Germany First Policy?

[Phil the Dill]

I was just wondering why America agreed to a 'Germany First Policy' in relation to alocation of man-power and resources in WWII? Surley America was under more threat from Japan than Germany.

------------------

"Your Mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"

[Doctor]

I imagine that it had to do with a number of dynamic factors. Here's some in no particular order:

-- If Russia beat Germany while we were fighting in the Pacific, we'd have more problems down the road if they decided they didn't want to leave the countries they invaded(which was a real possibility, and despite our being allied with them we didn't trust them at all).

-- Political pressures from England demanded that we help them first.

-- A-Bomb race with Germany.

-- Freeing Europe from the German threat would free up non-US allied troops to help in the pacific(after all, would the UK fight in the Pacific just because we asked while thier cities were being bombed?)

-- It bought us time to develope the A-Bomb and use it without fear of pissing off our European Allies who live next door to ground zero in Germany.

-- American interests were under a lower direct threat in the Pacific after the initial Japanese land grab.

-- More Americans in power were(and are) of European descent, and had greater interest(both economic and cultural) in seeing Europe freed.

-- Britan was under direct threat from Germany, and if Britan fell we'd have a hell of a fight trying to get a toehold in Europe.

-- We(American Mainland) were not really under direct threat from Japan, as far as I can tell. We may or may not have been under direct threat of Germany, but it seems like it was perceived that we were.

There's probably more, and I may add to this. If any seem wrong, feel free to critique this list. Keep in mind that it's 6am, and I have had insomnia for the last two nights, so please go easy on my first attempt at in depth discussion on this board.

[This message has been edited by Doctor (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Guest Chris B]

Where to begin:

(Disclaimer, this is a generalization)

1) Apart from a few raids, it is not like America was under any threat at all. Meanwhile Soviet Russia was invaded and under direct threat, France was occupied and under direct threat, Britain was bombed and under some threat. Those were the german threats to the allies.

In the pacific, China being under partial occupation, but only some threat by Japan, and Australia and India were under some threat by Japan.

2) Germany was the bigger threat. The submarines (and in some way the in the atlantic threatened british production as well as communications between the big 3 allies. German production was much greater than japanese and units built had much better quality. Japanese technology made very few advances during the war, the air force and naval forces employed by Japan in 1944 were only marginally better than the ones used in 1941. Knocking out Germany would just about end the war, while knocking out Japan would not have such a great impact.

3) Buildup of forces

Defeating Japan would take carriers, battleships, long range bombers, marines. Carriers and battleships could take 2 years to build.

Defeating Germany would take infantry tanks, artillery. Infantry could (in theory) be trained and equipped in a couple of months.

So it would be simpler to defeat Germany in regards to buildup, and the buildup of naval forces against Japan could be done in the same time. A very important factor in the defeat of Germany of Japan was control of the seas. While Germany threatened the Atlantic routes, Britain never lost control of them, and the Mediterranean was the only real place of naval supremacy contention. Against Japan, naval supremacy had to be established in order to bring land forces into the fray, ie build carriers and battleships.

4. Ease of conquest.

Germany is near (on a global scale) Britain and Russia and the road of conquest would be paved with available bases, as well as potential new allies in liberated territories, ie little need to garrison.

Japan is far away (even on a global scale) from any allied bases and new bases had to be painstakingly conquered in the face of the Japanese navy and air force (the island hopping campaign).

It was simply the smart choice.

[This message has been edited by Chris B (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Phil the Dill]

Thanx a heap for the replies - very informative (I hadn't though about the A-Bomb race or the logistics of building heaps of battleships and carriers) - considering Doctor's suffering from sleep deprivation.

PHIL

[Jeff Heidman]

The biggest reason is simply that there was no other way to do it.

Think of it this way. Considering that the Allies were at war with the Axis, it makes sense to "gang up" on one opponenet, force them out, then move to the next. Given that the Allies were going to gang up on someone, there is little chance of the US talking the UK and/or the USSR to focus on Japan at the expense of Germany!

However, the reality is that the US did NOT execute a Germany first policy anyway. We went after Japan pretty hard as soon as we had the forces to do it, and we invested heavily in creating the forces that could only be useful against Japan even before Pearl Harbour.

Jeff Heidman

[Jadayne]

I've never heard of the "germany first" policy. I thought the theatres of battle had been divided with US and some commonwealth forces handling the pacific and British and some US forces helping the Russians in Europe. Germany just fell first because the pressure in Europe was greater.

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

However, the reality is that the US did NOT execute a Germany first policy anyway. We went after Japan pretty hard as soon as we had the forces to do it, and we invested heavily in creating the forces that could only be useful against Japan even before Pearl Harbour.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica website:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Japan's entry into the war terminated the nonbelligerency of the United States. The three weeks' conference, named Arcadia, that Roosevelt, Churchill, and their advisers opened in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 22, 1941, reassured the British about U.S. maintenance of the "Europe first" principle and also produced two plans: a tentative one, code-named "Sledgehammer," for the buildup of an offensive force in Great Britain, in case it should be decided to invade France; and another, code-named "Super-Gymnast," for combining a British landing behind the German forces in Libya (already planned under the code name "Gymnast") with a U.S. landing near Casablanca on the Atlantic coast of Morocco.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, this was later affirmed in the Casablanca conference.

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Wayne]

Europe had always been the most important foriegn policy consideration in our past history and probably always will be. Most Americans were then and still are of European descent. Our culture, language, arts all come from Europe. Most Americans in 1940 had relatives in Europe so it was natural that we would consider dealing with the European war first.

We are still that way. Look at Bosnia and Kosovo. Worst tragedies have happened in Africa and we did not send as much military help there.

Europe is America's "homeland" and we will always try to protect her safety, like the child potecting the mother.

------------------

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[CavScout]

While it is true the U.S. was leaning more on Germany it didn't give Japan a breather. Hell, the U.S. basically was ONLY fighting the Japanese for much of 1942. Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz all come to mind as a few of the battle we fought that year. One can argue that by '43 it was clear that Japan could not win the war.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

The answer mostly is Trade. America conducted a huge amount of trade with Europe. If Hitler were allowed to consolidate Europe with its immense economic resources under his rule, he could call the tune in world trade.

Asia/Pacific in the 1940s was only a potential market. It was largely undeveloped.

As others have pointed out it was urgent that Hitler be dealt with before he could effectively dig in with his winnings. He never had time to organize the economies of his captured territories, and that was a Good Thing. With all Europe cranking out Panthers, he would have been nigh unbeatable.

Japan, on the other hand, we could defeat at our leisure. They were a much smaller economy, and there wasn't much they could have done to expand it in the time that was available to them.

Michael

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

IIRC, this was later affirmed in the Casablanca conference.

The three weeks' conference, named Arcadia, that Roosevelt, Churchill, and their advisers opened in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 22, 1941, reassured the British about U.S. maintenance of the "Europe first" principle...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my point. We "assured" the UK that Europe was first. But excuse us while we lay the keels for a few dozen battleships and aircraft carriers.

"Europe First" was a PR thing much more than it was a reality thing. Or, alternatively, Europe First meant that Europe might have gotten first dibs on resources, but they certainly did not get last dibs!

Which is just fine, BTW. It worked great. We got to assure our Allies that they would get priority for resources, while at the same time we managed to get out of the hole we were in with respect to the Japanese in late '41/early'42.

Jeff Heidman

[Tiger]

What if...Japan had invaded Russia fromt the east in conjunction with operation Barbarossa in 1941? Would they have given Russia much trouble?

-johnS

[Von Fauster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger:

What if...Japan had invaded Russia fromt the east in conjunction with operation Barbarossa in 1941? Would they have given Russia much trouble?

-johnS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that Germany declared war on the U.S. after the bombing at Pearl Harbor as a result of a non-binding understanding with Japan that they, in turn, would declare war on the USSR thereby draining forces from Germany's eastern front. The Japanese, much to Hitler's displeasure, did not follow through with their end of the deal. Yes no?

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Fauster:

I was under the impression that Germany declared war on the U.S. after the bombing at Pearl Harbor as a result of a non-binding understanding with Japan that they, in turn, would declare war on the USSR thereby draining forces from Germany's eastern front. The Japanese, much to Hitler's displeasure, did not follow through with their end of the deal. Yes no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Russia and Japan had a non-aggresssion treaty for much of the war.

[Bullethead]

Jeff Heidmann said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is my point. We "assured" the UK that Europe was first. But excuse us while we lay the keels for a few dozen battleships and aircraft carriers. "Europe First" was a PR thing much more than it was a reality thing. Or, alternatively, Europe First meant that Europe might have gotten first dibs on resources, but they certainly did not get last dibs!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree here. The US did not take any real strategic offensive action against the Japanese until 1943. Everything up to that point, including the Guadalcanal invasion, had been a strategic defense, designed to slow and/or contain Japanese expansion.

Sure, immediately before and right after the start of the war, we laid down many warships intended primarily for use against Japan. But at the same time, we were starting to build tanks by the thousand, plus hundreds of cargo ships to carry them and everything else the Euros needed, plus building thousands of planes, plus training millions of men to use all this stuff. And of all this vast military expansion program, by far the most of it went to Europe.

Hell, in 1942, when we scraped up what there was left of the pre-war active duty army, topped it off with new recruits, and equipped it with the first fruits of the production lines, where did it go? To fight the Germans.

But all this is irrelevant. Every CM player knows that the "Germany First" policy actually is a term used by us non-artists to describe the apparent priorities of the mod texture makers

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

[Bullethead]

Tiger said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What if...Japan had invaded Russia fromt the east in conjunction with operation Barbarossa in 1941? Would they have given Russia much trouble?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so. In 1938-39, the Japanese and Russians fought a number of times. On land, the Japanese got the worst of it, especially in the Kholkin Gol battles, in which Zhukov kicked mucho Japanese butt.

Besides, right at this time, the Japanese learned that their supposed ally, Germany, had just signed the non-aggression pact with their current enemy, Russia. This pissed the Japanese off so much they renounced their alliance with Germany and, in early 41, signed a non-aggression treaty of their own with Russia, to let them and the Germans kill each other while Japan gobbled up the Pacific.

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

[Dr. Brian]

One of the most obvious, was that FDR and Sir Winston had a great working relationship together. FDR saw and firmly believed (correctly) that Germany was the main threat to freedom, and acted accordingly.

------------------

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Hamstersss]

Cheese, mostly, and the funny hats. The Japanese had no cheese and walked around bare-headed.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Wesy]

One word...Economics...Look at this website for a very good reason why Germany was the first priority...To paraphrase, Japan was fighting the economic equivalent of Godzilla...This is why they lost the war.

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

[dumbo]

see below

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 09-14-2000).]

[dumbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dumbo:

Good replies. I would just add that the Germany First policy had the added benefit (as per FDR's wishes) of getting US soldiers into "action" (IE: getting killed) against german troops as quickly as possible. This was to cement the idea of war against germany quickly before the public mood could turn.

While nowadays its easy to forget but a large portion of the US public did NOT want to go to war with Germany, FDR mentioned how Hitler had releived him of a great burden by declaring war against the US , he had doubts that even after Pearl Harbour the American people would willingly declare war on Germany.

Before we judge the American Isolationists too harshly its worth remembering that as far as they could tell this was just yet another war between European powers of the kind their ancestors had left to avoid and their first president had warned against getting involved in.

Several times in WW2 the US military used the threat of transfering forces to the Pacific theatre as a threat to bring the Brits into line (particularly during the debate on picking where to invade mainland europe).

The policy was a sane one, Japan while the greater physical threat to US interests was not of the same nature as Nazi Germany's threat to western civilization. When describing the nature of this threat I do not beleive Churchill was exaggerating the gravity of the situation when he spoke of the possibility of a "new dark age".

cheers

_dumbo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

While it is true the U.S. was leaning more on Germany it didn't give Japan a breather. Hell, the U.S. basically was ONLY fighting the Japanese for much of 1942. Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz all come to mind as a few of the battle we fought that year. One can argue that by '43 it was clear that Japan could not win the war.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-14-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, I can't let that one go. I believe Australia & N.Z. were doing their fair share of the fighting against Japan in 1942 from my recollection. In fact it was the Aussies at Milne Bay which inflicted the first decent defeat on the Japs back in '42.

Sorry, but we here in Australia kind of get sick of the old "McArthur" attitude that it was only the red white & blue that fought in the Pacific theatre.

Regards

Jim R.

[Paul Lakowski]

Lets try guilt. A large faction of American society didn't want to have anything to do with Europe and would rather stay on the side lines and sell arms to both sides and not get involved like WW-I.

FDR lead the charge and when the guntlet was cast they had no choice. They didn't actually contribute in a serious way until late 43/44. By then the the war was won and American high command correctly recognized that if Soviet Union was allowed to beat the Nazis and over run europe, then Americas biggest potential market would have gone up in smoke, to say nothing of a Red Super power menace replacing the Nazis.

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wesy:

One word...Economics...Look at this website for a very good reason why Germany was the first priority...To paraphrase, Japan was fighting the economic equivalent of Godzilla...This is why they lost the war.

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a side note on the Japanese policy. IIRC their strategy to win was to hit the US very hard in the naval arm, to forestall the US long enough for them to make and consolidate all their gains so they could become an economic force equal to the US and able to fight us to a draw. Their "win" was just not to lose. This is why you see the initial US strategy of just trying to limit the amount of Japanese expansion and going after the "real" threat of the Axis powers (for the most part centerd in Europe). IMHO, us winning against the Japanese was a foregone conclusion (it was just a matter of how many losses we would take before winning), but the tenuous foothold (Britain) we had in Europe didn't look nearly so sure, and the main bulk of the Axis forces were in Europe, why not fight there first?

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Midnight Warrior]

I think one of the big factors of Europe first is that the US was afraid that Russia would make a seperate peace with Germany leaving Britain and America to fight the Germans alone.

------------------

March To The Sound Of The Guns