The Eagle and the Lion: Reassessing Anglo-American strategic planning and the foundations of U.S. grand strategy for World War II

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Journal of Strategic Studies Pub Date : 2022-07-31 DOI:10.1080/01402390.2022.2104837
Grant Golub
{"title":"The Eagle and the Lion: Reassessing Anglo-American strategic planning and the foundations of U.S. grand strategy for World War II","authors":"Grant Golub","doi":"10.1080/01402390.2022.2104837","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many accounts of the formation of American and British grand strategy during World War II between the fall of France and the Pearl Harbor attacks stress the differences between the two sides’ strategic thinking. These accounts argue that while the Americans favored a ‘direct’ Germany-first approach to defeating the Axis powers, the British preferred the ‘indirect’ or ‘peripheral’ method. However, a review of Anglo-American strategic planning in this period shows that before official U.S. wartime entry, both sides largely agreed the British ‘peripheral’ approach was the wisest grand strategy for winning the war.","PeriodicalId":47240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Strategic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Strategic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2022.2104837","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Many accounts of the formation of American and British grand strategy during World War II between the fall of France and the Pearl Harbor attacks stress the differences between the two sides’ strategic thinking. These accounts argue that while the Americans favored a ‘direct’ Germany-first approach to defeating the Axis powers, the British preferred the ‘indirect’ or ‘peripheral’ method. However, a review of Anglo-American strategic planning in this period shows that before official U.S. wartime entry, both sides largely agreed the British ‘peripheral’ approach was the wisest grand strategy for winning the war.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
鹰与狮子:重新评估英美战略规划和美国二战大战略的基础
关于二战期间法国沦陷和珍珠港事件之间英美两国大战略形成的许多论述都强调了双方战略思维的差异。然而,对这一时期英美战略规划的回顾表明,在美国正式参战之前,双方基本上都认为英国的“外围”策略是赢得战争的最明智的大战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The defining feature of The Journal of Strategic Studies is its commitment to multi-disciplinary approach. The editors welcome articles that challenge our historical understanding of man"s efforts to achieve political ends through the application of military and diplomatic means; articles on contemporary security and theoretical controversies of enduring value; and of course articles that explicitly combine the historical and theoretical approaches to the study of modern warfare, defence policy and modern strategy. In addition to a well-established review section, The Journal of Strategic Studies offers its diverse readership a wide range of "special issues" and "special sections".
期刊最新文献
Issue linkage in security assistance: A pathway to recipient security sector reform The digital cult of the offensive and the US military Undermining economic engagement and enlargement: The Kremlin’s impact on US foreign economic policy in Ukraine (1993–2001) Deterrence asymmetry and strategic stability in Europe Schwerpunkt and the center of gravity in comparative perspective: From Clausewitz to JP 5-0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1