Obama strengthens USA's international relations

[elvis]

the russians planned on taking Hokkaido. It had been agreed upon that in exchange for getting involved in Manchuria, Stalin would be a big part in Japan's future, which included taking Hokkaido, and the Kuile Island and Sahkalin which Japan had taken from them in 1905. After the a-bombs were dropped, Truman renegged on Hokkaido and demanded that the US have an air base in the Kuriles.

Yes, but that was only to be after the Nazis were dispatched.

It's also unlikely that Stalin would've returned the three B-29s he ended up copying.

I know when it was. The differences between FDR and Truman are interesting, as are the changes in US attitudes toward Russia after Hiroshima.

 

[Xenophon]

But they did have allies in Europe- Great Britain....Hitler couldn't even pull off air superiority over England and the Channel, let alone a land invasion.

It would of been a different story if Hitler could of focused everything on Great Britain.

Define this 'everything' he had to apply.

Britain was at war with Germany two years before the Soviets were attacked.

Hitler attacked the Soviets party because he believed that knocking out the Soviets might make Britain surrender as it would not have a continental ally and that it would only take a few weeks to do it.

So tell us this magical military might Hitler could apply to the UK to force them out of the war, if they had defeated the Soviets.

 

[Oddball]

the russians planned on taking Hokkaido. It had been agreed upon that in exchange for getting involved in Manchuria, Stalin would be a big part in Japan's future, which included taking Hokkaido, and the Kuile Island and Sahkalin which Japan had taken from them in 1905. After the a-bombs were dropped, Truman renegged on Hokkaido and demanded that the US have an air base in the Kuriles.

Yes, but that was only to be after the Nazis were dispatched.

It's also unlikely that Stalin would've returned the three B-29s he ended up copying.

I know when it was. The differences between FDR and Truman are interesting, as are the changes in US attitudes toward Russia after Hiroshima.

Is is for a fact.

 

[elvis]

But they did have allies in Europe- Great Britain....Hitler couldn't even pull off air superiority over England and the Channel, let alone a land invasion.

It would of been a different story if Hitler could of focused everything on Great Britain.

Define this 'everything' he had to apply.

Britain was at war with Germany two years before the Soviets were attacked.

Hitler attacked the Soviets party because he believed that knocking out the Soviets might make Britain surrender as it would not have a continental ally and that it would only take a few weeks to do it.

So tell us this magical military might Hitler could apply to the UK to force them out of the war, if they had defeated the Soviets.

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

 

[ElmerMudd]

Without the USA, the Soviets would have been speaking german.

because of our supply support, right? the tide on the eastern front had turned before Normandy.

That is the reason why, The Russians used 100% American trucks and American gas & oil, their weapons rolled on US rubber tires, the list is endless.

Please, your ego centric interpretations of world history are plain wrong.

World War II was allied nations working together to defeat the biggest mad man the world has ever experienced. You must give the Russians their due.

 

[Oddball]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Although struggling, nowhere near it.

FDR had been ignoring neutrality from the get-go.

 

[elvis]

because of our supply support, right? the tide on the eastern front had turned before Normandy.

That is the reason why, The Russians used 100% American trucks and American gas & oil, their weapons rolled on US rubber tires, the list is endless.

Please, your ego centric interpretations of world history are plain wrong.

World War II was allied nations working together to defeat the biggest mad man the world has ever experienced. You must give the Russians their due.

you think Hitler was a bigger madman than stalin?

 

[elvis]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Although struggling, nowhere near it.

FDR had been ignoring neutrality from the get-go.

yeah his cheap loans to China throughout the 1930's were very telling in regards to neutrality.

 

[Xenophon]

It would of been a different story if Hitler could of focused everything on Great Britain.

Define this 'everything' he had to apply.

Britain was at war with Germany two years before the Soviets were attacked.

Hitler attacked the Soviets party because he believed that knocking out the Soviets might make Britain surrender as it would not have a continental ally and that it would only take a few weeks to do it.

So tell us this magical military might Hitler could apply to the UK to force them out of the war, if they had defeated the Soviets.

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

They would have been forced into surrender from Starvation without food sent on US shipping.

The Germans twice came close to winning the battle of the Atlantic, in 41 and in 43. Extreme efforts by the Royal and US Navies prevented it.

As long as the USA was backing britain, Germany could not force them out of the war, and the USA backed them from 1940 on, despite so called 'neutrality.'

 

[Xenophon]

Please, your ego centric interpretations of world history are plain wrong.

It's not 'egocentric' simpleton, its fact.

World War II was allied nations working together to defeat the biggest mad man the world has ever experienced. You must give the Russians their due.

The discussion is not about giving 'due' its about could the USA have won the war without the Soviets and vise versa.

 

[Modbert]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Don't throw in facts Elvis. Some people don't want to admit that those "damn commies" might of actually had a major impact on the war.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Obama is strengthening our relationships with Russia, the G8 nations and the Vatican.

The Bush administration soured international relations with their arrogant unilateral style.

Obama is healing the relations as shown by the success of his current trip. Obama knows how to disagree with others but not be disagreeable. George Bush was disagreeable whether he agreed or disagreed with other international leaders.

Another plus is Obama knows how to chew with his mouth closed.

There is not much love lost from me on Bush, so I will not respond on your weak ploy using him in your praise of Obama.

However, if you think Obama is benefiting this nation with his repeated victory world tours, your a damn fool. The few who do respect him after he leaves their presence, don't matter anyway!

The ones who do matter are smirking like that cat who has the mouse right where he wants it.

As the farm is going into foreclosure, Obama is slowly selling it off at bargain basement price, one section at a time.

We disagree. I feel you are the fool.

 

[Oddball]

The discussion is not about giving 'due' its about could the USA have won the war without the Soviets and vise versa.

The answers being yes and no, respectively.

 

[Oddball]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Don't throw in facts Elvis. Some people don't want to admit that those "damn commies" might of actually had a major impact on the war.

They would've had an effect, albeit not as great had they not received aid from America.

 

[Xenophon]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Don't throw in facts Elvis. Some people don't want to admit that those "damn commies" might of actually had a major impact on the war.

That is also not the discussion,

Its already been stated the cost would have been higher in the west, but even this is debateable.

The debate would revolve around attempting a landing in France if there was no Russian front, the joint chiefs would probly not tried it until after the atomic bomb was ready, it was designed for dropping on Hitler and they would have used it.

Without the Soviets the USA probaly would have insisted on a 'Japan first' war, and then marshalling forces to fight Germany after Atomic weapons had been used.

 

[elvis]

How close was Britain to starving before the US became involved?

Don't throw in facts Elvis. Some people don't want to admit that those "damn commies" might of actually had a major impact on the war.

That is also not the discussion,

Its already been stated the cost would have been higher in the west, but even this is debateable.

The debate would revolve around attempting a landing in France if there was no Russian front, the joint chiefs would probly not tried it until after the atomic bomb was ready, it was designed for dropping on Hitler and they would have used it.

Without the Soviets the USA probaly would have insisted on a 'Japan first' war, and then marshalling forces to fight Germany after Atomic weapons had been used.

why were we "Germany first" anyway?

 

[Modbert]

That is also not the discussion,

Its already been stated the cost would have been higher in the west, but even this is debateable.

The debate would revolve around attempting a landing in France if there was no Russian front, the joint chiefs would probly not tried it until after the atomic bomb was ready, it was designed for dropping on Hitler and they would have used it.

Without the Soviets the USA probaly would have insisted on a 'Japan first' war, and then marshalling forces to fight Germany after Atomic weapons had been used.

Question is, in that situation, are the Soviets neutral or fighting with Hitler?

 

[Modbert]

why were we "Germany first" anyway?

Probably the idea that all of the forces together would topple Germany faster than us going to take on Japan?

 

[Xenophon]

why were we "Germany first" anyway?

The allies did not believe Japan was anything more then a regional threat, they would always be confined to the Pacific rim.

Germany however could interfere in Asia, Africa as well as Europe, and since it was a first rate industrial nation there was a belief they could build strategic weapons. including A bombs.

The Nazis never seriously attempted atomic weapons, and in fact hamstrung themselves by forcing key scientists to leave Europe before the war, such as Enrico Fermi (he was married to a Jew).

 

[ElmerMudd]

Please, your ego centric interpretations of world history are plain wrong.

It's not 'egocentric' simpleton, its fact.

World War II was allied nations working together to defeat the biggest mad man the world has ever experienced. You must give the Russians their due.

The discussion is not about giving 'due' its about could the USA have won the war without the Soviets and vise versa.

We will never know whether either side could have won without the other.

The fact is the Americans, the Russians and the other allies defeated the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese.

An important lesson is former enemies can become your allies and former allies can become your enemies. We must remember that in today's world.

It appears the only reason for your hypothetical analysis is to put the Russians down.