The main reason why war in Europe broke out during WW2?

[Freebird]

Well in reading "Bloody Shambles" and my wife's grandfather's book those promises by FDR were pretty empty - the US would of had to deploy a sizable force to counter the Japanese

Oh I don't doubt that the promises would have involved some wishful thinking! But I see no other possible explanation for the Dutch refusing to deal with the Japanese.

I am pretty sure that the US made gurantees to the Dutch as well.

Remember that in 1940 even the British had tried to appease the Japanese to some extent by shutting down the "Burma Road". In 1941 after consultations with Roosevelt the opened it up again, because there was an understanding that the Allies would work together to counter the Japanese.

even if Pearl Harbor didn't happen I could not see the US defending Dutch Territories let alone its own possessions - I think history proved that to ultimately be correct.

Actually the US { UK} did attempt to defend the Dutch territories, that was the purpose of "ABDA", and the Allied attack against the Japanese landings {Battle of the Java Sea} After the shock of Pearl Harbour though, all that could be mustered was the CA Houston and some DD's {+ British, Australian Dutch CA's CL's

I don't think that Roosevelt would have promised direct defence, more likely that the US would intervene to help defend {mainly with air naval power} in the event of a Japanese attack on the East Indies. The Dutch had a native army of about 160,000 {similar to the Philippine scouts} I believe that the planners envisioned the Dutch local ground troops would be able to defend their own territory IF the US Navy Air Force took care of the Japanese fleet. The East Indies native troops performed quite poorly, and as Parsifal mentioned, similar to the weak performance of native troops in the Philippines. {hardly surprising considering the lack of training.}

The Americans put great faith in the deterrent effect of the airpower that was based in the Phillipines, and grossly overrated the effectiveness of the filipino army in resisting the Japanese. The Americans also believed their own military assessments, which in the long run was correct, that a Japanese attack on the west would be national hari kari by the Japanese.

The assessment was reasonably good on this point though, IF the Japanese Navy were neutralized, the Japanese domination of S.E. Asia could not be maintained without supply. The problem was that the planners did not take into account the possibility of the Allied Navies Air power being beaten

 

[Danielmellbin]

Off topic a bit nice to see i have one believer in rock daniel

Back on topic, for one of our units at school we did Adolph, and drawing from this i really think that the thing that sparked off WW2 in europe at least was the treaty of Versaille. As adler said before it sparked german resentment towards the rest of europe for being treated in that manner if Hitler hadn't done what he did i believe someone else would have, the oppotunity was right there for the taking.

hehe - all you need in life is two guitars, drums and a bass 8) (and the guts of rapper to use for... I don't know! just give me the guts of a rapper! )

Aaaand back on topic - Another interesting point is that the Japanese where largely regarded as "subhumans" in the west. I remember seeing a documentary about The HMS Prince of Wales - their crew where told not to worry about lack of aircover as the japs where flying paper plains and could not bomb very precisely because of their poor vision which was due to their narrow eyes This might be overanalyzing - but i think that rascism was a big factor in luring the the allied powers to think that their meagre forces would be enough.

Regarding Europe I pretty much agree. Even if Germany had not begun a war (with- or without Hitler) then a conflict with the Soviets would have been all but inevitable. Only something as horrible as Hitler could make the west ally with Stalin. What was it Churchill said: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would ally with the Devil"....

 

[Freebird]

There is no disagreement about the historical facts about what happened, its a matter of record.
The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.

Glider I think the big turning point was not the war with Germany, but the French Armistice. With Indo-China still in French hands, + the French Navy watching the Italians in the Med, Britain France would be in a far better position to contest the Far East. If the Allies would be on the strategic defensive, the addition of shore-based airpower would probably balance out the slight inferiority in Aircraft Carriers.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The only question I would have, is that if the UK had not gone to war with Germany, would Japan have attacked America knowing that it was almost certain that the UK would support the USA in any conflict. I don't think they would. To go against the two biggest Navies in the world at the same time in a naval domminated environment such as the Pacific would be asking a lot.

Agree...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Actually the US { UK} did attempt to defend the Dutch territories, that was the purpose of "ABDA", and the Allied attack against the Japanese landings {Battle of the Java Sea} After the shock of Pearl Harbour though, all that could be mustered was the CA Houston and some DD's {+ British, Australian Dutch CA's CL's

It's a big "would of, could of" to see what type of force the US would of mustered against the Japanese in the Dutch Territories. I also question how well US forces would of fought - remember Pearl Harbor was probably worth 5 carrier fleets in charging those serving in the Pacific - it's amazing how the wish for revenge could motivate.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I remember seeing a documentary about The HMS Prince of Wales - their crew where told not to worry about lack of aircover as the japs where flying paper plains and could not bomb very precisely because of their poor vision which was due to their narrow eyes This might be overanalyzing - but i think that rascism was a big factor in luring the the allied powers to think that their meagre forces would be enough.

I think that racism took hold after Pearl. I seen numerous publications that made the Japanese look sub-human, and the "sneak attack" of Pearl Harbor further compounded this.

The cartoonist who did the original "Buck Rogers" comic strip (his name escapes me) was running a major episode in his strip during 1941 - "The Monkey Men of Mars" were invading the US - they were drawn out to look like monkeys - after Pearl Harbor the "Monkey Men of Mars" slowly began to look like Japanese....

 

[JugBR]

I think that racism took hold after Pearl. I seen numerous publications that made the Japanese look sub-human, and the "sneak attack" of Pearl Harbor further compounded this.

The cartoonist who did the original "Buck Rogers" comic strip (his name escapes me) was running a major episode in his strip during 1941 - "The Monkey Men of Mars" were invading the US - they were drawn out to look like monkeys - after Pearl Harbor the "Monkey Men of Mars" slowly began to look like Japanese....

theres an interesting movie, flyboy and daniel:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGJPzpWrAXU

until these days, some people also think japaneses have poor vision, or black people cant swim well, this is racism, but also ignorance, culture and informations should resolve the problem !

 

[Freebird]

It's a big "would of, could of" to see what type of force the US would of mustered against the Japanese in the Dutch Territories. I also question how well US forces would of fought - remember Pearl Harbor was probably worth 5 carrier fleets in charging those serving in the Pacific - it's amazing how the wish for revenge could motivate.

Ah yes but there is a big difference in promising aid and actually delivering it when the time came! I think Roosevelt could honestly say "If the Japanese attack you we will intervene", but he would not be giving specifics like exactly what that aid would be. In the worst case scenario, if the US was unable to prevent the Japanese from capturing Indonesia then the US "aid" would consist of liberating SE Asia from the Japanese at some future unspecified date. {Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.

The original US plan was to wear down the Japanese Naval capability, while the native troops kept the Japanese occupied. Obviously the huge flaw in the plan was that the US UK totally underestimated Japanese air naval ability.

 

[Danielmellbin]

Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.

Poland - one of the sadest if not the sadest story of WW2. 95% of all jews, 90% of all intelectuals and god knows how many of the "regular" people where exterminated. And then to add "injury to injury" - Stalins betrayal at the Warsaw Uprising. They performed bravely as soldiers in 39 - and later especially at Monte Cassino. I think Poland is also the biggest Irony of WW2 - It was because England and France Guaranteed Polish independence that war was declared - and as such it was the original goal of the war to free Poland. Yet this never happened - the Poles where robbed of their independence (real independence anyway) for another 45 years after the peace was settled..

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Ah yes but there is a big difference in promising aid and actually delivering it when the time came! I think Roosevelt could honestly say "If the Japanese attack you we will intervene", but he would not be giving specifics like exactly what that aid would be. In the worst case scenario, if the US was unable to prevent the Japanese from capturing Indonesia then the US "aid" would consist of liberating SE Asia from the Japanese at some future unspecified date. {Much like the Poles thought that British French aid would be immediate, whereas they thought of there "guarantee" to mean that if invaded by Germany Poland would be liberated AT SOME FUTURE DATE.

The original US plan was to wear down the Japanese Naval capability, while the native troops kept the Japanese occupied. Obviously the huge flaw in the plan was that the US UK totally underestimated Japanese air naval ability.

I think FDR was underestimating the Japanese and overestimating the capability of US forces, but I agree with your scenerio.

 

[renrich]

FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise. The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941. One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.

 

[Freebird]

FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise.

Sorry Ren I didn't make clear in my post, I was referring to the ships that tried to intercept the Japanese landing at "Java Sea", the unfortunate "Boise" {ran aground, out-of-action} and the Marblehead did not participate in that one. The real problem in this one goes back to Churchill. He over-ruled the Admiralty {who wanted to send a proper task force with A/C's}, and sent the PoW Repulse to "intimidate" the Japanese to prevent them from declaring war. AS SOON AS JAPAN attacked PH, these 2 ships should have been withdrawn from Singapore, to provide the backbone of an "ABDA" fleet. "Java Sea" wold have been a completely different story!

The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941.

They had some information, but it seems to have been ignored. The sinking of the PoW was partly because the Royal Navy did not think that the Nell's Betty's had enough range to strike out that far.

One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.

Well.... Yes and no. You have to use the best information and make the best possible estimates based on good advice. True, only real combat will demonstrate the exact abilities.

However there were many cases where advice from experienced knowlegable officers was ignored because high command did not want to face up to reality

 

[FLYBOYJ]

FB, don't forget CLs Marblehead and Boise. The facts are that the US was very poorly prepared for war in 1941 although of all the services the USN was probably further along than the others. During the Louisiana Maneuvers in 1940, the Army was using wooden guns and cardboard tanks. I don't believe the US military underestimated the Japanese. They had plenty of intelligence about Japanese capabilities including the Zero fighter in 1941. One can give an opponent all the respect in the world but real comparisons in combat is the only meaningful way of discovering if one's tactics and equipment is up to scratch. I agree absolutely about the sadness regarding the plight of the Poles.

You stated my point though - look at the state of the US military in 1940. Look at what the US had in the Pacific. I do think MacArthur knew what he was up against and Chennault tried to warn the US but that went on deaf ears. Also remember that the US did not have a unified military command and there was a lot of inter service bickering and fighting, it didn't help much.

As mentioned there were many in the US military and US government that pictured the Japanese as tiny inferior people with bad vision. When Pearl Harbor happened it was a slap ion the face as well as a wake up call and the propaganda machine in the US exploited this.

 

[renrich]

Our tactical doctrine was really flawed at that time also and as you have stated, Flyboy, we were in a defensive posture in the Philipines. So we sent B17s to MacArthur because they were supposed be able to defend the Philipines against a sea borne invasion. Of course the B17s were caught on the ground but the ones that did get into the fight sank little if any of the IJN invasion force except in the newspapers where Colin Kelly and Meyer Levin sank the Haruna(which was not even in the vicinity.) Those B17s of which there were more in the Philipines on Dec. 7 than at any other US base did about as much good there as they did at Midway. Billy Mitchell did not do the US any favors on that subject. I agree on the racism against the Japanese and it carried over during the entire war. When one reads accounts of the Allied POWs it is easy to understand the racism.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Freebird


....... The real problem in this one goes back to Churchill. He over-ruled the Admiralty {who wanted to send a proper task force with A/C's}, and sent the PoW Repulse to "intimidate" the Japanese to prevent them from declaring war. AS SOON AS JAPAN attacked PH, these 2 ships should have been withdrawn from Singapore, to provide the backbone of an "ABDA" fleet. "Java Sea" wold have been a completely different story!


I dont think thats actually completely correct. There were actually a number of plans considered by the Admiralty. One involved sending some of the older "R" class battleships to Ceylon, as a sort of long range deterrent to the Japanese. This plan was rejected by Churchill (this was about the time he described the "R" class as "floating coffins"), but it was basically the plan that was implemented folowing the destruction of Force Z. It is true that Churchill strongly advocated a forward deployment to Singapore, of a fast, modern squadron, but it is not true that he vetoed or opposed the sending of a carrier as escort(quite the opposite as I recall). In fact one of the Brit Carriers was actually on the way (Implacable IIRC), but it hit an uncharted rock enroute. It was actually the Admiralty who recommended that the deployment of the two battlewagons, in the belief that the Buffaloes deployed in Malaya were "more than a match for anything the Japanese possessed. It was assumed (even though the intelligence was there to show otherwise, that the main fighter in the IJN was the biplane A4N, and as you say, that the G3M Nells could not carry torpedoes as far as they actually could. The aircrew training levels were assumed in a report to the admiralty to be "somewhat below the standard of italian aviators". The British went into the battle supremely confident that they could mange the IJN air arm with available resources. This was not a Churchill inspired blunder, it came from deep within the RN itself.


However there were many cases where advice from experienced knowlegable officers was ignored because high command did not want to face up to reality

Aint that the truth!!!!!

 

[Njaco]

I voted for the last choice. I believe the ideaologies of the different governments were made to clash at some point. Versailles was a focal point and nothing more. You have to remember the tenants of the Nazis, the Aryan Superrace doctrine that at some point would involve the rest of Europe. Same with Mussolini and to an extent Stalin.

Versailles and the Depression and all the other economic hardships and hatreds allowed these governments to be hostile. It was inevitable.

 

[Freebird]

I dont think thats actually completely correct. There were actually a number of plans considered by the Admiralty. One involved sending some of the older "R" class battleships to Ceylon, as a sort of long range deterrent to the Japanese. This plan was rejected by Churchill (this was about the time he described the "R" class as "floating coffins"), but it was basically the plan that was implemented folowing the destruction of Force Z.

From what I've read {Naval chief} Admiral Pound had the best handle on this, he was opposed to just sending the 2 ships, he advocated a complete squadron, and at minimum wanted to have the 2 ships wait for a replacement carrier, but Churchill was convinced that the Japanese would be awed by the new PoW. Pound also felt that the Repulse was a poor choice, as it's weak AA would be a handicap in the PTO.

It is true that Churchill strongly advocated a forward deployment to Singapore, of a fast, modern squadron, but it is not true that he vetoed or opposed the sending of a carrier as escort(quite the opposite as I recall). In fact one of the Brit Carriers was actually on the way (Implacable IIRC), but it hit an uncharted rock enroute.

It was actually the brand new Indomitable that hit a rock while working up in Jamaica, Churchill vetoed a delay to allow a replacement carrier {likely would have been Formidable}

It was actually the Admiralty who recommended that the deployment of the two battlewagons, in the belief that the Buffaloes deployed in Malaya were "more than a match for anything the Japanese possessed. It was assumed (even though the intelligence was there to show otherwise, that the main fighter in the IJN was the biplane A4N, and as you say, that the G3M Nells could not carry torpedoes as far as they actually could. The aircrew training levels were assumed in a report to the admiralty to be "somewhat below the standard of italian aviators". The British went into the battle supremely confident that they could mange the IJN air arm with available resources. This was not a Churchill inspired blunder, it came from deep within the RN itself.

Depends which version of the Admiralty plans you look at, but from my reading Pound was the most opposed to this "show", and after it failed to prevent the Japanese attack, he wanted to withdraw the ships. Churchill was convinced that the PoW could "catch and Kill" any Japanese ship, so they were sent to try to attack the invasion transports.

The myth that ships in open water could evade air attack had already been disproved in the Med during the retreat from Greece Crete. Considering the # of ships lost there the British should never have allowed these 2 capital ships to deploy without air cover.

I have a very good account of the events of the time in "70 days to Singapore"

 

[parsifal]

I have a book i have been meaning to read as well..."Main Fleet To Singapore"

Would very much like to hear your information. I will have a look at my source, we should be able to get a very good idea of the events that led to the loss as a result

 

[Negative Creep]

As with anything of this nature, it's a combination of most or maybe all of the options. Yes Versailles led to WW2 in that Germany wanted to avenge perceived injustice and humiliation, but many things happened between 1919 and 1939 that were just as important.

If the Allies had occupied Germany at any point before the late 30's, they could've nipped National Socialism in the bud. On the other hand, it's very easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight and both France and Britain were tired of war, had weak militaries and had enough problems rebuilding at home.

Hitler no doubt wanted war with Soviet Russia and in all likelihood would want a limited conflict with France. If he had invaded the USSR without declaring war on the Western Allies, would they have gone to her aid? Unlikely, seeing as Britain and France were amongst those who sent forces to White Russia.

If Germany had been invaded after she attacked Poland, then the war could've been over in months and we'd know it as a conflict, not a world war. The closer you get to 1939, the more obvious the prospect of war was. Perhaps it was inevitable, but only because the Allies sat back whilst Germany was allowed to grow again

 

[Freebird]

As with anything of this nature, it's a combination of most or maybe all of the options. Yes Versailles led to WW2 in that Germany wanted to avenge perceived injustice and humiliation, but many things happened between 1919 and 1939 that were just as important.

If Germany had been invaded after she attacked Poland, then the war could've been over in months and we'd know it as a conflict, not a world war. The closer you get to 1939, the more obvious the prospect of war was. Perhaps it was inevitable, but only because the Allies sat back whilst Germany was allowed to grow again

I have also read that by 1939 the German economy had been improving, war debts mostly forgiven, Rhineland re-occupied and Germany had been allowed to build a Navy again.

So much of the Versaille "humiliation' was no longer in play,it was mostly just Hitler's propaganda.


A better option would have been to help the Czechs stand up against Germany, the terrain there would have been far tougher a fight for the Nazis than Poland