Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[PoliticalChic]

Yep, those eyeballs are rolling at your pretense of writing anything significant.

Kudos on being named key note speaker at Pest-Control Expo!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That you hate JS righteously doesn't mean that your hate for FDR is fixed in reality.

Most of the crap you guys provide is . . . hack crap. Nothing more.

Translation: "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

This line of dialogue proceeded from an observation made by camp. I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison here. That argument is being made elsewhere. My observations about FDR's actions are historically accurate.

 

[regent]

As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about. Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.

You do not have that right. Read my post above. It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched. The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about. Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.

You do not have that right. Read my post above. It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched. The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

You Roosevelt flacks ignoring this is proof positive of the premise of the OP.....

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????



Roosevelt: comfortably residing in Stalin's pocket.

 

[Camp]

As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about. Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.

You do not have that right. Read my post above. It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched. The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

All depends on ones definition of "easy". And what would we have done if we got there first? Like the dog who catches the car. Now what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That you hate JS righteously doesn't mean that your hate for FDR is fixed in reality.

Most of the crap you guys provide is . . . hack crap. Nothing more.

Translation: "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

This line of dialogue proceeded from an observation made by camp. I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison here. That argument is being made elsewhere. My observations about FDR's actions are historically accurate.

Translation is that FDR haters hate: that's what they do. He was a great president with serious flaws. He was not a communist or a communist follower: no objective evidence supports that conclusion. The American public elected him four times, so all you are doing is going "wah". No one really cares.

 

[Unkotare]

Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.

What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.

Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million.

And the Russian ability to die in vastly greater numbers than their enemies is somehow proof to you that they could have defeated the combined Allied forces?

 

[Unkotare]

Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel. It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.

You did not think that through at all.

 

[Camp]

What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.

Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million.

And the Russian ability to die in vastly greater numbers than their enemies is somehow proof to you that they could have defeated the combined Allied forces?

That is not what I stated. The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.

 

[Camp]

Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel. It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.

You did not think that through at all.

Explain

 

[Unkotare]

The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.

Again, you didn't think that through.

 

[Camp]

The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.

Again, you didn't think that through.

Again, you use a non response as a response. Let us guess. You don't have one.

 

[NoNukes]

Still no attempt to confront the thesis.

Glad to see that you continue to work to ability.

There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.

"There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."

No, there haven't.


Or you would have provide same.



It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.



Good.

Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.

"There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."

No, there haven't.


Or you would have provide same.



It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.



Good.

Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.

I'll have to give that some consideration.....in the event that I'm ever wrong.

I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.

"There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."

No, there haven't.


Or you would have provide same.



It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.



Good.

Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.

Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.

 

[gipper]

As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about. Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.

You do not have that right. Read my post above. It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched. The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

Ah...so you can't read.

I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....

The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomery’s larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)

With Berlin practically in sight, Simpson’s army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley – who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)

Churchill protested to Roosevelt – why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelt’s reply was “a model of the blandly evasive….”

In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:

“So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily.” (P. 87)

Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended – with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)

 

[Camp]

"There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."

No, there haven't.


Or you would have provide same.



It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.



Good.

Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.

Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.

You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let me reinforce that.

PC does not respond to clear and obvious refutation of her weak OPs.

She hurls ad homs and post reams of material that do not apply to the OP.

 

[regent]

You do not have that right. Read my post above. It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched. The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.

Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.

Ah...so you can't read.

I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....

The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomery’s larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)

With Berlin practically in sight, Simpson’s army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley – who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)

Churchill protested to Roosevelt – why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelt’s reply was “a model of the blandly evasive….”

In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:

“So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily.” (P. 87)

Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended – with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)

By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.