The object is a weakened, dumbed-down and intellectually dishonest public

[Stryder50]

One has already been obviously stolen.

Started about 2004 when here in Washington State the Democrats fine-tuned the art of "finding" boxes of ballots that got over-looked when doing the first count.

Like most Leftist, so poor at math that had to cheat twice to get the needed numbers to "win".

Set the pattern to repeat in future, in other states and nationally.

2004 Washington gubernatorial election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Magnus]

One has already been obviously stolen.

Actually, sparky. Make that two. November is in the bag.

For a small fee, I can provide you with the results. PM me.

 

[Stryder50]

I have a firm grip on reality because I was in the game. You watched on ESPN.

You have a limited and localized delusion of "the game".

 

[Stryder50]

Nope, I have a nice home, a vacation property (which I inherited from my parents), own my own business and help my wife run hers.

I make far more under Biden than I made under Trump.

Which makes you one of those profit chasing capitalist you claim to deplore.
Guess concepts of irony and hypocrisy are also part of your ignorance portfolio.

 

[Lastamender]

Actually, sparky. Make that two. November is in the bag.

For a small fee, I can provide you with the results. PM me.

Gloating assholes like you are in for a big surprise.

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART ONE:

You continue to display yourself as a prime example of a product of the topic/theme of this thread and it's title.
You are ignorant of basics of economics, technology, and history of the 1930s onward.
You have no grasp of Tactics nor Strategy.
You are clueless about Logistics.
You appear to have flunked Geography.

Hence the origins of inaccurate and vague generalizations which are talking points of the propaganda, indoctrination, and programing from the Marxist-Communist training you absorbed, without questioning, during your formative and "education" years.

I don't expect you to become informed or change your views and mind, but for benefit of those who do have open minds, the following counter-points;

Quote:
"You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us."
1) Our "military supplies" were never overpriced and often went for cost or less. The USSR never bought or paid for anything the USA provided in Lend-Lease, during or after the War. UK (and France) was on a "cash-n-carry" basis because the majority of USA citizens compelled FDR to operate on such a basis initially. UK becoming "bankrupt" was a result of many other nations actions in addition to the USA. FDR encountered intense resistance in Congress and among the American public* initially because of his Lend-Lease solution.
* The looney Left-wing in the USA were the biggest critics and opponents of the USA getting embroiled in "another European war".

2) The Nazis were already shooting at US warships months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor

"The attack on the Kearny and the sinking of the Reuben James solidified Roosevelt's support of the Allies."

The Nazis were already shooting at US warships months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor

The US officially declared war on the Nazis on December 11, 1941, but the US Navy had already been fighting them in the Atlantic for months.

www.businessinsider.com

Note that nearly 200 US sailors were killed in the attacks.

How Was the US Involved in WWII Before Pearl Harbor?​

​

 

[Magnus]

Gloating assholes like you are in for a big surprise.

Didn't you retards say that in the last election? How did that one go down? Oh yeah, by you idiots having a hissy fit and trying to lynch your own party member!

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART TWO:
"That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked."

A reminder that it was your commie-Leftists predecessors back then who lobbied to keep the USA out of the war. Take up the "pride" issue with them. Also, once Russia was attacked by Germany, than they were all in to fight the Nazis.

Note that few had qualms about Italy's wars and conquests in East Africa during the late 1930s, or Japan's restart of the on and off wars with China that also restarted in @1937.

For that matter, until June 22, 1941, the first couple years of what we now call World War Two looked like the two largest militarizes/armies of the world, Germany and Russia/USSR were carving out chunks of Eastern Europe between them and posing a combined threat to Western Civilization.

One major reason, and a logical one, is the following;
" The start of WW2, September 1, 1939, saw the US Army as the 17th largest military manpower in the world morph into the world’s second largest army. The US began WW2 as a Navy titan and ended the war with an Army and Air Force almost on par with the Navy. The men entering the US military branches all went through boot camp, discussed below. "

US Military Manpower 1939 - 1945 | World War II Data

US Military Manpower 1939 - 1945 includes graphically represented info and downloadable formats including excel and PDF.

ww2data.com

Rise of the U.S. Army - Warfare History Network​

A Brief History of the U.S. Army in World War II​

Military history of the United States during World War II​

The facts of the matter are that the USA was in no position of military strength to enter WWII without suffering disastrous losses and setbacks in 1939. Not even by the end of 1941 when forced into the war were we, USA, really of useful strength levels.

As history shows, it took an attack like that at Pearl Harbor to galvanize enough public support for the USA to become a full participant - belligerent in World War Two.

​

 

[JoeB131]

ART ONE:

You continue to display yourself as a prime example of a product of the topic/theme of this thread and it's title.
You are ignorant of basics of economics, technology, and history of the 1930s onward.

I have a bachelor's degree in history from UIC with a focus on European History.

You have no grasp of Tactics nor Strategy.

I was in the Army for 11 years.

You are clueless about Logistics.

Uh, My MOS was 76Y (Supply Specialist and later Supply Sergeant)

So wrong on three points.

A reminder that it was your commie-Leftists predecessors back then who lobbied to keep the USA out of the war. Take up the "pride" issue with them. Also, once Russia was attacked by Germany, than they were all in to fight the Nazis.

The biggest war opponents were the REpublicans and Charles Lindbergh....

So wrong again!

For that matter, until June 22, 1941, the first couple years of what we now call World War Two looked like the two largest militarizes/armies of the world, Germany and Russia/USSR were carving out chunks of Eastern Europe between them and posing a combined threat to Western Civilization.

Except everyone knew Hitler was going to eventually turn on Stalin, which is why the Western Powers didn't declare war on Stalin or even do anything when he invaded Finland.

It was western fecklessness that drove Hitler and Stalin into an alliance. Instead of telling Poland to sensibly negotiate on Danzig and the Polish Corridor, Chamberlain (embarrassed by how Munich went) wrote the Polish Colonels a blank check, and Hitler and Stalin came to an agreement, giving Hitler a free hand to attack the west.

2) The Nazis were already shooting at US warships months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor

"The attack on the Kearny and the sinking of the Reuben James solidified Roosevelt's support of the Allies."

Those ships never should have been in a war zone.

This is what you guys don't get... a lot of Americans were rightfully opposed to another European War, given what a pointless clusterfuck WWI was. It didn't end all wars, it didn't make the world safe for Democracy. They saw millions of men coming back with injuries or what we call PTSD now. And a lot of people looked at war with Germany and Italy (the two largest immigrant groups in the US at the time) as a terrible idea.

Note that few had qualms about Italy's wars and conquests in East Africa during the late 1930s, or Japan's restart of the on and off wars with China that also restarted in @1937.

well, it's not like it was bad stuff happening to white people, amiright?

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART THREE:
"Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army."

Again, your mass ignorance of history on display here:

A) Russia - was fending off an invasion of their homeland by Nazi Germany which for most of the time saw between 80-90% of Germany's Army and Air Forces involved. While Russia and Japan had a few clashes in the late 1930's, once Germany attacked @ June 22, 1941 Russia focused entirely upon fighting the invasion and liberating it's homeland. Russia would not enter the war against Japan until a couple months after Germany's defeat and surrender, and then only seeking easy territorial pickings from the Japanese corpse.

USSR/Russia was only a HALF ALLY in most of World War Two and Stalin was always whining for the Allies = UK and USA to open a "Second Front (against the Germans) failing to understand that both UK and USA would need to build military forces and resources to succeed in such an endevour. Also Stalin failed to appreciate the USA and UK need to deal with the Pacific Theater of Operations - PTO; or that operations in Mediterranean, North Africa, and aerial bombardment* of Germany were part of a Second Front.

Insult to injury, Stalin continued to bitch that the UK and USA weren't giving away enough of Lend-Lease to the USSR.

Also Russia wouldn't allow or co-operate much with UK or USA forces operating within Russia. The Poltava Debacle is a classic case and was a huge insult to the Allies.

The Poltava Debacle | Air & Space Forces Magazine - Air Force Magazi​

Operation Frantic | World War II Database - WW2DB​

Blow Out at Poltava - HistoryNet​

OPERATION FRANTIC: Shuttle Raids to the Soviet Union​

Images:

Army air force poltava raid at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

B) As for the "Chinese", a start point is that Mao and his Communist faction tended to avoid combat with the Japanese as much as possible, saving strength for the post war fight to continue the civil war with the Nationalists.

Meanwhile, Nationalist China had been fighting against Japan for most of the first four decades of 1900s;
...
The Second Sino-Japanese War was fought between the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan between 1937 and 1945, following a period of war localized to Manchuria that started in 1931.[24][25] It is considered part of World War II, and often regarded as the beginning of World War II in Asia. It was the largest Asian war in the 20th century[26] and has been described as "the Asian Holocaust", in reference to the scale of Japanese war crimes against Chinese civilians.[27][28][29] It is known in China as the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression.

On 18 September 1931, the Japanese staged the Mukden incident, a false flag event fabricated to justify their invasion of Manchuria and establishment of the puppet state of Manchukuo. This is sometimes marked as the beginning of the war.[30][31] From 1931 to 1937, China and Japan engaged in skirmishes, including in Shanghai and in Northern China. Chinese Nationalist and Communist forces, respectively led by Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong, had fought each other in Chinese Civil War since 1927 before forming the Second United Front in late 1936 in order to resist the Japanese invasion together.

The full-scale war began on 7 July 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge incident near Beijing, which prompted a full-scale Japanese invasion of the rest of China. The Japanese captured the capital of Nanjing in 1937 and perpetrated the Nanjing Massacre. After failing to stop the Japanese capture of Wuhan in 1938, then China's de facto capital at the time, the Nationalist government relocated to Chongqing in the Chinese interior. After the Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, Soviet aid bolstered the Republic of China Army and Air Force. By 1939, after Chinese victories at Changsha and Guangxi, and with Japan's lines of communications stretched deep into the interior, the war reached a stalemate. ...
....

Second Sino-Japanese War - Wikipedia​

China and the Chinese focused mostly within their own, invaded nation as far as their part in the war was concerned. Note that by 1941-1942 Japan had seized all the Chinese ports and the Burma Road in SE Asia, hence the only way to get any aid into China was by air, flying over "The Hump" - Himalayas. This was very costly to the USA in terms of lost cargo aircraft and crews and resulted in limited useful resources getting into China. Mostly this was a small air force, originally the American Volunteer Group = "Flying Tigers", later to be known as the 14th USAAF;

Fourteenth Air Force - Wikipedia​

Interesting footnote here is that before the USA became heavily involved in aiding the Nationalist Chinese Air Force, the Italians, then the Germans, and the Russians had also sent aircraft and advisors. As seen in the Spanish Civil War, China vs Japan provided a testing ground as well as a source for foreign trade and influence prior to the start of WWII in Sept. 1939. Result was China had a hodgepodge of European aircraft and weapons.

As for India/Indians - As a part of the UK Empire, those Indians conscripted that weren't used to keep order within India to forestall revolt against the UK were limited to a few brigades used in actual combat against the Japanese, who were trying to invade India. A couple of brigades had fought earlier in North Africa, but after Dec. 1941 they were withdrawn East to face the Japanese.

It needs to be noted that UK forces included Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and other Commonwealth troops. These nationalities formed the bulk of UK military in the war and were the major forces outside of the CBI = China Burma India Theater of Operations.

Plenty of Anglo and American blood was shed globally during that war in the other combat theaters as well.

Outside of the above mentioned regions, the USA was also a major combatant and many of our forces were involved in the CBI, along with the PTO, MTO, ETO, etc.

 

[JoeB131]

A) Russia - was fending off an invasion of their homeland by Nazi Germany which for most of the time saw between 80-90% of Germany's Army and Air Forces involved. While Russia and Japan had a few clashes in the late 1930's, once Germany attacked @ June 22, 1941 Russia focused entirely upon fighting the invasion and liberating it's homeland. Russia would not enter the war against Japan until a couple months after Germany's defeat and surrender, and then only seeking easy territorial pickings from the Japanese corpse.

Guy, you deny my point by confirming it. The USSR had more men involved in single battles than the other Allies had on the whole Western Front. 2/3rd of Axis forces were committed to the Eastern Front.

As for the USSR's entry into the Pacific War, that was what made the Japanese finally realize the war couldn't be won and they surrendered. I know we like to pretend it was the A-bombs, but, no, Japan just didn't want to get divided like Germany was.

B) As for the "Chinese", a start point is that Mao and his Communist faction tended to avoid combat with the Japanese as much as possible, saving strength for the post war fight to continue the civil war with the Nationalists.

That's not true, either. If anyone was slacking, it was the Nationalists throughout most of 1943. Chiang didn't even get off his ass until 1944, when Japan launched Operation Ichi-Go to try to knock China out of the war. Not surprisingly, after the war, people defected to the Communists in droves.

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART FOUR:

A) " Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. "
Beg to differ "guy", but modern warfare c. 1930-1940s wasn't fought with sticks and stones. Ask the Ethiopians who fought the Italians;

Second Italo-Ethiopian War - Wikipedia​

As Napoleon is paraphrased, "An Army travels, and fights, on it's stomach."
Providing material was very essential to effective fighting during the War and with most Allied nations having their productive resources greatly hampered by bombardment, invasion, and becoming battlegrounds, USA's Arsenal of Democracy was an essential component of fighting and winning the War.

Also, as pointed out already, the USA was also short on weapons and essential material and equipment to fight successfully without extreme losses of life and failures in result, hence the factory and farm became an essential part in winning the war.

B) "We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point."

Beg to differ. The Russians and Chinese kept mostly within their boundaries in their fighting. The UK was more global, but dependent upon the USA pipeline of weapons and supplies, etc. As the war progressed, the USA was the major combatant and load carrier of all the essential aspects of fighting and winning that war.

One lesser known of winning;

Air Transport Command - Wikipedia​

Air Transport Command (ATC) was a United States Air Force unit that was created during World War II as the strategic airlift component of the United States Army Air Forces.

It had two main missions, the first being the delivery of supplies and equipment between the United States and the overseas combat theaters; the second was the ferrying of aircraft from the manufacturing plants in the United States to where they were needed for training or for operational use in combat. ATC also operated a worldwide air transportation system for military personnel.

Inactivated on 1 June 1948, Air Transport Command was the precursor to what became the Military Air Transport Service in 1948 and was redesignated Military Airlift Command (MAC) in 1966. It was consolidated with MAC in 1982, providing a continuous history of long range airlift through 1992 when the mission was transferred to today's Air Mobility Command.

History​

By no means least among the achievements of the Army Air Forces (AAF) in World War II was its development of a worldwide system of air transport. The development of transport aircraft in the 1920s and 1930s added a new dimension to the art of warfare, and around its varied capacities the AAF built an air transportation system such as had never before been envisaged. That system, and its functions, soon became synonymous with the organization which controlled it, the Air Transport Command.
...

Air Transport Command C-47 Skytrain flying over the Pyramids, 1944

C-54 Skymaster of the ATC Pacific Division taking off

C-46 Commando flying "The Hump" over the Himalayan Mountain Range from Burma to China, 1945
....

Air Transport Command and the Airlines During World War II​

Air Transport Command - Airlift During WWII - Air Mobility Command M​

air transport command ww2 at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Also, the WASPs, who had their casualties as well ...

Women Airforce Service Pilots - Wikipedia​

B) " Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944."

To open a "second front" would require building up the USA military in size, equipment and training. Also building from scratch an armada of landing ships and craft to get troops and their tanks, vehicles, supplies, etc. ashore.

Considering how the Mediterranean, Mediterranean Theater of Operations = MTO, was a part of the European Theater of Operations = ETO, the USA landings in NorthWest Africa in November 8, 1942; Operation Torch were a start.

Operation Torch - Wikipedia​

Operation Torch | World War II, Summary, Map, Significance ...​

Operation Torch: Invasion of North Africa - NHHC​

Operation Torch: The Anglo-American Invasion of French North Africa​

As it was, this became a hard learning curve and baptism of fire/combat for the US Army after the Kasserine Pass attack of

Battle of Kasserine Pass - Wikipedia​

The Battle of Kasserine Pass - The National WWII Museum​

Kasserine Pass: German Offensive, American Victory - The National W​

The USA learned we needed to learn more and build up more before taking on the better trained and more effective military of the Germans.

Further essential experience and training was gained during follow on invasions of Sicily and Italy. Which also helped clear the Mediterranean for merchant shipping to transit to Suez and beyond.

Meanwhile, the US Army Air Force joined with the British RAF to begin the strategic bombing offensive against Germany to reduce it's production and defenses in Europe.

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia​

Strategic Bombing Matured Quickly During WWII​

Crippling the Nazi War Machine: USAAF Strategic Bombing in Europe​

 

[JoeB131]

A) " Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. "
Beg to differ "guy", but modern warfare c. 1930-1940s wasn't fought with sticks and stones. Ask the Ethiopians who fought the Italians;

Guy, your text walls are boring, and I don't even bother to read them...

Point was, the USSR did most of the fighting in Europe, and tipped the scales in the Pacific.

The west dicked around in North Africa for years before they got anywhere near Europe.

Beg to differ. The Russians and Chinese kept mostly within their boundaries in their fighting. The UK was more global, but dependent upon the USA pipeline of weapons and supplies, etc. As the war progressed, the USA was the major combatant and load carrier of all the essential aspects of fighting and winning that war.

The Soviets took Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Finland out of the war before marching into Berlin. One could argue the Soviets facilitated the liberation of Yugoslavia and Greece by forcing the Germans to withdraw from them to secure their own borders.

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART FIVE:
" In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting. "

While the Chinese were doing most of the fighting in China, for reason that few other Allied forces could get there; Indian forces were limited in fighting in CBI, with Anglo-Allied units still bearing the brunt. Elsewhere in the PTO, it was largely an America effort until about 1944 when UK had more forces to supply.

They may have been "crappy islands" but they provided air and naval basing for Japan's outer defense perimeter and had to be reduced to gain progress towards Japan's home islands for attacks upon them.

Excerpt:
Japan, as an island nation, has always been heavily constrained by lack of resources. Going into WWII, the nation imported 88 percent of its oil and was utterly dependent on raw material imports to sustain its industrial base. Unable to achieve self-sufficiency, and unwilling to capitulate, the Japanese had no alternative but to go to war and seize by force the resources they desperately required. Particularly vital to Japanese interests were the petroleum-rich Dutch East Indies — modern-day Indonesia — and the rubber plantations and tin mines of British Malaya. An Imperial push into Southeast Asia had the added advantage of cutting off the Burma Road, which ran north through modern Myanmar into China's Yunnan province. This key transit route had long sustained the Chinese in their struggle against Japan.

The resulting Japanese war strategy hinged on massive initial blows that would surprise Allied fleets and air forces at port or in vulnerable airstrips. This would give Japan the maritime and air power advantage to rapidly seize its objectives and create an extended and heavily defended perimeter to protect both the home islands and Japan's newly acquired overseas resources before the Allies had a chance to recover. The Japanese could then present such a formidable and costly defensive line to the Allies that they would accept Japan's gains and sue for peace.

The Japanese conquest of Asia and the Pacific campaign that followed was initially an overwhelming success. Repeatedly underestimated by its enemies and often outnumbered, the disciplined, highly trained Japanese forces defeated American, British, Australian and Dutch forces as well as their local allies. The sheer expansion of Japanese territory was immense. Six months after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire stretched from Manchuria in the north to New Guinea's jungle-clad Owen Stanley Range in the south. In the west, the empire began at the borders of India's Assam and continued to the Gilbert Islands in the South Pacific. The Japanese Navy General Staff even debated whether they should invade Australia, though the army's heavy commitment in China nixed this plan — Tokyo barely had the forces to defend the territory it had already acquired.
...

Japan's Territorial Expansion 1931-1942

Japan's strategy in WWII was to rapidly expand and create a defensive perimeter around natural resource deposits.

worldview.stratfor.com

 

[Stryder50]

You mean we let the UK and USSR bankrupt themselves buying our overpriced military supplies before the Axis decided to attack us. That's nothing to be proud of, really. If we had decency, we'd have gotten into the war in 1939, not wait until we got attacked.

Point was, the vast majority of the fighting was done by Russians, Chinese and Indians conscripted into the British Army.



Again, providing materials isn't fighting, guy. We didn't do much of the fighting, that was the point. Heck, we didn't even open a second front in Europe until 1944. In the Pacific, we fought over some crappy Islands while the Chinese and Indians were doing most of the land fighting.




Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe.

PART SIX:
" Or we just took advantage of the situation and in many ways, created a bad situation after the war. "

Well, duh!
Efficient tactics and strategy is to take advantage of any situations that reduce your costs and losses while obtaining your objectives and goals. As it was, the USA and other Allies still manged to FUBAR too often.

If you were more knowledgeable of the politics of the Alliance between USA - UK - USSR you'd realize that each often acted on it's own and for it's own agenda contrary to wishes of desires of the others. There is also the matter of Realpolitik in that the USA and UK had limitations on what they could do in Eastern Europe or compel or restrain the USSR from doing. Agreements in conferences between the Big Three had draw lines on the map of Europe as to who would advance to where and towards the end, the USA and UK could have liberated more towards the East but that was "given" to the USSR.

Also, the populace of both UK and USA were getting war weary towards the end and would not have sustained continue the war against the Communist USSR. That fantasy remains a pipe dream of many ignorant of history of the time.

" a bad situation after the war " remains a relative and subjective opinion. There are few better options and could have been many worse. What would have been you dream of a better situation and how would you have obtained such ?

" Then we all shit our pants when the Mao took over China and Stalin took half of Europe. "

Well Komrade, I don't your commie-Leftists predecessors here in USA were messing their pants back then when Mao and his forces finally won. As it was, that Civil War post WWII was a back-in forth matter which might have turned out different if the West had more resolve and gumption to aid the Nationalists.

Chinese Civil War - Wikipedia​

As for Stalin and "half of Europe", those parts of the East had been beyond reach of any meaningful effort from the UK and USA and blame the Germans for not resisting strong if you want. As mentioned, that part of Europe was ceded to Stalin back at Yalta.

 

[Stryder50]

I have a bachelor's degree in history from UIC with a focus on European History.


I was in the Army for 11 years.

Uh, My MOS was 76Y (Supply Specialist and later Supply Sergeant)

So wrong on three points.



The biggest war opponents were the REpublicans and Charles Lindbergh....

So wrong again!


Except everyone knew Hitler was going to eventually turn on Stalin, which is why the Western Powers didn't declare war on Stalin or even do anything when he invaded Finland.

It was western fecklessness that drove Hitler and Stalin into an alliance. Instead of telling Poland to sensibly negotiate on Danzig and the Polish Corridor, Chamberlain (embarrassed by how Munich went) wrote the Polish Colonels a blank check, and Hitler and Stalin came to an agreement, giving Hitler a free hand to attack the west.


Those ships never should have been in a war zone.

This is what you guys don't get... a lot of Americans were rightfully opposed to another European War, given what a pointless clusterfuck WWI was. It didn't end all wars, it didn't make the world safe for Democracy. They saw millions of men coming back with injuries or what we call PTSD now. And a lot of people looked at war with Germany and Italy (the two largest immigrant groups in the US at the time) as a terrible idea.


well, it's not like it was bad stuff happening to white people, amiright?

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

This is the internet and anyone can claim anything when they don't provide documentation or other proof. Even if you were a 76Y you still display little understanding about strategic logistics and your claimed degree in European history shows a failed grasp of the full aspects of World War Two.

" The biggest war opponents were the REpublicans and Charles Lindbergh.... "
Sorry Komrade, you are wrong ... again!
...
The Communist Party opposed American involvement in the early stages of World War II, starting in August 1939, when the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact launched a deal between Stalin and Hitler that allowed Moscow to split control of Eastern Europe with Berlin. Communist activists in CIO labor unions tried to slow the flow of munitions to Britain. Leftist organizations like the American Peace Mobilization and veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade protested in opposition to the war, the draft, and the Lend-Lease Act. They said of Lend-Lease, "Roosevelt needs its dictatorial powers to further his aim of carving out of a warring world, the American Empire so long desired by the Wall Street money lords."[16] Overnight on June 22, 1941, the date of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the Communists reversed positions and became war hawks.[17]

Numerous women activists, notably within the Mothers' movement led by Elizabeth Dilling, opposed American involvement on the basis that it would be preferable for Nazism rather than Communism to dominate Europe. These women also wished to keep their own sons out of the combat US involvement in the war would necessitate, and believed the war would destroy Christianity and further spread atheistic Communism across Europe.[18]

Henry Ford, a long-time pacifist, opposed US participation in the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Before then he refused to manufacture airplanes and other war equipment for the British.[19] Father Charles Coughlin urged the US to keep out of the war and permit Germany to conquer Great Britain and the Soviet Union.[20] Asked Coughlin, "Must the entire world go to war for 600,000 Jews in Germany?"[21] The most radical of isolationists would say that all of the current problems in the US were because of World War I. US Senator Gerald Nye from North Dakota would even blame the Great Depression on America's economic expansion during World War I.[14]
....

Opposition to World War II - Wikipedia​

" Except everyone knew Hitler was going to eventually turn on Stalin, which is why the Western Powers didn't declare war on Stalin or even do anything when he invaded Finland. "

No, many in the WEst didn't know for sure if Germany would attack Russia. Western Intel was that good at the time, as shown by the surprise when Germany attacked Poland.

Actually, the Allies had plans to come to Finland's aid during the Winter War, USSR's attack of November 1939;
...
Main article: Franco-British plans for intervention in the Winter War
Franco-British support was offered on the condition their forces could pass freely from Narvik through neutral Norway and Sweden instead of the difficult passage through Soviet-occupied Petsamo.
France had been one of the earliest supporters of Finland during the Winter War. The French saw an opportunity to weaken Germany's resource imports via a Finnish counteroffensive, as both Sweden and the Soviet Union were strategic trading partners to Germany. France had another motive, preferring to have a major war in a remote part of Europe rather than on French soil. France planned to re‑arm the Polish exile units and transport them to the Finnish Arctic port of Petsamo. Another proposal was a massive air strike with Turkish co-operation against the Caucasus oil fields.[233]

The British, for their part, wanted to block the flow of iron ore from Swedish mines to Germany as the Swedes supplied up to 40 per cent of Germany's iron demand.[233] The matter was raised by British Admiral Reginald Plunkett on 18 September 1939, and the next day Winston Churchill brought up the subject in the Chamberlain War Cabinet.[234] On 11 December, Churchill opined that the British should gain a foothold in Scandinavia with the objective to help the Finns, but without a war with the Soviet Union.[235] Because of the heavy German reliance on Northern Sweden's iron ore, Hitler had made it clear to the Swedish government in December that any Allied troops on Swedish soil would immediately provoke a German invasion.[236]
...
Stymied but not yet dissuaded from the possibility of action, the Allies formulated a final plan on 29 January. First, the Finns would make a formal request for assistance. Then, the Allies would ask Norway and Sweden for permission to move the "volunteers" across their territory. Finally, to protect the supply line from German actions, the Allies would send units ashore at Namsos, Bergen, and Trondheim. The operation would have required 100,000 British and 35,000 French soldiers with naval and air support. The supply convoys would sail on 12 March and the landings would begin on 20 March.[239] The end of the war on 13 March cancelled Franco-British plans to send troops to Finland through Northern Scandinavia.[240]
...

Winter War - Wikipedia​

As it was, shortly after this, German invades Norway and some of the forces in these plans were to be used to counter that.

German occupation of Norway - Wikipedia​

" Those ships never should have been in a war zone. "

Those ships were in a Neutrality Zone protecting American and other nationals merchant ships. Germany should not have attacked them. Typical of you looney Leftists to always let the aggressor~bad guys off the hook for their crimes and transgressions.

" This is what you guys don't get... a lot of Americans were rightfully opposed to another European War, given what a pointless clusterfuck WWI was. It didn't end all wars, it didn't make the world safe for Democracy. They saw millions of men coming back with injuries or what we call PTSD now. And a lot of people looked at war with Germany and Italy (the two largest immigrant groups in the US at the time) as a terrible idea. "

The "clusterfuck" had to do with the French and British harsh terms of a peace treaty forced on Germany which had initially sought just an armistice. Along with POTUS Wilson declining to oppose such or involve the USA.

Eventually the USA would be involved because we are an international trade nation and isolationism was an impossible fantasy.
Also, there was strong anti-Jewish feelings in the USA so what Germany was doing to them wasn't of enough concern. Much like today.

" well, it's not like it was bad stuff happening to white people, amiright? "

But it was, in other parts of the World - Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, etc.
But yeah, too often " the more things change, the more they stay the same. "
Still not an excuse to not do anything. Which was your point many posts ago.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

I have a bachelor's degree in history from UIC with a focus on European History.


I was in the Army for 11 years.

Uh, My MOS was 76Y (Supply Specialist and later Supply Sergeant)

So wrong on three points.



The biggest war opponents were the REpublicans and Charles Lindbergh....

So wrong again!


Except everyone knew Hitler was going to eventually turn on Stalin, which is why the Western Powers didn't declare war on Stalin or even do anything when he invaded Finland.

It was western fecklessness that drove Hitler and Stalin into an alliance. Instead of telling Poland to sensibly negotiate on Danzig and the Polish Corridor, Chamberlain (embarrassed by how Munich went) wrote the Polish Colonels a blank check, and Hitler and Stalin came to an agreement, giving Hitler a free hand to attack the west.


Those ships never should have been in a war zone.

This is what you guys don't get... a lot of Americans were rightfully opposed to another European War, given what a pointless clusterfuck WWI was. It didn't end all wars, it didn't make the world safe for Democracy. They saw millions of men coming back with injuries or what we call PTSD now. And a lot of people looked at war with Germany and Italy (the two largest immigrant groups in the US at the time) as a terrible idea.


well, it's not like it was bad stuff happening to white people, amiright?

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I stopped reading at our college system failed you. But they sure retained you huh? You're an excellent spokesman for propaganda.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You have a limited and localized delusion of "the game".

How is that? I worked in elementary, middle and high schools, in two states, for the DoD, and in 7 different school districts. I also have a master's in educational leadership, with almost two years as an assistant principal of the largest high school in northeast Florida. I'd say that is a pretty broad view of the game. You watched on the evening news.

 

[Stryder50]

How is that? I worked in elementary, middle and high schools, in two states, for the DoD, and in 7 different school districts. I also have a master's in educational leadership, with almost two years as an assistant principal of the largest high school in northeast Florida. I'd say that is a pretty broad view of the game. You watched on the evening news.

Out of 50 states and how many thousands of schools and districts ???
It's still a small sampling Rocky.
BTW, you'd be more credible if you restrained the insults.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Out of 50 states and how many thousands of schools and districts ???
It's still a small sampling Rocky.
BTW, you'd be more credible if you restrained the insults.

You think that was an insult? Why are you trying to prove my point? You have a far smaller sample than I do by any stretch of the imagination. I also studied schools' organization, structures of school districts, school finance, curriculum, and instruction as well as educational law. Plus, I worked in the schools for 22 years. What is your experience that it would not be considered amateur observation from a distance when compared to mine?