War

DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Didn't America send a person to different battle fields to gauge on the ground who they thought was going to win the war so America didn't chose the losing side?
Then Pearl harbour happened and the choice was gone.
Click to expand...
No, FDR founded the UN and he and the majority of congress were liberal democrats, including the republicans. FDR was a pragmatist, but he supported the allied cause from the beginning, most were who were involved in WW1. He was trying to bring the public onside and was slowly shifting, BSC helped with that and was very active with the press and media. It was the blitz and the radio broadcasts from London that really shifted public opinion along with the invasion of western Europe, the threat became obvious to most people.

The American's were not cynically holding back waiting for Mother Russia to bleed the Germans dry, that is Stalinist disinformation, history doesn't work like that, it's complicated. The white trash and simpletons might have thought Hitler was OK, but those with brains who were running the place apprehended the danger and a good thing too. America was not completely unprepared when the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened, they were well on their way rearming and building ships which is why they sprang back so fast, the laws and system of military production were already in place, put there by the war department.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
No, FDR founded the UN and he and the majority of congress were liberal democrats, including the republicans. FDR was a pragmatist, but he supported the allied cause from the beginning, most were who were involved in WW1. He was trying to bring the public onside and was slowly shifting, BSC helped with that and was very active with the press and media. It was the blitz and the radio broadcasts from London that really shifted public opinion along with the invasion of western Europe, the threat became obvious to most people.

The American's were not cynically holding back waiting for Mother Russia to bleed the Germans dry, that is Stalinist disinformation, history doesn't work like that, it's complicated. The white trash and simpletons might have thought Hitler was OK, but those with brains who were running the place apprehended the danger and a good thing too. America was not completely unprepared when the Attack on Pearl Harbor happened, they were well on their way rearming and building ships which is why they sprang back so fast, the laws and system of military production were already in place, put there by the war department.
Click to expand...
Perhaps i was thinking of Herriman.

The most important result of the Beaverbrook-Harriman mission to Moscow was the conclusion agreed upon between Churchill and Roosevelt that the Soviet Union would not collapse by the end of 1941. Additional conditions of the agreement were that even if the Soviet Union was defeated in 1942, keeping Soviet Russia fighting would impose major losses on the Wehrmacht, which would only benefit the United States and the United Kingdom.[10] Harriman has been subsequently criticized for not imposing preconditions on American aid to the Soviet Union, but the American historian, Gerhard Weinberg, has defended him on this point, arguing that in 1941, it was Germany—not the Soviet Union—that represented the main danger to the United States.[7] Furthermore, Joseph Stalin told Harriman that he would refuse American aid if preconditions were attached, leaving Harriman with no alternatives on the issue.[7] Harriman believed if Germany defeated the Soviet Union, then all of the vast natural resources of the Soviet Union would be at the disposal of the Reich, making Germany far more powerful than it already was. Therefore, it was in the best interests of the United States to deny those resources to the Reich.[7] He also pointed out that the defeat of the Soviet Union would free up three million men of the Wehrmacht for operations elsewhere, allowing Hitler to shift money and resources from his army to his navy and potentially increasing the threat to the United States.[10] Harriman told Roosevelt that if Operation Barbarossa was successful in 1941, Hitler would almost certainly defeat Britain in 1942.[10] His promise of $1 billion in aid technically exceeded his brief. Determined to win over the doubtful American public, he used his own funds to purchase time on CBS radio to explain the program in terms of enlightened self-interest. Nonetheless, considerable U.S. public skepticism towards Soviet aid persisted, lifting only with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[11]
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Perhaps i was thinking of Herriman.

The most important result of the Beaverbrook-Harriman mission to Moscow was the conclusion agreed upon between Churchill and Roosevelt that the Soviet Union would not collapse by the end of 1941. Additional conditions of the agreement were that even if the Soviet Union was defeated in 1942, keeping Soviet Russia fighting would impose major losses on the Wehrmacht, which would only benefit the United States and the United Kingdom.[10] Harriman has been subsequently criticized for not imposing preconditions on American aid to the Soviet Union, but the American historian, Gerhard Weinberg, has defended him on this point, arguing that in 1941, it was Germany—not the Soviet Union—that represented the main danger to the United States.[7] Furthermore, Joseph Stalin told Harriman that he would refuse American aid if preconditions were attached, leaving Harriman with no alternatives on the issue.[7] Harriman believed if Germany defeated the Soviet Union, then all of the vast natural resources of the Soviet Union would be at the disposal of the Reich, making Germany far more powerful than it already was. Therefore, it was in the best interests of the United States to deny those resources to the Reich.[7] He also pointed out that the defeat of the Soviet Union would free up three million men of the Wehrmacht for operations elsewhere, allowing Hitler to shift money and resources from his army to his navy and potentially increasing the threat to the United States.[10] Harriman told Roosevelt that if Operation Barbarossa was successful in 1941, Hitler would almost certainly defeat Britain in 1942.[10] His promise of $1 billion in aid technically exceeded his brief. Determined to win over the doubtful American public, he used his own funds to purchase time on CBS radio to explain the program in terms of enlightened self-interest. Nonetheless, considerable U.S. public skepticism towards Soviet aid persisted, lifting only with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[11]
Click to expand...
Remember your history? Germany and Russia had a non-aggression pact and had just carved Poland in half a couple of years before. Stalin was supplying Germany with raw materials until they were attacked, and they almost lost because of Stalin's incompetence, he went catatonic for fucking near a week and thought he was a dead man FFS. He slaughtered the officer corps of the red army out of paranoia a few years before and was responsible for the disaster that befell them. The allies needed to keep Russia in the war and not make a separate peace, as in 1917, giving up turf and supplying Germany again. They didn't realize the whole point was for Hitler to get at Russia so he could attack them, he would not have even gone west in conquest, but once he had western Europe, he could act against Russia, he laid it all out in Mien Kampf, but it was such a shitty book that nobody read it.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
This case has particular features that distinguish it from celebrated leaks in earlier times. There is no suggestion – yet – that the leaks are the work of foreign spies. Nor do they appear to be the work of a whistleblower seeking to expose a scandal, as happened in the Pentagon Papers case during the Vietnam war, or in Edward Snowden’s exposures of US surveillance programmes. There is no hard evidence that the leaker believed, as happened during WikiLeaks, that the material should be put into the public domain on freedom of information or other grounds.

The most important aspect from a European perspective are the doubts documented over Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian air power. That information should never have been seen in public in this way. It could suggest that Ukraine’s low stocks of arms mean its expected spring offensive will be difficult to carry through, leaving Kyiv highly vulnerable to Russian counterattacks. This may mean a less decisive offensive and, instead, a protracted lower intensity conflict. If that is the result, then these leaks have altered the course of history too.

www.theguardian.com

The Guardian view on the Pentagon leaks: this system puts lives at risk | Editorial

Editorial: Publishing internal documents in wartime will always be controversial. But the US secrecy world is not fit for purpose either
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Remember your history? Germany and Russia had a non-aggression pact and had just carved Poland in half a couple of years before. Stalin was supplying Germany with raw materials until they were attacked, and they almost lost because of Stalin's incompetence, he went catatonic for fucking near a week and thought he was a dead man FFS. He slaughtered the officer corps of the red army out of paranoia a few years before and was responsible for the disaster that befell them. The allies needed to keep Russia in the war and not make a separate peace, as in 1917, giving up turf and supplying Germany again. They didn't realize the whole point was for Hitler to get at Russia so he could attack them, he would not have even gone west in conquest, but once he had western Europe, he could act against Russia, he laid it all out in Mien Kampf, but it was such a shitty book that nobody read it.
Click to expand...
Yep i'm familiar with quiet a bit of WW1 and WW2 history- I studied them.
Yours is a simple yet far from concise summery and nothing to do with the quote really.
Germany never had much chance of a successful invasion of Russia even with the surprise Germany had. General Winter is fierce and deadly.
Russia took Berlin and was close to taking Japan. Creating a problem to America due their growing distrust of Stalin- thus two bombs dropped that were not needed to be dropped.

I didnt mind the book. Tough read from memory and i dont remember much about it- last time i read it would of been 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Yep i'm familiar with quiet a bit of WW1 and WW2 history- I studied it.
Yours is a simple yet far from concise summery and nothing to do with the quote really.
Germany never had much chance of a successful invasion of Russia even with the surprise Germany had. General Winter is fierce and deadly.
Russia took Berlin and was close to taking Japan. Creating a problem to America due their growing distrust of Stalin- thus two bombs dropped that were not needed to be dropped.
Click to expand...
If Hitler wasn't an idiot they could have driven to Moscow and all roads, railroads and telephones in Russia lead to Moscow. The reason they were late for Barbarossa was Italy attacked Greece and got its ass whipped by the Greeks the Brits supported the Greeks and the Germans invaded. It fucked everything up so they got a late start.

I can only summarize events here, this isn't a book, or an academic journal.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
If Hitler wasn't an idiot they could have driven to Moscow and all roads, railroads and telephones in Russia lead to Moscow. The reason they were late for Barbarossa was Italy attacked Greece and got its ass whipped by the Greeks the Brits supported the Greeks and the Germans invaded. It fucked everything up so they got a late start.

I can only summarize events here, this isn't a book, or an academic journal.
Click to expand...
Even IF Germany had of takin Moscow then they still haven't taken the country. A city is just a city.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Lucky Luke said:
Even IF Germany had of takin Moscow then they still haven't taken the country. A city is just a city.
Click to expand...
Moscow was the center of the Russian empire and was the hub, with spokes radiating out from it, they could have controlled transport and communications and the Russian government would be in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. Then he could have focused on the oil down south which he desperately needed.
 
Lucky Luke

Lucky Luke

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Moscow was the center of the Russian empire and was the hub, with spokes radiating out from it, they could have controlled transport and communications and the Russian government would be in the middle of nowhere in Siberia. Then he could have focused on the oil down south which he desperately needed.
Click to expand...
Stalin moved everything inland. He 1/2 expected Moscow to fall. Moscow is not even very far into Russian territory. Its just a city.

On another note that come into play later in the war- Notice where Russia was just about to invade the Japanese home islands?

1681516845569.png

Germans didnt get far at all in the scheme of things.

1681516963248.png

And then General winter
1681517193767.png
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
doublejj said:
www.atlanticcouncil.org

Putin cancels Victory Day parades as Ukraine invasion continues to unravel

The cancellation of Victory Day parades in multiple Russian regional capitals is a blow to Putin's personal prestige that exposes the grim reality behind Moscow's upbeat propaganda portrayals of the faltering Ukraine invasion, writes Peter Dickinson.
www.atlanticcouncil.org www.atlanticcouncil.org
Click to expand...
Did they prohibit explosives on the drones, self-destructs, for the May 9th main event on red square? We'll be there, if you won't... Will there be "unofficial" entries? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top