Quote:
Since the two of you seem to be discussing alone:


Trust me, we don't want to. Even more questions are welcome, as both Mark and I seem to have the same idea that this project is also to learn as well as tell a story. So questions, opinions or just plain statement of I'm not sure but my gut tells me for these reasons are welcome.

Quote:
1. I don't know a lot about USN internals and King's relatinships with others. So there is not much I can say. I can ask if his reputation as being difficult was a fact of 1935-42 or did it develop later after he became the boss? If he had it all along, then that is probably how he will be in any situaiton.


Admiral King was known for his attitude long before 1939. Some quotes state the following ( From Wikipedia ):

He was... perhaps the most disliked Allied leader of World War II. Only British Field Marshal Montgomery may have had more enemies... King also loved parties and often drank to excess. Apparently, he reserved his charm for the wives of fellow naval officers. On the job, he "seemed always to be angry or annoyed."

There was a tongue-in-cheek remark carried about by Naval personnel at the time that "Admiral King was the most even-tempered person in the United States Navy: He was angry 100% of the time!" Roosevelt once described King as "... a man who shaves with a blow torch".

King is famous for stating to a reporter at the beginning of WWII When the shooting starts, they call for the sons-of bitches

General Hastings Ismay, chief of staff to Winston Churchill, described King as:

tough as nails and carried himself as stiffly as a poker. He was blunt and stand-offish, almost to the point of rudeness. At the start, he was intolerant and suspicious of all things British, especially the Royal Navy; but he was almost equally intolerant and suspicious of the American Army. War against Japan was the problem to which he had devoted the study of a lifetime, and he resented the idea of American resources being used for any other purpose than to destroy Japanese. He mistrusted Churchill's powers of advocacy, and was apprehensive that he would wheedle President Roosevelt into neglecting the war in the Pacific.

King was a strong believer in the Germany first strategy, and gave priority to the war in the Atlantic. However, his natural aggression did not permit him to leave resources idle in the Atlantic that could be utilized in the Pacific, especially when "it was doubtful when if ever the British would consent to a cross-Channel operation".[5] King once complained that the Pacific deserved 30% of Allied resources but was getting only 15%. When he was accused by General Alan Brooke of favoring the Pacific war, the argument became heated. General Joseph Stilwell wrote: "King got good and sore. King almost climbed over the table at Brooke. God, he was mad. I wished he had socked him."


Now after all of that and from what I have read he was picked because he was an SOB who could make the Hard choices and didn't care what other people said or thought. He got the position while the USN was still rebuilding and the RN in the pacific was all but destroyed. Meanwhile they also need someone in Europe to help begin coordinating a system to be used for the invasion onto mainland Europe who could deal with the Allies. Stark was sent to Europe and King was given the CNO position as well.

Quote:
2. As Mark said, one big difference in FFO is that the UK is not alone, financially broken, and exhausted (yet, at any rate) as early as in OTL. This is a major, even if barely visible, difference in how relationships stack up.


Exactly. So do you put in someone who is a known Anglophobe and we don't know how he will react to the MN in the CNO position or do we play it as Historical? Hence the question.

Russ / Roller007