- Thread starter
- #81
The premise is whacked. FDR did not claim any great military accume. He'd been Sec of the Navy, and loved the ships. Beyond that, he pretty much followed events in the White House Map Room, and flitted with tangental efforts like the OSS and support of Russia. In fact, that was one thing the Germans initally misuderstood. Unlike Hitler, he generally bowed to King and Marshall, and their subordinates, like Ike. US strategy was based upon a general consensus within the War Dept as to what was best, and what was possible given the challanges and resources. FDR could be swayed, but as with the Italy and Greece situations, he generally came around to his Admirals and Generals views.
Churchill took a more direct role. Firstly, he replaced Chamberlin, whose overall strategy led to disaster. Secondly, after the BEF was nearly lost in France, and had to be rescued from Dunkirk, leaving the army essentially unarmed because of material losses, and an industry not capable of rapid rearmament, the professional officer corp lost political capital. And even then, the Brit's inability to meet Rommel's tactics led to a purge of one general after another, sort of like Lincoln and the Army of the Potomoc. Further, Britian was simply too small to do anything more than nibble at the edges of Hitler's Riech, and their Army just wasn't too good at that. Conversely, the Royal Navy and Air Force were more successful in winning strategic victories, albiet narrowly and at horrible human cost.
But, early on, the Brits had more troops and planes in the field, so they were able to have more sway over strategy. Later on, Ike repeatedly frustrated his own American commanders by deferring to Montgomery and others as much as he did. But, one benefit of that was Churchill was genuinely grateful for that, and it did help support British civilian moral at a time when they were scraping the barrel of their national treasure and male population. And, at the same time, FDR just became more and more ill.
The real question about post-war Europe was what might have happened if FDR was the same man he was in 1941 in 1944, or what might have happened if Truman was given the same access to policy and intelligence than BushI and Biden had/have.
I'm not going near cheney ... unless I have a hot shot and stout stick.
"FDR did not claim any great military accume."
Silly doggie....it's the title, but far from the premise.
It is the very opposite.
FDR's bending over backwards to advance the wishes of his BFF, Uncle Joe, cost the lives of American military men.
You should clean off those specs and re-read the OP: it was very clear that I made no such claim about FDR.
Here's part:
The bulk of our international problems stem directly from the intentions, strategy, actions, of President Franklin Roosevelt.
Had he not supported and inflated the USSR, there would not have been a Red China.
Nor a Korean War.
But the issue has revolved around whether the Left's icon was misguided, or intended the deleterious political philosophy.
If the collapse of Germany have come sooner....think that would have saved American lives?
And the Korean War....36,940 Americans killed, 91,134 wounded, and 8,176 still missing.
I expect you to pay better attention in the future....or, no doggie chew-toy for you.