Shipping in 1942 (WWII)

  • Thread starter Thread starter BillTre
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the logistics and supply issues during WWII, particularly in 1942, highlighting the expertise of Sal Mercagliano and a historian's insights. It explores the military service of future U.S. presidents, noting that all major party nominees from 1945 to 2012, except Adlai Stevenson, had military experience, reflecting a time when such service was seen as essential for leadership. The conversation touches on the evolving perception of military service in politics, indicating a decline in this expectation post-Cold War, particularly after the 2012 election. It also contrasts past attitudes towards military involvement and national unity with contemporary views, emphasizing a loss of the collective ethos that once characterized American society. The discussion ultimately underscores how historical military service shaped political landscapes and societal values over time.
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2024 Award
Messages
2,670
Reaction score
11,549
These two guys are logistics or supply nerds who just love talking about supply issues, especially in WW2.

One wrote a book on 1942 and the other is some kind of professor somewhere. Sal Mercagliano does great explanations of shipping accidents based on the available records.
They discuss many ways that logistics and supply lines affected military actions, in 1942, in several theaters.
I found it interesting.
 
Science news on Phys.org
FYI Richard M. Nixon served as a US Navy supply officer in the Pacific during WWII. One historian noted that Nixon facilitated shipments of high-performace fuel to PT boat squadrons that included later political rival and fellow Navy officer John F. Kennedy.

One fictionalized account had Nixon also meeting Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson island hopping as a member of a bomber crew. Later research indicates LBJ only flew a few well publicized missions, likely not meeting Nixon, at least during WWII.

Senator's son George H.W. Bush certainly did fly many dangerous difficult missons piloting SBD Dauntless dive bombers against the Imperial Japanese Navy. Some enterprising historian might find transport bills for fuel and supplies connecting Nixon to GHW Bush given, as stated, the immense sustained interest in all things WWII.

These apparent connections among future US presidents during WWII indicate how dedicated people of that generation served in the military during time of need. Demonstrating true patriotism by service to the country once seemed a prerequisite to higher office, now a quaint historical footnote.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre and berkeman
All nine Presidents from Harry Truman through Bush the First had served in the military. During this 47-year period all major party nominees for the presidency except Adlai Stevenson had served in the military. That includes Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. FDR never enlisted but had been Deputy Secretary of the Navy so you reasonably could include him too making for a 60-year streak of veteran presidents.

This requirement weakened gradually then began to lose its grip with the ostensible end of the Cold War and election of Bill Clinton. Still, subsequent nominees Bob Dole, W, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain were all veterans. This tradition finally sank away entirely with the 2012 Barack Obama/Mitt Romney contest with neither candidate a veteran. After this I don't recall this criterion getting any mention at all.

In the old days the military was seen as a legitimate tool to expand the nation interest via conquering other nations. All the great powers were doing this. William McKinley had enlisted as a common soldier in the Civil War and saw a goodly amount of serious combat. Winston Churchill "saw action" as a young lieutenant. Teddy Roosevelt lost sons in World War One, this killing his enthusiasm for war. Joe Kennedy Jr. died as a military test pilot, a very dangerous duty. A great deal of hay was made over JFK's stint as a PT boat captain. As a minimum you had to have served in the military, and even so would be disfavored if you had never come under fire. LBJ made a big point of exposing himself to very serious enemy fire, though I believe it was only once.

When I was a kid the dominant ethos was the nation had to stick together and support its leaders. The military crewcut purposed to abate lice was very popular. The Beatle cut was considered subversive to national unity, it caused a huge controversy. Vietnam put a dent in this ethic, Nixon's disgrace was another blow, it faded away gradually, and by now this feeling has disappeared completely. Also having disappeared is the idea that the rich and famous should expose themselves and their progeny to enemy fire, or at the very least have volunteered for the USO. The "we're all in this together" feeling has left the building.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Astronuc, Klystron and BillTre
Historian seeks recognition for first English king https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d07w50e15o Somewhere I have a list of Anglo-Saxon, Wessex and English kings. Well there is nothing new there. Parts of Britain experienced tribal rivalries/conflicts as well as invasions by the Romans, Vikings/Norsemen, Angles, Saxons and Jutes, then Normans, and various monarchs/emperors declared war on other monarchs/emperors. Seems that behavior has not ceased.
Back
Top