Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[bendog]

The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing. With our allies and the Germans both. But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.

He knew the 6th Army was being annihilated at Stalingrad. The implications of that victory for Stalin is recognized in Russia but mostly ignored or at least underestimated by the west. FDR understood what it meant. A surrender to the west could not and would not save Germany.

He explicitly warned us not to get caught up in any former European colonies ... and we fell right into that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's begin


1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is the truth:

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.

Blatant lie No. 1

Your opinion sans explanation.....

Might mean something if your opinion did.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.

. . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.

Well, even if that were true, the folks at the time thought it was worth it. They kept reelecting him over and over. Couldn't be happier with their President. They loved that guy.

Exactly the sort of change of subject/ tap dance that you have become famous for...and have resulted in your status:
David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation.



"...even if that were true...."

That truth is the point.



As for the rest....covered by the first Republican President:
'You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing. With our allies and the Germans both. But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.

Everything I've posted is true.



Let's boil it down to this, see if you can deny:

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

Yep.


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

Yep.


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


Yep.



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

 

[Camp]

Let's begin


1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is the truth:

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.

Blatant lie No. 1

Your opinion sans explanation.....

Might mean something if your opinion did.....

I may have to apologize after reviewing your statement. You are saying that there is no way to argue that either answer a. or answer b. is truth. Your claim is that the statement that Roosevelt was aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda is untrue and there is no way to argue that the statement is truthful. The same for your claim in b. that Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt. You are saying that that statement is untrue and there is no way to argue that it is truthful.
Both a. and b. are false statements and hence can not be argued as true. I agree with you.

You admit the defeat and falsehood of your grand conspiracy theory in the very start of presenting your thesis.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.

. . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.

That's the real FDR...a Stalin Sock Puppet even AFTER UNCLE JOE STARVED 3 MILLION CHILDREN TO DEATH IN THE UKRAINE IN 1933

Yep. And don't forget the Russian people loved good ol' Uncle Joe too . . . except perhaps the 30 to 40 million he deep sixed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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

 

[regent]

The real problem is that the Republicans have no FDR, they have a Lincoln but the board= Republicans don't seem to bring old Abe into the FDR argument much. Perhaps Lincoln was too liberal for most?
So what do Republicans do with FDR's solid place in history? They try to attach conspiracies, communist plots, Stalinism, Trumanism, the war, Peal Harbor, clogged up toilets and even the Great Depression on FDR. The sad thing is for all their hard work and historical distortions history their efforts are ignored by historians, and life goes on as if their arguments didn't exist.
That's gotta hurt.

 

[Camp]

FDR must be demonized. The oligarchs and corporatist demand it. The accomplishments of FDR are constant reminders that progressive policies, liberal attitudes and even experiments in socialism have benefited generations of Americans and continue to be visible indisputable successes. The FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous. Some of the nations greatest accomplishments were created during his tenure and at his direction and guidance.

 

[gipper]

When will Americans wake up to the fact, that our political leadership is ROTTEN to the core...and the most rotten of all, is that sick old fool FDR.

The unbelieveable betrayal continues with the following....

Stalin receives FDR’s blessing as the first American president to officially recognize the Soviet Union. Putin receives the scorn of the current regime in Washington. Stalin? Well, let’s allow Robert Nisbet tell the story, from his book “Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship.”

Roosevelt, of course, made many concessions to Stalin during the war; I will not focus on the early years, but begin with Yalta – in February, 1945. By this point, the war in Europe was nearing an end and Americans were moving successfully across the Pacific toward Japan. Certainly, the worst attributes of Stalin and the Soviets were clear to Roosevelt and the administration.

In other words, by this point there was no need (as if there ever was one) for further favors to be passed the Soviets’ way; there was no excuse (as if there ever was one) for claiming ignorance of the unfathomable murder that coursed through Stalin’s veins.

Yalta did not hand Eastern Europe to Stalin – he already occupied or would soon occupy much of this, as privately agreed with Roosevelt in Tehran in November 1943. This private agreement was given concrete form by Roosevelt’s continuing insistence that the Allies not proceed into Central Europe via the Mediterranean to head off the Soviets (as Churchill would have preferred). Stalin wanted only an assault from the west against the Germans; Roosevelt ensured this would be the focus.

Yalta offered something to Stalin that he could never achieve on his own:

I have just stressed that Yalta is not the source of the Soviet possessions in eastern Europe; that Teheran is. But Yalta performed a service to the Soviets that was almost as important to Stalin as the occupied areas themselves. This was the invaluable service of giving moral legitimation to what Stalin had acquired by sheer force. (P. 70)

As Chester Wilmot wrote in his The Struggle for Europe, “the real issue was not what Stalin would or could have taken but what he was given the right to do.” (P. 71)

That Roosevelt did not agree to send the Allied military into central Europe through the Mediterranean and stop Stalin from taking even more territory is one thing; to legitimize the dark night over Eastern Europe is quite another.

…not only did power over the Baltic and Balkan peoples pass to Stalin; these people had to watch what democracy and freedom they had known before the war disappear, and then suffer the added humiliation of seeing such words as “free elections,” “sovereignty,” “democracy,” “independence,” and “liberation” deliberately corrupted, debased, made duplicitous…. (P. 71)

Kind of like the elections in Crimea.

After one of the plenary sessions at Yalta, Roosevelt wrote privately to Stalin regarding the Polish government-in-exile in London:

“The United States will never lend its support in any way to any provisional government in Poland that would be inimical to your interests.” (P. 72)

Yalta removed the post-war possibility of the Americans stating to Stalin “Get out.” Imagine: the United States government legitimized a massive land-grab by one of the two worst murderers of the 20th century.

Roosevelt further agreed to every request Stalin had in the Far East as a condition to join the battle against the Japanese – much of the territory belonging (or rightly reverting) to the Chinese, but handed to Stalin without consulting Chiang Kai-shek.

Back to Yalta: what happened immediately after the summit?

On March 6 messages reached Churchill…about mass arrests taking place in Cracow… As many as 6,000 former Home Army officers were put in a camp…. (P. 78)

Churchill notified Roosevelt; Roosevelt did not protest to Stalin.

On March 21, Averill Harriman carried a note personally to Roosevelt:

“We must come to clearly realize that the Soviet program is the establishment of totalitarianism, ending personal liberty and democracy as we know it.” (P. 81)

As if this was not known in 1933.

A most interesting development regarded the direct communication between Eisenhower and the Soviets. This was discussed between Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta:

“The President said he felt that the armies were getting close enough to have contact between them and he hoped General Eisenhower would communicate directly with the Soviet Staff rather than through the Chiefs of Staff in London and in Washington.” (P. 84)

Stalin readily agreed. Stalin was even more pleased when he received a telegram from Eisenhower on March 28. In it, Eisenhower outlined his military strategy in the coming weeks, making no mention of Berlin – despite Berlin being included in the Combined Chief’s strategy that was unanimously approved at the beginning of February. (P. 84)

Stalin’s joy must have been intense…. The Soviet capture of Berlin, courtesy of General Eisenhower, would be a crowning completion to a larger Soviet plan to assume hegemony in all of central Europe…. (P. 84)

Nisbet suggests that Eisenhower would never send such a telegram on his own authority – Ike had the endorsement of Marshall, and it is highly doubtful that Marshall’s endorsement came without Roosevelt’s approval, if not at Roosevelt’s direction.

“What difference did this make?” you ask. “The Soviets would have captured Berlin with or without Eisenhower’s permission.”

Not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended – with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)
US Supports Giving Half of Europe to Russia ? LewRockwell.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gipper, the enemy was fascism and militarism then not communism.

That came later.

 

[regent]

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

 

[Unkotare]

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

FThe FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous.

Throwing around 100,000 innocent, loyal, brave Americans into CONCENTRATION CAMPS was "righteous"? Really? Playing the useful fool for one of the most blood-soaked dictators in human history was "righteous"? You might want to look up "righteous" in the dictionary again.

 

[gipper]

Gipper, the enemy was fascism and militarism then not communism.

That came later.

That's the thing Jake. You have failed understand and accept the truth.

The US should never have aligned with the USSR before and during WWII. Both Fascism and Communism were enemies of all people who wished to live in freedom. Sadly, we had a POTUS before and during WWII who failed to comprehend this, and willingly and gladly sided with Communism.

 

[gipper]

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

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

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

 

[gipper]

FDR must be demonized. The oligarchs and corporatist demand it. The accomplishments of FDR are constant reminders that progressive policies, liberal attitudes and even experiments in socialism have benefited generations of Americans and continue to be visible indisputable successes. The FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous. Some of the nations greatest accomplishments were created during his tenure and at his direction and guidance.

Terribly foolish and uninformed post.

Few if any of the oligarchy and corporatists demonize FDR...because they love him...just like you do.

 

[Camp]

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

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

Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million. The Germans lost as many men at Stalingrad as the US lost in the entire European campaign, 416,800.

http://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

 

[Camp]

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

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

You are good at being a wise guy and being a conceited little prick, but you really aren't able to back up your crap. What you call "comic book thinking" is being backed up in this thread by reliable and politically neutral sources. Your thinking that cannibalizing the battlefield is about picking up swords and clubs shows your lack of understanding about military science, particularly logistics. Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel. It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.

Lack of knowledge about Soviet production during the war is an amateurs tell.
Soviets produced over 36,000 IL-2 Shtumovik's during the war, constantly improving it's effectiveness. Known as "Chunks", they were produced in Russian factories. These were the tank killers, the Russian version of a WWII "Wort Hog". They were called "Flying Tanks" buy the troops.
Russia produced it's own tanks. Over 64,500 T-34's and T-34-85's were produced. Add over 14,000 SU-70 series TD's plus smaller quantities of Heavies and experimental versions of various T's and TD's and the number rises to over 100,000 Tank's and Tracked Tank Destroyers produced in Russian factories during the time they were fighting the German onslaught. That is over 100,000 armored tracked vehicles, not to included standard armored infantry support and transport vehicles.

Ilyushin*IL-2 | World of Warplanes

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQO4URJhLTQ"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQO4URJhLTQ[/ame]


[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE[/ame]