- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Could the US have fought a two theater war in WWI?
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:12 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:12 am
Let’s say Japan was a member of the Central powers and we found ourselves at war with them as well. Could the US have successfully pulled off a two theater war a generation earlier?
I’m not sure our industrial capacity was such that we probably wouldn’t have been able to do it.
I’m not sure our industrial capacity was such that we probably wouldn’t have been able to do it.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:15 am
9
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:32 am to grizzlylongcut
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:39 am to grizzlylongcut
We actually did for a short time. There was an expedition into northern Russia right before the end of WWI, ostensibly to protect military supplies sent to the eastern front to help Russia fight the Germans. It evolved into a conflict against the red army as the Russian revolution began. The 339th Regiment was composed mostly of U.S. soldiers from northern states like MI and WI because it was believed they were better suited to weather conditions in northern Russia. Their war continued after WWI ended. The soldiers called themselves the Polar Bears. Search Polar Bear Expedition for a fascinating history lesson.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:41 am to grizzlylongcut
The United States had only scratched the surface of the potential military power it had access to.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:43 am to shutterspeed
Holy shite fantastic. Hahahahaah
Posted on 7/23/26 at 10:58 am to grizzlylongcut
We could have after our industry had enough time to fully convert to a war footing. Like tigerinexile said above, we only scratched the surface of our potential. What the Allies needed at the moment were warm bodies, and the equipment could catch up later. Hell, my great-grandfather made it over there with the 65th Costal Artillery without their artillery pieces, and ended up using British 9.2-inch howitzers throughout 1918.
Also, as said above, we had troops in Russia but also in northern Italy in addition to Belgium and France.
Also, as said above, we had troops in Russia but also in northern Italy in addition to Belgium and France.
This post was edited on 7/23/26 at 10:59 am
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:13 am to TheFonz
Given time, yes, but when we joined the war, we had about 300,000 in the military. By the time it ended, we had about 5 million. It took a little over a year to get there.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:25 am to grizzlylongcut
What would a war with Japan look like in that era?
No aircraft carriers.. no long range bombers.. no jet engines..
If it would have been battleships and island hopping that would get brutal fast I'd think.
No aircraft carriers.. no long range bombers.. no jet engines..
If it would have been battleships and island hopping that would get brutal fast I'd think.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:39 am to RebRxV
quote:
We actually did for a short tim
Lol, no. That was not a two-front theater - that was an expedition. Huge difference in two actual fronts. We didn't have the capability as we did in WWII and especially not the Navy.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:41 am to grizzlylongcut
I think we would’ve just focused it all on the other front. The Western European front was not really necessary for the US
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:44 am to LSUBoo
quote:
What would a war with Japan look like in that era?
No aircraft carriers.. no long range bombers.. no jet engines..
If it would have been battleships and island hopping that would get brutal fast I'd think.
We had zero jet engines in the PTO. We would have had a much, much harder time than what we did in WWII. Our fist carrier didn't join the fleet until 1922. Had war expanded into the Pacific, that may have been rushed, but doubtful. Honestly, I think we'd have had a stalemate. Yet, Japan wouldn't have spread as far as it did in WWII. Think the invasion of Manchuria.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:48 am to grizzlylongcut
Google Washington Naval Treaty of 1920.
The US lead the world in battleships at the time, and the US ability to develop and build ever larger and more powerful ships in numbers that no other country could match lead to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1920.
The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes, and it probably helped cause WW2 in the Pacific, which was probably inevitable anyway.
The US lead the world in battleships at the time, and the US ability to develop and build ever larger and more powerful ships in numbers that no other country could match lead to the Washington Naval Treaty of 1920.
The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes, and it probably helped cause WW2 in the Pacific, which was probably inevitable anyway.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:58 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Lol, no. That was not a two-front theater - that was an expedition. Huge difference in two actual fronts. We didn't have the capability as we did in WWII and especially not the Navy.
I wonder what the guys of the 339th would have said if you told them that!
Posted on 7/23/26 at 11:59 am to CharlesUFarley
While might have the most, not every one would have been in the Pacific. Without the carriers as in 1941, the Japs wouldn't have spread as far as they did. They would have taken China and the surrounding area, where they would have held a huge advantage over us.
Once our losses would start to mount, how many would we put into action vs pulling them back and just holding?
Once our losses would start to mount, how many would we put into action vs pulling them back and just holding?
Posted on 7/23/26 at 12:00 pm to RebRxV
quote:
I wonder what the guys of the 339th would have said if you told them that!
Again, "front" vs "expedition." Learn the difference.
Posted on 7/23/26 at 3:19 pm to RebRxV
Don't forget the Wolfhounds (27th Inf Regt)!
Posted on 7/23/26 at 3:20 pm to LSUBoo
Japan was a member of the Allies
Posted on 7/23/26 at 3:23 pm to TygerLyfe
I still don't know how they were able to mobilize and fight wars on both ends of the earth in WW2
Thankfully Russia was an ally that applied a ton of pressure on Germany on the eastern side and be thankful the atomic bomb wasn't developed by Germany or Japan first
Thankfully Russia was an ally that applied a ton of pressure on Germany on the eastern side and be thankful the atomic bomb wasn't developed by Germany or Japan first
Posted on 7/23/26 at 4:11 pm to grizzlylongcut
Depends on the scale we’re talking about. Keep in mind that only 16 years before the start of WWI the US fought a war against Spain in Cuba and the Philippines.
Posted on 7/24/26 at 8:51 am to Spaceman Spiff
Carriers were not a factor in World War 1. The OP question was could the US have fought a 2 theatre war in WW1 and the answer is yes.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News