This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As always its the Forgotten Army! Where is the mention of the limitation on the resources allocated to the Burma campaign (even lower down the pecking order than the Pacific theatres, in particular the cancellation of amphibious operations? -- PBS ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose removing the opinion based view that the US didn't use the Europe first strategy until 1944. Not only is it completely ignorant of the facts ranging from North Africa campaigns, to Sicily, to Italy, and all while maintaining a very hard fought strategic bombing campaign which was significant in reducing the Luftwaffe to a very inexperienced and ineffective force (little known fact is the Luftwaffe had plenty of aircraft throughout the war but not nearly enough of good pilots after the war dragged on and killed their experienced veterans). It also doesn't take into account the battle of the Atlantic which was a huge struggle, nor does it appreciate the buildup of forces in the UK and training that would be necessary to make a European invasion successful. I could continue but I think between the points I made and the fact that input like this makes the credibility of Wikipedia more questionable, I believe its justified to clean up the article of opinions and statements that can't be reasonably concluded from hard facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 ( talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Smallchief: Can you expand on the nuances? There are plenty of sources which say Roosevelt overruled Marshall on this point. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Whizz40 ( talk) 14:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
by the spring of 1941, both the armed forces and President Franklin D. Roosevelt had agreed to adopt in RAINBOW 5 the fourth option, a “Germany-first” strategy in conjunction with European allies with a strategic defensive against Japan in the Pacific.
a defeat on the French coast, Churchill warned, was "the only way in which we could possibly lose this war." Instead, he favored attacking German and Italian forces in North Africa to keep Egypt and the oil fields of the Middle East from falling into enemy hands. American commanders thought invading Africa would be a dangerous, wasteful diversion. Rather than accept the British plan, General Marshall proposed that the United States abandon the Germany-first strategy and go on the offensive in the Pacific. Roosevelt overruled him. A premature attack in the Pacific was exactly what Germany wanted, he wrote; it would only mean the recapture of a "lot of islands," and would do nothing to help the Russians. The proposal was therefore "disapproved." He signed his response "Roosevelt, C. in C."
This make sense to me. Furthermore, if you agree, from the source [7] already in the article, I would suggest adding some words on the following to the lead:
at the famous Christmas 1941 meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in Washington, the decision was formally taken for the "Europe First" strategy, while maintaining a holding action in the Pacific. The Europe First strategy, (embodied in RAINBOW 5) had initially been proposed by Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Stark in 1940 and concurred in by General Marshall.
From the same source, a brief summary on the following could add to the Analysis section (emphasized in bold in the source):
One U.S. Army division was ordered to Australia in February 1942, and in March two additional divisions were sent, one to Australia and one to New Zealand on the request of Prime Minister Churchill so that divisions from those countries could remain in the Middle East. This large deployment to the Pacific actually had the effect of aiding the "Europe First" strategy. The U.S. was taking on the responsibility for defending Australia and New Zealand so that the experienced troops from those countries could remain deployed against German forces.
Finally, unless there is a cite which says this, this sentence from the second section of the article
Thus, the U.S. adherence to the Europe First was, in the early part of the war, more of reassurance to the British ally than it was a policy put into practice.
could better reflect the sense in this source, for example
The Europe First strategy remained in effect throughout the war, however the terms "holding action" and "limited offensive" in the Pacific were subject to various interpretations and modifications of plans by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at allied leaders conferences. This resulted in considerable competition for resources, particularly in the latter stages of the war as operations were greatly accelerated in both theaters. ... It was however, the strategic situation in the Pacific and the logistics situation which governed our early actions and placed initial primary emphasis on the Pacific.
Whizz40 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Europe first. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As always its the Forgotten Army! Where is the mention of the limitation on the resources allocated to the Burma campaign (even lower down the pecking order than the Pacific theatres, in particular the cancellation of amphibious operations? -- PBS ( talk) 13:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to propose removing the opinion based view that the US didn't use the Europe first strategy until 1944. Not only is it completely ignorant of the facts ranging from North Africa campaigns, to Sicily, to Italy, and all while maintaining a very hard fought strategic bombing campaign which was significant in reducing the Luftwaffe to a very inexperienced and ineffective force (little known fact is the Luftwaffe had plenty of aircraft throughout the war but not nearly enough of good pilots after the war dragged on and killed their experienced veterans). It also doesn't take into account the battle of the Atlantic which was a huge struggle, nor does it appreciate the buildup of forces in the UK and training that would be necessary to make a European invasion successful. I could continue but I think between the points I made and the fact that input like this makes the credibility of Wikipedia more questionable, I believe its justified to clean up the article of opinions and statements that can't be reasonably concluded from hard facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 ( talk) 18:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Smallchief: Can you expand on the nuances? There are plenty of sources which say Roosevelt overruled Marshall on this point. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Whizz40 ( talk) 14:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
by the spring of 1941, both the armed forces and President Franklin D. Roosevelt had agreed to adopt in RAINBOW 5 the fourth option, a “Germany-first” strategy in conjunction with European allies with a strategic defensive against Japan in the Pacific.
a defeat on the French coast, Churchill warned, was "the only way in which we could possibly lose this war." Instead, he favored attacking German and Italian forces in North Africa to keep Egypt and the oil fields of the Middle East from falling into enemy hands. American commanders thought invading Africa would be a dangerous, wasteful diversion. Rather than accept the British plan, General Marshall proposed that the United States abandon the Germany-first strategy and go on the offensive in the Pacific. Roosevelt overruled him. A premature attack in the Pacific was exactly what Germany wanted, he wrote; it would only mean the recapture of a "lot of islands," and would do nothing to help the Russians. The proposal was therefore "disapproved." He signed his response "Roosevelt, C. in C."
This make sense to me. Furthermore, if you agree, from the source [7] already in the article, I would suggest adding some words on the following to the lead:
at the famous Christmas 1941 meeting between President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill in Washington, the decision was formally taken for the "Europe First" strategy, while maintaining a holding action in the Pacific. The Europe First strategy, (embodied in RAINBOW 5) had initially been proposed by Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Stark in 1940 and concurred in by General Marshall.
From the same source, a brief summary on the following could add to the Analysis section (emphasized in bold in the source):
One U.S. Army division was ordered to Australia in February 1942, and in March two additional divisions were sent, one to Australia and one to New Zealand on the request of Prime Minister Churchill so that divisions from those countries could remain in the Middle East. This large deployment to the Pacific actually had the effect of aiding the "Europe First" strategy. The U.S. was taking on the responsibility for defending Australia and New Zealand so that the experienced troops from those countries could remain deployed against German forces.
Finally, unless there is a cite which says this, this sentence from the second section of the article
Thus, the U.S. adherence to the Europe First was, in the early part of the war, more of reassurance to the British ally than it was a policy put into practice.
could better reflect the sense in this source, for example
The Europe First strategy remained in effect throughout the war, however the terms "holding action" and "limited offensive" in the Pacific were subject to various interpretations and modifications of plans by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at allied leaders conferences. This resulted in considerable competition for resources, particularly in the latter stages of the war as operations were greatly accelerated in both theaters. ... It was however, the strategic situation in the Pacific and the logistics situation which governed our early actions and placed initial primary emphasis on the Pacific.
Whizz40 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Europe first. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)