{"title":"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","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":"21 1","pages":"921 - 948"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"921 - 948\"},\"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}","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}
The Eagle and the Lion: Reassessing Anglo-American strategic planning and the foundations of U.S. grand strategy for World War II
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.
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".