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

[rightwinger]

If the Iranians weren’t playing Carter, they wouldn't have waited until just before Reagan was inaugurated to release the hostages. They would have released then before the election when it might have saved the Carter presidency. I lived through it, Reagan had everyone convinced he was a mad dog war monger who would immediately jump to military force.

Iran was pissed at Carter for sheltering the Shah.
They were not going to release the hostages till Carter was out. They waited until minutes after he was no longer President.

They had Zero fear of Reagan

The Iran-Contra Scandal – Association for Diplomatic Studies & Training

adst.org

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope, I'm right as usual.
Whale is also a verb for the action of hitting something (such as that gambling table, or a punching bag) forcefully and repeatedly. This might be surprising to those people who misuse the identically (or, in some dialects) similarly pronounced verbs wail or wale with the meaning of "to hit." The verb whale can also imply attacking vigorously or repeatedly, as in "the team whaled on their opponent 20 to 2"; a person might also "whale away" during a debate (meaning they are verbally attacking their opponent and showing no mercy) or "whale into/at" that person with whom they are debating.

'Whale' vs. 'Wail' vs. 'Wale'

If you're at sea about which to use, we're here to rescue you.

www.merriam-webster.com

Our sources disagree. You are a Yankee and therefore are wrong, by definition!

wail on someone

wail on (someone or something)

1. To attack or thrash something in an brutal, forceful, or relentless manner. (A common misspelling of "whale on someone or something.")

The knights are wailing on the gate with a battering ram! Hold your positions!

She began wailing on the poor child until a police officer finally intervened.

The other team wailed on us for the entire game, leading to one of our most humiliating defeats of the season.

wail on someone

Definition of wail on someone in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

idioms.thefreedictionary.com

 

[rightwinger]

The Soviets were overextended. They never had to fight against a combined force army like the allies fielded. The RAF and USAAF would have driven the Red Air Force from the skies. WAllied air power would have isolated the Red Army from supplies and the WAllies would have pushed the starving, out of supply Red Army as Far East as it desired. The Germans never had the logistical ability the WAllies did

As for Soviet tanks, they had a few heavies, JS IIs and the like. The rest of their tanks were T-34s of various marks that were inferior to the Shermans, Cromwells and Churchills of the WAllies. The myth of the invincible T-34 was just that, a myth. The T-34 was the most destroyed tank of the war.

The Soviets defeated Hitler with minimal Allied support
They had a massive infantry that was not going to surrender territory they fought and died for

 

[OldLady]

Our sources disagree. You are a Yankee and therefore are wrong, by definition!

wail on someone

wail on (someone or something)

1. To attack or thrash something in an brutal, forceful, or relentless manner. (A common misspelling of "whale on someone or something.")

The knights are wailing on the gate with a battering ram! Hold your positions!

She began wailing on the poor child until a police officer finally intervened.

The other team wailed on us for the entire game, leading to one of our most humiliating defeats of the season.

wail on someone

Definition of wail on someone in the Idioms Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

idioms.thefreedictionary.com

Dunno who 'The Free Dictionary' is, but I'll go with Merriam Webster.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Soviets defeated Hitler with minimal Allied support
They had a massive infantry that was not going to surrender territory they fought and died for

Without WAllied support the Soviets would have lost. We provided most of their quality steel, a good chunk of their aircraft, food to keep the Red Army from starving, rails to keep their railroads functioning as well as thousands of locomotives, molybdenum to harden the armor of their tanks, thousands of tanks, thousands of halftracks, tens of thousands trucks that were far better than anything Soviet factories could produce. We pulled thousands of artillery pieces away from the Eastern Front to defend Germany from our bombers and millions of men to man them. We pulled almost the entire Luftwaffe fighter force away from the Eastern Front and killed most of its experienced pilots. Boots, uniforms, radios, radar sets, artillery ammunition, fuel of all sorts, you name it and we gave it to them. The Soviets couldn’t even feed themselves without US support, oh yes I almost forgot about the millions of tons of fertilizer and pesticides. About the only things they made in quantity were direct warfighting objects like tanks, small arms, aircraft and artillery pieces.

Leg infantry on a WWII battle field were nothing but POWs waiting to happen. During Barbarossa the Germans captured millions of Soviet leg infantry because they lacked the mobility to avoid encirclement by mechanized forces. Without the tens of thousands American trucks, the Red Army would have been as immobile as it was in 1941.

And finally the WAllies forced Germany to pull at least a hundred divisions off the Eastern Front to fight in France and wear out their elite Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions shuttling them to the Western Front and then right back to the Eastern Front. A lot of the force the Germans used on the Eastern Front were from client states like Hungary and Romania, they had to use real German units on the Western Front because client troops would simply surrender knowing the WAllies wouldn’t shoot them and would treat them well.

 

[rightwinger]

Without WAllied support the Soviets would have lost. We provided most of their quality steel, a good chunk of their aircraft, food to keep the Red Army from starving, rails to keep their railroads functioning as well as thousands of locomotives, molybdenum to harden the armor of their tanks, thousands of tanks, thousands of halftracks, tens of thousands trucks that were far better than anything Soviet factories could produce. We pulled thousands of artillery pieces away from the Eastern Front to defend Germany from our bombers and millions of men to man them. We pulled almost the entire Luftwaffe fighter force away from the Eastern Front and killed most of its experienced pilots. Boots, uniforms, radios, radar sets, artillery ammunition, fuel of all sorts, you name it and we gave it to them. The Soviets couldn’t even feed themselves without US support, oh yes I almost forgot about the millions of tons of fertilizer and pesticides. About the only things they made in quantity were direct warfighting objects like tanks, small arms, aircraft and artillery pieces.

Leg infantry on a WWII battle field were nothing but POWs waiting to happen. During Barbarossa the Germans captured millions of Soviet leg infantry because they lacked the mobility to avoid encirclement by mechanized forces. Without the tens of thousands American trucks, the Red Army would have been as immobile as it was in 1941.

And finally the WAllies forced Germany to pull at least a hundred divisions off the Eastern Front to fight in France and wear out their elite Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions shuttling them to the Western Front and then right back to the Eastern Front. A lot of the force the Germans used on the Eastern Front were from client states like Hungary and Romania, they had to use real German units on the Western Front because client troops would simply surrender knowing the WAllies wouldn’t shoot them and would treat them well.

The Soviets fought and died in defeating the Nazis
They killed millions while we killed a few hundred thousands
They fought the prime of the German Army while we fought the reserves

Western History shows us beating the Germans at D Day and the Battle of the Bulge
The Reality is the Soviets defeating the Germans at Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk

 

[AZrailwhale]

The Soviets fought and died in defeating the Nazis
They killed millions while we killed a few hundred thousands
They fought the prime of the German Army while we fought the reserves

Western History shows us beating the Germans at D Day and the Battle of the Bulge
The Reality is the Soviets defeating the Germans at Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk

Leningrad was under siege for years, the Soviets didn’t defeat the Germans there, Moscow was saved by German stupidity. Hitler didn’t bother to order winter uniforms. The German Sixth Army was crushed at Stalingrad, but the Germans were still on the offensive afterwards. Kursk was a defeat for the Germans, but the Soviets took horrific losses in the defense. The reality was that Stalin slaughtered millions of his own troops with stand and die orders, or wasteful frontal assaults. Yes the Soviets killed more Germans, but the WAllies captured more and captured more actual German territory. The Soviets were too busy killing and raping their way across Eastern Europe to bother taking prisoners, or helping civilians. Yes the Red Army killed more Germans, but the WAllies destroyed the Luftwaffe, wrecked Germany’s road, rail and canal systems shutting down German logistics, destroyed Germany’s oil supply, disrupted German industry, Forced Germany to pull thousands of guns and millions of troops away from the Eastern Front. While fighting another war on the far side of the planet, fighting in Italy and North Africa and supplying the UK, USSR, Australia and even India with supplies and weapons that allowed those countries to fight both Germany and Japan. All the USSR did was to defend itself when it’s ally in the rape of Poland turned on it.

 

[rightwinger]

Leningrad was under siege for years, the Soviets didn’t defeat the Germans there, Moscow was saved by German stupidity. Hitler didn’t bother to order winter uniforms. The German Sixth Army was crushed at Stalingrad, but the Germans were still on the offensive afterwards. Kursk was a defeat for the Germans, but the Soviets took horrific losses in the defense. The reality was that Stalin slaughtered millions of his own troops with stand and die orders, or wasteful frontal assaults. Yes the Soviets killed more Germans, but the WAllies captured more and captured more actual German territory. The Soviets were too busy killing and raping their way across Eastern Europe to bother taking prisoners, or helping civilians. Yes the Red Army killed more Germans, but the WAllies destroyed the Luftwaffe, wrecked Germany’s road, rail and canal systems shutting down German logistics, destroyed Germany’s oil supply, disrupted German industry, Forced Germany to pull thousands of guns and millions of troops away from the Eastern Front. While fighting another war on the far side of the planet, fighting in Italy and North Africa and supplying the UK, USSR, Australia and even India with supplies and weapons that allowed those countries to fight both Germany and Japan. All the USSR did was to defend itself when it’s ally in the rape of Poland turned on it.

The reality is that the Soviets did the fighting and dying against the bulk of the German Army
The US and UK opened a second front after the Soviets turned the tide

Soviets did the bulk of the heavy lifting to defeat the Nazis
US beat Japan

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patton was right, as usual.

Thanks to FDR's love and blind allegiance to "Uncle Joe" WWII was a miserable failure for the USA and Brits as it left great European Capitals and whole nations in the hands of the "descendants of Genghis Khan"

Patton should have been in Prague and Berlin well ahead of the USSR

The USSR should have been ordered back to their start line before their invasion on Poland. Failure to comply would mean war with the USA, British and reconstituted German Army