OT: question: US military size, prewar

[panzers]

Actually, that's not true. By the time America entered, the canadians were much more equipped and,certainly more experienced than the Americans

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Strictly speaking, it was the Japanese Navy that felt America was threatening. The Japanese Army was more concerned with the Soviets.

Hence, Pearl Harbor

[panzers]

Actually, the Swiss army was quite strong and with their terrain and the way they trained their troops to accommadate the terrain from which they lived in was a good enough reason for Hitler to take the diplomatic approach with them. There were a lot of things the swiss did on both sides that could easily have provoked an attack, but by the time that happened, everyone was now too occupied to start thinking about their flanks. It was bad enough for Germany to build the Atlantic wall, let alone the possibility of fighting in one of the most difficult terrains in the entire world which, by the way, also happens to border the soft underbelly. The Swiss made sure it stayed that way for their entire focus was mountain training.

[V22 Osprey]

Army was vary tiny in 1939.The NYPD had more men than the Marine Corps.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: panzers

Actually, that's not true. By the time America entered, the canadians were much more equipped and,certainly more experienced than the Americans

Perhaps , but they weren't threatening to invade Syracuse now , were they?

[morvwilson]

I have found over the years that when some one offers the position that money spent on the military invites aggression/temptation and is better spent on social programs, it does no good to argue with them on this point because the whole premise is wrong.
 
The thought process of, "if we are nice to others they will be nice to us." only works among reasonable people. History(and personal experience in my casse) teaches us that not everyone is reasonable.
 
In the case of Japan in WW2 they thought the US weak and decadent and over estimated their own strength. (clearly not paying attention to Sun Tzu there!) It could be argued also that the US did do some provocation on it's own in the form of steel and oil embargoes in order to stop Japan from expanding into parts of Asia.
 
Look at former leaders like Joe Stalin or Adolf Hitler, were they reasonable? Would they be nice to their neighbors if their neighbors were nice to them? Don't think it worked out that way.
 
History is full of other examples besides WW2, but again, the premise appears to be off to me.

[ilovestrategy]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I don't think the Axis powers underestimated the US because of the small size of her military, but because they thought she was decadent and isolationist and lacked the will to fight. Classic case of Oops![:D]

Just like that Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs tries to get a bigger bounty on his head and when he sees all these army guys, tanks and planes coming his way he says that maybe he went a little bit too far [:D]

[rogueusmc]

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the case of Japan in WW2 they thought the US weak and decadent and over estimated their own strength. (clearly not paying attention to Sun Tzu there!)...

Sun Tzu was Chinese, hence the Japanese probably didn't recognize his concepts in a broad sense...

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

ORIGINAL: morvwilson
In the case of Japan in WW2 they thought the US weak and decadent and over estimated their own strength. (clearly not paying attention to Sun Tzu there!)...

Sun Tzu was Chinese, hence the Japanese probably didn't recognize his concepts in a broad sense...

oops!

[panzers]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I know mlees, and probably no one else is asking my opinion, but since the forum is slow these days I'll give it anyway. [:'(]

1) Did the small size of the US Army cause the aggressive Axis powers to underestimate the US's ability to fight and win a war?

As far as axis Germany goes: After the joke that was the treaty of versailles, There was no one that was going to stop Germany from starting WWII(in europe). And, on top of that, if there was no Hitler, it would have been someone else. If the truth be known, France's stubborn will to completely make a proud Germany nothing but a third world country just out of spite, despite the strong arguments against it by The USA and The British, is the single biggest reason why WWII happened. In effect, the traty of versailles is the reason for WWII. I know people will debate that, but all you have to do is check out the history on that and it will clearly show that World war I and the treaty of versailles was the culprit, NOT HITLER!
In the end, what we have here is two proud and ethnically superior nations, one completely in control of the other. Never a good recipe.
Quoted from panzers





Almost certainly yes...but at least in the case of Japan it wasn't just the size of the military which led to the perceived weakness. Japan (the political military establishment) also considered Japanese people to be superior to pretty much everyone. It was the arrogance, as much as anything, that led to the war.

1a) Would a much larger US military (Army, Air Force, and Navy) in 1939 have restrained the aggressiveness of Germany or Japan?

NO. See the comment above. When ultra-national pride is the dominant thought process reason and judgment go out the window.

2) Did the large US Navy actually aggravate the situation vis a vis Japan?

No, the large Navy in and of itself did not aggravate the problem with Japan, if by aggravate you mean take aggressive action. However, the threat by the US and UK to blockade Japan, combined with the deployment of fleets to the Pacific did aggravate the situation. Had the US taken a more restrained posture it seems certain Japan would have been content to continue its war with China first.

3) Would a smaller military have worked, but only if the USA had remained completely isolationist from events in Asia and Europe? (Remember, the oil embargo and Lend Lease acts could be seen by the Axis powers as provocative.)

There was a small group advocating for maintaining a small military. They were isolationists. Would having a small military have discouraged FDR from threatening a blockade on Japan...possibly. Would this have prevented a preemptive strike by Japan, possibly. Would that ultimately have prevented a war? That's almost impossible to predict IMO, but personally I doubt it. Japan almost certainly would have attacked forces in the SRA.

Thanks again for the interesting view points.

I had not considered that the large USN might have been seen by Japan, as a dagger aimed at her. I always viewed the move of the Pacific Fleet to Hawaii as a failed deterent, as Japan attacked anyway. I did not think much deeper than that. But then again, Japan had been training with the US in mind as the most likely enemy since the mid-20's... kind of a self fullfilling prophecy.

Well, certainly that was true after the embargo and the threatened blockade. The failure at Hawaii, IMO, was a failure to adequately assess the threat of carriers. I never saw the Hawaii move foremost as a deterrent. I believe it was a real step toward an actual blockade....apparently so did Japan.

I just wanted to add something to my own 2 cents on the subject. Where I feel the treaty of versailles is what created Hitler, there is another factor that is quite the twist of irony: in a very strange way, the best thing that could have ever happened to this world was that the fact that it was Hitler that was the result of the treaty. As I'm sure most of you know, his competition was squashed, and I'm not talking about the jews or the SA here. I'm talking about the communists.
Now say what you will about East Germany after the war with the advent of nuclear technology, but can you imagine what this world would be like today if Hitler didn't purge every communist in Germany? That would have been 1000 times more dangerous than eastern Germany. The chances of this world being a communist world would have been far more likely than anyone could even think of compared to the world of the 5000 year reich.
I then would have to say that the fact that Stalin in that case would have been the leader of a communist world would have been quite frightning indeed.
So say what you will, but the madness that was Hitler was very much a blessing in disguise based on the mere fact that the treaty inevedively was GOING to create a monster of some kind out of Germany.

[marky]

in At Dawn We Slept, its said that instead of a sword being dangled with the US fleet at Pearl, it was a carrot, and ironically, if more of PacFlts ships had been sent to the Atlantic, that Yamamoto wouldnt have been so dead set on it, and Pearl might not have happened

so the "deterrent" actually worked in reverse

makes sense doesnt it?

dangle a big stationary carrot long enuff and sum1 will go for it [:D]

[morganbj]

If Why We Fight wasn't propaganda - I don't know what is,

I wasn't talking about Why We Fight.  There are dozens of post-war documentaries about the pre-war era that use pre-war footage about military preaprations.  Sure some of the same footage appears in both, but some doesn't.  There's a lot more out there than WWF.

But, just because some of the footage is the same doesn't mean the message is the same.  That depends on the other context of the footage, doesn't it?  I was referring to old footage with new voice over.  Why We Fight was clearly propaganda.  What I'm talking about isn't.  Most are a reasonably objective retrospective on how internal politics and societal pressures affect the military.

So, are you saying that we were ready to go in 1940?  The army had thousands of first line tanks, weapons out the wazoo, and highly trained soldiers?

The facts are otherwise.  Seek them out.  They are there to be found.

[mlees]

Lots of great points are being made here, thanks!

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: marky

in At Dawn We Slept, its said that instead of a sword being dangled with the US fleet at Pearl, it was a carrot, and ironically, if more of PacFlts ships had been sent to the Atlantic, that Yamamoto wouldnt have been so dead set on it, and Pearl might not have happened

so the "deterrent" actually worked in reverse

makes sense doesnt it?

dangle a big stationary carrot long enuff and sum1 will go for it [:D]

the problem with this marky is that the Japanese high command only planned to attack the Philippeans and Wake. The Pearl Harbor attack was Yamamoto acting on his own. He never had approval for that attack.

[Joshuatree]

The Pearl Harbor attack was Yamamoto acting on his own. He never had approval for that attack.

.... you got to be kidding... he acted on his own? I never knew that.

[AW1Steve]

I hate to sound touchy -feely, but is it possible that both sides were right? That the US felt moving the fleet to Pearl Harbor was a reasonable move, and that the Japanese saw it as a dagger at their throats? Here's my thinking; There is a concept in Anglo-American law called "the reasonable man doctrine". When considering a question a judge will consider "What would a reasonable man do in this circumstance". Many of  FDR's advisors were lawyers. I'm sure they fully felt , that by moving the fleet closer , you were simply saying "This we will defend".They moved it to US territory , mid-Pacific. Not to Guam , not to Cavite (the Phillipines). Nations had been making "shows of force" as long as there have been nations. The Great White fleet was a far greater provocation.  An example of how NOT making a statement lead to war was the Korean war. In the year before Korea , the US state department listed a number of countries that it would go to war to defend....through an oversight South Korea was not on the list. Added to the fact that we were downsizing our forces in Korea at the time, Stalin assumed that the US would ignore a push from the north to take over the south.
 
 The Japanese leadership at the time ,having overthrown the civilian government (in fact if not in name), was not made up of lawyers , or statesmen. It was made up of military , or former military men. Reason consisted more of a "I'd do it , so they must be planning to do it!", than "what would a reasonable man do"?   Added to the fact that almost all of Japan's gains on the world stage since the Meji restoration had  been through  military action , (as a good friend of mine frequently say's "if the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails".) The Sino-Japanese war , the Boxer rebellion, the Russo-Japanese war , the territory gains in China and from the Mandated islands against the Germans in WW1.
 
 It seems to me that the two sides were talking at cross purposes.
 
 And as far as the USA inviting attack by poetentially having a bigger fleet , I'd like to point out that Great Britian had a much greater fleet during most of that period. Japan not only didn't attack Britain , it signed an alliance with her in 1902.
 
 

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

The Pearl Harbor attack was Yamamoto acting on his own. He never had approval for that attack.

.... you got to be kidding... he acted on his own? I never knew that.

No he got approval , but only by threatening to resign if his plan were not put into operation.

[panzers]

That's not nesessarilly entirely true. He trained and went to school in the US before and during the war years, believe it or not and saw everything.The Japaneese high command was well aware of this and took everything he said to heart and allowed him the free reign to do as he pleased.
The recomandation to attack pearl harbor was not his, it was the brainchild of the Japaneese High command. All the information Yammamoto knew about the US was good enough to know that it would've been suicide to do such an act for he was all too aware of the military capacity of the US even though at the time it was very meager. He went along with the plans anyway because he was a soldier and he was a Japaneese soldier or naval officer, whatever you want to call it, and even though he knew this, he went along with it because it was simply the right thing to do according to the Japaneese military code. As it was he knew more than the United States themselves that it was a plan that would seal the fate of the Japaneese military. He was the Rommel of Japan, so they had very high respect and expectations from him.
So knowing everything that he knew, he accepted the reality it was and was made Admiral of the Japaneese navy and using all the tools he had at his disposal he set out a plan with knowledge in hand to devestate the US navy and it's carriers. Unfortunately for Japan, the carriers just happen to be out at sea near Midway at the time and didn't know that, which of course, would come back to haunt them at Midway thus comfirming to Yammamoto what he, alone know about the upcoming disaster for his beloved Japan.
An irony of all this was that at the time, Yamamoto was close to the US despite the tensions between the two nations and it was the Americans that set out the plans to destroy him from the air because the US finally got the message that this man was very dangerous and knew everything.

[morvwilson]

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

The Pearl Harbor attack was Yamamoto acting on his own. He never had approval for that attack.

.... you got to be kidding... he acted on his own? I never knew that.

Yep
He did not want to go to war against the US.
The threat to resign was to keep some of his own in line not the high command.
The problem was in the Japanese government of the time.
Not nearly as well organized as it is today. Not even Japanese officials of the time could tell you how it worked.
The reason Yamamoto did not have approval for the attack is because he never asked.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: panzers

Actually, the Swiss army was quite strong and with their terrain and the way they trained their troops to accommadate the terrain from which they lived in was a good enough reason for Hitler to take the diplomatic approach with them. There were a lot of things the swiss did on both sides that could easily have provoked an attack, but by the time that happened, everyone was now too occupied to start thinking about their flanks. It was bad enough for Germany to build the Atlantic wall, let alone the possibility of fighting in one of the most difficult terrains in the entire world which, by the way, also happens to border the soft underbelly. The Swiss made sure it stayed that way for their entire focus was mountain training.

Hitler would never have attacked Switzerland. Tough army/terrain and world opinion aside, Switzerland was too important to him for . . . um . . . financial reasons, to invade.