Quote:
So for those of you who do know about them, any guesses as to what King would be doing. From what little I've read, I'm not sure he's going to be completely sidelined.


No I still see him as Commander in Chief of the USN.

Quote:
But since you're asking for any thoughts/questions, is keeping Stark as CNO really going to change what is probably an institutional/cultural desire to seek out and destroy the IJN? Since this is the war the USN had spent most of the 20th Century preparing for, will changing the CNO really effect the "reason for being" and desire to avenge Pearl Harbor that much? Would Stark be able to avoid institutional pressure to shift resources to the Pacific just because he wasn't the SOB King was?


To answer your questions as I see it. Stark as CNO will follow the policy of the Europe first. Unlike King he will stick with the 15% to the Pacific and the rest to Europe orginally agreed to by the Allies ( in FFO this make perfect sense with a larger British and French/allies presence in the theatre ). He will seek out the IJN with what he has and in my mind will work better with the Allies. He will also not muck around the with BuShips production schedule and Priorities unless need to and even then will do it by commitee which depending on which book you read may actually speed up construction of larger ships like the Carriers and Battleships. Lastly , yes Stark would be able to resist pressures to shift resources to the Pacific and as the OTL perceived notion that it was the US versus the AXIS ( Britain Crippled and amost beaten ) wont be present he wont have to be the SOB King was.IMHO

Russ / Roller007