Great Depression and World War II

86
Great Depression and World War II
One of the first War Cabinet meetings with US President Franklin Roosevelt after America's entry into the war in December 1941


The Great Depression


The First World War smoothed out the crisis phenomena in the capitalist system only for a short time. Already in 1929, the Great Depression began in America. The crisis also engulfed Western Europe. Severe crisis of capitalism. Overproduction, falling demand.



It seemed that the end of the world was coming in the West. When the crisis broke out, it turned out that there is no social legislation in the United States. No pensions or unemployment benefits. People were just thrown out into the street. Hundreds of thousands of people simply died of starvation and disease. In the West, they like to denigrate the USSR, in particular, to mention the so-called. famine. But in the US, the situation was no better. Goods and food were simply burned, drowned, destroyed, because people did not have money to buy them. Enraged farmers and workers, teachers and employees smashed banks and demanded to do so "as in Soviet Russia." Crowds of hungry people destroy grocery stores.

Roosevelt's predecessors, the Republicans, operated in their traditional ways. Like, the strongest survive (social Darwinism). It was similar to the Russian "shock therapy" of the 1990s, which was arranged for the country and the people by the Russian "young reformers". The Republicans endlessly balanced the budget, reduced expenditure items, and did not want to allocate funds for state programs for the development of new industries and assistance to the village. They focused on ensuring low inflation and the stability of the dollar.

No wonder the States were rocked by multi-million dollar demonstrations. The strikes were held under communist slogans. They carry portraits of Lenin, the sounds of revolutionary marches are heard. Police use firearms against strikers weapon, down to machine guns. Things come to the point that in the summer of 1932 the authorities throw troops against the veterans of the world war. Tear gas grenades and armored vehicles are used. State authorities, in order to protect their territory from the influx of homeless and unemployed people who were looking for a better place for themselves, set up police barriers and cordons at the borders. Concentration camps are being set up in sunny California.

In the spring of 1932, a banking collapse occurs. Thousands of financial and credit organizations are crumbling. Naturally, the big “whales” that absorb small and medium-sized banks win. Many Americans are left without savings. Farmers whose farms are threatened to be sold for debt take up arms and disrupt auctions. In the once well-fed America, a war between town and country is brewing, as during the Civil War in Russia. There are real battles between employers and workers. Big business crushes workers with the help of the mafia. The ghost of a second civil war hovers over the United States.

In Western Europe, in the wake of the crisis, authoritarian, militaristic regimes are coming to power everywhere. There is a collapse of democracy in its usual form. Right-wing, far-right parties and organizations triumph. Fascist regime in Italy. In 1933–1934 Chancellor Dollfuss establishes a fascist (corporate) regime in Austria. T. n. Austrofascism, which lasted until the Anschluss of 1938. Authoritarian regimes flourish in Poland and Bulgaria, the military dictatorship of Horthy and Gömbös in Hungary. Military regimes have been established in Finland, the Baltic countries and Romania. Their dictatorships were strengthened in Portugal and Spain. Nazism triumphs in Germany. The right is almost taking over in France.

"New Deal"


In 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democratic president, came to power in the United States. He proclaims and implements the "New Deal" (English new deal) and refuses the principle of non-intervention of the state in the economy. Banks are closed for a while - the Reconstruction Financial Corporation opens. An emergency law is introduced that guarantees private deposits in surviving banks. But people face criminal penalties if they keep money in a "mattress". Americans were forced to deposit money in banks again.

On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt signed Decree No. 6102 on the actual confiscation from the population and organizations of gold in bullion and coins. Individuals and legal entities (including foreign citizens and companies that stored gold in the United States) were required until May 1, 1933 to exchange gold for paper money at a price of $ 20,66 per troy ounce in any bank in the United States. For evading the delivery of gold, a large fine of up to 10 thousand dollars or a prison sentence of up to 10 years was set. The US is establishing a gold reserve at Federal Reserve Fort Knox, which was completed by the end of 1936. After the end of the gold collection, its official price was sharply raised to $35 per ounce.

A powerful sector of state industry is being formed. Production planning and state control over prices are being introduced. Treasury money is used to finance industrial projects. Serious assistance is provided to the agricultural sector. Huge funds go to public works and the development of the military-industrial complex, in particular, to shipbuilding. The Civil Engineering Corps (an analogue of the Soviet labor army) was created, where hundreds of thousands of previously unemployed build highways and dams. For just a dollar a day and food. Mechanisms for the social protection of ordinary Americans are being introduced. Businesses are required to introduce a minimum wage.

The President was given the right to issue decrees instead of laws. State rights are being cut. Intelligence agencies are being strengthened, in particular, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI is crushing the criminal revolution that began during the Great Depression. Stops the link between organized crime and business and officials that has begun.

It is not surprising that some politicians and big business opposed the president. He was called a dictator and a communist. In turn, Roosevelt throws lightning at the oligarchs, monopolists, "new feudal lords" and "kings" of big business, who almost brought America to collapse with their activities.


Decree No. 6102 on the actual confiscation of gold from the population and organizations

Vector to the big war


However, despite some successes (the development of production, the military-industrial complex, energy and transport infrastructure, the creation of the country's gold reserves, etc.), the New Deal clearly cannot pull the United States out of the pit of a severe crisis. In 1937, a new wave of crisis rolls. Unemployment is rising rapidly again, production is falling. The economy is in a fever, despite all the efforts of the Roosevelt team and fundamental reforms. Analysts are talking about a new depression and economic collapse in the early 40s.

It's about the capitalist system itself. Roosevelt could not overcome it without a radical restructuring of the entire system, following the model of the USSR, where there was no crisis during this period. On the contrary, the USSR developed rapidly. There was only one way out - again a world war, which would allow contradictions to be dumped on other countries, lead to an influx of gold, capital, and cheap labor. It will allow you to rob other powers, such as China, Japan, the USSR, Europe, and penetrate the markets of decrepit colonial empires, in particular, the British Empire.

A new global carnage has become Washington's only hope. It allowed not only to overcome the internal crisis, but to emerge from the war as a world hegemon with no competitors. Therefore, Washington is doing its best to prevent the creation of a collective security system in Europe that could prevent the outbreak of a major war. Roosevelt supports the policy of Chamberlain, who "appeases" Hitler at the expense of his neighbors and pushes him to the East. Anglo-American banks finance the militarization of the Third Reich. Moreover, the United States did not break economic ties with Germany already during the Second World War.

Actually, Roosevelt's "New Deal" was the preparation of the United States for a big war. This is the mobilization of the United States, which began earlier than in Nazi Germany. The budget has been improved. Production costs were reduced, cheap labor was obtained (the Great Depression lowered the cost of labor to zero, people worked for food), the monopoly capitalists were reined in. From 1934 to 1938, the US military budget doubled.

America is preparing for war with might and main, while Europe has not yet thought about it. In essence, labor armies have been formed to modernize the country's infrastructure. Large state-owned enterprises are being created. Aviation and shipbuilding industries were nationalized. Everything went under the slogan of protecting ordinary Americans and creating jobs for them. In the end, a semi-planned mobilization economy was created, which surpassed the German and Soviet ones. America was richer than all countries, had the most powerful industry.

Thus, the United States carried out colossal militarization before anyone else in the Western world. Only the Stalinist USSR was before. In Moscow, they perfectly understood where the world was heading. In the United States, a mountain of weapons was riveted by the beginning of World War II, aircraft and ships. The problem was that it was impossible to produce mountains of weapons for a long time with impunity for the economy. The weapon must be used. Without a world war, the United States would have fallen into a new wave of severe depression, possibly into a civil war.

Roosevelt printed dollars in the 30s, prepared the country for war and riveted mountains of weapons. Therefore, the world war in 1939 in Europe (and in China even earlier) began just in time. First-class aviation and a huge fleet immediately became in demand. The United States came to the war the most prepared.

In addition, the war was on foreign territory. Washington used German and Japanese "cannon fodder" to start a world war.

Japan and Germany were officially the aggressors. And the USA is a stronghold of democracy, freedom and goodness. Very comfortably. Other countries, in order to receive financial, material and military support from the United States, became dependent.
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    25 May 2023 04: 21
    the war between town and country is brewing

    There are no villages in the USA.
    Someone lied to you... wink
    1. +5
      25 May 2023 13: 34
      There are no villages in the USA.


      And why are we now, in the smelly New York to live wassat ?
      1. +4
        25 May 2023 15: 26
        Quote: Bolt Cutter
        And why do we live in a smelly New York now?

        Quite healthy. Just the standard of living Newerke, perhaps, it will be higher than beyond the conditional New York Ring Road ... wink
  2. +2
    25 May 2023 04: 33
    M-de, and the picture is a carbon copy from the USA now ...
    1. +2
      25 May 2023 12: 46
      I wonder what Roosevelt's wife at this first meeting of the so-called. "War Cabinet" does? .. Works with "extra ears"? ..
  3. +11
    25 May 2023 04: 42
    In the West, they like to denigrate the USSR, in particular, to mention the so-called. famine. But in the US, the situation was no better.

    About fifteen years ago, a photo exhibition dedicated to the "Holodomor" began touring around Ukraine. But soon the organizers were forced to quickly cover up this big top. It turned out that the photos with the victims of the "Holodomor" are actually victims of the famine in the United States, which took place during the Great Depression.
    The photographs depicted Americans withered from hunger, and not Ukrainians at all, as the organizers of the exhibition assured. All pictures illustrating the Holodomor were taken from American sites.
  4. +3
    25 May 2023 05: 12
    With one thing, I can agree one hundred percent. All the sins of mankind are now being blamed on the Soviet system. At all times, the United States has benefited from wars. To this day. Not only the depression brought a lot of trouble to ordinary people. In the days of McCarthyism, advanced scientists suffered. Under capitalism, there are always periods when apologetics, metaphysics and other types of far-fetched philosophy come to the fore. The United States to this day receives its advantages from everything that happens in the world.
  5. +3
    25 May 2023 07: 34
    Hundreds of thousands of people simply died of starvation and disease.
    according to official data, 5 million people, according to others up to 15 million people. The Holodomor was not only in Ukraine
    1. +2
      25 May 2023 18: 51
      Quote: aybolyt678
      according to official data 5 million people, according to others up to 15 million people

      Where is it?
      Quote: aybolyt678
      The Holodomor was not only in Ukraine

      More in Kazakhstan.
  6. +6
    25 May 2023 08: 01
    Everything is right with the author. About the second wave of the crisis, which happened in the late 30's usually do not write, but it was. It was then that the company Sonsolidated ruined Igor Sikorsky, who after that switched to helicopters. The first time it went bankrupt was in 1929.
  7. +4
    25 May 2023 08: 37
    Quote: Luminman
    There are no villages in the USA.
    Someone lied to you..


    There are no trees, that's right. But there is still a redneck (rednecks). I can imagine how they turn back from all this LGBTni.
    1. +4
      25 May 2023 08: 49
      Quote: Illanatol
      But there is still a redneck (rednecks). I can imagine how they turn back from all this LGBTni.

      Yes. The old American way of life is only in such tiny towns and wasted ...
    2. +5
      25 May 2023 12: 35
      Quote: Illanatol
      There are no trees, that's right. But there is still a redneck (rednecks). I can imagine how they turn back from all this LGBTni.

      * "Sweet Home Alabama" plays in the distance ©
      Rednecks and hillbillies have their own rattles in the hut. smile
  8. +5
    25 May 2023 09: 36
    All this is far-fetched for the sake of the fashion for evil amers.
    Fleet yes. Built strong, initially.
    But the army ... I met that by the year 39 the United States approached with only 2 full-fledged divisions (or brigades, I don’t remember). The rest are small divisions. I had to urgently increase
    Doubling the military-industrial complex - so Europe was already preparing for war with might and main, too. Despite the contrary of the author. Conflicts here and there.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023 10: 59
      Everyone wants, and if they wish, they can become Americans, lead an American way of life. This is the most advanced level of development and consumption, as well as the realization of human potential. But few people want to become, for example, Chinese and lead the life of a typical Chinese. Or an Indian (except for the fanatical apologists for Hinduism and similar culture). Or a Russian (or Russian?) and lead a typical life of a resident of Russia. First you need to form and offer an attractive model of lifestyle, society. So far, only 3 regions of the world have succeeded in this: North America, North-Western Europe and the USSR (communism). That's all.
      1. +6
        25 May 2023 15: 15
        Quote: Daniel Mikheev
        First you need to form and offer an attractive model of lifestyle, society

        For Americans who lost their jobs and did not have any social support at that time - by that time it simply did not exist in the USA, described by you attractive model, no one was interested. Through Amtorg Americans filed about 100 thousand applications for work in the USSR


        The queue near Armtorg from those wishing to leave for the USSR

        Quote: Daniel Mikheev
        But few people want to become, for example, Chinese

        I think that with a hungry family and no job, any American could be anyone. Even a Martian...
      2. 0
        25 May 2023 20: 31
        Everyone wants, and if they wish, they can become Americans, lead an American way of life. This is the most advanced level of development and consumption, as well as the realization of human potential. But few people want to become, for example, Chinese and lead the life of a typical Chinese. Or an Indian (except for the fanatical apologists for Hinduism and similar culture). Or a Russian (or Russian?) and lead a typical life of a resident of Russia. First you need to form and offer an attractive model of lifestyle, society. So far, only 3 regions of the world have succeeded in this: North America, North-Western Europe and the USSR (communism). That's all.

        Even I don’t remember that everyone was breaking for permanent residence in the USSR. On the contrary, they closed the borders for those wishing to dump.
        But in cap Russia, oddly enough, they are bursting. Let the Tajiks, but break. Yes
        1. -1
          27 May 2023 09: 52
          Amazing reasoning. I really like her.
        2. 0
          25 September 2023 16: 20
          Arzt. So you haven’t read Ilf and Petrov. About American engineers and workers who built plants, factories and other things in the USSR under contract. At that time, the USSR did not have its own trained personnel, there were Americans. Then the same builders of these factories learned in the evenings to be workers in these factories.
    2. +3
      25 May 2023 11: 18
      Quote: Max1995
      I met that by the year 39 the United States approached with only 2 full-fledged divisions (or brigades, I don’t remember)

      Here you exaggerate.

      In the 39th year, the Americans had 4 divisions, and the old "square" state (four regiments of 20+ thousand people each). In addition to divisions, smaller units and formations. The total number of ground forces is about 200 thousand people.

      On the other hand, this does not change the essence of the matter. Of the major contributors to the war, the growth of the American army has been the fastest, and the decent enough quality of their soldiers is a huge achievement. Let me remind you that by the end of the war, the number of American Armed Forces (of all types) was comparable to the Soviet ones.

      There is another problem here. 4 divisions - this is only 4 generals for the entire army, gaining experience in leading a formation of this level. Which, in turn, created huge, insoluble problems at the level of the leadership of the Armed Forces. Unlike the Germans, the Americans did not have the leaven of a large army, primarily at the officer and general level.
      1. +2
        25 May 2023 12: 16
        Yes, it was a long time ago, the specialist brought a lot of data there. I could not remember a year-division back and forth.
        The essence is the same, that there was very little, we had to quickly, quickly build up.
        1. 0
          25 May 2023 12: 21
          Quote: Max1995
          The essence is the same, that there was very little, we had to quickly, quickly increase

          Yes. Marshall was criticized a lot because of this.
      2. +1
        25 May 2023 12: 33
        Which, in turn, created huge, insoluble problems at the level of the leadership of the Armed Forces.

        Which ones? Preferably in comparison with the British and Soviet armies.
        1. +4
          25 May 2023 16: 15
          Quote: Engineer
          Preferably in comparison with the British and Soviet armies.

          Let the British write about the British army, but it is easy to compare with the Soviet one.

          I love to scold Comrade Stalin with passion: they say, he shot all the officers except Shaposhnikov, as a result, he put shepherds from the committees of the poor and the surplus appropriation to command the fronts. But let's look carefully at the described person: General of the Army Chernyakhovsky, 3rd Belorussian Front.

          1936 - chief of staff of a tank battalion
          1937 - commander of a tank battalion.
          1938 - regiment commander.
          1940 - Deputy commander of a tank division.
          1941 - commander of a tank division.
          1942 - commander of a tank corps.
          1942 - army commander
          1944 - front commander.

          Of course, by German standards, the growth rate is too high and there are no staff positions. However, he passed all the steps, three years of combat experience.

          Let's look at any American officer of the same level or higher: Commander-in-Chief Eisenhower, 12 GA Commander Bradley, 6 GA Commander Devers, 1A Hodges, 3A Patton, 9A Simpson, 15A Giroud, 7A Patch.

          Which of them for the summer of the 44th has command experience comparable to the experience of Chernyakhovsky?

          My second favorite example: July 1, 1940. What is commanded by G.K. Zhukov born in 1896? What is D.D. commanding on this date? Eisenhower, born 1890?
          1. 0
            25 May 2023 21: 36
            I asked about the unsolvable problems of the American Armed Forces, and did not ask me to remind me of Chernyakhovsky's summary. And even more so, I'm not interested in comparing Zhukov and one Texas-Kansas devil.
            You better write about those same problems
            1. +1
              26 May 2023 09: 03
              Quote: Engineer
              And even more so, I'm not interested in comparing Zhukov and one Texas-Kansas devil.

              Experience is not needed, from the battalion you can put on the high command with the right to make political decisions. Well, in principle, it is normal for the worker-peasant American army. Trotsky also did not command a division, but nothing, he coped normally.
              Quote: Engineer
              You better write about those same problems

              Here, one of the former participants has already written sheets on this topic. Now it’s enough to note that we have different optics: you compare the Americans of the 44th year with the rickety Wehrmacht, the rogue grandfathers and the British, who were not even going to fight - they always had a normal working strategy about wars on the continent. I compare it with the American fleet of 44: as you know, it had its shortcomings (in particular, the lack of mentally healthy naval commanders and good designers), but everything else in total was better than the rest of the world put together by a margin.
              1. 0
                26 May 2023 09: 15
                So, there will be no song "about insoluble problems"? Well, OK.
                1. +1
                  26 May 2023 10: 08
                  An insoluble problem was pointed out: a high command with slightly more command experience than Himmler, slightly less than Mehlis. If you don't think this is a problem, then OK.
                  1. 0
                    26 May 2023 10: 15
                    This in itself is not a problem at all.
                    The problem is the inability to ensure military construction or the inability to maintain successful databases or the inability to achieve goals determined by military planning, etc.
                    And if you start comparing from which you literally run, it will become even more understandable.
                    1. +1
                      26 May 2023 11: 38
                      Quote: Engineer
                      This in itself is not a problem at all.

                      ))
                      Quote: Engineer
                      The problem is the inability to ensure military construction or the inability to maintain successful databases or the inability to achieve goals determined by military planning, etc.

                      You see, there is a problem of interpretations here.

                      To begin with: did the Americans win the war in Europe or lose? And if they won, does the result write off all the details according to the principle "Berlin was taken - the October Revolution is the best battleship of the war"?
                      1. 0
                        26 May 2023 11: 46
                        This hip-hop from the ghetto to the boom box I've heard many times.
                        The culprits were: a dying senile, traitors to the State Department, on whom Mr. Swanson was not found, hillbilly Harry, who fooled around for too long. Eisenhower was just the icing on this political layer cake.
                        So what about the army?

                        And for those who do not like rap, it's even easier.
                        All the armies of the Second World War, except for the Wehrmacht of the 41st, the first half of the 43rd, were ersatz. The American ersatz was definitely better than English and late German and could well compete with the Soviet one.
                        That's all
                      2. 0
                        26 May 2023 12: 41
                        Quote: Engineer
                        This hip-hop from the ghetto to the boom box I've heard many times.
                        Guilty: Dying senile, traitors to the State Department, who did not find Mr. Swanson, hillbilly Harry, who took too long to fool

                        )))
                        Well, you see, you already know.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Eisenhower was just the icing on this political layer cake.

                        Excuse me, politicians have their own questions, the army - their own. Politicians are not stuck on the German border for six months.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The American ersatz was definitely better than English and late German and could well compete with the Soviet one.

                        ))
                        You see, I'm not a fan of watching the Paralympics.
                      3. 0
                        26 May 2023 13: 37
                        Excuse me, politicians have their own questions, the army - their own. Politicians are not stuck on the German border for six months.

                        First specific claim. Less than ten posts.
                        Why not remember the supply crisis caused by the delay in the capture of seaports by you-know-who. And the Siegfried line. And also the fact that, following the results of butting with the Germans, the amers learned to tear the front in a wide area and quickly develop a breakthrough. Unlike you-know-who, they didn’t master it?
                        You see, I'm not a fan of watching the Paralympics.

                        Tell me where to look for non-paralytics?
                      4. +1
                        26 May 2023 16: 52
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Tell me where to look for non-paralytics?

                        We named two of you: Wehrmacht 39-42 and USN 44-45.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Why not remember the supply crisis caused by the delay in the capture of seaports by you-know-who.

                        Allied Expeditionary Force?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        And the Siegfried line

                        And the Maginot line, heh heh.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Unlike you-know-who, they didn’t master it?

                        It's scary to think who you mean.
      3. +3
        25 May 2023 12: 51
        Quote: Negro
        In the 39th year, the Americans had 4 divisions, and the old "square" state (four regiments of 20+ thousand people each).

        EMNIMS, in the overseas divisions (Philippine and Hawaiian), one of the regiments in the state was the National Guard from the locals.
        Quote: Negro
        Of the main participants in the war, the growth of the American army was the fastest

        Formally - yes, by the end of 1941, the Yankee ground forces had grown on paper from four to six dozen divisions, and the growth continued. But in fact, even a year later, the combat-ready forces of the army were limited to what they put up in Torch, on Guadalcanal and in other Southeast Asia.
        Quote: Negro
        There is another problem here. 4 divisions - this is only 4 generals for the entire army, gaining experience in leading a formation of this level.

        And down the chain, the picture with the officers (in the service and in the reserve) is the same. And from all this you need to form a hundred divisions. Moreover, some of them are tank ones, where it is generally very tasty with personnel.
        And you also need to find personnel for the headquarters of the corps and armies who will manage these divisions. How is the interbellum with the headquarters of the field armies in the US ground forces? wink

        That's who felt good - so it's the fleet. A dozen LCs, a couple of dozen CRs, more than a hundred EMs - there were no problems with the reservists.
        1. +2
          25 May 2023 15: 50
          Quote: Alexey RA
          . But in fact, even a year later, the combat-ready forces of the army were limited to

          )))
          Let's not specify what and who had "in fact." Especially for such a fact, to participate in the landing across the ocean.

          And what does anyone have now.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Moreover, some of them are tank ones, where it is generally very tasty with personnel.

          There is an opinion, which I do not consider it necessary to substantiate, that the Reich, of course, possessed the best officer corps by a huge margin. Nevertheless, in the case of the Reich, it is not difficult to find analytics about the generals who understood and did not understand the tank war. with related results.

          What can we say about everyone else.
          Quote: Alexey RA
          That's who felt good - so it's the fleet.

          Yes, the fleet grew much more organically - due to the close reserve and civilians. In addition to naval aviation, of course.

          Here after all one more nuance. The army went through additional stages of negative selection: those who were more intelligent went into business, less intelligent civil bureaucrats, who were not taken there - to the navy or aviation, who were taken only to the army - went to logisticians or engineers. As a result, people like Marshall and Eisenhower remained in command. Result on the face.
          1. +3
            26 May 2023 13: 20
            Quote: Alexey RA
            That's who felt good - so it's the fleet.
            Yes, the fleet grew much more organically - due to the close reserve and civilians. In addition to naval aviation, of course.

            Add my "five cents".
            IMHO, nevertheless, the fleet took care of creating a reserve a little more efficiently than the army (although the problems of the "spirit of the corps" and the problems of growth due to "sworn on the boxes" were later described there).
            The fleet had an understanding of "what to do in general in a war" (hello to Machen) and by chance the sensible Nimitz sat "on the frames" of the fleet.
            In terms of the lack of "mental health" - it was partially compensated by the regular mandatory change of command ("Third Fleet-Fifth Fleet"). IMHO, again, but the main naval problems - in the Pacific Ocean - were associated with the fact of the existence of citizen MacArthur "alive and free." The Atlantic and Happy Times is still a problem of lesser order than MacArthur.

            PS. Oh, the good old "xy from Marshall and Eisenhower" theme! winked
            A little more about American armored vehicles - that's what the forum is in these times soldier lacks.
            1. +1
              26 May 2023 16: 55
              Quote: Wildcat
              by chance, the sensible Nimitz was sitting on the frames of the fleet.

              Yes perishing, role personality in history. King, apparently, was that fruit.
              Quote: Wildcat
              Regarding the lack of "mental health"

              This is an allusion to the well-known battleship telegram from Nimitz Halsey.
            2. +1
              26 May 2023 21: 53
              The fleet had an understanding of "what to do in general in a war" (hello to Machen) and by chance the sensible Nimitz sat "on the frames" of the fleet.

              The fleet had an understanding primarily due to the Orange plan, which was constantly updated. The latest version called for the sinking of the Philippines and the infliction of defeat on the Yap in the central Pacific Ocean, followed by a counteroffensive. What actually happened. Naturally, the planners did not foresee the decisive role of aircraft carriers, but even so, planning inspires a certain respect.
              I never tire of reminding you that everything is known in comparison. So, the British, even according to a pessimistic scenario, planned to hold Singapore and use it as a base for a counteroffensive. It was planned to keep Hong Kong only according to an optimistic scenario, but further planning for the fall of this naval base did not provide. Such is the planning of the smoker.
              The results are known to all.
              1. 0
                27 May 2023 14: 57
                Quote: Engineer
                The fleet had an understanding in the first place thanks to the Orange plan, which was constantly updated

                Strange. And I thought that the lack of a culture of headquarters and command at the strategic level is unimportant. If something goes wrong, you can always blame the British.
                Quote: Engineer
                Such is the planning of the smoker.

                There are many questions, including to one writer there. In Singapore at the end of 41, the unity of command was even cooler than that of Short and Kimmel. But there are also questions for the military, here you are right.
                1. 0
                  27 May 2023 15: 19
                  Strange. And I thought that the lack of a culture of headquarters and command at the strategic level is unimportant. If something goes wrong, you can always blame the British.

                  Nothing strange. Star-starved, striped admirals came up with a realistic and workable plan. Who wrote what and who blamed it does not matter. What is important is the quality of planning, which is a cut above that of inselaffen. Although it is at best 3+, it is even worse for everyone else, including the super-duper Wehrmacht and the army of one young state armed with advanced military science.
                  There are many questions, including to one writer there.

                  The intervention of one writer did not begin until 1940. Before that, only CF professionals tried. Holding on to Singapore and Hong Kong is precisely their creativity. A cigar and whiskey lover just creatively developed what was proposed.
                  1. 0
                    27 May 2023 16: 01
                    Quote: Engineer
                    What is important is the quality of planning, which is a cut above that of inselaffen. Although it is at best 3+, it is even worse for everyone else, including the super-duper Wehrmacht

                    And then they bring me to me for too uncompromising demands on other people's grandfathers.
                    Quote: Engineer
                    Holding on to Singapore and Hong Kong is precisely their creativity.

                    Holding Singapore and Hong Kong is the end of the 41st and the beginning of the 42nd year, if I don’t confuse anything. Until May 40, the situation was seen as fundamentally different.

                    But you are right, the activity of the British in Asia in 42 leaves many opportunities for criticism. I'm not sure that even Field Marshal Victory MacArthur managed to outdo them in this - although the attempt was made very strong.
                    1. 0
                      27 May 2023 16: 47
                      And then they bring me to me for too uncompromising demands on other people's grandfathers.

                      I have no requirements for anyone's grandfathers and cannot be. But it is foolish not to notice that some grandfathers are older than others.
                      Holding Singapore and Hong Kong is the end of the 41st and the beginning of the 42nd year, if I don’t confuse anything. Until May 40, the situation was seen as fundamentally different.

                      Wrong. Holding on to Singapore and Hong Kong is rooted in the British strategy of the early 30s. Given the legendary quality of the English colonial troops, even this looks dubious. But somewhere in the year 35-36, the main enemy was redefined in favor of Germany. It's hard to believe, but it did not cause any significant revision of the plans for the war in the east. The only change was the delay in the moment of transition to the counteroffensive. The British still had confidence in Singapore, and in all seriousness they considered Hong Kong as a forward base against the Japanese to make their operations as difficult as possible.
                      If the plans of the first half of the 30s can somehow be justified by traditional English arrogance, then from the year 35 frank idiocy began, and idiocy is precisely at the level of "professionals", and not one Nobel Prize winner
                      You can read about all this in the book:
                      Britts, A: Neglected Skies: The Demise of British Naval Power in the Far East, 1922–1942

                      For the Americans, the Orange plan initially planned a general battle with the Yaps in Southeast Asia and the further destruction of the defensive perimeter, based on the overall quantitative (and qualitative, as the amers thought) superiority. But In 41, due to the aggravation of the situation in the Atlantic, the Americans divided the fleet between the two oceans. The prospects for victory with half of the fleet in the battle for the Philippines became very doubtful and the Americans adjusted the plan in favor of stopping the Japanese offensive not on the distant, but on the "middle" approaches. It would seem that an ordinary stage of planning, but what a huge difference with the island degenerates. Some adjust plans in less than a year, others do nothing for 5-6 years

                      The personality of Mr. MacArthur has nothing to do with this discussion, no matter how hard you try to stuff him. We are talking about strategic pre-war planning fleet . And this comrade at the beginning of the war held the position operational level in armies
                      If you can’t wait to read your favorite versions to the beat, I propose to explain why, for example, the Australians under British command simply surrender en masse, and under the control of the woodpecker Douglas they fight superbly in New Guinea.
                      1. 0
                        28 May 2023 07: 37
                        Quote: Engineer
                        some grandfathers are older than others.

                        Yes, your epistolary war with the British is not inferior in intensity to my epistolary war with American secret communists. But this is nice, personal interest in the topic helps to develop.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The personality of Mr. MacArthur has nothing to do with this discussion, no matter how hard you try to stuff him

                        MacArthur appeared here in the context of December 41. I don't think the Philippines was doomed, I don't think Singapore was doomed. At least doomed so quickly. How long did the Philippines hold against an immeasurably stronger opponent, the Americans of 44?
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Prospects for victory by half of the fleet in the battle for the Philippines

                        Let me remind you that London gave the Americans a ratio of 10/15 with the Japanese. Vinson-Trammel gave another 20%, that is 10/18. That is, half of the American fleet against the entire Japanese is 10/9. It's up to Two Ocean Navy. This is without taking into account the fact that in the Atlantic the fleet in the 42nd year is not needed, except for convoys. This is without taking into account the fact that the Japanese cannot put their "whole" fleet against the Americans - they have a hell of a lot to do, and the Americans, in turn, have allies, even if they do not know how to fight.

                        Of course, the listed facts in themselves do not make the activities of the future honorary life chairman of the society of Far Eastern prisoners of war (and those around him) in any way satisfactory. The Far East had its own spring of the 40th year.
                      2. 0
                        28 May 2023 23: 18
                        American naval planning can be discussed at two levels: the Pacific proper and the general strategic one.

                        The fact that Germany would become the number one enemy of the planners became known already in the second half of 1940. The result of the approach was the adoption of the Rainbow Five plan in the spring of 1941. One of the results of the planning was the redirection of transports and landing craft primarily to the needs of the Atlantic Fleet. This meant a delay in the phase of the Two Plan Orange - the transition to the counteroffensive. Plan Orange itself has been superseded by WPPak-XX plans, which nevertheless grow quite well from it.

                        Let me remind you that the outfit of forces for the Atlantic on the eve of the war is known - 6 old and two new battleships. In the Pacific Ocean - 9 old LCs. Against ten Japanese and two under construction, of which the Americans knew that they were of a high degree of readiness. Calculations by the Joint Planning Committee of the Army-Navy Council in 1939 showed that a two-to-one capital ship superiority was needed for operations off the Philippines to be successful. The conclusions, I think, are obvious.

                        How long did the Philippines hold against an immeasurably stronger opponent, the Americans of 44?

                        Tell us how long the Yaps, who were defending in 1944, managed to maintain the fleet and air force in the Philippines from the beginning of the offensive.

                        The Philippines bet has fundamental flaws. Manila is an excellent harbor, but has a vastly inadequate maintenance capacity and an even more inadequate supply of skilled workers. The exits from Manila are perfectly blocked by submarines operating near their bases. The Philippines is at the far end of an already inadequate supply of American logistics at the start of the war. At that time, there was almost no oil in the Philippines (noticeable developments on the island of Cebu began in the 50s), so the retention of the Malay barrier by the British as a shield of Indonesia becomes fundamental.
                        As the planning process progressed, the Americans became increasingly skeptical of the British's capabilities. At the end of 39, when drawing up Rainbow -3, planners questioned the ability of the British to support offensive operations. By 41, even the defensive capabilities of the British looked extremely doubtful to the Americans. In retrospect, this assessment can only be applauded.
                        All clashes along the outer perimeter of the Philippines from Formosa to Singapore will take place with the participation of the world's best basic naval aviation of the Japanese, regardless of the Kido Butai monster. In general, the idea of ​​resting on the Philippines looks like some kind of obvious misunderstanding and I don’t want to discuss it. Just shoving your head in a noose

                        The Americans could have been given an excellent rating for pre-war planning in the Pacific, if not for Kimmel's plan to decisively fight the Yap at the beginning of the war in the Wake Atoll area. In retrospect, the attempt to cut down "all for all" in a refined pitched battle clearly led the US Navy to the disaster from which they were saved by Pearl Harbor. In fairness, globally, this only led to an even greater delay in the counteroffensive and that's it.

                        In general, most of the questions are answered in this book.
                        https://www.amazon.com/War-Plan-Orange-Strategy-1897-1945/dp/1591145007
                      3. +1
                        29 May 2023 08: 40
                        Quote: Engineer
                        In retrospect, the attempt to cut down "all for all" in a refined pitched battle clearly led the US Navy to the disaster from which they were saved by Pearl Harbor.

                        )))
                        There is a charming non-historical theory that Yamamoto was an American agent. They fit too well with the afterthought of his actions. On the other hand, MacArthur worked for the Emperor almost as effectively.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The conclusions, I think, are obvious.

                        Certainly obvious. The fleet had no intention of holding the Philippines.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Let me remind you that the outfit of forces for the Atlantic on the eve of the war is known - 6 old and two new battleships

                        Oh yes, the famous anti-submarine battleships.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The exits from Manila are perfectly blocked by submarines operating near their bases.

                        Quote: Engineer
                        The Philippines is at the far end of an already inadequate supply of American logistics at the start of the war. There is almost no oil in the Philippines at that time

                        Quote: Engineer
                        All clashes along the outer perimeter of the Philippines from Formosa to Singapore will take place with the participation of the world's best basic naval aviation of the Japanese, this is even regardless of the Kido Butai monster

                        Incredible luck that a year later the Americans turned up such a favorable place for defense, logistics, aviation, oil and everything else as Guadalcanal.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        even the defensive capabilities of the British looked extremely doubtful to the Americans.

                        And then the Englishwoman crap. Everywhere she has time!
                        Quote: Engineer
                        looks like some obvious misunderstanding and I don’t want to discuss it.

                        Let me remind you that the number of people who did not fit into the co-prosperity in the Philippines is estimated at 1 million people. In the Southeast Asian region (without India and China) - 9 million.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Tell us how long the Yaps, who were defending in 1944, managed to maintain the fleet and air force in the Philippines from the beginning of the offensive.

                        And how long did it take to hold out against the rickety Japanese coastal aviation, which flew from Formosa to Manila like the British to Berlin, and their own fleet, torn apart in five directions, so that the Japanese lost momentum and ran into logistics restrictions?
                      4. 0
                        29 May 2023 12: 33
                        Certainly obvious. The fleet had no intention of holding the Philippines.

                        The fleet was not going to hold the Philippines because the calculations showed that it was impossible.
                        Oh yes, the famous anti-submarine battleships.

                        How does pushing all the battleships into the Pacific theater change anything other than increasing the number of frags for the Japanese?
                        No one could beat the IJN in an all-for-all pitched battle early in the war. The unrecognized threat of kido butai - there is nothing to fend off, the world's best preparation for night battles, the world's best torpedoes. The best cruisers, the best destroyers, etc.
                        In 41 - the first half of 42, the amers simply have nothing to compensate for this except to stupidly pile on battleships and rely on the best ballistic calculators for ultra-long shooting (which are not the best). This is despite the fact that the Yaps have better adjustment from aircraft. Kimmel believed that the real squadron speed of his LK was 17 knots. Threat to get crossed T in full growth. And the most valuable ships are commanded by such, to put it mildly, an exotic person like Halsey.

                        And how long did it take to hold out against the rickety Japanese coastal aviation, which flew from Formosa to Manila like the British to Berlin, and their own fleet, torn apart in five directions, so that the Japanese lost momentum and ran into logistics restrictions?

                        rachitic aviation the Japanese in real life destroys the offensive potential in Manila in one morning. Let's increase the outfit in Manila, well, the Japanese will also increase their striking forces. The Yaps have a decisive advantage - the right of the first strike and the possibility of fighter cover for all raids. In the extreme scenario of saturating Manila with ships and planes, the kido butai will take care of it.

                        Incredible luck that a year later the Americans turned up such a favorable place for defense, logistics, aviation, oil and everything else as Guadalcanal.

                        Guadalcanal is on the far perimeter of overstretched Japanese logistics. And the allies behind Guadalcanal have a logistics hub in the form of Australia.
                        The Philippines is on the far side of overstretched American logistics. And the Japanese behind the Philippines have a logistics hub in the form of Formosa. It is just as convenient for the Japanese to act against the Philippines as for the amers against Guadalcanal. By the way, on Guadalcanal, the amers risked battleships only once. They sensed danger. All naval battles were given by the fleet у Guadalcanal but not of Guadalcanal.
                        Since the defeat of the Dolbichans in Malaysia and the advance in Indonesia, the coverage of the Philippines will be more and more complete. An attempt to help the British from Manila is parried by base aviation. An attempt to support Manila from Pearl Harbor results in a pitched battle - a gift for Yamamoto.

                        In general, it’s even embarrassing to explain such obvious things.

                        And then the Englishwoman crap. Everywhere she has time!

                        It is difficult to plan something when there is a punching bag in the allies.
                      5. +1
                        29 May 2023 14: 02
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The fleet was not going to hold the Philippines because the calculations showed that it was impossible.

                        Calculations showed that this was impossible, because the fleet was not going to hold them.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        How does pushing all the battleships into the Pacific theater change anything other than increasing the number of frags for the Japanese?

                        Wow, how low the pre-war American planners rated their fleet.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The unrecognized threat of kido butai - there is nothing to fend off, the world's best preparation for night battles, the world's best torpedoes. The best cruisers, the best destroyers, etc.
                        In 41 - the first half of 42, the amers simply have nothing to compensate for this

                        You fall into the mortal sin of the alhistoricists - you attribute your afterlife to the chronoaboriginals.

                        I note that from the point of view of the aftermath, the general battle of the battle fleets really looks too risky. But this is not directly related to the defense of the Philippines.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The most valuable ships are commanded by such, to put it mildly, exotic personality as Halsey.

                        Oddly enough, we saw people worse than Halsey.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The rickety aircraft of the Japanese in real life destroys the offensive potential in Manila in one morning.

                        You meant "MacArthur destroys American aircraft in one morning."
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The Yaps have a decisive advantage - the right of the first strike and the possibility of fighter cover for all raids

                        The Japanese do not have a decisive advantage. They do not fly at night, the enemy is awakened in Hawaii.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        In the extreme scenario of saturating Manila with ships and planes, the kido butai will take care of it.

                        Linking Kyodo Butai with fights is also a success in relation to real life.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The Philippines is on the far side of overstretched American logistics. And the Japanese behind the Philippines have a logistics hub in the form of Formosa. The Japanese against the Philippines act as conveniently as the amers against Guadalcanal

                        Firstly, Manila itself is not a sickly logistics hub: the population there in those years was larger than in Brisbane. Secondly, from Manila to Singh, the distance is the same as from Australia to Guadalcanal. Secondly, there are 300 kilometers from Formosa to Luzon, transport will not pass so much overnight.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Since the defeat of the Dolbicans in Malaysia and the advance in Indonesia, the coverage of the Philippines will be more and more complete.

                        From the ocean? Only if aviation is transferred to the Philippines + Guam is captured.
                        Pacific distances should not be underestimated.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        even embarrassing to explain such obvious things.

                        Americans soon 80 years explain how David (USN) defeated Goliath (IJN). It is unlikely that this will ever work.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        It's hard to plan something when allies have a punching bag

                        Really. As President Roosevelt (or Wilson, I don't remember) said of such an ally, "It will take me three divisions to take Great Britain, or five divisions to defend it."
                      6. +1
                        29 May 2023 14: 56
                        Here is the desire to choke?
                        From the point of view of afterthought, the amers were doomed in a pitched battle. It is impossible to tie a Kidō butai. One morning of a nightmare and the Yapi will leave, leaving the enemy to put out airfields and seats. Manila hub is only for the Philippines, because if we talk about a hub, you need to understand between what and what it is a hub. Landing in the Philippines, subject to an increase in the American grouping, is not at all necessary. It is much more tempting to do the opposite in Rabaul - to block the enemy grouping, leaving him to make costly attempts to break through the blockade (in any direction) in a categorically unfavorable configuration.
                        The Japanese themselves do not need the Philippines at all. There is no oil, repair capacities are low. They can wait if neutralized. The capture of Malaysia and Indonesia cuts off the Philippines from Australia.
                      7. +1
                        29 May 2023 20: 06
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Here is the desire to choke?

                        Certainly. My struggle with the Washington plutocrats.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        From the point of view of afterthought, the amers were doomed in a pitched battle

                        This is possible.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Impossible to tie kidō butai

                        And why is that? You want to force them to support a strategic landing operation. Not one day, not one month.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        One morning of a nightmare and the Yapi will leave, leaving the enemy to put out airfields and seats.

                        You are talking about one or two buildings with Soviet money. Let me remind you that there were 37 of them in the Red Army. The results of their work are known to anyone.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The Philippines, subject to an increase in the American grouping, is generally not necessary. It is much more tempting to do Rabaul on the contrary - to block the enemy grouping

                        Well, fine. The blitzkrieg has been thwarted, now we are estimating how many forces the Japanese need for this and where they will not have these forces.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        The capture of Malaysia and Indonesia cuts off the Philippines from Australia.

                        With a nest of submarines, condors of crossed out liberals and schnellboats on communications, it will be a lot of fun to capture Indonesia with Malaysia. And most importantly, quickly.
                      8. 0
                        29 May 2023 21: 46
                        And why is that? You want to force them to support a strategic landing operation. Not one day, not one month.

                        This is what you want. Jobs for Nagumo for exactly one day. Further, the baton is picked up by aviation from Formosa. There will be no landing on Fili until the results of the general battle with the amers.
                        Well, fine. The blitzkrieg has been thwarted, now we are estimating how many forces the Japanese need for this and where they will not have these forces.

                        Where, sorry? The Japanese land in Malaya, the base aircraft smash the Z Force, Nothing changes in this theater. Amers are deployed according to plan WPP-46 - Halsey rushes to the Gilbert Islands, Kimmel puts to sea with a six-day delay to meet at Wake. Yamamoto rushes after Halsey, with a high probability a pitched battle takes place. in which yapi favorites. In case of victory, dominance at sea is undeniable until 1943.
                        You are talking about one or two buildings with Soviet money. Let me remind you that there were 37 of them in the Red Army. Who needs to know the results of their work
                        .
                        Oh everything laughing There was a laugh panorama. Aircraft and ships from the states are teleported to Manila after having previously multiplied by budding under the constraints of Rainbow 5. Democracy Conveyor. Wherever possible in Indonesia, airfields for liberators are poked. Give the alternative amers an a-bomb right away.
                      9. +1
                        30 May 2023 08: 43
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Give the alternative amers an a-bomb right away.

                        Why alternative? There will be a bomb.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Wherever possible in Indonesia, airfields for liberators are poked

                        Why fool around? I'm not organizing strategic bombing. Distress of the Atlantic FV-200 was available in the amount of 30 pieces, of which on the wing at any given time, at most a dozen. And the FV-200 is not the best long-range bomber of the war.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        teleport to Manila

                        Flying from Australia. By the way, the English useless have a wonderful long-range fighter. Firm Nord American releases.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Nothing changes in this theater

                        In addition to pressure on communications.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Yamamoto rushes after Halsey, with a high probability a pitched battle takes place. in which yapi favorites

                        Thanks to Nagumo, that won't happen.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        In case of victory, dominance at sea is undeniable until 1943.

                        Real.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        This is what you want. Jobs for Nagumo for exactly one day

                        Fantasy. In reality, Kincaid and MacArthur have as many planes as Nagumo. This is without Halsey. By that time, they know how to use these aircraft much better. One day, as you know, was not enough.

                        Naval aviation hits anyone over the sea. Over land, it's just aviation, a couple of hundred light aircraft.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        Further, the baton is picked up by aviation from Formosa.

                        This is which is 800 kilometers from Manila. Guadalcanal.
                        Quote: Engineer
                        There will be no landing on Fili until the results of the general battle with the amers.

                        Who do not need a general battle until the end of 43 years. And Japan would have survived until the end of the 42nd, with Indonesia not taken.
      4. +2
        25 May 2023 20: 04
        39th year for the Americans
        unsolvable problems at the leadership level of the Armed Forces

        A very interesting book on the subject.
        One day an eagle, is a 1968 war novel by American author Anton Meirer.
        The novel is set between 1910 and 1960 and covers many of the United States military activities during this period. ,,,, tells the story of Sam Damon, a career army officer, from private to general.
        1. +1
          26 May 2023 13: 25
          A very interesting book on the subject.
          Once Upon an Eagle is a 1968 war novel by American writer Anton Meirer.

          hi
          Thanks for the book, it's already been found!
  9. +3
    25 May 2023 10: 47
    Behind the negative historical moments in the United States, the author does not notice the amazing life potential and optimistic attractiveness of this state. The country of emigrants, created on wild lands, a kind of fortress on a hill among potentially explosive Europe, backward and dangerous regions of Africa, Asia, the Middle East ... They even at the moments of their deepest crises, like the Great Depression, or the confusion of the 60s and 70s were much more attractive in terms of place of residence than the same Europe or the USSR during its heyday. I advise you to think about it.
    1. Eug
      0
      25 May 2023 11: 36
      And what is there to think about - in the USA, the world's widest opportunities for human self-realization - what is called "from rags to riches" (and even if not to riches, then according to desires). In other countries, there are also similar opportunities, but for a short historical period during global changes in society, and here - for more than seven 200 years and without global - with the exception of the Great Depression - upheavals.
    2. +2
      25 May 2023 15: 20
      Quote: Daniel Mikheev
      the author does not notice the amazing life potential and optimistic attractiveness of this state

      At the time described in the article, no amazing life potential and optimistic appeal In the US, it wasn't even close. Otherwise I agree with you...
  10. +2
    25 May 2023 11: 21
    Hmm yes. Classic Samsonov. So much has been heaped up that there is no strength to comment.
  11. Eug
    +3
    25 May 2023 11: 31
    With the war, everything was decided much earlier -1 I did not solve the world war (or rather, solved only a part) of the problems for which it was started. And as soon as - in 1929 - the English establishment forbade American companies access to the colonial territories of Great Britain - war became inevitable. Well, then each country - then still a potential participant - "maneuvered" to create the most favorable conditions for itself to participate in the global conflict.
  12. +6
    25 May 2023 11: 46
    Roosevelt supports the policy of Chamberlain, who "appeases" Hitler at the expense of his neighbors and pushes him to the East.

    Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler for one simple reason - the armed forces of Britain by the mid-30s were the "naked king". Even the fleet predecessors managed to bring their budget cuts to the Invergordon mutiny. And the Air Force and the army were a pitiful, heartbreaking sight. Under Chamberin, the situation began to improve, but what had been destroyed in a decade and a half could not be so easily corrected. Therefore, Chamberlain in 1938 made the same decision as Stalin in 1939 - to exchange the countries of Europe for at least some time to prepare for war. Chamberlain's statements have been preserved in which he directly described his policy: war is inevitable, but Britain must enter it prepared.
    Chamberlain began preparing Britain for war even before he took office, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was a funny picture: the watchdog of the budget constantly increased spending on the armed forces, although he needed to cut them in his position. For which he was mercilessly criticized by opponents in the elections: they say that Mr. Chamberlain spends millions on weapons that the people do not need, offering guns instead of social programs.
    Well, having become prime minister, the "dove of peace" unfolded in full: over 4 years, the military budget of Britain grew 6 (six) times. Alas, the industry failed - the depression and the previous reduction in military orders sharply reduced the military sector, so that even by 1939 the rearmament plans were not fulfilled. However, and so nothing © - Chamberlain's orders began ahead of time to mobilize the military-industrial complex for a future war. In fact, for the first half of the war, the Empire fought with weapons designed and ordered under Chamberlain.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023 12: 19
      Quote: Alexey RA
      In fact, for the first half of the war, the Empire fought with weapons designed and ordered under Chamberlain.

      Bismarck sank Chamberlain's battleships, Chamberlain's fleet won the Battle of the Atlantic, Chamberlain's aircraft won the Battle of Britain.

      In such a situation, it was very difficult for Churchill to blame everything on the dashing 30s, but he managed. Talented person.
      Quote: Alexey RA
      The fleet chose the pre-war limits for aircraft carriers and cruisers and was only waiting for new post-Washington battleships, of which as many as 4 were laid down before the war.

      Let me remind you that both the increase in the tonnage of battleships to Panamax and, in fact, the exit from the London restrictions (the Americans unilaterally increased their tonnage by 20%) were made in the 38th year.

      Another thing is that it was not Hitler who was the scarecrow, but the Japanese.
      1. +2
        25 May 2023 12: 55
        Quote: Negro
        In such a situation, it was very difficult for Churchill to blame everything on the dashing 30s, but he managed.

        It’s just that Chamberlain was unlucky with Munich in terms of PR - as in that joke: but it was worth it once sleep with a sheep sign the Munich Agreement.... smile
        1. 0
          25 May 2023 18: 42
          Quote: Alexey RA
          sign the Munich Agreement....

          You never know who signed all sorts of agreements in those years. But no one had such a talented writer as his successor.
  13. +3
    25 May 2023 12: 09
    Thus, the United States carried out colossal militarization before anyone else in the Western world. Only the Stalinist USSR was before. In Moscow, they perfectly understood where the world was heading. In the United States, a mountain of weapons was riveted by the beginning of World War II, aircraft and ships.

    By the beginning of World War II, the United States had just begun to deploy ground forces from four pre-war divisions to Roosevelt's million. "The Air Force had just ordered new aircraft - the first serial "axes" took off only in March 1940, the first serial "fortresses" - in June 1939 The Navy chose the pre-war limits for aircraft carriers and cruisers and waited only for new post-Washington battleships, of which as many as 4 were laid down before the war.
  14. +2
    25 May 2023 12: 26
    In addition, the war was on foreign territory. Washington used German and Japanese "cannon fodder" to start a world war
    a.
    How so? This "meat" was used by Washington against itself in order to unleash a war?
  15. +4
    25 May 2023 14: 19
    Quote: kor1vet1974
    Was this "meat" used by Washington against itself to start a war?


    Why not? First, they fed the Japanese so that they captured the colonies of European powers and China, in part. Then they provoked the Japanese by arranging an oil embargo for them. The Japanese are a rather convenient enemy, the industrial potential is an order of magnitude smaller than the American one. After the defeat of Japan, the United States, of course, "forgot" to return the former European colonies in Asia to their former owners, including them in the sphere of their interests. It was clearly worth it, the prize is rather big in terms of resources.
    With Germany, it also turned out well. Europeans during WWII mutually weakened each other and the United States became the hegemon in Western Europe. Germany and England (the former superpower) became vassals of the Yankees.
    Everything fits well.
    1. +2
      25 May 2023 14: 40
      Europeans during WWII mutually weakened each other and the United States became the hegemon in Western Europe.
      Why did the United States need Japan to attack them? What goodies did they get in the Pacific Ocean? Could they sit quietly and wait for how things would end? weapons? And then, since 1937, Japan has already been at war with China, looking at other territories. Did Japan diligently avoid war with the United States, and the United States, all provoked and provoked it?
      1. +6
        25 May 2023 16: 19
        Pereslegin, for example, promotes the idea that by provoking Japan, Roosevelt took his isolationists out of the game. And automatically made the United States a world hegemon. They just had to start the war on the side of the winners. But there were powerful internal forces that opposed this. Quite traditional.
        Taking into account the already known result, it is worth agreeing with this.
        1. +2
          25 May 2023 17: 57
          Quote: mmaxx
          They just had to start the war on the side of the winners.

          The entry of the United States into the war automatically made the side on which they entered the winner. smile
          The main thing was to drag out the war until the completion of the mobilization of industry and the start of the exit from the factories of the first serial products of orders for 1938-1941. Because no one could compete with the mobilized American industry.
          Quote: mmaxx
          But there were powerful internal forces that opposed this. Quite traditional.

          There, the whole difference was that the isolationists proposed to fight with proxy and American weapons, and the Rooseveltists - to directly get into the war with the forces of the army and navy, so that participation in the next post-war redistribution of the world would not be disputed by any of the winners.
  16. +1
    25 May 2023 14: 24
    Quote: Alexey RA
    By the beginning of World War II, the United States had just begun to deploy ground forces from four pre-war divisions to Roosevelt's million. "The Air Force had just ordered new aircraft -


    The later you put ships and planes into production, the more modern and perfect they will be. The Yankees could afford not to hurry, the geographical position made them almost invulnerable. Taking into account the combat experience of others, they could create the most advanced models of weapons, which, moreover, were tested on foreign fronts as part of the Lend-Lease.
    1. +3
      25 May 2023 15: 58
      Quote: Illanatol
      The later you put ships and planes into production, the more modern and perfect they will be.

      In the presence of a developed industry - yes.
      But the problem is that at the beginning of World War II, US industry was designed for a peacetime army and not very large export orders. For the military-industrial complex arr. 39, an order for 524 P-40 fighters was considered huge. Moreover, it was not possible to fulfill it: out of 524 machines, only 200 managed to be produced, and then production had to be interrupted, since the factory facilities were occupied with a priority order for 140 fighters for France (France surrendered before receiving the first machine, and the aircraft went to the British). And 155 "fortresses" in 5 years was considered a normal rate of production.
      In other areas, the situation was no better. The US industry completely thwarted the order for anti-aircraft artillery - in the same Pearl Harbor, out of 120 regular 37-mm MZA, only 20 were available. And the fleet was forced even on battleships to put 76-mm guns from the times of the First World War into MZA nests. Field artillery ... even in mid-1942, the 1st DMP, which went into battle, received only half of its howitzers.
      In general, the US military-industrial complex mobilized in the year that way by 1943. And at the beginning of WWII, he suffered from the same problems as the rest of the Allies.

      And yes - how modern and perfect was the basic P-40 in mid-1939? Well, let's say, against the backdrop of "Sleep" ... wink
  17. +2
    25 May 2023 16: 14
    Well ......, the fleet in the United States before the war was built under the London Agreement. And there were no tanks at all.
    1. +3
      25 May 2023 18: 11
      Quote: mmaxx
      Well ......, the fleet in the United States before the war was built under the London Agreement. And there were no tanks at all.

      Formally, the tanks were - light M2 of various modifications. The technical level is something like a vozidlo model 35 with the evolution of weapons like the T-26. Plus, in 1939, the production of the medium M2 began.

      The naming system of American weapons never ceases to please - the M2 light tank and the M2 medium tank were followed by the M3 light tank and the M3 medium tank. laughing
      1. 0
        26 May 2023 11: 59
        For the end of the 30s, these were no longer tanks. Yes, and the amount was measured ..... in general, a penny. And so, not tanks, but beauty! Everything is as it should be: wheels, rivets, etc. machine guns - a modeler's dream.
      2. 0
        27 May 2023 16: 03
        The naming system of American weapons never ceases to please - the M2 light tank and the M2 medium tank were followed by the M3 light tank and the M3 medium tank. laughing
        +++++++
        I recall an old joke
        Intel engineers, having developed the next, after 486 processor, came to marketers.
        What should we call the new processor?
        Easily. Marketers answered, call it Pentium.
        The engineers liked it. They came back a year later
        Pentium2!!
        Thank you
        No matter what, come back.
        And they did come.
        ;)
  18. +4
    25 May 2023 17: 59
    I wonder where the author got from that the United States accumulated a mountain of weapons before WWII? Planes, tanks... They didn't have shit. They even at the request of the British could not give anything. There is a book called "Mysteries of Lend-Lease". Everything is very well described there. For the whole of 1939, the United States produced only 2100 aircraft. Production grew slowly. There were almost no tanks. Stettinius Edward frankly said that until the end of 1942, the United States supplied frankly bad equipment. When Roosevelt said in 1940 that 50000 planes should be produced a year, it simply stunned everyone.
  19. +1
    25 May 2023 18: 48
    Alexander, thanks!
    But why in such an article is there a comparison with the 90s of the USSR?
    And the syllable... You can write for adults, but here you get a simplified text, as for the middle classes of a high school.
  20. -3
    25 May 2023 20: 39
    Reference pseudo-Marxist hanging noodles over the ears. Though in the chamber of measures and weights.

    The First World War smoothed out the crisis phenomena in the capitalist system only for a short time. Already in 1929, the Great Depression began in America.

    It sounds like the war solved the problems for a while, and then came withdrawal like a drug addict until the next war. That's bullshit! On the contrary, WWI almost immediately led to an economic crisis, the so-called. depression of 20-21 years, about which the author does not write anything at all.

    Overproduction, falling demand.

    Another Marxist nonsense. Overproduction is synonymous with underconsumption. This concept could have at least some meaning if the proletarians were the majority of the population and, as the beard-bearer predicted, continued to become poor absolutely and relatively.

    Goods and food were simply burned, drowned, destroyed, because people did not have money to buy them.

    If the goods are too expensive and are not sold, they begin to become cheaper. If you manually adjust prices to interfere with this process, the crisis will drag on artificially. Blame, of course, a kind of "capitalism".

    When the crisis broke out, it turned out that there is no social legislation in the United States. No pensions or unemployment benefits.

    At the same time, they survived the previous crises safely.

    But in the US, the situation was no better.

    Much better.

    The Republicans endlessly balanced the budget, reduced spending items, did not want to allocate funds for state programs for the development of new industries, assistance to the village. They focused on ensuring low inflation and the stability of the dollar.

    Sounds reasonable. The Americans went through the previous crisis after WWI relatively easily, after which they developed rapidly throughout the 20s. The problems began just when this policy was abandoned.

    Roosevelt could not overcome it without a radical restructuring of the entire system, following the model of the USSR, where there was no crisis during this period.

    In the USSR, throughout the 30s there was a continuous crisis, up to mass starvation and executions. Roosevelt, fortunately, could not break his country either.

    It's about the capitalist system itself.

    Throwing general meaningless phrases that give only the appearance of understanding is intellectually unscrupulous. Behind the plywood decoration of a certain "system" are two specific people who pushed through a stupid law that worsened trade. According to some estimates, they exacerbated the depression, according to others, they created it altogether.
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%A1%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B0_%E2%80%94_%D0%A5%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%B8_%D0%BE_%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B5
    1. +1
      26 May 2023 08: 52
      Quote from: geraet4501
      At the same time, they survived the previous crises safely.

      )))
      Separately, it is amusing that Herbert Hoover, who fed several million Russians, in his country, becoming president, suddenly sharply drowned for cannibalism. How life has turned out.
  21. +1
    26 May 2023 07: 38
    Quote: kor1vet1974
    Why did the United States need Japan to attack them? What goodies did they get in the Pacific Ocean? Could they sit quietly and wait for how things would end? weapons? And then, since 1937, Japan has already been at war with China, looking at other territories. Did Japan diligently avoid war with the United States, and the United States, all provoked and provoked it?


    And then, so that the US could start an open war against Japan. In the United States, supporters of "isolationism" were strong, it was necessary to cause a surge of chauvinistic sentiments: "the insidious Asians attacked us suddenly, killed our poor sailors, we need to arrange an epic revenge on them."
    And how could the matter have ended if the United States had not intervened? The samurai would easily bend the British and French, take away their colonies, over time, having received so many resources, they would create a powerful industrial potential and become too strong. We need to bend them before they master the conquered territories.
    And how could one lay one's paw on the former European colonies and dominions without openly entering the war?
  22. 0
    26 May 2023 07: 55
    Quote: Alexey RA
    In the presence of a developed industry - yes.
    But the problem is that at the beginning of World War II, US industry was designed for a peacetime army and not very large export orders.


    There was no problem. Since the industry in those days, without much effort, switched from civilian products to military ones. Especially if the products were close or similar functionally. Civilian aircraft, combat aircraft...many parts and components are similar.
    The civil auto industry, aircraft industry and shipbuilding in the United States were fully developed. Redirecting them to the production of military products is much easier than creating a "defense industry" from scratch.

    The United States already had a program for a sharp increase in its military potential, and developed both aviation and navy. How many aircraft carriers did they have on the eve of Pearl Harbor?
    And the ground forces in the war, for which the United States was really preparing, were less significant. In mass battles on land, let others shed blood for American interests.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    In general, the US military-industrial complex mobilized in the year that way by 1943. And at the beginning of WWII, he suffered from the same problems as the rest of the Allies.

    And yes - how modern and perfect was the basic P-40 in mid-1939? Well, let's say, against the backdrop of "Sleep" ...


    Earlier, at least a year. Fortunately, Lend-Lease did not start exactly in 1943, but much earlier. And thanks to him, it was possible to increase the power of the US military-industrial complex.
    And the United States, unlike its allies, could afford not to be too hasty, being much less vulnerable to external aggression.

    And in the middle of 1939, did the Royal Air Force have many Spitfires?
    The British had to fight mainly on less advanced "Hurricanes", which were also far from super.
    And the first versions of the "spitfires" also had their weaknesses and shortcomings (the weapons were weak at first, the Yankees never suffered like this). These fighters had to be constantly improved, new modifications were made to compare with the "Messers" and "Fokkers" (which also did not stand still).
    1. +2
      26 May 2023 08: 35
      Quote: Illanatol
      armament was weak at first, Yankee planes never suffered like this

      You are wrong. For the 40th year, these are basically the same rifle-caliber machine guns. In 41, spirits were already mostly cannon, and the Americans remained machine-gun (but already .50) even in Korea.
      How many aircraft carriers did they have on the eve of Pearl Harbor?

      Seven (and even then with reservations). At the end of the 41st, this is not a record.
    2. 0
      26 May 2023 12: 28
      Quote: Illanatol
      Since the industry in those days, without much effort, switched from civilian products to military ones. Especially if the products were close or similar functionally. Civilian aircraft, combat aircraft...many parts and components are similar.

      However, even the US industry made such a transition only in 1942. Before that - "too little and too late."
      In 1940, the US aviation industry delivered 1771 combat aircraft. In 1942, this figure did not even reach the monthly production - in just a year 24669 combat aircraft were produced.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And the United States, unlike its allies, could afford not to be too hasty, being much less vulnerable to external aggression.

      The United States had one problem - in addition to their army, they needed to supply two more. Balancing between Lend-Lease and the deployment of your army in 1941 was akin to a passage between Scylla and Charybdis: on the one hand, you need to prevent the defeat of Runway No. 1, and on the other, disgruntled US Army generals who need to form new units and who have First, they took away ready-made equipment and weapons from the arsenals, and then they began to select orders placed at factories for new equipment. The same army aviation at the beginning of 1941, by threatening to reach Congress, knocked out of the FDR a decision to allocate 50% of the production of new aircraft for itself.
      The scale of production in 1941 was such that a hundred "Liberators" of the British order, confiscated in December 1941, doubled the number of US heavy aircraft. smile
      Quote: Illanatol
      The United States already had a program for a sharp increase in its military potential, and developed both aviation and navy. How many aircraft carriers did they have on the eve of Pearl Harbor?

      As much as was allowed by interwar treaties. The only over-limit AB was the "Hornet" - but until February 1942 it underwent a course of combat training.
      And the Essex conveyor began to produce products only in 1943.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And in the middle of 1939, did the Royal Air Force have many Spitfires?

      It doesn't matter how much. It is important that in 1939 "sleeping" was already a serial combatant fighter. And the "ax" had just been put into production - and it ended up in combat units only in 1940.
      Quote: Illanatol
      And the first versions of the "spitfires" also had their weaknesses and shortcomings (the weapons were weak at first, the Yankees never suffered like this).

      R-40 "clean" order of 1939 - these are 4 machine guns: 2 x 12,7 mm and 2 x 7,62 mm.
      Wing batteries 12,7 are P-40D, which appeared only in the middle of 1941.
  23. 0
    26 May 2023 09: 43
    25 years ago, I was surprised to find that, logically, Great Britain simply had to attack the States in 1932. And the States organized two of their fighting hamsters against Great Britain: the USSR and Germany. Germany turned out to be too successful, and in order to neutralize the Germans of excess potential, it was set against the USSR.
    .
    I think if the Anglo-French had turned out to be stronger in 1940, then we would have seen the USSR as an ally of Germany. For us, the option would be the best, but ... Who would Germany attack after defeating England? The question of neutralizing the excess potential of fighting hamsters would still remain. So Stalin, it turns out, met the war in the best possible geopolitical configuration.
  24. 0
    26 May 2023 14: 05
    Quote: Alexey RA
    However, even the US industry made such a transition only in 1942. Before that - "too little and too late."
    In 1940, the US aviation industry delivered 1771 combat aircraft. In 1942, this figure did not even reach the monthly production - in just a year 24669 combat aircraft were produced.


    So what?
    Why - "too late" in 1940? And even in 1941 (until December)?
    With whom was the United States really at war then? It certainly wasn't "too late" for them.
    VPK is the tip of the iceberg. And to create and deploy it at full capacity is not so difficult and long if there is already an "underwater part" available (engineering, instrumentation, non-ferrous and ferrous metallurgy, chemical industry, etc.). So I don't see any problems for the Yankees. And why didn’t they launch the production of weapons earlier - after all, it was necessary to overcome the resistance of the isolationists, who blocked the financing of military programs, until after Pearl Harbor the “noble rage” boiled over there.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    The United States had one problem - in addition to their army, they needed to supply two more.


    And this is not a problem, on the contrary, a good help.
    1. Approbation of weapons in foreign armies made it possible to improve it for our own too. There is nothing more valuable than real combat experience. An example is the "aircobra" fighter, which got rid of some of its shortcomings thanks to the extensive practice of using the USSR Air Force. Well, the Sherman tank was also noticeably improved by 1944, when the Yankees themselves began to use it en masse.
    2. The increase in mass production contributes to its profitability. Military equipment, like any equipment, is simply more profitable to produce in large quantities, which reduces the cost. And of course, the supply of their aircraft for the Yankees was the highest priority. Tanks, by and large, they did not need in large numbers, so they sent them to the allies. But bombers were less willingly included in deliveries, they themselves were needed.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    As much as was allowed by interwar treaties.


    That is, to the maximum that they could have. Which is clearly not evidence of pacifism.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    It is important that in 1939 "sleeping" was already a serial combatant fighter. And the "ax" had just been put into production - and it ended up in combat units only in 1940


    The British, presumably, then thought differently and clearly wanted to have more of them. Since in 1939 they already had to make war and drape from Dunkirk. And in 1940, the Yankees enjoyed a peaceful life with might and main.
    There is a difference?

    Quote: Alexey RA
    R-40 "clean" order of 1939 - these are 4 machine guns: 2 x 12,7 mm and 2 x 7,62 mm.


    It is necessary to compare the armament of a fighter with the armament of an enemy fighter, which they had at the time when they really began to fight. The armament of the "evil" was cannon, but was it stronger than that of the Messers, especially the Fokkers? I'm already silent about the weapons of the "Hurricanes ...

    As for the P-40, it was prepared for the war in the Pacific in the first place. Was the armament of Japanese fighters in 1939 stronger or weaker? Go ahead, jeeps also used "Brownings" then, God knows what a powerful trunk.
    And the "zero" had not yet appeared. (it seems like in 1940 they went into the series, hence the name). In 1939, the Japanese could fly biplanes.

    As you know, strength and weakness are comparative categories.
  25. +1
    26 May 2023 14: 17
    Quote: also a doctor
    And the States organized two of their fighting hamsters against Great Britain: the USSR and Germany. Germany turned out to be too successful, and in order to neutralize the Germans of excess potential, it was set against the USSR.
    .
    I think if the Anglo-French had turned out to be stronger in 1940, then we would have seen the USSR as an ally of Germany. For us, the option would be the best, but ... Who would Germany attack after defeating England? The question of neutralizing the excess potential of fighting hamsters would still remain. So Stalin, it turns out, met the war in the best possible geopolitical configuration.


    No, definitely. Yes, the Reich was bred against England and France - that's right. He was bound to weaken the European powers by making it easier for the US to take control of Europe.
    The USSR was initially preparing for the role of pacifying the excessive ambitions of the Germans (from the position of the United States).
    The British also greatly contributed to the strengthening of Germany, turning a blind eye to the violation of the Versailles restrictions by the Germans. They hoped to set Hitler against the USSR, in which they saw the main threat. They were even ready to sacrifice France for this purpose if Hitler did the right job.
    Hitler wanted the conquest of Russia and the defeat of France. In England, he wanted to see his ally (Hess's mission). However, such an alliance was extremely unprofitable for the United States (in this case, they would have no place in Europe), therefore it was impossible under any circumstances.

    The USSR and the Reich could not become real allies, except perhaps as temporary fellow travelers. If France and England had been stronger in 1940 and the war on the Western Front had become protracted, the USSR could have revived its military alliance with France (killed by the Munich deal), broken the PMR and opened a Second Front against the Reich. I suppose Stalin hoped for this scenario, but alas ...