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.

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.

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?

__________________

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.

__________________
Bill Murray
Why do we press harder on the remote control when we know the batteries are getting weak?

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?

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

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.

__________________
Bill Murray
Why do we press harder on the remote control when we know the batteries are getting weak?

Cheers Bill! Hope he'll forgive me for painting him as Irish! [img]redface.gif[/img]

__________________
Regards,

Gordon
History Vault Bookshop
FortressScotland-http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/Historian/

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.

__________________
If dogs don't go to heaven, I'd like to go where they go.