Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
You are missing the pointThe Eastern Front was the 800 lb gorilla in the war. The best men and the best resources were allocated to defeating the Soviets
Doesn't translate into 'winning the war'. Germany drove the Soviets back hundreds of miles, all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad. They were easily screened off, and without Lend-Lease were going nowhere. They were more like a 10 pound gorilla. They were saved by massive belts of land mines and anti-tank guns from complete defeat, and those wouldn't have saved them without the U.S. entering the war and landing in North Africa.
Having the 'best men and best resources' doesn't matter much when your leader is a nutjob like Hitler, in any case; he didn't listen to his Generals unless they told him what he wanted to hear, anyway. If he hadn't stupidly went after Stalingrad he would have finished the Soviets when he seized or destroyed the Caucasus oil fields. Hitler would have still had to keep forces in the East, whether he attacked the Soviets or not; Stalin intended to invade West anyway; Hitler just jumped first.
If Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin and used all his resources to control western europe, we never would have dislodged him
Of course we could. Hitler couldn't outproduce us. Most of the German Army still moved by animal drawn wagons throughout the war, contrary to the impression given by all those pics of tanks and half-tracks. and he had no Navy to prevent us from doing whatever we wanted.
The point was if Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin, how could the allies have driven him out of Western Europe?
I get the point. Why do you think we couldn't have? It was the U.S. keeping everybody else in the fight, after all. We had the means, more than enough, and there was no way Hitler could have bottled up the British Navy even if he could have invaded Britain itself, for one.
I wish I had enough time to read where somebody came up with the ridiculous notion that the allies could have retaken western Europe without the Russians fighting from the 2nd front.You are missing the pointThe Eastern Front was the 800 lb gorilla in the war. The best men and the best resources were allocated to defeating the Soviets
Doesn't translate into 'winning the war'. Germany drove the Soviets back hundreds of miles, all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad. They were easily screened off, and without Lend-Lease were going nowhere. They were more like a 10 pound gorilla. They were saved by massive belts of land mines and anti-tank guns from complete defeat, and those wouldn't have saved them without the U.S. entering the war and landing in North Africa.
Having the 'best men and best resources' doesn't matter much when your leader is a nutjob like Hitler, in any case; he didn't listen to his Generals unless they told him what he wanted to hear, anyway. If he hadn't stupidly went after Stalingrad he would have finished the Soviets when he seized or destroyed the Caucasus oil fields. Hitler would have still had to keep forces in the East, whether he attacked the Soviets or not; Stalin intended to invade West anyway; Hitler just jumped first.
If Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin and used all his resources to control western europe, we never would have dislodged him
Of course we could. Hitler couldn't outproduce us. Most of the German Army still moved by animal drawn wagons throughout the war, contrary to the impression given by all those pics of tanks and half-tracks. and he had no Navy to prevent us from doing whatever we wanted.
The point was if Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin, how could the allies have driven him out of Western Europe?
I get the point. Why do you think we couldn't have? It was the U.S. keeping everybody else in the fight, after all. We had the means, more than enough, and there was no way Hitler could have bottled up the British Navy even if he could have invaded Britain itself, for one.
Did you see Normandy and the relatively weak German resistance once we landed? Imagine ten times the resistance and the full German airforce opposing us
I don't think Hitler could have invaded England but he could have made them miserable
.
That's a new one for me.So the big question: Why have America's top historians, since they began rating presidents in 1948, been rating FDR as one of top three American presidents and recently rated FDR as America's best president? The charge that America's historians are communists, or they don't know history as these poster's know it, doesn't do it.
What is their point, are they, in reality, Democrats trying to make conservatives look stupid, or what?
You don't have answer because I am right. The USSR made it possible for the Allies to invade NA and France.Picaro conveniently ignores that GB was in the war with the USSR, which was exactly my point. All of his arguments are about what happened, not about what could or could not have happened if the USSR was not in the war.
If the USSR was not in the war, the Axis would have defeated easily any invasion of North Africa from the West. D-Day never would have been possible in France without the USSR holding down more than half of the Axis forces in June 1944.
Only some absolutely illiterate about the facts would argue that the USA would by its own have invaded in Europe. That is supreme silliness to suggest so.
Keep proving you're an idiot and troll. I don't mind.
You, Picaro, are ignoring the facts and figures.You are missing the pointThe Eastern Front was the 800 lb gorilla in the war. The best men and the best resources were allocated to defeating the Soviets
Doesn't translate into 'winning the war'. Germany drove the Soviets back hundreds of miles, all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad. They were easily screened off, and without Lend-Lease were going nowhere. They were more like a 10 pound gorilla. They were saved by massive belts of land mines and anti-tank guns from complete defeat, and those wouldn't have saved them without the U.S. entering the war and landing in North Africa.
Having the 'best men and best resources' doesn't matter much when your leader is a nutjob like Hitler, in any case; he didn't listen to his Generals unless they told him what he wanted to hear, anyway. If he hadn't stupidly went after Stalingrad he would have finished the Soviets when he seized or destroyed the Caucasus oil fields. Hitler would have still had to keep forces in the East, whether he attacked the Soviets or not; Stalin intended to invade West anyway; Hitler just jumped first.
If Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin and used all his resources to control western europe, we never would have dislodged him
Of course we could. Hitler couldn't outproduce us. Most of the German Army still moved by animal drawn wagons throughout the war, contrary to the impression given by all those pics of tanks and half-tracks. and he had no Navy to prevent us from doing whatever we wanted.
The point was if Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin, how could the allies have driven him out of Western Europe?
I get the point. Why do you think we couldn't have? It was the U.S. keeping everybody else in the fight, after all. We had the means, more than enough, and there was no way Hitler could have bottled up the British Navy even if he could have invaded Britain itself, for one.
Really? How do you know this?FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world[/QUOT?
None of that was a function of any of FDR's decisions.
The "rest of the world was in ruins" because of geography. We were to far from our enemies for them to bomb.
Our military became number one because of our size and the advanced nature of our economy, and the destruction of everyone else.
ON the other hand, the soviets had half of Europe under occupation and thousands of tanks poised to threaten the other half.
A situation which put the world in danger for the next 50 years.
CHurchill warned of that danger. FDR was aware of it from him, if no one else.
What steps, if any, did he take to address it?
Our military becoming number one was a direct result of FDRs decisions. As President, he stepped in and took control of ALL wartime industries. He told manufacturers what they would produce and prioritized the allocation of resources. Republicans squawked at FDR overstepping his wartime powers
FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world
NOpe. Our military supremacy was the result of the massive size of the nation and the economy that he found when he assumed office.
Green lighting the Manhattan Project was good. Saved a lot of American lives at the end of the war.
But what steps did he take to deal with the Post War Balance of Power?
Our ultimate military supremacy was not a given. FDR enacted Socialist policies during wartime and took government control over all industry and resources. It enraged Republicans. Republicans also wanted more states involvement in the war effort in terms of who got what. It is doubtful if a Republican could have achieved what FDR did in WWII
The Manhattan Project was a huge gamble during wartime. It was far from a given that it would be successful. It cost a huge amount of money, demanded critical wartime resources and there was no assurance that a bomb could be delivered in time to impact the war effort
More forward thinking from FDR
Yes, you are correct. It's doubtful a Republican would have been Stalin's sock puppet like FDR. It's doubtful a Republican would have allowed the USSR to control Eastern Europe
You're nuts if you think Wendell Wilkie would have done better than FDR.
Really? How do you know this?FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world[/QUOT?
Our military becoming number one was a direct result of FDRs decisions. As President, he stepped in and took control of ALL wartime industries. He told manufacturers what they would produce and prioritized the allocation of resources. Republicans squawked at FDR overstepping his wartime powers
FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world
NOpe. Our military supremacy was the result of the massive size of the nation and the economy that he found when he assumed office.
Green lighting the Manhattan Project was good. Saved a lot of American lives at the end of the war.
But what steps did he take to deal with the Post War Balance of Power?
Our ultimate military supremacy was not a given. FDR enacted Socialist policies during wartime and took government control over all industry and resources. It enraged Republicans. Republicans also wanted more states involvement in the war effort in terms of who got what. It is doubtful if a Republican could have achieved what FDR did in WWII
The Manhattan Project was a huge gamble during wartime. It was far from a given that it would be successful. It cost a huge amount of money, demanded critical wartime resources and there was no assurance that a bomb could be delivered in time to impact the war effort
More forward thinking from FDR
Yes, you are correct. It's doubtful a Republican would have been Stalin's sock puppet like FDR. It's doubtful a Republican would have allowed the USSR to control Eastern Europe
You're nuts if you think Wendell Wilkie would have done better than FDR.
In reality, just about anyone would have been a better POTUS than FDR?
Really? How do you know this? You just made the stupidest post in the thread.Really? How do you know this? In reality, just about anyone would have been a better POTUS than FDR?
And that argument is why you are in the lowest 2% of students of American history. You are a libertarian silly, nothing more.FDR's term as POTUS can be summed up as follows:
- he was the consummate liar and deceiver
- he campaigned against Hoover's economic interventions and then intervene much more.
- his ignorant economic policies of forced scarcity on a nation where many were going hungry, was total ignorance
- his policies prolonged the Great Depression
- he lied repeatedly in the 1940 claiming "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."...all while secretly maneuvering Japan to strike and desperately trying to get Hitler to sink US shipping in N. Atlantic
- while terribly ill, sought a third and fourth term...totally disregarding Washington and historical precedent
- he allowed Stalist spies to control him
- he gladly agreed to anything Stalin demanded...foolishly think he could 'charm' Uncle Joe
- he enslaved half of Europe and all of China to the world's most heinous political doctrine leading to decades of cold war
- he knew Japan would strike beforehand (see Magic) and was happy about it.
Discounting Lincoln and maybe our current and last POTUS, he was the worst.
Picture Normandy in June 1944, with Panzer Divisions near all the beaches instead of a few in reserve. Picture 88's everywhere. Picture the German intelligence with 100% focus on the English Channel.You are missing the pointThe Eastern Front was the 800 lb gorilla in the war. The best men and the best resources were allocated to defeating the Soviets
Doesn't translate into 'winning the war'. Germany drove the Soviets back hundreds of miles, all the way to Moscow and Stalingrad. They were easily screened off, and without Lend-Lease were going nowhere. They were more like a 10 pound gorilla. They were saved by massive belts of land mines and anti-tank guns from complete defeat, and those wouldn't have saved them without the U.S. entering the war and landing in North Africa.
Having the 'best men and best resources' doesn't matter much when your leader is a nutjob like Hitler, in any case; he didn't listen to his Generals unless they told him what he wanted to hear, anyway. If he hadn't stupidly went after Stalingrad he would have finished the Soviets when he seized or destroyed the Caucasus oil fields. Hitler would have still had to keep forces in the East, whether he attacked the Soviets or not; Stalin intended to invade West anyway; Hitler just jumped first.
If Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin and used all his resources to control western europe, we never would have dislodged him
Of course we could. Hitler couldn't outproduce us. Most of the German Army still moved by animal drawn wagons throughout the war, contrary to the impression given by all those pics of tanks and half-tracks. and he had no Navy to prevent us from doing whatever we wanted.
The point was if Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin, how could the allies have driven him out of Western Europe?
I get the point. Why do you think we couldn't have? It was the U.S. keeping everybody else in the fight, after all. We had the means, more than enough, and there was no way Hitler could have bottled up the British Navy even if he could have invaded Britain itself, for one.
Did you see Normandy and the relatively weak German resistance once we landed? Imagine ten times the resistance and the full German airforce opposing us
I don't think Hitler could have invaded England but he could have made them miserable
.
FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world[/QUOT?
Rightwing revisionist history that is mocked by scholars
If he did not, then what steps, if any, did he take in support of the US's future Post War situation?
FDR left the US essentially untouched after the war while the rest of the world was in ruins. We had the only functioning economy and filled a global economic void. Our military moved from being the 17th largest in the world to an undisputed number 1.
Seems we were in pretty good shape after WWII
None of that was a function of any of FDR's decisions.
The "rest of the world was in ruins" because of geography. We were to far from our enemies for them to bomb.
Our military became number one because of our size and the advanced nature of our economy, and the destruction of everyone else.
ON the other hand, the soviets had half of Europe under occupation and thousands of tanks poised to threaten the other half.
A situation which put the world in danger for the next 50 years.
CHurchill warned of that danger. FDR was aware of it from him, if no one else.
What steps, if any, did he take to address it?
Our military becoming number one was a direct result of FDRs decisions. As President, he stepped in and took control of ALL wartime industries. He told manufacturers what they would produce and prioritized the allocation of resources. Republicans squawked at FDR overstepping his wartime powers
FDR also approved early on, something called the Manhattan Project.......changed the world
NOpe. Our military supremacy was the result of the massive size of the nation and the economy that he found when he assumed office.
Green lighting the Manhattan Project was good. Saved a lot of American lives at the end of the war.
But what steps did he take to deal with the Post War Balance of Power?
Our ultimate military supremacy was not a given. FDR enacted Socialist policies during wartime and took government control over all industry and resources. It enraged Republicans. Republicans also wanted more states involvement in the war effort in terms of who got what. It is doubtful if a Republican (imagine Wendel Wilke?) could have achieved what FDR did in WWII
The Manhattan Project was a huge gamble during wartime. It was far from a given that it would be successful. It cost a huge amount of money, demanded critical wartime resources and there was no assurance that a bomb could be delivered in time to impact the war effort
More forward thinking from FDR
Our military supremacy was a given. As you stated, the rest of the world was in "ruins".
Differences in management style doesn't make the difference when comparing non-ruins to ruins.
Yes. The Manhattan Project was a good move. It was aimed at defeating the Nazis, the immediate goal.
What steps did FDR take for the long term issue of the Post War Balance of Power?
And another thing, some of these guys are acting like the war was over when we launched Overlord.
Spear had come up with ways to increase German war production despite the bombing campaigns
Until he ramped production up.And another thing, some of these guys are acting like the war was over when we launched Overlord.
Spear had come up with ways to increase German war production despite the bombing campaigns
Who ever said that???
Spear said the war nearly ended for a lack of ball bearings
Speer kept production going in the face of spiraling German reverses and the Allied strategic bombing.And another thing, some of these guys are acting like the war was over when we launched Overlord.
Spear had come up with ways to increase German war production despite the bombing campaigns
Who ever said that???
Spear said the war nearly ended for a lack of ball bearings
