Are you saying that before Pearl Harbor Americans were more willing to go to war with Japan than with Germany? My sense is that Japan was pretty much off of the radar of most American citizens. To the extent that they thought about war, it was the war in Europe that held the attention of most Americans until Pearl Harbor.
What if— after Midway victory, U.S. realizes Nazi Germany is the primary threat and helps Allies defeat them in 1944, and Japan by ‘46?
- Thread starter Multicolored Lemur
- Start date
What polls and what did they say? I've looked at the polls from 1940 and '41 and your claim is very different than what I've seen.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Last edited:
Strange sometimes what Google does or not. 3 years ago I pulled this Gallup Poll up, and today I can't. The poll in question here was from 1939 - 1940 and the poll clearly showed that the American public considered Japan a greater threat to American security than Germany, and was more willing to accept a war against Japan than in Europe. (My sense was this was heavily tinged tinged with frustration about WW1.) I'll do a more "around the needle search" until I find it but after searching in vain, I kept encountering "no longer available" messages.
There are a lot of reasons that this was the case, including the American knowledge of Nanjing. The US Navy's operations under War Plan Orange and the numerous exercises done in conjunction with this plan which were heavily reported.
I favor taking a faster series of small risks.
That’s the risk-averse strategy when you’re the Big Stack.
Yes, in my original post, I put up a picture of the Baltic Sea, and I’m sorry I did so.
I’ll stick with the goal of defeating the Nazis by 1944.
And the best idea so far, is largely avoiding the detour of fighting Italy first. Go easy on fighting them. Save the bulk of the resources for fighting the Nazis directly.
Last edited:
Can't comment on the first sentence but after the Manchurian Incident, European and settler sentiment tended to be strongly pro-Chinese and anti-imperial-Japanese. Part of that was probably racism (our disciplined white soldiers carry out a punitive operation, their ravenous yellow hordes commit a massacre) but more of it was just that the Japanese Army was doing horrible things with little provocation and some of it got into the papers. Also, China seemed like a big future market, while Japan was pushing for national economic independence. So there were plenty of people in Germany who argued that the Reich should support the Nationalists against the Japanese, and in the USA even more so.
Edit: missionaries were absolutely also a factor in the USA (both "my pastor preached a sermon about the terrible things he saw the Japanese army do in China" and "the Japanese will prevent us from converting China to Christianity"). US opinion was not necessarily for war with Japan, but very many people wanted to help the Chinese and hurt Japanese plans, and eventually that lead to war
The American public tended to be very divided about getting involved in another war in Europe.
Last edited:
Someone needs to say, That’s probably pretty good leadership style.
Yes, you’re learning things all the time. You’re getting ready. And as interesting as psychology and change of public opinion is, most of leadership is boring old logistics, delegation, feedback, spot checking, etc. In business, government, military, etc.
People seem to want to move slowly. That seems to be their default.
So, a huge part of your job as leader is getting things moving along energetically. Usually in directions people want to move anyway, but they seem to not really be aware of the baseline of the volume of work we need to get done. Or, they let themselves be Oh so easily distracted by debates and controversies on small matters. Or like the lyrics to “Uncle Albert” — “But the kettle's on the boil, And we're so easily called away”
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Last edited:
I have a really good book on FDR and Chang Kai-shek, and more importantly his wife, who was instrumental and solidifying the American public's positive view toward Chang's battle with both Mao and the Japanese. There is a fair amount of revisionist history you can often find about this, but keep this in mind, not only was the administration and specifically Eleanor pulled strongly by friendly ties with Chang's leadership, so was a huge group of missionaries (of whom my Great-Uncle was one, he spent 50 years in China) who had lived in China for many decades. Those missionaries came back, or sent back, many individuals to stoke friendly relationships between Americans and the Chinese.
People in the Midwest were very devoted to this effort. Keep also in mind that Herbert Hoover was a mining expert, and missionary in China also. Probably there were very very few people in Washington D. C. that knew more about China than Hoover.
People in the Midwest were very devoted to this effort. Keep also in mind that Herbert Hoover was a mining expert, and missionary in China also. Probably there were very very few people in Washington D. C. that knew more about China than Hoover.
I have no problem with the claim that FDR and even his wife and H. Hoover had their eye on the war in China, but I'd be surprised the man on the street had the same or similar level of interest in China. I will allow the possibility that in 1939 the .... of Nanking was more in the forefront of people's thoughts than Hitler. The polls I have in mind are more from 1940-41. The war in Europe became a larger presence in American minds after the fall of France.
I also have no problem with the claim that Madame Chiang had great influence over America's China Lobby, especially after Pearl Harbor. Where I'm skeptical is in any claim that there was broad support for America to declare war on anyone prior to the summer of '41 at the earliest and probably not until Pearl Harbor. I'm pretty sure the China Lobby mostly advocated for foreign aid to China, not direct armed intervention, at least not before Pearl Harbor. The dispatch of the American Volunteer Group, aka the Flying Tigers, was as far as the US would go before Pearl Harbor.
I also have no problem with the claim that Madame Chiang had great influence over America's China Lobby, especially after Pearl Harbor. Where I'm skeptical is in any claim that there was broad support for America to declare war on anyone prior to the summer of '41 at the earliest and probably not until Pearl Harbor. I'm pretty sure the China Lobby mostly advocated for foreign aid to China, not direct armed intervention, at least not before Pearl Harbor. The dispatch of the American Volunteer Group, aka the Flying Tigers, was as far as the US would go before Pearl Harbor.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
Soong Mei-ling often called May by her friends, or Madame Chang Kai-shek by others, was an alumni of Wesleyan College in Macon, Georgia, she was a sister-in-law of Sun Yat-Sen. Her brother went to Harvard.
May was beautiful and intelligent and quite literate. She became somewhat of a darling of the American press and other foreign press. She more adroitly understood the things that needed to be clear for public consumption in the West.
Often she is recognized as the most intelligent woman of power in her era, of any nation. She, unlike her husband was fluent in many languages, she spoke English like an American.
May was beautiful and intelligent and quite literate. She became somewhat of a darling of the American press and other foreign press. She more adroitly understood the things that needed to be clear for public consumption in the West.
Often she is recognized as the most intelligent woman of power in her era, of any nation. She, unlike her husband was fluent in many languages, she spoke English like an American.
Joined Nov 2019
4,044 Posts | 2,898+
United States
A quick correction here, I said that the poll indicated that Americans were more supportive of an war against Japan, than a war in Europe. That does not imply that Americans were looking for a war at all. Overall most Americans were quite isolationist.
Joined Dec 2010
13,478 Posts | 742+
Near St. Louis.
Not true according to my research. Again, the polls are important here.
The Committee to Defend America First never stopped a bill they opposed or passed one they supported. Lindbergh made a lot of noise but still didn't tip the scales. Idiots like Sen. Gerald P. Nye continued the rant until Dec. 8th, 1941, when America First closed their doors forever.
Fine, but achieving nothing is not the same as not being there. As to the US citizens being isolationists, yes, many of them were, but the question is: when do you mean? It's not as if they didn't slowly change their minds. As the polls do show.
Probably because FDR was smart enough not to ask for a bill that wouldn't pass. If Americans were less isolationist I'm sure FDR would have taken the country into war soon than actually happened. As it was, he asked for and received various bills when he could get them through Congress.
Joined Dec 2010
13,478 Posts | 742+
Near St. Louis.
The US was less isolationist than most people today assume. The GOP nominated an interventionist. The 1940 Republican Party campaign platform mentioned "defense" 11 times IIRC.
Republican Party Platform of 1940 | The American Presidency Project
www.presidency.ucsb.edu
Last edited:
12 Seconds Of Silence: How a Team of Inventors, Tinkere…
The riveting story of the American scientists, tinkerer…
The “12 seconds of silence” in the book’s title refers to the German “buzz bombs” — the V-1 rockets — which when their engine cut off, typically glided for about 12 seconds before striking somewhere.
True, the Nazi V-1’s we’re not an existential challenge to the Allied war effort. But I’m not sure how anyone in London lived through that Summer of ‘44 without getting PTSD.
And I’ve give this book an overall B grade, because it includes too many details and personalities. I’m sorry, but it does.
The secret U.S. weapon was the proximity fuse. This was first used against Japanese planes in Jan. 43.
We even included “duds” with false leads in case any were retrieved by Axis powers.
We did not use these over land until the Dec. 44 - Jan. 45 Battle of the Bulge [Dec. 16, ‘44 — Jan. 25, 1945] because we did not want Japan, Germany, or Italy to reverse-engineer them.
Thank you for putting this out there. And I mean that sincerely. The whole reason I use forums is because I want to have the benefit of other people’s thinking, and I want to learn.
I’m still going to answer— Not enough.
Given that Nazi Germany came uncomfortably close with their V-1 and -2 rockets, given that even a 3% chance of the Nazis winning or fighting to some kind of draw is an unacceptably high risk— We should have poured even more resources directly against the Nazis and even earlier if we could.
In particular, I like the evolving answer that we should have gone lighter against the Italians.
Plus, we seemed to have had the idea that we needed to break in our soldiers through some kind of protracted period. We should have found various outskirt places to do this against the Nazis, cause them unpredictable problems, and get them to extend their supply lines.
"Should"? That's exactly what was done. It's called the peripheral strategy. It's great when you have seapower superiority, and in fact it was understandably an old British mainstay. Churchill exaggerated with it, of course, and on occasion it failed, but it still was a very sound strategy in principle against a continental power having a clear core power base.
It is why landing directly in Denmark, say, or even in the Pas de Calais too early, say 1943, would be a mistake - playing to the enemy strengths and magnifying the Allied side's weaknesses.
More History Discussions
- Poll
- Poll
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-