The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Buy the Book

Revisionist History That Matters

By on 11.18.11 @ 6:08AM

Herbert Hoover’s long buried assessment of Franklin Roosevelt and “The Good War.”

Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath
Edited by George H. Nash
(Hoover Institution Press, 920 pages, $49.95)

Within the past two weeks, an astonishing new book has been published. Freedom Betrayed, written by President Herbert Hoover in his retirement, is a wide-ranging attack on the decisions made by his White House successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Hoover worked on it for 20 years and regarded it as his magnum opus. The manuscript was edited by Hoover’s principal biographer, George H. Nash, who also wrote a lengthy introduction. I can do no better than to quote from the book’s dust jacket:

Following Hoover’s death in 1964, his heirs decided to place his manuscript in storage, where for nearly half a century it has remained unread — until now.

In this book, perhaps the most ambitious and systematic work of World War II revisionism ever attempted, Hoover offers his frank evaluation of President Roosevelt’s foreign policies before Pearl Harbor and during the war, as well as an examination of the war’s consequences, including the expansion of the Soviet empire at war’s end and the eruption of the Cold War against the Communists.

John Earl Haynes, the author of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, writes that even readers who are “comfortable with the established account will find themselves thinking that on some points the accepted history should be reconsidered and perhaps revised.”

Just 60 years ago, in November 1951, Herbert Hoover told an acquaintance, John W. Hill: “When Roosevelt put America in to help Russia as Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, we should have let those two bastards annihilate themselves.”

Hill replied: “That would be a great book. Why don’t you write it, Mr. Hoover?”

Hoover said he didn’t have the time. In fact, he had been working on such a book since 1944.

Now it has been published, by the Hoover Institution Press.

As new books about World War II and its aftermath appeared in print, including those by Winston Churchill, Hoover would revise what he had written, sometimes softening his earlier opinions. One of the merits of the published book is that George Nash includes as appendices memoranda from Hoover showing his thinking at earlier stages.

As his book stood in 1953, for example — when it was titled “Lost Statesmanship” — Hoover listed 19 “gigantic blunders” by U.S. and British policymakers. These began in 1933 with FDR’s diplomatic recognition of the Soviet Union and continued with the British and French guarantee to Poland in 1939. George Nash told me in an email that Hoover considered the Polish guarantee to have been “the greatest blunder in the history of British statesmanship.”

Even Churchill saw (later) that it had been a mistake. But he supported it at the time. But in The Gathering Storm (1948), Churchill demonstrated the futility of Chamberlain’s declaration of war. (Chamberlain was stung by the charges of appeasement after Munich and with Hitler’s Poland invasion he tried to recover.)

Hoover was quite critical of Churchill. He had a “surpassing power of oratory and word pictures,” Hoover wrote, but “intellectual integrity was not his strong point.” The Gathering Storm was “a mass of bitter attacks upon [Stanley] Baldwin and [Neville] Chamberlain who had kept him out of office for years.”

Another “major blunder,” Hoover thought, was FDR’s decision in 1941 to throw the U.S. into an “undeclared war with Germany and Japan, in total violation of promises upon which he had been elected a few weeks before.” Roosevelt’s “total economic sanctions” against Japan in the summer of 1941, and his “contemptuous refusal” of the Japanese prime minister’s peace proposals in September, Hoover saw as the crucial precursors to Pearl Harbor. The day after the attack, Hoover told a friend that FDR’s “continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.”

In the weeks before Lend-Lease (enacted in March 1941 and allowing the president to place war equipment at the disposal of foreign powers), Hoover charged that Roosevelt “knew definitely of Hitler’s determination to attack Russia,” and did so by early 1941. Hoover repeatedly said that if Hitler couldn’t get the German army across the 22-mile wide British channel, he had no chance whatever with the Atlantic Ocean. Germany didn’t threaten the United States.

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (172) |

Brian Mc| 11.18.11 @ 6:57AM

This quite possibly will become the panthion of "What If" books and believe deep in my heart that I must have a copy. Of course, it's all water that is well-underneath the bridge but will still make for very interesting reading.

Jack in Wi| 11.18.11 @ 1:16PM

A great essay. I have to get the book. who would think the american Spectator would publish sh uch a great esay on WW2 revisionism.

Jack in Wi| 11.20.11 @ 1:22AM

The book is ordered and I can hardly wait. Herbert Hoover was a a failure as President but a great patriot who tried to stop us from getting into a world war that was nothing but a disaster for mankind. He was right and Roosevelt was wrong on most every pre war policy. The review alone makes a lot of points that I hope the book will flesh out. I consider Mr. Bethel one of the best writers here and have long admired him and his work.

Alan Brooks| 11.18.11 @ 8:43PM

Of course it would have been good if the communists and Nazis exterminated each other.
But they killed more of noncombatants than they did each other: 4-1 or 5-1

Alan Brooks| 11.19.11 @ 6:02PM

One can make a good case that Stalin was the worst person who ever lived, and that Communism was the worst system; yet you can also make the case that the Germans have been the most wicked of people who ever lived. Plus, the Japanese have apologized in full for WWII, but the Germans never have.

I write the above because anyone can come to AS and write whatever they want about Israel, they could write "Israel must be destroyed" and it wouldn't be removed by a moderator. But if one wrote that Germany must be destroyed, the comment almost certainly would be deleted or at the very least the writer would be severely flamed- worse than Clint and Jack have ever been flamed.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 10:00PM

ObamaBoy Israel Firster Books Is Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

" In Bloomberg’s Iowa poll, Paul sits at 19%, a point behind Cain and slightly ahead of Gingrich and Romney. And another Bloomberg survey released Wednesday shows Paul pulling in 17% in New Hampshire as well, far behind Romney but comfortably in second place. In a Public Policy Polling survey this week, the Texas Congressman leads President Obama 48% to 39% among independent voters — the only Republican hopeful to earn that distinction."

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks' Face.

Alan Brooks| 11.19.11 @ 11:55PM

"ObamaBoy Israel Firster Books Is Scared Of The Tea Party & Our Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul."

Who is afraid of an old man such as Paul? what can he do anyone-- flatulate in their face?
And 17% for Paul in New Hampshire: whoop de do da day! why soon he'll be drawing up plans for new drapes and monogrammed towels in the White House.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 12:02AM

and BTW:
how on Earth can you put 'Obamaboy' and 'Israel-Firster' in the same sentence? Obama is not an Israel firster!

Clint, if you think along the lines of Paul too much, you will become a conspiracy-nut such as him. Better to switch to a more sensible candidate than a pre-senescent wingnut like Ron Paul.

Jack in Wi| 11.20.11 @ 1:29AM

Alan: I have never said that Israel must be destroyed and neither has Clint. I have always advocated peace and justice in the Middle East. You scare yourself by reading Mein Kamf in German every night before you go to bed. I suggest you read about the Morgenthu Plan to murder 30 million Germans after the war. The fact that it only killed 3 million doesn't make it any less horrible. Shalom.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 6:26PM

Now you are making sense, Jack, the above is a rational post; Morgenthau wanted revenge, not justice.
But your support (and I will write this hundreds of times) for Ron Paul is as irrational as Morgenthau:
because Ron Paul is merely a Lyndon LaRouche who went to med school.
Ron Paul will be president of a wiffle ball club.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 6:29PM

Ron Paul will president,
of a stamp collecting club at a retirement home.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 6:32PM

Ron Paul will be president,
of a stamp collecting club at a retirement home. He will be a bank president-
of a piggy bank on his shelf.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 8:18PM

Let's drink a toast to Ron Paul: lift up your glasses of Ensure and exclaim,
"hoch."

Clint and Jack aren't fools, not in their own lives; you can tell they do alright for themselves. But their support for Ron Paul is an oversight, they are overlooking that Paul is similar to one of those people who think the Queen of England sold heroin to Jack Ruby or somebody.

martin j smith| 11.18.11 @ 7:24AM

The main problem with the Let Hitler and Stalin" fight it out" is that you do not know the end result. They could have in that scenario decided to make another "pact of steel" and divide Europe or with Japan divide the world. There are many what ifs and in this instance no assurance that Hoover's view would be any wiser than FDR. I have many problems with both Hoover and FDR
but in this particular instance I have serious reservations of Hoover's perception as well.

RT| 11.18.11 @ 7:38AM

Well said, Martin J Smith.

Also, what of the death camps? And cutting off shipping in the Atlantic?

And...well, probably many things. I'm no historian but I doubt the US could have stayed out of the war and, if so, what good would it have done to have allowed Hitler to grow stronger in the process?

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 8:14AM

Those two dividing the world would not have happened. The Germans considered the Slavs (in general) to be sub-human.

vtwin| 11.18.11 @ 1:05PM

Hitler and Stalin engaged in a LONG land battle of attrition while Germany's' war enabling industrial infrastructure go unmolested by allied bombing frees Hitler to develop nuclear weapons along with the requisite intercontinental delivery systems. Is a chilling thought.

Dai Alanye | 11.18.11 @ 3:56PM

Hoover's criticisms of the give-aways at Teheran and Yalta make sense, but those points have been made time and again, starting before he wrote his screed. As for those crits of his regarding the start of the war, almost everything is bilge.

Coolidge's judgement of Hoover was correct.

Typical RINO, even if the term hadn't yet been invented.

Quartermaster| 11.18.11 @ 5:38PM

It is unlikely Coolidge would have supported WW2 anymore than Hoover did.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 8:21PM

"Hoover's criticisms of the give-aways at Teheran and Yalta..."

There was nothing to give away- Stalin held all the cards in E. Europe.

Proud and Purple| 11.19.11 @ 6:08AM

An interesting genre - the alternative history story -Phillip K. Dick did one for WWI where Germany and Japan were victory -- "The Man In The High Castle" - a good read. Hebert Hoover got the short end of the liberal history stick is true. FDR was an egomaniac for sure.

Paul Hilsenrath| 11.19.11 @ 8:37AM

Hitler invaded Russia because it was part of the master plan for Lebensraum and he had utter contempt for Slavs. He considered them untermenchen and dealt with them accordingly. He hadn't completed his subjugation of southern Europe before the invasion, thus opening a second front even though he was fully aware of the historical implications of this, and still he went ahead. Making a deal with Stalin after the invasion would have been impossible for both Stalin, especially after the atrocities committed by Hitler's SS in the Ukraine, and Hitler because it would have demonstrated that he could not defeat, what was then considered, one of the poorest quality armies in the world.

Best regards.

Paul

Jack in Wi| 11.20.11 @ 1:38AM

We beat Hitler and gave his partner Stalin half of Europe and Asia. We had a 50 year cold war. The Soviets and Chinese both had huge nuclear weapons supplies. How would Hitler winning the war been any worse? That is especially true when we realize that Hitler wanted a peace treaty with the British and would have let the Jews go alive from his empire. Both Hitler and Stalin were horrible mass murderers. But when we made Stalin our ally in 1941, Stalin had a lot more blood on his hands then Hitler. You throw Stalin and Mao together and their body counts far, far, surpass Hitler's. Stalin alone's surpasses Hitler by millions.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 8:26PM

"We beat Hitler and gave his partner Stalin half of Europe and Asia. We had a 50 year cold war. The Soviets and Chinese both had huge nuclear weapons supplies. How would Hitler winning the war been any worse? That is especially true when we realize that Hitler wanted a peace treaty with the British and would have let the Jews go alive from his empire. Both Hitler and Stalin were horrible mass murderers. But when we made Stalin our ally in 1941, Stalin had a lot more blood on his hands then Hitler. You throw Stalin and Mao together and their body counts far, far, surpass Hitler's. Stalin alone's surpasses Hitler by millions."

All true. But IMO a German should never criticize Israel. And BTW, the treaty of Brest Litovsk was worse than Versailles.

Bob K.| 11.18.11 @ 7:40AM

The war is over and we are still living with the near triumph of varieties of Socialism. If this helps us understand why it came about it will be a worthwhile read.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.11 @ 7:58AM

Ballistic missiles with nukes could cross the Atlantic. The Germans developed the V2 rockets with that precise goal in mind.

If they had gotten "the bomb" before us would we be speaking German?

Chalkdust| 11.18.11 @ 8:34AM

I say no way the Nazis would have "gotten" the bomb. (the allies were bombing the crap out of them) Secondly, it's one thing to hit England with a missile from just 40 miles away, but it's quite another proposition to cross the Atlantic with one and come within three hundred miles of a target, at least it was in the 1940's.

JimP| 11.18.11 @ 8:46AM

I think you missed Ken's point. If we had stayed out of the war Hitler would have been free to develop the missiles and get stronger. Our strategic bombing campaign was not effective at reducing German war production and the British part of it was so inaccurate/lacking in effective results as to have been essentially not worth the effort. Too, this does not address the effectiveness of the German U-Boats blockade in cutting off Britain from aid needed to survive. England would have been taken out of the war without FDR's Lend-Lease and U.S. Navy escorts for convoys before 12/7/41.

Bob K.| 11.18.11 @ 9:01AM

Two years before Pearl Harbor the US knew that an atomic bomb could be made and at that time we began preparations to make one. We were afraid that Hitler was doing the same because nuclear fission was discovered in Berlin in 1938 when the Uranium atom was first split by bombarding it with neutrons.

The German scientists were behind the Americans (many of whom were refugees from Germany) in this respect and so their project never came to fruition before Germany was defeated.

JimP| 11.18.11 @ 11:07AM

If I am reading your comment correctly, Bob, you are being argumentative. The salient hypothetical fundamental point in my comment [and Ken's as well if I read it correctly] is the assumption of the U.S. staying out of the war(s) with Germany/Japan. Again, if we had stayed out of the war, as Hoover wanted, would we have spent billions in 1940's dollars developing the bomb? I think not. So, Herr Hitler would have had plenty of time to develop the bomb without any competition.

Even though FDR was apprised of the possibility of an A-Bomb in Einstein's Aug. 2, 1939 letter, the U.S. did nothing serious about developing a bomb until Dec. 6, 1941. By that point FDR was convinced that the Germans were or would develop such a bomb and use it against the U.S. eventually. IMHO, Pres. Hoover was thinking like Ron Paul about foreign policy. That is to say, not realistically. It was only a matter of when we would be involved in WWII, not if.

Bob K.| 11.18.11 @ 4:05PM

No I am not being argumentative. It is at best a game to conjecture about what ifs when we know what did happen. I am pointing out that the USA was already expecting war with Germany at that time and there already was fear that Germany would develop a bomb first. You can read about it in depth in John Lukacs' recent book "The Legacy of the Second World War" which was published last year. The history of the Atomic Bombs and Germany's efforts in this sphere are discussed in Chapter 5-"The German's Two Wars, Heisenberg and Bohr."

Bob K.| 11.18.11 @ 4:35PM

I don't think we can compare Hoover with Ron Paul. The difference is that Hoover argued that we were not involved in the European fray and still had not mobilized and we should have sat back and let the the Germans and Russians destroy each other. He was wrong because Hitler made it impossible for us to stay out of the European war. We were needed there in order to defeat Hitler. The rest of Europe alone could not have done it.

In Paul's case he is arguing that we are already overmobilized and over extended and in places where he thinks we do not belong or are even needed.

Quartermaster| 11.18.11 @ 5:48PM

DR made it impossible for us to stay out of the war. Read "Day Of deceit." FDR wanted us in the war and his maladminstration set up the war with Japan, with Germany declaring war on us (stupidly) to support its ally Japan. FDR knew of the pact between Germany and Japan, and was willing to kill thousands to get us in the war.

If we had stayed out of the war, Britain would have been forced to negotiate an end to the war, then Hitler would have turned his sights on the Bolsheviks, whom he hated, and destroyed them. Hitler's eyes had turned east in the 30s.

Hitler did not want war with Britain. He admired the British Empire. he did not want war with the US either, for much the same reason. He had a hatred for Red Marxism because of the subterfuges in Germany and he wanted to end it and gain room in the east for Germany.

Engage in any delusion you wish, but we had no dog in the fight in Europe, and in reality, neither Great Britain. Britain is still paying the price for Chamberlain's idiocy, as we are for Roosevelt's mendacity.

Hoover is/was correct about WW2 and FDR.

JimP| 11.18.11 @ 7:02PM

Sorry BobK and QMaster, you are both errantly bloviating.

BobK, again you misunderstand my point- or are just ignoring it. Either way, like you said, it's conjecture. So you have your opinion and I have mine.

QMaster-you too misunderstand my point. Also, anyone who believes that the U.S. would not have ultimately been involved in WWII is kidding themselves. That's not a defense of FDR, it's just a real world knowledge of dictators and how they behave and the history of WWII. But again, we are dealing with total cojecture. So once more you have your opinion and I have mine.

And as they say, fellas, opinions are like !@#$%%##. So, bon chance to you both. I look forward to your revisionist histories of FDR, WWII, and the Hitler-Stalin war of mutual annihilation.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 4:57PM

Chalkdust---without us in the War, the allies would not have been as efficient in their bombing, and the Germans would have been winning the Landwar if more of the Luftwaffe could have been based in the East, as would surely have been the case. The Germans were working on an Amerikabomber, and might have succeeded. Without us, Japan would have entered the War against Russia in 1942 so as to get in on the kill.

Bad things, my man. Hoover was good at feeding famine victims. He sucked as President.

Bob K.| 11.18.11 @ 8:49AM

The answer would be speculation. You have to construct a nuclear reactor before the production of a nuclear bomb is possible and Germany did not have a reactor completed when they were defeated.

Germany was approaching it's death throes when they began using V2s.

It's like the old joke: "If I had some Ham I could make a Ham Sandwich if I had some Bread!

RCV| 11.18.11 @ 1:49PM

My father was stationed in Antwerp in WWII when the Germans unleashed their 200 day rocket attack on that Belgian city. As an Army medic, he got to treat the dozens of wounded in movie theaters, parks and streets, including children and little babies. Had we not taken on Hitler, and the Germans been allowed unmolested to develop their nuclear weapons program, there is nothing -- nothing -- that would have stopped Hitler from using the Bomb that would have inevitably been developed to bring England and then America to its knees. The man was an utter lunatic intent on world domination and the promotion of a master race.

I don't much care what Herbert Hoover or Pat Buchanan or idiots like Ron Paul would like to imagine would have happened if only we hadn't been so beligerant with poor misunderstood Adolph. Thank God for Churchill and Roosevelt.

Steven Braitman| 11.21.11 @ 7:17AM

RCV, thanks for saving me the trouble of having to nullify the nonsense of the author (and by extension Hoover) and many of these talkbacks with facts. The single most important point is that Roosevelt did everything he could to delay the US entry into the war--and that made the Axis destruction exponentially greater than had the US intervened earlier. Every generation seems to have to learn the same lesson, over and over: 1) there is evil in the world; 2) the earlier it is stemmed, like any infectious disease, the less difficult it is to remedy; and 3) people like Ron Paul, Neville Chamberlain and Pat Buchanan are utterly incapable of extrapolating the lessons of history. So if follows, that people such as the foregoing are self-selected as unqualified for leadership.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 11:51PM

At least Hoover was not a conspiracy theorist; read this from Paul:
"The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.
The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world."

And keep prayer out of skoolz! the UN will confiscate all gold!
and fluoridate Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Mountain Dew!

Chalkdust| 11.18.11 @ 8:06AM

I have always been a Hoover fan and believe strongly if the democrat controlled congress (seems to be a bad, reoccurring nightmare) had adopted his bills/suggestions (like banking rules/laws and buying stocks with no margins) in the 1930's, the great depression could have been avoided. But I just as strongly disagree with international appeasement and blackmail to avoid conflicts..... except in marriage.

Alan Brooks| 11.20.11 @ 11:55PM

"But I just as strongly disagree with international appeasement and blackmail to avoid conflicts..... except in marriage."

International appeasement in marriage? a new twist.

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 8:16AM

Just ordered a copy from Amazon. Shipping is 1 to 4 weeks. Something to read on the train coming into work.

nister| 11.18.11 @ 8:23AM

Four of five German soldiers faced Russian soldiers. Germany and Russia did fight it out. Russia won.

Bill A | 11.18.11 @ 8:41AM

Yes, Russia won, but would not have without America's help.

nister| 11.18.11 @ 9:02AM

How do you/can you know what the outcome would look like, Bill A? Hollywood?

Bill A | 11.18.11 @ 12:25PM

nister, are you implying that Hollywood does not accurately portray history? My personal favorite is the 1956 movie called The Conqueror. John Wayne is cast as Genghis Khan.

nister| 11.18.11 @ 4:52PM

John Wayne [and Humphrey Bogart] were booed by the troops at USO shows. I feel they were unfair to Bogey.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:03PM

Bogey was a wounded combat Naval veteran of WWI.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:03PM

And isn't Susan Hayward his Asiatic love interest---red hair and all? Yeah, Wayne made a GREAT Mongol---hit the accent dead on---the John Wayne accent, that is.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:01PM

Nister---the Russian soldiers were fed with Spam and transported in American 2 1/2 ton trucks. Look at Beevor's work, or Keegan's.

Without the US, the Russian advance would have been much slower, if it could have been done at all. The US' aid allowed the truncated Russian economy to focus on weapons, and thus produce the weapons it needed. But again, while their tanks were good (using American designed tread systems), their trucks were worthless.

RCV| 11.18.11 @ 6:13PM

Occam - In Cuba, Russian spare parts for the American WWII trucks, are still being used to repair the 1950s American cars that form the bulk of Cuba's car fleet.

RCV| 11.18.11 @ 6:14PM

PS - I'm hoping you got my book recommendations on the last thread.

JmsA| 11.20.11 @ 11:01AM

Funny, I don't remember any Russian parts being put in my uncle's '53 Riviera or my father's '58 Impala, in which we cruised past broken down and rusting Russian Volga and East German Trabant cars along the Malecon waterfront (you heard of the Malecon, right, RCV?). I vividly remember, though, my father and his mechanic scavenging for American car parts wherever they could find them, and when that failed, my father asking some of his patients to try to find him car parts, or his mechanic creating parts on his own. I never heard that very mechanic, a regular visitor to our home, suggest replacing anything American with anything Russian. I also vividly remember plenty of eastern block agricultural and other machinery rusting in Havana harbour for years--because they broke down nearly as soon as put in.

JmsA| 11.20.11 @ 11:04AM

I meant to write: as soon as put in replacement of American sugar mill and milk factory parts, etc.

RCV| 11.20.11 @ 12:59PM

I have cruised down the waterfront myself in a 54 Chevy last spring. A Cuban friend of one of my co-tourists, who is a car mechanic, explained to us the following: After the US embargo, American car parts became increasingly hard to find. The Soviets, who supplied much of the material to repair the Cuban infrastructure in the 60s-80s, supplied Fabricated auto parts made from the replacement parts for US supplied trucks and vehicles which were adaptable for 50s US autos. As the Russians exited, Cubans in turn fabricated their own parts from these models. Sorry for the shorthand of this long story, and if it's wrong, JmsA, I honestly defer to your more personal knowledge.

Steve G| 11.18.11 @ 9:15AM

Bill: A very debateable point. Somehow, the Bolsheviks came up with superior weapons (T34 tanks, Katyusha rockets, early Kalashnikov AR's, etc.), and in great numbers.

Bill A | 11.18.11 @ 11:56AM

Steve, I realize it is a debateable point. My premise would be based on no American arms or materials sold to Russia, England or any other country. How many Liberty ships went into Archangel and Murmansk? Trying to imagine FDR brokering a peace with Japan in early 1941 and America sitting idly by while Germany and Russia battle for supremacy would take an incredible stretch of imagination. Revisionist history is not my particular favorite but I suspect I shall find Hoover's book fascinating if for no other reason than to ingest a different point of view.

JmsA| 11.20.11 @ 11:10AM

The AK-47 was not in use during WWII. It came into service in 1947; hence it's name, AK-47.

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 8:52AM

I think the point of the book is that Russia won by the skin of their teeth, with American and British aid. Stalin had begun a purge of the senior leadership of the Soviet Army in 1937. There were very few senior Generals left who knew how to fight a war. Stalin believed Hitler when their non-aggression pack was signed in 1939. Lucky for Stalin (and that is all it was) he had removed as Chief of Staff (but did not kill) General Zhukov over a policy disagreement so Zhukov was not involved in the blame game when the Soviets lost vast amounts of land very quickly to the advancing German Army. Out of desperation Stalin recalled Zhukov who, by mass conscription of civilians, and Allied material aid, was able to fortify Moscow before the Russian Winter set in which stopped the German advance (that and Hitler trying to tell his Generals how to fight a war). Without American and British aid Moscow may very well have been lost, Stalin removed from power and the Soviet Union would have ceased to exist.

2Anglico| 11.18.11 @ 11:44AM

It is a very little known story, America's aid to the USSR in WWII. The Soviets re-labeled grain sacks from USA to deceive their people. We gave them tanks, planes, food and ammo. Without our supplies the outcome would have been altered.
Hitler's military blunders also helped Germany lose the war. Sacking Guderian, splitting his forces in 3 and not going all out for Moscow, his obsession with Stalingrad, and others. Remember he was a Corporal in WWI.

Bill A | 11.18.11 @ 12:03PM

I have often wondered how different the outcome would have been had Hitler not started bombing London in 1940. With continental Europe sealed off had Hitler used the planes lost in the London raids against the Russians, I suspect he might have prevailed. If, and that is a big if, he succeded against Russia, Hitler could have then brought all of his forces to bear against England.

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 2:25PM

Herman Goring was a trained military man and knew before Germany could do anything they needed defeat the British Airforce. With the British army in shambles, with air superiority Germany could demand that Britian make peace. The vaulted British navy use useless without air cover. Goring insisted that airfields, and military targets be destroyed. Hilter, in his mind knowing more than the trained experts, insisted the shift be made to terror bombing of civilian targets. It seems after the war, documents surfaced that indicated Britian was ready to sue for peace, not because they did not have the planes but were running out of pilots - which is what happened to Germany at the end of the war. Another week or two, perhaps a month of Goring's plan and Britian would have had NO airforce, leaving the country wide open and the Brits with no option but to try to made peace. We are indeed luck that the WWI corporal was in charge of the best fighting force in the world in 1940.

Bill A | 11.18.11 @ 4:08PM

The Battle of Britain favored the defender. It seemed to me that German losses were greater than Britains because the Luftwaffe had further to travel in attacking. Had the Germans built air bases in Normandy to repel any potential British air attacks, I believe that would have freed up their air force for aggression elsewhere. Granted, this is all speculation.

The Bruce| 11.18.11 @ 5:57PM

The fact that the Battle of Britain ended the way it did was a matter of shear luck on the part of the Britain.

Hitler had made a miscalculation (he micromanaged the war) and believed that the Germans would continue to take heavy losses against the RAF.

What he didn't realize at the time was that Britain was nearly down to its last aircraft.

Thom| 11.19.11 @ 2:15PM

"The fact that the Battle of Britain ended the way it did was a matter of shear luck on the part of the Britain."

No. It ended the way it did because the Germans could not force the British Fighter command to commit suicide. The ME-109s effective escort range limited it to no further than London and the ME-110 was easy prey for both the Hurricanes and the Spits. Every time the Germans tried to attack with their bombers in day light beyond the range of their ME-109s they got slaughtered for it. The bomber only attacks into Central and Northern Britain from Norway and Denmark resulted in unacceptable losses of both bombers and crews. The Gambit of invasion by sea was only viable if the weather cooperated and with the Fall/Winter weather coming on and shortening of day light it was doomed from September on. The aircraft and crew losses the Germans took in the Official Battle of Britain time frame hurt them badly the following year in Russia where they were barely able to exceed their strength going into France. Their losses in France combined with the Battle of Britain and the hundreds of additional aircraft and crews they lost over Britain from the end of Oct 1940 till the invasion of Russia in June of 1941 exceed the total strength of the Luftwaffe in one year’s time. The Luftwaffe bomber command never recovered from these losses and struggled to maintain a steady force from then on. By 43 on the Luftwaffe was almost totally defensive fighter oriented in nature.
Could the Luftwaffe have done better in the Battle of Britain? Sure but the Brits could have stayed home and out of France too leaving the Germans with an even bigger egg to crack in the same amount of time. The fact of the matter is the Germans kept bombing Britain at night after the official end of the day light campaign to subdue British Fighter command. To continue taking the bomber losses they were taking would have striped Germany of it flying muscle in Russia the next year and without masses of German bombers during the daylight hours even the faint invasion plan had no credibility with the Royal Navy ruling the channel at night.

Mortis37| 11.19.11 @ 7:15PM

Most of what you say would have been irrelevent if Germany had continued destroying radar installations. Many times the only reason the Brits won and engagement was because most of the RAF knew where to show up. Without vectoring to target, the plucky Brits would not have prevailed.

Mortis37| 11.19.11 @ 7:17PM

This was a reply to Thom - I agree with oldfart.

JmsA| 11.19.11 @ 11:31PM

"No. It ended the way it did because the Germans could not force the British Fighter command to commit suicide," because Goering switched from attacking the British airfields to bombing London, Coventry, etc.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:05PM

Well, OF, I believe they were running out of pilots in the THREATENED districts, but still had some in the unthreatened ones.

The RAF actually had things well enough under control. It was not as close run a thing as some histories make out.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 5:37PM

Oldfart,
I have to respectfully disagree here. The Germans lost twice as many aircraft as the British, half bombers and half fighters and the bulk of those lost and several times the crews were over Britain which means no surviving crews get to fly another day for the Germans. The attacks on Britain didn’t end when the official end of the Battle of Britain is marked either. The Germans kept at it with night raids but the ratio of lost German air bombers crews to British fighter crews always worked against the Germans in sustained combat. The Germans needed air superiority for a couple of reasons but it wasn’t the British fighter command that was going to destroy the barge fleet the Germans would have launched from 6 different locations along the coast of France and Holland. Given the distances involved and current the average underway time (3 knots over and above the tide) for the broad front attack the German Army demanded and the German Navy said it could not support was 36 hours. The British kept both cruiser and destroyer squadrons within range of the likely invasion sites (and outside of range of German fighter cover) and would have had a field day (at night) simply running through the long lines of barges being towed by a single tug boat or equal. The wakes from the fast moving ships would have swamped the German “barge” fleet without firing a shot when not needed.

The German Navy had no play against the British home forces after Norway. Operation Sealion had no chance of success while the British home fleet could operate at night and they raided the French coast/ports and bombarded and sunk various ships all throughout the Battle of Britain. At the very worst the British Fighter command would have withdrawn behind London, the operational limit of the ME-109s and waited for the Germans to try and cross the channel during day light. The cruiser/destroyer squadrons would have taken care of the rest at night. To add insult to injury, Europe and Germany in particularly were depended on those Rhine river barges to transport virtually everything related to the production of food. Losing the mass of those barges would have caused wide spread starvation in both France and Germany. The Germans didn’t have the ability to destroy the British Fighter command if it pulled back beyond London rather than out in front as it stayed most of the three months battle. Pulling back might have had some political cost associated with it but by Goering own standard the Germans could not force the British to fight a fight in the air they knew they could not win and the Germans did control much of the air space over the coast and beaches. Sealion was essentially a political gamble that didn’t work. Both time and weather were against it from Sept on. Legend was born through the efforts of Fighter Command and propaganda afterwards but it was the British Navy that ruled the night in the Channel and kept the Germans on their side of the Channel. If you look at our efforts with our North African, Sicily and Normandy invasions and compare to the German plan and capability in 1940 you see how impossible the German task was just from a logistics point of view. It only gets worse from there.

JmsA| 11.20.11 @ 11:24AM

That's a good post, Oldfart.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 3:51PM

Four out of five German soldiers did not face the Russians in 1941, 42 or 43. The Germans military peaked at 10,000,000 and their invasion force was a fraction of that in 1941. The Russians lost several times what the Germans did on the Eastern Front and only had to fight a one front war on top of this.

nister| 11.18.11 @ 4:58PM

Should have clarified..on June 6, 1944 four of five Fritzes were facing Ivan.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 5:54PM

No problem with that figure at that time. By mid-1943 the Germans were outnumbered 3:1 when all fronts were totaled against their enemies engaged or in theater. By mid-44 this was about 5:1. They lost almost as many aircraft to "operational" losses as to combat by D-Day. Unlike the Russians who had suffered enormous losses to date, the Germans had been bleeding since 1939 in ways that gets overlooked by most. When quality could no longer be maintained the number of soldiers the Germans could throw in the line didn’t have the same impact as those it had in 1941 and 42. Better than 4 out of 5 of those that served in the U-Boats died; the bulk of the German surface navy was destroyed; the home air defense forces (aircraft and AA units) in France and Germany were under constant loss due to Allied strategic bombing. Russia sucked more and more forces in but the Germans were taking loses everywhere they fought or occupied from the fall of 1939 on. Occupation consumed a lot of manpower that could only be stripped down so far and still maintain an occupation. The Balkans was particularly nasty in this regard. The German High Command knew they could not sustain a multi-front war just as had been demonstrated in WWI. Some Allies understood this too…

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:12PM

Thom,

my understanding was that 80% of division months of the Wehrmacht in WWII were based on the Russian Front. Source was Brute Force by John Ellis backed up later by Andrew Roberts' The Storm of War.

Or, to look at things from a services and who was primarily responsible for destroying them perspective: (Brits means Brits and members of British Commonwealth)

Japanese Army: US and Brits.
Japanese AirForce: US
Japanese Navy: US

Italian Army: mostly Brits
Italian Airforce: Brits
Italian Navy: Brits

German Army: Russians (with significant transportation and food supplies from the US)
Luftwaffe: Americans and Brits
Navy: Mostly Brits with a contribution from Americans.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 6:23PM

OT,
The confusion probably comes from excluding the German Air Force and its field divisions and the Navy in those figures. The total German forces at peak are about five times the German forces that went into Russia in 1941. The German Army at the divisional level in 1941 would have accounted for about 2 million going into Russia and the Germans peaked at 10,000,000 men total on line. The Russians peaked at the same level we did of around 12,000,000 and they lost over 13,000,000 in KIA and prisoners of war. The total combined KIA and prisoners for both German and Italy caused by the Allies (not Russian) was over 8,000,000 alone thus a lot of Germans died or surrendered to the Allies despite the scope and scale of the Eastern Front clash. The point here is not to diminish the contributions of the Russian forces but to merely point out that 4 out of 5 German military personnel did not end up on the Russian Front. The moment the US entered the war in North Africa and started to build up forces in Britain about the time of Stalingrad in 1942 the German Army and Air Force started sending forces back to the France and Italy and building up their home air defenses all of which starved the Eastern Front more than the Eastern Front starved the Western and Med Fronts. That the Eastern Front was the largest such conflict the world has seen and a brutal meat grinder is not disputed here but the Allies on the Western and Med Fronts put enormous combined arms forces including huge Navies and amphibious capability into play and weren't held up by “old men and boys” as some have portrayed the Western Front. The Germans certainly took more losses on the Eastern Front than the West but they fought there longer too. My only point here is that the Russians begged us to open up a second front earlier than we did because they were not able by themselves to overcome the Germans.

Michael Tomlinson| 11.18.11 @ 8:36AM

While I'm empathetic to Hoover's position on FDR's failed Soviet policy (prior to the war and during it) his other positions seem to parrot, without the pro-fascist baggage, the despicable Joe Kennedy.

Peter M| 11.18.11 @ 8:49AM

The most insidious legacy of WWII is the embrace of political correctness and multi-culturalism. These are the natural backlashes against the racial policies of the Nazis. Western societies' embrace of multi-culturalism has sown the seeds of destruction of Western Judeo-Christian values in both Western Europe, Canada, Australia and the United States. Any attempts to protect Western culture is at best denigrated as xenophobic and at worst prosecuted as we have seen with Geert Wilders and others. This is Hitler's enduring legacy.

Sheila| 11.18.11 @ 11:40AM

That "Hitler's enduring legacy" is PC, diversity, and multiculturalism destroying the West is unfortunate but true. With one emendation (there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian values; that's a recent PC artificial construct), well said.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:14PM

Right, Sheila, in your pagan world there are no Jewish construct values. Seig!

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:15PM

Sheila: there's an Israeli Cancer vaccine coming out soon---don't take it, please.

Big Tony| 11.18.11 @ 8:57AM

I agree with Hoover's assesment given the facts he had at the time.
That being said we know that we were able to defeat the Soviets by fighting small wars for the next 50 years and the costs that were involved in that effort.

We don't know what the cost of containing the NAZI's might have been had they eventually defeated the Soviets, but they probably would not have because of Hitler's thinking that he was a military genius and his inept running of Germany's armed forces.

But as long as we are revising history one thing is certain, had we told Stalin to get out of Europe and Asia and to go back to Russia and stay there after WWII or the next A bombs would be coming his way. Then secured our place as the lone superpower in the world which we clearly were at the time rather than dismantle the armed forces to the extent the we did and lastly made sure no country including our so called Allies developed the A bomb the world today would be a very different place.

cuban pete| 11.18.11 @ 9:19AM

Big T,
Very interesting take. Are you aware of any people in our government that proposed that approach? Was the upper reaches of our government infested with people who were not just pro Soviet but out and out Communists?

The Bruce| 11.18.11 @ 6:06PM

I know that was partially George Patton's take on things, except he stated (unfortunately for him, to the media) that since we already had a vast army and air force in Europe, we should use it to take out the Russians once and for all, and settle the store. Unlike FDR, Patton had no delusions of friendship with the Soviet Union.

The Bruce| 11.18.11 @ 6:07PM

Forgot to mention that he was relieved of command after speaking his mind.

Anthony| 11.18.11 @ 9:33AM

One wonders if Roosevelt knew or hoped that the pin stuck rattlesnake was about to attack.
After 10 years of FDR, the unemployment rate on Dec 7, 1941 was 17.5%. Obozo territory.
A president who interns his own citizens in camps is not above provoking a war to save his sorry ass from his inane economic policies.

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 9:44AM

Especially since the same was not done to 1st generation American of Italian or German parents it certainly had a racial component. What? A racist democrat? Perhish the thought.

Anthony| 11.18.11 @ 12:38PM

What selective discrimination FDR was allowed to get away with, amazing. But then again, if the sclerotic old cripple had attempted to do the same to Italian and German Americans, ole hidebound Franklin would have been Hyde Park interred, while still breathing.
Gee, funny that the aircraft carriers had been relocated from Pearl just before the attack.

oldfart| 11.18.11 @ 9:42AM

Agreed.

Petronius| 11.18.11 @ 9:48AM

WWII brought down the curtain in front of the rotten remains of old world throne and altar ostpolitic. With all Crowns deposed save one, the palaces swelled with the ranks of intellectuals and their unwashed acolytes. Roosevelt's intervention was grounded in goody goody populism echoed and repeated by Carter and Clinton. "Our everyman empire is good. The King's is bad. Off with His meanie head." This was the contempt shown Emperor Hirohito and is now manifest in anti-bullying campaigns in every school district. The regimes of Japan and Germany lacked any patience or tact in accomplishing their goals short of war over the real estate they wanted to control, but having no assets in these countries the conduct of other despots invading them was none of our business as a State. Our stake with the UK was monetary and emotional in the respect that most Americans could not countenance the demise of Great Britain as Our cultural parent. It ended with our socialists killing enough of their socialists. Gold Crowned Monarchs were displaced by brass plated bastards. Yet the nature of Government remains the same: economically parasitic, and culturally despotic.

TURK| 11.18.11 @ 9:56AM

Whitacre Chambers book on Hiss and the total penetration by the Soviets of our Government in the 30's and 40's , coupled with M.Stanton Evans book that dispels a lot of McCarthy myths tell how Marxism was advanced in the world. Imagine: Alger Hiss was in Yalta advising Roosevelt.

The Marxists have the useful idiots in the streets of the world aiming for their goal. Only question is will the rest of us do anything about it?

On Hoover's book: VERY INTERESTING! And relevant to todays struggle.

Vern Crisler| 11.18.11 @ 10:31AM

What if history. . . What if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor? What if, what if, what if...whatever.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.11 @ 10:37AM

Turk,
in answer to your question about "doing anything about it".....if a communist tries to chain me...I will merely shoot him/them.

There are about 60 million Americans who will do the same...and a LOT of them are here in Texas.
Remember the Alamo!

JimH| 11.18.11 @ 10:37AM

'Domestic politics provides a partial explanation. Communist (or at least Marxist) sympathy in this country and in Europe was strong at the time, whereas Nazi sympathizers could be counted on the fingers of one hand.' I'm not sure how accurate this statement is. In German areas of America the Bunds were pretty well established. I seem to recall reading about fairly extensive support for the Nazis (at least early on) and Fascism in general in America and Britain. Many admired how Germany was rebuilding and getting stronger while we were mired in years of Roosevelt's recovery plan. They were seen as a bulwark against socialist revolution which was regarded as a real threat during the depression. Most of this support I think was among the upper classes of both countries and included some of the British nobility and American celebrities.

megapotamus| 11.18.11 @ 1:53PM

Lucky Lindy is a rebuke to the idea that Nazi sympathies were fringe at the time, as opposed to being declared so at a later opportunity.

nathan| 11.18.11 @ 10:45AM

Hoover is right on most although probably not all points. The decision to draw the line in the sand over Poland was clearly wrong especially since Poland had helped carve up Czechoslovakia so they had no claim on anyone's help.

What's alway's missing regarding the so called Munich sell out is that Chamberlain knew that the French who had a land border with Germany had no intention of going to war over the Sudentenland so why should he? Without French support what was he expected to do militarily? All you Munich appeasers kindly answer that one please? But also what's always missing in this discussion is any criticism of the Czech prime minister who after Munich put up no resistance as the German tanks rolled across his borders. If he was not going to mass his excellent armor corps at his border and resist with all the resources at his command to defend HIS country from the Germans, why should Britain? Especially since an excellent case could be made that the ghastly horrible Versaille peace treaty which we are still suffering from today should never have put the Sudentenland Germans with Czechoslovakia in the first place and those Germans had every right to want to leave. Again, Chamberlain gets lit up for really no good reason and it's time to stop. Light him up over Poland which is the real mistake but not over Munich. The real appeaser at Munich was the Czech prime minister who rolled over and played dead instead of fighting for every inch of Czech soil. Can we hear just a word or two about him once in awhile? Again it was his country right? Didn't he have the primary obligation to defend it and not Chamberlain?

As to who lost China? The Chinese maybe? Chang Kai Shek was hardly a paragon of virtue here. Autocratic, dictatorial, among other things. Let's be honest, at the time in question and not realizing that Mao would later murder tens of millions of his own people, there wasn't a lot to choose between the two of them.

But even knowing what we know today, was it not the business of the Chinese people to effect their own freedom? Americans, especially American conservatives, especially American NEOCONS have been on a democracy jihad since the end of the war. WE have to go free the world. We have to go loosen the shackles of the oppressed peoples wherever they may be like in Iraq? And of course as we were told at the beginning of that venture, when we move in they will welcome us as liberators. No they welcomed us with IED's. The neocons haven't been right once in 60 years. Maybe it's time to tell the oppressed of the world to pledge "lives, fortunes, sacred honor" and do it themselves?

Hoover was right, the neocons of his day were largely wrong and just as they are now. We either learn from that or lose a lot more lives and several trillion more dollars.

Trish| 11.18.11 @ 7:27PM

You have motivated me to learn more about the Czech p.m.. I hadn't realized the strength of their military. As for Chamberlain, he must have known for sure that the French would be wimps.

cicero| 11.18.11 @ 11:23AM

What has to be thrown into the mix in analysing the "appeasment" before WWII, was that Britain and France had just (20 years) come out of the bloodbath of WW I. Britain lost over 900,000 killed, and France 1.4 million killed on the battlefield. When you look at the overall populations, that is tantmount to burying most of the ablebodied young men of thee preceeding generation. Another war was totally unthinkable.
Would attacking Germany early have avoided war, or would it only have delayed it ? Who can say. Hitler was a mad man, and the German leadership and population followed him. Since '33, he had been programing the population by group think. All of the young were in a government endoctrination group of one type or another. (It takes a village to raise a child. Remember. Even a sizeable group of us bought into that (proposed by the "smartest woman in the world", as I recall.)
Look forward, but listen to the echos..

Naturalborn Texicanette| 11.18.11 @ 12:14PM

Right on, Ken!

Just read about a new "advanced hypersonic weapon" (AHW) that can hit ANY target anywhere in the world . It travels through the upper atmpsphere at hypersonic speeds that are five times the the speed of sound. That's about 3,728 mph. Wow!!!

C Smith| 11.18.11 @ 1:19PM

That’s my father on the right with a string on his finger. On the left his younger brother David on leave from the Navy. Together again with their sister on that all so familiar Missouri farm late in November. The “Dust Bowl Days” were past and “Great Depression” over. It had been a wonderful time, that Thanksgiving of 1941. And it was after 2 AM as my father gently triggered the camera shutter. A few hours later, David was gone.

The U.S.S. Oglala, bucking the waves under full power, urgently propelled toward its Pacific destination. It had to arrive at the appointed time. However, fatigue eventually had its toll on the minelayer, a WW1 converted passenger steamer. Silently adrift, it summoned assistance. After a tow cable was attached and the feverish pace resumed, David commented to his superior: “If we go any faster that cable is ‘gona’ snap.” And “snap” it did!

The U.S.S. Oglala entered Pearl Harbor during the early morning hours of December 7, the last to arrive. It moored “side by side” with the U.S.S. Helena, completing the formation of "Battleship Row."

And as the sun rose on “December 7, 1941,” most of the Oglala crew, including her commanding officer, was still “out on the town.” However, the men in the boiler room, the cook, the second in command, and a few others including David were at their stations. When the sound of revving planes and whistling bombs punctuated the morning tranquility, General Quarters was sounded. The second in command screamed, “Man the Guns”! David screamed back: “What guns”! Someone found the keys, unlocked the magazine, and after some fumbling a 3"/50 cal. A.A. gun and three .30 cal. machine guns were manned and returning fire.

Then as several enemy planes strafed the deck, David remembered one flying low and amidships. Then a torpedo and its contrail as it converged on the Oglala. It would soon be over! The Oglala lifted out of the water, but he was still alive! The submerged munition had gone under the Oglala and struck the Helena on the other side.

They continued firing, reporting some “definite hits.” However, the Oglala’s hull had ruptured and was flooding rapidly. For an hour and a half the meager crew was uninterrupted in returning fire as the Oglala continued to list to her port side. 5°, 10°, 15°, 20°. Then as the commanding officer finally returned, the Oglala listed to its side, and those who could swam away.

Back on a farm in Missouri, a family had but one thought: “Was he alive.” The phone was never unattended. A speaker in the kitchen was connected remotely to the wireless in the library. And as hours turned to days, a mother listened and waited. And during the days before Christmas, sleep was haunted by the thought of “tapping” sailors trapped in the hulls of sunken ships….

http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....untry.html

megapotamus| 11.18.11 @ 2:07PM

The sentiment that Hitler and Stalin should be left to rend each other to bits ignores the fact that Hitlers and Stalins don't fight anyone except their domestic opposition. Not that a desire to spare the Russian and German nations the deaths they suffered is morally requisite or even possible but we shouldn't be too quick to say that the shlubs a tyrant can scam or mau-mau or dragoon into his batallions are just grist for the historical mill. But I have long had a Hooveresque position on that nauseating alliance between the West and Reds of various flavors. I don't think there was much chance of distant Germany holding Russia in subjegation totally and eternally and little prospect for any military victory once the Russians figured out the Nazis were no rescue party. It is hard to posit any action that could have mitigated or shortened the rein of the Soviets however, unless that was indeed some direct military action against them and perhaps that would have worsened or lenthened the horrors of national slavery. As for the Japanese, it is hard to escape the conclusion that FDR's actions towards them were unnecessarily provocative. But then were we going to live in a world with all Asia under the Chrysanthemum? Doesn't seem likely, given our antagonistic interests in the Pacific. It seems that China might have had it a bit worse under the Japanese than they did under the Commies but it is a close call. I defer to others who claim none of this was properly our concern right up until Pearl Harbor. I doubt a President Hoover would have done much differently on Dec 8th and would then be locked into much of what followed.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 2:50PM

I could write my own essay on FDR’s dumbass-ism during his 9 years as President and Commander and Chief prior to Pearl Harbor….. But Hoover’s view of the world is not supported by the material facts any more than FDR’s short sightedness.

For starters, the British were not immune to being drawn into war with the Germans by ignoring what the Germans did only in Europe and Poland specifically. The other Axis partner in Europe, Italy had expansion plans in both North Africa and the Balkans that ran directly counter to British National interests. If not in 1939 than it would most assuredly come in 1940 or 41 when Italian actions brought armed conflict with the British and probably the French too. The Germans got involved in the Balkans, Greece, Crete and ultimately North Africa saving the Italians from their own incompetence. These moves threatened both Britain and France’s interest in that part of the world, specifically the Med where both depended on imports from foreign colonies and alike. Letting the Germans roll over Poland without any military response would have had several negative consequences for which I will list.

One, the German General Staff had drawn up plans at Hitler’s request for a “general war” in 1946 after the German economy was fully integrated with its new found territories gained by intimidation and threats of war. The “general war” plans drawn up included a much expanded fleet of powerful ships beyond even the Bismarck class, up to three Aircraft Carriers and hundreds of submarines not the 57 it started the war with in 1939. Those 57 subs and the ones that followed brought Britain to the level of starvation based on minimum imports in 1941 alone. This fleet if completed along with the rest of the expansions in both ground and air power balanced against what Britain actually built after its declaration of war in 1939 would have given the Brits a considerable problem far beyond what it actually suffered. Same deal for the French. The Brits under Chamberlain had no such plans to match their expansion given how far Germany had already expanded its armed forces in 6 short years after Hitler came to power. You don’t build a Blue water navy like Germany planned with the mass of subs it planned on to attack Russia.

Two, the forces German expended (lost or tied down) to take down France in 1940 with ease, the battle of Britain (followed by a year of similar fruitless losses over Britain) and its unplanned adventure into the Balkans, Norway and North Africa to rescue the Italians would have been a significant boost of forces to employ in Russia in 1941. The German losses in the Battle of Britain (July through Sept) alone cost the Germans a full Luftflotte or two (over 1800 additional fighters , bombers and crews) plus those tied down in the Med (another Luftflotte of 500+ aircraft that could have been used in Russia in 1941). Take away all the losses suffered up to 1941 and those forces not tied down in occupation duty in France, the Low Countries, Norway and the Balkans and the German forces that went into Russia in June of 1941 are measurably larger and more powerful. The assumption that Germany cannot defeat the Russians in 1941 regardless of circumstances never looks at the material losses it suffered up to 1941 that would not have been there if Britain/France sit out the war in 1939, 1940 and into 1941 balanced against what the Russians lost in just the summer/fall of 1941 alone. The gross incompetence of the Russian forces even with their enormous material advantages in 1941-42 time period would have been amplified if Germany hadn’t taken the losses in material and manpower prior to the invasion in June of 1941. The idea that these two would have annihilated each other is not supported by the facts of how the war in the east actually went with Britain and France bringing on significant losses in German forces early on combined with significant Lend Lease material aid to Russia from both Britain and the US early on. Add back the forces Germany had lost or had tied down due to actions in the West and Med, don’t aid Russia in 41-42 time period and I can assure you the Germans would have taken Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad and been able to consolidate their gains in the Caucus and gotten the fuel resources they needed so badly.

Third, if the Germans defeat the Russians in 1941/42 with the increased forces they hadn’t lost or had tied down in France, the Low Countries, the Balkans, Greece and the Med then what? The German forces of 1940 walked over the Low Countries and France with the best the British BEF had with amazing ease. The key to their victory was the massive advantage in tactical air power they had over Britain, France combined and how it was integrated into their Blitz type of lighting warfare. Battle hardened, more numerous and better equipped forces in 1942 would have done a bit better. Both Britain and France had ignored the military advances in Germany for all of the 30s why would that materially change if everyone was convinced the Germans would lose to the Russians with or without Lend Lease aid? The extension of this logic goes that the US would only have to deal with the Japanese problem and then the historical record of the effort it took to overcome the Germans on the Western Front in 1944-45 notwithstanding the world would have been at “peace” if we had just kept supplying the Japanese the raw material and fuel it needed for its war machine. Such assumptions make great fantasy but underneath all such fantasies are the nuts and bolt of the real world where manpower and material means rule.

Letting Germany pick and chose the battles it wanted to fight on its terms would have been a net loss for the West. The German documentation for their “General War” plans exists and just their naval expansion alone points to the West getting the full fury of a united and industrialized powerhouse when it had reached its peak power in the mid 1940s. Every country German conquered or occupied added a net manpower and material gain with the exception of the Balkans. Under Hoover’s vision the odds favor all of Europe including Britain going Nazi by the mid 40s without US intervention and avoiding conflicts with the Japanese could have only bought more time for the Japanese to advance their war production. The US didn’t start to mobilize until after France fell. Take away a full year and a half mobilization before Pearl Harbor and then have the Germans beat the Russians in 1941/42 time period and even the US is way behind the eight ball given Germany and Japan were partners and had the same stated goals. Before people invest in fantasy like Hoover and crew present they need to look under the covers of what both Germany and Japan built for armed forces and then compare what we did in all out war and note that the Germans and Japanese are much more powerful than the US alone. This doesn’t mean that FDR got it right and Hoover got it wrong just that both men were fools in their own ways and blinded by their own naive views of the world but FDR didn’t have the luxury of pretending that the Japanese hadn’t attacked us without a declaration of war simply because we would not continue to support their war machine and their war in East Asia. FDR didn’t have the luxury of pretending that the Germans and Japanese weren’t allied either nor that the US could continue to do trade with Europe/Asia and not have our shipping attacked on the open ocean or confiscated by either the Germans or Japanese if we didn’t meet their demands. In real terms FDR enabled the rise of both Germany and Japan by not matching their militarization moves during his Presidency but Hoover would have done even worse in the same vain as Chamberlain did for Britain. The saying if “you want peace, prepared for war” is apply demonstrated by the number of times the Peacenicks have been caught flat footed by those preparing for war in obvious ways throughout history.

People of Hoover’s mindset even today believe falsely that wars can be avoided simply by one party not going along with the other’s threats and intimidations. Unfortunately, it only takes one side to have a war… as the Japanese so brilliantly demonstrated along with our wholly unprepared state of affairs in this country two years after Poland fell and a year and a half after France folded up like a lawn chair. 50,000,000 Frenchmen can be wrong…..

Neither Hoover nor FDR served this nation well before Pearl Harbor. Between naive and wishful thinking for a foreign policy there isn’t much to distinguish the two whereas results are concerned. The heartfelt opinions of many that wish to be right without regard to the material facts notwithstanding, the last thing the free world would have needed is for either or both Germany and Japan being able to proceed unabated on their expansion plans when and where they chose to act one victim at a time. The historical record on the means and effort it took to subdue both is unquestioned after 65 years of prying eyes from every corner of the world. The game of Risk was born to simulate the results of letting an unabashed aggressor gather the material means to gobble up smaller Nation states at will and grow to the point where there is no one left standing to take them on. No doubt saving Stalin gave us bad things throughout the world for the next 50 years but 60 million people did not die keeping the Soviet Union in check. The Soviets would have gobbled up all of Western Europe if we had not stayed in Europe after the war; The Nazis would have done the same thing if they had beaten the Soviets. You just have to read what they themselves wrote to understand WWII was unavoidable. Writing off greater Euro-Asia to two belligerent aggressors is not a receipt for world peace and our oceans would only provide temporary comfort in the age of long range heavy bombers and ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons should we not toe the line of the Masters of Euro-Asia combined. The material facts don’t support Hoover’s view of the world in the 1940s. If you doubt that look up Stalin’s plans to attack Germany in 1942…… The Soviets had massive material advantages on paper compared to the Axis forces that invaded in June of 1941 and the Germans maintained anywhere from 4-7 to 1 kill ratio throughout the war. Having Britain and France sit out the war in 1939 would have been Hitler’s wet dream….

nathan| 11.18.11 @ 3:21PM

The Japanese were mired in a war of imperial aggression in China they could never win. And were losing even if they didn't fully appreciate the fact. The United States, their major trading partner and major supplier of oil decides to restrict oil sales based on concerns over China.

Here's the question for you. Did we have any real national interest in what the Japanse did in China? Did we have sufficient interest to provoke war with them? What Japan was doing in China wasn't nice, we're all familiar with Iris Chang's "Rape of Nanking". But how did that directly affect us.

Cutting off their oil supply gave them two choices, surrender or go to war with us, a war they broadly understood they would not win. Given the same choice ourselves, we would have fought too, even if it meant losing. Why should we expect them to do otherwise?

Complicating this was maybe a communications failure. They believed we were insisting they leave all of China including Manchuria. Leaving Manchuria was non negotiable. It appears we were not asking them to leave Manchuria. What if they had understood us correctly?

But again, why was China, except for the sympathy issue, of any concern to us? Other countries, Britain included had mistreated and exploited the Chinese. "Chinese" Gordon, "hero" of Khartoum, pushed British grown opium down their throats. So why be moralistic about these folks?

But as long as we're doing "what if's" here, what if instead of attacking us, the Japanese had simply attacked the Dutch East Indies to address their oil needs? No Pearl Harbor, no day of Infamy, no declaration of war, no war on Germany.

And once and for all let's put to rest humanitarian concerns in Europe. None of the allied nations cared about what was happening in the camps. NONE. Jewish organizations begged the allies to bomb Birkenau and the US and Britain refused stating that Eighth Airforce planes could not make the round trip to Auschwitz and back without stopping in Russia. Very true but irrelevant. Ninth Airforce planes in Italy could make the trip but were not offered.

Pope Pius XII in his Christmas 1943 message knowing full well what was going on, his "condemnation" of the Holocaust was so vague so ambiguous that even today reading it you have no idea what he's talking about. The best book on THAT subject is "Under His Very Walls".

Look, we can play these alternate history games all we want. What we do know is what did happen.

The question I do pose to all of you is this. Again, neocons and WFB was more neocon than conservative given that he stated he was willing to see a dictatorship at home if that was necessary to beat the soviets abroad, a ghastly quote from someone like him, the question before us now, is this, based on the record of the neocons for the last 60 years, do we continue on the democracy jihad they have engaged us and that all the current candidated want to continue except Ron Paul, or do we pull back from those policies, start telling the oppressed of the world to pledge "lives, fortunes. sacred honor" to free themselves, and start pulling out of those 710 military bases we have all over the world. Start pulling of the bases we have in HALF the countries in the world. Tell Europe we're gone in 3 years. Leave Korea in three years. Same with Japan. Are we really improving our security by being everywhere or provoking people to attack us by being where we don't need to be? I pose the question to you all as we do revisionist history. Let's have a polite discussion on this. Because it is relevant to the next election. And safe holidays to all of you.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 3:32PM

"Cutting off their oil supply gave them two choices, surrender or go to war with us, a war they broadly understood they would not win."

You answer your own question here but I'll make it clear never the less to you. When did the United States become the lap dog of an Imperial Japan via dictating to us that we must carry on commerce with them or else? Why we cut of commerce with them is immaterial to the fact that we have the perfect right to do so for whatever reason. Japan made the decision to attack the US in July of 1941 not after their peace plan was rejected by FDR in Sept. They made the choice to attack us rather than drive south to seek the fuel supplies they needed to continue their “war”. We simply decided to not be part of their “war” and look what that got us?

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 3:48PM

"start pulling out of those 710 military bases we have all over the world"

We don't have a fraction of that number of "bases" in total let alone outside the US. Diplomatic post with Marine Guards aren’t “bases” and that is the bulk of what we have outside of the US and Europe. If you divide up our entire active duty force by that 710 bases you get an average of 1971 persons at each base outside the US. When you subtract what we maintain in the continental US on average this comes down to a squad at every one of what you say is a “base” outside the US. On any given day the overwhelming bulk of the nearly 900,000 people in the Navy (and Marines) and Air Force are within the US proper. The bulk of the Army is still state side with our current commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe and Asia. You really don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to “bases” and our forces deployed outside the US.

W| 11.18.11 @ 3:07PM

The problem with this revisionist history is it is wrong.
Japan attacked us on december 7. Regardless of any failure of diplomacy the fact is Japan attacked us. We then declared war upon Japan. Then Germany declared war upon us.
Once we were at war, unlike today, we fought to win. Russia was the enemy of Germany and thus became our friend. Russia supplied a lot of manpower and suffered devastating casualties to beat Germany. Would Hoover have preferred that we fight either one and then suffer more casualties.?

C Bowen | 11.18.11 @ 7:07PM

The embargo on Japan was an act of war though, by international law.

FDR's failure to protect Hawaii then, was criminal treason.

Your white washing of Red infiltration of the States is dually noted.

W| 11.18.11 @ 8:01PM

So we deserved to get attacked at Pearl Harbor because of the embargo? Are the economic embargoes we have against Cuba an act of war?
You sound like the appeasers that say we deserved to be attacked on 9/11/01. Is that what you believe?

C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 4:33PM

I realize this is a tough concept for those who were easily duped by Foreign Services into believing Iraq was a threat (LOL), but FDR did indeed seek to draw his country into a war by provoking Japan and criminally failing to defend his countrymen.

War with Japan was the great aim of the Rockefeller crowd who wanted to keep trade with China for themselves, and indeed, some folks still repeat that same mantra of modern day Rockefeller Republicans with their fear of Saddam (and now Iran.)

This was and remains standard Rightwing history; Human Events was founded by a Regnery to debunk FDR's Pearl Harbor myth, and now a Regenery is publisher for AmSpec.

The rest of you folks should go back to pro-Stalinists publications like The New Republic.

W| 11.19.11 @ 4:52PM

So FDR provoked Japan to attack us, and FDR was so smart that Japan could not resist, sort of like an entrapment defense used in criminal law. It is not Japan's fault that it attacked us, it is the fault of FDR.
Are you saying we should not have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor? Maybe we should have apologized to Japan for provoking them. This will surely comfort the families of the 1100 men still buried in the Arizona.

C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 6:14PM

Those are huge jumps in logical progression, from the Trotskyite training the public has received since those times--where but public school/PC media did you get those nodes to suggest?

After Pearl Harbor, of course there was little choice for the average US Congressman to Declare War against Japan.

Yes, FDR provoked for the purpose of his own ego and his financial backers, the Rockerfellers, a war with Japan.

If you know a thing or two about English history, then it starts to make sense. If you recall (not that you do) the English establishment press called Japan's sneak attack on the Russian navy in 1905 a great, daring thing--the English invented and celebrated the (dirty) concept against Napoleans fleet, and trained the mastermind of the Japanese Navy. Liddell Hart covers it well.

The point is that FDR ran on a platform of 'keeping the boys out of the war' all the while, encouraging an attack to provide cover. It doesn't take great brains to see that the United States industrial size would overwhelm the Japanese.

Nevertheless, W., where I am throwing my hands up is that this is standard rightwing American history that you are blissfully unaware of.

Why do you think that? How could that be? I trust you are by all accounts intelligent, well schooled and so forth--but you aren't familiar with the historical account of the American rightwing?

W| 11.19.11 @ 6:24PM

I confess I am having trouble here. You are not clear in stating your point . What is your point that you are trying to make? Help me and maybe others.

C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 8:10PM

Again, W., this forum is not the best situation to be engaging in critical discussion--please try to contact me and I would be happy to engage on civil terms, I do have to put some partisan activity in my posts here to get some flames going--not personal just business, as they say.

Any-hoot:

The FDR government was criminal, and treasonous.

The Rightwing then and now, persisted: let us not concern ourselves with all this--we have our oceans. The notion that Japan or Germany were going to invade the US successfully, were as silly as the notion that Iraq was a threat--but at least more credible, I'll give them that.

What I have read of your intellect, you are capable of understanding the concept of a Deep State, the men behind the curtains, but you selectively apply. Further, a question, why do you think, what is the history behind as a starter, you are in line with the Communists and later, the Trotskyites and their narrative?

I'd caution that staring into the abyss is a daunting thing, but you certainly seem curious. On another level, I am asking philosophically, why a self-identified conservative is unaware of near recent conservative history in his own country? Back to the question of Deep State.

To conclude I guess a point is that you lack the intellectual curiosity to consider debating, if just for sake, the arguments against you--something one might learn in 'liberal arts' before the Marxists took over that concept. How many--to call Hoover a revisionist is stretching it, but we'll take it--'revisionists' works have you read? Have you read at least the contemporary to the 1930-40s 'conservatives'--say Taft associates-of FDR and his policies?

What is the relation of the McCarthy hearings to the Rightwing? Do you take a Rockefeller Republican/Trotskite position or an Old/traditional Right position?

Rich Rostrom| 11.18.11 @ 8:19PM

An embargo is not an act of war and never has been. No nation is ever obligated to trade with any other nation.

As for FDR and Hawaii: he stationed the U.S. Pacific Fleet there, and the Navy and Army Air Corps had hundreds of combat aircraft there. Whaddaya want, egg in your beer?

The Pearl Harbor attack succeeded because the Japanese took a huge gamble and executed perfectly. US forces were surprised because it was so unlikely that Japan would even try such a risky move. (Yamamoto had to fight the Japanese Naval Staff tooth and nail to get approval.)

C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 4:40PM

Apologies--blockade, if you feel better.

The Japanese found their assets "freezed" (July 1941) so they could no longer purchase oil and such. FDR knew the war implications of as much.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 7:48PM

C. Bowen,

There was no blockade of Japan, prior to their attack on us on 7 December, 1941. From where did you get that bogus information?

C Bowen | 11.19.11 @ 8:12PM

When Japan's assets were frozen, it effectively blockaded their ability to purchase goods. FDR and Hull understood what they were doing which is recorded in traditional conservative history of the era, your Marxists professors just duped you.

Or you are a Marxist who just showed up.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 12:06AM

C. Bowen,

To call me a marxist is ridiculous. Haven't you posted comments here for awhile? If so, you should know better than to hurl that calumny at me. Be more careful, next time, okay?

The freezing of another country's assets is not a blockade, as used in its normal context, and is not an act of war. The U.S. froze Iran's assets when the radical Islamic students took 52 Americans hostage. In fact, they are still frozen.

Have we been blockading Iran for 30 years? Or, committing an act of war for that long? No, we have not.

C Bowen| 11.20.11 @ 5:11PM

As noted, Nick, I apologize for friendly fire--this is a terrible comment forum so I don't know who I am posting with at any given time--including fake uses.

Hull and FDR both privately acknowledge, as recorded by historians, Right and Left, that they understood the freezing of assets was an essentially a blockade, an act of war.

If that doesn't do it for you, then certainly, the late November ultimatum was acknowledged as meaning that war had started--yet, as is the English way of war, the first strike had to come from the other side to overwhelm Anglo-Saxon sensibilities.

Just look at Churchill's support for the first mass aerial bombing of civilian targets in Germany, which the Germans foolishly responded too with civilian bombings of their own--but who recalls the Brits committed the war crime first?

Such is our history.

Yes, we have been blockading Iran for 30 years, insuring only the connected neocons, and BCCI/Export Import bank insiders can make the cash from that regime.

C Bowen| 11.20.11 @ 5:17PM

Nick;

Back Door to War PDF download:

http://mises.org/resources/3130

standard Rightwing American cannon.

I do wish to mention again that it was the Rockefeller Establishment that wanted war with Japan, and enjoyed business with Germany. The House of Morgan ran the opposite racket--its a good study and plenty of standard rightwing (and left wing if you count Clinton's favorite historian Carol Quigly) histories of the era.

Tom| 11.18.11 @ 8:48PM

No, an embargo is not an act of war. Nations are free to trade with whomever they wish. Blockades, stopping third party trade, is an act of war.

Mike Hawk| 11.18.11 @ 3:18PM

The most appalling thing about the whole thing were the casualites on the Eastern Front. SOviets lost 9-10 Million KIA. Germany lost 5.5 Million killed in the entire war. (Japan about 2 Million.) All others were far less. These figures for Germany and the Soviets are on top of the appalling losses of WWI. A significant portion of the young healthy men of the population who should have been the workers, leaders and fathers of the next generation were obliterated and both countries still suffer from the aftermath.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.18.11 @ 4:34PM

Thom
Nathan simply cannot add. he's another Paul-bot.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 4:42PM

I know. I've lost count. Is it 600, 710 or 800 bases this week? I sure hope the Iso-bots are getting paid well by their benefactors for their service to their countries.....

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 1:48AM

Kenny The Squirrel Is A BibiBot.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.

Occam's Tool| 11.18.11 @ 5:18PM

You can tell these clowns over and over but they won't listen: appeasing a bully NEVER works. Ron Paul is a contemptible traitor.

Thom| 11.18.11 @ 6:38PM

Ron's a fool and because he makes such a fool of himself on matters he really has no special insight in the things he gets right are discounted right along with the loony things he says that history and observed human nature have made clear are suicide packs with the Devil. A world where people can sit comfortably behind their boarders and ignore what goes on in the rest of the world are long gone and along with a past century where the concepts of the 1770s were thoroughly debunked in blood all around the world. Even Jefferson, as President found an urgent need for a Navy and Marines both of which he voted against funding when his hands were on the yoke of power and accountability. Time and time again throughout history Wisdom wins out over idealism or Idealism ends up on the ash heap of history most of the time.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 1:55AM

" The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion)."

Dr.Ron Paul,
" While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 2:03AM

President Eisenhower,
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Thom| 11.19.11 @ 11:32AM

" The United States, with a budget of $698 billion, spends more on defense than the next seventeen nations combined. The United States military spending is almost six times that of the next biggest spender, China ($119 billion) and more than eleven times that of Russia ($59 billion)."

A can of Campbell’s Chicken soup cost a fraction in China or anywhere else what it cost here….. same chicken, broth, can. The differences in what a dollar here buys and what it will buy in China is the difference between being poor here and rich there. That you make such false statements repeatedly speaks to either your grand ignorance of all things economic or your willing participation in our enemy’s agenda of propaganda campaign. The end result is the same; the motivation is all that remains unknown.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 10:17PM

Then Smoke This Figure Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator.

" In 2010, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength estimated the actual 2009 Chinese military spending at US$150 billion."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

You're Up, Thommy.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 11:04AM

China has 1/7th our per capita income, what they pay their 2 million soldiers does not reflect that proportionate figure you quote in the least. They have nothing like our blue water navy which is 1/3rd of our cost; they aren’t in a shooting war and maintaining a heightened defense status like we are. Most of our increased military cost since 9/11s 242 billion budget goes to consumables like fuel, ammo and other such stuff associated with an increased tempo of operations. On 9/11 ready aircraft with weapons and fuel couldn’t be found in the North East section of this country due to lack of funds. We aren’t buying new weapons to replace 30+ year old stuff, we haven’t mobilized a massive increase in our forces to match that cost increase from 242 billion in 2000 thus where is the money going since both Iraq and Afghanistan are separate line items? The Dept of Education cost more every year than the F-22 program did and we cut it off at 187 planes meaning when hundreds of F-15s leave service due to fatigue there won’t be a replacement for that capability. If you believe that China is only spending 150 billion USD equivalent then I suggest you go live there and see what a USD really buys there.

Clint| 11.20.11 @ 11:46AM

Tell It To The Defense Department Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator,Thommy.

Those Are The United States Defense Departmaents Figures,PropagandaGirl, Thommy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Thommy.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 11:39AM

Not that I suspect you have the capacity to do this but if you look at the personnel cost in the US Defense budget and scale that cost up to the size of the Chinese military forces you will see that your 150 billion dollar cost figure only works if everything the Chinese military buys and consumes beyond paying their people an equivalent US wage and benefit package is “free”. The same people who put out such figures in the Pentagon are the same people who are surprised by their advances in sheath aircraft and got virtually everything they published about the Soviet economy wrong before it collapsed without warning….. Since you seem fixated on what the Communist Chinese spend on their defense forces and it seems to agree with your (and their view) of things why aren’t you living and working there then?

Clint| 11.20.11 @ 11:48AM

Asked & Answered Propaganda Girl, Little Thommy.

Tell It To The Defense Department Neo-Chickenhawk Bloviator,Thommy.

Those Are The United States Defense Departmaent's Figures, PropagandaGirl, Thommy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Thommy.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 5:34PM

I didn't figure you had the mental capacity to see by your own figures when compared to just the personnel cost of the Defense budget those figures were as bogus as your claim of being a Catholic. My Catholic friends are embarrassed by your hate filled anti-Semitism. You parrot the worst of Catholic stereotypes through the ages. If your mindset represented the face of the Tea Party the movement would be doomed to never never land. Since you post this nonsense 24/7 you either don’t have a day job or this is your day job which speaks to your motivations and benefactors….

Try the elementary math again Timmy Dumbass. If the Communist Chinese only spend the currency adjusted equal of 150 billion of our dollars on Defense for a 2 million man force then we could match them (alone) by cutting our spending to match right dumbass? Here is what you get when you do that. No new weapons, ships, planes or tanks of any kind at all. We’ve canceled every major ground, air and naval weapon system since 1988 except the Virginia class subs which won’t replace the LA class from the 70s and 80s. The 187 (minus 1) F-22 will have to do the job of the 750 F-15s we built in the 1970s and 80s. The C-17 is the only new Air Force major airframe and it isn’t a combat platform. It will take 40 years to replace our Air Force Tanker fleet at 200 million a copy at our current spending rate. The planned buy of F-35s won’t replace the A-10s, F-16s and F-18s going out of service now. Cut that by ¾ to reach your 150 billion figure. The affordable F-35s are up to the production line cost of the unaffordable F-22s now or 140 million a copy. Know what a brand new F-15 cost in the late seventies there Timmy? We sold the “jews” a couple dozen A models for 25 million a copy 31 years ago. They were considered unaffordable then too. The Navy is shrinking in combat terms on a steady rate with the current budget. We are going to lose one carrier by the end of 2012 and not have a replacement in the water till 2014 or later. At the rate we are building carriers now we won’t keep the 10 deployable ones we have in service. Now cut the Defense budget to 150 billion from where it is and tell us all how many of 13 Army and Marine divisions we have left, how many of the Air Force and Naval Wings we have left along with what 2- 3 Carrier Battle Groups and no amphibious capability at all? Speak Dumbass. Put money to forces you would have to cut to get us down to 150 billion or what you think is a match for the Chinese Defense budget. 242 billion in 2001 when fuel and ammo were 1/3 the cost of now gave us Pearl Harbor using our own commercial airlines as weapons. It cost real money to keep military equipment performing as required. Don’t believe that ask your Russian Friends about what it cost to get a portion of their fleet up to spec to put on a propaganda parade for the world to see. Non nuclear ships gulp very expensive Avation Gas these days. A lot more expensive than the $3.29 a gallon gas you put in your Ugo….

If you truly believe the Chinese military is the output of 150 billion currency adjusted dollars you are truly a complete dumbass. That figure barely covers our personnel cost alone and we have a measurably smaller force to pay.

Short of being an agent for a foreign government Timmy try actually thinking for yourself a few seconds a day once and a while. If you do that you might discover with some real research (not your Google Cut and Paste method) what the Israelis were doing when a unarmed commercial ship rigged for signal intercepts flying an American flag showed up off the Egyptian coast in the middle of a war and the Israelis command saw it as a threat and ordered an attack on it…. Your first answer wasn’t even close to the truth of the matter you spoke of then and not even in the same ball park as the truth of the Liberty event. Since your entire intelligence is based on Google searches and I don’t think you have the intellectual capacity for independent thought or speech I’ll give you two hints to help you on your way to enlightenment. The Liberty was attacked for two reasons, one you can surmise from the lessons learned from the USS PUEBLO affair a few months later and the fate of the HMAS Sydney when it approached what it thought was an Dutch commercial ship off the coast of Australia only to find out too late that it was the German Kormoran disguised as such. Everybody on that cruiser died because they trusted what they saw from a distance and got too close before the truth of the matter revealed its self. The second part of the answer relates to the critical nature of the events at that moment in the “battle space” which didn’t give the Israelis the luxury of time to fully investigate the true identity of a merchant like ship rigged for signal intercept flying an American Flag off the Egyptian coast in the middle of an all-out war on two fronts. Research and find out what the Israelis were really doing and you’ll have the whole truth of the matter and why the US stopped using non-warships for such missions after the Liberty affair in 1967 Pueblo affair in early 1968. The US government took partial blame in the matter and the Israelis never denied attacking it. I suspect none of this, not even the truth will deflect your anti-sematic hatred one bit. I also doubt Ron Paul, if he knew of what you speak in his name would agree with hardly anything you spew on a daily basis. Hatred for hatred sake, that be Timmy….

One last point Timmy Dumbass, if you are going to parrot our enemy’s propaganda at least have the courage to wear their uniform too…..

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 1:51AM

Tool Job Is A Screwball Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Propaganda Squad AgendaGirl.

Dr Ron Paul,
"I will Ask Congress For A Declaration Of War Against Iran, If Necessary."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & In Iowa.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 11:10PM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

Tool Job Is A Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Maniac.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster

C Bowen | 11.18.11 @ 7:08PM

Good to see that the Old Tom Bethell can still write, even for AmSpec at it's late stage.

Many thanks for calling attention to this book.

Rich Rostrom| 11.18.11 @ 8:07PM

Hoover's chronology is all wrong.

FDR committed the U.S. to supporting the Allies with the destroyers-for-bases deal in September 1940. The support was expanded with Lend-Lease in March 1941. During this period Hitler and Stalin were allies.

Nobody but them could be sure that alliance would not continue. Should the U.S. have held back and allowed the Hitler-Stalin alliance to subdue Britain and take control of the whole Old World?

Richard Baker| 11.18.11 @ 8:54PM

Read Nash's first book on Hoover as a member of the Pioneer class at Stanford in 1895, an engineer, and mining entrepreneur where he was very good and very successful. He was also exemplary in helping the starving masses in Europe post-WW1. He was great in those endeavors. However, Hoover created most of the agencies that FDR used to "stop" the Depression. But, as a politician and President he was a disaster. For someone who was an entrepreneur, he was awful as President. Calvin Coolidge was correct about Hoover's advice, "all of it bad." Disagree with FDR about WW2, if you wish, but the Axis had world conquest on it's mind. Remember the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere?

shipley130| 11.18.11 @ 9:58PM

Sometimes, historical figures cannot overcome the bad they did even though they might have done some good. Being buddy-buddy with Joseph Stalin was FDRs bad but FDR failed even bigger by supporting the communist ideology in the first place. He should have immediately rejected Stalin upon realizing what ideology was in play. FDR obviously rejected Nazism, so why not Communism?

Thom| 11.19.11 @ 1:07PM

Shipley130,
Part of the answer to your question went with FDR to his grave but the other part is pure pragmatism at work. “the enemy of my enemy is my friend….”

The Nazis were expansionists and occupied or attacked every country that bordered them in the quest for material wealth (raw material and industries that could convert such into war material). Who did the Soviets attack? Was it Russian subs that attacked our ships and destroyers guarding our ships conducting commerce with Europe? The Germans lost 27,000 killed in France and about 130,000 wounded for 6 weeks work. Total allied KIA were 90,000 killed, 200,000 wounded and 1.9 million POWs (or slaves to work for the Nazis on “public works” projects along the Coast of France.) Total casualties for the British were 68,000, the Belgians 23,000 and the Dutch 9,700. The difference between these and the 290,000 total casualties were the French. The Germans outnumbered the allies in the Air by quite a bit but the Germans did lose almost 1300 aircraft and crews. The RAF and French lost a little more 1491, about half of that on the ground which speaks to what happens when you let the other guy throw the first punch in a modern war. The Germans were quite competent in their Air/Panzer coordination and it showed up in many ways. In Russia, in June of 1941 that same German Air Force destroyed over 2000 Russian aircraft in two days, most on the ground and destroyed more “tanks” in 1941 than they themselves produced for much of the war following that. Between a 10,000,000 man German Army and a 12,000,000 man Russian Army which would you want to fight as the US commander in 1940-42 time period? As Pearl Harbor demonstrated and the nearly the next four years in the Pacific would verify, the US was wholly unprepared to defend its own interests let alone get involved anywhere else. The Nazis were always obvert in pursuit of their goals while the Communists were always covert at first and then obvert when they had overwhelming advantages. Helping the Russians bought us valuable time and kept the Germans tied down in Western EuroAsia not waiting for us on the French Coast in mass. I suspect even FDR had a pragmatic side even with his socialist’s leanings….

Mike Giles| 11.18.11 @ 10:00PM

"And once and for all let's put to rest humanitarian concerns in Europe. None of the allied nations cared about what was happening in the camps. NONE. Jewish organizations begged the allies to bomb Birkenau and the US and Britain refused stating that Eighth Airforce planes could not make the round trip to Auschwitz and back without stopping in Russia. Very true but irrelevant. Ninth Airforce planes in Italy could make the trip but were not offered."

Any American officer who risked the lives of American servicemen, for any reason other than a valid military (not humanitarian) target should have been cashiered on the spot. I feel for the Jews of Europe, but they have no right to demand that some farm boy from Iowa's life be placed at risk for their benefit. In case it hasn't been pointed out, bombing missions were dangerous.

Mike Hawk| 11.19.11 @ 9:30PM

For the record, Ninth AF planes could not reach Poland either and while in Italy they were a tactical AF of two engine bombers and fighter AC. After the 15th ( Heavy Bombardment) formed and moved into Italy it was now at the extreme of their range and they had to cross the Alps as well. Eighth AF had no such obstacles.The 15ths first regular missions to Germany proper did not start until June 1944. No fighter cover for those missions was possible till mid 1944. Tactically and stragically there was no reason to try to bomb those 'targets' in Poland or Germany that turnned out to be Concentration Camps.

Mike Hawk| 11.19.11 @ 9:42PM

15th AF was formed in late Nov 1943 and began occupying bases in Southern Italy in late Dec- Jan 1944. At that time there were 3 B-24 groups and 2 B-17 groups. 10 more HB groups arrived and went operational by May.

scythe| 11.19.11 @ 7:37AM

FDR was a lying scheming duplicitous pile of elitist scum whose reputation has been repeatedly burnished for decades by the socialist/fascists/and Marxists in America who will forever grateful that he broke the back of the old Constitutional Republic and began the dominance of socialism and government left wing activism we have today. He paved our road to ruination.

martin j smith| 11.19.11 @ 7:53AM

Those who do not believe that a " division of the spoils ( World ) " is not possible do so at their own and our peril. Though there is no honor among thieves there is self interest at least on a short term basis. That is realistic. But the real point is making a decision to keep out of WWII has consequences no one could have predicted so Monday morning quarterbacking is easy--
picking up the pieces is another story.
I do not trust this kind of Monday Morning quarterbacking at all.

Thom| 11.19.11 @ 12:04PM

Martian,
WWII has been studied by more people over the last 65 or so years than any other war in the history of the planet thus there are no unknowns regarding “material facts” with regard to its participants and their plans and capabilities. Many who have posted comments here have either a popular propaganda view of the “war” or the combined point of view of what Hollywood has put out over the last 65 years or so. Both views are deficient in several areas.

I’ve spent over 40 years studying “warfare” from the tactical, operational and strategic side of the equation. I’ve rubbed elbows with people who have forgotten more than I’ll ever know on the subject of WWII but there is general agreement that WWII was unavoidable. The time and place is debatable but not the ultimate cause. I’ve made the point above that the longer Germany and Japan was able to pick and choose their battles the better for them. There is a building full of “material facts” to back that position up just from the historical record alone. People driven by emotional needs are typically immune to “material facts” and in WWII’s case and the decade preceding it there are mountains of “facts and figures” to drown in to back up the general consensus that Fascism and Imperial Japan could not be appeased indefinitely.

The Paul-bots, the Buchanan-bots and Iso-bots in general can’t come to grips with the “material facts” of our modern technologically driven world where the precepts of the 18th century simply no longer have merit. The days of letting the other guy get within 1000 yards with a large land army or fleet of ships before it constituted a threat are long gone and the ideals of the 18th century started to die very quickly during the first WW of the last century. People who can’t come to grips with the reality of this century have no business with their hands on the yoke of power for the same reasons we don’t give children guns and the keys to the car before they are mature enough to handle the responsibility. Of course, some children never grow up despite advances in their biological age. It is amusing to hear children speak of that which they have no real understanding but only in the dangerous kind of distance way.

Mike Hawk| 11.19.11 @ 7:23PM

The seeds of WWII were planted long before the war started. It many ways it was a reigniting of conflict from The Great War. A real peace was never established. The Kellog-Briand treaty was a sham and it is curious that it is not taught in schools. The principle agressors of 1939-41 were signers if I remember. I would second the motion that Paulbots keep their campaign out of this.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 10:09PM

Overall, 71 percent of military donations for the 2012 presidential race have gone to Ron Paul, while Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann received five percent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney eight percent, and Cain 13 percent. All other candidates combined have received three percent of the military donations.

Dr.Ron Paul has received 2 1/2 times the military donations that Obama. has received.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 11.19.11 @ 10:37PM

" The Task Force notes, however, that while China will have the enduring advantage of proximity to Asia, the United States traditionally has the edge in maritime, aerospace, and technological dimensions of military power. As a result, an ongoing and robust U.S. naval and air presence can offset Bejiing’s capacity to leverage future military capabilities into advantage against U.S. and allied interests in the Asia-Pacific region over the next twenty years, if not longer."

Task Force Members:
MICHAEL A. MCDEVITT is director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the CNA Corporation and founder of CNA's "Project Asia." A retired Rear Admiral, he served in Asia policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as J-5 at Pacific Command.

JAMES C. MULVENON is the deputy director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy.

MICHAEL PILLSBURY is a consultant to the Defense Department, a research affiliate at the National Defense University, and a councilor of the Atlantic Council. He formerly served as assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning and as special assistant for Asian affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

JONATHAN D. POLLACK is professor of Asian and Pacific studies and director of the strategic research department at the Naval War College.

Thom| 11.19.11 @ 12:05PM

Sorry for the typo in your name Martin.....

POST American| 11.19.11 @ 9:55PM

-------------------FINAL WORD-------------------------

"In terms of long term implications for the
21st century, NOT the long gone WWII,
but the 'forgotten war' in KOREA is rapidly
emerging as --the-- pivotal conflict of the
last century."

-----------YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST------------

martin j smith| 11.20.11 @ 7:53AM

Thom: What troubles me about the Paul _Bots ( + Obama II ) is Ron Paul himself. If this is his base my G-D his Presidency would be exactly as bad as our current Saboteur in Chief.

Clint| 11.20.11 @ 9:35AM

That's An Israel Firster Lie, Smith.

You're An Israel Firster Liar, Smith.

Dr.Ron Paul,
May 19, 2011 09:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Ron Paul, a twelve-term U.S. congressman, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate, remarked on President Obama’s speech earlier today about the United States’ Middle East policy. Please see the statement below.

“The President gave a speech today about our foreign policy in the
Middle East, and once again this administration has proven that it does
not understand a proper foreign policy for America. When will our
leaders finally do what’s right for America and rethink this irrational
approach we’ve followed for far too long?
ael is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down.
May 19, 2011 09:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

LAKE JACKSON, Texas– Ron Paul, a twelve-term U.S. congressman, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate, remarked on President Obama’s speech earlier today about the United States’ Middle East policy. Please see the statement below.

“The President gave a speech today about our foreign policy in the
Middle East, and once again this administration has proven that it does
not understand a proper foreign policy for America. When will our
leaders finally do what’s right for America and rethink this irrational
approach we’ve followed for far too long?

“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya,
authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations,
and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that
country to step down.

“Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration
wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is
President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria? We
are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot
afford any of it.

“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 10:40AM

Martin,
Worse than King Obama with regard to foreign policy and matters of peace and war. Paul will allow our enemies to obtain the "means" to such an extent that no one can negotiate out of what comes next.

FDR did that with Japan all throughout the 30s and well past the point where he had anything on the table to negotiate with and Europe did the same with Hitler until they no longer had the “means” to stop him. That’s what naive fools tend to do…. I’ve made this point before to no avail, if we couldn’t beat the VC/NVA in Vietnam, the North Korean and Chinese in Korea, took several years using about 40% of our existing deployable ground forces in Iraq to subdue a rag tag insurgency and are still in Afghanistan after 10 years and haven’t defeated the hillbillies there what makes anyone assume we can actually “defend” ourselves and our national interest against someone with the technological means to and man power to challenge us? We have serious deficiencies in our “defense” forces and their ability to project power beyond the continental US. Modern day force structures are like a well-represented set of tools each with its special function and proper use and we don’t have enough of each “tool” to handle all the tasks given and we keep trying to change the mix of tools to fit the problem at hand “to day” at the expense of not having the enough of the right tools when the next problem comes along. Whether we “forward deploy” or not is a logistics question that people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan can’t speak to because they are ignorant of military matters. My Primary Care doctor is ex-Air Force doctor. A real nice guy and totally ignorant of military matters outside of the daily routine he had to follow while in the Air Force “club”. It stands to reason except to Iso-bots that if your defense forces don’t deter aggression than you are going to suffer for that sooner or later. Our actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have emboldened fourth rate nations with a fraction of our population to commit acts of aggression against us or our economic interest. The Somalia pirates don’t even fear us enough to leave our shipping alone…. Nations with the “means” and their proxies are having a field day at our expense because we have abandoned the common sense view put in place by our Founders…. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…. Without the “means” to defend our interest where ever and whenever vigilance becomes just a political sound bite…

Clint| 11.20.11 @ 11:56AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin laden Unit,

" Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 11.20.11 @ 12:21PM

Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address And The Old Right And Get Back To Us.

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”


Aaaaaand, Neo-Chickenhawk PropagandaGirls Don't Know Apples From Pears
" In a radical reorientation, many soldiers are training to fight two distinctly different wars as the U.S. Army adapts from the post-Cold War world to fighting the global war on terrorism.

Even soldiers in the Army’s last armored division are expected to train to be ready to wage two completely different fights — a nebulous counterinsurgency such as Iraq, and a large force-on-force conflict on a defined battlefield. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Tenn Slim| 11.20.11 @ 8:25AM

Historians will endlessly debate that period in history.
Meanwhile, in todays Hoover/Obama World, the Left continues to revise daily history. We live in an Orwellian world for sure.
Semper Fi

JmsA| 11.20.11 @ 11:21AM

Following the German defeat in Stalingrad, Charles DeGaulle visited that city. As he was asked by his Russian hosts what he thought about the great Soviet victory, DeGaulle's reponse was: Unbelievable. His hosts then asked him to elaborate, and he replied: It's amazing they came this far, meaning the Germans. The Germans and Japanese were great tactiticians, but owing mostly to their respective leadership, they were terrible strategists. Eventually the very might of the Allied resources, coupled with the burden of protecting Norway, France, the fighting against Yugoslavian resistance, the losses in North Africa, the round the clock bombing of Germany by the U.S. and Britain, etc., and Hitler's command meddling (thank God), made all of the difference.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 11:28AM

A lot of Americans don't really understand how much the Germans got out of their often times inferior number of and less well equiped forces....compared to those they fought against. You are correct, take away the upper leadership and let the Prussian efficiency come out and it could have been a lot worse.....for the allies.

Peter Yankov| 11.20.11 @ 1:38PM

German Senior staff made their plans and timetables and exprcted them to be executed as proposed. When the plans were disrupted timewise or by unexpected defeats or resistence they were not adept at revising or adapting to the new situation. This was especially evident in August 1914 when the Schlieffen Plan was set in motion. Unexpected resistence from the Belgians and French set back the timetables and resulted in the stalemates that cost the Germa Armys badly in men and movement. They simply did not plan for that. The same went for D-Day landings and the Ardenne offensive of Dec 1944. Allied army commanders in WWII were far more ready to adapt tactics and forces to fluid situations and American soldiers were superior at on-location engagment changes at the platoon and company level. The GIs had leadership potential down to the squad level that arose when needed that the opposing forces simply did not have the ability to do.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 3:32PM

Peter,
The German Army High Command had its problems, certainly not planning for some of the strategic failures that plagued them most of the war was one of those but their small unit capabilities were superior to ours almost to the end of the war. Don’t confuse being overwhelmed in 1944 by massive superiority in forces to being inferior at the man for man level. Our resourcefulness was a well-known trait but the German army never had the preponderance of material and resources we had in the field. I wouldn’t hold up Bulge as an example of our ability to out resource the Germans man for man. The Panzers were half strength across the board and at that they had about one third the number of AFVs an American Armor division had and a little more than our average infantry division; the 10,000 man VG infantry divisions had nothing like the staying power of the 1939 17,000 infantry divisions either. On top of all this they didn’t have the fuel for the mission regardless of planning and execution. The German people would have been better served if the Bulge forces had went East but Hitler wasn’t known for rational thought was he?

In 1940 they got through the Ardennes using their air power to shield prying eyes and hammer any resistance on short notice at the head of the spearhead. They didn’t have either of those advantages in Dec 1944. The US Army did a study after the war that found that all things considered 125 Germans soldiers were equal to 135 American soldiers and nobody was armed as well as the American soldier in 1944 with notable exceptions. Arm the German soldiers with all semi-auto Garands on top of the excellent in class MG34/42s and the ability to build the same number of Panthers MK Vs as we built Shermans and all the planning in the world isn’t going to overcome that per unit increase in firepower on that scale. Many myths grew out of WWII and many still live today but man for man they were a force to be reckoned with despite some of those in the High Command being their own worst enemies.

As for what the Germans were trying to accomplish with the Von Schlieffen Plan, I think they worked out the bugs in 1939, 1940 and 1941 pretty well. The Brits actually showed them the way in 1918 and forgot the lesson from that the Germans did not. An inferior German force did keep the Allies bottled up on the Italian peninsula from mid-1943 till May of 1945 despite the Allies having naval amphibious and air supremacy the entire time……

You don’t have to like your enemy to respect their capabilities and learn from it.

Peter Yankov| 11.20.11 @ 4:01PM

I did not say the German soldier was inferior. Another problem with the Ardenne was it was our weakest and least manned point in the line. The Germans knew it. Nonetheless their advance ground to a halt before it had gone near it's objective. Patton wheeled to the direction of Bastogne and cut off the advance. McAulliffe's men were not supposed to hold back the German advance as they did. As the German retreat began, their armor began to be abandoned. It ran out of fuel.

We had indications of a build up but did not give much credence to it. Ultra intelligence was lacking. At that time intercepts were few as radio trandmissions were not needed by the Germans to build up. One of the German high command errors was refusing to believe their Enigma codes could be broken and the top secrecy around Ultra gave them no indication it had.

Thom| 11.20.11 @ 6:15PM

Peter,
You said, “When the plans were disrupted timewise or by unexpected defeats or resistance they were not adept at revising or adapting to the new situation.” The last time I looked there aren’t many military plans that go as planned and that was no exception for the German High Command under a Dictator but given the material disparities the Germans faced for much of the war I don’t think such a generality stands up to detailed scrutiny. The German Army of Dec 1944 isn’t on the same page as the one in 1939 or 1941even. If you don’t have means, the forces and the fuel to support the operation as planned (which needed to capture allied fuel dumps to succeed) it does not matter what your revisions or adaptations are does it? It took a month to push the Germans back to the original lines despite all the material losses suffered in the Bulge. I think they adapted pretty well given the losses they suffered (and caused) in an operation that didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of achieving its stated goals. Let’s take the Bulge on the face of it, they knew we were weak there (how?) but we didn’t know they had built up that mass of forces there with complete air supremacy and ignored various reports about what was seen on the other side of the front line why?

As I remember things went terribly wrong on Crete for the Germans but they adapted and overcame serious problems after some major setbacks both in the air and at sea. The Prussian model has its problems but the German Army made great advances against superior numbers often in spite of the problems at the top. Given the mileage the Africa Korps got out of what it was up against I just don’t think your statement stands as a generality. The phrase, “no plan survives contact with the enemy” is a universal truth even for the Germans. That the German High Command had shortsighted goals and committed strategic blunders is material fact and you won’t get any argument from me on that but there are no saints on the Allied or Russian side either. As I alluded to earlier, give the Germans the material means we had and whatever high level problems they had would have been greatly diminished in scope and effect.

Richard Baker| 11.21.11 @ 7:19AM

Never forget the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact between Hitler and Stalin to sub-divide Poland. How many dictators have to come and start these wars until we get the message that appeasement and accommodation encourage them? Do we NEVER learn?

Rucking Fubbish| 11.21.11 @ 4:55PM

How stoooopid.

To regard h00ver as some kind of great statesman with something important to tell the world, about the war, or about anything else.

Hoover was a bumbler and bungler. His competence as a mining engineer, as the oganizer of CRB, as 'Food Czar,' and even as Commerce Secretary NEVER translated into presidential competence. The goofball started his administration with Smoot-Hawley, and ended with a tax increase - while the Great Depression was already starting.

Let Hitler and Stalin annihilate each other (and europe); leave imperial militaristic Japan in charge of China (and the rest of Asia), while Fortress America clings to isolationist fantasy. Brilliant, President Doofus!

This "revisionist history that matters" (what an asinine description) is crap alt-history rubbish.

RSS Ronald Reagan | 11.21.11 @ 5:39PM

Does Hoover address anything on the domestic front? Much of what I've read on FDR's domestic policy claims that he merely continued government intervention and anti-free trade policies introduced by Hoover. If this book merely represents Hoover's damning of Roosevelt's foreign policy, while remaining mum on the issue of domestic policy, I can't help but imagine it will be largely ignored as the sour grapes of a sore loser.

That's probably not quite fair...but it's hard to take seriously the critiques of an individual exhibiting no stomach for self-criticism.

Richard Baker| 11.22.11 @ 7:51AM

Thom:
Red Chinese Admirals and Generals regularly write in their military press that we would be a pushover and my opinion is that they want a brawl. They are presently building that blue-water Navy and planning to project their upcoming military power wherever they can. With a 2 million+ man army and a huge militia/reserve component, one and all should read about the CCF Intervention in Korea 1950-51 with great care. Add the high tech component to the human wave method and they will be tough to beat (though I think it can be done) and fighting them will be as Lord Wellington said about Waterloo "a damn close run thing."

POST American| 11.23.11 @ 2:58AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

"Understand, the Globalists do NOT
fear RED China. RED China, from the
days of MAO and before, is the creation
of the Globalists. Bottomless, even genocidal,
X--speed-iency, mass mind control
and wage slave labor, make RED China
the darling of Globalism ---and an utter
paradise for psychopathic EUGENISTS."

------------------WAKE UP AMERICA-----------------

Jeremy Buxton| 11.23.11 @ 3:31AM

Hoover's family did well to suppress this book for so long, for the sake of his reputation. Western Australians have a sentimental regard for the only President to have lived in our state as a pioneering mining engineer. This book diminishes him.

Sad that he had these isolationist sentiments and that such a gifted man could write such rubbish as letting Hitler and Stalin fight it out (what happens after one of them wins?). The grumpiness of age perhaps.

Australian conservatives will always venerate Roosevelt for seeking to push the USA into the anti-Hitler struggle against the cowardly, selfish and stupid isolationists. Thank God that he had so poked the rattlesnake so that Hitler declared war on USA in December 1941, leading to the farsighted 'beat Germany first' strategy.

More Articles by Tom Bethell

More Articles From Buy the Book

Treasure State Treasury

May 17, 2013 | Bill Croke

Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority

May 13, 2013 | John R. Coyne, Jr.

Self-Righteous Republic

May 8, 2013 | Aram Bakshian, Jr.

Ruthie’s Way

May 2, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

A Free and Indivisible Union

April 25, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/18/revisionist-history-that-matte

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|80 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|111 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|48 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|89 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|48 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|13 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

What Does Consequence-Free Sex Cost Us?

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

IRS Sued for Wrongly Seizing 60 Million Medical Records

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Pick Obama's Brain

Paul Kengor | 5.16.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Pray and Grow Rich

Christopher Orlet | 5.16.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.