Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet domination, by proper management of the war to begin with. The idea that a US president would give away a dozen countries in some fool agreement, to a COMMUNIST DICTATOR that used murder and slave labor to sustain himself, is an affront to the American idea of freedom and democracy. It is a betrayal of capitalism, and goes against American foreign policy conducted before and after FDR, generally speaking.
I have to conclude that FDR was a communist, he had no right to make any agreement with Stalin about the fate of other nations, who's fate had not yet been sown. I think he had this all planned out, and was giving Stalin more than he needed so he WOULD take Eastern Europe and KEEP IT. We could have used the LL material and labor that went to the USSR for the war effort on the Western Front or Japan, to speed things up, even if just a little bit.
Instead of giving the USSR more and more materials in 43 and 44 when they were racing twards Eastern Europe, FDR could have had analysts calcutate how much, if anything, to give Stalin based on the rate he was advancing, that would put him closer to where we wanted to MEET him at the end of the war. I don't think we could have saved the Ukraine, but what did Stalin ever do to warrant the kind of trust FDR had in him ? Was it when he shot a bunch of his own generals in the late 30's, or the killing of farmers in the Ukraine, or the new slave labor camps he used to build the railroads ? Gee, I would really want to cut a deal with that guy, lol. You don't elevate a guy like that to the level of a trusted ally like Winston Churchill and freeze out other allies like Poland, Czechoslavakia, Lithuania ect. Think of how many TV sets we could have sold all those people behind the iron curtain in the 50's, Jeezz Louise.
We only had to delay the war in Europe a few months later than the real surrender on May 1st.
Had we taken Berlin in Aug or Sept, guess what ? We then HAVE the nuclear bombs we needed to counteract the more urgent threat, the USSR. And another plus, the USSR would still have their army east of the countries we wanted to keep them out of. And which way does radioactive fallout blow in Eastern Europe, generally speaking.......from west to east ! Jolly Good Show, as Winston Churchill might say. We didn't need the USSR to help with Japan, OR Eastern Europe, we needed them to STAY OUT of those places.
Would the cold war have been quite so cold, if Stalin had been prevented from occupation in Eastern Europe ? The biggest symbols of the cold war were in Eastern Europe, especially the Berlin Wall. Had the iron curtain been confined to Russia, it might have been milder, and the USSR may have collapsed sooner without being able to siphon off what they were getting from Eastern Europe.
We lost the war becasue of FDR, he was a bad war president and if anybody wants to call him a communist, I would not oppose them. I know people were into that sort of thing in the 30's, and FDR had to rival other candidates more leftist than him, like Huey Long, but SELLING OUT Eastern Europe was disgusting, he was the wrong man for WW2.
The US could have saved Eastern Europe from Soviet domination, by proper management of the war to begin with.
Please explain to us how one goes about managing a war. And please tell us when you will have your next lecture at West Point of the Army War College.
Quote:
The idea that a US president would give away a dozen countries
Would you care to name the countries that the western Allies gave away that the Soviets didn't already have?
Quote:
I have to conclude that FDR was a communist, he had no right to make any agreement with Stalin about the fate of other nations,
Yes of course Petain, Vidkun Quisling, Miklós Horthy and others surely should have been consulted.
Quote:
Instead of giving the USSR more and more materials in 43 and 44 when they were racing twards Eastern Europe, FDR could have had analysts calcutate how much, if anything, to give Stalin based on the rate he was advancing, that would put him closer to where we wanted to MEET him at the end of the war. I don't think we could have saved the Ukraine, but what did Stalin ever do to warrant the kind of trust FDR had in him ?
Ah defeating the Germany Army in front of Stalingrad in 1941 and the trashing at Kursk in 1943 long before American material began to make any markable difference in the war on the eastern front.
Quote:
Was it when he shot a bunch of his own generals in the late 30's,
Yes Stalin murdered a good part of the Red Army's officer corps , fortunately he stopped before getting to Georgy Zhukov, Aleksandr Vasilevsky, Ivan Konev, Semyon Timoshenko,
Quote:
We only had to delay the war in Europe a few months later than the real surrender on May 1st.
Had we taken Berlin in Aug or Sept, guess what ? We then HAVE the nuclear bombs we needed to counteract the more urgent threat, the USSR.
The more urgent threat in 1944-45 was Japan. The Soviet Union wouldn't become an "urgent threat" until 1949 when the vastly underrated Soviets developed their own nuclear weapon.
As for the U.S. and Britain taking Berlin.... it only cost the Soviets:
81,116 dead or missing
1,997 tanks
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
And at the end of the day, unlike us, the Soviets didn't have another war to win. And please, we weren't sure that the damned bomb would work until it was actually dropped on Hiroshima.
Quote:
Would the cold war have been quite so cold, if Stalin had been prevented from occupation in Eastern Europe ? The biggest symbols of the cold war were in Eastern Europe, especially the Berlin Wall. Had the iron curtain been confined to Russia, it might have been milder, and the USSR may have collapsed sooner without being able to siphon off what they were getting from Eastern Europe.
Puleeze! The Berlin, as you point out was nothing more than symbolism. The "Cold War" played out on a global scale from Angola to Zimbabwe and every alphabet in between.
Quote:
We lost the war becasue of FDR, he was a bad war president and if anybody wants to call him a communist, I would not oppose them.
Please explain to us how one goes about managing a war. And please tell us when you will have your next lecture at West Point of the Army War College.
Would you care to name the countries that the western Allies gave away that the Soviets didn't already have?
The more urgent threat in 1944-45 was Japan. The Soviet Union wouldn't become an "urgent threat" until 1949 when the vastly underrated Soviets developed their own nuclear weapon.
As for the U.S. and Britain taking Berlin.... it only cost the Soviets:
81,116 dead or missing
1,997 tanks
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
Wars are managed by men like Dwight Eisenhower, they make plans that are tailored to what the president wants.
Most if not all of Eastern Europe was under Nazi control when FDR was giving it away to Stalin in the Tehran Agreement. He flushed millions of people down the toilet.
The more urgent threat was Russia, not Japan, Japan was just about toast but not quite. Here's some more war mangement that you might like. We knew from Iwo Jima and Okinawa that invading Japan was really going to suck. We already cleared them from the shipping lanes of Pacific, and former British and American territory had been reclaimed. Let's think about what was going on in China. If we sent signals to Japan that we might let them keep territory in China, if they team up with Nationalist China to fight Mao. It might have worked. More fun for us to sit back and watch what happens. You had the Japanese forces, Nationalist China, Red China, and maybe the USSR moving in there to carve out a piece. We hope Nationalist China wins, and give them material just like we had been. I don't know if NC goes down first or Japan, but when Japan is ready to surrender, they do so to the US, not Mao. Mao emerges as the winner, just like real history unless Stalin tries to make a play and they get bogged down in a long protracted war, more fun for us while we eat popcorn. Might even skew the plans for Kim Jug-Head the First to pull his crap in Korea, without the full attention and support from Mao, whom might still be a little busy trying to earn his red star. Not a very proactive plan, but easy to execute and manage.
About Berlin this was not going to be easy. I'm glad you posted Soviet casualties for Berlin, that is the best counter argument you have for letting Russia take it instead. It would be a good argument if the USSR got there first on it's own without US LL assistance, engineers and technical advisors.....via a president willing to sell out Eastern Europe in advance, to a butcher that could never be trusted in the first place. And again, I'm going by the timeframe of 12 to 18 months extra time NJGOAT said we might have had. We could have used the first atomic bomb on Berlin to force surrender in that time frame, might have given Stalin something to think about, that he may not DARE enter Eastern Europe. And no, I have no family heritage from Eastern Europe, but on a map it looks just as important to me as France or Italy. If we didn't care about other countries then why do Normandy in the first place ?
Now I answered all your questions ovacatto, so tell me, what would you do in the hypothetical situation I proposed, where Stalin is delayed but we are still bound with the FDR agreement to give him East Europe. Nazi's surrender and all of Eastern Europe wants mother green and her killing machine to move in there and protect them. Stalin was delayed but now he's strong as ever, moving fast and knocking on the door of Eastern Europe. What do you think the proper course of action for the US to be ? And let's say we have 3 atomic bombs and more on the way.
Wars are managed by men like Dwight Eisenhower, they make plans that are tailored to what the president wants.
Dude, what are you reading or smoking?
The Soviet offensive began in 1941 and never looked back. By the time Tehran rolled around in 1943 the Soviets had regained half of there territory and nothing seemed capable of stopping them. By 1944 the Red Army had advanced into Poland, Rumania, and Bulgaria while knocking on the door of Yugoslavia, Hungry and Czechoslovakia, while the U.S. had barely broken out of Normandy.
Roosevelt didn't give Eastern Europe to Stalin, it wasn't his to give. The Russian took only a complete idiot at the time would have argued that the western Allies could do anything about it.
Quote:
The more urgent threat was Russia, not Japan,
Roosevelt had a hard enough time selling Europe first to an American people who clearly had their eyes set westward to Japan and considering the projections of what it would take to bring Japan to total defeat any side tracking of the Pacific war to fight an ally that wouldn't be perceived as a threat for more than a decade later is insane.
Quote:
It would be a good argument if the USSR got there first on it's own without US LL assistance, engineers and technical advisors.....
What is with this misguided and actually very ignorant view that the Soviets were dependent upon LL to say nothing of your claim about the roll of engineers and advisors to take Berlin? By 1945 the Soviets were out producing anything given by Lend Lease on their own.
Quote:
Now I answered all your questions ovacatto, so tell me, what would you do in the hypothetical situation I proposed, where Stalin is delayed but we are still bound with the FDR agreement to give him East Europe.
You've yet to post a even a logical hypothetical on how you were going to slow down the Soviet advance, In fact had Stalin in the least suspected a purposeful attempt by the west to slow his advances any diplomatic attempts would be seen as self-serving and hostile to the Soviets and that wouldn't have bought the west a bowl of borst.
Quote:
Nazi's surrender and all of Eastern Europe wants mother green and her killing machine to move in there and protect them.
You seem quite oblivious or the role that Communist played in the partisan warfare that was being conducted across eastern europe. Yes the Fascist harbored some fantasy that as soon as they surrendered to the U.S. that they and the U.S would join together and fight the Soviets a true mistake on their part.
Wars are managed by men like Dwight Eisenhower, they make plans that are tailored to what the president wants.
Most if not all of Eastern Europe was under Nazi control when FDR was giving it away to Stalin in the Tehran Agreement. He flushed millions of people down the toilet.
The more urgent threat was Russia, not Japan, Japan was just about toast but not quite. Here's some more war mangement that you might like. We knew from Iwo Jima and Okinawa that invading Japan was really going to suck. We already cleared them from the shipping lanes of Pacific, and former British and American territory had been reclaimed. Let's think about what was going on in China. If we sent signals to Japan that we might let them keep territory in China, if they team up with Nationalist China to fight Mao. It might have worked. More fun for us to sit back and watch what happens. You had the Japanese forces, Nationalist China, Red China, and maybe the USSR moving in there to carve out a piece. We hope Nationalist China wins, and give them material just like we had been. I don't know if NC goes down first or Japan, but when Japan is ready to surrender, they do so to the US, not Mao. Mao emerges as the winner, just like real history unless Stalin tries to make a play and they get bogged down in a long protracted war, more fun for us while we eat popcorn. Might even skew the plans for Kim Jug-Head the First to pull his crap in Korea, without the full attention and support from Mao, whom might still be a little busy trying to earn his red star. Not a very proactive plan, but easy to execute and manage.
About Berlin this was not going to be easy. I'm glad you posted Soviet casualties for Berlin, that is the best counter argument you have for letting Russia take it instead. It would be a good argument if the USSR got there first on it's own without US LL assistance, engineers and technical advisors.....via a president willing to sell out Eastern Europe in advance, to a butcher that could never be trusted in the first place. And again, I'm going by the timeframe of 12 to 18 months extra time NJGOAT said we might have had. We could have used the first atomic bomb on Berlin to force surrender in that time frame, might have given Stalin something to think about, that he may not DARE enter Eastern Europe. And no, I have no family heritage from Eastern Europe, but on a map it looks just as important to me as France or Italy. If we didn't care about other countries then why do Normandy in the first place ?
Now I answered all your questions ovacatto, so tell me, what would you do in the hypothetical situation I proposed, where Stalin is delayed but we are still bound with the FDR agreement to give him East Europe. Nazi's surrender and all of Eastern Europe wants mother green and her killing machine to move in there and protect them. Stalin was delayed but now he's strong as ever, moving fast and knocking on the door of Eastern Europe. What do you think the proper course of action for the US to be ? And let's say we have 3 atomic bombs and more on the way.
I too find your argument absurd. The irony and double-standard here is that FDR is one of the few who wanted the U.S. to get involved in the war to begin with. Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans had an isolationist view and did not want to intervene in Europe's war. This viewpoint included most of the U.S. Congress, and virtually all of FDR's political opponents, namely the conservative Republican Party. FDR had to sell conservatives into getting involved in the war. Imagine that in today's world. Democrats having to sell Republicans on war.
People of your conservative mindset back in the day aggressively attacked FDR for even thinking about going to war with Germany. Imagine how they would react had FDR advocated going to war with the Soviet Union! I find it ironic that you attack FDR for not going to war with the Soviets, yet people of your mindset back in the day, would have attacked FDR had he so much as mentioned going to war with the Soviet Union. FDR just cannot win in your regard. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
I too find your argument absurd. The irony and double-standard here is that FDR is one of the few who wanted the U.S. to get involved in the war to begin with. Prior to Pearl Harbor, most Americans had an isolationist view and did not want to intervene in Europe's war. This viewpoint included most of the U.S. Congress, and virtually all of FDR's political opponents, namely the conservative Republican Party. FDR had to sell conservatives into getting involved in the war. Imagine that in today's world. Democrats having to sell Republicans on war.
People of your conservative mindset back in the day aggressively attacked FDR for even thinking about going to war with Germany. Imagine how they would react had FDR advocated going to war with the Soviet Union! I find it ironic that you attack FDR for not going to war with the Soviets, yet people of your mindset back in the day, would have attacked FDR had he so much as mentioned going to war with the Soviet Union. FDR just cannot win in your regard. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.
Stalin and Churchill both wanted the US in the war. I posted a few FDR quotes he made about Stalin in the Yalta thread, please read them, Stalin had great influence over FDR, more than Churchill, I find it disturbing. I'm not saying FDR should go to war with Stalin in 41 either, but just to be wary of him for his reputation at that point. He did invade Poland and cut a backroom deal with Hitler by 41 so how could you trust him ?
As a US president, you should care about democracy being restored in Europe after the war, as much as defeating the Nazi's, so we don't have fight another war in 20 years. Democracy was our thing, communist oppression was Stalin's thing, they are not campatible. After Stalin made the Poland cut with Hitler, the "Lets Help Stalin All We Can" mindset should have been abandoned. We needed to concentrate on the Western Front, getting as far east into Europe as possible, force the surrender of Germany. We needed to take Eastern Europe before Stalin did, and establish free elections and self determination, and sell lots of cars and TV sets.
Conservatives were the first to catch on to the "Red Scare" in the 40's and start reacting to it. Later in the 50's some of them overreacted, but that was mostly a Roy Cohn production. They did actually find some communists, reduced their influence in Hollywood and the media, and reduced some of their espionage activity in the US.
Falsely accusing people of being communist, I do not approve of. For example Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter are not communists, but FDR was for reasons I have already stated, FDR was pretty much a communist for being in bed with the biggest one of all, Joe Stalin. In the 30's it was OK for FDR to be a communist, using the government to build huge infrastructure projects that were in direct competition with utility companies, Social Security for old people, banking reform ect.
These ideas came from the far left, Huey Long was a snake but he got a lot of schools built for poor children in Louisiana, and eliminated the poll tax so everyone could vote. Later Dwight Eisenhower built the Interstate hiway system, it was in direct competition with railroads and was financed by high taxes on the rich, but was it still communism anymore ?
Stalin was the dark side of communism, FDR was the good side, and he was really a socialist because he was freely elected and removable, but he lusted for power like a communist, and tampered with government like a communist would do, to rig it in his favor, such as when he packed the supreme court so he could gain even more power, and his "I'm here for life" mindset.
As a US president, you should care about democracy being restored in Europe after the war, as much as defeating the Nazi's, so we don't have fight another war in 20 years.
Oh, puleeze! Roosevelt care a great deal about democracy which is why he did his best over those areas that he actually could control, like disabusing both Churchill and de Gaulle of their post war ambitions to regain their lost empires, which at the time concerned far more countries than eastern and central Europe.
Quote:
Democracy was our thing, communist oppression was Stalin's thing, they are not campatible.
What are you smoking? This country has supported dictators and potentates from the beginning of time when it suited our commercial and geo-political interest so raise the "Arsenal of Democracy" flag up...
Quote:
After Stalin made the Poland cut with Hitler, the "Lets Help Stalin All We Can" mindset should have been abandoned. We needed to concentrate on the Western Front, getting as far east into Europe as possible, force the surrender of Germany. We needed to take Eastern Europe before Stalin did, and establish free elections and self determination, and sell lots of cars and TV sets.
Well that goes to show just how absurd your argument is. Had it not been for that well know communist Franklin Roosevelt the Soviets would have been marching into Paris while the western Allies were mucking around in the middle east protecting Churchill's "the Sun Never Sets" ambitions. Remember it was Roosevelt that pushed for an invasion of France while Churchill attempted to find every excuse in the book for fighting somewhere, anywhere, other than northwest Europe!
Either way as I was prepared to write tomorrow, but the time of the first meeting of the Big Three in Tehran, the Red Army had defeated the German 6th Army in detail, and followed that by routing the Germans at Kursk. From that point on there was a single person with a bit of sense who didn't realize that the Soviets were on the road to defeat Hitler.
As for your earlier argument claiming that Roosevelt gave away everything... there that small detail of trying to convince Stalin to join the fight against Japan once Germany was defeated. Roosevelt wisely understood that it was pointless to **** on Marshal Stalin over a fait accompli and lose Soviet participation in the defeat of Japan (you know the million Japanese troops in Manchuria that no one wanted to see moved back to Japan in the event of the foreseen need to invade?)
Quote:
Conservatives were the first to catch on to the "Red Scare" in the 40's
Hell the Red Scare dated as far back as the 1919's! Palmer Raids? Do you know anything about history?
As for the U.S. and Britain taking Berlin.... it only cost the Soviets:
81,116 dead or missing
1,997 tanks
2,108 artillery pieces
917 aircraft
And at the end of the day, unlike us, the Soviets didn't have another war to win. And please, we weren't sure that the damned bomb would work until it was actually dropped on Hiroshima.
I have no quarrel with your main points, just with some of the supporting details. We felt certain that the Hiroshima bomb would work. The other type of bomb was tested in a remote section of New Mexico on July 16, 1945. That was conclusive proof that it would work.
As for the taking of Berlin, it's true that the Soviets paid a hell of a price, but it's a good bet that had the Americans and British been the ones advancing on Berlin, German soldiers would have been much more ready to surrender to them. Even GLAD to surrender to them. Whereas they knew what treatment awaited them if they surrendered to the Soviets. Therefore, the Americans and British would not have paid anywhere near what the Soviets paid to take Berlin.
Yeah, I might have gotten swept up in the argument on that point. I was a bit annoyed at the time.
Quote:
As for the taking of Berlin...but it's a good bet that had the Americans and British been the ones advancing on Berlin, German soldiers would have been much more ready to surrender to them.
I suppose that would be predicated on where the Red Army was at the time. If the Soviets were no where near Berlin I think that I would take that bet on how eager the Germans would have been to surrender.
Either way, an interesting piece regarding Eisenhower's decision not to press for Berlin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
