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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

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.

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
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pentagon Plans to Shrink ...»Reply #43