# FDR's Catastrophic, Horrendous, and Treasonous Handling of WW II in Europe



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 26, 2019)

In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.  

Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:

FDR’s blind insistence on unconditional surrender prolonged World War II and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. . . .​
Inwardly, Churchill was dumbfounded by Roosevelt’s announcement [of the policy of unconditional surrender]—and dismayed by its probable impact on the conduct and outcome of the war.​
The prime minister’s British colleagues were even more alarmed. The chief of British intelligence, Maj. Gen. Sir Stewart Graham Menzies, considered unconditional surrender disastrous, not only to certain secret operations he already had in progress, but also because it would make the Germans fight “with the despairing ferocity of cornered rats”. . . .​
That consternation was shared by not a few Americans in the ranks of VIPs standing behind the two leaders. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower thought unconditional surrender was idiotic—it could do nothing but cost American lives. Later, he said: “If you were given two choices, one to mount a scaffold, the other to charge twenty bayonets, you might as well charge twenty bayonets.”​
Lt. Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, who was the architect of the strategy for D-Day, was even more appalled. He decried the idea from the moment he heard it. Just before the war, he had spent two years in Germany attending the Berlin War College and he knew firsthand the deep divisions between Hitler and the German General Staff. An unconditional surrender policy would, he accurately predicted, “weld all the Germans together”. . . .​
Since the war began, British intelligence chief Menzies and the Abwehr’s Admiral Canaris, two seeming opponents in the art and science of black warfare, had been in shadowy touch with each other through emissaries who shuttled from Berlin and London to the borders of the Nazi empire. In 1940 the Abwehr leaked Hitler’s planned assault on Holland, Belgium, and France. The British and French dismissed it as a ruse and discovered, too late, that its details were excruciatingly authentic. While the admiral went briskly about the business of intelligence, running spy networks throughout Europe, evidence accumulated suggesting the astonishing possibility that the head of the Abwehr was a secret enemy of the Nazi regime.​
Around Canaris was grouped a loose confederation of Hitler opponents in the German Foreign Office, the army, and the political world. They included Ulrich von Hassel, a career diplomat whose diaries are a main source of information about the resistance; Gen. Ludwig Beck, former chief of the general staff, who resigned in protest when Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia in 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement; and Count Helmuth von Moltke, great-grandnephew of the general who had defeated France in 1871 and made Germany a world power. Another important figure was Karl-Friedrich Goerdeler, the former mayor of Leipzig, whom the Nazis dismissed from his post when he refused to remove a monument to the great German-Jewish composer, Felix Mendelssohn.​
Beck, the key figure, was still deeply admired by many generals on active duty. Through him, the conspirators hoped to persuade the army to stage a coup d’état to remove and, if necessary, kill Hitler. . . .​
Before Casablanca [where FDR announced the policy of unconditional surrender], Field Marshal Erwin von Witzleben, Germany’s supreme commander of the West, had told Canaris that he loathed Hitler and was ready to do everything in his power to overthrow him. After Casablanca, Witzleben said: “Now, no honorable man can lead the German people into such a situation.” Gen. Hans Guderian, the inventor of panzer warfare, declined to participate in the plot for the same reason, when Col. Hans Oster, second in command to Canaris, approached him. Col. Gen. Alfred Jodl, chief of the German armed forces operations staff, said at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials that unconditional surrender had been a crucial element in his refusal to join the conspiracy. Nevertheless, Canaris redoubled his efforts to reach out to the United States. . . .​
In June 1943, Helmuth von Moltke journeyed to Istanbul to talk to the U.S. naval attaché, George Earle, a Balkans expert who wanted to rescue Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. Earle persuaded William Donovan, head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services, to come to Istanbul. There, the Germans offered to fly a member of the German general staff to London to arrange for a peaceful surrender of the western front—if unconditional surrender were modified. Donovan rushed to the White House, only to discover FDR had no desire to negotiate with “these East German Junkers.”​
Around the same time, Canaris developed a seemingly more fruitful contact in Berne, where Allen Dulles had become the Office of Strategic Services station chief. Here the messenger was Hans Bernd Gisevius, also an Abwehr agent, disguised as the German vice consul in Zurich. To bolster his bona fides, Canaris leaked reams of secret information about the German war effort to Dulles, who forwarded it to Washington with strong recommendations to cooperate with the resistance movement, which he code-named “Breakers.” From the White House came only silence. Nothing came of a similar initiative in Stockholm, also launched by the German Foreign Office in 1943. . . .​
With mounting desperation, Canaris himself took to the field in Spain. With the help of the Spanish Foreign Office, in August 1943 he arranged a meeting between himself, Menzies, and Donovan at Santander. It was surely one of the strangest and most fateful encounters of the war. Menzies was disobeying the orders of his putative commanders, the Foreign Office bureaucrats, and Donovan was acutely aware by now that Roosevelt was equally hostile to his presence. But Canaris charmed and convinced both men of the logic of his proposal to work out an arrangement whereby the Anglo-Americans would support a coup d’état and peace on the basis of the German borders of 1939—surrendering all Hitler’s conquests. One of Canaris’s deputies, who was present at the meeting, said it was the most exciting experience in his secret service career.​
When the two Allied intelligence chiefs reported to their superiors, however, the reception was, if possible, even more venomously negative. For Canaris, the disappointment was crushing— and it soon became doubly depressing when his enemies in the Nazi hierarchy, who had long suspected the Abwehr of treason, began to strike at some of his most trusted subordinates.​
First, Oster and one of his cohorts were caught aiding escaping Jews. Next Moltke attended a garden party at which a number of indiscreet things were said about the regime. After one more futile trip to Ankara in the last weeks of 1943 to try to contact the American ambassador to Cairo, who was an old friend, Count von Moltke, too, was arrested. Investigators from several branches of the Nazi apparatus threatened Canaris and his grip on the Abwehr.​
While the German resistance struggled to win recognition from Roosevelt, his antipathy toward them and the German people was hardening. In May 1943 Churchill came to Washington for a conference, code-named “Trident.” Probably reacting to the attempts by Canaris to reach him through Donovan, Roosevelt told the prime minister he wanted to issue a declaration that he would refuse to negotiate with the Nazi regime, the German army high command, or any other group or individual in Germany. Churchill, once more demonstrating his dislike for taking such an intransigent public stand, managed to talk him out of it. . . .​
Shortly after Sicily fell, Italy’s King Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Benito Mussolini and appointed Field Marshal Pietro Badoglio premier. Badoglio immediately opened secret negotiations with American emissaries to get Italy out of the war. Everything seemed to be moving toward a stunning capitulation, which would have opened a huge gap in Hitler’s Festung Europa. But Roosevelt insisted that he would accept only unconditional surrender—and the removal of the king and the field marshal. Badoglio angrily withdrew from the negotiations and for over six weeks the talks were stalled while Eisenhower, Churchill, and others desperately tried to persuade the president to let them cut a deal that would have saved thousands of British and American lives.​
By the time Roosevelt relented and permitted the king and the marshal to remain in power, the Germans had poured 24 divisions into Italy, and the Italians had no country to surrender.​
Unbeknownst to the German conspirators, they were acquiring allies on the other side. As British and American planners contemplated the harsh realities of at- tacking the 1.5 million–man German army in France, doubts about the policy of unconditional surrender escalated. It soon became evident that virtually no one in either Allied government supported the policy except Roosevelt and those in his White House circle.​
On March 25, 1944, Gen. George Marshall and the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted a memorandum to the president, urging “that a reassessment of the formula of unconditional surrender should be made…at a very early date.” The chiefs proposed a proclamation that would assure the Germans the Allies had no desire to “extinguish the German people or Germany as a nation.”​
On April 1, 1944, Roosevelt replied with an outburst that revealed as never before the extent of his disdain for Germany.​
Eisenhower was drawing on his experience in Italy, reasoning that if the Allies had proposed installing an Italian field marshal as premier, what was wrong with the same approach for Germany? In his cable to Hull, Stettinius, obviously quoting Eisenhower, said they should try to encourage the emergence of a German Badoglio. The cable also added the suggestion that after the beachhead was established in France, Eisenhower should call on the German commander in the West to surrender.​
From the White House, in response to this extraordinary message, came another bout of silence. . . .​
While this charade played out in Washington, some 500 leaders of the German resistance were being tortured by the Gestapo and tried before a so-called People’s Court, packed with Nazi party members who jeered and hooted at them. Field marshals and generals, colonels and former officials of the Foreign Office and the Abwehr were forced to wear clothes that were either ridiculously large or small, to make them look as much like buffoons as possible. Yet they managed to defend themselves with calm dignity, boldly testifying that they had tried to overthrow Hitler because Nazism filled them with moral and spiritual revulsion.​
Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt, nor any of their spokesmen, uttered a public word of sympathy or regret for these men. Instead, the Anglo-Americans showered Germany with mocking leaflets, sneering that the conspiracy was a sure sign of imminent collapse.​


----------



## Picaro (Nov 26, 2019)

lol


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2019)

FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 26, 2019)

I gave you a "thank you" because I appreciate hearing alternative views.  

What conditions would the German generals have demanded in exchange for peace?


----------



## Oddball (Nov 26, 2019)

K9Buck said:


> I gave you a "thank you" because I appreciate hearing alternative views.
> 
> What conditions would the German generals have demanded in exchange for peace?


They would have surrendered to the west to try to prevent being overrun by the Soviets, for starters.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Nov 26, 2019)

Well what seems a obvious is that as a civilian president he was more concern with how the history books would right the story of the victor and his role in securing that victory. Having no first hand knowledge other than the military briefings.  A political outcome ???

whereas generals and people who had to fight that war with first hand knowledge of the casualties on both sides of any war would accept surrender as a sign of victory and stop the fighting. A victory is a victory?


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 26, 2019)

The end of the war was planned in a way of destroying every leader, authority and system which might renew itself and make German to stand up by its own.

This "unconditional surrender" gave green light to the allies to divide German, and put puppet leaders to have that nation in control.

Today, you walk in the streets of Berlin and in the street poles are signs, and the legend written says the laws made in Hitler's time against some  foreign people and etc.

This is like saying that here US was under control of another nation. Then, here in the US cities, to be obligated of installing signs in street poles with legends of those former laws about bathrooms for whites and bathrooms for colored people, etc.

The intention is to humiliate today's Germans, and that humiliation is part of such "unconditional surrender". Of course, the cover up is to say that the new generations in Germany must learn from the mistakes of their past.


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 27, 2019)

K9Buck said:


> I gave you a "thank you" because I appreciate hearing alternative views.
> 
> What conditions would the German generals have demanded in exchange for peace?



Fleming's book and article discuss this. The leadership of the German resistance offered to kill Hitler and to return all the territory that Hitler had conquered.

Fleming is not the only scholar who has shed light on FDR's terrible handling of the war in Europe. Agostino Von Hassell and Sigrid Macrae take a searching look at FDR's catastrophic bungling of the end of the war in their book Alliance of Enemies. You can find a brief summary of their research online in their article "Unconditional Surrender: Questioning FDR’s Prerequisite for Peace" published at thehistoryreader.com:


The History Reader - A History Blog from St. Martins Press


----------



## gipper (Nov 29, 2019)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...


It’s clear, FDR was a murderous psychopath. Then, Truman takes over and he is worse. 

However, Americans like to cling to their fairy tale version of WWII, as the good war won by the greatest generation. Statist propaganda works.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory (Nov 29, 2019)

Oddball said:


> FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.


He was so ill his last 4 yrs. He should never had run for a 3rd term.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2019)

Hitler was not going to surrender under any terms
Stalin was not going to accept anything but unconditional surrender


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 29, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Hitler was not going to surrender under any terms
> Stalin was not going to accept anything but unconditional surrender



Huh? Let me guess: You didn't bother to read the OP.

Anyway, Stalin actually opposed unconditional surrender because he believed it would needlessly cost lives and cause the Germans to resist to the bitter end.

No one's talking about whether Hitler would have surrendered. We're talking about the fact that the German resistance, led my numerous high-ranking officers, was prepared to either kill or imprison Hitler and to hand back all the territory that Hitler had conquered if the Allies would allow the resistance leaders to form a new, non-Nazi government.


----------



## Sunni Man (Nov 29, 2019)

FDR the globalist and his commie wife were enamored with Stalin and the Soviet Union, and wanted America to become another bolshevik Worker's Paradise.   ...


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2019)

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler was not going to surrender under any terms
> ...


Canaris would have been quickly executed if he tried to negotiate a separate peace

Unconditional surrender was the only option


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 30, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh my goodness. . . . Sigh. . . .  You still haven't read the OP, have you? We're not talking about an overt and/or Nazi/Hitler-authorized negotiation but about anti-Hitler German officers and officials who were prepared to kill Hitler, surrender, hand back all of the territory that Hitler had seized, and set up a pro-Allied non-Nazi government, and who secretly repeatedly reached out to FDR and Churchill to try to end the war on those terms. Is the problem that your devotion to liberal mythology won't allow you to admit that FDR horrendously mishandled the war and caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths?

It is downright idiotic to say that unconditional surrender was the only option. If FDR had not cut the legs from beneath the German resistance leaders and had agreed to end the war if they killed or imprisoned Hitler, deposed the Nazis, and handed back all the occupied territory, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, not to mention tens of thousands of Jews.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 30, 2019)

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...


Ask Rommel how plotting against Hitler would have gone

 I didn’t bother to read your link because it is obviously a revisionist history fantasy. No way Canaris and his Merry  Men could have pulled it off. Gestapo would have been all over him

Another problem with your fantasy is what would have happened with the Concentration Camps?  We just make nice with the Germans and they keep the camps?  How could anyone allow the Germans to just make nice after the death camps became known?  

Unconditional Surrender was the only viable outcome


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Nov 30, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Ask Rommel how plotting against Hitler would have gone.



Rommel did join the plot, and the resistance nearly killed Hitler and had a credible shot at overthrowing the regime until it was learned that Hitler had survived.



> I didn’t bother to read your link because it is obviously a revisionist history fantasy.



And there you have it: You won't read anything that you know will challenge the PC syrup you've swallowed, especially if that syrup is about one of your liberal heroes.

"Revisionist"???  This stuff is a matter of record. No one, but no one, disputes the established fact that the German resistance leaders repeatedly approached the Allies through third parties with an offer to kill/imprison Hitler, give back all conquered territories, and establish a non-Nazi government in exchange for an end to the war.



> No way Canaris and his Merry  Men could have pulled it off. Gestapo would have been all over him.



They nearly did pull it off, even though they were unable to recruit as many officers and officials as they hoped because of FDR's blind insistence on unconditional surrender. FDR's public demand for unconditional surrender made it much harder for the resistance to recruit people, as the article explains--but, of course, you won't read it.



> Another problem with your fantasy is



"Fantasy"? Eisenhower didn't think it was a fantasy, nor did many high-ranking British military officers and officials, as the article explains--but, oh, you won't read the article.



> what would have happened with the Concentration Camps?  We just make nice with the Germans and they keep the camps?  How could anyone allow the Germans to just make nice after the death camps became known?



Sigh. . . .  Rommel was disgusted and enraged when he learned of the death camps. The German resistance leaders despised the Nazis, and some of them were helping Jews escape the Nazis, as the article explains--but, oh yeah, you won't read the article.

The resistance leaders were prepared to kill Hitler and any other Nazis who stood in their way, so they would have either handed the Nazi leaders involved with the Holocaust over to the Allies or they would have punished them themselves.

And speaking of the death camps, tens of thousands of Jews would have been spared death in those camps if FDR had not needlessly prolonged the war by rejecting the offers from the German resistance and by insisting on unconditional surrender.



> Unconditional Surrender was the only viable outcome



That's nonsense. Eisenhower didn't think unconditional surrender was the only viable option. In fact, Eisenhower thought that unconditional surrender was idiotic and would result in huge numbers of needless deaths. So did the chief of British intelligence (Gen. Menzies). So did British Air Marshal John Slessor. So did General Wedemeyer (who designed our D-Day strategy). So did Secretary of State Cordell Hull (whom FDR excluded from the Casablanca conference because he was so opposed to unconditional surrender). So did General George Marshall. So did OSS chief William Donovan, and so did a host of other senior military officers and civilian officials, as the article explains--but, oh well, you won't read the article.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2019)

_Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives_

Several months?
Are you claiming the US lost hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the final months of WWII?

After D Day, the war was over. US and Soviet troops were marching relentlessly towards Germany. The Soviets had turned the tide by late 1943. Why would they agree to a deal that allowed Germany to just shake hands and go home?

You overstate the prospects of the German resistance. Hitler had dealt brutally with resistance for a decade. Over 30 attempts on his life were unsuccessful. Even if Hitler were killed, what makes you think the Nazis would not have quickly regrouped? What makes you think the Generals would have meekly changed sides?


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 1, 2019)

This revisionist history glosses over the death camps
The death camps show why we were right in demanding unconditional surrender. We could not just allow Germany to make up and promise to be good. The horror of the death camps required severe consequences 

Were we just going to stand by and expect an unsupervised Germany to handle the situation and make nice with the Jews?


----------



## Picaro (Dec 5, 2019)

FDR was so horrible he was elected three times. He managed to defeat all enemies on three fronts, all the while supplying all our allies, in less than five years, he was so stupid and incompetent. Yes, he was a real loser. lol what load of crap right wingers have to keep dreaming up, only to make themselves as ludicrous and idiotic as their left wing fellow travellers are now.

Demanding unconditional surrender from fanatics is the only option in warfare, so all you 'isolationist' faggots should just stay hidden under your beds and let the adults take care of real life for you; your silly fantasies are for stoners and morons.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2019)

Picaro said:


> FDR was so horrible he was elected three times. He managed to defeat all enemies on three fronts, all the while supplying all our allies, in less than five years, he was so stupid and incompetent. Yes, he was a real loser. lol what load of crap right wingers have to keep dreaming up, only to make themselves as ludicrous and idiotic as their left wing fellow travellers are now.
> 
> Demanding unconditional surrender from fanatics is the only option in warfare, so all you 'isolationist' faggots should just stay hidden under your beds and let the adults take care of real life for you; your silly fantasies are for stoners and morons.


FDR turned us into a modern Democracy and a military Super Power

The Nazi and Japanese empires were the very definition of evil. Agreeing to a “let’s just shake hands and go back to the way things were” would have just led to new conflicts


----------



## whitehall (Dec 5, 2019)

Like almost every democrat politician in the 20th (and 21st) century FDR enjoyed total support from the media and the media writes the history books. FDR was a skilled orator who could make a restaurant menu sound profound but it was almost total B.S. FDR and Hitler entered the political arena at roughly the same time and FDR should have been aware of the Nazi threat but according to Eric Larson's book "In the Garden of the Beasts" which chronicles FDR's ambassador to Berlin in the 30's, it appears that FDR was so focused on his "Great Depression" that there was virtually no coherent foreign policy. As a matter of fact the Brits were shocked that their was no espionage network or counter espionage network in place in the U.S. during the FDR administration.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 5, 2019)

whitehall said:


> Like almost every democrat politician in the 20th (and 21st) century FDR enjoyed total support from the media and the media writes the history books. FDR was a skilled orator who could make a restaurant menu sound profound but it was almost total B.S. FDR and Hitler entered the political arena at roughly the same time and FDR should have been aware of the Nazi threat but according to Eric Larson's book "In the Garden of the Beasts" which chronicles FDR's ambassador to Berlin in the 30's, it appears that FDR was so focused on his "Great Depression" that there was virtually no coherent foreign policy. As a matter of fact the Brits were shocked that their was no espionage network or counter espionage network in place in the U.S. during the FDR administration.


Historians nearly unanimously consider FDR to be our greatest modern president


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Dec 30, 2019)

As Fleming points out in the article cited in the OP, shortly after Sicily fell, Italy’s King Victor Emmanuel III fired Mussolini and appointed Field Marshal Pietro Badoglio premier. This illustrates the fact that the Axis nations were not identical. There was no one around in Germany who could fire Hitler, but in Italy the king fired Mussolini, and in Japan the cabinet and the imperial court teamed up to force Tojo to resign and replaced him with the far more moderate Suzuki.

In Italy's case, the fighting could have ended six weeks earlier, saving thousands British and American lives, if FDR had accepted the first peace offer from Badoglio. It took Churchill, Eisenhower, and others six precious weeks to convince FDR to relent on unconditional surrender for Italy. In those intervening six weeks, the Germans moved 24 divisions into Italy, and those German soldiers killed thousands of American and British soldiers that would have been spared death if FDR had simply accepted Badoglio's first peace offer.


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 13, 2020)

As chance would have it, RealClearHistory.com is carrying an article that agrees that FDR's insistence on unconditional surrender needlessly cost millions of lives. Here's an excerpt from it:

Several of Hitler's former generals have attested to the lengthening of the war caused by unconditional surrender.  Once the policy was adopted in 1943 it gave Joseph Goebbels an important propaganda weapon. . . . This hardened the resolve of ordinary Germans to fight on to the bitter end, especially on the Eastern Front.  If no quarter could be expected then surrender was not an option.  Consequently millions of people would die because of the inflexibility of Allied policy.  Furthermore, because unconditional surrender ensured that the Germans would fight on no matter what the cost, it also ensured that the Soviets would have to fight their way across Eastern Europe and deep into Germany proper. . . .​
Undercutting German resistance efforts. . . . The most important of these, that within some echelons of the German officer corps, stood a reasonable chance of success.  However, the eventual success of any coup against Hitler depended on the ability of the resistance to say that the Allies would help stabilize Germany if it was led by someone other than Hitler.  The policy of unconditional surrender significantly undercut any popular support that the resistance could count upon.​
By January 1943 (when unconditional surrender was decided) large pockets of Jews within Nazi-occupied Europe were still alive, including practically all of the Jews within the major ghettoes of Warsaw and Łódz.  These Jews would be slaughtered in the gas chambers of Nazi death camps throughout 1943.  In 1944 the Jewish population of Hungary also would be largely exterminated in Auschwitz-Birkenau.  Had a more flexible policy been adopted by Roosevelt and Churchill, a policy which would have allowed Germans to surrender anywhere under any circumstances, the German war effort probably would have collapsed much sooner than May 1945. (Unconditional Surrender)​


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 13, 2020)

FDR saved Europe
There would be no EU today without the wise decisions of our greatest president


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 13, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> FDR saved Europe
> There would be no EU today without the wise decisions of our greatest president



You mean he saved most of Western Europe, and he could have saved it much earlier and with millions of fewer lives lost. He handed over Eastern Europe to Stalin and paved the way for the Chinese Communists to enslave China.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 13, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > FDR saved Europe
> ...



Really?

With Germany occupying Western Europe, do you think he could have politely asked them to leave?

Give me a date of when you think the Nazis would have just packed up and gone home

After losing tens of million of people, you think Stalin was going to just go home and surrender his captured territory?


----------



## regent (Jan 13, 2020)

I would suggest that Republicans gather their evidence of FDR's mistakes and send their evidence to the historians that rate FDR as America's greatest president. As for the people that voted FDR four times. like Ronald Reagan, and with the new Republican evidence maybe the historians will see their error. As for the voters like Reagan that voted for 
FDR four times they're all gone.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 13, 2020)

FDR took a second rate US Military and turned us into a Super Powr


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 14, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Really?
> 
> With Germany occupying Western Europe, do you think he could have politely asked them to leave?
> 
> ...



Ughh. . . .  You simply ignore any and every fact that doesn't fit your PC syrup version of history and proceed from there. You did not address a single fact raised in the OP or in the article I quoted two replies ago. You just repeated the liberal talking point that FDR "saved Europe," blah, blah, blah.

Again, again, again, as Fleming and others note, if FDR had not spurned the German opposition and not refused to ditch "unconditional surrender," which even Stalin urged him to do, the war could have been ended many months earlier, saving millions of lives.

And if FDR had not spurned Japan's peace offers, provoked Japan to war, and secured Stalin's eastern flank with thousands of gallons of Chinese blood, Moscow would have fallen and a tyranny worse than Nazi Germany would have been destroyed.


----------



## harmonica (Jan 14, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...


jesus F christ--can you put more in there????!!!
....hey buddy--the Germans started shit a SECOND time BECAUSE there wasn't unconditional surrender the first time ..so if we didn't totally destroy them and get unconditional surrender, they would do the same shit again...

...also, why do you think the Arab-Israeli problem went on for so long?  and so many wars?  no unconditional surrennder--no a$$ whoopin


----------



## harmonica (Jan 14, 2020)

Oddball said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > I gave you a "thank you" because I appreciate hearing alternative views.
> ...


..then they would start a Third World War if we didn't destroy them and get unconditional surrender


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 14, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Ughh. . . .  You simply ignore any and every fact that doesn't fit your PC syrup version of history and proceed from there. You did not address a single fact raised in the OP or in the article I quoted two replies ago. You just repeated the liberal talking point that FDR "saved Europe," blah, blah, blah.

Again, again, again, as Fleming and others note, if FDR had not spurned the German opposition and not refused to ditch "unconditional surrender," which even Stalin urged him to do, the war could have been ended many months earlier, saving millions of lives.

And if FDR had not spurned Japan's peace offers, provoked Japan to war, and secured Stalin's eastern flank with thousands of gallons of Chinese blood, Moscow would have fallen and a tyranny worse than Nazi Germany would have been destroyed.[/QUOTE]





You are spouting fantasy alternative history which does not refute the facts

There was no reason for Germany to accept terms while they were winning.
No reason to demand anything other than unconditional once the tide had turned.

One inconvenience that you ignore is the death camps. Germany’s dirty little secret. Under your scenario, the death camps continue to exist.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 14, 2020)

Democrats put up a dead man for his 4th term because they thought political power was more important than the future of the United States and the world.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 14, 2020)

whitehall said:


> Democrats put up a dead man for his 4th term because they thought political power was more important than the future of the United States and the world.


Republicans could not even beat a dying man
Henry Wallace got screwed out of the Presidency....who the hell was Truman?


----------



## whitehall (Jan 14, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats put up a dead man for his 4th term because they thought political power was more important than the future of the United States and the world.
> ...


It's true, democrats lied to Americans and the media at the time promoted the election of a virtual corpse. Democrats knew it and FDR was dead within three months of his inauguration.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 14, 2020)

whitehall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



I think it was about a month
As sick as he was, Americans preferred FDR to any Republican


----------



## regent (Jan 14, 2020)

Didn't we know that if Republicans were given enough time they would finally figure out how FDR lost WWII. Next they'll figure out how "Unconditional Surrender Grant" lost the Civil war.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

regent said:


> Didn't we know that if Republicans were given enough time they would finally figure out how FDR lost WWII. Next they'll figure out how "Unconditional Surrender Grant" lost the Civil war.



Republicans never mention how they fought FDR on the military build up prior to WWII

If Republicans were running things, we would have lost


----------



## Flash (Jan 15, 2020)

FDR was a terrible President.  He really prolonged the Depression by failed big government interference.

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - Frontiers of Freedom

Then I don't understand why it was that the Japs attacked the US that we spent most of our war resources fighting in Europe.  Kinds of reminds you of Bush's decision to invade Iraq after 911 when Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

FDR was the typical failed Democrat President.  Lousy in domestic policy and lousy in foreign policy,


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

Flash said:


> FDR was a terrible President.  He really prolonged the Depression by failed big government interference.
> 
> FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - Frontiers of Freedom
> 
> ...



FDR wasn’t as interested in ending the Depression as much as easing the suffering of the people

His policies put food in their bellies and got them jobs


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

Flash said:


> FDR was a terrible President.  He really prolonged the Depression by failed big government interference.
> 
> FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate - Frontiers of Freedom
> 
> ...



If FDR could have ended the Depression 7 years earlier then what year do you think the Depression should have ended?


----------



## regent (Jan 15, 2020)

How in the world can America survive if the people are allowed to vote for  the president of their choice?  Thank God, Republicans stopped that kind of nonsense by changing the Constitution. Now for Republicans to stop the historians from making historical evaluations of presidents and politicians. and then the biggie, remove the impeachment clause and American will roll along roll.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

regent said:


> How in the world can America survive if the people are allowed to vote for  the president of their choice?  Thank God, Republicans stopped that kind of nonsense by changing the Constitution. Now for Republicans to stop the historians from making historical evaluations of presidents and politicians. and then the biggie, remove the impeachment clause and American will roll along roll.



Republicans think Historians, Scientists, Economist and the media are conspiring against them


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 15, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...





harmonica said:


> ....hey buddy--the Germans started crap a SECOND time BECAUSE there wasn't unconditional surrender the first time ..so if we didn't totally destroy them and get unconditional surrender, they would do the same crap again...



That's nonsense. Germans were embittered after WW I because of the draconian conditions of the Versailles Treaty and because of England's starvation blockade after Germany had stopped fighting. 

I notice you didn't attempt to deal with a single fact presented in the OP, such as the fact that even Stalin recognized that FDR's unconditional surrender policy was deadly and idiotic, such as the fact that FDR passed up a chance to kill Hitler in 1943 because he refused to abandon unconditional surrender, and such as the fact that even Marshall and Eisenhower urged him to abandon unconditional surrender.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> ...


Was Stalin willing to surrender the territory the Soviets fought and died for?

Sure, he didn’t care what happened to Western Europe


----------



## harmonica (Jan 15, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> ...


...Stalin--hahahahhahahahahahh..Stalin talking about ''deadly'' policies --hahahahah
.....most of yours and everyone's ''alternate'' histories are big IFs=bullshit..if this if that if hitler had 3 hands/etc.....if hitler had a UFO ship/etc

....let me say it again--the Arab-Israeli wars/crap went on and on and on--because there was no unconditional surrender and no country got devestated ....the Germans and Japanese only realized war was terrible when they got the ciites destroyed....

hitler and the nazis committed genocide and YOU want conditions????!!!!!?????


----------



## harmonica (Jan 15, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> ...


..you obviously do not know your history:
....hey---hitler is NOT surrendering!!!!!! he's not giving up--not giving in and he has the power to keep the power --this means giving the Germans less than unconditional surrender to end the war is not a SURE thing .....per my previous post = if IF IF IF IF --you people have a lot of ifs--nothing for sure


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...


The hypothetical history says that Canaris would have led a coup against Hitler and taken control of the government and arranged a surrender. 

Know what would have happened to Canaris?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jan 15, 2020)

Yeah the soviets would of never went for anything less than unconditional ......on the other hand if the west accepted then insisted on it Patton may of got his wish of rolling across eastern europe and pushing the Russian back.


----------



## harmonica (Jan 15, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...


maybe---ahhhh--hanged?


----------



## 22lcidw (Jan 15, 2020)

There is another alternate history. The new world order globalists needed to reorganize the world. World War 1 started it. World War 2 pushed it closer. And over the last 75 years or so we have been careening closer to global governance. The U.S. is used for its massive resources to give to others and as the policeman of the world in this scenario. We must be weakened and are to be incorporated into the global entity. Germany was picked as the sucker to take the hit. Hitler even believed that the globalists were on his side and screwed him over. Russia was an early experiment on communism as the globalists pushed it on them. We are all pawns in these games. Do you lose your humanity to attain power?


----------



## harmonica (Jan 15, 2020)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Yeah the soviets would of never went for anything less than unconditional ......on the other hand if the west accepted then insisted on it Patton may of got his wish of rolling across eastern europe and pushing the Russian back.


Patton wouldn't be rolling the Russians back too far--they had better/bigger tanks/etc ..the OstFront made the Western Front look very tiny
..yes, you never would've be able to get all the Aliies to agree to certain-different-etc terms


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 15, 2020)

Deplorable Yankee said:


> Yeah the soviets would of never went for anything less than unconditional ......on the other hand if the west accepted then insisted on it Patton may of got his wish of rolling across eastern europe and pushing the Russian back.


Patton would have suffered a hundred thousand dead
They weren’t afraid of the German tanks, they would not fear Patton’s tiny Sherman’s


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 16, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Really? With Germany occupying Western Europe, do you think he could have politely asked them to leave? Give me a date of when you think the Nazis would have just packed up and gone home
> 
> After losing tens of million of people, you think Stalin was going to just go home and surrender his captured territory?



Huh? We're talking about early 1943, when the Germans still held Eastern Europe. If FDR had assured the German resistance that he would allow them to set up a non-Nazi government in exchange for killing Hitler and overthrowing the Nazis, and if the resistance had killed Hitler and seized the reigns of government later that year, the vast majority of Eastern Europe would have been spared Soviet tyranny and millions of lives would have been saved, including the lives of several million Jews.

By mid-1942, most German Wermacht generals were fed up with Hitler's catastrophically bad micromanagement of the war. If the resistance had killed Hitler, deposed the Nazis, and set up a non-Nazi and U.S.-recognized government, Stalin would not have dared to continue the war on the Eastern Front but would have felt compelled to stand down.


----------



## Syriusly (Jan 16, 2020)

German Generals were no more likely to actually revolt against HItler than the Republican Senate is likely to vote to impeach Trump. 

I don't approve of everything that FDR did- he certainly made many mistakes- but I think it is way too easy to be a Monday night quarterback now- and say how things would have turned out if FDR had just done this or just done that. 

We do know what did happen. The United States emerged at the end of WW2 as the most powerful country in the world- the most powerful country the world has ever known. Our economy was thriving, we had the most powerful military in the world. And both Germany and Japan ended up as future American allies. 

Anything done differently would have had different results- and they might have been worse. 

With that I leave the FDR haters to spew forth again about how much they hate the guy who led America to victory in WW2.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 16, 2020)

Of course, the GOP was heeping praise on the European fascists and selling scrap metal to that Japanese.


----------



## regent (Jan 17, 2020)

So did America and it's allies win or lose WWII? Sure gets confusing.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 17, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Really? With Germany occupying Western Europe, do you think he could have politely asked them to leave? Give me a date of when you think the Nazis would have just packed up and gone home
> ...


And if the Nazis had crushed the German resistance?

Early 1943, Hitler was very popular 
What would make you think the German people would support an overthrow?

You still haven’t answered what would happen to the death camps after your surrender


----------



## harmonica (Jan 17, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Really? With Germany occupying Western Europe, do you think he could have politely asked them to leave? Give me a date of when you think the Nazis would have just packed up and gone home
> ...


--as I stated before, you have a lot of IFs there.....
kill hitler and overthrow the nazis--just like that====this isn't a *MOVIE*
jesus f christ...get back to the  real world ..they tried to kill-- him *MANY* times


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 17, 2020)

harmonica said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Historical fantasy


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 17, 2020)

Oddball said:


> FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.



The crippled asshole was second worst US president, right after Woodrow Wilson.

In a nutshell, he was a communist who seized everybody's gold, passed the New Deal garbage, passed the 1934 National Firearms Act (to this day still the worst piece of unconstitutional sneak stepping in US history), deliberately rebuffed Japan's diplomatic overtures to get us into WWII on the side of Josef fucking Stalin, and worst of all, he used a combination of banning volunteer enlistment and selective drafting to safely win four elections. You want to know why the Boomers were such a garbage generation? FDR killed the men that would have raised their children right.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 18, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.
> ...


FDR saved the country and then he saved the world


----------



## harmonica (Jan 18, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


FDR had a *WORLD *war to deal with
Carter couldn't even handle a problem with Iran


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...



What would you have done differently than Carter?


----------



## harmonica (Jan 18, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


....first, he doesn't want to do a military option...then when he does, he picks a very high risk/idiotic option 
....that was an act of war..I would've lined up the B52s and said either release them or else---you see what happened recently?  the Iranians don't want the big boys coming to town


----------



## OldLady (Jan 18, 2020)

This is what I call Democrat hate.  Digging up a guy who is long dead and whalin' on him.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 18, 2020)

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



In that case the hostages would have been used as shields

Carter negotiated behind the scenes and got all hostages out alive


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2020)

gipper said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> ...




Indeed. we were for sure brainwashed in out corrupt school system into believing all that  what a great president FDR was  blah blah blah. so many facts on that murderous traiter were omiited from the history books. another suppressed fact is what a traiter and mass murderer Eisenhower was as well.

Here is the REAL traiiter and mass murderer and pal of FDR exposed-:remember both parties are corrupt and they are one in the same. as you well know" did you know about this event between murderer Ike and uncle Joe as he called him?






_By stopping General Patton's advance and handing Eastern Germany to Stalin, "Ike" enabled the mass rapes and murders.





As 2 million German women were being gang raped on Stalin's orders, Eisenhower partied with 'Uncle Joe' - atop Lenin's tomb!

These are the REAL mass murderers below,these three sick disgusting monsters are all burning in hell alongside with Eisenhower.



_


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2020)

OldLady said:


> This is what I call Democrat hate.  Digging up a guy who is long dead and whalin' on him.



Hey nothing wrong with exposing the TRUTH about a mass murderer and traiter. why is it okay to talk about a current one like bush clinton and obama but not talk about a dead one ESPECIALLY since our corrupt school system lied to us on everything in history classes  and suppressed the REAL facts from us?


----------



## OldLady (Jan 18, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > This is what I call Democrat hate.  Digging up a guy who is long dead and whalin' on him.
> ...


I disagree with you.  About everything.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 18, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.
> ...



Ame@icano, A hole murderer FDR's pal Eisenhower was as much a mass murderer asshole as FDR was.

check post # 70  here.

FDR's Catastrophic, Horrendous, and Treasonous Handling of WW II in Europe

 our corrupt school system never taught us the truth about the REAL presidents we had.


----------



## harmonica (Jan 18, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


..they couldn't put them everywhere....that's just it --he *negotiated * and screwed over the US for years after that.....negotiated for over a YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!  THEN he tried the military option--so he was confused/an idiot


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 18, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



"Carter got hostages out alive"

LOL

No no no.... LOOOOOOOLLLLLL


----------



## harmonica (Jan 19, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


..after a year of the US being humiliated and weakened
...and--it set up many more Americans to be taken hostage/tortured and murdered in the 80s....so it was like Chamberlain at Munich --be* weak* and WW2 comes along 
Lebanon hostage crisis - Wikipedia
etc


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > mikegriffith1 said:
> ...


“Uncle Joe” and the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying in that war.
While FDR was delaying a US invasion until he had built up his forces and would minimize US casualties, the Soviets were fighting in Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk and hundreds of other killing fields.

By the time we finally executed D Day, the Soviets had already smashed German forces and were marching westward

The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying in the European theater. We reaped the benefits


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...



In the end
No American hostages were killed. The only thing that got Americans killed was a military action


----------



## harmonica (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> LA RAM FAN said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


yes--after all of that--the Russians are not going for conditional surrender


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

harmonica said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > LA RAM FAN said:
> ...


Can’t believe some morons believe the Soviets would be willing to shake hands and go home


----------



## there4eyeM (Jan 19, 2020)

An effective coup d'état in Nazi Germany is nearly impossible to imagine. The fanatics were too numerous and too well placed. 
Likewise, there is little reason to believe that the pumped up Red Army and ruthless Stalin would have stopped operations immediately, or even soon. An already shattered German army was all that faced them.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

Nigel Farage: the armistice was the biggest mistake of the 20th century

“We should have pursued the war for a further six weeks, and gone for an unconditional surrender. Yes, the last six weeks of the war cost us 100,000 casualties, and I’m prepared to accept that a further six weeks of war might have cost us another 100,000.

“But had we driven the German army completely out of France and Belgium, forced them into unconditional surrender, Herr Hitler would never have got his political army off the ground. He couldn’t have claimed Germany had been stabbed in the back by the politicians in Berlin, or that Germany had never been beaten in the field.”

The Ukip leader said that the reason why Hitler had been able to get his party off the ground in Germany – drawing on “the myth of the stab in the back” at the treaty of Versailles – was because one of those marching through the streets in support of him in 1923 was Erich Ludendorff, a commander of the German army during the first world war.




There wouldn't have been a WWII had the allies FINISHED WWI...............There would have been no treaty of Versailles to be pissed about, and Germany would have been occupied after WWI.  Hitler would have never really come to power and probably saved MILLIONS OF LIVES.  

According to this historian the cost to finish off Germany in WWI would have been 100,000 deaths.

The Allies had no reason to offer CONDITIONAL SURRENDER TO HITLER.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

there4eyeM said:


> An effective coup d'état in Nazi Germany is nearly impossible to imagine. The fanatics were too numerous and too well placed.
> Likewise, there is little reason to believe that the pumped up Red Army and ruthless Stalin would have stopped operations immediately, or even soon. An already shattered German army was all that faced them.



The claim we should have just shook hands and allowed everyone to go home is hard to fathom 

What would have happened to the Death Camps?
Would the Germans just have opened the gates and told the Jews......Gee, sorry bout that....you can go now


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

German generals could have just turned on the SS Troops in the field and said ENOUGH.........Taken them out and Surrendered the whole stinking army so the Allies could just walk in.........

Did they do it....................No they did not.........
Did they try to kill Hitler............yes but they failed...

There was no negotiating with HITLER............NONE........Had they killed him early then the War could have been over sooner.  THEY FAILED.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> German generals could have just turned on the SS Troops in the field and said ENOUGH.........Taken them out and Surrendered the whole stinking army so the Allies could just walk in.........
> 
> Did they do it....................No they did not.........
> Did they try to kill Hitler............yes but they failed...
> ...


There is no assurance that even if Hitler was killed, the Nazis would have just surrendered

The next in line would have just stepped up and taken power. Probably either Goring or Himmler


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

The ANVIL Decision

Page 387

strategy. [6] Preliminary exchanges between the Americans and British at Cairo were inconclusive. At Tehran for the first time in the war the President, the Prime Minister, and their staffs met with Marshal Stalin and his staff. *The Prime Minister made eloquent appeals for operations in Italy, the Aegean, and the eastern Mediterranean, even at the expense of a delay in OVERLORD. Stalin at this point unequivocally put his weight behind the American concept of strategy. Confident of Russia's capabilities, he asserted his full power as an equal member of the coalition and came out strongly in favor of OVERLORD. Further operations in the Mediterranean, he insisted, should be limited to the invasion of southern France in support of OVERLORD*. Soviet experience over the past two years, he declared, had shown that a large offensive from one direction was not wise; that pincer operations of the type represented by simultaneous operations against northern and southern France were most fruitful. These operations would best help the Soviet Union. In turn, the Russians promised to launch a simultaneous all-out offensive on the Eastern Front.

Stalin's stand put the capstone on Anglo-American strategy. In a sense, therefore, he fixed Western strategy. Churchill lost out, and the Americans gained the decision they had so long desired. The final blueprint for Allied victory in Europe had taken shape.

It was typical of the President at Tehran to act as arbitrator, if not judge, between the other two leaders, as different in their methods as in the views they represented. The President did not appear completely indifferent to Churchill's eloquence and persuasiveness and to the possibilities of Mediterranean ventures, particularly in the Adriatic. At the same time he was under strong pressure from his military advisers to see that nothing delay OVERLORD and in the end he held fast. [7] The President's task in this respect was undoubtedly made easier, as was that of the U.S. staff, by Stalin's firm stand. Years later, Churchill, still convinced that the failure at Tehran to adopt his eastern Mediterranean policy was a fateful error, wrote: "I could have gained Stalin, but the President was oppressed by the prejudices of his military advisers, and drifted to and fro in the argument, with the result that the whole of these subsidiary but gleaming opportunities were cast aside unused." [8]


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States.  Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.

What was key in Churchill's plan.............he was more concerned with After the War was Won than how it was Won...........He wanted to seize more of Germany before the Russians could get there.....because he was concerned about Russia taking more ground and POLAND..........Poland was why Britain went to War in the first place and he was concerned that Russia would own all the land they went to War for.........His strategy was to prevent the Russians from taking more ground.

After the surrender of Germany the British even had a plan to go to War with Russia over Poland.........Operation Unthinkable.

Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia

The sole purpose being to force Russia to give up Poland..........


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States.  Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.
> 
> What was key in Churchill's plan.............he was more concerned with After the War was Won than how it was Won...........He wanted to seize more of Germany before the Russians could get there.....because he was concerned about Russia taking more ground and POLAND..........Poland was why Britain went to War in the first place and he was concerned that Russia would own all the land they went to War for.........His strategy was to prevent the Russians from taking more ground.
> 
> ...


Russia fought too hard and too many people died for them to just give up Poland or any captured territory

The Western economies and military forces were depleted. People were tired of war. It would be hard to justify continuing the war and accepting more deaths


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States.  Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.
> ...


Which is the same thing that happened in WWI and helped cause WWII..........The results of WWII was a cold War between Russia and the United States.............Churchill was more POLITICAL than our generals.........Our generals wanted to just go head to head against the Germans and speed up the end of the War........Churchill wanted to break them with less casualties on our side, and ALLOW MORE RUSSIANS TO BE KILLED.......to be quite Frank...........because he wanted the Russians weakened in the aftermath of the War......and wanted to occupy more of Germany and have a stake at having Poland Free, which started the War.

In the end, our Overlord strategy caused Germany to fight on 2 massive fronts and ended the War early......but it ceded more ground to the USSR..............which was key to the British............which is history.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia
> 
> Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........
> 
> Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.


The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties. 

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

In retrospect, FDRs plans in Europe were masterful

He delayed a US invasion for years while the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying. He built up the US industrial complex to where we were the only remaining economic power on earth. 

The US sustained relatively small casualties and ended up with Industrialized Western Europe. We also ruled as an unchallenged economic and military super power after the war


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia
> ...


Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> In retrospect, FDRs plans in Europe were masterful
> 
> He delayed a US invasion for years while the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying. He built up the US industrial complex to where we were the only remaining economic power on earth.
> 
> The US sustained relatively small casualties and ended up with Industrialized Western Europe. We also ruled as an unchallenged economic and military super power after the war


Yes we used Russians as Cannon Fodder.........Britain honestly wanted more Russians as cannon fodder because he saw what was coming.

Overlord finished off the Germans..........But at a Great cost in the end.......and it eventually ceded the Eastern half of Germany...............as we STALLED so the Russians would lose more men taking Berlin.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Or we just could have allowed Germany to surrender and keep their territory and Death Camps


----------



## eagle1462010 (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I never disagreed with Unconditional Surrender.............Had WWI been fought to Unconditional Surrender then I would guess that WWII would never have happened.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...


Hard to say

WWI was a massacre for four years. All sides were exhausted. US coming in with fresh troops turned the tide. I can’t blame them for wanting to end it


----------



## mikegriffith1 (Jan 19, 2020)

FDR would have risked nothing by telling the German resistance that if they could kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, seize the government, and agree to give up conquered territory, the U.S. would halt the war and recognize their government. If the resistance had managed to kill Hitler but was unable to take over the government, this still would have constituted major progress and likely would have led to an early end to the fighting. If the resistance was unable to deliver at all, no harm would have been done to our war effort.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 19, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> FDR would have risked nothing by telling the German resistance that if they could kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, seize the government, and agree to give up conquered territory, the U.S. would halt the war and recognize their government. If the resistance had managed to kill Hitler but was unable to take over the government, this still would have constituted major progress and likely would have led to an early end to the fighting. If the resistance was unable to deliver at all, no harm would have been done to our war effort.


Lot of “ifs” there

Better to just take over the country and force them to conform to the norms of civilized nations

If they gave up captured territories would they get to keep their Death Camps?


----------



## gipper (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> > FDR would have risked nothing by telling the German resistance that if they could kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, seize the government, and agree to give up conquered territory, the U.S. would halt the war and recognize their government. If the resistance had managed to kill Hitler but was unable to take over the government, this still would have constituted major progress and likely would have led to an early end to the fighting. If the resistance was unable to deliver at all, no harm would have been done to our war effort.
> ...


Why are you such a right wing imperialist?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



They were taken hostages under Carter, and kept hostages for 444 days.

Military action was another peanut farmer's brilliant move, was it?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 19, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What do you mean "you can't believe". That's exactly what they did after fall of Berlin wall. It took them 45 years, but eventually they did it. If traitors didn't give them nuke tech and jet blueprints, it would happen much sooner.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 21, 2020)

gipper said:


> It’s clear, FDR was a murderous psychopath. Then, Truman takes over and he is worse.
> 
> However, Americans like to cling to their fairy tale version of WWII, as the good war won by the greatest generation. Statist propaganda works.


  Amen to that


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 21, 2020)

Oddball said:


> They would have surrendered to the west to try to prevent being overrun by the Soviets, for starters.



Patton would have been in Berlin months ahead of the USSR.  FDR stalled our drive so that Stalin could swing south and add Bulgaria to his collection!

FDR worst President in history


----------



## Regent23 (Jun 22, 2020)

LA RAM FAN said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > It’s clear, FDR was a murderous psychopath. Then, Truman takes over and he is worse.
> ...


It only seems fair that the generation that fights the war be allowed to  create the surrender terms. The murderous psychopath mentioned is also rated by the voters of his time, and 
American historians, as America's greatest president.


----------



## my2¢ (Jun 22, 2020)

I guess it is what to be expected when you have a president who thinks he's smarter than the generals.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 24, 2020)

Chief of Staff George Marshall was promoted to his position ahead of a dozen more qualified Army Generals. It turns out that he was FDR's gofer and not much else. Ike was afraid he would be relieved of duty after the debacle of the Bulge but the media turned the situation around and pronounced the most notorious intelligence failure in history to be a victory. Ike was ordered by Marshall to halt his Troops on the outskirts of Berlin and let the rag tag Russian mob take the city. The Iron Curtain was part of FDR's foreign policy.


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 26, 2020)

Oddball said:


> FDR needed war to distract from the fact that his seven years of economic idiocy was total failure.


We should have let the Russians and Germans exterminate each other


----------



## Quasar44 (Jun 26, 2020)

FDR was a cartel boss
He had zero honor
A man of extreme corruption and evilness
He was an avaricious serpent


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jun 27, 2020)

Quasar44 said:


> FDR was a cartel boss
> He had zero honor
> A man of extreme corruption and evilness
> He was an avaricious serpent


You. Nailed it.


----------



## justinacolmena (Jun 27, 2020)

mikegriffith1 said:


> “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders


If they were resistance leaders, they would have already been fighting on our side against the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany which obviously had the support of U.S. Democrats, including FDR.

The U.S. declared war on Germany, and then invited top Nazi scientists to work for the U.S. government via Operation Paperclip. Obviously the U.S. Democrats who supported the war did so with the intention of coopting it into a war against the resistance in full solidarity with the Nazi Party.

Many Jews, especially anti-communists, or Sephardic vs Ashkenazi, were on the Nazi side as well. Adolf Hitler himself was part Jewish.

And it's somewhat confusing, because for all the notorious concentration camps of Germany and Poland, the Russian pogroms led by Stalin on our side of the war were incarcerating just as many Jews and working them to death in the gulags or labor camps of the former USSR.


----------



## basquebromance (Jul 31, 2020)

FDR was president for 4,222 days during every one of which his party controlled Congress, yet he still vetoed 635 bills


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 31, 2020)

FDR was our greatest modern President

Turned the US into a modern Democracy and Super Power both economically and militarily


----------



## gipper (Jul 31, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> FDR was our greatest modern President
> 
> Turned the US into a modern Democracy and Super Power both economically and militarily


He sucked.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 31, 2020)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was our greatest modern President
> ...


Saved the US and saved the world

FDR greatest President


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 31, 2020)

If America had nukes but FDR left it to Truman to use them he should have been tried and executed as the traitor he would have been.  Had Hitler come to glow in the dark maybe the Japs would have thought twice before failing to see the light.....errrrrr.........._glow_!


----------



## gipper (Jul 31, 2020)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


He screwed up the world and fucked the nation.


----------



## Regent23 (Jul 31, 2020)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Even Reagan voted for FDR four times, and again, as did America's best historians, and most importantly the American people. Maybe it is one of those periods in history that one must live through to appreciate the magnitude of the Great Depression and World War 2.  Would the American people vote for Trump four times or even two?


----------



## gipper (Aug 1, 2020)

Regent23 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


No you don’t, because people back then didn’t know of FDR’s lies and deceit.

FDR prolonged the Great Depression with his dumb policies, then set up events to get us into WWII causing massive death and destruction leading to decades of Cold War. To say nothing of his treasonous actions towards the USSR.


----------



## TheParser (Aug 1, 2020)

If I am not mistaken, FDR was becoming more frail and sick as he entered his third term. And his running for a fourth term was just plain wrong. So maybe the gentleman was not able to think things through clearly.

Today, we are on the brink of electing a gentleman who is already mentally frail. That should be of grave concern to all Americans.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 1, 2020)

TheParser said:


> Today, we are on the brink of electing a gentleman who is already mentally frail


Agree
Trump is showing he lacks the intellect and mental stamina to lead


----------



## Mac-7 (Sep 18, 2021)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...


FDR did not start WWII



the germans did in case you have forgotten


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 18, 2021)

_Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders,_

Problem is, Canaris was in no position to negotiate with the Allies.
Hitler would have had him killed just like all the others who tried. The German resistance was in no position to negotiate 

Unconditional surrender is the only outcome that would have gotten Hitler and the Nazis out of power


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 18, 2021)

Kilroy2 said:


> Well what seems a obvious is that as a civilian president he was more concern with how the history books would right the story of the victor and his role in securing that victory. Having no first hand knowledge other than the military briefings.  A political outcome ???
> 
> whereas generals and people who had to fight that war with first hand knowledge of the casualties on both sides of any war would accept surrender as a sign of victory and stop the fighting. A victory is a victory?


The history books would right the story?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 18, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Like almost every democrat politician in the 20th (and 21st) century FDR enjoyed total support from the media and the media writes the history books. FDR was a skilled orator who could make a restaurant menu sound profound but it was almost total B.S. *FDR and Hitler entered the political arena at roughly the same time and FDR should have been aware of the Nazi threat but according to Eric Larson's book "In the Garden of the Beasts" which chronicles FDR's ambassador to Berlin in the 30's,* it appears that FDR was so focused on his "Great Depression" that there was virtually no coherent foreign policy. As a matter of fact the Brits were shocked that their was no espionage network or counter espionage network in place in the U.S. during the FDR administration.



FDR was Asst. Secretary of the Navy in WW1.  Hitler was an Austrian corporal. How is that relevant?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 18, 2021)

regent said:


> How in the world can America survive if the people are allowed to vote for  the president of their choice?  T*hank God, Republicans stopped that kind of nonsense by changing the Constitution. *Now for Republicans to stop the historians from making historical evaluations of presidents and politicians. and then the biggie, remove the impeachment clause and American will roll along roll.


WTF are you yapping about?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 18, 2021)

OldLady said:


> This is what I call Democrat hate.  Digging up a guy who is long dead and whalin' on him.


He was good sized, but i don't think a whale is a good description!

The correct word is "wailing", unless you are a dumbass Yankee!


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 18, 2021)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...



I get tired of these revisionist history propaganda pieces about FDR


What makes you think FDR could have negotiated surrender terms with the Nazis without including Stalin?

In case you don’t know, Germany invaded the Soviet Union killing millions and torturing, raping and exterminating innocent civilians
In case you didn’t know, the Soviets were pretty pissed about this.
In case you didn’t know, by late 1943 the Soviets had the Nazis on the run and were headed for Germany.

by that time….Do you think Stalin would have accepted any surrender terms other than unconditional surrender?


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Sep 18, 2021)

mikegriffith1 said:


> In his 600-plus-page book _The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within World War II_, award-winning historian Thomas Fleming documents in sickening detail how FDR needlessly prolonged WW II in Europe by several months and cost hundreds of thousands of American and European lives. FDR did this by insisting on “unconditional surrender” and by refusing to even consider the substantive peace offers made by the German resistance leaders, even though those leaders included high-ranking German officers such as Admiral Canaris, the head of the Abwehr, Germany’s military intelligence agency.
> 
> Fleming provided an extensive summary of the evidence of FDR’s catastrophic handling of the war in Europe in a long 2009 article titled “FDR Writes a Policy in Blood” in _MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. _The article is now available on historynet.com. Below are extracts from the article:
> 
> ...





Some claims are highly debatable, to say the least, among them the sweeping assertion that Roosevelt “tricked” his nation into war by using Asia as the “backdoor” (p. 4). Fleming goes so far as to write that FDR “had seduced America into the war with clever tricks, one- step-forward one-step-back double-talk, and the last resort provoca- tion of  Japan” (p. 257). Indeed, the president “covertly goaded Japan into attacking the United States” (p. 426). *Hardly a contemporary historian accepts this reasoning*, and several leading ones, among them Warren F. Kimball and Robert  Dallek, find Roosevelt envi- sioning American participation limited to air and sea conflict against Germany while avoiding hostilities with Japan. 







__





						View of The New Dealers' War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the War Within                     World War II by Thomas Fleming
					






					scholarworks.iu.edu
				






Real historians say your author is poop.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 18, 2021)

harmonica said:


> Patton wouldn't be rolling the Russians back too far--they had better/bigger tanks/etc ..the OstFront made the Western Front look very tiny
> ..yes, you never would've be able to get all the Aliies to agree to certain-different-etc terms


The Soviets were overextended.  They never had to fight against a combined force army like the allies fielded.  The RAF and USAAF would have driven the Red Air Force from the skies.  WAllied air power would have isolated the Red Army from supplies and the WAllies would have pushed the starving, out of supply Red Army as Far East as it desired.   The Germans never had the logistical ability the WAllies did 

As for Soviet tanks, they had a few heavies,  JS IIs and the like.  The rest of their tanks were T-34s of various marks that were inferior to the Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills of the WAllies.  The myth of the invincible T-34 was just that, a myth.  The T-34 was the most destroyed tank of the war.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Sep 18, 2021)

K9Buck said:


> I gave you a "thank you" because I appreciate hearing alternative views.
> 
> What conditions would the German generals have demanded in exchange for peace?


That they wouldn't be shot, hung, harassed...............
Well worth it to save thousands of americans and allies lives.


----------



## OldLady (Sep 19, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> He was good sized, but i don't think a whale is a good description!
> 
> The correct word is "wailing", unless you are a dumbass Yankee!


Nope, I'm right as usual.
_Whale__ is also a verb for the action of hitting something (such as that gambling table, or a punching bag) forcefully and repeatedly. This might be surprising to those people who misuse the identically (or, in some dialects) similarly pronounced verbs wail or wale with the meaning of "to hit." The verb whale can also imply attacking vigorously or repeatedly, as in "the team whaled on their opponent 20 to 2"; a person might also "whale away" during a debate (meaning they are verbally attacking their opponent and showing no mercy) or "whale into/at" that person with whom they are debating._









						'Whale' vs. 'Wail' vs. 'Wale'
					

If you're at sea about which to use, we're here to rescue you.




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 19, 2021)

The Soviets were only in the war because the Brits saved them from certain defeat, and Churchill convinced FDR they were necessary to defeat Germany. Hitler sealed his fate by convincing dumbass Japanese vermin to attack the U.S. and thereby the Axis declaring war on the U.S.  Thomas Fleming's book is garbage and innuendo, which is why I threw it away after reading about  third of it. Patton was making big noises and posturing for the media; at the end of the day he was just a competent division commander, nothing special as a strategist or logistician. He was always playing to reporters, most of whom had no idea who was a good military planner or who wasn't, being pretty much morons themselves about such things, same as they are today. Given how Slavs fawned over Hitler and their treatment of Jews trying to return home after the war, I'm glad we didn't shed one drop of blood saving them from the Soviets; they deserved each other.


----------



## DudleySmith (Sep 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> The Soviets were overextended.  They never had to fight against a combined force army like the allies fielded.  The RAF and USAAF would have driven the Red Air Force from the skies.  WAllied air power would have isolated the Red Army from supplies and the WAllies would have pushed the starving, out of supply Red Army as Far East as it desired.   The Germans never had the logistical ability the WAllies did
> 
> As for Soviet tanks, they had a few heavies,  JS IIs and the like.  The rest of their tanks were T-34s of various marks that were inferior to the Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills of the WAllies.  The myth of the invincible T-34 was just that, a myth.  The T-34 was the most destroyed tank of the war.



We even had to supply them with the fuel boosters needed for them to even field an air force, they couldn't make their own av gas, and Hitler had to strip the eastern front of AA and aircraft to use against the Allied bombing campaign over Germany, leaving the Soviets with air superiority over most of the eastern front, to the extent they could even use WW I biplanes to bomb German troops with.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 19, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> In that case the hostages would have been used as shields
> 
> Carter negotiated behind the scenes and got all hostages out alive





rightwinger said:


> In that case the hostages would have been used as shields
> 
> Carter negotiated behind the scenes and got all hostages out alive


No, the only reason the hostages were released was that the Iranians were afraid of what Reagan would do to them.  They spent most of Carter’s presidency humiliating him in front of the entire world.  The mullah snookered Carter into forcing the Shah to allow Khomeini back into Iran from exile, they got Carter to force the Shah to stop his secret police from controlling the mullahs and other Muslim extremists, and they finally forced Carter to make the Shah abdicate.  Khomeini and the Mullahs had Carter’s number and first fooled him, then intimidated him.  Carter is directly responsible for the growth of Islamic terrorism in modern times.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 19, 2021)

eagle1462010 said:


> Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.
> 
> But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........
> 
> ...


What Churchill wanted was the typical historic British strategy, sit behind its moat defended by its navy and get the continental powers to do most of the dying.  Britain created an empire by playing one country or group off against another for Britain’s ultimate benefit.  Churchill could see the writing on the wall that the US was going to come out of the war as the great power, so he wanted to regain as much of the Empire as he could with his waning political and military power,


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> No, the only reason the hostages were released was that the Iranians were afraid of what Reagan would do to them.  They spent most of Carter’s presidency humiliating him in front of the entire world.  The mullah snookered Carter into forcing the Shah to allow Khomeini back into Iran from exile, they got Carter to force the Shah to stop his secret police from controlling the mullah sand other Muslim extremists, and they finally forced Carter to make the Shah abdicate.  Khomeini and the Mullahs had Carter’s number and first fooled him, then intimidated him.  Carter is directly responsible for the growth of Islamic terrorism in modern times.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 19, 2021)

rightwinger said:


>


If the Iranians weren’t playing Carter, they wouldn't have waited until just before Reagan was inaugurated to release the hostages.  They would have released then before the election when it might have saved the Carter presidency.  I lived through it, Reagan had everyone convinced he was a mad dog war monger who would immediately jump to military force.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> If the Iranians weren’t playing Carter, they wouldn't have waited until just before Reagan was inaugurated to release the hostages.  They would have released then before the election when it might have saved the Carter presidency.  I lived through it, Reagan had everyone convinced he was a mad dog war monger who would immediately jump to military force.


Iran was pissed at Carter for sheltering the Shah.
They were not going to release the hostages till Carter was out. They waited until minutes after he was no longer President.

They had Zero fear of Reagan




__





						The Iran-Contra Scandal – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training
					






					adst.org


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Sep 19, 2021)

OldLady said:


> Nope, I'm right as usual.
> _Whale__ is also a verb for the action of hitting something (such as that gambling table, or a punching bag) forcefully and repeatedly. This might be surprising to those people who misuse the identically (or, in some dialects) similarly pronounced verbs wail or wale with the meaning of "to hit." The verb whale can also imply attacking vigorously or repeatedly, as in "the team whaled on their opponent 20 to 2"; a person might also "whale away" during a debate (meaning they are verbally attacking their opponent and showing no mercy) or "whale into/at" that person with whom they are debating._
> 
> 
> ...


Our sources disagree.  You are a Yankee and therefore are wrong, by definition!

*wail on someone  

wail on (someone or something)

1. To attack or thrash something in an brutal, forceful, or relentless manner. (A common misspelling of "whale on someone or something.")

The knights are wailing on the gate with a battering ram! Hold your positions!

She began wailing on the poor child until a police officer finally intervened. 

The other team wailed on us for the entire game, leading to one of our most humiliating defeats of the season.
*








						wail on someone
					

Definition of wail on someone in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary




					idioms.thefreedictionary.com


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> The Soviets were overextended.  They never had to fight against a combined force army like the allies fielded.  The RAF and USAAF would have driven the Red Air Force from the skies.  WAllied air power would have isolated the Red Army from supplies and the WAllies would have pushed the starving, out of supply Red Army as Far East as it desired.   The Germans never had the logistical ability the WAllies did
> 
> As for Soviet tanks, they had a few heavies,  JS IIs and the like.  The rest of their tanks were T-34s of various marks that were inferior to the Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills of the WAllies.  The myth of the invincible T-34 was just that, a myth.  The T-34 was the most destroyed tank of the war.


The Soviets defeated Hitler with minimal Allied support
They had a massive infantry that was not going to surrender territory they fought and died for


----------



## OldLady (Sep 19, 2021)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Our sources disagree.  You are a Yankee and therefore are wrong, by definition!
> 
> *wail on someone
> 
> ...


Dunno who 'The Free Dictionary' is, but I'll go with Merriam Webster.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 19, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> The Soviets defeated Hitler with minimal Allied support
> They had a massive infantry that was not going to surrender territory they fought and died for


Without WAllied support the Soviets would have lost. We provided most of their quality steel, a good chunk of their aircraft, food to keep the Red Army from starving, rails to keep their railroads functioning as well as thousands of locomotives, molybdenum to harden the armor of their tanks, thousands of tanks, thousands of halftracks, tens of thousands trucks that were far better than anything Soviet factories could produce.  We pulled thousands of artillery pieces away from the Eastern Front to defend Germany from our bombers and millions of men to man them.  We pulled almost the entire Luftwaffe fighter force away from the Eastern Front and killed most of its experienced pilots.  Boots, uniforms, radios, radar sets, artillery ammunition, fuel of all sorts,  you name it and we gave it to them.  The Soviets couldn’t even feed themselves without US support, oh yes I almost forgot about the millions of tons of fertilizer and pesticides.  About the only things they made in quantity were direct warfighting objects like tanks, small arms, aircraft and artillery pieces.  

Leg infantry on a WWII battle field were nothing but POWs waiting to happen.  During Barbarossa the Germans captured millions of Soviet leg infantry because they lacked the mobility to avoid encirclement by mechanized forces.  Without the tens of thousands American trucks, the Red Army would have been as immobile as it was in 1941.

And finally the WAllies forced Germany to pull at least a hundred divisions off the Eastern Front to fight in France and wear out their elite Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions shuttling them to the Western Front and then right back to the Eastern Front.  A lot of the force the Germans used on the Eastern Front were from client states like Hungary and Romania, they had to use real German units on the Western Front because client troops would simply surrender knowing the WAllies wouldn’t shoot them and would treat them well.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 19, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Without WAllied support the Soviets would have lost. We provided most of their quality steel, a good chunk of their aircraft, food to keep the Red Army from starving, rails to keep their railroads functioning as well as thousands of locomotives, molybdenum to harden the armor of their tanks, thousands of tanks, thousands of halftracks, tens of thousands trucks that were far better than anything Soviet factories could produce.  We pulled thousands of artillery pieces away from the Eastern Front to defend Germany from our bombers and millions of men to man them.  We pulled almost the entire Luftwaffe fighter force away from the Eastern Front and killed most of its experienced pilots.  Boots, uniforms, radios, radar sets, artillery ammunition, fuel of all sorts,  you name it and we gave it to them.  The Soviets couldn’t even feed themselves without US support, oh yes I almost forgot about the millions of tons of fertilizer and pesticides.  About the only things they made in quantity were direct warfighting objects like tanks, small arms, aircraft and artillery pieces.
> 
> Leg infantry on a WWII battle field were nothing but POWs waiting to happen.  During Barbarossa the Germans captured millions of Soviet leg infantry because they lacked the mobility to avoid encirclement by mechanized forces.  Without the tens of thousands American trucks, the Red Army would have been as immobile as it was in 1941.
> 
> And finally the WAllies forced Germany to pull at least a hundred divisions off the Eastern Front to fight in France and wear out their elite Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions shuttling them to the Western Front and then right back to the Eastern Front.  A lot of the force the Germans used on the Eastern Front were from client states like Hungary and Romania, they had to use real German units on the Western Front because client troops would simply surrender knowing the WAllies wouldn’t shoot them and would treat them well.


The Soviets fought and died in defeating the Nazis
They killed millions while we killed a few hundred thousands
They fought the prime of the German Army while we fought the reserves

Western History shows us beating the Germans at D Day and the Battle of the Bulge
The Reality is the Soviets defeating the Germans at Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk


----------



## AZrailwhale (Sep 20, 2021)

rightwinger said:


> The Soviets fought and died in defeating the Nazis
> They killed millions while we killed a few hundred thousands
> They fought the prime of the German Army while we fought the reserves
> 
> ...


Leningrad was under siege for years, the Soviets didn’t defeat the Germans there, Moscow was saved by German stupidity.  Hitler didn’t bother to order winter uniforms.  The German Sixth Army was crushed at Stalingrad, but the Germans were still on the offensive afterwards.  Kursk was a defeat for the Germans, but  the Soviets took horrific losses in the defense.  The reality was that Stalin slaughtered millions of his own troops with stand and die orders, or wasteful frontal assaults.  Yes the Soviets killed more Germans, but the WAllies captured more and captured more actual German territory.  The Soviets were too busy killing and raping their way across Eastern Europe to bother taking prisoners, or helping civilians.  Yes the Red Army killed more Germans, but the WAllies destroyed the Luftwaffe, wrecked Germany’s road, rail and canal systems shutting down German logistics, destroyed Germany’s oil supply, disrupted German industry, Forced Germany to pull thousands of guns and millions of troops away from the Eastern Front.  While fighting another war on the far side of the planet, fighting in Italy and North Africa and supplying the UK, USSR, Australia and even India with supplies and weapons that allowed those countries to fight both Germany and Japan.  All the USSR did was to defend itself when it’s ally in the rape of Poland turned on it.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 20, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Leningrad was under siege for years, the Soviets didn’t defeat the Germans there, Moscow was saved by German stupidity.  Hitler didn’t bother to order winter uniforms.  The German Sixth Army was crushed at Stalingrad, but the Germans were still on the offensive afterwards.  Kursk was a defeat for the Germans, but  the Soviets took horrific losses in the defense.  The reality was that Stalin slaughtered millions of his own troops with stand and die orders, or wasteful frontal assaults.  Yes the Soviets killed more Germans, but the WAllies captured more and captured more actual German territory.  The Soviets were too busy killing and raping their way across Eastern Europe to bother taking prisoners, or helping civilians.  Yes the Red Army killed more Germans, but the WAllies destroyed the Luftwaffe, wrecked Germany’s road, rail and canal systems shutting down German logistics, destroyed Germany’s oil supply, disrupted German industry, Forced Germany to pull thousands of guns and millions of troops away from the Eastern Front.  While fighting another war on the far side of the planet, fighting in Italy and North Africa and supplying the UK, USSR, Australia and even India with supplies and weapons that allowed those countries to fight both Germany and Japan.  All the USSR did was to defend itself when it’s ally in the rape of Poland turned on it.


The reality is that the Soviets did the fighting and dying against the bulk of the German Army
The US and UK opened a second front after the Soviets turned the tide

Soviets did the bulk of the heavy lifting to defeat the Nazis
US beat Japan


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 20, 2021)

Patton was right, as usual. 

Thanks to FDR's love and blind allegiance to "Uncle Joe" WWII was a miserable failure for the USA and Brits as it left great European Capitals and whole nations in the hands of the "descendants of Genghis Khan"

Patton should have been in Prague and Berlin well ahead of the USSR

The USSR should have been ordered back to their start line before their invasion on Poland. Failure to comply would mean war with the USA, British and reconstituted German Army


----------

