Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Germans and the Japanese had a DEFENSIVE alliance. The committed top coming to the aid of the other if ATTACKED. Japan wasn't attacked, it was the attacker so Hitler had no requirement to declare war on the USA. On the other hand, FDR was already fighting an undeclared war against Germany, so Hitler had little to lose by declaring it a real war. Sooner or later FDR was going to find a cassus belli and declare war on Germany.Carter installed the Ayatollah.
The Democrats were already in the totalitarian camp post Viet Nam.
Anything, any nation, that was anti-America was a friend to the Democrats.
Or.....is there any reason you can think of to guarantee nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
How could America have avoided entering the war: we were attacked, and Germany was Japan's ally.
The Germans and the Japanese had a DEFENSIVE alliance. The committed top coming to the aid of the other if ATTACKED. Japan wasn't attacked, it was the attacker so Hitler had no requirement to declare war on the USA. On the other hand, FDR was already fighting an undeclared war against Germany, so Hitler had little to lose by declaring it a real war. Sooner or later FDR was going to find a cassus belli and declare war on Germany.
That's typical diplospeak. In other words, meaningless bovine excrement. Churchill loathed Stalin, but he loathed Hitler more.Hundreds, hundreds of millions!
By the way not only FDR was soviet agent, but mr. Conservatism itself:
In January 1947, nearly a year after his “iron curtain” speech at Fulton, Missouri – Churchill received a message from Stalin via Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, who had just visited Moscow. Stalin told Churchill that he would “always have the happiest memories of [his] work with the great war leader of Britain” and that he had “the greatest respect and admiration for what Churchill had done during the war”.
Churchill replied to Stalin that: “Your life is not only precious to your country, which you saved, but to the friendship between Soviet Russia and the English-speaking world.”
This correspondence may be found in both the British and Russian archives.
We should have recognized that the Soviets had no choice but to fight the Germans. Germany would have left the USSR an emasculated client state that only controlled whatever territory Germany didn't desire. It would have been in the WAllies best interests to leave Germany and the USSR to chew on each other like Kilkenny Cats. Neither country was a friend of the western democracies. The enemy of my enemy ISN'T my friend, in Stalin's case he was certainly our enemy; taking advantage of FDR's naiveite and generosity.
Learn some history, the AVG didn't enter combat until AFTER Pearl Harbor. Here' an excerpt from the AVG's history:FDR wanted war....The direct provocation known as the AVG was operating in China well in advance of 7 Dec.
That is wrong on many levels. The most important one is that the only way for the Soviets to invade the Home Islands would be to swim from the Asian mainland to Hokkaido. The Soviets essentially lacked a navy in the Pacific. The had(if memory serves) 2 LIGHT cruisers about twenty destroys and torpedo boats and less than a hundred US landing craft provided under Lend-Lease. No ability to land tanks or supplies at all. Based upon US and UK experience with green crews half the landing craft would be lost on the first day to operational accidents, more to enemy action leaving a literal handful for any reinforcement and resupply efforts. Plus the Soviets never mounted a major amphibious invasion and like the Germans viewed it as a river crossing writ large. The Japanese army in Manchuria and China was poorly supplied and consisted of untrained draftees most of which were impressed Koreans and Manchurians who had little reason to fight for their Japanese conquerors and in fact didn't in most cases. The Soviet army in Manchuria and China was no threat to the Japanese government at all. The US naval blockade had already cut all passage to the Asian mainland from Japan and US ships and aircraft were sinking anything larger than a rowboat than ventured out of the harbors."...If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did.
Have 70 years of nuclear policy been based on a lie?foreignpolicy.com
is simple: the Soviet Union.
The Japanese were in a relatively difficult strategic situation. They were nearing the end of a war they were losing. Conditions were bad. The Army, however, was still strong and well-supplied. Nearly 4 million men were under arms and 1.2 million of those were guarding Japan’s home islands....
It didn’t take a military genius to see that, while it might be possible to fight a decisive battle against one great power invading from one direction, it would not be possible to fight off two great powers attacking from two different directions. The Soviet invasion invalidated the military’s decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive — it foreclosed both of Japan’s options — while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.
The Soviet declaration of war also changed the calculation of how much time was left for maneuver. Japanese intelligence was predicting that U.S. forces might not invade for months. Soviet forces, on the other hand, could be in Japan proper in as little as 10 days. The Soviet invasion made a decision on ending the war extremely time sensitive."
Actually that was a British idea. It's how they fought their continental wars for centuries. They would subsidize the Russians or Germans, or someone to fight the French.Let's just start off with one thing.
"America wanted the Soviets to take the brunt of the casualties during WWII."
Do you believe that?
Actually that was a British idea. It's how they fought their continental wars for centuries. They would subsidize the Russians or Germans, or someone to fight the French.
Most of those Soviet casualties were the direct results of SOVIET decisions, starvation and abuse by the Soviet government. The Germans only killed less than five million Soviets. At the beginning of the invasion, large numbers of Soviet civilians and military were coming over to the Germans who they viewed as liberators from Stalin's bloody regime. Germany was too stupid to recognize and take advantage of the situation and began mistreating and slaughtering the people who were willing to support the invaders.Soviet casualties 27,000,000
American casualties 405,000
Is that more clear?
The Soviets defeated the Germans. We helped some, yes, but the Soviets bore the brunt of that war.
Yes, the European theater was more important than the Pacific. That's obvious.
.
No it wasn't. It was a horrible tank that has a decent, but not world-class gun and good mobility. In every other metric it fell short of allied tanks. especially the Sherman. The T-34 was the most destroyed tank of WWII, in the early days of the invasion the Germans were killing them with 37mm gun armed tanks. The T-34 crews were so blind that one 37mm gun hit a single T-34 over fifty times before being spotted and run over by the T-34.
T-34 was arguably the best overall tank of the war. And where it fell short, it made up for in numbers.
The Soviets valued life enough to give their soldiers good equipment.
Good equipment, right, Ford Model A trucks, Moison Nagant rifles from pre-WWI stocks, WWI artillery, no armored personnel carriers at all. underperforming fighters, no radios in most of their tanks (usually only the company commander had a radio that received only) Most Soviet equipment wasn't good at all, but it was designed to be used by drafted idiots and was soldier proof.
T-34 was arguably the best overall tank of the war. And where it fell short, it made up for in numbers.
The Soviets valued life enough to give their soldiers good equipment.
Are you completely mad?the Germans were killing them with 37mm gun armed tanks.
Yes, you are...The Germans only killed less than five million Soviets.
That only happened because Hitler diverted troops, equipment and supplies to the southern front. German troops were within sight of Moscow. If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over because all roads and railroads led to Moscow. The Soviets would have had to retreat behind the Urals to reorganize because they had no way to move troops, supplies and equipment laterally without going through Moscow. Pull up a railway map of the USSR from 1939 and you will be shocked at how centralized it was. Stalingrad held a similar position, that's why it HAD to be retaken at all costs."Germany would have left the USSR an emasculated client state that only controlled whatever territory Germany didn't desire."
I hope you're not suggesting that Germany would have beaten the far larger and more resource-rich Russia.
Here are the facts:
.. when Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....
Stalin, in fact, had been supplying resources to Hitler.
The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels
By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.
So....once one recognizes that Stalin was going to be the winner.....
....why did FDR send him supplies that the Allies could have used?
That only happened because Hitler diverted troops, equipment and supplies to the southern front. German troops were within sight of Moscow. If Moscow had fallen, the war would have been over because all roads and railroads led to Moscow. The Soviets would have had to retreat behind the Urals to reorganize because they had no way to move troops, supplies and equipment laterally without going through Moscow. Pull up a railway map of the USSR from 1939 and you will be shocked at how centralized it was. Stalingrad held a similar position, that's why it HAD to be retaken at all costs.
Yes, Truman expected Stalin to keep his treaty commitments. It didn't take long for him to be disillusioned by Stalin's conduct. Stalin had promised a lot of things, but only delivered those that benefitted Stalin.Bloody hell, Truman was Stalin's puppet too!
July17 1945 Potsdam conference, 12 noon
"... Stalin asks if Truman saw Churchill.
Truman replies that he saw Churchill yesterday morning. Churchill is confident of his victory in the elections.
Stalin says that the english people cannot forget the winner. However, the english people believe that the war is over for them. The english people, as Stalin thinks, seem to consider the war against Japan a distant war and show little interest in it. The British think that the United States and the Soviet Union will fulfill their duty in the war against Japan.
Truman says that the affairs of the allies in the war against Japan are not such that active British assistance is required but the United states expects help from the Soviet Union
Stalin replies that the Soviet Union will be ready to enter into action by the middle of August and that he will keep his word.
Truman expresses his satisfaction on this occasion. "
Yes, Truman expected Stalin to keep his treaty commitments. It didn't take long for him to be disillusioned by Stalin's conduct. Stalin had promised a lot of things, but only delivered those that benefitted Stalin.
Nope read some history. During Barbarossa German Panzer 38T and 35T tanks were killing T-34s in large numbers as were 37mm infantry antitank guns. T-34 side and rear armor was vulnerable to light weapons. Even it's frontal armor was vulnerable to the L42 50mm guns on Panzer IIIs and the long L60 guns on later Panzer IIIs and PAK 38 infantry antitank guns. 75mm guns like the PAK 40 could penetrate T-34 frontal armor at any distance they could see the tank. The KV-1 was a different story it was pretty much invulnerable to German antitank guns. but it was so slow and unreliable it wasn't much more than a slightly mobile pillbox. Most of the invulnerable T-34 stories can be traced to KV-1s.Are you completely mad?
These are the notes on the back of the postcard that my grandfather made in 1942 during advanced training courses, from where he came out as a captain of sapper units:Declaring war on America was one of the stupidest things Hitler ever did.
We controlled 75% of the world's oil production.
Our GDP was bigger than Germany's and Japan's GDP combined.
And not to mention our huge population.
