Second World War is still a focus of historical and media
attention. And so it should be. There is much to be learned from a nightmare
struggle that cost the lives of 50 million people.
Unfortunately 70 years later we still haven't learned many
of the lessons.
Those who actually took part in the war often had a better
appreciation of what it's about the modern writers and readers of popular
history. There is a gritty realism about the film and book "The Cruel
Sea" and "12 O'clock High" that is not to be found in modern
media.
We are given a picture of war that corresponds with our
expectations, not the reality. We still believe the propaganda picture not the
one recorded and witnessed by the historians and people who took part.
American perceptions of the US role in World War II are clouded
by the fact that the US Armed Forces in World War II were very inexperienced
and made just about every mistake in the book - and that had to be covered up.
The British and the Americans had a strong interest in making sure support the
war by the USA
was strong. Stories of failure and incompetence doesn't help that.
So the US
public is still filled with the image of
a strong and robust United States
coming to the aid of the United Kingdom
and Europe.
The history is somewhat different, as the official histories
written by British and American historians make clear.
The U.S. Army in 1939 comprised some 200,000 men of which
approximately 30,000 were in the Army Air Force. Other than a few months action
in the First World War the last war it was involved in the American Civil War.
The European powers in the 1914 to 1918 war has fought a life-and-death
struggle in which the whole of the nationstate was involved. They had learned
much about the nature of modern war, very little of which the USA had taken on board.
The four major European nations had learned different
things. Germany
had learnt concentrated attack on the weakest point the line and rapid
exploitation behind strong points would break the enemies will to resist.
Mobility and concentration of firepower with a key to success. The French had
learned the opposite, that strong fortified positions could not be taken by
direct assault. In in Russia
they learned the lesson of history that numbers and distance could always
defeat stronger and better equipped enemy.
In the UK,
they didn't learn one lesson, the learned three. Firstly they learnt to
mobilise their production base. War was not about tactics, it was about who
could build the most ships, tanks, munitions, and aircraft. It was also about
how many adult men could be released into the field. To that end they employed
women to an extent that no other nation did in World War I. It was out of
desperation. They almost ran out of men (as Germany was to do in 1945). The
second lesson they learned was that the traditional doctrine of naval warfare
had to be changed because of the arrival of two new weapons. The submarine and
the aircraft carrier. Finally they learned that the air weapon was to be used
strategically to attack cities. 1500 civilians were killed by German air raids
in World War I and the British learned well from that lesson.
USA,
its Army, its Air Force and it's Navy had none of this experience, so went to
war in 1941 with an oulook that saw war through 19th century goggles.
The huge resource and production base of the USA meant that
its role in World War II would be decisive, but it would take time for it to be
deployed. In the meantime the UK
and the USSR
beyond be on their own.
Militarily and in terms of production World War II was won,
or at least made unwinnable for the Germans before the end of 1942 and the
first deployment of American troops.
The Germans, in spite of their initial massive lead threw it
all away in the first two years of World War. We can talk about battles and
generals and the specifications of various types of tank and aircraft but the
reality is Germany
lost the war because they switched to a war economy too late. The figures are
very clear. If we know the British were building twice as many fighter aircraft
as the Germans in 1940 we know why they won the battle of Britain. This
wasn't isolated. Here are the figures for Russia,
UK and Germany in
1941. Germany
was doomed.
|
Tanks
|
Fighter Aircraft
|
Artillery
|
Trucks
|
Germany
|
3790
|
3744
|
11200
|
51085
|
UK
|
4841
|
7064
|
16700
|
88161
|
Russia
|
6590
|
7086
|
42300
|
20000
|
The entry of the USA
and Japan
into World War II didn't change that picture. The USA went through the same psychological
shock with the Japanese as the French and the Russians experienced when they
were attacked by the Germans.
Although there were notable pockets of resistance, the U.S.
Army could not offer any serious resistance the Japanese. They were fighting a
battle hardened Japanese army navy and air force that had some four years of
experience. The USA was very
lucky in that the Japanese failed to recognise the importance of Hawaii until far too
late. Had it been invaded in the immediate aftermath of Pearl
Harbor there is little
doubt they would have captured the islands. It might not have made a difference
to the final outcome of the war, but launching the attack on Japan from California would never have been easy.
To the British the USA was in 1942
a liability. The failure of the USA
to learn the lessons of the First World War and sail ships in convoy was
catastrophic. The U.S. Navy was directly responsible for the loss of 25% of all
the merchant shipping lost in World War II. 600 ships were sunk in American waters
in 1942 by U.S. Navy incompetence. The British ended up having to send ships
and aircraft to defend the US East Coast. In 1942 New York harbour itself was defended by a British
RAF antisubmarine air Squadron. Something you will have to search for in the
history books. It is also not generally
known the British also sent fleet aircraft carrier to the Pacific (disguised as
USS Robin) in 1943, when the USA
was down to one carrier.
The idea of the USA making an immediate difference
the war in 1942 is an illusion. It was the British who were helping the USA, not the other way around.
Although the war against Japan looms large in American
histograpy. It was a minor theatre. One of the first Allied decisions was
"Germany first" as
Germany
was seen as the major threat.
A picture can be gained by comparing British and US naval
losses. Overall the British lost twice as many ships as the USA in World
War II. Almost as many ships were lost by the British in the battle for the
Mediterranean as the USA
lost in the whole the Pacific.
|
Aircraft Carrier
|
Battleships
|
Cruisers
|
Destroyers
|
Escorts
|
Pacific
|
10
|
2
|
10
|
56
|
5
|
Mediterreann
|
2
|
1
|
19
|
45
|
19
|
US Total
|
11
|
2
|
10
|
71
|
10
|
UK
Total
|
10
|
5
|
30
|
110
|
58
|
A similar picture appears if we look at bomber aircraft
losses
|
To 1942
|
1943
|
1944
|
1945
|
Total
|
UK
|
3395
|
2314
|
2573
|
595
|
8877
|
USA
|
42
|
1036
|
3497
|
966
|
5541
|
Most of the air and sea war of WW II was fought by the British, which at
that time had a population about 3rd that of the USA.
The land war was fought by the Russians. Both the British
and the Americans focus on the battle of Normandy
as a 'major battle', yet compare to the huge battles that took place on the
2,000 mile Russian front it was minor. Some figures.
|
Tanks Deployed June 1944
|
Russians
|
11600
|
Germans
|
Russia
4470
|
Normandy
804
|
British and Americans Normandy
|
5000
|
The US Army failed in Europe
on 4 different occassions - all of which were covered up or distorted so as to
hide what really happened. If the
interest is there I post more - for the moment, just consider that the facts
tell a different story to the propaganda.