Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Redfairen

(1,276 posts)
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 01:43 AM Feb 2014

Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level

Source: NY Times

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel plans to shrink the United States Army to its smallest force since before the World War II buildup and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets in a new spending proposal that officials describe as the first Pentagon budget to aggressively push the military off the war footing adopted after the terror attacks of 2001.

The proposal, described by several Pentagon officials on the condition of anonymity in advance of its release on Monday, takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity and the political reality of a president who pledged to end two costly and exhausting land wars. A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say, and there would be a larger number of casualties. Officials also say that a smaller military could invite adventurism by adversaries.

“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.



Read more: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0&referrer=

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pentagon Plans to Shrink Army to Pre-World War II Level (Original Post) Redfairen Feb 2014 OP
I thought this was The Onion. Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2014 #1
Why? It's been Obama's stated defense priority for 5 years now (nt) Recursion Feb 2014 #15
War spending is all that's keeping some Red States going.... Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2014 #39
This will never happen. tatum37 Feb 2014 #33
You want to go back to this? Sunlei Feb 2014 #36
False dilemma. tatum37 Feb 2014 #41
How about pre-first world war levels? Crowman1979 Feb 2014 #2
How about Constitutional levels? The Founding Fathers considered a standing army to be tblue37 Feb 2014 #18
What tblue37 said Android3.14 Feb 2014 #20
Exactly! The profiteers in America have enjoyed destroying countries and then rebuilding them. It's RKP5637 Feb 2014 #27
I'm all for that!! 2naSalit Feb 2014 #3
I am all for cutting down the war machine but... C0RYH0FFMAN Feb 2014 #4
No, all military spending is a waste. PSPS Feb 2014 #7
I understand what you're getting at... C0RYH0FFMAN Feb 2014 #11
Ding, Ding, Ding. TexasTowelie Feb 2014 #14
works for me weissmam Feb 2014 #19
This is why I supported Hagel's nomination in the first place fujiyama Feb 2014 #5
The various cuts, so far, will hurt military service men and women. djean111 Feb 2014 #28
Including or excluding private contractors? snot Feb 2014 #6
And the national guard. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #10
This is a key question onwardsand upwards Feb 2014 #22
And the overall Pentagon budget?? cprise Feb 2014 #8
I expect more outsourcing too Auggie Feb 2014 #16
It won't go away, it's just morphing into something else. n/t RKP5637 Feb 2014 #29
Like paying for Ukranian soldiers and arms. n/t cprise Feb 2014 #32
Right wing heads will explode over this AgingAmerican Feb 2014 #9
They will really try to discredit Chuck Hagel now. Enthusiast Feb 2014 #17
Jefferson et al. didnt want standing army at all. ErikJ Feb 2014 #12
Show me the money. ReRe Feb 2014 #13
While I am not a big fan of an over the top level of military spending melm00se Feb 2014 #21
Lets get some facts straight. happyslug Feb 2014 #35
Spending more and size =/= a better army chrisa Feb 2014 #23
This will be without accounting for contractors Scalded Nun Feb 2014 #24
This is just another draw-down agent46 Feb 2014 #25
"Success would take longer." malthaussen Feb 2014 #26
They can start by demilitarizing the local police departments. Some of the police RKP5637 Feb 2014 #30
Flowery words... Javaman Feb 2014 #31
As the President always said, and that will save billions we can use on domestic issues!! :) Sunlei Feb 2014 #34
He won't get everything he's proposing, and he probably knows that. TwilightGardener Feb 2014 #37
So the Army get reduced MicaelS Feb 2014 #38
Good! hedgehog Feb 2014 #40
Shrink ? Hi ho, Hi ho.................. dipsydoodle Feb 2014 #42
This is NOT that big a CUT, for two reasons happyslug Feb 2014 #43
 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
39. War spending is all that's keeping some Red States going....
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:22 PM
Feb 2014

If it's not the shipyards it's their warm water ports and bases.

Then there are the factories pumping out spare engines.

Then there's all the mountain folk enlisting because all there is in town is a hardware store/lumberyard, a feed and grain, a church and an elegant place called "EAT".

They treat war as a jobs program.

 

tatum37

(20 posts)
33. This will never happen.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:21 PM
Feb 2014

Never. US imperialism can't go forward just with drone strikes. So it might as well be the onion.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
36. You want to go back to this?
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:48 PM
Feb 2014



or does this kind of drone 'attack' 'cost' less lives overall? And use a much smaller military.







tblue37

(65,339 posts)
18. How about Constitutional levels? The Founding Fathers considered a standing army to be
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:33 AM
Feb 2014

a threat to liberty.

OK, I know the modern world wouldn't allow us to disband our standing army/military altogether, but we really do need to find a better "jobs program" for our country's economy than the military-industrial complex, because right now, without the military option, working class kids have few options besides McDonald's or WalMart, and other than private prusons, communities have few "industries" not dependent on Defense Department contracts.

We also gave the hypermilitarized police in most places, another standing army to destroy liberty and trample on rights.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
20. What tblue37 said
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:17 AM
Feb 2014

Can you imagine if we actually invested in our infrastructure instead of destroying other country's systems and then rebuilding them as some sort of weird conciliatory gesture?

RKP5637

(67,107 posts)
27. Exactly! The profiteers in America have enjoyed destroying countries and then rebuilding them. It's
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:44 AM
Feb 2014

a two way street for some, they make money blowing them up and then rebuilding them.

C0RYH0FFMAN

(20 posts)
4. I am all for cutting down the war machine but...
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:32 AM
Feb 2014

"takes into account the fiscal reality of government austerity" is for the wrong reason. Progressives cannot accept the false premise that we need to target "austerity". Or private economy needs more U.S. Treasury securities not less. Our private economy needs more federal government spending, not less. I'd much rather have more productive government spending like infrastructure spending but the fact still remains that building Fighter Jets means the Federal Government is crediting private sector bank accounts here in the United States, at the end of the day.

Cutting the military behemoth is fine. But, we need to do it because it is the practical and pragmatic thing to do. Not because this is an "age of austerity".

What about and age of prosperity instead?

@C0RYH0FFMAN

CoryHoffmanForCongress.com

PSPS

(13,593 posts)
7. No, all military spending is a waste.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:49 AM
Feb 2014

The idea that any military spending is OK because "it creates jobs" is foolish. "Building fighter jets" is equivalent to flushing money down the toilet. I'm with Eisenhower on this.



C0RYH0FFMAN

(20 posts)
11. I understand what you're getting at...
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:54 AM
Feb 2014

and actually I do not think that you and I would disagree when it comes down to it. My former Petty Officer used to say that the Military was for Killing People and Breaking Things. There is nothing more antithetical to growth, prosperity, happiness and productivity than killing human beings and destroying things.

However, I am saying, at a meta-level, crediting the bank account of a United States Soldier, at the end of day, is still crediting a private bank account. It is still money that will ultimately percolate throughout our private economy. What our economy needs is more endowments of monetary resources from the Federal Government's Public Purse.

The Military "cutting" because we're living in an age of austerity is cutting for the wrong reasons. We should be cutting the military because we could use those dollars elsewhere and for more productive activities in an age of prosperity!

@C0RYH0FFMAN

CoryHoffmanForCongress.com

fujiyama

(15,185 posts)
5. This is why I supported Hagel's nomination in the first place
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:32 AM
Feb 2014

Only a man on the ground would have the brass cojones to take on the entrenched Pentagon bureaucracy and bloated industrial complex. My hope is he starts focusing more on the acquisitions process which is completely broken and military systems that are over budget and way past due (I'm looking at you F-35)...

. I just hope the various cuts aren't going to hurt military service men and women.

I wish him luck, especially in convincing Congress to do anything because half the time they're authorizing weapons systems the Pentagon isn't even asking for!

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
28. The various cuts, so far, will hurt military service men and women.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:46 AM
Feb 2014

The MIC lobbies will ensure that the acquisitions process will work out just fine.
IMO, in a few years, any cuts made to personnel will be more than recouped with more weaponry.

 

onwardsand upwards

(276 posts)
22. This is a key question
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:18 AM
Feb 2014

It sounds like a ruse -- a move towards more privatization of the military -- more profits for corporations, less accountability.

Almost certainly: no less coercive control.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
17. They will really try to discredit Chuck Hagel now.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:07 AM
Feb 2014

A new stronger effort. Maybe they can make shit up. Like they often do.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
12. Jefferson et al. didnt want standing army at all.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:24 AM
Feb 2014

But they did want militias hence the 2nd Amendment.


“You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can’t carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war,” a senior Pentagon official said.

melm00se

(4,991 posts)
21. While I am not a big fan of an over the top level of military spending
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:18 AM
Feb 2014

The USA has made the mistake of over shrinking the military in the past.

Prior to both World Wars, the US military ended up far behind the curve, militarily. when the need to employ the military, it took a couple of years to bring htem back up to speed.

During WWI, the US military did not have a single modern military aircraft and had to borrow/buy modern aircraft from their allies. Additionally, the US Army entered WWI without fully functioning modern automatic weapons and their training was well behind the norms required for combat.

During the interwar years, the US military's only truly modern warships were the USS Saratoga and Lexington (both built during the early 1920's). In both cases, their aircraft were (at the beginning) modern but soon fell behind the quality of aircraft being produced by the looming Japanese threat.

With the advent of the Great Depression, the quality and training gap increased and that gap was acutely felt in the early days of WWII. The US Navy was outclassed by the IJN and the army was outclassed by the Wehrmacht in Northern Africa.

It can be argued that the lack of equipment and training cost American lives unnecessarily in 1942 and 1943.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
35. Lets get some facts straight.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:46 PM
Feb 2014

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Aircraft development from 1903-1920 was like Computers in the 1990s, six months after you purchased the newest and fastest, it was already so obsolete it had to be replaced.

Worse, Aircraft main role in WWI, was seeing where the enemy troops were AND where one's artillery was hitting (and in many places, that was done by Balloons, for they could stay up longer and were hard to shoot down till cannons were installed in Aircraft and that was just before WWII).

Thus the fact that the US did not have a single "Modern" Aircraft in 1917, when the US entered WWI, should surprise no one. Aircraft development during WWI was that fast that the latest plane in 1916, was obsolete by 1917. This rapid change in Aircraft development continued till the invention of the Liberty Engine in 1919 (Which became the standard aircraft engine for the next ten years) and the Invention of Flaps in 1920, that made any aircraft made prior to 1920 hopelessly obsolete (so obsolete that all were declared NOT air worthy in 1924).

Thus the key between 1903 and 1920 was developing aircraft NOT actually building them. In this the US was on the same edge as Europeans, but just not making planes that would be obsolete in six months.

Thus in 1919 it was a US Navy Plane that first flew over the Atlantic (Lindbergh's feat in 1927 was flying a SINGLE ENGINE plane Non-stop across the Atlantic). It was a four engine plane that stopped at various locations in the Atlantic to re-fuel from Ships stationed in the Atlantic to do so). In the 1920s it was US Aircraft that came to dominate the world stage, from the Hawk series of Fighters (started as an open cockpit biplane with flaps in 1921 and ending with the P-40 during WWII.

Side note: The chief reason the US fell behind the Europeans in aircraft after 1909 can be blamed on the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers wanted paid for inventing the airplane, and the US Courts upheld their patent rights. Thus US Aircraft makers had to wait till after those patents expired in 1918 to do anything if it meant using ANYTHING involving the Wright flyer of 1903. Since Flaps were NOT invented till 1920, warping the wings was the only way to get planes to fly, and that was a Wright Brother's invention. Europe just ignored those Patent rights.

As to WWII, when the US entered WWII, the Sherman Tanks was considered the second best tank in the World (Second to the Russian T-34). The Tiger came out in 1943 along with the Panther, both rush jobs in response to the T-34 and the Sherman.

As to "Modern" Ships, the US had reserved the right to convert two Battle Cruisers to Carriers under the 1920 Battleship moratorium, something Japan and Britain also had the right to do and did. In 1834 the US decided to use up its remaining tonnage under that treaty for Carriers to build the Ranger (a small carrier do to limitations under the Washington Treaty). In the late 1930s the US built two more Carriers, the Yorktown and the Enterprise permitted under a proposed Extension of the Washington Treaty that Japan decided NOT to renew.

To give you an idea of how "Bad" the US Fleet was in 1942, when the US commissioned its first Battleships since WWI (New Battleships had been banned under the Washington Treaty of 1921), it was 1942 and those battleships were sent to the ATLANTIC not the Pacific. This was NOT because those battleships were obsolete, it was where the US Navy had its greatest concerns, not only the German Fleet, but the French Fleet for the US had plans to attack then FRENCH North Africa, where France had its latest battleships (Which did engage the US Battleships during the invasion of North Africa).

One of the reason for sending Battleships to the Atlantic was Britain was depended on the Convoy system, and while the U-Boat threat was a nuisance, the real fear was surface raiders hitting one of those convoys. To give you an idea of the threat the first Battleship Carrier battle occurred during the German Invasion of Norway. Please note it was the Battleship that sunk the Carrier. Carriers as late as the 1950s could not operate much night flights, landing on carriers after nightfall was to dangerous. You could launch air strikes at night, you could NOT land aircraft on carriers at night (one or two maybe, but more forget it). When the German Battleship sunk the British Carrier, the Carrier was waiting for its aircraft to return, having launch a pre dawn raid. Unfortunately , the German Battleship had traveled all night at full speed (25 knots for 10 hours is 250 miles, the range of most airplanes of the time period).

As to actual US Aircraft, the P-40 was as good as most planes, not quite up to Spitfire level (but could be made so, if given the engine of the Spitefire, which is what happened in the case of the P-51, in fact the P-51 was designed by North America Aircraft company for they did not want to produce the P-40 for it had been designed by another Aircraft Company, the P-40 with the Spitfire engine did as well as the P-51 but by the time someone put that engine in the P-40, it had been reserved to the P-51 and after WWII the US Air Force, to cut costs, reverted to the US engine the P-51 and P-40 had been originally equipped with).

By the start of WWII, the US had spent 20 years upgrading is old Battleships and testing them to see how they could take battle punishment. This researched lead to two things, first the Dakota and then the Iowa Class of Battleships. These started to come out in 1942, but 1944 do to the sealing off of German Ports, the fear of German Surface Raiders had ended and the US was committed to Naval Combat when it could decide when and where the battle was to occur. I.e. the US Navy would only attack if the fleet also controlled the skys. IF the US could not control the Skys, no US surface ship went into the areas,

The Battleships at Pearl Harbor were repaired and ready for emergency use as battleships within three months of Pearl Harbor (Except for two, The Arizona and Oklahoma, all of the Battleships were back into service within three months, then withdrawn for further repairs and reentered service by the fall of 1942. The Utah was also sunk, but it had become a hauler for targets for other battleships well before WWII thus not considered Battle worthy even before Pearl Harbor. When the US started it offensive against Japan, it was after these Battleships had returned to the fleet and the US had Battleship superiority in the Pacific.

As to actual Aircraft, no plane designed after December 7, 1941 flew in WWII. Unlike WWI, by the 1930s it then took years to design a plane AND those planes stayed active for years afterward. The Zero had a great reputation in the first year of US participation in WWII, but that is before the US pilots found out its weak points (to get the maneuverability the Zero was noted for, came at the cost of no armor and no self sealing tanks, which mean even on bullet could take out a Zero, as opposed to the better armored US planes. IN many ways the reputation of the Zero was a cover story for how under trained US Pilots were, for any pilot with training ended up in Europe not the Pacific for Europe was viewed as the main area of concern.

Sorry, your point do NOT match history. It does match US propaganda from WWII, but once you look at the actual FACTS, there do NOT hold up.

chrisa

(4,524 posts)
23. Spending more and size =/= a better army
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:02 AM
Feb 2014

Sometimes size can be draining on an army. Also, throwing money where it isn't needed is wasteful and hurts us overall.

We need to return to the "snipers harassing the British" army that we were. That's metaphorical, but what I mean is, lean and mean > big and slow. We can still pick pirates off and perform rescues without having a gigantic invasion force. Large land wars are becoming passé.

Scalded Nun

(1,236 posts)
24. This will be without accounting for contractors
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:15 AM
Feb 2014

The entire contracting of the military I find more scary all of the other negatives related to DoD.

And why does national defense have to be 1/2 of the entire national budget if they can tout this whole reduction of forces initiative.

Just like the privatization of education article on this page, this is all about stealing money with no regard towards the victim(s).

agent46

(1,262 posts)
25. This is just another draw-down
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:24 AM
Feb 2014

What a disingenuous statement, framed to sound like fiscal responsibility with the defense budget.

Fact: Warfare has changed permanently. There's no longer much use for so-called "large land-war" operations. This draw-down will be followed (as draw-downs are every 10 -15 years) by retooling with next generation weapon technologies and automations. Private contracts with mercenary security companies will supply trained manpower on a mission by mission basis. CIA sponsored "rebel forces" will do the dirty work in the civilian population centers of our enemy of the week. This reconfiguration of the army will support the trend of using small team covert and intelligence ops which are also preferable because they happen off the mainstream media grid.

This may also be happening now because the empire has begun to contract after decades of over-reach just as Rome did. I don't believe for a second our astronomically bloated defense budget is going away, nor our "permanent war footing."

malthaussen

(17,193 posts)
26. "Success would take longer."
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:28 AM
Feb 2014

"The officials acknowledge that budget cuts will impose greater risk on the armed forces if they are again ordered to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time: Success would take longer, they say,"

"Longer?" Like to the 20th of Never rather than the 12th?

-- Mal

RKP5637

(67,107 posts)
30. They can start by demilitarizing the local police departments. Some of the police
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:50 AM
Feb 2014

departments in RW lands where I lived looked/acted more like invasion forces than your local small town cops.

Javaman

(62,521 posts)
31. Flowery words...
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:54 AM
Feb 2014

wait until the defense lobbyists are unleashed and the various congress critters that are effected by this begin to whine.

at the end of the day, there will be marginal cut with the money cut going to some other program then labeled as cost savings.

lots of people, which closely resemble the 1%, stand to lose a lot of money by this cut.

I can hope, but you know the old saying about hoping in one hand...

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
37. He won't get everything he's proposing, and he probably knows that.
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:50 PM
Feb 2014

They're already throwing a fit about the A-10--the Senate has tried to block that cut. The commissary cuts and BAH reductions will cause foam-at-the-mouth conniptions (though I think the Tricare fee increases will go through). The Guard is already running from Governor to Congresscritter and back again, trying to keep from being cut or restructured. The plan to cut the carrier fleet by --ONE!-- is dead for now because Obama didn't want the giant convulsive hissyfit that would ensue this year. The budget's going to be a tough sell in several ways, but so far I don't think it sounds unreasonable.

MicaelS

(8,747 posts)
38. So the Army get reduced
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 01:20 PM
Feb 2014

But the Air Force and Navy won't suffer proportionally. Why am I not surprised.

Under Mr. Hagel’s proposals, the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft would be eliminated. The aircraft was designed to destroy Soviet tanks in case of an invasion of Western Europe, and the capabilities are deemed less relevant today. The budget plan does sustain money for the controversial F-35 warplane, which has been extremely expensive and has run into costly delays.

In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk.

The Navy would be allowed to purchase two destroyers and two attack submarines every year. But 11 cruisers will be ordered into reduced operating status during modernization.

Although consideration was given to retiring an aircraft carrier, the Navy will keep its fleet of 11 — for now. The George Washington would be brought in for overhaul and nuclear refueling — a lengthy process that could be terminated in future years under tighter budgets.
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
43. This is NOT that big a CUT, for two reasons
Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:13 PM
Feb 2014

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:07 PM - Edit history (2)

First, in 1939 to 1941 the US Army included the then US Air Corp, which was classified as part of the Army. When the US Army Air Force was formed up in 1941, it became a forth branch of the Military but as part of the US Army just like the Marines is an Independent service, but under the Department of the Navy. When the Air Corps became the Air Force, it took with it not only the planes but security and other support elements that had previously been run by the Army. I.e. the Army not only lost the planes, but security around Air Force Bases, supply lines to the Air Bases and other support personnel. At the same time the Air Force remained under technical Army Command (and would remain till 1947, when the Air Force would emerge from the Army as an independent service.

Now the Air Force expanded greatly in the 1920s and 1930s. Congress put more and more money into Air Planes. Thus the Air Service slowly became to big, it first become the Air Corp then the Army Air Force and in 1947 the US Air Force. Thus the Army in 1939 not included US Ground forces, but also US Air Forces. Thus a "Reduction" to US Army size to its Size in 1939, means how large NOT only US Army ground Forces were but also the US Air Corp (Which was already flying the B-17 Flying Fortress by 1939).

Thus this reduction does NOT mean total GROUND FORCES are reduced to what the US Army had in 1939, but the total personal in the US Army in 1939, which also included anything that is now part of the US Air Force.

The Second problem is that in 1939, the US Department of War was the lead Department when it came to actual war planning. The Department of Navy was its equal, but when it came to joint planning that was a US Department of War mission. That Duty was transferred from the Department of War to the Department of Defense in 1947, at the same time the Department of War was renamed the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force was created. The general rule is that 1/6th of the total Defense Budget goes to the Department of Defense to coordinate the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The US Navy gets 1/3 of the Budget, the Air Force gets 1/3 and the US Army gets 1/4. In many ways this reflected the fact that duties done by the Department of War in 1939 was to be done by the Department of Defense after 1947. This is a further removal of personal from the Army of 1939, without actually eliminating them.

Between these two actions, we are talking of a cut in the Army, but not down to what the Army, as the Department of War, was spending in 1939.

Also remember the term "Before WWII" in the US means before December 7th, 1941. In this article they are using 1940. by 1940 the US army was expanding do to what Germany was doing in Poland and later France. By May 1940 the US was building up its Military (For the first time in Peace time the US Army organized itself into Divisions). . The Draft started in May 1941 seven months BEFORE Pearl Harbor. In the above I used 1939, but I suspect the number reflects 1941, as the draft kicked in and as the Army Air Corp became the Army Air Force.

Due to where transportation and housing was located, Maneuvers ended up in Louisiana from 1939 onward (Some indication that FDR forced Louisiana for such maneuvers both to show the people of Louisiana the might of the US Army, rural Louisiana had been the heart of Huey Long's support before his death in 1935 and also to show what financial help FDR could provide the people of Louisiana so they would vote for FDR).

These maneuvers were part of the slow expansion of the US Army during the late 1930s as FDR decided it was time to build up the US military as Japan and Germany both expanded their militaries.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pentagon Plans to Shrink ...