Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Why Was Defeating Germany Roosevelt's Priority

Discussion in 'WWII General' started by esoxlee, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. esoxlee

    esoxlee Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Always wondered why the US felt that the defeat of Germany was more important than the defeat of Japan. When you consider that it was Japan that drew first blood against the Americans not Germany. And the US government was fully aware of the types of atrocities the Japanese were committing in China (I would think Germany's Final Solution was not common knowlegde at this time). Based on this, one can predict the type of treatment US POW's would receive at the hands of the Japanese. Surprised that these factors did not influence Roosevelt's strategy when he allocated US military resources.
     
  2. Col. Hessler

    Col. Hessler Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    12
    In the Rainbow 5 plan, it states: "Since Germany is the predominant member of the Axis Powers the Atlantic and European area is considered to be the decisive theatre. The principal United States Military effort will be exerted in that theatre and operations of United States forces in other theatres will be conducted in such a manner as to facilitate that effort." The United States believed that Germany was the stronger of the two and decided to get rid of them first no matter what. They decided that even if the Japanese should enter the war, Germany was still their main goal. "If Japan does enter the war, the Military strategy in the Far East will be defensive." As we all know, Japan entered the war and the US stuck to the plan.

    Two of the important objectives outlined in the Rainbow 5 plan were the security of the United Kingdom and the security of the sea communications. These were both threatened by Germany. The UK was in danger of being invaded by the Germans and U-Boats were sinking American ships. That gave the Americans two more reasons to focus on Germany first.
     
  3. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    26,461
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    I also think mr Churchill had a big say when it finally was decided that "Europe first", I believe he had quite a strong influence
    on FDR.

    Checked on this in the net awhile backand found some sites. Anyone know who the stongest persons for "Japan-first" were as I read some short notes that the decision was not that simple?? or was it?
     
  4. Bill Murray

    Bill Murray Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    3
    I believe Adm Ernest King was a big proponent of taking on Japan ahead of Germany at least when it came to how to deploy the Navy.
     
  5. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    20,815
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Am I right in saying that King's attitude was influenced by fierce pride in his Irish ancestry, and a natural antipathy to anything English which made the idea of 'propping up the British Empire' in the Far East stick in his craw?
     
  6. Bill Murray

    Bill Murray Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    3
    Buell's biography on King agrees with your premise but also seems to suggest that part of King's adversarial role with England also had quite a bit to do with the King family's working class roots as opposed to the more aristocratic roots of those that he dealt with on the level of the British chiefs of staff, particulary his clashes with Lord Alanbrooke. By the way King's family heritage was Scotish not Irish. It seems to me that a good deal of King's disposition came from his father who by all accounts was a taskmaster who expected his son's quality of work to exceed anybody else's. King spent summers working in the railroad shop's with his father who was the foreman. I believe it was being raised in this environment that led King to demand nothing but excellence from his subordinates and if they could preform to his expectations he fired them without a second thought. King's drive seemed to require that he be the one in complete control of everything. By being forced to submit to a committee agreement whether it be with the US Chiefs of Staff or with the Combined Chiefs of Staff he was bound to be difficult with anyone who didn't submit to or agree his view points be they English, American, French etc.
     
    SKYLINEDRIVE likes this.
  7. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    20,815
    Likes Received:
    3,042
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Cheers Bill! Hope he'll forgive me for painting him as Irish! [​IMG]
     
  8. Major Destruction

    Major Destruction Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2001
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is simple economics. It has almost nothing to do with right or wrong or saving poor unfortunate victims in China or Poland.

    I forget who it was who said in support of continued American isolationism, "the business of this nation [USA] is business"

    Unfortunately, with war tearing up Europe and the wastage of national treasuries that goes with war, Europe was closed for business as long as the war continued. It was this fact that made it the national interest of the USA to end the European war as soon as possible.

    The British Empire - or what remained of it - provided stability in the world. The British navy secured the oceans while the American navy secured the Pacific and the Americas.

    Both navies relied on oil for their continued survival and this oil came from, surprise, the middle east; primarily Iraq. And as long as the British army held the middle east, the navies of the free world could continue to do their work.

    The Japanese cause was already lost, even before Pearl Harbor. There was no hope for Japan to win over the USA and the British Empire combined.

    Now one might argue that the USA might have done good business at the conclusion of a war won by Nazi Germany but again, the odds of this happening were remote given the determination of Communist Russia and the United Nations.
    It is doubtful however that many Americans would have been comfortable doing business with the Nazis and even less comfortable doing business with the Russians, had the Nazis lost.

    In conclusion the only viable action for the USA was to enter the war against Germany as soon as possible and to end that war decisively without giving too much to the Communists in the process.

    Japan was small fry in comparison both militarily and economically.
     
  9. Fred Wilson

    Fred Wilson "The" Rogue of Rogues

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,000
    Likes Received:
    328
    Location:
    Vernon BC Canada
    Good documentary interview here:

    "The "Big Three" (Roosevelt, Churchill, and Joseph Stalin), together with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek,
    cooperated informally on a plan in which American and British troops concentrated in the West;
    Soviet troops fought on the Eastern front; and Chinese, British and American troops fought in Asia and the Pacific.
    The Allies formulated strategy in a series of high-profile conferences as well as contact through diplomatic and military channels."

    Commentary continues on it's Youtube page.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7q44gVHIE
     
  10. Markus Becker

    Markus Becker Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Likes Received:
    30
    The USS Reuben James was lost with 114 men on October 31st, 1941. Erich Topp on U-552 did the honors.

    Japan? That was an economic nobody with delusions of grandeur.

    Grim Economic Realities

    http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
     
  11. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    Was Einstein's 'nuclear' letter a factor?

    10593
     
  12. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    Because many American eastern elites were Anglophiles. Also Japan was a threat in the east, in asia, where the US had a much smaller economic stake. Germany was a threat to England and France, but could not threaten the US militarily, except against it's merchant shipping. FDR was pushing for incidents with the German's, for their part the Germans attempted to avoid them. Economy and commerce, for a US just emerging from the Great Depression, dictated that a European market dominated by Germany was a big threat to America's economic future.
     
  13. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    Whatever Admiral King's background, his position as professional head of the US Navy would have ensured that he fought for priority for a theatre where the navy would lead, and suspicious of the only naval power close to matching his own. Similarly the US Army would be drawn toward engagement in Europe and the head of the air corps might champion the merits of strategic bombing.
     
  14. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    Just an aside, but the Scots had every GOOD reason to hate the "Sassenachs"

    Remember Culloden!

    John


    2933
     
  15. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    Ah , Culloden, the battle between Jacobite supporting highlanders, irish and french exiles and Hannoverian supporting lowland scots.

    Technically the Sassenachs are the dwellers south east of a line between Stonehaven and Helensburgh. As Tobias Smollett wrote in the novel, Humphrey Clinker (1771), 'The Highlanders have no other name for the people of the Low country, but Sassenagh [sic.], or Saxons'.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  16. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    45
    Nazi Germany was more similar to the US than most people realize, and don't jump on me for that as I know the atrocities speak for themselves I'm asking you to use critical thinking... Fascism is defined as Corporatism, the blending of state and corporate power. That's what's going on in America today and was then. Segregation and Racism were commonplace in America, Corporatism, etc. They were more of a threat in regards to actual damage they could cause and the fact that they were strikingly similar to the US as a world power.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    If you apply that definition of Fascism narrowly then I don't think Nazi Germany actually qualifies. If you apply it broadly then it applies to most modern governments.

    Germany had the stronger economy and placed where it was in Europe was a greater threat to the worlds economic powers. Japan was already in a quagmire of a war in Asia and was very much resource limited with a weaker economy and industrial sector.
     
  18. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
    As Germany was national-socialist and Italy fascist,and as there were big differences between both,your definition of fascism is wrong .

    Italian fascism was a radical right movement which was supported by the Italian bourgeoisie which was feared the communist threat .Originally there were a lot of left points in fascism,as its hostility to the church and the monarchy ,but,as usual in Italy, these points were quickly abandoned ..Fascism was spreading over the Latin European countries,while nazism was typical German and got no serious supporters outside Germany .
     
  19. Ilhawk

    Ilhawk New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    44
    I focus a lot on the personal aspect of the soldiers. Guys I interviewed expressed that it was emotionally devastating to them to see how much the Germans lived like them and could do the atrocities that were committed.. Keep in mind our forces were segregated and I focus on 327.

    The definition of fascism is debated with a lot of disagreements. Though people focus on the anti liberal component, there are liberal points of fascism which comes across even in the name.

    Something to ponder, the German society was ripe with discontent with people lording over others (WW1 penalties). I'm not saying this will happen at all, but the current situation of the conglomeration of wealth can raise eyebrows.

    Having kids in school, even though from a military family and a son that is a captain Captain, I'm a little (note the word little) bit concerned at the patriotic bent through programs our students are subject too. For some it is propaganda (mostly for veterans day). They seem to blur the lines of supporting troops with nationalism, which was the biggest problem in German (in my opinion).

    All that said, what surprised me the most in my interviews was the general dislike the 327 vets have/had for the military and how much they get angry about our current use of troops. That surprised me. I was able to get really deep into their experiences. Current actions would re traumatize them.
     
  20. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    568
    Location:
    London UK
    It is possible to make all sorts of comparisons between states. However, FDR and WSC had the political genius to come up with a set of values around which the nations of free world could unite. These counties signed the United Nations declaration did so "that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world".

    It may have been hypocritical for a segregated USA, imperial Britain and totalitarian Soviet Union to sign up to these principles, but they were an expression of intent and commitment with which the electorates and citizen soldiers could identify.
     
    Ilhawk likes this.

Share This Page