What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

FDR's Catastrophic, Horrendous, and Treasonous Handling of WW II in Europe

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
17,081
Reaction score
3,318
Points
280
An effective coup d'état in Nazi Germany is nearly impossible to imagine. The fanatics were too numerous and too well placed.
Likewise, there is little reason to believe that the pumped up Red Army and ruthless Stalin would have stopped operations immediately, or even soon. An already shattered German army was all that faced them.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
Nigel Farage: the armistice was the biggest mistake of the 20th century

“We should have pursued the war for a further six weeks, and gone for an unconditional surrender. Yes, the last six weeks of the war cost us 100,000 casualties, and I’m prepared to accept that a further six weeks of war might have cost us another 100,000.

“But had we driven the German army completely out of France and Belgium, forced them into unconditional surrender, Herr Hitler would never have got his political army off the ground. He couldn’t have claimed Germany had been stabbed in the back by the politicians in Berlin, or that Germany had never been beaten in the field.”

The Ukip leader said that the reason why Hitler had been able to get his party off the ground in Germany – drawing on “the myth of the stab in the back” at the treaty of Versailles – was because one of those marching through the streets in support of him in 1923 was Erich Ludendorff, a commander of the German army during the first world war.




There wouldn't have been a WWII had the allies FINISHED WWI...............There would have been no treaty of Versailles to be pissed about, and Germany would have been occupied after WWI. Hitler would have never really come to power and probably saved MILLIONS OF LIVES.

According to this historian the cost to finish off Germany in WWI would have been 100,000 deaths.

The Allies had no reason to offer CONDITIONAL SURRENDER TO HITLER.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
An effective coup d'état in Nazi Germany is nearly impossible to imagine. The fanatics were too numerous and too well placed.
Likewise, there is little reason to believe that the pumped up Red Army and ruthless Stalin would have stopped operations immediately, or even soon. An already shattered German army was all that faced them.

The claim we should have just shook hands and allowed everyone to go home is hard to fathom

What would have happened to the Death Camps?
Would the Germans just have opened the gates and told the Jews......Gee, sorry bout that....you can go now
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
German generals could have just turned on the SS Troops in the field and said ENOUGH.........Taken them out and Surrendered the whole stinking army so the Allies could just walk in.........

Did they do it....................No they did not.........
Did they try to kill Hitler............yes but they failed...

There was no negotiating with HITLER............NONE........Had they killed him early then the War could have been over sooner. THEY FAILED.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
German generals could have just turned on the SS Troops in the field and said ENOUGH.........Taken them out and Surrendered the whole stinking army so the Allies could just walk in.........

Did they do it....................No they did not.........
Did they try to kill Hitler............yes but they failed...

There was no negotiating with HITLER............NONE........Had they killed him early then the War could have been over sooner. THEY FAILED.
There is no assurance that even if Hitler was killed, the Nazis would have just surrendered

The next in line would have just stepped up and taken power. Probably either Goring or Himmler
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
The ANVIL Decision

Page 387

strategy. [6] Preliminary exchanges between the Americans and British at Cairo were inconclusive. At Tehran for the first time in the war the President, the Prime Minister, and their staffs met with Marshal Stalin and his staff. The Prime Minister made eloquent appeals for operations in Italy, the Aegean, and the eastern Mediterranean, even at the expense of a delay in OVERLORD. Stalin at this point unequivocally put his weight behind the American concept of strategy. Confident of Russia's capabilities, he asserted his full power as an equal member of the coalition and came out strongly in favor of OVERLORD. Further operations in the Mediterranean, he insisted, should be limited to the invasion of southern France in support of OVERLORD. Soviet experience over the past two years, he declared, had shown that a large offensive from one direction was not wise; that pincer operations of the type represented by simultaneous operations against northern and southern France were most fruitful. These operations would best help the Soviet Union. In turn, the Russians promised to launch a simultaneous all-out offensive on the Eastern Front.

Stalin's stand put the capstone on Anglo-American strategy. In a sense, therefore, he fixed Western strategy. Churchill lost out, and the Americans gained the decision they had so long desired. The final blueprint for Allied victory in Europe had taken shape.

It was typical of the President at Tehran to act as arbitrator, if not judge, between the other two leaders, as different in their methods as in the views they represented. The President did not appear completely indifferent to Churchill's eloquence and persuasiveness and to the possibilities of Mediterranean ventures, particularly in the Adriatic. At the same time he was under strong pressure from his military advisers to see that nothing delay OVERLORD and in the end he held fast. [7] The President's task in this respect was undoubtedly made easier, as was that of the U.S. staff, by Stalin's firm stand. Years later, Churchill, still convinced that the failure at Tehran to adopt his eastern Mediterranean policy was a fateful error, wrote: "I could have gained Stalin, but the President was oppressed by the prejudices of his military advisers, and drifted to and fro in the argument, with the result that the whole of these subsidiary but gleaming opportunities were cast aside unused." [8]
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States. Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.

What was key in Churchill's plan.............he was more concerned with After the War was Won than how it was Won...........He wanted to seize more of Germany before the Russians could get there.....because he was concerned about Russia taking more ground and POLAND..........Poland was why Britain went to War in the first place and he was concerned that Russia would own all the land they went to War for.........His strategy was to prevent the Russians from taking more ground.

After the surrender of Germany the British even had a plan to go to War with Russia over Poland.........Operation Unthinkable.

Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia

The sole purpose being to force Russia to give up Poland..........
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States. Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.

What was key in Churchill's plan.............he was more concerned with After the War was Won than how it was Won...........He wanted to seize more of Germany before the Russians could get there.....because he was concerned about Russia taking more ground and POLAND..........Poland was why Britain went to War in the first place and he was concerned that Russia would own all the land they went to War for.........His strategy was to prevent the Russians from taking more ground.

After the surrender of Germany the British even had a plan to go to War with Russia over Poland.........Operation Unthinkable.

Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia

The sole purpose being to force Russia to give up Poland..........
Russia fought too hard and too many people died for them to just give up Poland or any captured territory

The Western economies and military forces were depleted. People were tired of war. It would be hard to justify continuing the war and accepting more deaths
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
I believe the key differences in the final battle plans were between Britain and the United States. Churchill wanted to hit the under belly of Europe and our leaders wanted to open a second large front.

What was key in Churchill's plan.............he was more concerned with After the War was Won than how it was Won...........He wanted to seize more of Germany before the Russians could get there.....because he was concerned about Russia taking more ground and POLAND..........Poland was why Britain went to War in the first place and he was concerned that Russia would own all the land they went to War for.........His strategy was to prevent the Russians from taking more ground.

After the surrender of Germany the British even had a plan to go to War with Russia over Poland.........Operation Unthinkable.

Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia

The sole purpose being to force Russia to give up Poland..........
Russia fought too hard and too many people died for them to just give up Poland or any captured territory

The Western economies and military forces were depleted. People were tired of war. It would be hard to justify continuing the war and accepting more deaths
Which is the same thing that happened in WWI and helped cause WWII..........The results of WWII was a cold War between Russia and the United States.............Churchill was more POLITICAL than our generals.........Our generals wanted to just go head to head against the Germans and speed up the end of the War........Churchill wanted to break them with less casualties on our side, and ALLOW MORE RUSSIANS TO BE KILLED.......to be quite Frank...........because he wanted the Russians weakened in the aftermath of the War......and wanted to occupy more of Germany and have a stake at having Poland Free, which started the War.

In the end, our Overlord strategy caused Germany to fight on 2 massive fronts and ended the War early......but it ceded more ground to the USSR..............which was key to the British............which is history.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
In retrospect, FDRs plans in Europe were masterful

He delayed a US invasion for years while the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying. He built up the US industrial complex to where we were the only remaining economic power on earth.

The US sustained relatively small casualties and ended up with Industrialized Western Europe. We also ruled as an unchallenged economic and military super power after the war
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
In retrospect, FDRs plans in Europe were masterful

He delayed a US invasion for years while the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying. He built up the US industrial complex to where we were the only remaining economic power on earth.

The US sustained relatively small casualties and ended up with Industrialized Western Europe. We also ruled as an unchallenged economic and military super power after the war
Yes we used Russians as Cannon Fodder.........Britain honestly wanted more Russians as cannon fodder because he saw what was coming.

Overlord finished off the Germans..........But at a Great cost in the end.......and it eventually ceded the Eastern half of Germany...............as we STALLED so the Russians would lose more men taking Berlin.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.

Or we just could have allowed Germany to surrender and keep their territory and Death Camps
 

eagle1462010

Diamond Member
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
48,543
Reaction score
16,159
Points
2,250
510px-Invasionofitaly1943.jpg

Allied invasion of Italy order of battle - Wikipedia

Britain wanted to hit them from Italy.......and cross the Adriatic to Yogoslavia and get air power right in the heart of the underbelly of Germany....So we'd bypass France and go straight at Germany from underneath.....Key being taking Germany from the South and seizing more land to the EAST of Germany to PREVENT the Russians from getting it........

Yet our Generals were fearfull of the Italian mountains and the supply line.......Rightfully so, but a key difference in strategy.
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.

Or we just could have allowed Germany to surrender and keep their territory and Death Camps
I never disagreed with Unconditional Surrender.............Had WWI been fought to Unconditional Surrender then I would guess that WWII would never have happened.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
230,737
Reaction score
55,636
Points
2,190
The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.

Or we just could have allowed Germany to surrender and keep their territory and Death Camps
I never disagreed with Unconditional Surrender.............Had WWI been fought to Unconditional Surrender then I would guess that WWII would never have happened.
Hard to say

WWI was a massacre for four years. All sides were exhausted. US coming in with fresh troops turned the tide. I can’t blame them for wanting to end it
 
OP
mikegriffith1

mikegriffith1

Mike Griffith
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
5,659
Reaction score
2,588
Points
420
Location
Virginia
FDR would have risked nothing by telling the German resistance that if they could kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, seize the government, and agree to give up conquered territory, the U.S. would halt the war and recognize their government. If the resistance had managed to kill Hitler but was unable to take over the government, this still would have constituted major progress and likely would have led to an early end to the fighting. If the resistance was unable to deliver at all, no harm would have been done to our war effort.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$142.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top