Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1940, the U.S. Army only had about 175,000 troops. That is barely a home defense army and only slightly larger than Germany's army in the 1920's under the Treaty of Versailles. The German Army by that point in time had about 4 million troops. The U.S. was incapable of fighting an overseas war that year, and posed no threat to Germany for several years.
The U.S. draft began in September, 1940, but it took time to build into a juggernaut. We did not reach 3 million troops until 1942, but even then, most of our troops were tied down in the Pacific, in garrison duty, or home defense. Even in late '42, during Operation Torch, we could not field a full size offensive army in North Africa. In 1943, our army doubled in size from 3 million to 6 million troops. This is where we became a force to reckon with.
I think Hitler felt he had to explain why he was declaring war against the US because up Germany's agreement with Japan was they didn't have to come to their aid only if Japan was attacked by another country. Several recordings of the declrations speech on YouTube.
In 1940, the U.S. Army only had about 175,000 troops. That is barely a home defense army and only slightly larger than Germany's army in the 1920's under the Treaty of Versailles. The German Army by that point in time had about 4 million troops. The U.S. was incapable of fighting an overseas war that year, and posed no threat to Germany for several years.
The U.S. draft began in September, 1940, but it took time to build into a juggernaut. We did not reach 3 million troops until 1942, but even then, most of our troops were tied down in the Pacific, in garrison duty, or home defense. Even in late '42, during Operation Torch, we could not field a full size offensive army in North Africa. In 1943, our army doubled in size from 3 million to 6 million troops. This is where we became a force to reckon with.
My dad was stationed at Fort Richardson, Alaska in 1941. He said after December 7th the West Coast was so open to invasion that the Canadian Army shifted several hundred thousand of their troops into the BC area.
Of course in the flick "1941" we saw how the troops rallied to defend Southern California from the "yellow menace".
The authors of Shattered Sword note that if the Japanese had won at Midway they would have still lost the war, and that if the US had lost at Midway they would have still won the war.
Hitler amazes me sometimes:
Germany, population ~80,000,000
US + USSR, population ~310,000,000. When the UK and Commonwealth are added, plus all the other nations that joined the UN, the odds were worse than 5 to 1 against Germany.
The authors of Shattered Sword note that if the Japanese had won at Midway they would have still lost the war, and that if the US had lost at Midway they would have still won the war.
Hitler amazes me sometimes:
Germany, population ~80,000,000
US + USSR, population ~310,000,000. When the UK and Commonwealth are added, plus all the other nations that joined the UN, the odds were worse than 5 to 1 against Germany.
My thesis is that had Japan continued is victories in the Pacific with the U.S. carriers destroyed, then the U.S. would have had to send expend much more resouces in the Pacific depriving Britain of critical resources. It would have been a much different war. At the time, the Battle of Atlantic and the Eastern Front was far from resolved. Could the Soviet Union win without the U.S. involvement for an extended period and a fully crippled Britain? It's impossible to say. Nothing is given when it comes to war except the past.
The population is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ability to wage war. The Battle of Stalingrad was won because Stalin chanced that Japan will not attack from the East. Great Britain was able to subjugate a substantially larger population for hundreds of years due solely to the war making capacity of the Island vs. its subjects.
The problem with that is the Kogun was stretched to the limit fighting the land war in China and the Kaigun would have to defend an enlarged zone of occupation without any prospect of an enlarged naval force. They wanted a buffer zone to give them warning of US incursions, but the territory they had was largely useless to the Empire while still taking resources to maintain.
And the population was NOT irrelevant. The population was what manned the ships, planes, and tanks, and produced the goods of war. Logistics wins wars.
The problem with that is the Kogun was stretched to the limit fighting the land war in China and the Kaigun would have to defend an enlarged zone of occupation without any prospect of an enlarged naval force. They wanted a buffer zone to give them warning of US incursions, but the territory they had was largely useless to the Empire while still taking resources to maintain.
And the population was NOT irrelevant. The population was what manned the ships, planes, and tanks, and produced the goods of war. Logistics wins wars.
As I said, the population needs the ability to actually engage in a war. The U.S. would have been forced to move critical resources in to the Pacific in 1941 while Britain was being choked by the U-boats as the Allies were losing over 350000 tons of supplies power month.
Could the Japanese increase pressure by moving toward Hawaii and Aleutians with the U.S Navy destroyed? How would that have affected the Battle of the Atlantic?
As I said, the population needs the ability to actually engage in a war. The U.S. would have been forced to move critical resources in to the Pacific in 1941 while Britain was being choked by the U-boats as the Allies were losing over 350000 tons of supplies power month.
Could the Japanese increase pressure by moving toward Hawaii and Aleutians with the U.S Navy destroyed? How would that have affected the Battle of the Atlantic?
The USN wouldn't have been "destroyed", one to three carriers lost wouldn't have ended it.
Parshall and Tully, authors of Shattered Sword, point out that the Japanese wouldn't have won the war if they won at Midway, and the US wouldn't have lost the war if they'd lost at Midway. A loss at Midway would have extended the war six months to a year at best. And that would be with the US limiting operations in the mid-Pacific. We would have kept the pressure up in the SWPA.
And the population produces the ability to wage war. Don't confuse the population with the military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
