Was the American Strategy of a Europe first then Japan correct? Did we actually follow through?
DJ

Was the American Strategy of a Europe first then Japan correct? Did we actually follow through?
DJ

What Roosevelt did, actually, was delcare war on Japan via Germany. Many Americans were furious and there was quite a lot said about this decision. We don't really hear about it now, but politics were important then too...
put quote text here

Quoted Text

---

What Roosevelt did, actually, was delcare war on Japan via Germany. Many Americans were furious and there was quite a lot said about this decision. We don't really hear about it now, but politics were important then too...
put quote text here

---

Not sure I follow this? First, Congress declares war not the President. Congress declared war on Japan as a result of the attack on Pearl. If you mean to say on Germany via Japanese actions in the Pacific, you are not quite correct, Germany (Hitler) declared war on the United States on Dec. 11th. Roosevelt asked, and was granted, for a declaration of war in return. Perhaps this was Hitler's greatest blunder, it certainly ranks among the top! Already in the throes of a war that was rapidly expanding beyond the scope of initial planning and meeting disaster in Russia, trying to subdue a defiant Britian, propping up a shaky ally in the Med. and now to declare war on the world's greatest economic and manufacturing power. That has got to be about the stupidest move in the history of politics.

Rick Cooper

If you really want to do some interesting research, find out about the power that leaders of 'democracys' had (Roosevelt, Churchill) compared to that of the fascists and socalists (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). I think you will be surprised on what the role of the congress was during the war. I think it would also be an interesting lesson as to what is happening in the world today.

Did Hitler have a choice about declaring war on the US? You think he was happy about what the Japanese were doing?

My point about going to war with Japan via Germany is valid. The plan was to finish off the Germans and then deal with the Japanese. That doesn't mean Japan was to be ignored. Roosevelt would have been at war with Germany sooner if there had been support...

Steve

Steve,

I misunderstood your meaning in your earlier post. I thought you were saying that Roosevelt used the attack on Pearl Harbor as a casus belli to declare war on Germany.

I don't know if it is totally correct to compare the amount of power to act among heads of state. Roosevelt and Churchill, while certainly having wide-ranging powers, had clear cooperation among their nations political leaders. They were not without faults and the systems were not without flaws, but they were clearly still democracies that only governed with the blessing of their citizenry. Some of the others had what I would call "or else" power, you do what I want or else your in the gulag or a camp or in a grave.

Without delving into current events, clearly this invention of Congress granting a resolution on the use of force seems to be a de facto declaration of limited war. One of the nice things about the Constitution is that it is a living document that can be interpreted, stretched, and changed as needed. Well okay, I guess that can be good or bad, depending on your point of view!

Rick Cooper

DJ - I beleive that Congress is not performing their collective job by not reining-in the past presidents since 1941. With the exception of self-defense, such as shooting matches between our Mediteranean Fleet and Liyba during Reagan's era, or such as rescuing Ambassodors such as the Boxer rebellion, should be Congress' call. But if you go back in history you will find plenty of cases where US Presidents have fought wars without a declaration of war: All of the so called "Banana Wars", fought mostly by the Marines all over Central America and Carribean, were never declared.

Congress did try to rein in Nixon during Vietnam by not approving any funding for the war. When Nixon reallocated other existing funds to continue teh war, Congress gave in.

Congress is generally gutless on this subject!

(I believe the spelling is "Musashi")

I'm alittle confused here, as I understood it through the axis agreement Hitler declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. Now some say he had no reason to go through with the agreement with Japan but I believe Hitler knew America would enter the war in Europe sooner or later so why not start sinking the convoys to England now while the wolf packs were still strong and getting stronger. While America was still unprepared for war he had a better chance of knocking us out if we were fighting a two front war as well.

mkctanker

On the topic of U-Boats in the Atlantic mentioned by Greg, one of the most colossal failures at the start of WW2 was the inaction (some say criminal) of Navy Brass, particularly Adm. Ernest J. King, of not implementing proper 'blackout' procedures along the East coast and deploying a credible anti-submarine force. This allowed the U-Boats of 'Operation Drumbeat' to roam at will and sink ships using the lights of cities to sillouette and mark their targets. This period of victory along the eastern seaboard and among allied convoys, called the 'happy time' , did not last long, due to advances in radar, use of Navy blimps and aircraft of the U.S. and RAF Coastal Command - but tragically, as so often happens in war, only after missteps caused the deaths of thousands of sailors and merchantmen.

For most of the time that we went without a blackout along the east coast we were a "neutral" country It was a heavily-leaning neutrality, though

Well the Canadians could have fought their way into Bastone and given the Americans ammo and winter clothing so the Americans could have only thought about fighting the Germans instead of bot the Germans and the weather