The US Navy in WW II; session i

The U.S. Navy in World War IIsession i-1919-1939-Why England [and America] Slept

“In reading statements like that of Sir Arthur Balfour, Chairman of the Balfour Steel Company [and former British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary-jbp], made in 1933, ‘One of the gravest menaces to peace today is the totally unarmed condition of Germany,’ we should not dismiss it as being blindly stupid. We must remember that in the summer of 1939 a sufficient number of the Senate of the United States believed that there would not be a war in Europe this year, and refused to repeal the embargo on arms. Every country makes great errors and there is usually a good reason for it at the time.” !

John F. Kennedy, Why England Slept. New York : Wilfred Funk, Inc., 1940, p. xxvii

June 1938-John Kennedy sailed with his father and brother Joe, Jr. to work with his father, Joe, Sr., who was FDR’s Ambassador to the Court of St. James, London

1939-to prepare for his Harvard senior honors thesis, he toured Europe, the USSR, the Balkans and the Middle East

he then went to recently occupied Czechoslovakia and Hitler’s Third Reich

1 September 1939-Kennedy returned to London the day WW II began. He was in Parliament two days later as Chamberlain regretfully delivered the war message

1940-his completed thesis, “Appeasement in Munich,” became the bestseller, Why England Sleptthe paperback edition

major topics in this session

• I. Ending the War to End All Wars

• II. The Democracies Disarm

• III. The March of Fascist Aggression

• IV. Final Failure of Collective Security

• V. Popular Opinion and Grand Strategy

Text

I. Ending the War to End all Warsthe League of Nations

“…our ideas about the First World War are…confused. Few…have much idea why Europe took to arms, though they may know that a Ruritanian bigwig with an extravagant moustache got shot.” !

Sir Max Hastings, “1914 : Why Britain Had to Go to War.” in BBC History, November, 2013, p. 41

“…our ideas about the First World War are…confused. Few…have much idea why Europe took to arms, though they may know that a Ruritanian bigwig with an extravagant moustache got shot. The most widely held belief is that the war was simply a ghastly mistake—an exercise in futility for which all the powers involved shared blame, its folly compounded by the murderous incompetence of the generals. “This is the ‘poets’ view’, first articulated by the likes of Siegfried Sassoon, Robert Graves, and Wilfred Owen. Amid the mud and blood, they felt no discernible cause was worth the ghastly slaughter that was taking place—that it would be better to end it on any terms rather than to pursue a meaningless victory.” !

Sir Max Hastings, “1914 : Why Britain Had to Go to War.” in BBC History, November, 2013, p. 41

Sea Power, p. 476

“World War I utterly destroyed the polity of Europe, so carefully nurtured through a hundred years of painstaking statesmanship. What survived was no brave new world but the wreckage of a social and economic order. Nor could anyone hope to restore that serenity and confidence in inevitable progress which had characterized the preceding century. ! “In the Allied states demobilization and rebuilding began at once. Munitions and shipbuilding programs were shelved. Obnoxious controls could be abolished. Dangerously inflated national budgets could be balanced. In the United States particularly, the tradition of isolationism made the people impatient to get back to what President Harding a little later was to call ‘normalcy.’”

Postwar Operations of the U. S. NavyNov 1918-Nov 1919—the immediate task was to bring home the American Expeditionary Force—more than 2,000,000 men. All available ships—cruisers, battleships, cargo vessels, German ships turned over to the Allies under terms of the Armistice—were diverted to ferrying troops

to Sept 1919—another major chore was lifting the North Sea Mine Barrage, now simply a hazard to peaceful shipping. A fleet of 89 sweepers completed this difficult & dangerous task

quasi-diplomatic missions:

American Adriatic Squadron administered the 300 mile Dalmatian coast of the new Yugoslavia

RAdm. Bristol, American High Commissioner in Constantinople, 1919-1927, mixed diplomacy and naval power. Evacuated the Whites from the Black Sea ports after Red victory in 1920. Evacuated 262,000 Greeks from Turkish Aegean coast, 1921-22

until Apr 1920-aid to the Whites was concealed in missions to Archangel and Vladivostok to guard munitions sent to the pre-Bolshevik government. Another aim was to keep the Japanese from seizing Russia’s Maritime Province

Postwar Operations of the U. S. NavyNov 1918-Nov 1919—the immediate task was to bring home the American Expeditionary Force—more than 2,000,000 men. All available ships—cruisers, battleships, cargo vessels, German ships turned over to the Allies under terms of the Armistice—were diverted to ferrying troops

to Sept 1919—another major chore was lifting the North Sea Mine Barrage, now simply a hazard to peaceful shipping. A fleet of 89 sweepers completed this difficult & dangerous task

quasi-diplomatic missions:

American Adriatic Squadron administered the 300 mile Dalmatian coast of the new Yugoslavia

RAdm. Bristol, American High Commissioner in Constantinople, 1919-1927, mixed diplomacy and naval power. Evacuated the Whites from the Black Sea ports after Red victory in 1920. Evacuated 262,000 Greeks from Turkish Aegean coast, 1921-22

until Apr 1920-aid to the Whites was concealed in missions to Archangel and Vladivostok to guard munitions sent to the pre-Bolshevik government. Another aim was to keep the Japanese from seizing Russia’s Maritime Province

1920s—Mission Accomplished—public apathy characteristic of post-war periods. Only “showing the flag” operations such as the Yangtze Patrol

a new emphasis on technical R & D and on improving operating procedures was characteristic of the whole interwar period

The New Alignment of Powers—“The prewar balance of power in Europe was destroyed”—[“the war after the war”—jbp]

Germany was prostrate and convulsed by political revolution, presumably disarmed for the indefinite future

Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires dismembered, Russian Empire torn by revolution and civil war

nor did the victors fare much better:

France and Italy were on the verge of bankruptcy

Britain also found herself relatively poor and deeply in debt to the United States

this economic situation led the victors to demand reparations from the Central Powers at the Paris Peace conference

the human losses were so severe that they would experience a dearth of able leadership for a generation to come

for Japan and the United States the result was quite the opposite

Japan’s efforts were mainly in the Pacific where she scooped up territorial gains at a minimal cost

America, a “debtor nation” in 1914, now found herself the world’s foremost creditor. Her economic efforts had shown the world the miracles which American industry could accomplish

Ibid.

Text

The Paris Peace Conference January-June, 1919

The Big Four: David Lloyd George, Vittorio Orlando, Georges Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson

Wilson arrived at the Paris Peace Conference after a triumphal tour of the Allied Countries where he was hailed as their savior. The other Big Three, all cynical old-school European statesmen, couldn’t grasp that Wilson actually believed in his Fourteen Points and would fight for them. Britain particularly disliked Point 2, “Freedom of the Seas,” which potentially nullified their use of blockade and the value of their naval supremacy. All three were skeptical of Point 4: “…national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety” The Three had thought that the Fourteen Points had been just another piece of wartime propaganda such as they had engaged in. They were also united in opposing Point 5, the adjustment of colonial claims, as threatening their empires. !A frustrated President Wilson gave in on all but Point 14: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” He believed that the League of Nations could undo whatever evil consequences came from the other terms of the peace treaties. The supreme irony would be that he couldn’t convince his own country to enter this paramount accomplishment. His frustration led to partisan fury and a stressful whistle stop campaign to build popular support for the treaty. He never recovered fully from the stroke which ended his effort in October, 1919. !

jbp

William Orpen – The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles 1919 (detail)!Germany’s chief of delegation swallows the bitter pill, source of so much evil

On the other hand…

The Versailles Treaty was extremely harsh The treaty of Versailles confiscated 10% of Germany's territory but le; it the largest, richest na>on in central Europe. It was largely unoccupied and financial repara>ons were linked to its ability to pay, which mostly went unenforced anyway. !The treaty was notably less harsh than trea>es that ended the 1870-‐71 Franco-‐Prussian War and World War Two. The German victors in the former annexed large chunks of two rich French provinces, part of France for between 2-‐300 years, and home to most of French iron ore produc>on, as well as presen>ng France with a massive bill for immediate payment. !A;er WW2 Germany was occupied, split up, her factory machinery smashed or stolen and millions of prisoners forced to stay with their [Soviet, jbp] captors and work as slave labourers. Germany lost all the territory it had gained a;er WW1 and another giant slice on top of that. !Versailles was not harsh but was portrayed as such by Hitler who sought to create a >dal wave of an>-‐Versailles sen>ment on which he could then ride into power.

e-Mail from Geoff Strauss, 22 Jan 2014

In preparation for the WW I centennial the BBC prepared a list of ten myths:

Käthe Kollwitz’ sculpture “Mother with her dead son” Berlin, the Neue Wache, 1993—after unification

In Germany:Two Equally Dangerous ConsequencesThe Left’s determination to stamp out militarism, artistically embodied in Käthe Kollwitz’ work. Her son had died in the war

In Germany:Two Equally Dangerous ConsequencesThe Left’s determination to stamp out militarism, artistically embodied in Käthe Kollwitz’ work. Her son had died in the war

the Right was furious with the Communist uprisings in the naval bases, Berlin and Bavaria and the Socialist government of the Weimar Republic

this gave rise to the “Backstab” myth:

the German army had never been defeated on the battlefield

the nation had been stabbed in the back by the “Socis” and the “Kommis,” many of whom were Jews

In Germany:Two Equally Dangerous Consequences

The Left’s determination to stamp out militarism, artistically embodied in Käthe Kollwitz’ work. Her son had died in the war

the Right was furious with the Communist uprisings in the naval bases, Berlin and Bavaria and the Socialist government of the Weimar Republic

this gave rise to the “Backstab” myth:

the German army had never been defeated on the battlefield

the nation had been stabbed in the back by the “Socis” and the “Kommis,” many of whom were Jews

various conservative nationalist militarist groups arose to denounce the hated Versailles Diktat, among them a small group calling themselves the National Socialist German Workers Party, Nazi for short

“Socialist Realist” painting of how Hitler liked to recall his early campaign—US Army collection

“The preamble to Article V of the Treaty says, ‘In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval, and air clauses which follow. This clause was reinforced by another: !!!!!!!!The Germans have since argued that this implied an almost contractual obligation for the Allies to disarm when they had… !

Kennedy, Why England Slept, p. 10

The Allied and Associated Powers…recognize that the acceptance by Germany of the terms laid down for her own disarmament will facilitate and hasten the accomplishment of a general reduction of armaments, and they intend to open negotiations immediately with a view to the eventual adoption of a scheme of general reduction….

The End of the German High Seas Fleet—The armistice required Germany to intern her warships until their final fate would be determined by the peace treaty

Germany’s capital ships, Kaiser Wilhelm’s pride, had been kept in port after the indecisive battle of Jutland, May, 1916

Nov 1918-now they sailed across the North Sea to the British base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands north of Scotland

as news from the peace conference began to leak, the German commander Adm. von Reuter made secret preparations to scuttle the fleet rather than allow it to be parceled out among the victors

this act of defiance succeeded in destroying most of the major ships

15 of the 16 capital ships

5 of the 8 cruisers

32 of the 50 destroyers

highly popular in Germany, as redeeming the national honor, this gesture fueled the post-war bitterness between the victors and the vanquished

Orkneys

SMS Hindenburg at Scapa

SMS Bayern sinking 21 Jun 1919

SMS Seydlitz capsized

Only the upper works of the Hindenburg remain above water

The League of Nations & Disarmament

“…many in Britain [believed] that any increase in armaments was a blow to the League of Nations

“…League supporters felt that ‘without disarmament, in short, the League can have no reality

“…Article VIII, calling for the reduction of armaments, is really the first clause of the Covenant [the League’s Charter or constitution], as the first seven clauses deal with the mechanics of the League machinery

“A waste of money, and life, a sham and a blot on mankind, a danger for peace, armaments were the first evil which the drafters of the League Covenant sought to secure.”

Kennedy, op.cit., pp. 7-8

Postwar Building Programs “All through the war, the Japanese had pursued an active naval building program in their new yards, and immediately afterwards were pushing to completion several capital ships* on the ways. On the other hand, French and Italian construction had been largely suspended during hostilities, and the empty national treasuries of those countries gave little prospect of a spirited renewal of large-scale building. “Of all the naval powers, only Britain’s recent ally, the United States, seemed in any position to challenge Britain’s naval ascendancy….Britain had had a long tough war and felt entitled to a period of relaxation. Certainly it would be less than friendly for the United States at such a time to bring on a naval armaments race. “This pardonable British prejudice however failed to take into account the stubborn complex personality of the American President. A man of peace dedicated to the spirit of reform, he had nevertheless been the Commander in Chief of a great nation in time of war….What the cynical leadership in Europe’s capitals could never quite realize about Wilson was the incredible fact that he always meant what he said…. “This aside on Wilson’s character is germane to American naval policy in the immediate postwar period…..[Britain’s rejection of Point 2] Wilson’s reaction was to request Congress for a new building program that would double the heavy 1916 schedule.

_______________

* there is no rigorous definition of the term but major warships displacing 10,000 tons or more is often used—jbp

Sea Power, pp. 478-479

America and Britain Compared “At the end of the war the United States had 16 dreadnought* battleships, none more than eight years old.”

_______________

*the modern “all-big-gun” ship type pioneered by HMS Dreadnought, 1906-1923

Sea Power, p. 479

America and Britain Compared “At the end of the war the United States had 16 dreadnought* battleships, none more than eight years old.

_______________


Sea Power, p. 479

USS Texas, 1912-1945

America and Britain Compared “At the end of the war the United States had 16 dreadnought* battleships, none more than eight years old. Though the British could count 42 capital ships in their navy, 13 of these were already obsolescent. Besides after the experience of Jutland, the nine battle cruisers (bigger than a heavy cruiser, smaller than a battleship)…

_______________


Sea Power, p. 479

HMS Invincible, 1909-1916

sunk at Jutland

America and Britain Compared “At the end of the war the United States had 16 dreadnought* battleships, none more than eight years old. Though the British could count 42 capital ships in their navy, 13 of these were already obsolescent. Besides after the experience of Jutland, the nine battle cruisers• (bigger than a heavy cruiser, smaller than a battleship) in the total could be questioned as vessels worthy of a place in the line. For the United States merely to complete its 1916 program, incorporating the lessons of the war in the new ships, would have provided 35 modern units, and a fleet qualitatively much superior to the battle-worn British Grand Fleet. The entire proposed 1919 program would mean a fleet of over 50 first-line vessels, utterly eclipsing the British navy.

_______________


Sea Power, p. 479

America and Britain Compared “At the end of the war the United States had 16 dreadnought* battleships, none more than eight years old. Though the British could count 42 capital ships in their navy, 13 of these were already obsolescent. Besides after the experience of Jutland, the nine battle cruisers• (bigger than a heavy cruiser, smaller than a battleship•) in the total could be questioned as vessels worthy of a place in the line. For the United States merely to complete its 1916 program, incorporating the lessons of the war in the new ships, would have provided 35 modern units, and a fleet qualitatively much superior to the battle-worn British Grand Fleet. The entire proposed 1919 program would mean a fleet of over 50 first-line vessels, utterly eclipsing the British navy…. “…the British began to plan what would be needed to match or excel the American program…. “Most probably, Wilson, irritated at the British attitude on the ‘freedom of the seas’ issue and concerned over Japanese saber-rattling in the Far East, simply desired a much larger navy….On the other hand, it has also been suggested that he intended to use the threat of completion of the 1919 program as a club over the head of the British, who did not then appear enthusiastic about Wilson’s dream—the League of Nations.”

_______________


Sea Power, p. 479

Text

II. The Democracies Disarmthe Washington Treaty for Naval Disarmament (1922)

Scene at the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Pennsylvania, December 1923, with guns from scrapped battleships in the foreground. One of these guns is marked "Kansas",

presumably an indication that it came from USS Kansas (BB-21).!Ship being dismantled in the background is USS South Carolina (BB-26).

The Background of the Washington Conference “Whatever Wilson intended, his vision of a new world order flickered out in the last year of his presidency. The rejection of the League of Nations by his own country, his party’s repudiation in the 1920 election, and his own serious illness all combined to embitter his departure from the White House. He excoriated America’s ‘sullen and selfish isolation’.

Sea Power, p. 480

The Background of the Washington Conference

“Whatever Wilson intended, his vision of a new world order flickered out in the last year of his presidency. The rejection of the League of Nations by his own country, his party’s repudiation in the 1920 election, and his own serious illness all combined to embitter his departure from the White House.• He excoriated America’s ‘sullen and selfish isolation’. ! “With popular support, Harding and the Republican Party had disowned the League, but the notion of disarmament appeared to have great public appeal. In early 1921 Senator Borah of Idaho introduced what was to become a joint congressional resolution favoring a tripartite disarmament conference; it passed the Senate unanimously, and the House by a vote of 332 to 4. Almost immediately the British Foreign Office intimated that it would be happy to follow America’s lead in calling such a conference.”

Sea Power, p. 480

The Background of the Washington Conference

“Whatever Wilson intended, his vision of a new world order flickered out in the last year of his presidency. The rejection of the League of Nations by his own country, his party’s repudiation in the 1920 election, and his own serious illness all combined to embitter his departure from the White House.• He excoriated America’s ‘sullen and selfish isolation’. ! “With popular support, Harding and the Republican Party had disowned the League, but the notion of disarmament appeared to have great public appeal. In early 1921 Senator Borah of Idaho introduced what was to become a joint congressional resolution favoring a tripartite disarmament conference; it passed the Senate unanimously, and the House by a vote of 332 to 4. Almost immediately the British Foreign Office intimated that it would be happy to follow America’s lead in calling such a conference. Accordingly Charles Evans Hughes, Harding’s able Secretary of State, made informal overtures to the governments of Britain, Japan, France and Italy.

Sea Power, p. 480

“The Background of the Washington Conference

“All but Japan promptly replied with polite enthusiasm. The Japanese appeared reluctant. Diplomatic friction between Japan and the United States had been frequent and acute. During and immediately after the war, Japanese territorial aims on continental Asia [cf. their occupation of Vladivostok during the Russian Civil War, 1919-20,- jbp] had become more obvious. With good reason the Japanese suspected that the conference was in part a device to abrogate the Anglo-Japanese Alliance [of 1902, Britain’s first move away from ‘Splendid Isolation’- jbp], which they wished to preserve. On the other hand, they were persuaded that the projected American naval building program was directed at them. And they could afford an armaments race with the United States even less than the British. Besides, it would be incompatible with the Imperial Japan to stay at home from a major conference attended by all the other first-class powers. So, after a two-and-a-half-week delay, Tokyo announced that Japan too would discuss naval disarmament and Far Eastern affairs in Washington.”

Ibid.

“The way to disarm is to disarm.”— Charles Evans Hughes

12 November 1921-after an emotional ceremony dedicating the tomb of the unknown soldier in Arlington National Ceremony, the delegates to America’s first international conference convened in the Memorial Continental Hall of the DAR

“The way to disarm is to disarm.”— Charles Evans Hughes

12 November 1921-after an emotional ceremony dedicating the tomb of the unknown soldier in Arlington National Ceremony, the delegates to America’s first international conference convened in the Memorial Continental Hall of the DAR

Secretary of State Hughes startled the delegates and delighted the press by opening the conference with America’s proposal:

a ten year building “holiday” on capital ships

the scrapping of capital ships “built and building” to reach the famous 5 : 5 : 3 ratio between the U.S., Britain, and Japan. That is, the U.S. would scrap ships to reach a maximum of 500,000 tons, &c. (France and Italy were to be limited to 175,000 tons @)

aircraft carriers would be limited to 27,000 ton displacement

other categories of lesser ships were also defined [ but limits were never agreed upon in the final treaty!]

disagreement on terms regarding submarines led to this also being left unresolved in the final Five Power Treaty

Japan’s Internal Dispute“The Japanese delegation was divided. Japanese naval doctrine required the maintenance of a fleet 70% the size of that of the US, which was felt to be the minimum necessary to defeat the US in any subsequent war; … thus a 5:3 ratio, or 60%, was unacceptable.!

Wikipedia

Japan’s Internal Dispute

“The Japanese delegation was divided. Japanese naval doctrine required the maintenance of a fleet 70% the size of that of the US, which was felt to be the minimum necessary to defeat the US in any subsequent war; … thus a 5:3 ratio, or 60%, was unacceptable. Nevertheless, the director of the delegation, Katō Tomosaburō•, favoured accepting a 60% ratio to the prospect of an arms race with the US, as the relative industrial output of the two nations would cause Japan to lose such an arms race and might cause an economic crisis as a consequence.!

Wikipedia

Japan’s Internal Dispute

“The Japanese delegation was divided. Japanese naval doctrine required the maintenance of a fleet 70% the size of that of the US, which was felt to be the minimum necessary to defeat the US in any subsequent war; … thus a 5:3 ratio, or 60%, was unacceptable. Nevertheless, the director of the delegation, Katō Tomosaburō•, favoured accepting a 60% ratio to the prospect of an arms race with the US, as the relative industrial output of the two nations would cause Japan to lose such an arms race and might cause an economic crisis as a consequence.!“His opinion was opposed strongly by Katō Kanji•, the president of the Naval Staff College, who acted as his chief naval aide at the delegation, and who represented the influential "big navy" school of thought. This school of thought held that in the event of war the USA would be able to build indefinitely more warships, given its huge industrial power, and Japan thus needed to prepare as thoroughly as possible for the inevitable conflict with America. Katō Tomosaburō was finally able to persuade the Japanese high command to accept the Hughes proposals, but the outcome of the Treaty was a cause of controversy in the Japanese navy for years to come.”

Wikipedia

The Non-Fortification Clause “An integral part of the [final] treaty was the controversial non-fortification clause, bitterly denounced by the professional representatives of the American navy. This provided that the Pacific powers were not to arm or fortify bases in their island possessions, except that the Japanese might do as they chose in their home islands, and the Americans in the Hawaiian group. It did mean, however, that Britain was barred from fortifying Hong Kong, Borneo, the Solomons, and the Gilberts; Japan was barred from further fortifying Formosa or the former German possessions in the Pacific north of the equator, which had been mandated to her…the United States was barred from fortifying Samoa, Wake, Guam, and, most important, the Philippines. “American naval authorities were shocked [that this effectively underwrote] Japanese naval supremacy in the Far East. Subsequent history has of course largely substantiated this view. “Yet in the context of the times, the willingness of the American delegation to surrender on this point is understandable. The Japanese were displeased at the imputation of inferiority implied in the 5 : 5 : 3 ratio. It is likely that the non-fortification clause was an essential part of their price of acceptance of the treaty. Second, there was a well-founded conviction on the part of the American delegation that it was bargaining away an empty right, one that Congress would probably either never exercise at all or else implement on too modest a scale to make any difference in event of war….On the other hand, there was good reason to think Japan would fortify her island possessions in the absence of treaty provision.9”

____________

9 In fact, of course, the Japanese broke their word on this provision, but not until several years after the treaty.


The Nine-Power Treaty10 and the Four-Power Pact11

in addition to the most important Disarmament Treaty, two other documents were produced at the Washington Conference

the Nine-Power Treaty was essentially a multilateral endorsement of America’s “Open Door” policy, originally promoted at the turn of the century

it reaffirmed the territorial integrity of China at a time when she was convulsed by warlords and there was the very real prospect of Japanese and , later, Soviet aggrandizement

“The Four-Power Pact was designed to save face for Japan in the abrogation of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. It provided that the signatory powers would “respect” each other’s Far Eastern possessions

“Both these treaties represented considerable triumphs for American diplomacy

“In them, Japan, the only nation [then capable] of aggressive designs in the Far East, agreed formally to policies inconsistent with aggression”

10 Nine-Power Treaty: U.S., Britain, Japan, France, Italy, plus Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, China11 Four-Power Pact: U.S., Britain, Japan, France

Sea Power, p. 482

Results of the Washington Conference“At the time, world opinion hailed the Washington treaties as a triumph of diplomacy, a milestone in the world’s progress to a millennium of peace

“…ratified…, the world’s navies settled down to a period of comparative stagnation in new construction.”

Sea Power, p. 482

Results of the Washington Conference“At the time, world opinion hailed the Washington treaties as a triumph of diplomacy, a milestone in the world’s progress to a millennium of peace

“…ratified…, the world’s navies settled down to a period of comparative stagnation in new construction.”

“The American State Department could count the conference a success in achieving its main goals…

“On the other hand, in failing to limit cruiser tonnage, the treaty had simply diverted British and Japanese appropriations to lesser ship types, in which the U.S. was to become more and more inferior…..

“Finally, most damning, the simple fact is that aggression has seldom been arrested by ‘a scrap of paper’.

“It may reasonably argued that the limitations of the Washington Disarmament Conference were in fact a step along the path leading to the Pearl Harbor attack. Certain it is, in any event, that the naval treaty made no such contribution to world peace as its sponsors hoped.”


“Later Naval Disarmament Conferences”1927-the Geneva Naval Conference “…called by [U.S. President] Coolidge specifically to impose the 5 : 5 : 3 ratio on cruiser tonnage was a total failure

1930-at the London Conference “Britain and the U.S. reached a compromise on the troublesome cruiser issue, each to be allowed 339,000 tons….Japan acceded to the agreements conditional to an altered 10 : 10 : 7 ratio in cruisers and parity in submarines.

Sea Power, p. 483

“Later Naval Disarmament Conferences”

1927-the Geneva Naval Conference “…called by [U.S. President] Coolidge specifically to impose the 5 : 5 : 3 ratio on cruiser tonnage was a total failure

1930-at the London Conference “Britain and the U.S. reached a compromise on the troublesome cruiser issue, each to be allowed 339,000 tons….Japan acceded to the agreements conditional to an altered 10 : 10 : 7 ratio in cruisers and parity in submarines.

“Submarine tonnage for all three powers was fixed at 52,700 each. The ban on capital ship construction was extended to the end of 1936

“Since France and Italy had refused participation, it was felt necessary to include certain “escape clauses’ permitting further construction in the event a non signatory power engaged in competitive building.

“Even in 1930 the auguries for navies regulated by the precise scales of diplomacy had ceased to be favorable.”

Sea Power, p. 483

“Throughout the decade of the 1930’s, the post-Versailles international political system was on greased skids sloping off to war. A General Disarmament Conference in 1932-33 at Geneva• failed abjectly. [more about this later]


“Throughout the decade of the 1930’s, the post-Versailles international political system was on greased skids sloping off to war. A General Disarmament Conference in 1932-33 at Geneva• failed abjectly. [more about this later] The Second London Naval Disarmament Conference (1935-36) was a final effort at perpetuating the principle of treaty limitation of navies. The aggressions of Japan, Italy, and Germany, and their manifest contempt for existing treaties foredoomed the London Conference. Britain had already surrendered a principle to Germany in a bilateral naval treaty in 1935, by the terms of which Germany was “allowed” 35 percent of Britain’s naval tonnage and parity in submarines. Both France and Italy were engaged in substantial building programs. Italy refused participation at the start. The Japanese then demanded full parity in all categories. The American delegation demurring, the Japanese withdrew from the conference. The U.S., Britain, and France finally signed a treaty so watered down with “escalator clauses” as to be virtually meaningless. For practical purposes, all treaty limitations of navies expired December 31, 1936.


American Building Policy in the 1930’s4 March 1933-a new phase began with the inauguration of FDR

like TR earlier, he “showed a perception of the intimate relationship between diplomatic and military strength.

“He recognized the true seriousness of the deteriorating world situation, and knew that navies cannot be improvised in the face of an emergency.

Sea Power, p. 484




“Furthermore, again like the earlier Roosevelt, he had gained professional knowledge of the service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and had a hobbyist’s enthusiasm for the sea service.

Sea Power, p. 484




“Furthermore, again like the earlier Roosevelt, he had gained professional knowledge of the service as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and had a hobbyist’s enthusiasm for the sea service.

“The first substantial naval authorization of [his] first term came as a relief measure to assist the depressed steel and shipbuilding industries; section 202 of the National Industrial Recovery Act of June 16, 1933 authorized new construction in cruisers and lesser types to full treaty strength.

27 Mar 1934-the Vinson-Trammel Bill passed, providing for an eight-year replacement building program amounting to 102 ships

1934-1940-the naval appropriations implementing this program grew year by year finally approaching a billion dollars annually.”

Sea Power, p. 484

USS Philadelphia (CL-41) was laid down on 28 May 1935 at the Philadelphia Navy Yard; launched on 17 November 1936; sponsored by Mrs. George H. Earle, first lady of Pennsylvania; and commissioned at

Philadelphia on 23 September 1937, Captain Jules James in command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_James

American Building Policy in the 1930’s1938- the Second Vinson Act authorized an additional 20% over-all tonnage increase

“In addition to new construction, modernization of older vessels was undertaken; a new emphasis on naval aircraft and on carriers became apparent; new naval bases and air stations were established.

Sea Power, p. 484

U.S. Navy N3N trainers awaiting engines and other parts at Naval Aircraft Factory, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (USA), 28 June 1937.

In Commission BuildingBattleships 17 15

Carriers 7 11

Cruisers 37 54

Destroyers 171 191

Submarines 111 73

After the fall of France, in June 1940, the limiting factor in American defense spending ceased to be Congressional reluctance to underwrite the services’ maximum programs: it was from then on simply the physical limitations of America’s industrial capacity. By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack (7 Dec 1941), the United States Navy had the following combat vessels in commission or on the ways:

Ibid.

“Virtually since the American Civil War, the American merchant marine has been at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with the shipping of other countries. In the 20th century, this has stemmed both from high construction costs and high costs of operation, which in turn have largely stemmed from high American labor costs. In those enterprises to which assembly-line techniques can be adapted, American industry can pay high wages and still undersell foreign competition in world markets. But neither the building nor the operation of ships lend themselves to the assembly line. In spite of high tariff protection, American ship building and operation could never compete effectively with that of other countries except with the additional crutch of federal subsidy…. “In 1936, Congress passed an important Shipping Act, which established a five-man Maritime Commission under Rear Admiral Emory S. Land USN (Ret.), and initiated a new program of direct subsidy, both for construction and operation….To qualify for subsidy, an operator had to carry crews two thirds of whom were United States citizens, and submit to certain investigatory and regulatory powers exercised by the commission. “Beginning in 1938, the Maritime Commission fostered a replacement program…which aimed to retire slow, obsolete craft at a rate of 50 ships a year….Under the forced draft of wartime, new construction was enormously increased. Yard capacity and the availability of shipyard workers• were the only effective limiting factors after the Pearl Harbor attack.

The United States Merchant Marine


“Virtually since the American Civil War, the American merchant marine has been at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with the shipping of other countries. In the 20th century, this has stemmed both from high construction costs and high costs of operation, which in turn have largely stemmed from high American labor costs. In those enterprises to which assembly-line techniques can be adapted, American industry can pay high wages and still undersell foreign competition in world markets. But neither the building nor the operation of ships lend themselves to the assembly line. In spite of high tariff protection, American ship building and operation could never compete effectively with that of other countries except with the additional crutch of federal subsidy…. “In 1936, Congress passed an important Shipping Act, which established a five-man Maritime Commission under Rear Admiral Emory S. Land USN (Ret.), and initiated a new program of direct subsidy, both for construction and operation….To qualify for subsidy, an operator had to carry crews two thirds of whom were United States citizens, and submit to certain investigatory and regulatory powers exercised by the commission. “Beginning in 1938, the Maritime Commission fostered a replacement program…which aimed to retire slow, obsolete craft at a rate of 50 ships a year….Under the forced draft of wartime, new construction was enormously increased. Yard capacity and the availability of shipyard workers• were the only effective limiting factors after the Pearl Harbor attack.”


Sea Power, pp. 484-485enter Rosie to fill the worker gap

“Virtually since the American Civil War, the American merchant marine has been at a competitive disadvantage in comparison with the shipping of other countries. In the 20th century, this has stemmed both from high construction costs and high costs of operation, which in turn have largely stemmed from high American labor costs. In those enterprises to which assembly-line techniques can be adapted, American industry can pay high wages and still undersell foreign competition in world markets. But neither the building nor the operation of ships lend themselves to the assembly line. In spite of high tariff protection, American ship building and operation could never compete effectively with that of other countries except with the additional crutch of federal subsidy…. “In 1936, Congress passed an important Shipping Act, which established a five-man Maritime Commission under Rear Admiral Emory S. Land USN (Ret.), and initiated a new program of direct subsidy, both for construction and operation….To qualify for subsidy, an operator had to carry crews two thirds of whom were United States citizens, and submit to certain investigatory and regulatory powers exercised by the commission. “Beginning in 1938, the Maritime Commission fostered a replacement program…which aimed to retire slow, obsolete craft at a rate of 50 ships a year….Under the forced draft of wartime, new construction was enormously increased. Yard capacity and the availability of shipyard workers• were the only effective limiting factors after the Pearl Harbor attack. By September 1942, 300 tankers and 2,000 standard-design Liberty• and Victory ships had been contracted for.”



“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II,…

Technological Progress in the United States Navy

op. cit, p. 485

USS North Carolina (BB-55) fitting-out stage, 17 Apr 41

Brooklyn Navy Yard

“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II, represented an enormous advance over the West Virginia (1923)•, last of the treaty ships. The North Carolina was seven knots faster and possessed superior armor and much improved fire control. She also of course had a very much bigger and more effective antiaircraft battery. Other naval types made a more than commensurate advance.


op. cit, p. 485

USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, ca., 1934

Ordered:!5 December 1916!Builder:!Newport News Shipbuilding!Laid down:!12 April 1920!Launched:!19 November 1921!

“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II, represented an enormous advance over the West Virginia (1923)•, last of the treaty ships. The North Carolina was seven knots faster and possessed superior armor and much improved fire control. She also of course had a very much bigger and more effective antiaircraft battery. Other naval types made a more than commensurate advance. “In 1919-21 the collier Jupiter •


op. cit, p. 485U S S JUPITER !

MARE ISLAND, CAL. OCTOBER 13, 1918

“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II, represented an enormous advance over the West Virginia (1923)•, last of the treaty ships. The North Carolina was seven knots faster and possessed superior armor and much improved fire control. She also of course had a very much bigger and more effective antiaircraft battery. Other naval types made a more than commensurate advance. “In 1919-21 the collier Jupiter • was converted into the Langley • (19,360 tons), the first United States Navy aircraft carrier.


op. cit, p. 485

Ordered:!5 December 1916!Builder:!Newport News Shipbuilding!Laid down:!12 April 1920!Launched:!19 November 1921!

Jupiter under conversion

USS Langley, CV-1

“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II, represented an enormous advance over the West Virginia (1923)•, last of the treaty ships. The North Carolina was seven knots faster and possessed superior armor and much improved fire control. She also of course had a very much bigger and more effective antiaircraft battery. Other naval types made a more than commensurate advance. “In 1919-21 the collier Jupiter • was converted into the Langley • (19,360 tons), the first United States Navy aircraft carrier. Two battle cruiser hulls, which otherwise would have been scrapped under the Washington Treaty, were converted to the 33,000-ton Lexington •…


op. cit, p. 485

USS Lexington (CV-2)!Ordered:!1916 (as battlecruiser)!1922 (as aircraft carrier)!Builder:!Fore River Ship and Engine Building Co., Quincy, Massachusetts!Laid down:!8 January 1921!!Launched:!3 October 1925!!Commissioned:!14 December 1927!!Reclassified:!As aircraft carrier, 1 July 1922!!Struck:!24 June 1942!Identification:!Hull number: CC-1, then CV-2!Nickname:!"Lady Lex"!Fate:!Sunk during the Battle of the Coral Sea, 8 May 1942!

under conversion

“It is probable that the 15-year building holiday somewhat retarded advance in capital ship design. On the other hand, the North Carolina • and other battleships of the “new” battle line, launched shortly before and during World War II, represented an enormous advance over the West Virginia (1923)•, last of the treaty ships. The North Carolina was seven knots faster and possessed superior armor and much improved fire control. She also of course had a very much bigger and more effective antiaircraft battery. Other naval types made a more than commensurate advance. “In 1919-21 the collier Jupiter • was converted into the Langley • (19,360 tons), the first United States Navy aircraft carrier. Two battle cruiser hulls, which otherwise would have been scrapped under the Washington Treaty, were converted to the 33,000-ton Lexington • and Saratoga •, commissioned in 1928. It was on the flight decks of these three vessels that the operational techniques were worked out that were to make the United States Navy’s air arm the world’s finest. By December 7, 1941, as we have seen, America had seven carriers in commission, and eleven more on the ways.


op. cit, p. 485

USS North Carolina (BB-55) fitting-out stage, 17 Apr 41

Brooklyn Navy Yard

USS West Virginia (BB-48) in San Francisco Bay, ca., 1934

USS Saratoga (CV-3)!Ordered:!1917 (as battlecruiser)!1922 (as aircraft carrier)!Builder:!New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, New Jersey!Laid down:!25 September 1920!!Launched:!7 April 1925!!Commissioned:!16 November 1927!!Reclassified:!1 July 1922 to aircraft carrier!!Struck:!15 August 1946!Identification:!Hull number: CC-3, then CV-3!Nickname:!Sara Maru, Sister Sara!Honors and!awards:!8 battle stars!Fate:!Sunk by atomic bomb test, 25 July 1946!

“The U.S. submarine service was expanded between the wars. The new and larger “fleet boats” were in the late 1930’s already rendering obsolete the dependable old S-boats.• Improved submarine rescue devices and methods were perfected. Antisubmarine methods were the subject of a continuing research and development (R & D) program. !


Ibid.USS S-44 built 1924



Ibid.

9 V-boats were built, 1919-1934



Ibid.

Tambor class fleet boat,

1939-1941



Ibid.

Gato class fleet boat,

1940-1944 77 built

“The U.S. submarine service was expanded between the wars. The new and larger “fleet boats” were in the late 1930’s already rendering obsolete the dependable old S-boats.• Improved submarine rescue devices and methods were perfected. Antisubmarine methods were the subject of a continuing research and development (R & D) program. ! “Other scientific advances changed standard tactics in important ways. Complete conversion of the U.S. fleet to oil fuel shortly after World War I led to the building of high speed naval tankers and an effective technique for fueling at sea.•…


Ibid.

“The U.S. submarine service was expanded between the wars. The new and larger “fleet boats” were in the late 1930’s already rendering obsolete the dependable old S-boats.• Improved submarine rescue devices and methods were perfected. Antisubmarine methods were the subject of a continuing research and development (R & D) program. ! “Other scientific advances changed standard tactics in important ways. Complete conversion of the U.S. fleet to oil fuel shortly after World War I led to the building of high speed naval tankers and an effective technique for fueling at sea.• This in turn expanded the possible radius of action of the fleet, no longer dependent on closely spaced coal deposits. Carrier aircraft and long-range naval reconnaissance planes effectively took over the traditional scouting role of cruisers. Much improved radio communication promised to increase effective operational control by the higher echelons of command.”


Ibid.

Text

III. The March of Fascist Aggressionmembers of Hitler’s Reichstag give one another

“the German Greeting”

The Collective Security System“Throughout the between-wars period the diplomacy of the western democracies aimed at providing a collective security system

“The cornerstone…was…enforcement of the Versailles Treaty which undertook to insure the permanent disarmament of Germany, and the strengthening of the League of Nations.”

Mar 1919-French President Clemenceau coined the term “cordon sanitaire” to describe his alliance system to block Soviet expansion. France concluded defense treaties with the new states along the Soviet western border

Ibid.

The Collective Security System“Throughout the between-wars period the diplomacy of the western democracies aimed at providing a collective security system

“The cornerstone…was…enforcement of the Versailles Treaty which undertook to insure the permanent disarmament of Germany, and the strengthening of the League of Nations.”

Mar 1919-French President Clemenceau coined the term “cordon sanitaire” to describe his alliance system to block Soviet expansion. France concluded defense treaties with the new states along the Soviet western border

1924-a similar French attempt at collective security was the so-called “Little Entente,” a series of bilateral treaties with middle European successor states aimed at checking ambitions of •Germany, Austria or Hungary : • Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania

Ibid.

G

A HY

Cz

R

“Joint international action was the order of the day. Besides the disarmament conferences described above, there were conferences on war debts and reparations, treaties of conciliation and commerce. Germany entered the League after the Locarno Treaties (1924). Even Communist Russia, outcast among nations, was at the behest of France admitted to the League in 1933. Through the 1920s, there seemed no good reason to think a new war inevitable…. “But the apparent stability was extremely temporary. To Britain, France, and the United States, the status quo was satisfactory. For that very reason, their diplomacy was passive, and as the following decade was to show, comparatively impotent. They failed to take effective joint action, and as war loomed nearer and nearer, their inadequate armaments and pacifistic populations emboldened the dictator-states to make more and more brazen demands…. “Japan, Germany, and Italy, the self-styled “have-not” nations, nationalistic, imperialistic, and opportunistic, came to assume the dynamic roles in the history of the 1930s. They were not satisfied with the status quo, and were prepared top risk war to remold their corners of the world. “The proximate causes of the aggressions of the Fascist countries in the 1930s may well be the alleged “injustices” of the Versailles Treaty (in the case of Germany), and the Great Depression that by destroying the means of livelihood of millions of men made them ready to follow any demagogue. But the deep-rooted underlying causes were the grandiose national objectives of Germany, Italy, and Japan—….”

op. cit., p. 486

“In a sense, World War II may be said to have begun on September 18, 1931…”-Sea Power, p. 486

junior Japanese army officers staged a terrorist incident on the Japanese-controlled South Manchurian Railway

Japanese newspaper photo of the bomb “damage”



1906-Japan had gotten this foothold after the Russo-Japanese War

South Manchurian Railway




19 September-troops from neighboring Korea (a Japanese possession since 1910) invaded Manchuria.




19 September-troops from neighboring Korea (a Japanese possession since 1910) invaded Manchuria. China protested and appealed to the League of Nations





the Chinese army made little resistance while Japan sent experts to “prove” Chinese culpability for the incident






7 Jan 1932-US Secty of State Henry Stimson proclaimed the Stimson Doctrine—the US would not recognize any state created by the Japanese aggression







Mar 32-Japan created the state of Manchukuo and made Pu Yi, the last Chinese emperor, their puppet ruler.






7 Jan 1932-US Secty of State henry Stimson proclaimed the Stimson Doctrine—the US would not recognize any state created by the Japanese aggression

Mar 32-Japan created the state of Manchukuo and made Pu Yi, the last Chinese emperor their puppet ruler. Then Japan marched out of the League







Mar 32-Japan created the state of Manchukuo and made Pu Yi, the last Chinese emperor their puppet ruler. Then Japan marched out of the League

2 Oct 32-the Lytton Report rejected the Japanese claim of self-defense though it didn’t state that Japan had staged the incident

“The failure of the democracies to cope with this treaty-breaking threat to the general peace was a lesson not lost on Mussolini and Hitler.” Ibid.

(Korea)

(Korea)

A museum in China today commemorating September 18th

Who else remembers?

Konstantin v. Neurath Germany’s Foreign Minister (1932-1938)

makes a fateful announcement to the worldDuring the early days of Hitler's rule, Neurath lent an aura

of respectability to Hitler's expansionist foreign policy.—Wikipedia

Germany’s new Chancellorproudly reports his decision to the German Volk

14 October 1933—Germany Withdraws from the League and the Disarmament Conference

“…in summing up the year, it may be said that while the [English] nation as a whole condemned Hitlerism, with its treatment of the Jews, its militarism, and regimentation of national life, and while each of the different political parties condemned Germany’s withdrawal from the Disarmament Conference, nevertheless, among nearly all groups the dominating desire was still directed toward achieving disarmament. With some it was for economic reasons; with others, because of the hope that they placed in the Disarmament Conference. But in the country as a whole, it was due to the fact that England, in the year of 1933, was pacifist as it never was before and probably never will be again…. “We stated before that men’s ideas change slowly and that a nation’s ideas change even more slowly. It takes shocks—hard shocks—to change a nation’s psychology. Let us turn to 1934 and see whether the leaders or external forces would give England the necessary jolts to move her from this Utopian pacifism.”

Kennedy, Why England Slept, pp. 55-57.

Chap. IV “Beginnings of the Shift from Disarmament to Rearmament, 1934” Kennedy, Why England Slept


Chap. IV “Beginnings of the Shift from Disarmament to Rearmament, 1934”

“The Commons debates in July indicate the feelings of the different groups clearer than any others. Hope had finally vanished in regard to bringing about a successful conclusion to the Disarmament Conference. Therefore, on July 19, 1934, [Br. Prime Minister] Baldwin introduced the first of a long series of defense programs, caused by the menace of Nazi Germany. It was small compared to that of subsequent years, but it marks the beginnings of the change from a disarmament psychology to one of rearmament…From this time on, the picture begins to change. England was stirring in her sleep.”


“Italy next broke the peace by the invasion and conquest of Ethiopia in 1935•.”

Ibid.

“Italy next broke the peace by the invasion and conquest of Ethiopia in 1935•. It was not so much the intrinsic importance of Manchuria and Ethiopia to the democratic world that counted. Rather it was that these naked aggressions proved at once the impotence of the League of Nations at its designed function and the bankruptcy of the collective security system.”

Ibid.


Ibid.

The Hoare-Laval Pact …was a December 1935 proposal by British Foreign Secretary Samuel Hoare and French Prime Minister Pierre Laval for ending the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. Italy had wanted to seize the independent black nation of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) as part of its empire and also to avenge an 1896 humiliating defeat. The Pact offered to partition Abyssinia , and thus achieve Italian dictator Benito Mussolini's goal of making the independent nation of Abyssinia into an Italian colony. The proposal ignited a firestorm of hostile reaction in Britain and France, and never went into effect.


Ibid.

“It is us today. It will be you tomorrow.”—Emperor Haile Selassie, 30 June 1936


Ibid.

Hitler’s March to War-1933-1934

consolidating political power:

30 Jan 1933-Machtergreifung (seizure of power) appointed Chancellor




23 March 1933-Enabling Act





Oct 1933-withdrawal from Disarmament Conference and League of Nations






30 Jun-2 Jul 1934-“Night of the Long Knives” the Röhm purges







2 Aug 1934-President Hindenburg dies. Hitler becomes Führer u. Reichskanzler








3 Aug-the German Army swears a personal oath of allegiance to him

19 Aug-90% plebiscite approves

at the Tannenberg memorial where Hindenburg is laid to rest








3 Aug-the German Army swears a personal oath of allegiance to him

19 Aug-90% plebiscite approves

Volk outside the Reich

Note error 3 & 4

reversed


hoodwinking the democracies:

Mar 1935 -Wir wollen wieder Waffen (we will be armed again) announces a Luftwaffe and a 600,000 man army, both violating the Versailles limitations. But widespread sympathy for Germany’s “unilateral disarmament” after the failure of the Geneva conference meant no opposition to this violation




18 June 1935-Anglo-German Naval Agreement (35%)

Hitler’s March to War-1935-1938hoodwinking the democracies:



7 Mar 1936-Remilitarization of the Rhineland





Jul 1936-responds to Franco’s request for aid in the Spanish Civil War

the Condor Legion tests aerial warfare






Aug 1936-orders Göring to prepare and execute a Four-Year Economic Plan for war







25 Nov 1936- Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan








5 Nov 1937-“Hossbach Memorandum” meeting with military—war as early as ’38-no later than ’42

Hitler's military adjutant, !Colonel Count Friedrich

Hossbach.










6 Nov 1937-Italy joins the Anti-Comintern Pact-informal beginning of the Axis











early 1938- Blomberg-Fritsch affair—army thoroughly cowed

First, Blomberg was forced to

resign for marrying a former prostitute and refusing to put

her aside. Next, Fritsch was

forced out on charges that he was

a homosexual. Both had resisted Hitler’s war plans











Feb 1938-end Sino-German Treaty, ally with Japan











Feb 1938-end Sino-German Treaty, ally with Japan

12 Mar 1938- Anschluss—Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer Hitler addresses ecstatic Viennese

“Not being challenged, later in the year he demanded of Czechoslovakia that she cede to Germany the German-speaking Sudetenland, a fringe of parishes along Czechoslovakia’s borders.” !

Sea Power, p. 487

Text

Sudetenlandthe mountainous border surrounding Bohemia and Moravia

Text

IV. Final Failure of Collective Securitythe Big Four decide the Czechs’ fate without

consulting them, 29.ix.38 at Munich

In 1919, the Treaty of St Germain had stripped off the northern tier of Austria-Hungary to make

Czechoslovakia

pink=Germans; blue=Czechs; brown=Poles olive=Ukrainians; dark green=Slovaks light green=Magyars; olive=Ruthenians

“Unlike the Austrians, the Czechs are primarily a Slavic, not a Germanic people. They had military alliances with France and Russia. With mountainous frontiers, a good army, and a substantial armaments industry, they were prepared to fight. Nearly everyone in Europe expected war.” !

Ibid.

Hitler and Henlein at the Berghof summer, 1938Konrad Henlein, 1898-1945, head of the Sudeten German movement

WW I Austrian Army POW on the Italian Front

gymnastics teacher, active in politics after 1928

made ties with the NSDAP in 1935

he led the pro-Nazi Sudeten Germans in a series of uprisings designed to justify Hitler’s demands

Text

(to the historic meeting 29 Sept 1938 in Munich)Chamberlain, Daladier, Mussolini, Hitler conspicuously absent, Czech President Beneš

Text

after 13 hours, the agreementat 0230 30.ix.1938

Text

the winners the next daythe dictators receive applause for saving the peace

“The upshot was that France dishonored her commitment. In exchange for empty and false promises from Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain bargained away the Czech’s freedom. Moreover, Russia was able to claim later that because the western democracies had proved they could not be trusted, Russia herself had to look elsewhere for her security. But in the West such was the passionate hope for peace [and abject fear of German air superiority, jbp]• !

Ibid.

Guernica is a painting by Pablo Picasso. It was created in response to the bombing of Guernica, a Basque Country village in northern Spain, by German and Italian warplanes at the behest of the Spanish Nationalist forces on 26 April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War.-Wikipedia!

“The upshot was that France dishonored her commitment. In exchange for empty and false promises from Hitler, Daladier and Chamberlain bargained away the Czech’s freedom. Moreover, Russia was able to claim later that because the western democracies had proved they could not be trusted, Russia herself had to look elsewhere for her secur ity. But in the West such was the passionate hope for peace [and abject fear of German air superiority, jbp]• that cheering multitudes surrounded Chamberlain’s homecoming plane at Croydon Airfield.” !

Ibid.

Text

“I have here, signed by Herr Hitler himself...”the sad, ill chosen words-- ”peace with honor” and “peace for our time”

“The peace that he had so dearly bought was in fact to last a little less than a year.” !

Ibid.

“I believe Chamberlain was sincere in thinking that a great step had been taken towards healing one of Europe’s fever sores. I believe that English public opinion was not sufficiently aroused to back him in a war. Most people in England felt, “It’s not worth a war to prevent the Sudeten Germans from going back to Germany. They failed at that time to see the larger issue, involving the domination of Europe. But though all these factors played a part in the settlement at Munich, I feel that Munich was inevitable on the grounds of lack of [British] armaments alone.” !

Kennedy, Why England Slept, p. 186

A.R.P. = Air Raid Precautions

Text

V. Popular Opinion and Grand Strategy1939-rethinking

“Roaring ‘Twenties”

Prosperity Euphoria

“Great Depression”

Fear Scapegoating

It’s hard to remember that in 1930 only 1.0% of American men and women had a high school diploma; 0.2%, a college degree. !It is no wonder that public opinion looked for scapegoats and simple explanations for the Great Depression. Who better to blame than Wall Street, the Banks (long a target of the Populists and Progressives) and the “idle rich,” especially “war profiteers.” !“The Depression was Hoover’s fault.” “Capitalism was unjust.” !The stage was set for a New Order. !

jbp

Good

Bad

“Merchants of Death”

an agrarian reformer, as a newspaper man he had blasted “Big Business”

1927-29-his first senatorial success was helping to convict Harding’s crony, Albert Fall in the Teapot Dome scandal

his reputation as “Gerald the Giant-Killer” led Sen. George Norris to push his appointment to head the Munitions Comm:

"Nye's young, he has inexhaustible energy and he has courage. Those are all important assets. He may be rash in his judgments at times, but it's the rashness of enthusiasm.”—Sen. Geo Norris

1934-36-Nye created headlines by drawing connections between the wartime profits of the banking and munitions industries to America’s entry into World War I

Banks had loaned Germany $27 million but the Entente Powers $10.35 billion!

wartime profits by the arms manufacturers were documented

the conclusion seemed obvious (but wrong)—America had gone to war, not to make the world safe for democracy, but to protect her economic interests—the interests of the 1%

1936-the Democratic Senate shut down the inquiry when Nye unwisely attacked Woodrow Wilson as deliberately serving these “fat cats”

Sen.Gerald Nye (R) ND!1892 – 1971!

in office 1925-1945!Chairman, Senate Munitions Committee!

1934-1936

An Unexpected Criticthen the most highly decorated Marine in history

1930-when passed over for Commandant of the Corps (for

his “unreliable,” read unorthodox and outspoken behavior), he retired

1932-he supported the Bonus Army March on Washington, DC

then he began an attack on “Big Business”

he warned of an American fascist plot to “march on Washington,”( like Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome) and overthrow FDR

Maj. Gen’l. Smedley Butler, USMC 1881-1940

winner of two Congressional Medals of Honor

Wikipedia

An Unexpected Criticthen the most highly decorated Marine in history

1930-when passed over for Commandant of the Corps (for

his “unreliable,” read unorthodox and outspoken behavior), he retired

1932-he supported the Bonus Army March on Washington, DC

then he began an attack on “Big Business”

he warned of an American fascist plot to “march on Washington,”( like Mussolini’s 1922 March on Rome) and overthrow FDR

1935-after touring with a popular speech of the same title, he published this book. Five chapters:

War is a racket

Who makes the profits?

Who pays the bills?

How to smash this racket!

To hell with war! Wikipedia

“The United States has witnessed a similar situation [to that in England]. The Labour Party in England used the argument that an increase in armaments meant that Britain must be deserting the League on which her foreign policy was based. Likewise, in America in 1938, when Roosevelt put forward a heavy defense budget, Senate leaders like Borah and Johnson, and House leaders like Hamilton Fish, argued that this must mean a desertion of America’s traditional foreign policy of neutrality and isolation. Again and again in speeches, they stated that unless the President had made new commitments, there was no necessity for increasing military expenditures. As the President had been very outspoken against the dictatorships in his “Quarantine the aggressors” speech at Chicago in October of the previous year, their words sounded logical to many.” !

Kennedy, p.73

America, 1938; the year of Munich—The Battle Lines Are Drawn

The Neutrality Acts of the 1930s

“Powerful forces in the United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators Borah, Vandenberg, Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr.

“Democratic President Roosevelt and especially his Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts, fearing that they would restrict the administration's options to support friendly nations

“Even though both the House and Senate had large Democratic majorities throughout these years, there was enough support for the Acts amongst Democrats (especially those representing Southern states) to ensure their passage

“Although Congressional support was insufficient to override a presidential veto, Roosevelt felt he could not afford to snub the South and anger public opinion, especially whilst facing re-election in 1936 and needing Congressional co-operation on domestic issues

“With considerable reluctance, the president signed the Neutrality Acts into law.”

Wikipedia

“The ‘merchants of death’ propaganda…helped make possible the neutrality legislation of the late 1930’s, which amounted to a deliberate surrender of the neutral rights the United States had twice gone to war to preserve. As in Great Britain and France, in the United States there was a widespread feeling that no war was worth fighting. Contemporary literature reflected a profound cynicism about the motives and competence of World War I leadership.18 A great many American students gave vociferous approval to the “Oxford Pledge,” by which British undergraduates were swearing “under no circumstances” to serve King and country.”

________ 18 Dozens of titles might be cited. Ernest Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms C.S. Forester’s The General, Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front are examples from the novels. Plays and movies with a strong pacifist overtone reached nearly all of the population in the Western democracies.

Sea Power, p. 488

“Along with a pacifistic and isolationist public opinion went a popular misconception of grand strategy that made many persons believe that in any event American participation was not necessary. Captain B. H. Liddell Hart and other military writers of reputation had severely criticized Allied generalship in World War I for useless sacrifice of men in trying to break the trench line. It was freely predicted that, if World War II came, the pattern of the Western Front would be the same except that this time the Allies, snug in the impregnable Maginot Line,•” !

Ibid.

Popular Thinking on Grand Strategy

“Along with a pacifistic and isolationist public opinion went a popular misconception of grand strategy that made many persons believe that in any event American participation was not necessary. Captain B. H. Liddell Hart and other military writers of reputation had severely criticized Allied generalship in World War I for useless sacrifice of men in trying to break the trench line. It was freely predicted that, if World War II came, the pattern of the Western Front would be the same except that this time the Allies, snug in the impregnable Maginot Line,• would remain on the defensive. The Germans, finally driven to action by the relentless pressure of naval blockade, would break themselves on the Maginot barrier. The French and British land offensive, when it came, would be a matter of sweeping up the exhausted fragments of the Wehrmacht. In brief, the war would be won by a combination of the Maginot Line and superior British sea power. America could afford to keep hands off. In view of the fact that apparently the French general staff accepted this concept, it is perhaps pardonable for a large part of the American public to have done so.” !

Ibid.


“As everyone knows, the Maginot Line was to prove anything but impregnable. For that matter the role assigned to sea power in the prospective Allied strategy was not a realistic one.”

.

Sea Power is a prerequisite, a necessary but not sufficient cause, of world power. Britain, who held it in 1939, could not defeat Germany by that factor alone. Conversely, had Germany held it, she could have conquered England. !But that’s another story… !

jbp

Sea Power, p.488

“I say, therefore, that many of the very factors intrinsic in democracy resulted in England’s falling further and further behind. For democracy and capitalism are institutions which are geared for a world at peace. It is our problem to find a method of protecting them in a world at war.” !

Kennedy, p. 226

Conclusion

The US Navy in WW II; session i

Education

Transcript of The US Navy in WW II; session i