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.
How great of a commander-in-chief was FDR during World War II?
I think he was excellent in this capacity and deserves to be ranked as the second or third greatest American President largely because of it. '
However, having said that I'd like to discuss these criticisms of him in that role:
1. He consented to putting the Japanese Americans in internment camps.
2. He was very "hands off". The generals and the admirals were left to make most decisions on their own.
3. The decision that was made early on in the war to devote most resources to defeating Germany lead to a scarcity of a military forces and arms in the Pacific Theater. As a result, the invasion of Guadalcanal in late 1942 was conducted with inadequate men, ships, and airplanes. As a result, the campaign there went on for months. Should we have put more resources into the conflict in the Pacific early on than we chose too?
4. Should FDR have been honest with General MacArthur during the early part of the war and simply told him it would have been impossible to send more troops to the Philippines to relieve American forces there?
5. Was the Doolittle Raid on Japan that he ordered an unnecessary expenditure of good pilots and airplanes for little real purpose?
6. Was FDR wrong to insist on unconditional surrender from the Axis forces? Would drawing up specific surrender terms--no matter how harsh--been more to the advantage of the Allies in terms of ending World War II?
7. Was FDR too physically frail at the time of the Yalta Conference to properly represent the USA?
8. Did FDR not do enough as President to prevent or stop the Holocaust and other war-related atrocities by German and Japanese forces?
I would appreciate those commenting to offer background and explanations rather than just providing "yes" or "no" answers. Anyone can have an opinion. Let's see some reasoning.
When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the United States had a good navy and laughable army, one that was smaller than Portugal's. We were on the ropes in the western Pacific. Years of isolationism had ensured that.
Less than four years later, the United States had ground the Japanese to powder, to use Churchill's phrase, and played its crucial role in destroying Hitler. So the United States pulled itself out of the end of the Great Depression, built an army almost from scratch, vastly expanded its navy, modernized its weaponry, retooled and expanded its industry, and essentially reordered the entirety of its society in order to fight two separate and fundamentally-different wars with extraordinary logistical challenges. All while simultaneously playing a critical role in the supply of the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and the rest of our allies.
Read that paragraph again and realize what a singular achievement that was.
To be sure, the Soviets did the lion's share of the fighting in Europe. And Britain fought the longest and played its crucial role in both theaters. But the Pacific was a staggering conflict all its own shouldered largely by the Americans outside of Burma. In that sense, the sheer difficulty of the conflict in the Pacific just is almost impossible to grasp. If you've ever flown across the vastness of the Pacific, it drives home how difficult it must have been to simply keep our forces supplied, let alone successfully prosecute our campaigns.
FDR was the leader of this effort, making inspired leadership choices and organizing the economy to pump out unprecedented amounts of men and materiel. I guess it's easy to nitpick his decisions 70-odd years later, but I'm pretty certain that we were incredibly fortunate to have Roosevelt in the White House.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 03-04-2018 at 01:08 PM..
Here were the two great military masterminds that led the American war efforts, and Douglas MacArthur often displayed brilliant tactical and strategic command (especially with his post-war rule in Japan), despite great failures at the beginning of the war, and, arguably, in demanding the liberation of the Philippines.
Consider not only that Marshall appointed Eisenhower over many more senior generals, Roosevelt, Churchill and Truman all considered Marshall so indispensable that he wasn't allowed to take a direct operational command.
E.g., how fortunate was the U.S. to have an advocate of air power in the post of Army Chief of Staff. Consider that only the U.S. developed and employed heavy bombers before WWII, and that the revolutionary B-29, along with atomic bombs, ended the Pacific War without an invasion of Japan.
<<Former British prime minister Winston Churchill said:
"There are few men whose qualities of mind and character have impressed me so deeply as those of General Marshall ... He is a great American, but he is far more than that ... He has always fought victoriously against defeatism, discouragement and disillusion. Succeeding generations must not be allowed to forget his achievements and his example."
Churchill also called Marshall the "true architect of victory" in the West European theater of World War II. Here's why, and also why FDR was the greatest of American Presidential war leaders (consider by comparison Lincoln's floundering efforts to establish competent leadership of the Union army and also that Marshall was a VMI graduate and not West Point; not mentioned in the above story is that the iconic John Pershing also had advised Roosevelt of Marshall's excellence, having benefited greatly from Marshall's brilliance in World War I and afterwards).
<<Roosevelt was not opposed to preparedness, however his concept centered on airplanes rather than a balanced force. For his part Marshall proposed a $675 million dollar crash program that called for the creation of a balanced force of 1.25 million men by 1941, the bare minimum needed in his mind for a nation still at peace but prepared for war.
When Marshall and Treasury Secretary Morgenthau went to the White House to ask FDR for the necessary authorization, the president breezily dismissed the program. Morgenthau then asked the President if he would hear Marshall. “I know exactly what he would say,” Roosevelt replied. “There is no necessity for me to hear him at all.”
According to Morgenthau’s diary, Marshall, his face red and his temper barely under control, then asked the president for three minutes to speak. Marshall then passionately presented a warning about the threat faced by the dire straits of its armed forces. “Did the president not understand the danger? Did he not understand that his inaction was putting the nation at risk? If you don’t do something,” he concluded, “I don’t know what is going to happen to this country.” Two days later Roosevelt sent the program to Congress and the Congress soon after appropriated $900 million dollars for it.16>>
In his championship of Marshall's abilities, Pershing in a personal appeal to FDR perhaps scuttled the anticipated replacement of Eisenhower by Marshall for the invasion of France.
<<Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, Army Air Corps chief, remembered that at the outset Chief of Staff Marshall lacked a full appreciation of air power but that he learned quickly and was open-minded, part of “his ability to digest what he saw” and incorporate it into his “body of military genius.” [13] Gen. Omar Bradley recalled a revealing occurrence that took place soon after he joined the secretariat of the new chief of staff in 1939: “At the end of the first week General Marshall called us into his office and said without ceremony, ‘I am disappointed in all of you.’ When we asked why, he replied, ‘You haven’t disagreed with a single thing I have done all week’.” Later, when Bradley and his colleagues questioned the contents of a staff study, Marshall said approvingly, “Now that is what I want. Unless I hear all the arguments against something I am not sure whether I’ve made the right decision or not.” And to Eisenhower, before the North African landings, Marshall declared, “When you disagree with my point of view, say so, without an apologetic approach.” [14]
If it is not clear how Washington came by such qualities, it appears probable that Marshall was significantly influenced by his mentor, General Pershing, for on various occasions in after years Marshall mentioned approvingly Pershing’s remarkable capacity to accept dissent. As Marshall informed Col. Edwin T. Cole in 1939, Pershing “could listen to more opposition to his apparent view than any man I have ever known, and show less personal feeling than anyone I have ever seen. He was the most outstanding example of a man with complete tolerance regardless of what his own personal opinions seemed to be. In that quality lay a great part of his strength.” >>
Marshall, despite his immense accomplishments, was not infallible as a war leader, as described in the above article:
<<But Marshall and the British clashed over strategy a number of times during the war. He had proved himself a brilliant organizer but was less sure footed in his approach to the most important strategic choice facing America in World War II: when and where to deploy U.S. forces on a large scale. He correctly supported the Germany first strategic priority, but the timing he proposed was premature and caused serious misunderstandings with the British. He advocated a cross-English Channel invasion in 1942, when manpower and resources, particularly landing craft, were limited, and which, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill rightly warned, would have been catastrophic.
Marshall fiercely opposed the North African campaign and pressed again for an invasion of France in 1943. But manpower and resources were still inadequate, the U.S. Army had still not gained enough experience against the hard-fighting Germans, and the Allies had yet to achieve mastery in the Atlantic and in the skies over Europe. A cross-Channel invasion in 1943 would have carried great military risk.>>
Historians often credit Marshall with making Allied victory possible by championing the nation's first peace-time draft in 1940 and its extension in 1941, with the latter passing in the House of Representatives by only one vote.
How great of a commander-in-chief was FDR during World War II?
I think he was excellent in this capacity and deserves to be ranked as the second or third greatest American President largely because of it. '
However, having said that I'd like to discuss these criticisms of him in that role:
1. He consented to putting the Japanese Americans in internment camps.
2. He was very "hands off". The generals and the admirals were left to make most decisions on their own.
3. The decision that was made early on in the war to devote most resources to defeating Germany lead to a scarcity of a military forces and arms in the Pacific Theater. As a result, the invasion of Guadalcanal in late 1942 was conducted with inadequate men, ships, and airplanes. As a result, the campaign there went on for months. Should we have put more resources into the conflict in the Pacific early on than we chose too?
Who knows. I'd wager it was more important to stop the Germans first. They posed a bigger threat with their submarines. The Japanese were pretty far off and didn't utilize subs the same way.
4. Should FDR have been honest with General MacArthur during the early part of the war and simply told him it would have been impossible to send more troops to the Philippines to relieve American forces there?
5. Was the Doolittle Raid on Japan that he ordered an unnecessary expenditure of good pilots and airplanes for little real purpose?
The Doolittle Raid was more about showing Japan we could hit their mainland.
6. Was FDR wrong to insist on unconditional surrender from the Axis forces? Would drawing up specific surrender terms--no matter how harsh--been more to the advantage of the Allies in terms of ending World War II?
Absolutely not. The Nazis and factions within Japan were dogs and needed to be put down.
7. Was FDR too physically frail at the time of the Yalta Conference to properly represent the USA?
8. Did FDR not do enough as President to prevent or stop the Holocaust and other war-related atrocities by German and Japanese forces?
Nope. Jews were trying to escape but often other nations turned their backs on them.
I would appreciate those commenting to offer background and explanations rather than just providing "yes" or "no" answers. Anyone can have an opinion. Let's see some reasoning.
^
Last edited by mensaguy; 03-04-2018 at 05:17 PM..
Reason: Please don't use red text. It is reserved for moderator actions
Both Marshall and Nimitz were masters of logistics.
However, excellent logistics alone will not lead to victory.
The posts about Eisenhower, Marshall, and Nimitz are interesting. However, give me a break guys.
I started a thread to talk about FDR. Posts that deal with other leaders are not on topic. Rather than tagging onto my thread, I'd appreciate it if you start your own.
The posts about Eisenhower, Marshall, and Nimitz are interesting. However, give me a break guys.
I started a thread to talk about FDR. Posts that deal with other leaders are not on topic. Rather than tagging onto my thread, I'd appreciate it if you start your own.
Actually, they have everything to do with the subject. Roosevelt saw something in all those men and chose them specifically to fulfill crucial roles in the war. Marshall oversaw the gigantic task of turning the United States almost overnight from a peacetime nation to a juggernaut. Eisenhower was chosen not just for his command of men but also for his diplomatic skills juggling very tricky alliances with the British and French. Nimitz salvaged the Pacific Fleet from the devastation of Pearl Harbor, staving off defeat until the tide could be turned.
These men were not accidents. They were a product of FDR's ability to chose the right men to serve in the right positions.
Actually, they have everything to do with the subject. Roosevelt saw something in all those men and chose them specifically to fulfill crucial roles in the war. Marshall oversaw the gigantic task of turning the United States almost overnight from a peacetime nation to a juggernaut. Eisenhower was chosen not just for his command of men but also for his diplomatic skills juggling very tricky alliances with the British and French. Nimitz salvaged the Pacific Fleet from the devastation of Pearl Harbor, staving off defeat until the tide could be turned.
These men were not accidents. They were a product of FDR's ability to chose the right men to serve in the right positions.
Exactly. Contrast the performance of the U.S. in WWII with the outcome in Vietnam under LBJ. Westmoreland wouldn't have lasted six months under Marshall, but it's questionable if Marshall would have condoned American involvement in Vietnam in the first place.
FDR broke the back of seniority in the U.S. Army and chose greatness over longevity in appointing Marshall as the Army Chief of Staff.
Arguably, the greatness of FDR as a commander-in-chief can be measured by the paucity of deaths suffered by American forces despite the immensity of the tasks undertaken and accomplished. The excellence of Marshall and Nimitz were the architects and agents of this success.
To the extent that Abraham Lincoln is FDR's only challenger to the title of greatest commander-in-chief, consider that American military deaths and wounded in WWII were a fraction of those experienced in the Civil War, despite the considerably greater military tasks undertaken. E.g., some would argue that if Lincoln had appointed George Thomas as the Union commander at the beginning of the war, the odds are that war would have been considerably shortened (Thomas as a Virginian was constantly shunned and his skills underutilized, even though Lincoln had offered the command initially to fellow Virginian Robert E. Lee on the recommendation of Winfield Scott). FDR's superiority to Lincoln isn't surprising as FDR had considerably more administrative experience than Lincoln, including seven years as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during World War I.
Donald M. Nelson, the first chairman of the War Production Board, was another magnificent and critical FDR appointment.
<<It was Nelson's experience at Sears, buying more than 135,000 different products while gaining an unparalleled knowledge of American industry, that led President Franklin Roosevelt to give him several jobs overseeing production of war material for the United States and its allies in World War II. >>
As in all of his appointments, Roosevelt emphasized both exceptional ability and exceptional experience in selecting Nelson to manage the war-time economy.
2. He was very "hands off". The generals and the admirals were left to make most decisions on their own.
This is inaccurate. Consider that Roosevelt opposed George Marshall's early invasion of France or Marshall's proposal to emphasize the defeat of Japan over the defeat of Germany.
<<After Churchill pressed for a landing in French North Africa in 1942, General George Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, suggested instead to U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt that the United States abandon the Germany-first strategy and take the offensive in the Pacific. Roosevelt "disapproved" the proposal, saying it would do nothing to help the Soviet Union.[5]>>
Your questions seem to emphasize that Roosevelt was soft on the Soviet Union, but Roosevelt well and correctly recognized, as did Stalin, that the Soviet Union was bearing the brunt of the burden of defeating Nazi Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
3. The decision that was made early on in the war to devote most resources to defeating Germany lead to a scarcity of a military forces and arms in the Pacific Theater. As a result, the invasion of Guadalcanal in late 1942 was conducted with inadequate men, ships, and airplanes. As a result, the campaign there went on for months. Should we have put more resources into the conflict in the Pacific early on than we chose too?
How were the resources inadequate, given the American victory, admittedly by a very narrow margin, and especially given the very limited U.S. naval assets available globally?
Arguably, the purpose of the Guadalcanal campaign wasn't just to capture the island, but to occupy the Japanese and divert their attention away from other theaters of operation.
Now what finally won the Battle of Guadalcanal? Arguably, it was the radar-equipped U.S.S. Washington.
And what made that radar possible? See post 64 in the following thread. The technology exchange described was made possible only by Roosevelt's immense personal diplomacy efforts and military aid support provided to Churchill by Roosevelt, over the opposition of many in Congress and in the U.S. military.
Also, there was a not well known understood reason that FDR emphasized the defeat of the Germans over the defeat of the Japanese. FDR was fluent in German and actually had listened to many Hitler speeches on shortwave radio. He understood the threat posed by Hitler exceedingly well (unlike our Great Orange One's apparently actual admiration of Putin). Germany in 1940 was recognized as the world's great scientific power, a point impressed upon Roosevelt by the likes of Albert Einstein.
I've always been fascinated with the Guadalcanal story. My next door neighbor served on that island in 1942. He was one of the reasons I enlisted in the Marine Corps years later. I can just envision those young Marines with their antiquated '03 rifles and abandoned by the Navy hunkered down and hearing the noise and seeing the gun flashes from the ships slugging it out during the Battle of Savo Island.
One of the primary reasons we landed on Guadalcanal was a patrol report from a PBY Catalina that the Japanese were building an airfield. At that time during the early years Australia was a not to be lost asset to our forces. If the airfield was completed that Japanese could have achieved air supremacy over Northern Australia and the vital shipping lanes to and from that country.
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.
