Lower national will to fight with a declared attack

[mogami]

"Engineering a Lend-Lease agreement would have been tricky, because Holland was at that time being run by the Germans, who had an alliance with Japan. But FDR might have managed something with the Free Dutch Government"

Hi, I think the US and UK were already allied with the NEI forces (ABDA)
Dutch forces were already equipped with US material and more was on the way on Dec 7 41. Dutch units (Naval /air and ground) served with the Allies all through the war. If I recall correctly on Dec 7 1941 a meeting between all commanders of ABDA was taking place. (My memory is not what it used to be. Was not the senior Dutch officer killed in airplane crash going to or returning from one of these meetings in Singapore?)
If the Japanese fool around and leave routes open between a neutral USA and NEI then I think USA aid is certain.

[mdiehl]

Netherlands was under German occupation. The Netherlands govt, however, was in exile IIRC. In any case, the NEI didn't recognize German authority in the matter, so the legal muddiness just wasn't there.

The massive casualties in the Wilderness Campaign would have caused Lincoln to lose the election (and McClellan to be elected on a pro-peace platform) had Sherman not taken Atlanta and Sheridan not conquered the Shenandoah Valley just in time.

That strikes me as plainly incorrect. The only things more massive than Federal casualties at Wilderness were Confederate casualties, and most of the Federal soldiers knew it at the time. (Even though it was incorrect. Most Federals thought they'd won a draw or a victory). Even more massive was the jubilation when Grant immediately sought to maneuver to re-engage. When the Federal soldiers started marching the general sentiment was "Here we go again. One little fight and then scamper back across the Rapidan." When the column moved right (east) rather than crossing the Rapidan, it is an established fact that Federal soldiers actually had to be shushed to prevent them from singing while on the march.

McClellan never had a chance. Also, he did not run on a pro-peace platform. He ran on a victory program but, as it was apparent that the Union was now winning, and as it was apparent that McClellan was the last person on Earth who ought to be criticizing teh conduct of the war, very few soldiers (the swing vote) took him seriously.

[Capt. Harlock]

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured this election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards."
--Abraham Lincoln, August 23, 1864

"If I am elected, I will recommend an immediate armistice and a call for the convention of all the states and insist upon exhausting all and every means to secure peace without further bloodshed."
--George McClellan, August 24, 1864

"After four years of failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war … [we] demand that immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities."
--from the Democratic Party platform

[McClellan's election] "must lead to peace and our independence … [provided] that for the next two months we hold our own and prevent military success by our foes."
--The Charleston Mercury, September 5, 1864

(The news had not reached Charleston that Sherman had occupied Atlanta on September 2.)

[mdiehl]

Uh, Cap, the Lincoln November quote was well after Wilderness. The general response to Wilderness was a perception that "at last we are making progress." And indeed they were. And most of the Federal soldiers knew it. What really began to throw the campaign into doubt were the subsequent battles, particularly Cold Harbor. But Sherman's capture of Atlanta in September pretty much tilted the balance in Lincoln's favor beyond any Dem hope of recovery.

There are other sources on McClellan that indicate he was an opportunist. He accepted the Dem nomination because he wanted the office, but his basic opinion was Union by negotiation or by force. We should prbably however continue this via msgs or in another forum, as this seems an improper place to go into details about the ACW.

[Capt. Harlock]

Now that I have established that McClellan did indeed run on a pro-peace platform, and did in fact have a strong chance before the fall of Atlanta, let's turn to the Wilderness. The Battle of the Wilderness took place over a few days, and yes, you are correct in that there was jubilation when Grant continued the advance. However, The Federals sustained 17,500 casualties, while the Confederates are estimated to have lost 10,000. (Confederate records are understandably much less complete.) This works out to fairly close to the same percentage of Grant's and Lee's armies.

However, the Wilderness Campaign (note which phrase I used in my post) covers a period of several months between the time Grant started to move, and the time he found himself compelled to lay siege to Petersburg. Although Grant came close to breaking Lee's army on at least two occasions, the casualty count was far higher for the North than for the South. By the time of the fiasco at the Battle of the Crater, I assure you no one on the Union side was cheering. In fact, the Northern economy came close to the hyper-inflation that devastated the South because the market price of gold, a measure of investor confidence, rose to $230, which was mind-staggering at the time.

To try to get back to the subject of the thread, short disasters or battles, such as Bull Run or Savo Island, tend to increase American resolve. But long drawn out casualties for no measurable progress, such as we now face in Iraq, seriously erode American morale. And in a free-enterprise democracy, morale is crucial to the war effort. That was why FDR took the major gamble of launching the Dolittle raid on Tokyo, which could have cost us two carriers, for militarily insignificant damage. He knew the "shot in the arm" effect on both the military's and the general public's morale would be worth it.

[Tristanjohn]

To try to get back to the subject of the thread, short disasters or battles, such as Bull Run or Savo Island, tend to increase American resolve. But long drawn out casualties for no measurable progress, such as we now face in Iraq, seriously erode American morale.

Not always the case but often enough. A credible point.

And in a free-enterprise democracy, morale is crucial to the war effort. That was why FDR took the major gamble of launching the Dolittle raid on Tokyo, which could have cost us two carriers, for militarily insignificant damage. He knew the "shot in the arm" effect on both the military's and the general public's morale would be worth it.

This hardly impacts what you wrote about above. Think about it some more.

[mogami]

Hi, I just found something that I consider interesting. The 18th UK Division that was sent to Singapore in Jan 42. Had left Halifax in Nov 41 on board 5 USN transports. The force was escorted by USN ships all the way to Capetown and arrived Bombay late Dec 41. Also embarked was a US Army Field Service Unit. I think Field Service units are sent in advance of other Army Units. Seems the USA knew something was afoot and taking those first steps needed to move troops later.
What were the legal implications of a neutral navy hauling troops for a combatant nation?

(To be fair I think the 18th was heading for the Middle East and was diverted to India after Dec 7. but the US Army unit shows someone was sending troops to areas where they expected US troops to be sent soon)

[TIMJOT]

Hi, I just found something that I consider interesting. The 18th UK Division that was sent to Singapore in Jan 42. Had left Halifax in Nov 41 on board 5 USN transports. The force was escorted by USN ships all the way to Capetown and arrived Bombay late Dec 41. Also embarked was a US Army Field Service Unit. I think Field Service units are sent in advance of other Army Units. Seems the USA knew something was afoot and taking those first steps needed to move troops later.
What were the legal implications of a neutral navy hauling troops for a combatant nation?

(To be fair I think the 18th was heading for the Middle East and was diverted to India after Dec 7. but the US Army unit shows someone was sending troops to areas where they expected US troops to be sent soon)

That would be convoy "William Sail 12X", SS Mt Vernon, SS Leonard Wood, SS Joseph T Dickman, SS Orizaba, SS Wakefield and it was very much illegal and understandably kept very secret. They were escorted by the USS Ranger and 2 CAs and 8 DDs as far as Cape Good Hope, where the RN took over. I never heard of the US Army FS unit being embarked though. The only thing I can think is that I believe that FDR agreed to send Army personel to teach the 8th Army how to use and maintain all those new US Grant Tanks we were sending them, but its only a guess.

[Bushmaster]

Blood and Guts: This nickname was given to General George S. Patton at Ft. Benning, Ga. .in 1940. This was the result of officers training school when General Patton was the Commanding General of the 2nd Armored. He had been telling the officers that they would soon be up to their necks in blood and guts
2nd AD Activated 15 Jul 1940........"

"His guts, our blood."

[pry]

Timjot- Mogami, the legal justification was thin at best, Part of the movement was paid for out of UK's lend lease account. The US was escorting lend lease convoys west of 26 degrees west longitude and south of 20 degrees north latitude so to American eyes this was legal. The US was fully involved in the war in the Atlantic by this point anyway, they just neglected to inform the Germans and the American public of this little fact.

This whole story is strange and very interesting, FDR in September 1941 agreed with a request from Churchill that 6 cargo ships and 6 transports be made available to the British. In early October, 6 cargo ships Empire Pintail (Ex-Howell Lykes), Empire Egret (Ex- Nithingale), Empire Fulmar (Ex- Hawaiian Shipper), Empire Widgeon (Ex- Exemplar), Empire Peregrine (Ex- China Mail) and Empire Oriole (Ex- Extania) had their registry changed from US to British. The ships loaded at Halifax and sailed October 28 escorted by TF-14 CV Yorktown, BB New Mexico, CL's Philadelphia and Savannah, DD's Morris, Hughes, Sims, Hammann, Anderson, Mustin, O'Brien, Russell and Walke.

On 2 November TF-14 met Outbound British Troop Convoy CT-5 with British 18th Division embarked on the British transports, Duchess of the Atholl, Orcades, Sobieski, Warwick Castle, Andes, Durban Castle, Oronsay and Reina del Pacifico. Escorted by CLAA Cairo and 5 destroyers.

The escorts exchanged convoys and after arrival at Halifax the British troops are transferred to US Transports, AP-22 Mount Vernon, AP-25 Leonard Wood, AP-26 Joseph T. Dickman, AP-24 Orizaba, AP-21 Wakefield and AP-23 West Point.

Convoy WS-12X sailed from Halifax on November 10 for Basra, escorted by TF-14.4, CV Ranger, CA's Quincy and Vincennes, DD's Wainwright, Moffett, McDougal, Winslow, Mayrant, Rhind, Rowan and Trippe. AO Cimarron joined at Jamaica. They arrived at Cape Town December 9.

None of the sources I have available mentions anything about US Army troops being embarked.

The British troops were escorted by the US from the "MOMP" to Halifax and then all the way from Halifax to Cape Town.

[TIMJOT]

HI Pry

The problem was that the convoy passed through the 26 parrallel and beyond to get to Cape Town. Its amazing what FDR got away with. Most of my info on that convoy comes from Singapore sources and I have never seen any mention of the US FS unit either.

Mogami, where did you get the info on that unit being embarked?

[mogami]

http://www.town-local.net/sibiski/west_point.htm
from the history of the West Point (I make no claims to it's accuracy)

[TIMJOT]

http://www.town-local.net/sibiski/west_point.htm
from the history of the West Point (I make no claims to it's accuracy)

Thanks for the info. I have no reason to doubt it. Just never heard of it before. Again being only 100 men, if I had to guess I would say it was probably those US Army tank technicians sent to instruct the Brits on their new Grants or personel for the African air ferry route that was being set up prior to US entry into the war.