Abraham Lincoln Won World War II

[Jeff Lebowski]

No I am not getting my wars mixed up. Hear me out…

I am doing some reading on the war in the Pacific. WW2 represented a fundamental change in naval warfare as aircraft carriers became the dominant mode of warfare, thus ending the brief battleship era. At the Battle of Midway, the US scored a major, but not necessarily crippling victory by sinking four Japanese carriers and losing one. A few months later at Guadalcanal, the US suffered the worst naval defeat in US history at the battle of Savo Island showing that the Japanese still had a formidable Navy. A few weeks later after a series of battles involving zeros and subs, the US was down to a single functioning carrier in the entire Pacific theater. Things looked bleak but somehow they pulled through. Approximately two years later, the US and Japanese forces fought in the biggest naval battle in the history of the world at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The four remaining Japanese carriers went up against the main body of the US Pacific Fleet which included 15 carriers. Holy shit - 15 CARRIERS! How on earth did we go from one functional carrier to 15 in two years? From an engineering and manufacturing viewpoint, that just blows my mind. Arguably the single most important key to defeating both the Japanese and the Nazis was US industrial might. We cranked out ships, tanks, planes, guns, ammo, etc. like there was no tomorrow.

Last summer I took the family to Gettysburg and we hired a guide to give us a tour of the battlefield. As we stood on Little Round Top, I asked him if he thought the Civil War was a just war and if it was worth the cost. I was curious to hear his response as he was from Tennessee and I suspected he might have had some Southern sympathies. This is a question that we have debated here several times and I have had mixed feelings about it at times in the past. It is important to remember it happened less than 90 years from when the colonies decided to throw in together and secede from British rule. The phrase "The United States of America" was generally regarded as plural, not singular. To many people, it seemed perfectly rational and fully consistent with the US ideal of independence and freedom that states could choose to no longer be part of the union if they so desired. Regardless of the root cause of the differences, forcing a preservation of the union via the sword is jarring to contemplate. Anyway, so I waited for his answer and he said, "Yes, I think it was absolutely worth it. Had the union not been preserved, we would have established a precedent where any state or group of states could secede for any reason. I believe that over the course of a few years you would have seen the United States disintegrate into a series of independent states and small groups of states. Then when the 20th century rolled around and the Nazis and the Japanese started taking over the world, we would not have had the capability to respond the way we did, in terms of will, manpower, and industrial might and win the war save the world from tyranny." It was a simple but powerful response. I am convinced he is right.

Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

[Uncle Ted]

I would argue that a good share of the credit for winning world war II in the pacific has to go to the American code breakers as well. The US was intercepting and decoding a good share of the Japanese Navy's messages. Including messages that helped win the battle of midway and with the assassination of Yamamoto. It amazes me that the Japanese never got a clue and figured out these events were a lot more than the US being in the right place at the right time. If they had any clue they would have changed their codes.

For information see:

http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode_07.html

Wikipedia

[wuapinmon]

I would argue that a good share of the credit for winning world war II in the pacific has to go to the American code breakers as well. The US was intercepting and decoding a good share of the Japanese Navy's messages. Including messages that helped win the battle of midway and with the assassination of Yamamoto. It amazes me that the Japanese never got a clue and figured out these events were a lot more than the US being in the right place at the right time. If they had any clue they would have changed their codes.

For information see:

http://www.vectorsite.net/ttcode_07.html

Wikipedia

The war was lost over a broken fresh-water condenser.

[Uncle Ted]

The war was lost over a broken fresh-water condenser.

And actually it wasn't even broken. The message was fabricated to figure out that the target was indeed Midway Island.


Edit: http://www.american-partisan.com/col.../qtr2/0606.htm

[Jarid in Cedar]

Re: Abraham Lincoln Won World War II

And actually it wasn't even broken. The message was fabricated to figure out that the target was indeed Midway Island.


Edit: http://www.american-partisan.com/col.../qtr2/0606.htm

Correct

[venkman]

You make a good point Jeff. Had the CSA won their independence, the USA would have been much smaller and weaker. They would have never won WWII.

However, there also probably wouldn't have been a WWII had Lincoln lost. Had he lost, there would have been no U.S. to enter WWI and ensure victory for England and France. Had England and France not won WWI, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles with it's crippling reparations that ultimately gave rise to Hitler.

There are probably a thousand other possibilities and ripple effects that could have happened had Lincoln lost.

"Fun" to contemplate.

[Guest]

Then when the 20th century rolled around and the Nazis and the Japanese started taking over the world, we would not have had the capability to respond the way we did, in terms of will, manpower, and industrial might and win the war save the world from tyranny." It was a simple but powerful response. I am convinced he is right.

Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

Good post.

On somewhat of a tangent, an aerospace engineer related to me the other week that the P-51 Mustang went from order placed to flying prototype in just under six months' time. Think about that.

[venkman]

Good post.

On somewhat of a tangent, an aerospace engineer related to me the other week that the P-51 Mustang went from order placed to flying prototype in just under six months. Think about that.

The FedGov sure effed up the economy in the 30's, but it is very impressive how they, and the American people, mobilized for war.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You make a good point Jeff. Had the CSA won their independence, the USA would have been much smaller and weaker. They would have never won WWII.

However, there also probably wouldn't have been a WWII had Lincoln lost. Had he lost, there would have been no U.S. to enter WWI and ensure victory for England and France. Had England and France not won WWI, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles with it's crippling reparations that ultimately gave rise to Hitler.

There are probably a thousand other possibilities and ripple effects that could have happened had Lincoln lost.

"Fun" to contemplate.

Sure, but that is a huge stretch. Your thesis is based on strength through weakness and on circumstance. My thesis is based on the fact that Lincoln believed that preserving the union, even at great cost, was important to the future of the country. It was a deliberate decision to achieve a specific result and one can point to that specific result as having the kind of benefit he envisioned. I suppose if someone at the time had argued that breaking up the union would result in minimizing the opportunity for world war via crippling treaties or other unintended consequences resulting from a united country, you might have a point.

Furthermore, what about the Japanese empire?

[venkman]

Sure, but that is a huge stretch. Your thesis is based on strength through weakness and on circumstance. My thesis is based on the fact that Lincoln believed that preserving the union, even at great cost, was important to the future of the country. It was a deliberate decision to achieve a specific result and one can point to that specific result as having the kind of benefit he envisioned. I suppose if someone at the time had argued that breaking up the union would result in minimizing the opportunity for world war via crippling treaties or other unintended consequences resulting from a united country, you might have a point.

Furthermore, what about the Japanese empire?

Yes, a weak or diminished union could not have won WWII. It also could have not helped England and France achieve victory in WWI which led to WWII.

I do agree that had the CSA been successful, the world would be a much different place, and the USA would certainly be a diminished power. I just don't know what that world would have looked like.

Not trying to pick a fight, there's certainly merit to your argument. But a CSA victory would have had some serious ripple effects that would have not only changed the course of the United States but the entire world.

[clackamascoug]

You make a good point Jeff. Had the CSA won their independence, the USA would have been much smaller and weaker. They would have never won WWII.

However, there also probably wouldn't have been a WWII had Lincoln lost. Had he lost, there would have been no U.S. to enter WWI and ensure victory for England and France. Had England and France not won WWI, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles with it's crippling reparations that ultimately gave rise to Hitler.

There are probably a thousand other possibilities and ripple effects that could have happened had Lincoln lost.

"Fun" to contemplate.

Well, in this dimension anyway. It may have played out differently in other "worlds," which are like the sands of the sea.

[happyone]

Interesting point JL, have you read Bradley's The Imperial Cruise yet?

Spoiler for spoiler:

His basic contention was that the US gave Japan the go ahead to be an imperial power in 1905 thus causing WW II. I personally don't buy it, but YMMV

On the Code breaking - Craig Symond's Midway or Ian Toll's Pacific Crucible(can't remember which right now) book the on the first 6 months of the Pacific War had an interesting look on the bureaucratic infighting in the intel world that was going on during that time frame.

Navy HQ wanted to control all the intel and analysis, plus the man who was made the head of Navy code breaking didn't like Layton at all. Even knowing the codes, they could only read about 40% of the messages so the analysis was a lot of guess work. The Navy code breakers kept saying Layton was up in the night about Midway. Nimitz went against King and Navy HQ Intel when he decided to send the Carriers to Midway.

[Omaha 680]

The FedGov sure effed up the economy in the 30's, but it is very impressive how they, and the American people, mobilized for war.

Public or private didn't matter, we just used to be a lot faster at producing things. Two examples that always stick out to me:

Empire State Building (private) designed in two weeks and built in 15 months.
Hoover Dam (public) built in less than 5 years. Astonishing.

[Pelado]

Public or private didn't matter, we just used to be a lot faster at producing things. Two examples that always stick out to me:

Empire State Building (private) designed in two weeks and built in 15 months.
Hoover Dam (public) built in less than 5 years. Astonishing.

How many deaths while constructing each?

[SeattleUte]

No I am not getting my wars mixed up. Hear me out…

I am doing some reading on the war in the Pacific. WW2 represented a fundamental change in naval warfare as aircraft carriers became the dominant mode of warfare, thus ending the brief battleship era. At the Battle of Midway, the US scored a major, but not necessarily crippling victory by sinking four Japanese carriers and losing one. A few months later at Guadalcanal, the US suffered the worst naval defeat in US history at the battle of Savo Island showing that the Japanese still had a formidable Navy. A few weeks later after a series of battles involving zeros and subs, the US was down to a single functioning carrier in the entire Pacific theater. Things looked bleak but somehow they pulled through. Approximately two years later, the US and Japanese forces fought in the biggest naval battle in the history of the world at the Battle of Leyte Gulf. The four remaining Japanese carriers went up against the main body of the US Pacific Fleet which included 15 carriers. Holy shit - 15 CARRIERS! How on earth did we go from one functional carrier to 15 in two years? From an engineering and manufacturing viewpoint, that just blows my mind. Arguably the single most important key to defeating both the Japanese and the Nazis was US industrial might. We cranked out ships, tanks, planes, guns, ammo, etc. like there was no tomorrow.

Last summer I took the family to Gettysburg and we hired a guide to give us a tour of the battlefield. As we stood on Little Round Top, I asked him if he thought the Civil War was a just war and if it was worth the cost. I was curious to hear his response as he was from Tennessee and I suspected he might have had some Southern sympathies. This is a question that we have debated here several times and I have had mixed feelings about it at times in the past. It is important to remember it happened less than 90 years from when the colonies decided to throw in together and secede from British rule. The phrase "The United States of America" was generally regarded as plural, not singular. To many people, it seemed perfectly rational and fully consistent with the US ideal of independence and freedom that states could choose to no longer be part of the union if they so desired. Regardless of the root cause of the differences, forcing a preservation of the union via the sword is jarring to contemplate. Anyway, so I waited for his answer and he said, "Yes, I think it was absolutely worth it. Had the union not been preserved, we would have established a precedent where any state or group of states could secede for any reason. I believe that over the course of a few years you would have seen the United States disintegrate into a series of independent states and small groups of states. Then when the 20th century rolled around and the Nazis and the Japanese started taking over the world, we would not have had the capability to respond the way we did, in terms of will, manpower, and industrial might and win the war save the world from tyranny." It was a simple but powerful response. I am convinced he is right.

Thank you Abraham Lincoln.

This American-centric view of WWII is distasteful even to someone like myself who believes America has been the best thing that ever happened to the world. First, the Soviet Union could have beaten the Nazis without us, and it practically did. Four out of five German soldiers killed in the war were killed by the Soviet Union and its allies, at terrible cost to those peoples who fought the Nazis on their own homeland, cost that is incomprehensible to us Americans. Your narrow persepctive on WWII is actually quite like what I was fed in fifth grade Utah public schools. As the eminent British historian Max Hastings recently wrote:

Consider, for instance, the strategic situation in July 1943. The US had been in the war for twenty months, Russia for twenty-five, Britain for almost four years. On the Eastern Front, four million men and 13,000 armored vehicles eventually participated in the Battle of Kursk and associated actions in the Orel and Kharkov salients. Hitler suffered a disastrous defeat and half a million casualties. Soviet losses were far higher.

The attention of the British and Americans, meanwhile, was fixed upon what was then their only significant ground effort, the campaign in Sicily. They committed to Operation Husky just eight divisions, and lost less than six thousand men killed. In the whole of 1943, US and British fatal casualties in operations against the Germans were around 60,000. Even in 1944, the Western Allies’ offensives in Normandy and Italy absorbed barely one third of Hitler’s forces, while the remainder continued to be deployed in the East.

This is why Andrew Roberts writes, in his excellent new study of wartime Anglo-American strategy: “In considering the roles of Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Brooke”—the “four titans” of his title—”it is important to remember that the decisions of Hitler and Stalin far more profoundly influenced the outcome [of the war] than those of any Briton or American.” Four out of every five Germans killed in action died on the Eastern Front.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/aug/13/a-very-chilly-victory/?pagination=false

You should read more about the eastern front. It was the center of gravity of WWII, really the essence of what WWII was all about, where all the greatest battles were fought, where the greatest atrocities were committed by totalitarian regimes, and really the most interesting part of WWII. We had nothing to do with any of that.

Also, bear in mind that we fought WWII as partners with the British, and that is true for the war in the Pacific. That is why our side is commonly refered to as the Allies, or the Anglo-American forces.

As for the Japanese, maybe the Soviet Union would not have bothered. But the Japanese were not nearly as formiddable or threatening to our civilization as were the Nazis. The Nazis were also far greater mass murderers. But I think Japan's ill-conceived facsist monarchy was destined in any event to collapse before the tide of indusrialization and the impulse for democracy that we see in India and other Asian countries. Failing this, ultimately, the Chinese would have crushed them.

Lincoln was a great man, especially according to our American hagiography. But he is hardly uniquely responsible for winning WWII, any more than Adam Smith, David Hume, John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine, Harry Truman, Roosevelt, et al. including the foot soldiers who actually did the fighting. The industrial revolution and democracy, indeed the freeing of the slaves and the civil rights revoltion, would have happened without Lincoln. Your great man theory of history would generally be regarded by historians as too simplistic.

What nobody can say for sure is that the United States would have remained a single country with the deep south absent Lincoln. But the northern United States would still have been a formidable ally to the good guys in WWII, as probably would have been its southern neighbor. I'm sure that by 1941 slavery would have ended in the deep south just as it ended in Brazil and Europe, and we'd see industrialization at least in Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

North America is great because it is the apotheosis of 3,000 years of world history, and has been a catch basin for among the hardiest (albeit usually among the most disadvantaged) peoples and their cultures world wide. Lincoln is hardly uniquely responsible for the triumph of liberty over oppression and for our wealth and industrial might.