Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

[gipper]

Secondly, FDR provided Stalin with huge amounts of war material after we entered the war and to the detriment of the American war effort. That material was needed by our fighting men fighting the Japanese. I wonder how many American boys died in the Pacific because they lacked the necessary equipment....that equipment that was going to the USSR.

The final analysis is FDR was a fool. He believed Communism and Stalin were good things, while condemning Hitler and Nazism. Only a dunce would come to such a conclusion.

In which battles in the Pacific did the military lack equipment other than at the opening of the war? What weapons and equipment did the military, particularly the Navy lack?

My point was American's were lacking material at the BEGINNING of the war. We have discussed this in other threads and documented it. The USSR was being flooded with munitions, while Americans in the Pacific were lacking, at the BEGINNING of the war. Do the research yourself.

 

[gipper]

To ally America with the USSR did not mean approval, life long friendship nor any of that, it meant our first enemy was Germany, and Japan, after that we'll see how it works out with the USSR. As it was, we never went to war with the Soviet Union, problems yes, but no war. Supplying American troops in the Pacific was initially a problem because of lack of navy. Operation Orange didn't work.
The bottom line was that it took us almost thirty months to prepare to invade Germany and the losses Russia took during that thirty months were huge and saved how many American lives? In one respect, we used the USSR and they know it, and had no choice, except surrender? Russia surrendered to Germany during WWI and we didn't want that to happen again.
The time for the Birchers and others to protest the way FDR fought the war was some 75 years ago; we could have used some of this free help then.
As it is, Hitler is gone, the USSR is gone and we're still here listening to the Monday morning QB garbage on how to do the deed.

"To ally America with the USSR did not mean approval, life long friendship nor any of that, it meant our first enemy was Germany,...."


False.
Roosevelt was clueless as to any future war with Germany. His economic policies were aligned with those of Germany....nor did he anticipate any war.
Now...watch me prove same.




The following is why you should doubt your vaunted 238 famous 'historians' who have clearly misled you.....


....but never, ever....doubt me.




1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. One of his first official acts was to recognize the USSR, November 16th, 1933. He already knew what Stalin had done to the Ukrainians, and what kind of regime the USSR had.



2. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.





3. FDR was clueless as far as any upcoming war.
a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


b. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.


c. It wasn't until May 16, 1940, that Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”
From:
“FDR Goes To War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, And Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America” by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom

In 1937 FDR began his warnings to an isolationist America that the world was becoming an unsafe place. Next day the Republican publisher of the Chicago Tribune criticized FDR for preaching a war-doctrine. But it was the beginning of FDR's attempt to change America from isolationism to the reality of a threatening world. The fall of France will help FDR in his attempt rearm America but it would be a battle with the Republican Congress, an isolationist America and the America-Firsters. FDR would win this war with the first peace time draft, and some questionable decisions like the 50 destroyers to Britain deal and others but the home-front battle was always there until Pearl Harbor.

You think American isolation before WWII was a bad thing???? What foolishness. Politicians love people like you because they can FOOL you ALL the time.

American presidents have deceitfully pushed America into war based on lies many times. Yet you think FDR right. You and the truth will never know each other.

FDR wanted war to get out from under his persistent failures in dealing with the Great Depression (actually his ignorant policies only made things worse). Plus, he was surrounded by American Commie traitors who easily influenced him into war, since he was a likable dunce. And the nation was tired of his foolishness...worker strikes were popping up, which scared the dumb-ass elitist FDR. And he was easily influence by the Brits...because again, he was a FUCKING DUMB ASS.

But you keep on believing lies....

 

[PoliticalChic]

To ally America with the USSR did not mean approval, life long friendship nor any of that, it meant our first enemy was Germany, and Japan, after that we'll see how it works out with the USSR. As it was, we never went to war with the Soviet Union, problems yes, but no war. Supplying American troops in the Pacific was initially a problem because of lack of navy. Operation Orange didn't work.
The bottom line was that it took us almost thirty months to prepare to invade Germany and the losses Russia took during that thirty months were huge and saved how many American lives? In one respect, we used the USSR and they know it, and had no choice, except surrender? Russia surrendered to Germany during WWI and we didn't want that to happen again.
The time for the Birchers and others to protest the way FDR fought the war was some 75 years ago; we could have used some of this free help then.
As it is, Hitler is gone, the USSR is gone and we're still here listening to the Monday morning QB garbage on how to do the deed.

"To ally America with the USSR did not mean approval, life long friendship nor any of that, it meant our first enemy was Germany,...."


False.
Roosevelt was clueless as to any future war with Germany. His economic policies were aligned with those of Germany....nor did he anticipate any war.
Now...watch me prove same.




The following is why you should doubt your vaunted 238 famous 'historians' who have clearly misled you.....


....but never, ever....doubt me.




1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. One of his first official acts was to recognize the USSR, November 16th, 1933. He already knew what Stalin had done to the Ukrainians, and what kind of regime the USSR had.



2. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.





3. FDR was clueless as far as any upcoming war.
a. Due to cuts in military spending through the 30’s as a percentage of the federal budget, the United States was woefully unprepared for war. The US was 17th in the world in military strength, and this ultimately let us into a two-ocean war.


b. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.


c. It wasn't until May 16, 1940, that Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”
From:
“FDR Goes To War: How Expanded Executive Power, Spiraling National Debt, And Restricted Civil Liberties Shaped Wartime America” by Burton W. Folsom Jr. and Anita Folsom

In 1937 FDR began his warnings to an isolationist America that the world was becoming an unsafe place. Next day the Republican publisher of the Chicago Tribune criticized FDR for preaching a war-doctrine. But it was the beginning of FDR's attempt to change America from isolationism to the reality of a threatening world. The fall of France will help FDR in his attempt rearm America but it would be a battle with the Republican Congress, an isolationist America and the America-Firsters. FDR would win this war with the first peace time draft, and some questionable decisions like the 50 destroyers to Britain deal and others but the home-front battle was always there until Pearl Harbor.

The conjecture in this post doesn't conform to the specifics provided by Folsom and Folsom.

Evidence is that FDR did not anticipate nor prepare for war, and he aligned the US with the USSR in 1933.


In actuality, FDR was blindsided by events, that had nothing to do with his embrace of Stalin and the USSR. Prior to 1940 he fully intended to socialize the nation and his economic policies were the same as the National Socialists.


No, war was not in his view.

Nor was morality.

 

[Camp]

Secondly, FDR provided Stalin with huge amounts of war material after we entered the war and to the detriment of the American war effort. That material was needed by our fighting men fighting the Japanese. I wonder how many American boys died in the Pacific because they lacked the necessary equipment....that equipment that was going to the USSR.

The final analysis is FDR was a fool. He believed Communism and Stalin were good things, while condemning Hitler and Nazism. Only a dunce would come to such a conclusion.

In which battles in the Pacific did the military lack equipment other than at the opening of the war? What weapons and equipment did the military, particularly the Navy lack?

My point was American's were lacking material at the BEGINNING of the war. We have discussed this in other threads and documented it. The USSR was being flooded with munitions, while Americans in the Pacific were lacking, at the BEGINNING of the war. Do the research yourself.

Your point was that FDR provided Stalin with huge amounts of war material after the war began and was being waged that was needed in the Pacific. Now you are saying your point is that the American forces were lacking at the BEGINNING and that we were flooding the USSR with munitions. The problem I have with those claims, which ever one you decide to stick with, is that the lend lease program with Russia wasn't agreed upon and signed until Nov of 1941. Less than a month before the Japanese attack of Dec 7 at Pearl and Dec. 8 at Singapor. At that point in time the Russian's had only gotten 59 fighter aircraft from us, and that was a straight out purchase. The only aircraft that they got at that point in time under lend lease were 5 B-25 Mitchell's. FDR refused to sell or give them B-17's or B-26's, which is what they were begging for.
The Russian's got very little in the way of actual munitions during the course of the war. 2/3's of the heavy trucks (2 1/2 TON) in their "arsenal", about 20,000 vehicals came from the US through lend lease. They got alot of raw material so they could manufacture their own equipment, which they did.

 

[regent]

In their zeal to destroy FDR's rating as president, some posters have to change history via the pick-a- fact method: find something that with a little twisting makes a point against FDR and that goes on a post. Another poster then refutes that charge with some facts, and bingo a new charge erupts, and so the game goes.
Were there mistakes made in WWII, of course, were the mistakes made to hurt America, nonsense, just the usual war time mistakes. MacArthur lost half of his airplanes on the ground after being warned to get them into the air and fighting, that incident comes out that the airplanes MacArthur needed to defend the Philippines were sent to the USSR as lend lease.
I could claim MacArthur wanted to lose the Philippines because of his love for fascism but it would be garbage history.

 

[Camp]

In which battles in the Pacific did the military lack equipment other than at the opening of the war? What weapons and equipment did the military, particularly the Navy lack?

What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

Johnson was wrong. 200 fighters would not have made a difference.

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

 

[Unkotare]

In their zeal to destroy FDR's rating as president, some posters have to change history via the pick-a- fact method: find something that with a little twisting makes a point against FDR and that goes on a post.

"With a little twisting"?! There is no need to "twist" what that son of a bitch did to reveal him as the villainous scumbag that he was. YOU are stuck in hero-worship mode and are determined to nuthug the rotten old bastard based on absolutely no argument or position of your own.

 

[Camp]

In their zeal to destroy FDR's rating as president, some posters have to change history via the pick-a- fact method: find something that with a little twisting makes a point against FDR and that goes on a post.

"With a little twisting"?! There is no need to "twist" what that son of a bitch did to reveal him as the villainous scumbag that he was. YOU are stuck in hero-worship mode and are determined to nuthug the rotten old bastard based on absolutely no argument or position of your own.

There certainly is a need to twist. Twist is absolutely necessary when promoting a conspiricy theory. You just used the twist that folks who are interested in history are stuck in hero-worship if they disagree with your nasty rants. That by the way seems to be all you do in regards to enlightening us on FDR. Do you actually know anything about WWII and FDR besides stuff you have read at RW blogs or the latest conspiricy book?

 

[Unkotare]

In their zeal to destroy FDR's rating as president, some posters have to change history via the pick-a- fact method: find something that with a little twisting makes a point against FDR and that goes on a post.

"With a little twisting"?! There is no need to "twist" what that son of a bitch did to reveal him as the villainous scumbag that he was. YOU are stuck in hero-worship mode and are determined to nuthug the rotten old bastard based on absolutely no argument or position of your own.

There certainly is a need to twist.

None. The facts of what that scumbag did speak for themselves.

Twist is absolutely necessary when promoting a conspiricy [sic] theory.

If I were promoting a conspiracy theory that comment might have made any sense at all.

You just used the twist that folks who are interested in history are stuck in hero-worship if they disagree with your nasty rants.

I did no such thing. My comments were directed at one individual directly. If you can't follow along, then don't stick your nose in.

Do you actually know anything about WWII and FDR besides stuff you have read at RW blogs or the latest conspiricy book?

I have taught more about WWII than you will ever know, junior, so keep that shit to yourself.

 

[regent]

"With a little twisting"?! There is no need to "twist" what that son of a bitch did to reveal him as the villainous scumbag that he was. YOU are stuck in hero-worship mode and are determined to nuthug the rotten old bastard based on absolutely no argument or position of your own.

None. The facts of what that scumbag did speak for themselves.




If I were promoting a conspiracy theory that comment might have made any sense at all.



I did no such thing. My comments were directed at one individual directly. If you can't follow along, then don't stick your nose in.

Do you actually know anything about WWII and FDR besides stuff you have read at RW blogs or the latest conspiricy book?

I have taught more about WWII than you will ever know, junior, so keep that shit to yourself.

So finally we have it, a teacher that taught history and is now an authority on history, on FDR and on WWII and that authority gives him the right to tell others to keep that shit to themselves.
Has it ever occurred to you that others on these boards might have taught history, and not only taught history but participated in the Great Depression and in WWII?
You bring this pain on yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

So finally we have it, a teacher that taught history and is now an authority on history, on FDR and on WWII and that authority gives him the right to tell others to keep that shit to themselves. .

I never said that you, dimwitted, dishonest, illogical fuck. You can put this new straw man away with the other one, shitforbrains.

 

[regent]

So finally we have it, a teacher that taught history and is now an authority on history, on FDR and on WWII and that authority gives him the right to tell others to keep that shit to themselves. .

I never said that you, dimwitted, dishonest, illogical fuck. You can put this new straw man away with the other one, shitforbrains.

If Camp said that not you he sounds pretty sane and reasonable, and knows his history. If you said it the original stands.

 

[Unkotare]

So finally we have it, a teacher that taught history and is now an authority on history, on FDR and on WWII and that authority gives him the right to tell others to keep that shit to themselves. .

I never said that you, dimwitted, dishonest, illogical fuck. You can put this new straw man away with the other one, shitforbrains.

If Camp said that not you he sounds pretty sane and reasonable, and knows his history. If you said it the original stands.

Try to calm down and read the posts again more carefully. Even you can do it.

 

[gipper]

In which battles in the Pacific did the military lack equipment other than at the opening of the war? What weapons and equipment did the military, particularly the Navy lack?

My point was American's were lacking material at the BEGINNING of the war. We have discussed this in other threads and documented it. The USSR was being flooded with munitions, while Americans in the Pacific were lacking, at the BEGINNING of the war. Do the research yourself.

Your point was that FDR provided Stalin with huge amounts of war material after the war began and was being waged that was needed in the Pacific. Now you are saying your point is that the American forces were lacking at the BEGINNING and that we were flooding the USSR with munitions. The problem I have with those claims, which ever one you decide to stick with, is that the lend lease program with Russia wasn't agreed upon and signed until Nov of 1941. Less than a month before the Japanese attack of Dec 7 at Pearl and Dec. 8 at Singapor. At that point in time the Russian's had only gotten 59 fighter aircraft from us, and that was a straight out purchase. The only aircraft that they got at that point in time under lend lease were 5 B-25 Mitchell's. FDR refused to sell or give them B-17's or B-26's, which is what they were begging for.
The Russian's got very little in the way of actual munitions during the course of the war. 2/3's of the heavy trucks (2 1/2 TON) in their "arsenal", about 20,000 vehicals came from the US through lend lease. They got alot of raw material so they could manufacture their own equipment, which they did.

You are telling ME what my point was...too funny.

My point was clear...FDR provided Stalin vast quantities of war material even AFTER Pearl Harbor and our entry into the war. He provided even MORE than the murderous Uncle Joe requested. This hurt our war effort in the Pacific. That is historical fact.

Yes, my use of the word munitions, was incorrect...it was war materials as you describe.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

Johnson was wrong. 200 fighters would not have made a difference.

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

Don't obfuscate.

If "200 fighters would not have made a difference" to help the Allies against the Japanese....

.....why would they be any more helpful to Stalin against the Nazis.


FDR was obsessed with the communists.


1. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia.
'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.


Nothing.
Not even America's future.


a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



Do you begin to understand the mental condition under discussion?

Obsess:
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic

 

[Camp]

Johnson was wrong. 200 fighters would not have made a difference.

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

Don't obfuscate.

If "200 fighters would not have made a difference" to help the Allies against the Japanese....

.....why would they be any more helpful to Stalin against the Nazis.


FDR was obsessed with the communists.


1. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia.
'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.


Nothing.
Not even America's future.


a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



Do you begin to understand the mental condition under discussion?

Obsess:
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic

Every German military asset required and kept on the Eastern Front was an assest unavailable to Germany on the Western Front. The war on the Western Front in the beginning was an air war. The strategy of the allies was to bomb Germany and while doing so, deplete their air power to the point that the allies would have air superiority when the allied invasion of Europe would occur. Casualties were huge for the allies, but they were huge for the Germans as well. Slowly but surely the strategy worked. B-17's, the "Flying Fortress" with 10 man crews suffered huge loss's and casualties, but they also knocked down large numbers of German fighters. Newly developed American fighters (escorts) added greatly to German loss's.
Thousands and thousands of 88's (surface to air anti-aircraft artillery) fighters and bombers as well as ground assault aircraft were dedicated to the Eastern Front by Germany. If those assets were made available on the Western Front it would have been a huge game changer. Already horrible casualties and attritions loss's may have become unbearable. In addition, German infantry, armour and artillery would have flooded onto the Western Front making an invasion of Europe impossible. America would have seen loss's that numbered in the millions.
The whole purpose of supporting Russia was to give them a fighting chance and to keep Germany busy on the Eastern Front. Support given to them by the US kept them in the game and prevented Germany from withdrawing assets from the east and putting them to use in the west. Russia didn't need American fighters once they got started making their own. They needed raw material.
There was no shortage of military assets in the Pacific to confront the Japanese. A joke was made in Briton that so much war material and equipment was being stockpiled for the invasion that the island nation might sink from the weight. The US had a surplus of war material and equipment during the war in the Pacific. Any lack of what was needed in the Pacific was available for diversion from what was being stockpiled in England.

 

[regent]

Johnson was wrong. 200 fighters would not have made a difference.

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

Don't obfuscate.

If "200 fighters would not have made a difference" to help the Allies against the Japanese....

.....why would they be any more helpful to Stalin against the Nazis.


FDR was obsessed with the communists.


1. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia.
'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.


Nothing.
Not even America's future.


a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



Do you begin to understand the mental condition under discussion?

Obsess:
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic

It was essential that the allies keep the USSR in the war with Germany, the question comes down to: could Germany have been defeated without Russia? If so, what would have been the cost to America in casualties and how long would the war have lasted?
If the US had not helped supply the USSR with supplies, the anti-FDR people today would be arguing that FDR was evil because he failed to help the USSR during the war, and America sustained a hundred thousand needless casualties. But then war was not fought to give the anti-FDR posters arguments some 75 years later, but fought to keep America alive and secondly to keep young Americans alive.
Again the question: how many more casualties would America have had without Russia?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

Don't obfuscate.

If "200 fighters would not have made a difference" to help the Allies against the Japanese....

.....why would they be any more helpful to Stalin against the Nazis.


FDR was obsessed with the communists.


1. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia.
'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.


Nothing.
Not even America's future.


a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



Do you begin to understand the mental condition under discussion?

Obsess:
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic

Every German military asset required and kept on the Eastern Front was an assest unavailable to Germany on the Western Front. The war on the Western Front in the beginning was an air war. The strategy of the allies was to bomb Germany and while doing so, deplete their air power to the point that the allies would have air superiority when the allied invasion of Europe would occur. Casualties were huge for the allies, but they were huge for the Germans as well. Slowly but surely the strategy worked. B-17's, the "Flying Fortress" with 10 man crews suffered huge loss's and casualties, but they also knocked down large numbers of German fighters. Newly developed American fighters (escorts) added greatly to German loss's.
Thousands and thousands of 88's (surface to air anti-aircraft artillery) fighters and bombers as well as ground assault aircraft were dedicated to the Eastern Front by Germany. If those assets were made available on the Western Front it would have been a huge game changer. Already horrible casualties and attritions loss's may have become unbearable. In addition, German infantry, armour and artillery would have flooded onto the Western Front making an invasion of Europe impossible. America would have seen loss's that numbered in the millions.
The whole purpose of supporting Russia was to give them a fighting chance and to keep Germany busy on the Eastern Front. Support given to them by the US kept them in the game and prevented Germany from withdrawing assets from the east and putting them to use in the west. Russia didn't need American fighters once they got started making their own. They needed raw material.
There was no shortage of military assets in the Pacific to confront the Japanese. A joke was made in Briton that so much war material and equipment was being stockpiled for the invasion that the island nation might sink from the weight. The US had a surplus of war material and equipment during the war in the Pacific. Any lack of what was needed in the Pacific was available for diversion from what was being stockpiled in England.

"Every German military asset required and kept on the Eastern Front was an assest unavailable to Germany on the Western Front."

It's almost amazing the lengths you FDR-lovers will go to excuse and alibi the former President.
Bet you were great at 'Twister.'


1. He rushed to recognize the Evil Empire in 1933.....knowing full well about the starvation imposed by the Stalin administration.


2. Operation Barbarossa ...22 June 1941, Germany attacked Russia.


3. Pearl Harbor....7 December 1941. US attacked by the Axis.

So what is your analysis of FDR's actions....a fear that Stalin would surrender, and free up Nazi forces to attack to the west?




"The whole purpose of supporting Russia was to give them a fighting chance and to keep Germany busy on the Eastern Front."

1. US Army Maj. George Racey Jordan was a Lend-Lease 'expediter' who couldn't understand the volume or priority nature of the shipments to the USSR....including 'secret cargo' hidden under 'diplomatic immunity.'

2. "... he was instructed by the White House and State Department to deliver parts for the atomic bomb to the Soviets – at the same time the nation was worried about Russia stealing A-bomb secrets. At first, Congress did not believe him, but his diary filled with dates, shipping manifestos, and names of pilots who flew the missions,..." Major George Jordan

3. In Jordan's book is a near-complete list of Soviet Lend-Lease material.
According to Jordan, shipments to the USSR via Lend-Lease continued until 1949. Victory in Europe Day—known as V-E Day or VE Day—was the public holiday celebrated on 8 May 1945 (in Commonwealth countries, 7 May 1945) to mark the date when the World War II Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of the armed forces of Nazi Germany.


4. Get ready to do some more cartwheels in support of your icon.....

a. FDR gave Lend-Lease aid to Russia that superseded all Allied military needs- including American military needs. And this included postwar supplies that became Soviet Cold War supplies. And this included supplies that went into making an atomic bomb: chemicals, metals, minerals including uranium.
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 42-43.


b. Half a million trucks and jeeps; $1 billion in ordinance and ammunition; thousands of fighter aircraft, bombers, and tanks; 13 million pair of winter boots; 1.7 million tons of petroleum products; a merchant fleeet; 1,000 steam locomotives; 581 naval vessels including minesweepers, landing crafts, submarine chasers, frigates, torpedo boats, floating dry docks, pontoon barges, river tugs and a light cruiser and the icebreakers that they used to bring 'slaves' to the Gulag Archipelago.
Ibid.


c. Nikita Khrushachev:
"Just imagine how we would have advanced from Stalingrad to Berlin without [the above]."
"Khrushchev Remembers," Life magazine, December 4, 1970



Recognized the butchers in 1933.....gave them 'alimony' until 1949....


Still fighting Germany, huh?






BTW....what is the argument that Hitler was worse than Stalin?

Or is it simply that Leftists like Communists a tiny bit better than Nazis?

 

[regent]

Johnson was wrong. 200 fighters would not have made a difference.

I have no idea where Johnson got this claim of 200 fighters and tanks being deverted at the time of the battle for Singapor. His claim that there were no modern fighters at all is wrong. The British lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Hurricane fighters during the battle. They did well battling the Japanese aircraft but were overwhelmed and lost large numbers on the ground. They lost 3 or their (British) airfields almost immediatly. That left them only one and and they lost it as well. So, where would these two hundred aircraft have been parked? The airfields were taken out by ground forces (artillery). The answer is obvious. They would have been destroyed on the ground or overwhelmed by the Japanese in the air. Additional fighters may have prolonged the battle, but they wouldn't have made up for the blunders of the inept British command that left their flanks wide open and undefended. They foolishly believed the Japanese couldn't traverse the jungles on their flanks with conventional weapons.

Don't obfuscate.

If "200 fighters would not have made a difference" to help the Allies against the Japanese....

.....why would they be any more helpful to Stalin against the Nazis.


FDR was obsessed with the communists.


1. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia.
'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.


Nothing.
Not even America's future.


a. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.



Do you begin to understand the mental condition under discussion?

Obsess:
To preoccupy the mind of excessively.

To have the mind excessively preoccupied with a single emotion or topic

It was essential that the allies keep the USSR in the war with Germany, the question comes down to: could Germany have been defeated without Russia? If so, what would have been the cost to America in casualties and how long would the war have lasted?
If the US had not helped supply the USSR with supplies, the anti-FDR people today would be arguing that FDR was evil because he failed to help the USSR during the war, and America sustained a hundred thousand needless casualties. But then war was not fought to give the anti-FDR posters arguments some 75 years later, but fought to keep America alive and secondly to keep young Americans alive.
Again the question: how many more casualties would America have had without Russia?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PoliticalChic's OP Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin? has been competently answered: to win the war and nothing more.

Let's move on.