Eviscerating 'The Roosevelt Alibi'

[PoliticalChic]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

My public school indoctrination included "the Greatness of FDR". Once I reached adulthood and looked behind the curtain it's obvious that FDR was one of the most unAmerican, anti-American, pro-Communist presidents ever. He aided and abetted Mao and Stalin who between them murdered people out in the 9 figures column. Progressives are reflexively trained to defend Mao, Stalin and their American lapdog, FDR and they will be along shortly to spew their hate on PC because they know they argue the facts

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

My public school indoctrination included "the Greatness of FDR". Once I reached adulthood and looked behind the curtain it's obvious that FDR was one of the most unAmerican, anti-American, pro-Communist presidents ever. He aided and abetted Mao and Stalin who between them murdered people out in the 9 figures column. Progressives are reflexively trained to defend Mao, Stalin and their American lapdog, FDR and they will be along shortly to spew their hate on PC because they know they argue the facts

The best they will be able to do is the usual 'is not, is not' sort of post, because I will take the Roosevelt Alibi apart bit by bit.

Promise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First, there is the understanding as to who Joseph Stalin was.
Stalin's tender mercies toward the Russian people:


4. "Millions of Soviets died through the incompetence and brutality of their own political masters. It was Stalin’s blindness to Hitler’s pre-invasion manoeuvres that allowed the Germans to occupy Russia’s industrial heartland at a stroke. Only then, with reluctance, did Stalin shift his attention from killing his own citizens to killing Germans. His tactics, if they can be dignified with that name, involved throwing masses of underequipped men virtually under the treads of invading panzers.

To retreat was a crime against the motherland: in 1941 and ’42, according to the historian Dmitri Volkogonov, 157,593 men were executed for “cowardice”. This and other details of Stalin’s ghastly war leadership can be found in Martin Amis’Koba The Dread(pp. 195-212). See also Part I, Chapter 6 of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence



a. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost." Georgy Zhukov hero file


b. World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.

More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "
"The Secret Betrayal"by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children. This is the man that Franklin Roosevelt chose to bind America to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. "But could the Soviets, fighting on their own, have defeated Hitler – say, if the democracies had capitulated after the fall of France?

Perhaps a better way to compare the effectiveness of the western and eastern armies is not to compare Allied deaths but to compare German deaths. Estimates vary widely, but since I’m looking for a ratio rather than a total,one source will do as well as another. For military deaths only:

Killed by Soviet Union 2,742,909

Killed by other Allies[3] 534,683



This limited comparison (which excludes casualties among Italian and other Axis forces, as well as Germans killed in the Balkans, Scandinavia, and Germany itself[4]) suggests that the Red Army was roughly 5.5 times as lethal as the other Allied forces combined.

This is a somewhat more convincing argument for Wheatcroft’s claim that “the Third Reich was defeated by the Red Army and not by the Western democracies”.
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence


Hmmm.....what does that have to do with the claim that without Roosevelt propping up Uncle Joe, Russia would have been destroyed?

Yup......eviscerates it.

 

[TheOldSchool]

You said the Russians were 5.5. times as lethal as the other allied forces combined. They were also slaughtered to the tune of up to 13,000,000 military deaths. Far, far more than any of the ally or axis powers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said the Russians were 5.5. times as lethal as the other allied forces combined. They were also slaughtered to the tune of up to 13,000,000 military deaths. Far, far more than any of the ally or axis powers.

Slaughtered by whom?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You said the Russians were 5.5. times as lethal as the other allied forces combined. They were also slaughtered to the tune of up to 13,000,000 military deaths. Far, far more than any of the ally or axis powers.

Slaughtered by whom?

You must have missed this in post #4:

"World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.

More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "
"The Secret Betrayal"by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children. This is the man that Franklin Roosevelt chose to bind America to.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the Roosevelt Alibi was correct, the Germans must have been rolling through Russia....but if so, why did German soldiers recognize it as a punishment to be sent to the Eastern front?

Guess why.



6. ".... a still better way to compare Soviet and Anglo-American military effectiveness would be to add up casualties and POWs taken in action.

This page offers some insight. I’ve combined the data from Tables 5 and 6:

Eastern front:
Killed in action 1,105,987

Missing 1,018,365

KIA + missing 2,124,352






West + southwest:

157,523

603,695

761,488




Here is the conclusion:


"....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger Ussr in the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence (comment)



So.....no excuse for Roosevelt's actions.

He simply wanted to support Stalin and communism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

 

[guno]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

You know nothing of our American history and you have no familiar connections to that period of time in America

Just another adopted little Asian girl spew

 

[Correll]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

FDR's close alliance with Stalin is a matte of historical record.

And I have never heard of a good explanation of why he had so little concern for the strong position he was putting the SU in, in the post war world.

PC analysis is very speculative, but hardly the stuff of conspiracy theory.

The argument that the SU could have defeated Nazi Germany by itself is certainly one I have heard made many times before.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, you are a concrete learners, so be advised to learn from others than PC.

She is part of the JBS rag tag sillies who think FDR, DDE, etc., were willing communist dupes. That's silly conspiracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

The fear is palpable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

Conspiracy? What conspiracy?

FDR's close alliance with Stalin is a matte of historical record.

And I have never heard of a good explanation of why he had so little concern for the strong position he was putting the SU in, in the post war world.

PC analysis is very speculative, but hardly the stuff of conspiracy theory.

The argument that the SU could have defeated Nazi Germany by itself is certainly one I have heard made many times before.

Hardly speculative....

...it is documented in both the numbers provided, and the military analysis sourced and linked.

 

[gipper]

My wife's family is entirely Lithuanian. When the Russkis invaded in 1939 (that's right they invaded the Baltic states while taking much of Poland in 1939 as ALLIES of Hitler...yet Stalin's stooge ignored this terrible aggression), many Lithuanians magically disappeared in the middle of the night, as Stalin's police state took hold. When the Nazis invaded they were seen as liberators by the people of the Baltic states...well excepting many Baltic Jews who had sided with the commie Russians during their terrible occupation and unfortunately paid a terrible price for their treason, once the Nazis took control.

When the commies returned in 1944, much of my wife's family disappeared into the gulag never to be heard from again. Luckily my wife's grandparents on both sides foresaw what was coming and left their homeland prior to FDR's buddy, Uncle Joe's return. It was not until decades later that my in-laws learned the terrible fate of their brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc.

My father in-law has many harrowing stories of being caught at the front, enduring terrible treatment by the Nazis and constant aerial bombing by the allies.

And yet millions of Americans think Stalin's Stooge great.

 

[Camp]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

And yet only eastern Europe, mostly the countries that sided with the NAZI's were colonized temporarily by the communist at great expense and sacrifice by the USSR. The stronger nations of western Europe stayed democratic and prospered as they became economic and military allies with America. The end result has been that even today, Russia is fighting at keeping little scraps of Europe like a few areas if Ujraube under it's influence, while even the eastern Euro countries have kicked them to the curb.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

And yet only eastern Europe, mostly the countries that sided with the NAZI's were colonized temporarily by the communist at great expense and sacrifice by the USSR. The stronger nations of western Europe stayed democratic and prospered as they became economic and military allies with America. The end result has been that even today, Russia is fighting at keeping little scraps of Europe like a few areas if Ujraube under it's influence, while even the eastern Euro countries have kicked them to the curb.

Well, hot-air-boy.....look what I've reduced you to.


Obviously my thesis is undeniable: there was no danger of Stalin surrendering to Hitler.



You've served your purpose....

...you're dismissed.

 

[Camp]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

And yet only eastern Europe, mostly the countries that sided with the NAZI's were colonized temporarily by the communist at great expense and sacrifice by the USSR. The stronger nations of western Europe stayed democratic and prospered as they became economic and military allies with America. The end result has been that even today, Russia is fighting at keeping little scraps of Europe like a few areas if Ujraube under it's influence, while even the eastern Euro countries have kicked them to the curb.

Well, hot-air-boy.....look what I've reduced you to.


Obviously my thesis is undeniable: there was no danger of Stalin surrendering to Hitler.



You've served your purpose....

...you're dismissed.

No one seriously thought Stalin would surrender. The thought was that he would be pushed far to the west into a purely defensive mode and not be able to have an impact with an offensive campaign on Germany's increasing military might and alliances with the eastern European forces that were joining to make an unstoppable axis of military power. The rush to support the Soviet forces was to hinder those alliances from growing in strength and bog down German forces in the east. It gave the British time to defend herself and prepare, along with the allies, to conquer Germany from the west. The Soviet forces in the east and the allied forces in the west gave mutual assistance to each other by dividing Germany's forces. The Soviets did not have the means needed to build an offensive army to take on the Germans. Without lend lease and all that aid from the US they would have been stuck fighting one Stalingrad after another with their main strengths being January and February and the western forest.

If you were able to back up your crap with well resourced reliable data in a semi professional way you would not have to constantly and consistently revert to attempts at disparaging and name calling. Scholars have debated the points you claim as facts written in stone for decades. No one really knows if Stalin would have surrendered, been overthrown in a coup, killed in an air raid, etc. You are basing your thesis on far fetched speculation that just happens to support your far fetched agenda driven thesis. Imagine that. What are the chances?