Should the USA have teamed with the Germans

[Quasar44]

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

Take it over. ???
I said destroy it , not conquer it

 

[Quasar44]

What about the Jews ???
FDR did not even take in a single Jew before the holocaust

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

No, We should have stayed out of it and let Stalin and Hitler destroy each other.

 

[harmonica]

.....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.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

airpower would not have won a war if we went to war with them

Never said it did.............said it would cut their supply chain up and hit their ability to manufacturer..........if they were SOOOO UNBEATABLE.........then why the hell did they need the Lend Lease Act from us........trucks sent by us help them maintain that supply line.......

Take out their rail road engine network.......aka the engines pulling the trains........they would have been fucked.

As it was........even though Germany took nearly half the tracks from Russia.......they failed to hit the locomotives to pull the cars with the supplies.

hahhahaaa
German population about 70 million
Russian population over 100 million
refer to the map I posted
even without Lend Lease, Germany is not winning

Never said that.......you keep twisting......the scenario was if we had fought Russia..........

Stop moving the goal posts.

...you said they needed Lend Lease..even without Lend Lease, the Germans are in trouble
...not moving or changing---
..there it is again---talking about taking out locomotives---this isn't a computer game--it's real life--reality

 

[harmonica]

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

Take it over. ???
I said destroy it , not conquer it

define destroy

 

[Picaro]

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

No reason to shed any blood rescuing eastern Europe, given how many of them aided the Nazis and their own assistance in rounding up Jews to be mass murdered, and they did so after the war as well, which is why so many of them had to stay in the camps up to two years after they were 'liberated'. We had enough trouble feeding Europe after the war as it was; we didn't need another 20 million charity cases.

Protecting Poland's sovereignty was the (alleged) reason that the western European allies declared war on Hitler....Leaving Poland to Stalin at the end of the war was one of the greatest sellouts in human history.

No, that was the reason Churchill and the Brits declared war on Hitler. Germany launched it wolf packs on American shipping and declared war on us. That's why we got into the war; same reason as WW I. Seems like nobody ever gave a shit about our neutrality and isolationism, which is why I know it's a stupid fantasy to keep pretending we can ignore the rest of the planet and 'mind our own business'. I don't see any reason to care about the fate of eastern Europe, they were mostly fans of Hitler and our enemies.

Churchill and the Brits, along with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etcetera, WERE the western allies....They had a pact with Poland to guarantee their sovereignty, which was the impetus behind their declaration of war with Germany after 1 Sep 39....True historical fact.

The rest of your drivel about "isolationism" is just that, drivel.....FDR was making deals with Churchill on the down-low, and he provoked the Japanese (BTW, ever heard of the American Volunteer Group?)....There was no minding of anyone's own business with that double-dealing tyrant.

Right wing bullshit 'history', just the usual FDR hate spin and drooling. True historical fact.

 

[Picaro]

Churchill and the Brits, along with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etcetera, WERE the western allies....They had a pact with Poland to guarantee their sovereignty, which was the impetus behind their declaration of war with Germany after 1 Sep 39....True historical fact

Actually, above was raised a fair argument - what was a reason to risk the lives of British and American and other Western nations for Eastern Europe? Considering their collaboration with Nazis and the role in Holocaust?

Because it doesn't bash Democrats in this year's election propaganda.

 

[Picaro]

Russia had the numbers..........at the end of the world.............What they didn't have was the high level bombers........Siberia wasn't really hit during WWII..........that supply chain would have been cut to ribbons by our airforce........

Would have been bloody as hell...........the world was too tired of War........same as WWI..........so it caused shit for 40 years.

Actually the Soviets wouldn't have stayed in the war if it hadn't been for the British relief supplies arriving when they did; contrary to myth, the Soviets couldn't just keep retreating forever, most of their rail networks and infrastructure was in the western regions, all either overrun by Germans or well within striking distance. Their losses were severe, they were down to less than 500 tanks along the entire front, and the only thing that stopped the German advances was the deep mine fields, in some place 25 miles deep. The 125 British tanks that got to the Moscow theater of operations allowed the winter counter-attacks. Though a small shipment by later Lend-Lease standards they made the biggest difference relatively. They were only possible because the U.S. was shipping commodities to Britain, which in turn allowed Britain to ship arms and supplies to Stalin.

 

[Mortimer]

For me personally no because then the Germans would have won and I or my family wouldnt exist.

You mean your ancestors are from Russia ??

No my ancestors are from Serbia, Banat and Backa, and further back from Bosnia and Montenegro some. But Im a Gypsy or Roma, and they were labled as non-aryan intruders in germany and europe and the Nazis wanted to exterminate them and they were victims in the Holocaust like Jews.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

This is weapon-grade stupid.

 

[Quasar44]

For me personally no because then the Germans would have won and I or my family wouldnt exist.

You mean your ancestors are from Russia ??

No my ancestors are from Serbia, Banat and Backa, and further back from Bosnia and Montenegro some. But Im a Gypsy or Roma, and they were labled as non-aryan intruders in germany and europe and the Nazis wanted to exterminate them and they were victims in the Holocaust like Jews.

I thought you were Jewish
I apologize

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Nope, but we should have let Patton have his way after Germany fell.

There is a school of thought, as I recall from my college days, that Patton and many others who were more...lets say...career minded (that can be taken two ways) knew that there would likely never be this critical mass of industrial capacity, political will, zero opposition of scale, and in all modesty and candor--tactical brilliance ever assembled again. And that if we didn't pull opposition out by the root at that moment in history, we would never be able to do it again. Not because of capability limits but because of political will to rally the homeland to the cause. I can't say that he was wrong in that argument.

I would say though that the Russian frontier is unlike any other in the world in terms of length and conditions. Those supply lines would be stretched pretty thin and winters over there aren't too comfortable. It may have been a case of biting off more than we could chew.

What isn't in doubt in my mind is that if we were ever going to "be able to chew it" it would have been the summer of 1945.

Actually...I suspect that, alone in history, the US Army of 1944-45 actually COULD have kept the troops supplied even in Russia. Yes, American logistics really were THAT good.

 

[Quasar44]

FDR was almost as corrupt as the people he was fighting
He stole gold from the American public and made it a law with little return back

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Napoleon didn't have air power and the Red Ball Express.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Churchill and the Brits, along with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etcetera, WERE the western allies....They had a pact with Poland to guarantee their sovereignty, which was the impetus behind their declaration of war with Germany after 1 Sep 39....True historical fact.

The rest of your drivel about "isolationism" is just that, drivel.....FDR was making deals with Churchill on the down-low, and he provoked the Japanese (BTW, ever heard of the American Volunteer Group?)....There was no minding of anyone's own business with that double-dealing tyrant.

The AVG did not see any action until after the United States and Japan were at war.

 

[candycorn]

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

Nope, but we should have let Patton have his way after Germany fell.

There is a school of thought, as I recall from my college days, that Patton and many others who were more...lets say...career minded (that can be taken two ways) knew that there would likely never be this critical mass of industrial capacity, political will, zero opposition of scale, and in all modesty and candor--tactical brilliance ever assembled again. And that if we didn't pull opposition out by the root at that moment in history, we would never be able to do it again. Not because of capability limits but because of political will to rally the homeland to the cause. I can't say that he was wrong in that argument.

I would say though that the Russian frontier is unlike any other in the world in terms of length and conditions. Those supply lines would be stretched pretty thin and winters over there aren't too comfortable. It may have been a case of biting off more than we could chew.

What isn't in doubt in my mind is that if we were ever going to "be able to chew it" it would have been the summer of 1945.

Actually...I suspect that, alone in history, the US Army of 1944-45 actually COULD have kept the troops supplied even in Russia. Yes, American logistics really were THAT good.

Possibly.
If anyone could have done it, the US Military could have. Should have??? Different topic.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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!!!!

Either smash the armies...or take out Stalin. Either would work.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

"Portray?" Dude...are you on fucking crack? Poland traded 5 years of Nazi occupation for fifty years of Soviet occupation. Absolutely and unequivocally yes, a free Poland would be worth leveling Moscow.

 

[White 6]

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

Nope, but we should have let Patton have his way after Germany fell.

There is a school of thought, as I recall from my college days, that Patton and many others who were more...lets say...career minded (that can be taken two ways) knew that there would likely never be this critical mass of industrial capacity, political will, zero opposition of scale, and in all modesty and candor--tactical brilliance ever assembled again. And that if we didn't pull opposition out by the root at that moment in history, we would never be able to do it again. Not because of capability limits but because of political will to rally the homeland to the cause. I can't say that he was wrong in that argument.

I would say though that the Russian frontier is unlike any other in the world in terms of length and conditions. Those supply lines would be stretched pretty thin and winters over there aren't too comfortable. It may have been a case of biting off more than we could chew.

What isn't in doubt in my mind is that if we were ever going to "be able to chew it" it would have been the summer of 1945.

Actually...I suspect that, alone in history, the US Army of 1944-45 actually COULD have kept the troops supplied even in Russia. Yes, American logistics really were THAT good.

Suspect you are majorly correct, though I do not think it would have been our logistic alone.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

After executing 20,000+ officers in an attempt to guarantee there was nobody alive who actually knew how to run an army.