# Why did the Allies allow Germany to re-arm after WWI?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [November 9, 2018, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259 "2018-11-09T20:57:37Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [November 15, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/41 "2018-11-15T23:59:32Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> The U.S. also had the North Carolina class afloat in 1941, as well as sixteen “Standard” battleships left over from WW1. The US Navy was equal in size to the Royal Navy ever since the Washington Naval Treaty. [cite](https://ww2-weapons.com/us-navy-in-late-1941/)
> 
> In my opinion, Germany was not going to be able to rampage up and down the US east coast with the impunity as you seem to imply.

They did a pretty good imitation of it with U-boats.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/42 "2018-11-16T14:20:45Z")

</div>

> [@Magiver](#):
>
> They did a pretty good imitation of it with U-boats.

No Uboat was going to destroy naval shipyards. That was your assertion.

And I would like to repeat that the _North Carolina_ class was, in many ways, the American equivalent of/to the Bismark class.

Also, I think a German surface group operating off the U.S. east coast was going to have a pretty limited “time on station” due to the small number of oilers the Germans possessed. I am not familiar with the level of experience the Germans had with replenishment of heavy ships at sea, but I would bet that it was not as developed as the USN or RN, nor would it be as simple as replenishing Uboats from Milchcows.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/43 "2018-11-16T15:08:08Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> No Uboat was going to destroy naval shipyards. That was your assertion.
> 
> And I would like to repeat that the _North Carolina_ class was, in many ways, the American equivalent of/to the Bismark class.
> 
> Also, I think a German surface group operating off the U.S. east coast was going to have a pretty limited “time on station” due to the small number of oilers the Germans possessed. I am not familiar with the level of experience the Germans had with replenishment of heavy ships at sea, but I would bet that it was not as developed as the USN or RN, nor would it be as simple as replenishing Uboats from Milchcows.

I agree with your posts in this thread and would add that no German surface fleet would be able to range along the US coast because they couldn’t control the air as well. Once the US got rolling and ramped up after Germany declared war even the U-Boats were relegated to the mid-Atlantic gap. Oh, they had some good initial success, but that’s because the US wasn’t really ready for the fight. That pretty rapidly changed though once we were actually in it.

Also, your point about battleships is a good one. The Germans only had 2 of the Bismarck class ships and, realistically, no way to make more (I think that even originally they were only going to make 4). They relied more on battle cruisers, cruisers and destroyers, and they didn’t have all that many of those, either. Even at the start of the war the US had a larger surface fleet than Germany, and within 2 years we dwarfed anything they had. Most of that was sent to the Pacific theater, but there was plenty enough to basically assist the Brits in making the German U-Boat crews the service that had the highest losses of any other service in any other military of the war.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/44 "2018-11-16T15:19:34Z")

</div>

> [@Magiver](#):
>
> The Iowa class ships weren’t commissioned until 1943. The Bismarck and Tirpitz were operational in 1941. They could have pounded the naval shipyards building the Iowa class ships and delayed their entry into the war.

Sure, if they were allowed to sail all the way there unmolested and inexplicably were just permitted to blast away without being attacked by aircraft and submarines.

The odds of Bismark and Tirpitz doing something like that were approximately zero; Bismarck’s fate was totally inevitable. She sank a little quicker than expected, perhaps, and took HMS Hood with her, but she wasn’t going to just be allowed to traipse around the US coast doing as she pleased. The Royal Navy went balls to the wall to sink Bismarck and would have done the same to Tirpitz, and had either gotten close to the US coast they would have been besieged by everything the USA could throw at them.

You’re saying Bismarck and Tirpitz could have delayed supplies getting to the UK… but in fact that is exactly what Bismarck tried to do, and she lasted eight days into the mission before arriving at the bottom of the sea. It was inevitable that sending a huge capital ship with limited escort would simply attarct the attention of the entire Royal Navy. Bismarck could win an even fight, but it was never going to be an uneven one. Frankly, building her was stupid.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/45 "2018-11-16T15:23:25Z")

</div>

It was very stupid of Germany. It was a Hitler prestige project, basically. It was pretty stupid of Germany to start a major war before they were well into the U-Boat construction as well. IIRC, Germany planned a total U-Boat force in excess of 500 boats…but they had no where near that when they started and they were playing catch up for the rest of the war.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/46 "2018-11-16T15:28:44Z")

</div>

Here is the US OOB on the East Coast in 1942, for anyone interested. [https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-atlantic-fleet-organization-1942.html](https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-atlantic-fleet-organization-1942.html)

> [@](#):
>
> UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (CA31) AUGUSTA Flagship  
> 1 VJR Flag Unit  
> 4 VSO Ship Unit  
> (IX20) CONSTELLATION Relief Flagship  
> BATTLESHIPS, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (BB34) NEW YORK Flagship
> 
> BATTLESHIP PLANE OPERATIONAL TRAINING UNIT (1)
> 
> BATTLESHIP DIVISION FIVE BATTLESHIP DIVISION SIX  
> (BB34) NEW YORK (F) (BB56) WASHINGTON (F)  
> (BB33) ARKANSAS (BB55) NORTH CAROLINA  
> (BB35) TEXAS (FF) (VO-6) ObsRon Six (6 VOS)  
> (VO-5) ObsRon Five (9 VOS)  
> CRUISERS, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (CL41) PHILADELPHIA Flagship
> 
> CRUISER DIVISION TWO CRUISER DIVISION SEVEN  
> (CL13) MEMPHIS (F) (CA45) WICHITA (F)  
> (3) (CL 5) MILWAUKEE (CA37) TUSCALOOSA  
> (CL 6) CINCINNATI (CA39) QUINCY  
> (CL 4) OMAHA (CA44) VINCENNES  
> (CA31) AUGUSTA  
> (VCS-2) CruScoRon Two (8 VSO) (VCS-7) CruScoRon Seven (20 VSO)  
> CRUISER DIVISION EIGHT (2) CRUISER DIVISION TEN  
> (CL41) PHILADELPHIA (F) (CL51) ATLANTA (F)  
> (CL40) BROOKLYN (CL52) JUNEAU  
> (CL42) SAVANNAH (CL53) SAN DIEGO  
> (CL43) NASHVILLE (CL54) SAN JUAN

> [@](#):
>
> AIRCRAFT, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (CV4) RANGER Flagship
> 
> 4 VM Flag Unit
> 
> CARRIER DIVISION THREE  
> (CV4) RANGER (F)
> 
> (CV7) WASP
> 
> (2) (CV8) HORNET
> 
> (AVG1) LONG ISLAND
> 
> RANGER AIR GROUP WASP AIR GROUP  
> GROUP COMMANDER GROUP COMMANDER  
> (1 VSB) (1 VSB)  
> (VF-41) Fighting Squadron Forty-One (VF-71) Fighting Squadron Seventy-One  
> (18 VF) (2 VM) (18 VF) (2 VM)  
> (1) (VF-5) Fighting Squadron Five (VF-72) Fighting Squadron Seventy-Two  
> (18 VF) (2 VM) (18 VF) (2 VM)  
> (VS-41) Scouting Squadron Forty-One (VS-71) Scouting Squadron Seventy-One  
> (15 VSB) (15 VSB)  
> (VS-42) Scouting Squadron Forty-Two (VS-72) Scouting Squadron Seventy-Two  
> (15 VSB) (15 VSB)  
> (VT-4) Torpedo Squadron Four (VT-7) Torpedo Squadron Seven  
> (6 VTB) (6 VTB)  
> 3 VSO, 2 VJ— Utility Unit 3 VSO, 2 VJ Utility Unit  
> (2) HORNET AIR GROUP LONG ISLAND AIR GROUP  
> GROUP COMMANDER (VS-201) Scouting Squadron Two Hundred One  
> (1 VSB) (10 VSO) (6 VF)  
> (VF-8) Fighting Squadron Eight   
> (27 VF) (3 VM)  
> (VB-8) Bombing Squadron Eight  
> (18 VSB)  
> (VS-8) Scouting Squadron Eight  
> (18 VSB)  
> (VT-8) Torpedo Squadron Eight  
> (18 VTB)  
> 3 VSO, 2 VJ — Utility Unit  
> (3) CARRIER REPLACEMENT AIR GROUPS
> 
> (2 VM)
> 
> NOTES:
> 
> (1) VF-5 (Yorktown squadron) replaces VF-42 which was transferred to Pacific Fleet.  
> (2) Upon reporting third quarter, fiscal year 1942.  
> (3) Includes Advanced Carrier Training Group and such spare aircraft in Fleet pools as are available and necessary.

> [@](#):
>
> DESTROYERS, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (AD12) DENEBOLA (Flagship) Tender  
> (AD 2) MELVILLE Tender  
> (AD11) ALTAIR Tender  
> (1) AD15) PRAIRIE Tender  
> 1-VG, 1-VJR, 2-VM Flag Unit, ComSupFor  
> (2) (AD20) HAMUL Tender  
> (2) (AD21) MARKAB Tender  
> DESTROYER FLOTILLA THREE  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON SEVEN  
> (DD431) PLUNKETT Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION THIRTEEN DESTROYER DIVISION FOURTEEN  
> (DD424) NIBLACK (F) (DD425) MADISON (F)  
> (DD421) BENSON (DD426) LANSDALE  
> (DD423) GLEAVES (RF) (DD427) HILARY P. JONES (RF)  
> (DD422) MAYO (DD428) CHARLES F. HUGHES  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON NINE  
> DESTROYER DIVISION SEVENTEEN DESTROYER DIVISION EIGHTEEN  
> (DD358) McDOUGAL (F) (DD395) DAVIS (F)  
> (DD359) WINSLOW (DD396) JOUETT  
> (5) (DD362) MOFFETT (RF) (DD381) SOMERS (RF)  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON ELEVEN  
> (DD418) ROE Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-ONE DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-TWO  
> (DD429) LIVERMORE (F) (DD433) GWIN (F)  
> (DD430) EBERLE (DD434) MEREDITH  
> (DD432) KEARNY (RF) (DD435) GRAYSON (RF)  
> (DD440) ERICSSON (DD436) MONSSEN  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON THIRTEEN  
> (DD420) BUCK Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-FIVE DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-SIX  
> (DD437) WOOLSEY (F) (DD441) WILKES (F)  
> (DD438) LUDLOW (DD442) NICHOLSON  
> (DD439) EDISON (RF) (DD443) SWANSON (RF)  
> (DD453) BRISTOL (DD444) INGRAHAM  
> –6–
> 
> DESTROYER FLOTILLA FOUR  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON EIGHT  
> (DD419) WAINWRIGHT Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION FIFTEEN DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTEEN  
> (DD399) LANG (F) (DD402) MAYRANT (F)  
> (DD406) STACK (DD403) TRIPPE  
> (DD407) STERETT (RF) (DD404) RHIND (RF)  
> (DD408) WILSON (DD405) ROWAN  
> (4)
> 
> DESTROYER SQUADRON TEN  
> (DD454) ELLYSON Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION NINETEEN DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY  
> (DD455) HAMBLETON (F) (DD461) FORREST (F)  
> (DD456) RODMAN (DD462) FITCH  
> (DD457) EMMONS (RF) (DD463) CORRY (RF)  
> (DD458) MACOMB (DD464) HOBSON  
> (4)
> 
> DESTROYER SQUADRON TWELVE  
> (DD491) FARENHOLT Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-THREE DESTROYER DIVISION TWENTY-FOUR  
> (DD459) LAFFEY (F) (DD485) DUNCAN (F)  
> (DD460) WOODWORTH (DD486) LANSDOWNE  
> (DD483) AARON WARD (RF) (DD487) LARDNER (RF)  
> (DD484) BUCHANAN (DD488) MCCALLA  
> DESTROYER FLOTILLA EIGHT  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON TWENTY-SEVEN
> 
> (DD341) DECATUR Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION FIFTY-THREE DESTROYER DIVISION FIFTY-FOUR  
> (DD126) BADGER (F) (DD147) ROPER (F)  
> (DD128) BABBITT (DD157) DICKERSON  
> (DD158) LEARY (RF) (DD130) JACOB JONES (RF)  
> (DD159) SCHENCK (DD160) HERBERT  
> DESTROYER SQUADRON THIRTY  
> (DD199) DALLAS Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTY DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTY-ONE  
> (DD154) ELLIS (F) (DD145) GREER (F)  
> (DD153) BERNADOU (DD142) TARBELL  
> (DD155) COLE (RF) (DD144) UPSHUR (RF)  
> (DD152) DUPONT (DD118) LEA  
> –7–
> 
> DESTROYER SQUADRON THIRTY-ONE  
> (DD220) MacLEISH Flagship
> 
> DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTY-TWO DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTY-THREE  
> (DD246) BAINBRIDGE (F) (DD223) McCormick (F)  
> (DD239) OVERTON (DD210) BROOME  
> (DD240) STURTEVANT (RF) (DD221) SIMPSON (RF)  
> (DD229) TRUXTUN  
> (3) DESTROYER DIVISION SIXTY-SIX
> 
> (DD148) BRECKINRIDGE
> 
> (DD149) BARNEY
> 
> (DD151) BIDDLE
> 
> (DD150) BLAKELEY
> 
> GREENLAND PATROL
> 
> USCGC ALGONQUIN USCGC NORTHLAND (F)  
> USCGC COMANCHE USCGC NORTH STAR  
> USCGC MODOC USS BEAR  
> USCGC TAMPA USS BOWDOIN  
> USCGC RARITAN (4) USCGC TAHOMA  
> USCGC MOHAWK  
> NOTES:
> 
> (1) Flagship ComSupFor.  
> (2) Upon completion conversion.  
> (3) Assigned temporarily to Atlantic Fleet from 15th Naval District.  
> (4) On reporting.  
> (5) Temporarily detached.
> 
> –8–
> 
> SUBMARINES, UNITED STATES ATLANTIC FLEET  
> (1) (PG53) VIXEN Flagship
> 
> (1) Assigned Temporary Flagship, Commander in Chief, U. S. Fleet.

> [@](#):
>
> SUBMARINE SQUADRON ONE  
> SUBMARINE BASE, NEW LONDON
> 
> (SS 65) 0-4 Flagship
> 
> (ASR2) FALCON Submarine Rescue Vessel
> 
> SUBMARINE DIVISION ELEVEN SUBMARINE DIVISION TWELVE  
> (SS63) 0-2 (F) (SS79) R-2 (F)  
> (SS64) 0-3 (SS81) R-4  
> (SS65) 0-4 (FF) (SS87) R-10  
> (SS67) 0-6 (SS88) R-11  
> (SS68) 0-7 (SS90) R-13  
> (SS69) 0-8 (SS91) R-14  
> (SS71) 0-10 (SS97) R-20  
> EXPERIMENTAL DIVISION ONE
> 
> (AG24) SEMMES Experimental Vessel
> 
> (SS125) S-20 (F)
> 
> (SS159) S-48
> 
> (SS204) MACKEREL
> 
> (SS205) MARLIN
> 
> SUBMARINE SQUADRON THREE  
> SUBMARINE BASE, COCO SOLO
> 
> (SS164) BASS Flagship
> 
> (ASR4) MALLARD Submarine Rescue Vessel
> 
> SUBMARINE DIVISION THIRTY-ONE SUBMARINE DIVISION THIRTY-TWO  
> (SS163) BARRACUDA (F) (SS116) S-11 (F)  
> (SS164) BASS (FF) (SS117) S-12  
> (SS165) BONITA (SS118) S-13  
> (SS119) S-14  
> (SS120) S-15  
> (SS121) S-16  
> (SS122) S-17  
> SUBMARINE SQUADRON FIVE
> 
> (SS155) S-44 Flagship
> 
> (AS13) GRIFFIN Tender
> 
> (AS 21) ANTAEUS Accommodation Ship
> 
> (ASR3) CHEWINK Submarine Rescue Vessel
> 
> –9–
> 
> SUBMARINE DIVISION FIFTY-ONE SUBMARINE DIVISION FIFTY-TWO  
> (SS105) S-1 (F) (SS135) S-30 (F)  
> (SS126) S-21 (SS136) S-31  
> (SS127) S-22 (SS137) S-32  
> (SS129) S-24 (SS138) S-33  
> (SS131) S-26  
> (SS134) S-29  
> SUBMARINE DIVISION FIFTY-THREE
> 
> (SS153) S-42 (F)
> 
> (SS154) S-43
> 
> (SS155) S-44 (FF)
> 
> (SS156) S-45
> 
> (SS157) S-46
> 
> (SS158) S-47
> 
> SUBMARINE SQUADRON SEVEN
> 
> (SS86) R-9 Flagship
> 
> (AS5) BEAVER Tender
> 
> SUBMARINE DIVISION SEVENTY-ONE SUBMARINE DIVISION SEVENTY-TWO  
> (SS78) R-1 (F) (SS89) R-12 (F)  
> (SS82) R-5 (SS92) R-15  
> (SS83) R-6 (SS93) R-16  
> (SS84) R-7 (SS94) R-17  
> (SS86) R-9 (FF) (SS95) R-18  
> (SS96) R-19  
> SUBMARINE BASE, ST. THOMAS, V. I.
> 
> (1) SUBMARINE SQUADRON EIGHT  
> SUBMARINE DIVISION EIGHTY-ONE
> 
> (SS212) GATO (F)
> 
> (SS213) GREENLING (FF)
> 
> (SS214) GROUPER
> 
> (SS215) GROWLER
> 
> (SS216) GRUNION
> 
> (SS265) PETO
> 
> (1) SUBMARINE SQUADRON TEN
> 
> SUBMARINE DIVISION ONE HUNDRED ONE
> 
> (SS228) DRUM (F)
> 
> (SS229) FLYING FISH (FF)
> 
> (SS230) FINBACK
> 
> (SS231) HADDOCK
> 
> (SS232) HALIBUT
> 
> (SS233) HERRING

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/47 "2018-11-16T15:29:44Z")

</div>

> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#):
>
> I’d agree that Hitler was preventable as far as the raising of an army and such was preventable.
> 
> But…
> 
> There was little political will to do so. There was this whole depression thing on and the leadership of the countries that could have called a halt - by militarily intervening - lacked both the personal strength and the political strength to do so.
> 
> Understand, in Europe WWI was seen as hugely tragic. Unless something was clearly a danger to France and England, their public wasn’t up for another war. A preventive one just wasn’t on the table. It was happening there. In Czechoslovakia. Or Poland. Or Norway or something. But it wasn’t happening to them. It wasn’t another generation of young English and French boys lying dead so who gives a damn.
> 
> By the time the political will was there Nazi Germany had it’s war machine ready to go. In hindsight, not so ready as to beat the major powers, but it was ready.

That’s it in a nutshell; nobody was willing to go to war to prevent Germany from rearming.

I think it’s easy for us, a century later, to look back and wonder, but we forget the depth of the losses the British and French suffered, and especially the upper class losses. I read that nearly 1 in 5 (20%) of British officers were killed during the war, and that would likely have been concentrated in the junior officer ranks (lieutenants and captains), and they’d have been upper class/upper middle class young men. So there was a MASSIVE bloodbath among that set.

So there was probably very little interest in going to war among the ruling classes- they’d lost a great many of their sons in the last war already.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [November 16, 2018, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/48 "2018-11-16T16:44:12Z")

</div>

> [@bump](#):
>
> …I think it’s easy for us, a century later, to look back and wonder, but we forget the depth of the losses the British and French suffered, and especially the upper class losses. I read that nearly 1 in 5 (20%) of British officers were killed during the war, and that would likely have been concentrated in the junior officer ranks (lieutenants and captains), and they’d have been upper class/upper middle class young men. So there was a MASSIVE bloodbath among that set…

It is said that every member of JRR Tolkien’s school class save he were killed in WWI.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/49 "2018-11-17T02:29:46Z")

</div>

> [@RickJay](#):
>
> Sure, if they were allowed to sail all the way there unmolested and inexplicably were just permitted to blast away without being attacked by aircraft and submarines.
> 
> The odds of Bismark and Tirpitz doing something like that were approximately zero; Bismarck’s fate was totally inevitable. She sank a little quicker than expected, perhaps, and took HMS Hood with her, but she wasn’t going to just be allowed to traipse around the US coast doing as she pleased. The Royal Navy went balls to the wall to sink Bismarck and would have done the same to Tirpitz, and had either gotten close to the US coast they would have been besieged by everything the USA could throw at them.
> 
> You’re saying Bismarck and Tirpitz could have delayed supplies getting to the UK… but in fact that is exactly what Bismarck tried to do, and she lasted eight days into the mission before arriving at the bottom of the sea. It was inevitable that sending a huge capital ship with limited escort would simply attarct the attention of the entire Royal Navy. Bismarck could win an even fight, but it was never going to be an uneven one. Frankly, building her was stupid.

Yes I’m saying the Bismarck and the Tirpitz with their accompanying ships and subs could have pounded East Coast ship yards. Using those ships, regardless of their survival, would have delayed the US entry into the war long enough to force England into surrender.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/50 "2018-11-17T03:03:56Z")

</div>

> [@XT](#):
>
> Here is the US OOB on the East Coast in 1942, for anyone interested. [https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-atlantic-fleet-organization-1942.html](https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/united-states-atlantic-fleet-organization-1942.html)

It was interesting to see the [Grunion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Grunion) on that list.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/51 "2018-11-17T03:12:05Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> No Uboat was going to destroy naval shipyards. That was your assertion.

It was in reply to your statement that Germany couldn’t rampage up and down the East Coast. Yes, that’s exactly what they did with U-boats. I would expect you to understand that the coastline was already at the mercy of the submarines and that the battleships would be used against the shipyards with their cover.

> [@mlees](#):
>
> Also, I think a German surface group operating off the U.S. east coast was going to have a pretty limited “time on station” due to the small number of oilers the Germans possessed. I am not familiar with the level of experience the Germans had with replenishment of heavy ships at sea, but I would bet that it was not as developed as the USN or RN, nor would it be as simple as replenishing Uboats from Milchcows.

How much time on station do you think it takes to tear up shipyards? The Germans based a great deal of their strategy on fast moving battles.

As I said before, if Hitler had better managed his assets it would have been a much uglier war. He was his own worst enemy. It he wasn’t the singular cause of the whole mess I’d drink to his stupidity.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\
**Post date:** [November 17, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/52 "2018-11-17T16:42:48Z")

</div>

> [@KarlGauss](#):
>
> Just to add that the Stuka DID have one unique feature - its terrifying siren shrieking as it descended to its (hapless) target. A pretty effective psychological weapon.

And how. Although not done on purpose like the JU 87, the F4U Corsair emitted a high pitched distinctive whistle when moving fast – like stooping for a ground attack. The Japanese soldiers’ nickname for it was [Whistling Death.](https://fightersweep.com/5378/whistling-death-corsair-nickname/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/53 "2018-11-19T19:04:54Z")

</div>

> [@Magiver](#):
>
> It was in reply to your statement that Germany couldn’t rampage up and down the East Coast. Yes, that’s exactly what they did with U-boats. I would expect you to understand that the coastline was already at the mercy of the submarines and that the battleships would be used against the shipyards with their cover.

I think you are misunderstanding what the uboats were doing. Yes, they sank 609 ships over a period stretching from January to August, 1942, but many thousands of ships were able to complete their missions/journeys. (These losses dramatically decreased once the US finally instituted a convoy system, and enforced black out policies.) In fact, they completely missed the assembly of the ships to be sailed direct from the U.S., used in Operation Torch, the invasion of French North Africa.

> [@](#):
>
> How much time on station do you think it takes to tear up shipyards? The Germans based a great deal of their strategy on fast moving battles.

You tell me, since you seem to be so convinced.

Remember, _Bismark_ and _Graf Spee_ were already on the bottom of the sea by '42, the _Tirpitz_ and _Admiral Scheer_ were stationed in Norway to threaten the Artic convoys, the _Scharnhorst_ and _Gneisenau_ both had struck mines during the “Channel Dash” (11 Feb 1942) and were unavailable until early '43. _Deutschland (Lutzow)_ was damaged by a bomber in March of '41, and not repaired until May of '42. So, the best you’re going to have on hand (with heavy guns) is the _Tirpitz_ (with eight 15inch guns), _Lutzow, Admiral Scheer_ (with six 11inch guns).

Now, you mentioned the Iowa’s. The _Iowa_’s were built in the Brooklyn Navy Yard (_Iowa_ and _Missouri_) and Philadelphia Navy Yard (_New Jersey_, _Wisconsin_, and _Illinois_ (the last was halted at 1/4 complete in '45), and an additional hull _Kentucky_ (halted in '45 at roughly 3/4 complete) in the Norfolk Navy Yard. Those are just the Iowa’s. There were also five Essex class, four South Dakota class under construction in the same yards (as well as Fore River Shipyard in Massachusetts). (I will leave off the plethora of other yards building CVL’s, CB’s, CA’s, CL’s, DD’s, Subs… and so on.)

So. How much ammunition will need to be expended to completely wreck a capital ship hull to render it “beyond economic repair”? Show your math, please.

Now, Herr Admiral, let’s take the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Just to approach this facility, your ships will actually have to sail under the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges!

What kind of defensive measures can we expect to encounter? Anti sub/anti torpedo netting? Ships? Shore based guns? Aircraft? Most certainly, these will be present. (Maybe no defensive minefields. Can’t have stupid civilian freighters blundering into a minefield just off of Long Island, can we? Bad for the insurance rates.)

Let’s just take the shore based guns. Guarding the approach to New York city, according to wiki, I see at Fort Tilden four 16inch guns. At Fort Hancock there was four 12inch mortars, two 12inch and five 10inch “disappearing” guns. There is also a plethora of 6inch pedestal mounts, and 3.5inch dual purpose mounts scattered all over the region, but we won’t count these. What affect do these fixed defenses have on your operations?

> [@](#):
>
> As I said before, if Hitler had better managed his assets it would have been a much uglier war. He was his own worst enemy. It he wasn’t the singular cause of the whole mess I’d drink to his stupidity.

Finally! A statement I can agree with! 🙂 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/54 "2018-11-19T19:17:23Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> I think you are misunderstanding what the uboats were doing. Yes, they sank 609 ships over a period stretching from January to August, 1942, but many thousands of ships were able to complete their missions/journeys. (These losses dramatically decreased once the US finally instituted a convoy system, and enforced black out policies.) In fact, they completely missed the assembly of the ships to be sailed direct from the U.S., used in Operation Torch, the invasion of French North Africa.

By this, I mean that while the Uboats did terrible damage, they did not freeze all shipping, neither civilian, nor military, along the eastern seaboard. The US Navy will be able to try to move their Atlantic Carrier (called “Scouting Force” at this time) & Battle Fleet units (as well as everything else, to include any kitchen sinks not nailed down) to try and intercept any German raiders approaching the area.

Using Uboats to “screen” or otherwise “run interference” for a “fast moving” raiding force is going to be problematic. Uboats are only fast (20knots?) on the surface, so if for some reason they are forced to dive (they were ordered to dive when spotting an aircraft), they will be reduced to less than 8 knots, and can’t really intercept alert ships. They have no radar, which limits them to the eyeball, which is bad at night or in foul weather. Finally, trying to coordinate your surface force with them will be difficult, and leave your fleet in danger of being located via triangulation of your radio signals.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/55 "2018-11-19T20:33:48Z")

</div>

> [@Magiver](#):
>
> Yes I’m saying the Bismarck and the Tirpitz with their accompanying ships and subs could have pounded East Coast ship yards.

So how far did Bismarck get, again?

It is preposterous to think two battleships could have simply ripped up the East Coast. If they could have, they would have. They didn’t because they would have been blown to smithereens - well, as, in fact, Bismarck was, long before she could really get out into the Atlantic at all.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\
**Post date:** [November 19, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/56 "2018-11-19T20:42:10Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> I think you are misunderstanding what the uboats were doing. Yes, they sank 609 ships over a period stretching from January to August, 1942, but many thousands of ships were able to complete their missions/journeys. (These losses dramatically decreased once the US finally instituted a convoy system, and enforced black out policies.) In fact, they completely missed the assembly of the ships to be sailed direct from the U.S., used in Operation Torch, the invasion of French North Africa.
> 
> You tell me, since you seem to be so convinced.
> 
> Remember, _Bismark_ and _Graf Spee_ were already on the bottom of the sea by '42, the _Tirpitz_ and _Admiral Scheer_ were stationed in Norway to threaten the Artic convoys, the _Scharnhorst_ and _Gneisenau_ both had struck mines during the “Channel Dash” (11 Feb 1942) and were unavailable until early '43. _Deutschland (Lutzow)_ was damaged by a bomber in March of '41, and not repaired until May of '42. So, the best you’re going to have on hand (with heavy guns) is the _Tirpitz_ (with eight 15inch guns), _Lutzow, Admiral Scheer_ (with six 11inch guns).
> 
> Now, you mentioned the Iowa’s. The _Iowa_’s were built in the Brooklyn Navy Yard (_Iowa_ and _Missouri_) and Philadelphia Navy Yard (_New Jersey_, _Wisconsin_, and _Illinois_ (the last was halted at 1/4 complete in '45), and an additional hull _Kentucky_ (halted in '45 at roughly 3/4 complete) in the Norfolk Navy Yard. Those are just the Iowa’s. There were also five Essex class, four South Dakota class under construction in the same yards (as well as Fore River Shipyard in Massachusetts). (I will leave off the plethora of other yards building CVL’s, CB’s, CA’s, CL’s, DD’s, Subs… and so on.)
> 
> So. How much ammunition will need to be expended to completely wreck a capital ship hull to render it “beyond economic repair”? Show your math, please.
> 
> Now, Herr Admiral, let’s take the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Just to approach this facility, your ships will actually have to sail under the Manhattan and Brooklyn bridges!
> 
> What kind of defensive measures can we expect to encounter? Anti sub/anti torpedo netting? Ships? Shore based guns? Aircraft? Most certainly, these will be present. (Maybe no defensive minefields. Can’t have stupid civilian freighters blundering into a minefield just off of Long Island, can we? Bad for the insurance rates.)
> 
> Let’s just take the shore based guns. Guarding the approach to New York city, according to wiki, I see at Fort Tilden four 16inch guns. At Fort Hancock there was four 12inch mortars, two 12inch and five 10inch “disappearing” guns. There is also a plethora of 6inch pedestal mounts, and 3.5inch dual purpose mounts scattered all over the region, but we won’t count these. What affect do these fixed defenses have on your operations?
> 
> Finally! A statement I can agree with! 🙂 😉

And you missed one other defense…they had command detonated underwater mines all through the area as well. There is zero chance a German surface fleet could get to range up and down the US coast, even if you floated every ship that was sunk and put them all together as one fleet. Hell, if the Germans couldn’t successfully sortie their much larger surface fleet together in WWI for more than a brief outing ending at Jutland they certainly couldn’t do so AND get it all the way to the US AND then use it to successfully raid US ports in WWII. It’s a ridiculous notion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/57 "2018-11-20T02:19:45Z")

</div>

> [@mlees](#):
>
> I think you are misunderstanding what the uboats were doing. Yes, they sank 609 ships over a period stretching from January to August, 1942, but many thousands of ships were able to complete their missions/journeys. (These losses dramatically decreased once the US finally instituted a convoy system, and enforced black out policies.) In fact, they completely missed the assembly of the ships to be sailed direct from the U.S., used in Operation Torch, the invasion of French North Africa.

Yes but you’re not considering a singular mission to take out shipyards where assets are concentrated vs scattering them along 1000 miles of coastline. Also, the Bismarck was scuttled after a lucky shot to the rudder. It took 400 direct hits and still didn’t sink although it was pretty much done after that. The Tirpitz was also a lucky strike attributed to friendly forces looking the other way from a massive planned attack. Put the 2 of those ships together with a company of ships and submarines and they are a substantial force.

I’m not sure why they should sail into the NY harbor when their guns could fire at a distance of 22+ miles.

Wars are won and lost by strategic use of assets. Germany waged war on multiple fronts with fewer assets than opposing forces and it took over 5 years to defeat them.

Had Hitler stayed out of Russia and delayed US entry into the war it would have been a much different outcome.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/58 "2018-11-20T02:36:27Z")

</div>

> [@Magiver](#):
>
> Had Hitler stayed out of Russia and delayed US entry into the war it would have been a much different outcome.

And if my Grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pinmin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@Pinmin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pinmin)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/59 "2018-11-20T02:45:49Z")

</div>

Something else not mentioned - that 22 mile range of guns is well within range of land based aircraft. The Civilian Air Patrol flew patrol missions off the East coast and surface ships would have been spotted long before they made it to firing range. Land based bombers would have sunk surface ships well before they made it anywhere close. Remember the Yamato, the biggest and baddest battleship in the war was sunk solely by air power with 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\
**Post date:** [November 20, 2018, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259/60 "2018-11-20T03:01:03Z")

</div>

I know there was much concern on the West coast, I believe a Japanese submarine shelled a California beach, but were there armaments on the East coast and the Gulf of Mexico?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-the-allies-allow-germany-to-re-arm-after-wwi/824259.md?page=4)