One of the Lies Behind fdr's Concentration Camps

[browsing deer]

The US historically had a miniscule army and a micro navy. The navy was kept small by treaty. This is the way politicians in both parties wanted it. FDR did what the the people wanted

After the World went crazy and the shooting started FDR knew soon or late the US would be involved. We were too rich and too tiny a military to stay out. FDR began a crash program of preparedness, but it was too little. People in the US didn't want to get involved in Europe, even less did we want to get involved in Asia.

The Japanese and German high command didn't realize how much economic capacity we had.

The Navy was not 'kept small' by treaty. I presume you are speaking of the Washington Naval Treaty

The scrapping of existing or planned capital ships to give a 5:51.75:1.75 ratio of tonnage with Britain, the United States, Japan, France and Italy respectively.

So by treaty- the United States was to be the same size as Great Britain- and larger than that of Japan.

And the Japanese high command was aware of the American industrial capabalities

Isoroku Yamamoto, who later masterminded the Attack on Pearl Harbor, argued that Japan should remain in the treaty. His opinion was more complex, however, in that he believed the United States could outproduce Japan by a greater factor than the 5:3 ratio because of the huge US production advantage of which he was an expert since he had served with the Japanese Embassy in Washington. "Anyone who has seen the auto factories in Detroit and the oil-fields in Texas", he commented after the signing of the treaty, "knows that Japan lacks the power for a naval race with America."

Hitler dismissed the American industrial capacity- it is doubtful that the rest of the German high command did. One of Hitler more stupid mistakes was to declare war on the United States.

They really should have listened to Yamamoto.
Foreigners believe we are sieve of secrets. We kept the secret of knowing their diplomatic codes.

 

[Camp]

SO what?

Here's the thing. The Germans and Italians, besides being much larger ethnic groups, weren't the ones who bombed Pearl Harbor.

The very fact Trump can propel himself to the top of the GOP heap playing on fears of Mexicans and Muslims today gives you an idea of what FDR was dealing with in 1942. People were damned scared. the looked out at that big Pacific Ocean and for all they knew, a Japanese Battleship could show up off the coast and start shelling them.

We didn't slaughter the Japanese. We relocated them out of a possible war zone, and most of them were released within a year.

Y'all need to quit whining about it. Other ethnicities have much more valid complaints.

So what? The facts are there were 5 socialist experiments run in the 1930's. Germany, Italy, The Soviet Union, Japan, and the USA. Other than the Japanese who simply murdered anyone they didn't like, they ALL resorted to the use of concentration camps. All of them. A thinking person would ask themselves why progressives resort to camps and mass murder to further their goals if their goals were so damned good.

You are comparing US internment camps to Nazi death camps and the Soviet Gulag. You are actually making the assertion that American internment camps committed mass murders.

The only difference between us and them is the fact that Americans at that time were more ethical and cared more about human beings (several thousand Japanese still died in the camps however). They had not been under the thumb of progressivism long enough for that to have been beaten out of them. We get people like that in government from time to time. But they are vastly outnumbered by the regular people in government. Progressivism however promotes that sort of thing so humanity, and caring about human life, is not a progressive trait.

If it were there wouldn't be the murder of over 100 million people to their credit.

Your claim that thousands of Japanese died in internment camps appears to be an outrageous lie. My research indicates about a dozen deaths from altercations and escaping attempts and a handful of deaths from what was judged as inadequate medical attention. These are similar numbers as would have occurred in any regular city of the same population except for the escape attempts which are not differentiated from altercations in the research I have seen.
Show a link to substantiate your claim of thousands of Japanese dying while in the camps.

Below are some sources for you to look at. The nominal death toll is around 2200. The problem is there weren't great records kept for obvious reasons. Auschwitz had more Jews die from starvation and poor medical care than were actually outright murdered. The same is true in the Internment camps. The majority of the Japanese died from stress, inability to cope with the change in weather they were subjected to by being taken from the lush coast and deposited in the arid desert.

The majority of the Japanese died due to neglect and emotional distress. None of which would have occurred if your hero hadn't ripped them from their homes, put them on trains and shipped them to parts unknown. All in direct violation of their Civil Rights which, we all know, you progressives hate.

Kent, Deborah. The tragic history of the Japanese Internment Camps. New Jersey: n.p., 2008. Print. 5

“Relocation Camps.” Relocation Camps. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 May 2010. <http://mcel.pacificu.edu/‌as/‌students/‌lwash/‌camps.html>. 3

Japanese American Internment Camps. United Streaming, 2003. United Streaming. Web. 5 May 2010. <http://player.discoveryeducation.com/‌index.cfm?
guidAssetId=9CA33ABC-605D-4B10-A121-E408661DD637&blnFromSearch=1&productcode=US>. 6

Home | Japanese American National Museum

The only link you provided that works is the one to the museum and there is nothing there in regards to deaths at intenment camps that I could find.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not a single battleship was sunk at Pearl Harbor.

They just liked resting on the harbor bottom?
Lord people are so ignorant of history.

I provided a link explaining how the ships hulls, resting on the harbor bottom, protruded above the water which enabled them to be salvaged and repaired. Read the link for the details and specifics for each ship.

Salvaged after being SUNK.
2 ships were not sunk at Pearl Harbor, they were "lost in action"? Where do you get your comedy from?

I am using definitions used by the US Navy and I provided a link to make my case. I can not force a person to read a link. If you want to use your own made up definition you have a right to do so. I prefer using actual definitions instead of made up ones.
Here is the link again.

historynewsnetwork.org/article/32489

No, your link is to the personal opinions of one person. If you want to argue that a ship underwater sitting in the bottom is not sunk, then Orwell was right.

 

[Unkotare]

The US historically had a miniscule army and a micro navy. The navy was kept small by treaty. This is the way politicians in both parties wanted it. FDR did what the the people wanted

.

Bullshit he did. He lied and said what he thought the people wanted to hear.



Btw, the US Navy was the largest in the world by 1920.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR was a politician first and foremost. IF FDR had expanded the military to the size required we would be talking about president Wilkie. He liked being president, and he didn't believe the Japanese would retaliate like that.

Yes he did.

 

[Unkotare]

....

FDR took office- unemployment was about 30%
FDR died- unemployment was virtually zero......

Because we were at war, not because of his irresponsible economic policies.

And those 'irresponsible economic policies'?

Oh lets see- massive government spending on buying stuff- which led to employment, and massive government spending on giving Americans government paid for jobs.

Yep- ended the Depression.

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

His policies prolonged recovery in private industry and business and for the investor class. The New Deal policies and programs speeded up recovery for the masses and working class. Those policies and programs were used for decades by every President and Congress that followed. Some of them are still being used today. The benefits of the of the trickle up policies are still being used today for sure.

The Great Depression, like all depressions, hurt working people the most, so prolonging it hurt them the most.

 

[Unkotare]

....

FDR took office- unemployment was about 30%
FDR died- unemployment was virtually zero......

Because we were at war, not because of his irresponsible economic policies.

And those 'irresponsible economic policies'?

Oh lets see- massive government spending on buying stuff- which led to employment, and massive government spending on giving Americans government paid for jobs.

Yep- ended the Depression.

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

Yet the very same spending you claim prolonged the Depression- ended the Depression.

Exactly wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

....

FDR took office- unemployment was about 30%
FDR died- unemployment was virtually zero......

Because we were at war, not because of his irresponsible economic policies.

And those 'irresponsible economic policies'?

Oh lets see- massive government spending on buying stuff- which led to employment, and massive government spending on giving Americans government paid for jobs.

Yep- ended the Depression.

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

His policies prolonged recovery in private industry and business and for the investor class. The New Deal policies and programs speeded up recovery for the masses and working class. Those policies and programs were used for decades by every President and Congress that followed. Some of them are still being used today. The benefits of the of the trickle up policies are still being used today for sure.

The Great Depression, like all depressions, hurt working people the most, so prolonging it hurt them the most.

Well the ones hurt most were the unworking people.

The working people- and unworking people- hurt most by the depression- were the ones helped most by Roosevelt- which is why he was so popular among with American voters.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Fact remains FDR left our military unprepared for a war that was obviously coming.
And except for a lot of lucky breaks, would have lost both the Pacific and European Theaters.

Actually, we were remarkably well prepared, considering the isolationist stance of the United States. War just came about 1 year too early.

The United States had already started the draft, had one of the largest navies in the World, and most of the aircraft and equipment we fought with in WW2 had either been put into production(the B-17) or had been designed and would be in production(P-51).

FDR dragged the United States rather unwillingly into preparing for WW2 at a time when the country was firmly isolationist.

There is no chance we would have lost in the Pacific- even if we had lost our carriers at Pearl or at Midway, our building program was already churning out ships and planes that the Japanese could not hope to keep up with.

And by 1945 we would have had the atomic bomb.

We didn't succeed because of lucky breaks- we won some key battles with some lucky breaks- but the war we won because of our troops and our industrial war production- led by FDR.

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

 

[westwall]

The US historically had a miniscule army and a micro navy. The navy was kept small by treaty. This is the way politicians in both parties wanted it. FDR did what the the people wanted

.

Bullshit he did. He lied and said what he thought the people wanted to hear.



Btw, the US Navy was the largest in the world by 1920.

And mainly obsolete. In that era a Dreadnought class of warship was virtually untouchable by a pre-dreadnought class of ship.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, we were remarkably well prepared, considering the isolationist stance of the United States. War just came about 1 year too early.

The United States had already started the draft, had one of the largest navies in the World, and most of the aircraft and equipment we fought with in WW2 had either been put into production(the B-17) or had been designed and would be in production(P-51).

FDR dragged the United States rather unwillingly into preparing for WW2 at a time when the country was firmly isolationist.

There is no chance we would have lost in the Pacific- even if we had lost our carriers at Pearl or at Midway, our building program was already churning out ships and planes that the Japanese could not hope to keep up with.

And by 1945 we would have had the atomic bomb.

We didn't succeed because of lucky breaks- we won some key battles with some lucky breaks- but the war we won because of our troops and our industrial war production- led by FDR.

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

The war turned after Midway in June 42

 

[westwall]

Actually, we were remarkably well prepared, considering the isolationist stance of the United States. War just came about 1 year too early.

The United States had already started the draft, had one of the largest navies in the World, and most of the aircraft and equipment we fought with in WW2 had either been put into production(the B-17) or had been designed and would be in production(P-51).

FDR dragged the United States rather unwillingly into preparing for WW2 at a time when the country was firmly isolationist.

There is no chance we would have lost in the Pacific- even if we had lost our carriers at Pearl or at Midway, our building program was already churning out ships and planes that the Japanese could not hope to keep up with.

And by 1945 we would have had the atomic bomb.

We didn't succeed because of lucky breaks- we won some key battles with some lucky breaks- but the war we won because of our troops and our industrial war production- led by FDR.

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

Untrue. June 4-6, the Battle of Midway and we were going on the offensive after that battle. The Japanese were able to get local superiority in limited areas, such as the Guadalcanal area, but after Midway we were primarily on the hunt.

 

[Moonglow]

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

The war turned after Midway

And that was 1942........Japan had no industrial capacity for rebuilding the lost carriers.....

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, we were remarkably well prepared, considering the isolationist stance of the United States. War just came about 1 year too early.

The United States had already started the draft, had one of the largest navies in the World, and most of the aircraft and equipment we fought with in WW2 had either been put into production(the B-17) or had been designed and would be in production(P-51).

FDR dragged the United States rather unwillingly into preparing for WW2 at a time when the country was firmly isolationist.

There is no chance we would have lost in the Pacific- even if we had lost our carriers at Pearl or at Midway, our building program was already churning out ships and planes that the Japanese could not hope to keep up with.

And by 1945 we would have had the atomic bomb.

We didn't succeed because of lucky breaks- we won some key battles with some lucky breaks- but the war we won because of our troops and our industrial war production- led by FDR.

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

Thems a heap big pile of steer manure.

December 7, 1941 Japan attacked the United States.
June 1942- the decisive Battle of Midway- the United States destroyed the majority of Japans carrier fleet and carrier aircraft- the turning point of the Pacific War.
By June of 1942, Japan had reached the peak of its expansion- 6 months after the attack. They had two fleet carriers left in action.
From June 1942 to VE day, Japan was on the losing end of a war of attrition- losing ships, planes and pilots they could not replace while the United States churned out ships that had been started before the war, new planes and pilots.

The U.S. went on the offensive in August 1942 landing at Guadalcanal. All of the invasions from that point onward was by the allies landing against the Japanese.

Why you imagine that the United States was on the run until December 1944 is just bizarrely ignorant.

 

[Weatherman2020]

In 1940 the entire US military consisted of 450,000 men. By 1945 it was at the required 12 million man level required to defeat the enemy.

In the first week of the war Japan had sunk every Allied capital ship in the Pacific by air.

In the first week of the war the entire US Army Air Corp in the Philippines lay in smoldering ruins.

Hardly what I call prepared for war.

And yes, America would have negotiated a treaty with Japan had we lost at Midway.

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

Untrue. June 4-6, the Battle of Midway and we were going on the offensive after that battle. The Japanese were able to get local superiority in limited areas, such as the Guadalcanal area, but after Midway we were primarily on the hunt.

Guadicanal was a defensive move in order to keep the Japanese from cutting off Australia. We could have easily lost when the US Navy was forced to retreat. Two good friends of mine were there.

 

[Unkotare]

Because we were at war, not because of his irresponsible economic policies.

And those 'irresponsible economic policies'?

Oh lets see- massive government spending on buying stuff- which led to employment, and massive government spending on giving Americans government paid for jobs.

Yep- ended the Depression.

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

His policies prolonged recovery in private industry and business and for the investor class. The New Deal policies and programs speeded up recovery for the masses and working class. Those policies and programs were used for decades by every President and Congress that followed. Some of them are still being used today. The benefits of the of the trickle up policies are still being used today for sure.

The Great Depression, like all depressions, hurt working people the most, so prolonging it hurt them the most.

Well the ones hurt most were the unworking people.

The working people- and unworking people- hurt most by the depression- were the ones helped most by Roosevelt- which is why he was so popular among with American voters.

Favorite democrat tactic of manufacturing dependency.

 

[westwall]

Well lets take a look at those numbers- shall we?

The United States Army had 1.5 million troops by the middle of 1941- months before the war started.
By the end of 1942- the Army had 5.4 million troops.

The American capital ships- the 8 battleships sunk or damaged at Pearl- were battleships- and what won the war in the Pacific were carriers.

The Japanese and Allied aircraft carrier fleets were fairly balanced at the start of the war. The Japanese had ten aircraft carriers, but only six were first-line carriers capable of operating large air groups. The Americans had seven aircraft carriers, one of which (the Ranger) never served in the Pacific because of its design flaws. The other six were comparable to their Japanese counterparts, but they were committed piecemeal to the Pacific theater because of the priority given to the European war. The British did not have a single carrier in the Far East when war broke out, but had deployed four carriers to Ceylon by 1943 that were roughly equivalent in fighting power to the four Japanese light carriers.

Both sides completed additional carriers during the war, but the Allies had a tremendous advantage in new naval construction. The Japanese completed six fleet carriers, four light carriers, and approximately seven escort carriers during the war. The United States completed seventeen fleet carriers of the Essex class, eleven light carriers of the Independence class, and 77 escort carriers, while the British were able to complete a total of thirteen fleet carriers and 41 escort carriers during the time span of the Pacific War. The Japanese would have been overwhelmed even if they had been able to maintain a unit-for-unit quality advantage.
The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia: Aircraft Carriers

In 1941- the United States built more military planes than Germany and Japan combined-
The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: Wartime Production

By 1943 the United States was building 85,000 planes a year- more than Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union combined.

The United States was an industrial juggernaut. Admiral Yamamoto knew this and warned the Japanese government against attacking the United States.


Why am I not surprised by anyone who is so blind to FDR's accomplishments also believes that the United States would have surrendered so quickly after being attacked?

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

Untrue. June 4-6, the Battle of Midway and we were going on the offensive after that battle. The Japanese were able to get local superiority in limited areas, such as the Guadalcanal area, but after Midway we were primarily on the hunt.

Guadicanal was a defensive move in order to keep the Japanese from cutting off Australia. We could have easily lost when the US Navy was forced to retreat. Two good friends of mine were there.

The Canal was indeed a preemptive attack to prevent the Japanese from finishing their airfield. Annnnnd, it began two months after the decisive Battle of Midway, so is in reality the beginning of the attack on Japanese positions in the Pacific which led inexorably to the utter Japanese defeat just three years later.

 

[Syriusly]

And those 'irresponsible economic policies'?

Oh lets see- massive government spending on buying stuff- which led to employment, and massive government spending on giving Americans government paid for jobs.

Yep- ended the Depression.

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

His policies prolonged recovery in private industry and business and for the investor class. The New Deal policies and programs speeded up recovery for the masses and working class. Those policies and programs were used for decades by every President and Congress that followed. Some of them are still being used today. The benefits of the of the trickle up policies are still being used today for sure.

The Great Depression, like all depressions, hurt working people the most, so prolonging it hurt them the most.

Well the ones hurt most were the unworking people.

The working people- and unworking people- hurt most by the depression- were the ones helped most by Roosevelt- which is why he was so popular among with American voters.

Favorite democrat tactic of manufacturing dependency.

Favorite Conservative tactic: attack FDR because he tried to help the working class that they ignored.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Only 3 carriers were in the Pacific to counter Japanese aggression.
If you want to proclaim FDRs post war military build up yet remain blind to his keeping our military weak for the years prior, there is little debating you on the topic.
Nations do not attack nations who are stronger. Never happens.

Japan did attack a country that was stronger.

The United States.

Which is why Japan lost.

America was on the run in the Pacific playing cat and mouse for the first 3 years of the war, with us as the mouse.
Thems the facts.

Untrue. June 4-6, the Battle of Midway and we were going on the offensive after that battle. The Japanese were able to get local superiority in limited areas, such as the Guadalcanal area, but after Midway we were primarily on the hunt.

Guadicanal was a defensive move in order to keep the Japanese from cutting off Australia. We could have easily lost when the US Navy was forced to retreat. Two good friends of mine were there.

The Canal was indeed a preemptive attack to prevent the Japanese from finishing their airfield. Annnnnd, it began two months after the decisive Battle of Midway, so is in reality the beginning of the attack on Japanese positions in the Pacific which led inexorably to the utter Japanese defeat just three years later.

No arguement there. But the topic is the insistence of some here that America was militarily superior to Japan Dec 1941.

 

[Unkotare]

The wartime spending was a necessity, beyond the scumbag's choice one way or another. The irresponsible policies were his 'spaghetti on the wall' bullshitting attempts at fucking with the economy in bumbling ignorance during the years before the war that prolonged the depression.

His policies prolonged recovery in private industry and business and for the investor class. The New Deal policies and programs speeded up recovery for the masses and working class. Those policies and programs were used for decades by every President and Congress that followed. Some of them are still being used today. The benefits of the of the trickle up policies are still being used today for sure.

The Great Depression, like all depressions, hurt working people the most, so prolonging it hurt them the most.

Well the ones hurt most were the unworking people.

The working people- and unworking people- hurt most by the depression- were the ones helped most by Roosevelt- which is why he was so popular among with American voters.

Favorite democrat tactic of manufacturing dependency.

Favorite Conservative tactic: attack FDR because he tried to help the working class that they ignored.

Shameless, dishonest fucking apologist.