The United States: 'Advantages without Obligations'

Le France Libre, Evil Capitalist: Speculate away!. The beauty of writing as you play is that you are not one hundred percent with where the story is going though you do have set ideas, which of course I cannot reveal.

TC Pilot: Wilkie would be interesting as he was more interventionist. Landon would have to bungle things a bit to put his renomination in jeopardy. We'll see.

Nuclear Winter, poppy, Sir Humphrey, Prince Eugene: Thanks!

January 1937: The Inauguration

On January 20, 1937, thousands of citizens packed Washington, D.C. on a cool drizzly morning to attend the inauguration of President Alf Landon. There was a feeling of anticipation in the air and depending on which party one belonged to, a sense of excitement or a sense of worry. Over the past couple months the new leadership had taken shape and it was clear that the future of FDR’s social legislation and New Deal was going to be the centerpiece of Landon’s inaugural address. Journalists and connoisseurs of speechmaking prepared to hang on every word in order to determine which direction the new administration intended to take.

From the moment he began, it was clear that Landon was not the inspired speaker that Roosevelt was, nor was his speech packed with any electric phrases such as one that people remembered from the previous inauguration – “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” – and that sort of thing. It began slow and plodding, an almost rigid businesslike recitation of the problems facing the United States and why it was the Democrats who had put the country into that position. If it was meant to inspire, it was not very successful. Only those who were already supporters of Landon would appreciate what was speaking about.

After the opening rhetoric of the emergency of the Depression having passed, less need for emergency legislation, and a country in debt, Landon shifted gears to what were the twin pillars of his platform – fiscal responsibility and basic individualism. Once more, his speech was noteworthy more for its many criticisms of progressive social legislation rather than proposing any concrete alternatives, and he promised Americans that he would bring back true financial economy and individual freedoms by getting big government out of their lives. A few reporters noted that Landon, typically a critic of big business, left any such phrases out of his address.

The noteworthy phrase came towards the end of the speech and as the style of the closing paragraph seemed an improvement on the body of the speech, there would be wide rumors that this closing part had been written for him by a staffer. Launching into a final swipe at Roosevelt’s New Deal, he finally reached heights of rhetoric that were relatively good, if perhaps not inspired. ”Roosevelt’s deal was new...and look what it cost us, look what it cost the American people. I want to take us back, I want to restore our values to before the New Deal. My deal is different, my deal is better. My deal is tried and true. My deal is just and proper.” And the phrase was born. Landon’s programs, whatever they would be in the coming months, would be dubbed the ‘Just and Proper’ Deal.


For Americans, there was some concern over what would happen to some of the programs of the New Deal that they were beginning to count on for their security and piece of mind. Words in a speech were one thing, but many eyes were fixed on the capital, wondering how hard would Landon and the Republicans move against the New Deal.

La France Libre: Ah, I learn something new everyday. So, perhaps Wilkie could run against Landon in 1940. Hmmm....

Sir Humphrey: There'll be military progress, don't worry. Just a lot of political stuff going on now.

Frankie: Thank you, sir. I just love writing this AAR and seem to roll with it each day so far!

February – March 1937: The Just and Proper Deal – Part I

As winter stubbornly hung on, Nationalist Chinese forces moved to bring their industrial capacity inland to safety as Japanese amphibious landings were effected in Nantong and Xiamen provinces. The Yellow River line was broken and Shanghai and possibly the capital at Nanking was in jeopardy. Yet the war still looked to be a long one, with more national unity demonstrated as Sinkiang rallied to the cause against the invaders. In Spain, Madrid changed hands once more as the Nationalists consolidated their hold on the center of the country. Confined to the south and east, the Republicans failed in their bid to lure France in with promises of Morocco, but this war too waged on. Purges began in the Soviet Union and in Germany, Hitler invited Mussolini to pay him a visit.


Yet in the United States, things were of a much different focus as the new administration of President Alf Landon took office and began to propose the first of his ‘Just and Proper Deal’ program, in effect a repeal of his predecessor’s work. His first legislative attempts at repeal quickly soured in Congress and it was quickly discovered just how popular some of the provisions of the New Deal had been. The first bill was a direct attack on what Republicans assumed were the easiest portions of the New Deal to get rid of – the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). It was quickly discovered the grouping their attacks in a single omnibus bill was a costly error. Each program had its supporters and those who had a vested interest in seeing them continued, and combining their repeal attempts only united opposition. The first bill of repeal died early and Democrats breathed a sigh of relief.

Landon’s second attempt was as expected, three separate bills of repeal, proposed in mid-February. Yet again he ran into trouble, the first bill having aroused increased opposition that even individual bills could make little headway. By late February, only the TVA bill was approaching a final Congressional vote, and it was going to be a close one. The Republican leadership began to worry. If these programs generated such opposition, they despaired to think of the opposition to bills against other provisions of the New Deal, such as social security, unemployment insurance, and deposit insurance. While this was going on, Mr. Dolman paid a visit to Washington, D.C., to quietly consult with the government and ensure that their arrangement remained intact and to offer succor if needed.

In early March, attention moved to the new federal budget for the coming fiscal year. Here at last Landon began to show some foresight and shrewd maneuvering. Rather than target any specific New Deal programs, the Republicans slashed the budget across the board, invoking the name of a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility. From a fiscal year 1936 budget of $8.5, the Republicans proposed a bare bones budget of $7.5 billion, not much higher than spending had been in 1934. This time the melee in Congress was heated but chaotic and although both parties knew precisely what the implications of a leaner budget would be – New Deal programs couldn’t run on less funds, the Republicans were careful to confine their rhetoric to balancing the budget. March was the scene of bitter partisan battles in both houses as the provisions slowly drifted from committee to the floor of both houses, and it became apparent that there would be a party-line vote. Finally, as March came to a close, the Senate and House staged close votes, and Landon’s lean budget barely limped past Congressional scrutiny. Two days later, the TVA bill passed with similarly tight margins and the first nails in the New Deal’s coffin had been driven in.


Yet even while Landon could see some room for optimism for his legislative programs, Mr. Dolman returned once more with news from the men he represented. The reports from south of the border were not encouraging and many discussions were being held in Texas and Louisiana. Lots of eyes were on Mexico and Cardenas and they were not liking what they saw. March saw continued nationalizations in that neighboring country and Mexico continued to drift left on the political scale. It was intimated to Landon that perhaps Mr. Taft should take a trip to Mexico City. Soon. It was not a request.


Meanwhile, the American military now had to contend with a budget that had just been slashed by over 10%. Even with the right men in charge, it remained to be seen what sort of economies would have to be made in the coming months.

April 1937: The Military in Transition – The Summerall Report

As spring 1937 began, each service of the armed forces began to take stock of how to economize with their reduced budgets as well as to submit their recommendations for the direction the military should take in the coming years. Each Chief of Staff was required to submit these reports in April. These combined documents, commonly referred to as the Summerall Report, represent a clear shift in doctrinal thinking in the late 1930s, as the slow yet gradual modernization of technology, training, and theory was confronted by frugality and conservatism in command.


The Army: ’The Home Folks First’

Research and Development

Most of the notable advances in weaponry being done in the United States in 1937 were in infantry equipment and doctrine. The 10% general reduction in the federal budget, by the time it was allocated and assigned by the Republican-dominated Congressional Budget Office, translated into percentages as high as 15-20% by the time it reached the military, particularly in the field of research and development. To the high command’s mode of thinking, the infantryman was the backbone of any military, and this would receive first priority for any funds leftover for research. Despite the economies of the Summerall Report, the United States infantryman was very competitive with its counterparts throughout the world. Advances with the medium mortar, the basic service rifle (M1 Garand), and developments in signals communications at division through army-level were seen during this timeframe. While some areas, such as artillery and electronics would receive even less priority for research, others, such as armored development, would barely receive anything at all.

Doctrine

The strategy of the United States army in 1937 remained defensive. In addition, to reduce logistical costs such as fuel and maintenance – and because there was barely any research at all – tank development was almost completely put on hold, giving the cavalryman a twilight period of service in the late 1930s. The heady days of the Tank Corps, which saw service in France in 1918, was a thing of the past and in this tight fiscal period, the army was geared more to fight like 1914 than it was like 1918, with infantry continuing to form the vanguard of the advance and cavalry used to exploit breakthroughs, guard the flanks, and for scouting. The one armored division then in existence was considered a liability primarily for logistical reasons and one of the recommendations of General Winship, the Army Chief of Staff, was to study the probability of eliminating the division altogether, or at least reducing it to brigade or regimental strength.

Deployments/Production

It was clear that the army was going to get barely anything in the way of new divisions. Winship asked for little as a result, save for the possibility of expanding to a new five-division corps of three infantry and two cavalry divisions to use for maneuvers and deployment in the Southwest. As of the end of April, the proposal was still hung up in Congressional committee. There were some concrete steps he could take, and one of them was a recommendation to bring home the division in the Philippines, a step which would increase the force guarding the country at home and eliminate the costs of convoying supplies to such a far-flung post.



The Army Air Corps: ‘To Guard and Support’

Research and Development

Aircraft development in the United States was crippled from the moment the 1937 budget was implemented. Though there was a little still allocated to fighter development, bombers were virtually ignored and it was clear that the air service was going to given the lowest third priority amongst the armed services, particularly in light of its subordination to the Army. These changes were naturally in keeping with the doctrinal shifts that its new Chief of Staff, General Bowley, was contemplating.

Doctrine

The Army Air Corps had had some reasons for optimism before 1937. The establishment of its General Headquarters (GHQ) air force had created a potent and separate striking force that did much to move the Army Air Corps away from its role as an army support tool and towards its own independent role as a tactical and strategic offensive weapon. However, 1937 brought two changes which reversed this trend – massive budget cuts and the conservative Chief of Staff, Albert J. Bowley. Economies would make the maintenance of a strong fighter force and an independent bomber force difficult and Bowley’s own mistrust of bombers made this even worse. The Summerall Report would contain provisions calling for a return to pure ‘army aviation’, with fighter squadrons divided up amongst army corps and sometimes divisions, serving in specified ground support and sometimes air superiority roles. Scouting and observation would be retained through the Army’s Signal Corps, but offensive roles through the GHQ, while not officially repealed, would simply not be supported as vigorously as before.

Deployments/Production

There was not a single new fighter or bomber under production in the United States in 1937 that was destined for its own military. There was barely enough supplies to maintain those planes currently deployed. General Bowley had proposed two new fighter squadrons for what he deemed as ‘coastal defense’ but this proposal remained bogged down in Congressional committee. Bowley also recommended the disbanding of the strategic bombing force (a single squadron) based in Portland and the reduction of the tactical bomber component of the Army Air Corps by a squadron or two.



The Navy: ’Once Vaunted’

Research and Development

The Navy was the only service that did not see a replacement in its Chief of Staff. Admiral William Standley was seen as mild enough by the Landon administration to be retained in his present post. Regardless, it was clear from the Summerall Report that the Navy had slipped from first priority to a clear second behind the Army. Funds earmarked for submarine development almost completely dried up, and anything left over was confined to traditional arms of the service, such as the battleships. Past advances in carrier aviation had modernized the navy somewhat, but could not overcome the lethargy caused by a reduced budget.

Doctrine

Admiral Standley was a firm believer in the ‘maneuver by posts’ or ‘base control’ doctrine advocated by more conservative admirals in the Navy, namely that the Navy would survive through maintaining control of what it already had and, when war broke, strengthening this control, engaging the enemy, and then gradually expanding this control to include his enemy’s bases. None of this was to change in 1937, except to take into account a reduction in logistics and materials needed for ship maneuvers.

Deployments/Production

Fortunately for the Navy, many ships were already under production in 1937, including two carriers, the Yorktown and Enterprise, and a few support vessels. Though there would be a slowdown in production, the Navy could count on this increased striking force by 1938-9 at the latest. Future production, however, would have to take into account the increasing tendency of the high command to think in terms of home waters and the old love of battleships which was not yet lost. Standley made a few deployment recommendations, including folding the Asiatic Fleet into the Pacific Fleet command and reducing the logistical strain the Pacific.

Battleline: Thank you for your compliments. Those previous AARs were fun and also a lot of work trying to fit everything in and be true to the history. I think I'm more optimistic about this one because it's more of an alternate history and I'm having more fun. And I have a backup file that I send to a friend by email each time I save my game.

rollothepirate: The Landon Administration is certainly classic isolationist and it's also beholden to 'other interests'. What remains to be seen is whether the administration will be successful or whether there will be a backlash in a few years which will kick him out of office.

May 1937: Foreign Affairs

The United States was slowly drawing itself deeper into its isolationist shell as 1937 continued, despite the momentous events taking place throughout the world. In China, the Japanese broke through the Communist defenses in Xinyiang province and threatened to overrun positions in Yanan. Their bridgeheads along the Chinese coast were expanded and Japanese columns approached Nanking and Shanghai. In Spain, both sides trade offensives as the Republicans retook Madrid and Valencia, only to lose Barcelona and most of the north. Yet still America did not pay attention. Overtures from the Soviet Union for assistance in naval construction were rebuffed. Aid for Republican Spain was denied. It was clear that the Landon Administration, and indeed American society, was not thinking in terms of overseas in 1937.

Two events in May, however, gave an indication that perhaps this was not entirely true. The first occurred in China, as Japanese forces overran Chinese defenses along the Yangtze River and took the former capital at Nanking (which had been moved inland to Kunming). The resulting occupation was a testament to brutality and horror as their armies caused widespread destruction of property, massive looting, and terrible loss of civilian life on a scale, which even the United States could not completely ignore. Word of the incident soon arrived in American newspapers and became the focus of discussion amongst leading circles for weeks. A letter of protest was dispatched to Tokyo - over Secretary Taft’s objections - though Democratic critics viewed this as too little and far too weak. Congressional critics howled with anger at military cuts at a time when U.S. interests in the Pacific were being threatened by an aggressor like Japan.


In a politically astute move, the Army quietly postponed the redeployment of the Philippine division from Luzon to California for another month, to give domestic opinion time to calm and reduce the likelihood of a public outcry when troops were withdrawn from a country so close to embattled China. The Filipino government was already crying ‘betrayal!’ and ‘abandonment!’ over the American moves. The Nanking Massacre, as it came to be called, kept the issue of China in the American consciousness, at least to a degree, and gave the Democrats a weapon which they could use against the Republicans as time wore on – that they were neglecting American interests overseas and the interests of freedom and like-minded countries.

The administration, however, had a foreign policy issue of its own that was slowly developing. In May, Secretary Taft paid a visit to Mexico City to meet with President Cardenas and present the American government’s views on some of Mexico’s most recent actions with regards to nationalization and expropriations. It was a reluctant Secretary of State that went on this trip, seeing no need to antagonize their southern neighbor with demands or protests, and it was only a closed-door meeting with President Landon that convinced him into making the effort.


His meeting with Cardenas was not very productive. Although Taft presented the views of the United States – and in particular, its business interests, his lack of enthusiasm for the entire project was evident and the Mexicans picked up on that. Sensing his reluctance, Cardenas took a firm stand and coldly informed Taft that Mexico had no intentions of slowing its programs simply because its more powerful neighbor “bullied” them into doing so. Reports written after the fact record that Cardenas caught Taft off-guard and kept him there for the rest of the meeting. Towards the end of the meeting, Cardenas became more aggressive, seeking assurances from Secretary Taft of the United States’ benign intentions. Taft demurred repeatedly but the Mexican President would withdraw, move on to another subject, and then press again when least expected. Anxious to simply conclude the meeting, Taft agreed that ”the United States had no intentions of pressing the issue of expropriations with regards to foreign nationals in Mexico.” Nodding, Cardenas relaxed, having gotten what he wanted and given nothing in return.


Mexico was not the sensational issue that China was in the press, though it was reported more often. Newspapers seemed to print more stories about the seizure of personal and commercial property and the violation of rights by the Mexican government. Editorials regarding Mexico dwarfed those about China even though in most social circles, China was the issue most discussed. Yet even as these issues were being discussed, the administration continued to turn a deaf ear to affairs outside its borders.

pkdickian: I am glad you're enjoying it. I believe I am well insulated against tech problems and am crossing my fingers! As Evil Capitalist said, the 20th Amendment was ratified in 1933 and moved the inauguration to January 20th. The 1937 inauguration was actually the first January one. I wasn't sure either, which is why I had to research this for my post.

Evil Capitalist: You're making me blush, sir! Thanks!

June – July 1937: A Country Interrupted

Tokyo radio blared triumphant news of the latest Japanese victories on the Chinese mainland as their victorious armies continued to advance. Japanese columns moving south across the Yangtze seized Shanghai and continued on to link up with bridgeheads out of Xiamen, practically encircling the foreign enclaves at Macao and Hong Kong. In Spain, the Republicans suffered a crippling blow as Basque separatists used the opportunity to go their own way, staging the brief and bloody fighting in Euskadi high in the Pyrenees. Recognized by neither Spain, it was quickly snuffed out by Nationalists delighted to break the back of Republican power in the north. Madrid was once again under siege, and Republican forces huddled in the southeast.

June saw increasing signs of bitter legislative battles in Congress, even as news of China refused to go away. Landon’s CCC and WPA repeal bills continued to limp forward and rumors were already floating down through Capitol Hill that rural electrification and unemployment insurance were next on the Republican list of targets. All of this, however, was briefly shunted aside by news of the fall of Shanghai and its aftermath. Japanese forces overran the International Settlement and many Americans escaped the city to tell their story of chaos and horror, adding to the growing clamor in the United States. In the height of irony, transports docking in Manila were offloading the first Shanghai refugees even as transports loaded with the troops of General Douglas MacArthur’s Philippine Division were setting off for San Francisco. MacArthur would be sacked within the month, his protests against the deployment earning him a reprimand and transfer from the Army Chief of Staff, General Winship. He would be replaced by the relatively mild engineer, General Somervell.


In late June, China again came to the forefront when Japanese forces, advancing up the Yangtze River valley, bombed the U.S. gunboat Panay, which lay at anchor and was clearly marked and visible from the air. Another protest by the Landon Administration brought about a Japanese apology and promise of punishment for those responsible, but the Democrats were fast becoming emboldened in their attacks on Republican policy. ”They are losing the Pacific!” was a new and steadily popular Democratic slogan that was being heard at this time.


To the surprise of President and the Republicans, the newly resurgent Democrats, joined by some in the President’s own party who were having doubts over his China policy, put forth a proposed bill to exchange Chinese silver dollars for American gold, giving greater credit access to China and allowing them to purchase more critical supplies. It was a passive solution, yet it was at least doing something. Surely even the Republicans could not object to this. But they did. Congress in late June and early July was the scene of some of the more formidable debates on U.S. isolationism. Senator Pitman, for whom the Act was named, had some of the more notable words. ”It is not that we are well to do! Rather that we are to do well! And do well for those in the world who uphold the principles upon which this country was founded.” By narrow margins, the Pitman Act squeaked by both houses of Congress in early July. President Landon was forced to issue his first veto of his administration. It was clearly a Pyrrhic victory, and the Democrats smelled blood.

The outcry that followed was muted only by the fortuitous actions of that other foreign policy arena, Mexico. President Cardenas, having judged Secretary Taft, and through him the United States, and having found both wanting, saw no obstacles to his continued programs of consolidating power in the leftist unions and his government through nationalization and expropriation. On July 11th, three days after Landon’s veto of the Pitman Act, President Cardenas announced the nationalization of Mexico’s railways.


Even those who discounted the importance of the Mexican issue were shocked at the bold move, particularly as Cardenas followed up the nationalization with the seizure of all rolling stock, stations, support facilities, and any and all property found within. A rate hike was also announced to coincide with a wage increase being granted to Mexican workers. Such an increase would fall heavily upon those who used the railways the most – large companies, especially foreign ones. And in Mexico, this meant oil companies. There was a meeting in New Orleans less than a week after Cardenas’ announcement and within another week, Mr. Dolman had arrived in Washington, D.C. for consultations with President Landon. It was clear that certain steps would be appreciated. Meanwhile, in Mexico, the railway seizures began. In most cases, they were peaceful and without incident, but in some instances the owners of said property were reluctant to simply hand over their goods.

President Landon ordered Secretary Taft to draft a letter of protest to the Mexican government, but Taft took his time in doing so, a move Cardenas had anticipated and which only encouraged the boldness of his actions. In his other move, however, Landon acted with an assertiveness that surprised many of his peers. He met with Chief of Staff Summerall and it was announced that the Army would be holding training maneuvers in the Southwest during the summer and autumn, ”a move which in no way is related to the incidents in Mexico and which was planned for some time beforehand,” the administration hastened to reassure its critics.


As part of these maneuvers, the 2nd Division was brought down to New Orleans. Commanded by General Moore (who had been deemed more reliable than his predecessor General Bradley), the unit would practice wargames in central and southern Louisiana. Cavalry units were moved into the desert to practice endurance marches, scouting missions, and other drills. Meanwhile, General Somervell’s Philippine Division was disembarking in Los Angeles. Four-fifths of the Army were now concentrated on the southern border of the United States.

This was not as formidable as it sounded, however, and both Presidents Landon and Cardenas knew this. The United States army, numbering five divisions, was outnumbered by the Mexican army’s six. Most of the Army Air Corps was undergoing maintenance overhaul or upgrading as part of General Bowley’s return to traditional army aviation. The strategic bomber arm had been disbanded due to budget cuts. One half of the tactical bomber force was also gone. And Cardenas believed the assurances he was getting from Secretary Taft and President Landon that this was just an exercise. If it was supposed to intimidate Mexico, it was poorly executed.

As July closed, it was clear that in order to comply with Mr. Dolman’s “requests”, some provisions for the Army were going to have to be made.