It is a sad fact of history that the only thing worse than spending too much on a nation's armed forces, is spending too little. Excess spending wastes the nation's scarce resources. Inadequate spending can waste the whole nation.
In the 11-year period from 1930 through 1940, the U.S. spent $19.9 billion on our military and naval establishments, or about $1.8 billion per year. That averages to about 11.5 percent of the nation's total spending for each of those 11 years.
That level of spending was not sufficient to keep Japan from attacking us at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, or to prevent Germany from declaring war on us a few days thereafter.
Many in Japan felt that Japan could defeat America. Other Japanese felt they could, but only if they could defeat us in a short war; if they could break our will to fight further. That was the gamble behind Pearl Harbor -- beat America before it could bring its industrial might to bear.
In the days before World War II, those in charge of military and naval planning for the "great powers" realized that it took significant time for a nation to gear itself up to a "war-footing." Winston Churchill in "The Gathering Storm" spelled it out:
"... [M]unition production on a nation-wide plan is a four year task. The first year yields nothing; the second very little; the third a lot, and the fourth a flood. Hitler's Germany in this period was already in its third or fourth year of intense preparation under conditions ... which were almost the same as war. Britain, on the other hand, had only been moving on a non-emergency basis, with a weaker impulse, and on a far smaller scale. In 1938/38 British military expenditures of all kinds reached 304,000,000 pounds, and the German was at least 1,500,000,000 pounds."
In 1938, the British pound was equal to 3.223 American dollars. Accordingly, at a time America was spending $1.7 billion on its military establish, Germany was spending $4.8 billion. Had Germany won the Battle of Britain (July 10-Oct. 31, 1940) -- and it was a close run thing -- Germany may well have won the war before America was even in it. Had Britain fallen, the entire German war machine could have focused on the USSR. Had Britain surrendered, the U.S. would have had no England from which to launch the Normandy invasion.
Admittedly, things are different today. Today a nuclear war can be won or lost in a matter of hours. But because nobody had nuclear weapons in 1941, America had four years to convert its vast industrial base to a war-footing. Then, all those economies achieved from 1930 through 1940 were wiped out in a blizzard of war spending.
In 1941, the U.S. spent $7.2 billion or 30 percent of total spending on its military. In 1941, $27.1 billion or 59 percent. In 1942, $70.4 billion or 78 percent. In 1944, $86.1 billion or 78 percent and in 1945, $93.7 billion or 79 percent. During that five-year period, the U.S. spent $284.5 -- 14.3 times as much as it spent in the 11-year period during the1930s!
The question is, had the U.S. spent $5 billion per year from 1930 through 1940 (which included Depression years), would Germany and Japan have dared to go to war with U.S.? Rather than spending $55 billion over that 11-year period, we economized" The result was WWII. Had we spent $5 billion per year over the 16-year period beginning in 1930, we would have spent $80 billion on our defense. Instead, we spent $305 billion and sacrificed 418,500 American lives. Indeed, had we spent $10 billion a year over the 16 year period, it would have cost only $160 billion and probably no American lives. Germany and Japan would have realized it was suicidal to make war on our country.
Winston Churchill wrote his six-volume history of WWII so democracies would not repeat the follies that led to WWII.
"It is my purpose, as one who lived and acted in these days, first to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states, unless they are welded in larger organism, lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how, even in matters of self preservation, no policy is pursued even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires of safety and a quiet life may be found to lead direct to the bull's eye of disaster. We shall see how absolute is the need of a broad path of international action pursued by many states in common across the years, irrespective of the ebb and low of national politics." -- Churchill's "The Gathering Storm"
The only foreign policy that makes sense is for America to be so strong that all potential enemies realize that war with America means their destruction. Anything less bids fair to embroil us in mortal conflict. In 2013, the U. S. spent $819.5 on our national defense. That is 13 percent of our entire national spending. But excluding $161 billion for personnel pay and housing, the U.S is spending 10.4 percent on national defense; 11.5 percent wasn't sufficient to keep us out of WWII.
Will 10.4 percent be enough? That is the question.
Posted Online: April 10, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea
Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment