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

Discussion in 'History' started by mikegriffith1, Nov 26, 2019.

  1. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    198,613
    Thanks Received:
    28,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +105,949
    The Italian campaign turned out to be brutal. Those mountains restricted our ability to maneuver and led to large numbers of casualties.

    Getting through the Alps was going to be difficult
     
  2. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    198,613
    Thanks Received:
    28,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +105,949
    In retrospect, FDRs plans in Europe were masterful

    He delayed a US invasion for years while the Soviets did most of the fighting and dying. He built up the US industrial complex to where we were the only remaining economic power on earth.

    The US sustained relatively small casualties and ended up with Industrialized Western Europe. We also ruled as an unchallenged economic and military super power after the war
     
  3. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    39,724
    Thanks Received:
    8,164
    Trophy Points:
    1,330
    Ratings:
    +29,663
    Agree.....They wanted to bypass that and jump the adriatic sea and do a Balklands campaign to avoid some of that.

    Our generals didn't want the mountain campaign either....Britain wanted to spread the German forces on many fronts then look for a weakness and take advantage of it to get into German turf.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    39,724
    Thanks Received:
    8,164
    Trophy Points:
    1,330
    Ratings:
    +29,663
    Yes we used Russians as Cannon Fodder.........Britain honestly wanted more Russians as cannon fodder because he saw what was coming.

    Overlord finished off the Germans..........But at a Great cost in the end.......and it eventually ceded the Eastern half of Germany...............as we STALLED so the Russians would lose more men taking Berlin.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    198,613
    Thanks Received:
    28,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +105,949
    Politically it is easier to sell the public on we are liberating France than we are fighting in the Balklands

    Also, the supply lines are shorter through France
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    39,724
    Thanks Received:
    8,164
    Trophy Points:
    1,330
    Ratings:
    +29,663
    Yes...........France would have felt betrayed.............and yes our supply lines would have been stretched.

    But the Strategy was to gain more of Germany in the end to be in a better position with Poland..........

    In a nut shell, our Generals were Grant..........lets just lower our heads and get it on.........massive front and drive to Germany.........while the British wanted to wear them down and thin them out..........

    In the end............we are all here talking about it from the Cheap Seats.............we weren't there and they were..............Easy to discuss it from the Nose Bleed section of the stadium as always.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    198,613
    Thanks Received:
    28,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +105,949
    Or we just could have allowed Germany to surrender and keep their territory and Death Camps
     
  8. eagle1462010
    Offline

    eagle1462010 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Messages:
    39,724
    Thanks Received:
    8,164
    Trophy Points:
    1,330
    Ratings:
    +29,663
    I never disagreed with Unconditional Surrender.............Had WWI been fought to Unconditional Surrender then I would guess that WWII would never have happened.
     
  9. rightwinger
    Offline

    rightwinger Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    198,613
    Thanks Received:
    28,352
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Ratings:
    +105,949
    Hard to say

    WWI was a massacre for four years. All sides were exhausted. US coming in with fresh troops turned the tide. I can’t blame them for wanting to end it
     
  10. mikegriffith1
    Offline

    mikegriffith1 Mike Griffith

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Messages:
    5,105
    Thanks Received:
    1,532
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +6,455
    FDR would have risked nothing by telling the German resistance that if they could kill Hitler, overthrow the Nazis, seize the government, and agree to give up conquered territory, the U.S. would halt the war and recognize their government. If the resistance had managed to kill Hitler but was unable to take over the government, this still would have constituted major progress and likely would have led to an early end to the fighting. If the resistance was unable to deliver at all, no harm would have been done to our war effort.
     

Share This Page