The idea that the US (either the national government or public opinion) was looking for "a new enemy" is absurd.

We are having sufficient difficulty in remembering who the enemy is even after we've been attacked. No surprise, I suppose, when even conservatives advocate, retroactively, ignoring the attack on Pearl Harbor, which, as a matter of fact, was not as much of a unifier of opinion in 1942 as we all like to pretend in 2004 that it was.

Harry:

It unified opinion, but to attack Japan. No one wanted to go help the Commies fight the Nazis--it wasn't in our interest. That's why FDR got his butt handed to him in the '42 midterm.

I think a better comparison can be made by looking at Bastogne. That is why all the nuance in the world won't help the left, and why all the fear in Western Europe won't help the Islamofascists. Good headline.

My father, grandfather and my own son, share my name and I believe I have some depth of insight into the mindset of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy) circa 1941. My father and grandfather were furious that Roosevelt left men to starve and die at Corregidor while supplies were lavished on saving the British ass'.

Roosevelt was clearly right from a geostrategic perspective. And still, the 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 ratio of allocation of supplies and men to the European over the Asian theatres stuck in the craw of many Midwestern men who felt that the Japanese were our proven enemies.

It's only with 20/20 hindsight that we see differently now. Particularly without a universal draft and high school buddies dying on unnamed atolls for lack of supply ships as the Greater Eastern Economic Cooperative Sphere rolled up the American Pacific dependencies.

They were probably more aware of Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon.

But the lesson of Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon is don't make us care.

I thought the lesson was look at what dungheaps are left.

In hindsight the European war seems to have
been fairly meaningless for our national interest.
It did not get rid of the Soviets (who were sworn
enemies) and I'm not sure how the German's plans
were much worse than the creation of the current Franco-German socialist super-state.

The Asian war was probably important to establish
our maritime supremacy.

However the result of both of these conflicts was
to create dependencies for the U.S.

So, technically speaking, al-Qaeda mistakenly opened an industrial-sized can of yankee-doodle-flavored whoop ass.

The Nazis had a far worse plan than the creation of a European "socialist" state. They would have finished the job of killing the Jews, so that's another 6-12 million dead. They could have done that even if they eventually lost the war with Russia and the UK.

However, the chances of a UK-USSR draw, much less victory, with Germany were slim. Neither would have received much needed Lend Lease aid. The Soviets might not have been impressed with our tanks, but they needed our trucks. The Nazis probably would not have lost air supremacy either. And no US means no D-Day. No Operation Torch or invasion of Italy or the need for the Nazis to build the "Atlantic Wall" would mean more resources could be spent beating the Russians, so we're looking at an actual Nazi victory.

Which means the Middle East with all its oil becomes pro-Nazi. And after seeing a successful atomic bomb, the Nazi's fire Heisenberg and get someone who can complete the Nazi bomb. And look, they have jet fighters and ballistic missiles and the US doesn't.

And then in 2004, we'd have OJ complaining about how stupid FDR was for not finishing the Nazis when he had the chance and how we had to spend 40 years fighting a Cold War with Reichsfhurers Hitler, Himmler, and Speer.

And does anyone think that if our Cold War opponents were Nazis instead of Communists, that the Civil Rights era would ever have happened? Probably not.

Chris:

Even setting aside your lunatic belief that a pi=opulation as small as Germany's could have maintained control over this global empire, the 30 million Chinese, 2 million Vietnamese, 1 million Cambodians, etc. that we traded for the extra six million Jews probably see your calculus a bit differently.

The soviets were self-sufficient with
natural resources. The Germans weren't.
They would have been forced to normalize
relations with the U.S.

The fallacy of placing the Soviets on a
higher moral plane than the Germans will not
withstand the test of time (although it has
been given a free pass for the past 60+ years).

There were about 20 million fewer Britons than Germans, and they seemed to run their global empire OK.

Ray, it wasn't FDR that left men to starve on Bataan. It was the combination of Republican disarmament in the '20s (which Roosevelt wanted to reverse from early in his administration but was unable to get public opinion behind) and the incompetence of MacArthur, whom Roosevelt (I believe) wanted to fire but didn't dare because of Republican intransigence.

There was plenty of food in Manila in early December 1941. Although the plan, 20 years old at the time, was to withdraw to Bataan, MacArthur didn't bother to move his supplies and munitions there and thus had to destroy them to keep them from falling into Japanese hands.

There was no Navy to bring in new supplies because of GOP/Progressive tax cutters and pacifism.

They ran wogs, and barely. The Europeans they tried governing--us--broke free rather easily.

I'm not up to defending MacArthur. The navy issue is another matter.

Treaties signed in the early 1920s that were intended to "outlaw" war severely limited warship tonnage. Some battleships under construction were scrapped. Nevertheless, almost all the American heavy cruisers that "held the line" at Guadalcanal in 1942 were built during Republican administrations, as well as the carriers Lexington, Saratoga, and Ranger. After that it was a matter of waiting for warships that were ordered when war was imminent in 1940 to go into service. When these vessels came "on-line" in 1944 Japan was quickly crushed.

Given the treaty restrictions and the "merchants of death" pacifist propaganda that was rife in the 20s and 30s it was impossible to build a navy sufficient to deter Japan. To its credit, the New Deal built a substantial number of destroyers and submarines before the war, plus the carriers Yorktown, Enterprise, Wasp and Hornet. These forces also helped hold the line after Pearl Harbor.

Certainly many issues of the inter-war era can be politicized but I don't think naval shipbuilding is one of them.

That's amazing. You listed the paltry Navy that was built in the interwar years, which did not even come up to the treaty limitations until FDR finally got rearmament moving in the late '30s.

Wilson had proposed, and Congress had passed, a Navy Second to None act. The Republicans canceled that and decided it would be possible to pursue American foreign policy with just ink and paper.

If that wasn't political, I don't know what could be.

What did we need a navy for? We built one quickly enough once war started.

Is there any parallel between the lack of funding for a world-class Navy before WW II, and the go-slow approach the US is now taking to SDI ?

It's true that we don't need a "Star Wars" missile defense shield right now, but if we need it in thirty years, it would be nice to have the kinks worked out.

The Naval Appropriation Act, designed to build a navy "second to none", was passed in August 1916 and could be considered the World War One equivalent of the 1940 emergency program. The main provision of the Act proposed that the US build ten battleships and six battle cruisers. However, most of this construction was scrapped or canceled in accordance with the 1922 treaty. Japan and Britain also canceled most of their planned heavy construction. Ironically, these warships would have proved of little value in the 1940s as technological advances had made BBs and BCs obsolete.

The Act also proposed 10 light cruisers, 50 destroyers, 72 submarines, and 14 auxiliaries. Most of the surface force was built, though most was obsolete by the mid-30s. Not all of the submarines were built. Those that were built were obsolete well before 1940.

FDR had huge Democrat majorities in the Senate and House throughout the 30s. Given that, he theoretically could have begun re-armament at any point but he was reluctant to be the first to violate the treaty provisions.

As for the Republicans in the 20 and early 30s, they authorized the construction of 16 heavy cruisers during a period when Japan built only 12. Had Cox, Davis, and Smith been in the White House, I doubt they'd have built any more. The navy wasn't brought up to treaty strength until the mid-30s but that was hardly a factor during the war.

There's more to a Navy than just ships.

Orrin has never shown any understanding of navalism. You don't just build a navy overnight. Even in the 1930s, it took 3 years to build a warship. Today, far longer.

The lack of training funds, the shortage of personnel, the inability to test munitions under realistic conditions got thousands of Americans needlessly killed.

You are correct, George, that support for disarmament was widespread between the wars. But the concept was introduced and supported by the Republicans.

Had the Wilson naval program -- remember, it called for a navy "second to none" -- been policy, then Japan would never have attacked.

According to Orrin's view, that would have ensured that the US stayed out of the European war, with, as he sees it, many advantages.

Therefore, we should have kept a Big Navy between wars.

The inability of most civilians to understand how militaries work did not stop in 1941. Reagan, for example, was great at buying fancy munitions, not so good at providing the wherewithal to train the users, which helps explain why the US was just barely able to conquer Grenada.

That navy would have been a waste of money. There was no rush. Even after Pearl Harbor we had ample time to build a navy.

oj, I take it that you're not a PNAC supporter, then.

Michael:

No, I'm not. I support frequent first use nuclear theory.

The guys on Bataan and Guadalcanal didn't have time to wait. The 600 guys roasted on the Liscome Bay -- an inferior conversion rushed into service because the disarmers had not had foresight to build a balanced navy -- didn't have time.

Harry:

So what? Some dead G.I/.s had no bearing on our national security.

Just theirs.

And it wasn't just some dead GIs. It was about 239,000.

And you think Europeans are irresponsible.

Yes, leaving them out there was irresponsible. But then FDR hated the Japanese so much he underestimated them.

Harry, to support your argument for the need for an efficient, well equipped Navy at ANY time, the main reason why the British were able to control their empire succesfully for over 200 years, was that their Navy controlled the world's seas for the same period. Overall population size had nothing to do with it.

During this time Britain was also the world's greatest ecomomic power.

Before that it was Spain.

By the start of the 2nd world war, Britain was no longer the words number one power economically. The cost of World War 1 started an economic slide that eventually saw its empire crumble.

Its Navy had been cut back and was overstretched and many of its vessels were or were close to becoming, obselete.

The outbreak of the 2nd world war in Europe, forced the British to withdraw their fleet closer to home.

Into the gap in the Western Pacific that their departure created, stepped the Japanese. But then they got it wrong by missing the US carriers at Pearl Harbour and paid the ultimate penalty.

Hitler's Germany never really attempted to create
a Navy big enough to control the high seas.

After the Royal Navy defeated the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet when they hunted down their major units and either sunk them or bottled them up in port, the Germans then turned to Submarine Warfare to try and defeat Britain (and almost succeeded.)

And to defeat the Japanese, which they did with only small assistance from other Allied countries, the United States had to build a larger and more modern Navy than it had had before Pearl Harbour.

Nowdays, which country has the largest, most modern and best trained navy in the world and also happens to be the world's greatest ecomomic and military power?

You all know the answer.

Strongest Navy and Greatest power.

The two go hand in hand. Always has, always will.

And no bunch of militant Muslims can ever hope of defeating that Navy.

"And no bunch of militant Muslims can ever hope of defeating that Navy" . . .

. . and why would they want to? First off, nobody's dependent on the Navy for landing thousands of troops plus their supplies. Doesn't most of that stuff come through the air now? Second, militant Muslims are having more success doing what they're doing right now: keeping American troops land-locked, just as they did with the Russians. The alien terrain and the difficult, complicated politics of the region work in their favor. They're also highly motivated and not above sacrificying themselves. I'm not saying that they're going to win, but they're sure making a lot of high tech gizmos look almost irrelevant. It's almost a David and Goliath case - almost. They're approach is to simply to suck us dry, just as they did with the Russians. It just might work.

And as for WWII, what happened is what happened. You can interpret events any way you want, but the results will always be the same. The main factors in the allied victory are that, one, the axis forces lost the intelligence war (and thus, we're suckered into bringing the U.S. into the war in the first place, just as Roosevelt and Churchill wanted). And two, American industrial output simply overwhelmed the axis forces (and thus, the allies won the logistics war as well). Yes, it was all a close-call at times, and we're lucky that Hitler was suckered into making a lot of stupid decisions. But Russia was reason enough for bringing the war to a quick end. And that said, we probably would have won an even more protracted war. However, that's purely speculation on my part.

And as for which evil empire was the more evil one, it's a totally irrelevant question because both empires were mighty evil - evil well enough, shall we say.

Barry Guerrero