My guess is that TYRTAIOS is spot on with his comment that the US realized that the French and British did not possess the physical means to sustain the type of operation necessary to assist the rebels in Libya. The requirement was for a depth in capability that was just not there.

But why should the British or French or anybody else for that matter make the enormous financial commitment to possess such depth? Neither Britain or France or any other European country are global powers in this day and age and the Americans seem quite willing to both pick the tab and supply the capability.

Even with the proposed cuts in our own military our capabilities will be vastly greater than any combination of allies could even be compared to. I can see the logic of France, Germany and Britain remodeling their military to very capable, high tech but small special operations forces with a common conventional underpinning of joint EU forces.

why spend national treasure when you can get the other guy to spend the proponderance of it, who is also earger to hold an umbrella over you should it rain?

The issue with it raining however is, that sometimes, someone is peeing down your backside, and telling you it's raining out. . .although, you have to admit, we did a good job getting the British, and French, to believe that it was raining in Afghanistan. . .misery loves company in a fox hole filling-up with water. . .but water in a fox hole is subjective, having swam in a few indoor pools in my time.

Nice rant uh?

"T" it must be snowing like hell up there in 'God's country' for such a waggish 'rant', time on your hands? :-)

Did we all get on the bus to Abilene?

Sounds plausible.

LUVMY91STANG. So what you are implying that the USA had no beef with the Nazi’s? Perhaps you think we allied up with the Brit’s who held the line by themselves while we dithered because of our great moral sense of right and wrong and generosity of spirit?

"So what you are implying that the USA had no beef with the Nazi’s?"

'm opening myself up to a flame, I know, for trying to answer your question while admitting that I'm not up on the intricacies of America's pre-WWII diplomacy regarding Germany. But here's my admittedly non-specialist impression:

As far as the US was concerned, Germany's moves in Europe before Pearl Harbor (when Hitler amazingly declared war on the US!) did not threaten US interests. Germany's moves into Czechoslovakia and Austria were ostensibly to reunite with significant Germanic populations in those countries. In Poland, it was ostensibly about regaining territory stripped away by the Versailles Treaty. The war with France and Britain occured because those two countries, as allies of Poland, declared war on Germany. So...all this could be seen as just the usual European "fun and games" by Isolationists in America, of whom there were very many, and there was nothing compelling enough to bring the US into another European war. The persecution of the Jews in Germany in the 1930's was known, but it seems that the reaction of the US was to facilitate Jewish emigration out of Germany, rather than think about going to war. The fact of the Holocaust and death camps became known only after the US had already entered into WW2 in Europe.

So....to answer your question: I think the US had no "beef with the Nazi's" until Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. Before that, America was content to sit on the sidelines and watch the Europeans fight among themselves as they had been doing every generation since the Thirty Years War. Once Hitler declared war on the US, then it was a totally different ball game. (Two of Hitler's greatest strategic blunders: invading Russia and declaring war on the US?)

FG42, that is pure eyewash. I am a little surprise (actually on second thought having read some of your previous rather glutinous apologies of Hitlerism I guess I am not surprised) that you see nine years of Nazi barbarism and atrocities leading up to Dec. 12, 1941 as just business as usual. Western Europe from Norway to France at least stood for some reflection of civilization. I ask you what did the vile vicious German-Nazi hoards stood for? Beethoven, Goethe?

The German people allowed themselves to become slaves to a regime of monsters and criminals and celebrated it as long as they thought they were winning. They morally and ethically disgraced themselves. I am sorry to see that you think the Nazi’s made a mistake in turning on their erstwhile allies the Soviets and declaring war against the United States. It seems that you may feel had they not done these things the legacy of Nazism would survive to this day?

Calm down, JWREL. My point is what the US knew during those years, not what we know today. Looking back now, of course our entry into WW2 in Europe was indeed a Great Crusade, in Roosevelt's and Eisenhower's words. But if your original question was why the US entered in 1941 and not 1939, then my previous post tried to answer the question. And my answer was that knowing what it did at that time, there was nothing going on in Europe that was such a threat to US interests as to justify crossing the Atlantic again. Of course you remember that in the US at that time there were a great many Isolationists. And indeed there were a number of Americans who thought the Nazi regime had done a great job in Germany (controlled runaway inflation, created jobs, fixed the national infrastructure, etc., etc.). This is not me speaking, JWREL, it's what many Americans (like Charles Lindbergh) were saying at the time. Unless you have another theory, which I'd love to hear, it appears that what brought the US into the war was Germany's declaration of war shortly after Pearl Harbor.

JPWREL,

I agree with your sentiments, and am not trying to be an apologist for Germany, but how much of that is revisionist?

Did Americans in the 1930s view the rise of Nazism with the same awareness and concern about the brutality of the movement -- or did that reality not become apparent until late in the war?

I don't believe there was -- in 1939 -- the same realization of what Nazi Germany was about that there was in 1945 when U.S. Forces started liberating concentration camps. Virulent anti-semitism and pogroms against Jews in the 1930s was deplorable, but not unheard of in Europe -- and would not have been a justification for a US declaration of war. Up until 1940, Russia had done worse, and we didn't go to war against them (apart from the short involvement in the 1920s, which was unrelated to Communist excesses).

Was Nazi militarism considered exponentially worse than Prussian militarism, or was it just a modern interpretation of the same? (I ask this out of curiosity -- not rhetorically)

The US was preoccupied with the Depression (and the Bolveshiks?) and probably didn't have a real sense of what was in store under Nazi occupation. That doesn't make it right, but does explain the slow U.S. response.

Forgot to ask in the comment I most recently posted: which of my previous blog comments did you interpret as being "apologies for Hitlerism"? I'm certainly not a neo-Nazi or any other flavor of fascist, so I'd be appalled if anything I wrote previously gave you that impression. If I did so, then I need to clean up my writing style. So please point out to me what you're referring to, so I can take the appropriate action. Thanks.

President Roosevelt saw the heritage of the English speaking peoples threatened. Our neighbor, Canada was a member of the British Commonwealth and Canadian and some American aviators were fighting in the RAF. We were an isolationist country with key Sennators against any involvement abroad. Meanwhile, Roosevelt was doing everything he could, legally, to help Great Britain. There were German-American Bund rallies in this country and Lindberg wasn't merely an isolationist, the dumbass liked Hitler.

So, we had Lend Lease where we "loaned" Great Britain ancient cargo ships and some WWI 4-stacker destroyers. Rifles and pistols and "Tommy Guns" were donated, collected, and delivered to GB. They were issued to the Home Guard. Roosevelt began escorting all nations freighters as far as Iceland where the Brits picked the conveys up. Guys, our President was all but going to war. The President began "Neutrality Patrols" in September 1939 and our Navy said that the Coast Guard had ships better suited to long mid-ocean patrols so USCG Secretary Class cutters took up the patrols. The most famous of these was the cutter Campbell. Roosevelt was backing us into WWII and GB was the "last bastion of democracy" in Europe. We were to become "the arsenal of democracy." And Great Britain was coming under seige.

Our sanctions and Japan's Imperial lust led to Pearl Harbor. Since high school I have been convinced that President Roosevelt purposely delayed warning the Navy headquatered on Oahu, Hawaii. Just as he and the Secretary of State delayed seeing the Japanese Ambassador until Pearl Harbor had already been attacked - "A day which will live in infamy." Roosevelt was appalled at the casualties as he never envisioned the diaster Pearl Harbor would become.

Pearl Harbor was the necessary spark that awakened America's engine of war. And then, the war in Europe was given priority. See the strategic plan? Until this moment, Europe had been the scientific leader of the world. Things would begin to change. This country, in a depression, was awakened in many ways and its population was drawn into the war by a President who viewed saving Europe as essential to our long-term survival. Well, that's how I saw things.

Very interesting. So I take away two conclusions from your recap of history:

1. President Roosevelt was way ahead of the electorate in wanting to go to war in Europe. He was waiting for an event that would justify war, probably the sinking of an American freighter running the German blockade of Britain (as happened in WW1). Luckily for Roosevelt, Germany gave him the perfect opening, when Hitler declared war on the US right after Pearl Harbor.

2. Roosevelt's primary reason for wanting war was to re-energize American industry and its economy. Maybe he even visualized America becoming the world's economic and military powerhouse....nothing like a war to pump up an economy. I don't know about this one, RVN. Did Roosevelt actually foresee how much the war benefited the US? Or was his motivation primarily what you said: solidarity with the English-speaking Commonwealth?

It is my opinion that he was concerned with saving the British Commonwealth because that was our heritage. I have never heard that he foresaw how awakening the sleeping giant would turn out he just knew that it was necessary. Ironically, Admiral Yamamoto knew. I don't know the trade data for those pre-war years, but I suspect that Great Britain and Europe were our primary trading partners. I do think the President expressed antipathy for a Europe under Herr Hitler's boot. Some people feared that our independence would be threatened by a Nazi-dominated Europe. That fear was based upon our self-image as a weak and depressed nation. Winston galvanized Great Britain and the "sneak attack" on Pearl Harbor, "a day which will live in infamy" galvanized our country.

Our productivity in WWII is unrivaled today. The number of Liberty ships produced per week by a single Kaiser shipyard is incredible. As they were sunk by U-boats, they were easily replaced. Many of the capital ships sunk at Pearl Harbor were raised, rebuilt, and fought throughout the war. This productivity was matched by the burgeoning aircraft industry. And, of course, no one predicted the strength and resilience of the greatest generation.

It is my opinion that this country would not have awakened so completely had it not been for Pearl Harbor. Lastly, both during the war and immediately after the war, we paid for the education of a generation of college students. Think of their impact on this country. None of this could have been envisioned. All because Roosevelt did not want to see Great Britain subjugated by "a bunch of thugs and criminals."