Should the USA have teamed with the Germans

[ESay]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

 

[Oddball]

Falaise to Berlin

yes

Hitler and National Socialism were dead.

The battle weary troops could have been rotated out, the factories producing the arms could have been relatively quickly brought back on line, the allies had air supremacy over the entirety of Europe and would have had no challenge laying the Soviet Air Force to waste.

Patton was right.

we can't even win in Afghanistan......you people don't know history/etc....it's not that simple..Russia was too big/etc
...over 2 times the size of the US.....
Napoleon took over Moscow and still lost

Apples and submarines.

the US and Germany are not going to defeat Russia--plain and simple

The Poles and very probably Finland would have joined in too....Would have been a romp...Plain and simple.

....o NOW some more IFs--as usual----hahahahhahahaha..let's give the US some F15 fighters also
....you obviously didn't look at the map I posted and/or don't know anything about wars/military/history

There are no IFs....Poland was being left to Stalin...They detested the Soviets every bit as much as the Nazis....Beside that, they would have been fighting for their home nation....The Finns only left the Axis after it was clear to them that Hitler was going to lose the war...They would have had no compunctions throwing in with a winner, if it meant regaining some land that was in dispute with Russia.

You really don't know diddly shit about the war, outside of the principal combatants, do you?

plain and simple, the US, Germany, etc are not going to take over Russia....again, you people think it's like a board game...you don't know about logistics/reality, etc

Logistics?...Ever heard of the Red Ball Express?...The US had the greatest industrial stream crossing the Atlantic to ever be displayed on the planet...Technicians working with the Germans could have had their munitions industries up and running in a few months.....Lest we forget all the functioning captured hardware already taken off the field of the western front.

Then there are the Romanians, Czechs, Slavs, Hungarians, etcetera, who would have all pitched in to keep their countries out from under Stalin's iron boot....Their partisans all fought very effective guerilla warfare against the Axis.

These are military facts, not board game scenarios.

please....please-- go to WW2 Forums....we know what we are talking about
!!!!!!!!!!!!you just fked up!!!
even with the Redball, they were still not getting enough supplies
I KNOW now you don't know what you are talking about
..it's obvious you know only the subjects and not the details

''''''The difficulties in reconstructing the railroads and laying pipelines meant that the burden for support of the armies fell squarely on truck transport. Truck transport, however, could not even meet the advancing armies' minimum daily maintenance requirements much less preposition reserves. Not only were transportation assets inadequate, but service troops were also stretched hopelessly thin. The heady rush to end the war in a stoke had left the entire logistic system perilously close to breakdown.''''

''''''even at the expense of immobilizing combat divisions by commandeering their trucks'''''

HyperWar: The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II [Chapter 7]

www.ibiblio.org

''''''While it could provide only a small fraction of the supplies needed at the front, the Red Ball had itself been consuming 300,000 gallons of precious fuel a day, almost as much as a field army.'''''

Red Ball Express: The Legendary Lifeline

The Red Ball Express kept the Allies rolling during the arduous campaign in Western Europe.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

''''The Red Ball Express and other traditional forms of supply could not keep forward units sufficiently supplied'''''

Would the war have been shortened

If Montgomery wasn't commanding the 21st Army Group? Montgomery was always advocating for a single, narrow thrust straight to Berlin. The fallacy of...

ww2f.com

..do you have any idea how many tons can be carried by rail vs trucks???!!!! woooohoooooo

I've been to the WW II forums numerous times.

I knew of the Red Ball's shortcomings....And I made no inferecne that it was perfect...Doesn't change the fact that the stream of hardware crossing the Atlantic was running at full steam, with absolutely no opposition, and such problems would have overcome....Rail service could have very quickly been restored with that kind of industrial might.

Also, oil and fuel from Romania and other local sources would have cut those supply lines down quite a bit.

 

[Oddball]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

 

[eagle1462010]

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Yes it is.........because it is true.........They were attacked by both sides and both sides had an agreement to divide Poland up for their spoils of War.....

Not to mention that towards the end of the War...........Russia used Polish troops as cannon fodder in the drive to Berlin...........On purpose to make sure Poland had no standing army whatsoever after the War.

 

[Oddball]

By politicians getting our people killed because they refused to fight it as a War and cut the N. Korean supply chain.

Now ......N. Korea is a pain in our butt because we didn't finish it.

Indeed...And MacArthur fired for demanding the total vanquishing the NorK commies.

 

[ESay]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

The thing is I dont believe the Soviet troops could retreat from Europe even if Moscow got nuked. It wouldn't have been the end of the conflict, as was the case in Japan. One cant expect the army which is in full control of half Europe suddenly leave the positions and go home. Even after the nuclear bomb having been dropped, there would have been a full scale war.

 

[eagle1462010]

By politicians getting our people killed because they refused to fight it as a War and cut the N. Korean supply chain.

Now ......N. Korea is a pain in our butt because we didn't finish it.

Indeed...And MacArthur fired for demanding the total vanquishing the NorK commies.

Russian supply chain would have been hammered by our air power..........while they could rebuild........their troops would starve to death in the numbers they had with lost railway supplies.

 

[harmonica]

Falaise to Berlin

yes

Hitler and National Socialism were dead.

The battle weary troops could have been rotated out, the factories producing the arms could have been relatively quickly brought back on line, the allies had air supremacy over the entirety of Europe and would have had no challenge laying the Soviet Air Force to waste.

Patton was right.

we can't even win in Afghanistan......you people don't know history/etc....it's not that simple..Russia was too big/etc
...over 2 times the size of the US.....
Napoleon took over Moscow and still lost

Apples and submarines.

the US and Germany are not going to defeat Russia--plain and simple

The Poles and very probably Finland would have joined in too....Would have been a romp...Plain and simple.

....o NOW some more IFs--as usual----hahahahhahahaha..let's give the US some F15 fighters also
....you obviously didn't look at the map I posted and/or don't know anything about wars/military/history

There are no IFs....Poland was being left to Stalin...They detested the Soviets every bit as much as the Nazis....Beside that, they would have been fighting for their home nation....The Finns only left the Axis after it was clear to them that Hitler was going to lose the war...They would have had no compunctions throwing in with a winner, if it meant regaining some land that was in dispute with Russia.

You really don't know diddly shit about the war, outside of the principal combatants, do you?

plain and simple, the US, Germany, etc are not going to take over Russia....again, you people think it's like a board game...you don't know about logistics/reality, etc

Logistics?...Ever heard of the Red Ball Express?...The US had the greatest industrial stream crossing the Atlantic to ever be displayed on the planet...Technicians working with the Germans could have had their munitions industries up and running in a few months.....Lest we forget all the functioning captured hardware already taken off the field of the western front.

Then there are the Romanians, Czechs, Slavs, Hungarians, etcetera, who would have all pitched in to keep their countries out from under Stalin's iron boot....Their partisans all fought very effective guerilla warfare against the Axis.

These are military facts, not board game scenarios.

please....please-- go to WW2 Forums....we know what we are talking about
!!!!!!!!!!!!you just fked up!!!
even with the Redball, they were still not getting enough supplies
I KNOW now you don't know what you are talking about
..it's obvious you know only the subjects and not the details

''''''The difficulties in reconstructing the railroads and laying pipelines meant that the burden for support of the armies fell squarely on truck transport. Truck transport, however, could not even meet the advancing armies' minimum daily maintenance requirements much less preposition reserves. Not only were transportation assets inadequate, but service troops were also stretched hopelessly thin. The heady rush to end the war in a stoke had left the entire logistic system perilously close to breakdown.''''

''''''even at the expense of immobilizing combat divisions by commandeering their trucks'''''

HyperWar: The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II [Chapter 7]

www.ibiblio.org

''''''While it could provide only a small fraction of the supplies needed at the front, the Red Ball had itself been consuming 300,000 gallons of precious fuel a day, almost as much as a field army.'''''

Red Ball Express: The Legendary Lifeline

The Red Ball Express kept the Allies rolling during the arduous campaign in Western Europe.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

''''The Red Ball Express and other traditional forms of supply could not keep forward units sufficiently supplied'''''

Would the war have been shortened

If Montgomery wasn't commanding the 21st Army Group? Montgomery was always advocating for a single, narrow thrust straight to Berlin. The fallacy of...

ww2f.com

..do you have any idea how many tons can be carried by rail vs trucks???!!!! woooohoooooo

I've been to the WW II forums numerous times.

I knew of the Red Ball's shortcomings....And I made no inferecne that it was perfect...Doesn't change the fact that the stream of hardware crossing the Atlantic was running at full steam, with absolutely no opposition, and such problems would have overcome....Rail service could have very quickly been restored with that kind of industrial might.

Also, oil and fuel from Romania and other local sources would have cut those supply lines down quite a bit.

page 249 The War by Ward and Burns:
'''Not even the heroic, twenty four hour a day effort by....the Red Ball Express could keep up with the relentless demand.'''''
...and still you think it's a board game! just EASILY get the oil from Romania--how easy
hahahahahhahahaha

 

[harmonica]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

..we can't save the whole world.....that's a lot of American lives lost for what???

 

[eagle1462010]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

The thing is I dont believe the Soviet troops could retreat from Europe even if Moscow got nuked. It wouldn't have been the end of the conflict, as was the case in Japan. One cant expect the army which is in full control of half Europe suddenly leave the positions and go home. Even after the nuclear bomb having been dropped, there would have been a full scale war.

Of course it would have been a War.........Only question would be would Stalin have given up Poland to the West.........which of course he wouldn't have.........so yes...........IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WAR...........As his supply chains got hit from long range bombers........it would have put his logistics in the dirt..............

 

[harmonica]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

The thing is I dont believe the Soviet troops could retreat from Europe even if Moscow got nuked. It wouldn't have been the end of the conflict, as was the case in Japan. One cant expect the army which is in full control of half Europe suddenly leave the positions and go home. Even after the nuclear bomb having been dropped, there would have been a full scale war.

Of course it would have been a War.........Only question would be would Stalin have given up Poland to the West.........which of course he wouldn't have.........so yes...........IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WAR...........As his supply chains got hit from long range bombers........it would have put his logistics in the dirt..............

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

 

[Oddball]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

..we can't save the whole world.....that's a lot of American lives lost for what???

Straw man...Nobody said anything about saving the world...And at that, the natives of the various aforementioned countries would be participating in saving themselves.

And even after all that, what's Murica doing in over 130 countries right now, if not trying to save the world?

 

[eagle1462010]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

The thing is I dont believe the Soviet troops could retreat from Europe even if Moscow got nuked. It wouldn't have been the end of the conflict, as was the case in Japan. One cant expect the army which is in full control of half Europe suddenly leave the positions and go home. Even after the nuclear bomb having been dropped, there would have been a full scale war.

Of course it would have been a War.........Only question would be would Stalin have given up Poland to the West.........which of course he wouldn't have.........so yes...........IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WAR...........As his supply chains got hit from long range bombers........it would have put his logistics in the dirt..............

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

It cuts their logistics...........same as it would cut the logistics of Russia..........Germany had very good logistics in the east.........But the Russian rail wasn't really damaged so much because their air power was tied up with us..........We would have not had that problem..........

While it will not destroy their armies ..........their vital food chain would have been damaged severely...........Germany was running out of everything at the end of the War.......air power mostly gone.................

The same would have eventually happened to Russia as well.

 

[Oddball]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

 

[eagle1462010]

Technical Difficulties

Even before the United States entered World War II in December 1941, America sent arms and equipment to the Soviet Union to help it defeat the Nazi invasion. Totaling $11.3 billion, or $180 billion in today’s currency, the Lend-Lease Act of the United States supplied needed goods to the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1945 in support of what Stalin described to Roosevelt as the “enormous and difficult fight against the common enemy — bloodthirsty Hitlerism.”

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Russian logistics and aircraft depended on the U.S. even late in the War...........They were screwed without the trucks for logistics without our help.

 

[Adrenochrome Junkie]

China is the biggest problem. Russia has no effect on the USA Today. The leftist mainstream media just uses Russia as a tool for fear mongering propaganda.

General McArthur wanted to nuke China off the face of the earth in the Korean War. Instead he was denied the nukes and had to retreat.

Today we are living with the consequences of that decision.

 

[eagle1462010]

Lend-Lease: How the US Kept the Soviets Afloat in World War II

In view of present-day antagonism and misunderstandings between the U.S. and Russia, it is refreshing to recall the days when a somewhat more cordial relationship existed and help was given to the Soviet Union by the U.S. and Britain. Two ...

www.americanthinker.com

Three exceptions are interesting. One is the toast by Joseph Stalin at the Tehran Conference with FDR and Winston Churchill in November 1943. He told his fellow leaders to recognize "from the Russian point of view, what President Roosevelt and the U.S. have done for victory in this war. The U.S. is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease we would have lost the war."

A second mention is in the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, who wrote, "If the U.S. had not helped us, we would not have won the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." A third appraisal comes from Marshal Georgy Zhukov, who in a reported private conversation in 1963 said, "It cannot be denied that the Americans sent us material without which we could not have formed our resources or continued the war."

 

[Oddball]

Lend-Lease: How the US Kept the Soviets Afloat in World War II

In view of present-day antagonism and misunderstandings between the U.S. and Russia, it is refreshing to recall the days when a somewhat more cordial relationship existed and help was given to the Soviet Union by the U.S. and Britain. Two ...

www.americanthinker.com

Three exceptions are interesting. One is the toast by Joseph Stalin at the Tehran Conference with FDR and Winston Churchill in November 1943. He told his fellow leaders to recognize "from the Russian point of view, what President Roosevelt and the U.S. have done for victory in this war. The U.S. is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease we would have lost the war."

A second mention is in the Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev, who wrote, "If the U.S. had not helped us, we would not have won the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." A third appraisal comes from Marshal Georgy Zhukov, who in a reported private conversation in 1963 said, "It cannot be denied that the Americans sent us material without which we could not have formed our resources or continued the war."

And even at that, they got sloppy seconds.....For example, none of the aircraft they got could come anywhere near rivaling the P-51, 47N, and/or the 38L.

 

[Markle]

German army was superior to the USA

At the beginning of the war, sure.

 

[Markle]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

We certainly shouldn't have armed the UK after they declared war against Germany. Instead of arming the UK we should have annexed Canada.

While the UK was busy defending themselves due to the aggressive war they started against Germany, they would not have had the resources to fight the USA at the same time.

And many Canadians, especially in Quebec, weren't too happy about their children being enslaved by King George to be used as royal cannon fodder again.

We could have easily taken Canada from the UK, probably without firing a shot.

Instead, FDR decided to enslave millions of Americans in violation of the 13th amendment and get hundreds of thousands of Americans killed fighting for the Soviet commies and the monarchy that sacked, looted and burned Washington D.C.

FDR was an evil traitor.

You tell me. Do you really think the UK could have taken on the USA in North America while they were at war with Germany?