two of my all-time favourite American Presidents -Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower were Republicans!.
P.S.-Given U.S. Admiral Ernest King's well known Anglophobia I'm suprised that King didn't bitch about using U.S. Marines to liberate the British colony of Tarawa/Betio. n 1943.!
Oh he did. The Combined Chiefs of Staff, with FDR and Churchill consenting, came to the decision that the Pacific Theater would be an American show with what support could be spared from her allies. King felt that it should be an exclusive effort for the US and kept trying to make it so, with FDR overriding him on several occasions, especially late in the war. I believe that had FDR not felt Nimitz was indispensable as CINCPAC, King would have been put to pasture.
Spartacuss is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:14 AM   #36

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,062

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toomtabard View Post
Also, while it is true that F.D.R. as Commander-in-Chief, committed exclusively American forces to liberate his Brittanic Majesty George VI'S Crown colony of Tarawa/Betio in 1943, with significant loss of U.S. Marine lives the fact that Tarawa was a British colony was both subordinate and incidental to ''Operation Galvanic '' in November 1943-U.S. strategic interests -not British colonial concerns were paramount in the planning and execution of the Tarawa/Betio operation.
Although, as a Brit, I regard the American action in undertaking ''Galvanic'' as a very generous act towards his British allies by FDR-he and the American brass could have said to our British leaders ''Wait a minute you guys- this is your colony- why don't you provide the ground troops for the actual assault? (although I know ther would have been logistical problems in that approach)
It is also a matter of record that while many American Moms of the dead of Tarawa raised protests about the level of casualties for Tarawa with FDR and through their Congressmen none-as far as I know- protested about their sons dying to liberate a British colony as Tarawa/Betio was.
While I would love to say that liberating the Marshalls was an act of benevolence toward our British friends, that was really just an added benefit. The reality is that the powers that be in Washington and Pearl Harbor regarded it as essential for support of the drive through the central Pacific.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:24 AM   #37
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,648

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
Oh he did. The Combined Chiefs of Staff, with FDR and Churchill consenting, came to the decision that the Pacific Theater would be an American show with what support could be spared from her allies. King felt that it should be an exclusive effort for the US and kept trying to make it so, with FDR overriding him on several occasions, especially late in the war. I believe that had FDR not felt Nimitz was indispensable as CINCPAC, King would have been put to pasture.
Ernest King was a difficult personality, and he rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. However King was an experienced naval aviator and had an impressive intellect. He had already "been put to pasture" in 1939 by being assigned to the General Board - and awaiting retirement.

IIRC, King had shown in 1938 war games that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to air attack. That did not sit well with some Big Gun Boys in the USN, and he seemed to have been passed over. However, along with the pre-war CNO, Adm H. Stark, FDR saw things differently.

I also recall he reached mandatory retirement age later in the war, and FDR wanted him to stay on.

Not to say his opinions were disregarded, but I think King was probably #3 on FDR's war time brain trust. First I think was Gen. George Marshall, and second was Roosevelt's personal "chief of staff," Adm. William Leahy - a very important officer who no one seems to know. (Leahy was one of only four Fleet Admirals, 5*).

King's command skills and understanding of the importance of naval aviation far outweighed his "Anglophobia."

Last edited by pikeshot1600; December 7th, 2012 at 09:30 AM.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 08:36 AM   #38
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,648

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
While I would love to say that liberating the Marshalls was an act of benevolence toward our British friends, that was really just an added benefit. The reality is that the powers that be in Washington and Pearl Harbor regarded it as essential for support of the drive through the central Pacific.
The Marshalls were an objective in the 1930s revisions to War Plan Orange. These little atolls had an important anchorage and the Japanese had built airfields that were important to secure.... but I think you know that.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:52 PM   #39

botully's Avatar
With the Ball People
 
Joined: Feb 2011
From: Amelia, Virginia, USA
Posts: 3,106

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacuss View Post
Oh he did. The Combined Chiefs of Staff, with FDR and Churchill consenting, came to the decision that the Pacific Theater would be an American show with what support could be spared from her allies. King felt that it should be an exclusive effort for the US and kept trying to make it so, with FDR overriding him on several occasions, especially late in the war. .
Australians furnished the bulk of ground troops into 1943 in the New Guinea area, with the New Zealand and Australians providing pilots and planes as well, even on Guadalcanal.
When the British were ready to help in the final drive on Japan, some US officers balked at the idea. Partly because the US Navy really didn't need the help, and wanted it to be an American show. The other, probably more important reason, was that the US Navy doubted the RN could actually support a carrier task force in the Okinawa area. The US agreed to accept British participation with one condition: The RN would have to be able to support itself logistically.
RN observers had described US logistics as "lavish" (until they faced the same operating conditions). The USN felt that they were stretched to the limit, and didn't think an RN task force would be worth the effort to supply it.
In the event the RN cobbled together a fleet train that was barely able to handle he job. That they managed at all is a testament to their hard work and professionalism.
botully is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
cottage, harbouramerican, industry, pearl


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pendle Witches Cottage Discovered Caracalla General History 14 December 16th, 2011 05:16 PM
Would Pearl Harbour have happened without Taranto Lawnmowerman War and Military History 32 March 2nd, 2011 11:35 AM
No germans attack Poland, no japaneese Pearl Harbour Perix Speculative History 6 September 16th, 2010 09:51 PM
Pearl Harbour:A puzzling theory Solidaire General History 39 October 22nd, 2009 10:19 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.