What was our greatest strategic error in WWII and what woukd you have done?

[Moonglow]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.

 

[Moonglow]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.

Wilson did not want that to happen, but he was a small voice in the din of Europe's need to lay the blame...

 

[Camp]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.

That being said, there were those who saw the rise of militarism coming out of Japan and Germany that wanted the US military to build a force that would be prepared to counter and deter those counties aspirations to expand their land mass through military means. The isolationist in this country prevented the build up and preparedness that may have averted those aspirations. And lets not forget it was a powerful media isolationist that leaked "RAINBOW" just days before Pearl and was used by Hitler in his declaration of war. The isolationist were well organized and may have actually helped drag the country into the war they wanted to avoid.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.

Wilson did not want that to happen, but he was a small voice in the din of Europe's need to lay the blame...

Irrelevant. His involvement is what made it possible. In other words, the U.S.'s interventionist policies in WWI led directly to WWII.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The greatest strategic blunder was isolationism and letting the military lag in concepts and modern machines...

What "isolationism?"

after WWI till WWII

So in between the hyper-interventionist foreign policies we've got so-called "isolationism." That's a convenient argument. Never mind that WWI, which the U.S. was directly involved in, is what set the stage for WWII by pinning all the blame and reparations on Germany.

That being said, there were those who saw the rise of militarism coming out of Japan and Germany that wanted the US military to build a force that would be prepared to counter and deter those counties aspirations to expand their land mass through military means. The isolationist in this country prevented the build up and preparedness that may have averted those aspirations. And lets not forget it was a powerful media isolationist that leaked "RAINBOW" just days before Pearl and was used by Hitler in his declaration of war. The isolationist were well organized and may have actually helped drag the country into the war they wanted to avoid.

Of course we can also point out how FDR purposefully provoked both Germany and Japan by openly favoring the Allies while he was supposed to remain neutral, which also gives the lie to the claim of "isolationism," without which there would have been little need to concern ourselves with the militarism of either country.

 

[Moonglow]

hardly since it was the Wehrmacht that was accused by the Germans to have stabbed the German nation in the back for surrender... and the oppressive control of German territory held for repayment of the war..That led to economic breakdown and hyperinflation, giving way to extreme nationalism that rose until the economy improved, once the depression hit the nationalist were on the rise yet again...
The economy and it's conditions after the Great Depression led to nationalism which led to the rise of Hitler...and thus WWII...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

hardly since it was the Wehrmacht that was accused by the Germans to have stabbed the German nation in the back for surrender... and the oppressive control of German territory held for repayment of the war..That led to economic breakdown and hyperinflation, giving way to extreme nationalism that rose until the economy improved, once the depression hit the nationalist were on the rise yet again...
The economy and it's conditions after the Great Depression led to nationalism which led to the rise of Hitler...and thus WWII...

And as I said before, there would have been a more equitable peace after WWI, i.e. not forcing Germany to take all the blame for the war and paying ridiculous reparations and giving up land, had the U.S. not gotten involved and tipped the war in the favor of the British and especially the French. Under the terms of a more equitable peace, one that probably was the outcome of a draw more than one side beating the other into submission, Germany would have retained its position in the world and there would have been no reason to turn to a demagogue like Hitler to bring them back to greatness.

 

[Moonglow]

The Germans were losing on the home front with the blockade and their defeat was inevitable, thanks to the axis powers losing ground and their army's disintegration...Italy was beating Austria and the Turks were losing their empire..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Germans were losing on the home front with the blockade and their defeat was inevitable, thanks to the axis powers losing ground and their army's disintegration...Italy was beating Austria and the Turks were losing their empire..

A blockade only sustainable because the U.S. refused to hold the British accountable for their illegal blockade the way the way they did with the Germans for their submarine and mine warfare in British waters. Had they been treated equally, neutrally, in other words, then the British would have been forced to give up their blockade in the face of the Germans' sub warfare or because the U.S. refused to continue trading with them.

 

[Moonglow]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.

 

[Moonglow]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.

not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.

not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....

Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?

 

[Moonglow]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.

not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....

Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?

None that I know of....But it was Germany that was considered belligerent and the US Congress wanting to aid it's time honored allies...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The allies were outproducing Germany in war material and men as was the case for victory for WWII..

Bankrolled by the "neutral" U.S.

not really the allies paid in gold for the US to produce arms....

Yes, but how much war material did the "isolationist" "neutral" U.S. send to Germany?

None that I know of....But it was Germany that was considered belligerent and the US Congress wanting to aid it's time honored allies...

Of course it was Germany that was considered belligerent, because they were being sold to the public as the enemy. They had to be belligerent, and Britain and France had to be standing up to "evil." The fact, however, is that all participants were being completely irrational and belligerent, and the U.S. simply favored the Allies because Wilson needed to get involved in the war to try to put his delusions of remaking the world into action. This gives the lie to the claim of "isolationism," however.

 

[Camp]

Isolationism meant restricting business and industry from participating in global trade and America giving up it's rights to not only allow it to trade with whomever it wanted, but demanded giving up access and rights to the open seas. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just call ourselves neutral and let the world spin out of control as if it had no bearing on us? It really is a child like concept of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA should have had a greater commitment to assault shipping and shore attack much earlier.

That along with helicopter transport development.

The above would have made the mistakes at Tarawa minimal in comparison and assault of the other Japanese bastions easier.

Two, the Italian landings should have been much higher on the boot.

Three, the invasion of the South of France could have been done with half of the resources.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, we could not have beat the Russians in 1945.

All of our divisions were overseas, and we had none in the pipeline or training.

The British and French and American populations would not have tolerated rearming and fighting the Russians.

If we attacked the Russians, they would have been in Paris and Rome within four weeks.

 

[Camp]

No, we could not have beat the Russians in 1945.

All of our divisions were overseas, and we had none in the pipeline or training.

The British and French and American populations would not have tolerated rearming and fighting the Russians.

If we attacked the Russians, they would have been in Paris and Rome within four weeks.

They also would have come to a quick agreement, perhaps even an alliance with Japan that would have freed up Japanese troops to fight against us as well as Russian troops from the east to be added to the fight with us.