“Of course we can beat them. I shall drag the United States in.” Churchill, 1940
on 08/21/2009 at 11:59 AM
Brit to his mates:
The 3 problems with the yanks are;
They’re overpaid, over sexed and over here.
Yanks to his pals:
The 3 problems with the brits are;
They’re under paid, under sexed, and under Eisenhower.
Posted by XD45c
08/21/2009 at 04:25 PM
You beat me to it XD45c!
P.S.
A very good book to recommend. “Panzer Commander” by Hans von Luck.
Follows his campaigning from Poland, to France, to the USSR, to Africa and back to France. He eventually ends up a POW in the Soviet Union, but I haven’t reached that part yet.
Weren’t there a ton of privately owned rifles loaned to the British Crown by U.S. citizens, and after the war, those were never returned?
As Roosavelt was a communist do you really think it was an accident he bankrupted England? without english invention (and polish) there was no way of the USA winning the war, the mustang was initialised to a British specification and had no decent engine, radar, axis codes, jet engines.The damndest thing is most English are worse of now (soon to be joined by you yanks) than if we would have thrown in our forces to destroy communism.
Posted by Chris Edwards
08/21/2009 at 10:02 PM
To our British cousins we acknowledge your suffering and loss of Freedom under the Socialist Bastards.
Unfortunately it looks like the US will never again be able to help you defeat a common Enemy.
We seem to be going down the same road you have been on.
As for myself, I would be happy to donate my personal weapons to help you throw off your oppressors.
Unfortunately our current Government would look upon that as an Illegal Export of Arms.
I am getting older and the young people here have not been taught the lessons of history.
I have grandchildren but they are still young and will probably end up good Socialists as well.
Many of our young men rest in the graveyards of Europe, The Yank along side the Tommy.
May God Grant Mercy for their Faults, Glory for their Selfless Acts and Ease the Sorrows of those left behind.
Pieper: Sorry I haven’t had much time to check in, but fascinating posts you have going here. And why do I get the impression this is becoming all-too familiar?
Chris Edwards:
I think we might need to open the rubber room up.
Roosavelt was a communist do you really think it was an accident he bankrupted England?
Firstly, unless you are talking about Alex Roosavelt, the imaginary Communist mole on the War Board that singlehandedly robbed the Bank of England of all its gold who I invented simply to take advantage of your spelling error, you need to brush up on your history.
Roosevelt was not a Communist. Socialist? MAYBE, to a VERY limited extent, and only on certain issues (his pro-British, Interventionist, and “Imperialist” stances made him a VERY high-priority target for the American socialists of his day, and for all the talks regarding his warm relationship with “Uncle Joe” he was always somewhat suspicious of Stalin, and towards the end of his life certainly was wising up). More likely he was a typical Liberal Statist who- for all his flaws- was committed to Democratic-Republicanism and a highly-neutered (probably beyond the point that was wise, but still) but still running Capitalism, much like Wilson was (who I have seen called FASCIST of all things! Do people call Lincoln a Nazi or a Communist now???), as were many of his generation and the one before that. He was not the best ally, but he was an ally.
And no, it was not a coincidence. Lend-Lease happened BEFORE we entered the war, and thus when we were still in the Great Depression. We NEEDED solid capital, and the Western Allies (mainly the Brits) needed equipment: it was an easy switch.
without english invention (and polish) there was no way of the USA winning the war
Um, come again?
A. In a war in the Pacific (like what started this thing), the European Western Allies took very much a back row seat in the action. Perhaps the diffusion of forces Westward to face the British in India was necessary to thin out and then defeat the Japanese, but I doubt it. The simple fact of the matter is that “Island-Hopping” diffused their land units and made large portions of their army absolutely useless (take a look at “Fortress Islands” like Rabaul and Taiwan that had hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and their gear trapped in and starving serving no purpose whatsoever as we safely bypassed them). As for the Naval contribution, the European contribution to the Naval campaign was relatively marginal: the Dutch fleet in the Far East was reduced to a handful of subs VERY quickly, and while those subs were quite useful, I doubt they were make-or-break factors; the British fleet was mauled in the South China Sea campaign and lost its major base with the fall of Singapore, and was so badly crippled in the campaign for the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal that they had to retreat all the way to Eastern AFRICA to recover (and they really only managed to get back in the game towards the end, as they began to prepare for an invasion of Malaysia); the Aussies and Kiwis were bloodied in the Coral Sea and provided mainly a supporting role in the battle, and none of the European allies really EVER fielded much of an air force outside of India. The US by FAR carried the brunt of the conflict in the Pacific, and while the European Allies MIGHT have tipped the scale, that is very much in doubt.
B. In Europe, the matter is far more difficult: the simple fact of the matter is that there is no getting around the fact that the Soviets carried the brunt of the war against Germany. However, if the European Allies had collapsed to such a degree that their help could not be counted on for a European campaign, I don’t see much that would prevent Hitler from going ahead and launching Barbarossa like he did historically. This time, however, he has a far better chance of actually WINNING, given his relatively unified purpose and his ability to dedicate far larger forces for the invasion and far less to fighting the Western Allies. In such a case, the Soviets could well loose the war, and even if they didn’t, they would be far more crippled than they historically were (no minor accomplishment, if you have studied the 1941-42 campaigns). As such, the ability of the US to actually breach “Festung Europa” to the point that they and the Soviets and any allies they pick up can defeat the Germans is very much in doubt. The retaking of the British Isles would undoubtably delay the campaign for months, particularly if Ireland is occupied (or worse, an ally of the Germans), and the lack of a Mediterranean front will DEFINITELY hurt a LOT, particularly if the Suez is held by the Germans and if Spain and/or Portugal have joined the Axis. Very difficult, and the chance for catastrophe is far greater than it would be in the Pacific, so you might actually be right. But, if large sections of Southern Africa have remained loyal to the Western Allies (a likely possibility, given the distance from Berlin and the lack of any real credible Axis forces there), it may be possible, though that would require at least some rump European allies, or at least resistance willing to throw their hats in with the US against both the Germans and the Soviets.
C. However, on this one, you are undoubtably wrong. The “Polish” intervention? Even if we are to ignore the meaning and connotations of the word “intervention,” I have to tell you that there is a HUGE problem with this. While I sympathize with the Poles, their plight, and the sacrifices they made to the cause while they were being sold down the river, I am required to empahsize repeatedly that THEY WERE NOT A MAJOR FORCE IN THIS WAR PAST 1939!
Their technical aid? Invaluable. Their aid on the Enigma? Brilliant and much needed. Their fighting men? Bold and of great use. Throughout the world, it may be safely said that the contributions of Polish soldiers (both East and West) were instrumental in the preservation of freedom for another generation.
But reality has to sink in eventually, and the fact remains that Polish forces were on a downward spiral throughout this period of time (though very little if any fault of their own), and as time went on, the number of Poles in arms in general dropped lower and lower (with only minor checks from recruiting), particularly for those units outside of Soviet control. And they were never that large to begin with.
At the height of their relative power in late 1940-early 1941, the following Allied armies had more men under arms than the Poles;
* The Yugoslavs
* The Ethiopians (who, it must be remembered, were almost universally limited to fighting in Eastern Africa, and who for all intents and purposes stopped fighting in the war by 1941 and literally by 1943, when the last few rag-tag Axis soldiers came out of the hills due to the armistice)
* The Australians
* The New Zealanders
* The Dutch
* The Chinese (had not entered the general war yet)
and
* The Canadians
And as time went on, it didn’t get any better.
The simple fact is that by the time the war ended in 1945, the Poles were decimated. All emotional dedication and obligations aside, the simple fact is that even before the war ended, the total number of Polish soldiers in the field had entered a slump that even POW recruiting could not fix, and without those loyal to the Soviets in the East, the numbers look even worse. The truth of the matter is that the campaigns of 1944 were the death knell for an independent Poland, with the AK being utterly mauled, those in the West still taking large casualties, and those in the East kept deliberately low and under Soviet domination. Polish “intervention” could hardly have swayed the outcome of the war by much, particularly in the late 1940- early 1941 period. And they absolutely could not participate in the Pacific War, because the sad fact of the matter is that by the end of the European War, they barely had the strength left to fight in their own. And the tragedy of that fact is only remotely matched by the near-inevitability of that.
While the Poles fought valiantly and with great skill and honor, the Free French, the Belgians, and the Dutch all played larger roles, and towards the end of the war, the Poles in the West were on the verge of being eclipsed by BRAZIL of all nations. Meaningful? Yes. Worthy? Yes. Decisive? Probably not.
the mustang was initialised to a British specification and had no decent engine, radar, axis codes, jet engines.
Are you even TRYING to make sense now? Are you just TOSSING things together and yelling at FDR for it? That is both petty and stupid, and not something I shall tolerate.
1. “No Decent Engine?” Au contraire, if you KNEW anything about military aircraft and engines, you would KNOW that the Mustang was ONE OF THE FASTEST AND MOST STABLE HEAVY FIGHTERS IN THE FRIKKING WAR, oftne carrying payloads in weapons, armor, and fuel that VASTLY exceeded that of even a few JETS of the era! Obviously, the engine was hardly lacking.
2. “Radar?” I love WWII fighter games as much as the next guy (if not more), but the fact is that NOBODY had radars installed on the damn planes in the early days (you had to get your instructions from the Radars on the ground via radio in order to use them), and this fault was READILY rectified in the later generation.
3. “AXIS CODES?” Have you SEEN the inside of a WWII plane sometime this eternity? THEY AREN"T MUCH, and I VERY highly doubt I could fit in one of them even if you removed 90% of the devices. This was a UNIVERSAL flaw, and was only fixed by having decryption on the ground break the codes and relay everything back to you. This was the NORM for most WWII aircraft, so you can hardly blame that.
4. “Jet Engines?” JET ENGINES? JET ENGINES? Do you believe what you are saying anymore, or are you just going off as you go along? Newsflash: NOT A SINGLE FRICKKING NATION IN THE WORLD HAD A JET PLANE IN WIDESPREAD PRODUCTION DURING THE TIME THIS PLANE WAS DESIGNED! And even AFTER jet planes came into (EXTREMELY) limited production, they were a TINY MINORITY of what each power had, if they had them AT ALL! You cannot fault FDR for something as rediculous as this, even if you hadn’t yourself shown the grounds on which he cannot be faulted for this.
Let’s look at your sentence again:
the mustang was initialised to a British specification and had no decent engine, radar, axis codes, jet engines
See something strange about this that completely blows any point you were trying to make to pieces?
How about now?
the mustang was initialised to a British specification and had no decent engine, radar, axis codes, jet engines
So, let me get this straight: FDR is unreasonably trying to bleed the British white by having manufacturers in a project he probably never personally saw FOLLOW the instructions the BRITISH themselves gave the manufacturers?
How many mental aerobics do you need to preform come to that conclusion?
I am getting sick and tired of cleaning up after this, so for the love of GOD DO THE EFFING RESEARCH before you shoot off like this. I don’t like doing this, but I will not allow the reputation of a man to be slandered unfairly and without cause, PARTICULARLY a man whom the West owes much to, for all his (NUMEROUS NUMEROUS NUMEROUS) flaws.
Posted by Turtler
08/22/2009 at 01:48 AM
Swedeboy:
Thank you for that.
I cannot possibly add anything more.
Posted by Turtler
08/22/2009 at 01:48 AM
T. Well done sir.
One other thing of note and it’s been mentioned before.
American industry. And no one was bombing our factories.Turtler the point Chris was making was that Mustang as delivered had an Allison engine. The performance at altitude was inadequate. The British fitted it with a vastly superior Rolls Royce merlin and thus created possibly the best fighter of WW2. Maybe you need to do a bit more research.
Turtler, thanks for correcting my missing"and". I use the word communist because that is what and honest socialist is (yes I intended that oxymoron) public opin ion was then, as now shaped by the seheeple reading the news, Read up on how the brit airforce order new planes, except the hurricane, spitfire and mosquito (they had their specifications written post design, and the mustang specs were written from the combat experience with the spit (you would think that free market plane designers and builders knew better than the desk jockeys in the minestry).
Jo Stalin played the allies (read Churchills war diaries, the dipstick yank froze Churchill out after D Day was over and was suckered by Uncle Jo, as you would expect for a “socialist”. The poles, while conductors of their own fate were the ones who obtained and cracked the enigma, it would have taken a lot longer for the english geniuses to get where they were getting anyway, read it up!. They also supplied a lot of great pilots.
I could argue that without American intervention Hitler would have taken stalin out, dont forget it is only the media and hollywood that pitch Hitler as worse than Stalin, real world , Slain murdered more Russians that Hitler murdered Jews, gypsies, and enemies! the only thing worse than a communist is an islamic communist (if such a depraved critter exists)
The mosquito was faster more airobatic and carried more and heavier war loads (including radar) the mustang was another average american plane without the merlin. radar was widespread in english plane fairly early on, radar was only in england in 39, I never said in cockpits!.
The only real threat fro Hitler to England were the subs, radar, enigma cracking, decent convoy cover was controlling them when the greatest USA help came along and that was freighters to replace those lost, had the allies not wasted silly amounts of goods and ships helping the bigger evil we would have been fine! in 1940 we had CAM ships that took out the long range planes the germans depended on to run the wolf packs. Dont forget Hitler never wanted war with england.
What lost the war for axis was the USA industrial output, a product of capitalism, that also beat Russia, despite the communist democrats best efforts.Posted by Chris Edwards
08/22/2009 at 11:11 AM
Also did’nt FDR create the depression by “socialist"diktats, not wasting a good crisis and all, WW2 got you out of that hole!
FYI all communists and their closet BFFs the socialists are assholes who need to control YOU give your money to get loosers to vote for them etc etc, they are vermin, fascists are somewhat better but wrong, dont confuse the well advertised fascist methods with the underlying ideology !
I still believe that liberal principles are incompatible and opposite to the ideals of the left.Posted by Chris Edwards
08/22/2009 at 11:21 AM
LyndonB:
I always need to do more research, but apparently so do you, as unlike me, you got this wrong.
The Mustang was fitted with an inadequate engine, yes, but guess on who’s orders? THAT’S RIGHT: The BRITISH themselves (it WAS designed to their specifications, after all), and if we didn’t fit that engine on, and unless the British liked the alternative (quite unlikely, given that that was one of the most powerful engines we had in stock) we were unlikely to get paid And when they recognized the issue, it was on THEIR orders that the engines were replaced.
And the grand sum of his point was that FDR was throwing wrenches into the British spanner intentionally, when by all accounts he was doing just the opposite.
Was he an economic idiot who bears a lot of responsibility for the continuation of the Great Depression? Absolutely.
Was he overly fond of government control and the grandfather of the current statist regime in place today? Absolutely.
Did his behavior with the British sometimes reach exceedingly low levels (particularly when he undercut Britain’s attempts to save Eastern Europe from the Soviets)? ABSOLUTELY!
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: for all of Roosevelt’s MANY flaws (the statism, the economic incompetence, the ruthless vote pandering, the Eastern European issues...), the bottom line is that he recognized the nature of Germany early in both world wars, and in Japan by the early 30’s, ahead of most of the US. And we owe the survival of much that did survive in the Democratic world to him, because at a time when it was a severe political risk, FDR chose to risk his neck- figuratively and rather literally, given German, Japanese, and Soviet intelligence in the US- to supply the Western Allies and China even before we formally entered the war. Yes, we forced them to pay up, but that (for ONCE) is a sign of GOOD economic policy: prior to the war, we were still in the Depression, and we could hardly go around making a war machine Pro Bono even if we wanted to, and particularly when you consider the overt or silent fascist sympathies of a LOT of the industrialists of the day (to name the first name that comes to mind, Henry Ford was particularly infamous here).
The simple fact of the matter is that for all of Roosevelt’s flaws, he was hardly responsible for the ones mentioned earlier, and some of this stuff just gets petty and only serves to muddy future study of the war. It is difficult, given the nature of Left-Right politics and the fact that FDR is one of the Progressive “saints”, to realize this, PARTICULARLY when the Left will rarely if EVER give the accomplishments of Thatcher and Reagan the worth they deserve. But just because they are being childish does not give us the excuse to sink to their level (after all, somebody has to run the madhouse and keep the loo-loos of the world contained, and if not us, than who?).
You want to needle FDR on his adultery, his ecconic policies, his faith in Keynes, his far-too-trusting view of Uncle Joe, his all-too-quickly-and-cheaply selling of Eastern Europe up the river, and the like, you can go right ahead. And what is more, I will join you, as - though you might not suspect it from here- I myself have PLENTY of issues with FDR.
But let’s give credit where credit is due and not shortchange both him and ourselves with petty and false accusations.
We will leave the butchering of characters and history to the radical Left. They have done that far too well to possibly need our help.
Posted by Turtler
08/22/2009 at 06:27 PM
I just had to know, why the Big Difference between the Allison and the Merlin? Then I found this:
“The difference is in the induction system. Just because the P-51 had such a huge jump in performance was NOT because a Merlin simply was stuffed in there in place of an Allison.
A lot has been written about the Merlin and the Allison, namely that the Merlin was a much more powerful engine. When in fact it was not! The Allison and the Merlin were both closely matched in displacement and at sea level and up to about 10000’ they both had very similar power levels!!
Up higher than 10000’ you MUST consider the induction system. Most Allison’s like the ones in the P-39, P-40 and early P-51’s had just a single stage supercharger. Most Merlin’s like used in later P-51’s, Spitfires and Lancasters had a two speed two stage supercharger. This makes a world of difference!!!
Once the Merlin got above a certain altitude the supercharger on the Merlin would shift into high blower. This greatly increases power at altitude… not because its a Merlin… but because you have more air!”
_!%&*^_(!^&)+^@!&_!@^)@_)&_
My first response to Chris was lost, so here’s the gist of it:
I use the word communist because that is what and honest socialist is
Debatable: yes, the difference is largely Swiftian, but history has shown it is real enough that I can’t dismiss it out of hand (for instance, the first victims of the Communist Bolsheviks were Kerensky’s Democratic Socialists)
Read up on how the brit airforce order new planes, except the hurricane, spitfire and mosquito (they had their specifications written post design, and the mustang specs were written from the combat experience with the spit
Which undercuts your point.
(you would think that free market plane designers and builders knew better than the desk jockeys in the minestry).
Actually, No I wouldn’t. Particularly American designers with no modern experience in aerial warfare. And particularly considering the potential of sabotage by those with pro-German sympathies (Henry Ford, I’m looking at you.)
Jo Stalin played the allies (read Churchills war diaries, the dipstick yank froze Churchill out after D Day was over and was suckered by Uncle Jo, as you would expect for a “socialist”.
No contest, and it is rightfully to be considered a black spot on FDR’s record.
The poles, while conductors of their own fate were the ones who obtained and cracked the enigma, it would have taken a lot longer for the english geniuses to get where they were getting anyway, read it up!.
I already know about Poland’s contributions in WWII, but while their are honorable and noteworthy, they were still relatively small and not likely to be deciding factors.
I could argue that without American intervention Hitler would have taken stalin out,
Which is the same conclusion I more-or-less reached.
dont forget it is only the media and hollywood that pitch Hitler as worse than Stalin, real world , Slain murdered more Russians that Hitler murdered Jews, gypsies, and enemies!
True, and it is worth bearing in mind, but it is worth remembering that Hitler was in power for roughly HALF the time Stalin was, and it is easy to see how his record could have surpassed Stalin had he won (though it is also easy to see how Stalin could have surpassed his historical record as well).
the only thing worse than a communist is an islamic communist (if such a depraved critter exists)
Almost too foolish to respond to, but let me just say that the ideology is largely secondary to the capability and what they do with it. Can you imagine what a modern day Ghenghis Khan in Mongolia would be able to do?
The mosquito was faster more airobatic and carried more and heavier war loads (including radar)
And the Mosquito only appeared later in the war after onboard radars became common, and while the wood frame was nice if you were hit by small arms or AA, if you got nailed with a large explosive or incendiary, you were almost certainly done for. Not saying it was bad, only that it too had its strengths and weaknesses, and it was of a different classification than the Mustang (in practice both were used as fighter bombers, but the Mosquito emphasized the “Bomber” part and the Mustang the “Fighter").
the mustang was another average american plane without the merlin. radar was widespread in english plane fairly early on, radar was only in england in 39, I never said in cockpits!.
A. If so, blame the Brits for ordering the construction of “another average American plane”, as they oversaw the construction of even the first models.
B. You do realize that “I never said in cockpits” and “radar was widespread in english plane fairly early on” are contradictory, right? On-board Radars were only coming of age in late 42, after the Mustang went into service, so you can hardly fault it for using the exact same system that pretty much EVERY OTHER plane was using, can you?
The only real threat fro Hitler to England were the subs, radar, enigma cracking, decent convoy cover was controlling them when the greatest USA help came along and that was freighters to replace those lost, had the allies not wasted silly amounts of goods and ships helping the bigger evil we would have been fine!
A. The entire idea that Stalin was a definitively bigger evil than Hitler or vice versa says more about the person writing the point and their concern for history (or lack thereof) than it does about History itself.
B. The fact of the matter is that the Soviets contributed the majority of the men fighting Hitler in WWII. No way around it. The simple fact of the matter is that he fought the vast majority of the German army, which freed us up from having to do so. Had the USSR fallen, it is quite likely that all those millions would be sent after US, and the conquered resources in the East would give Berlin the ability to build a war machine that was finally capable of finishing us off. Hardly a minor concern.
in 1940 we had CAM ships that took out the long range planes the germans depended on to run the wolf packs.
And the Germans substituted by using radio, telegraph, and enigma. If anything, this made them MORE efficient than they were before.
Dont forget Hitler never wanted war with england.
Very dubious. Britain was the thing holding the Allies together, and it was also a major geographical and military block on German expansion, not counting the territories it seized from the Germans in WWI. The simple fact of the matter is that for whatever fondness Hitler may or may not have had for the British Empire, even if he didn’t specifically WANT war with London, he and his compadres felt it was largely inevitable that it would happen if they were to fulfill their plans.
What lost the war for axis was the USA industrial output, a product of capitalism, that also beat Russia, despite the communist democrats best efforts.
True, but the fact remains that the nature of the war and the MASSIVE Soviet contribution also played considerable roles in doing so.
Also did’nt FDR create the depression by “socialist"diktats, not wasting a good crisis and all,
If you have studied the Depression, you would know that NO, FDR did not CREATE the Depression, that was the result of shaky credit policies and bad lending. FDR only DEEPENED and PROLONGED it. Big difference.
The bottom line is that you are largely just tossing bombs all over hoping your quibbles will hit home, and it is doing nothing but doing history a disservice. FDR was a horrifically flawed man, I am sure EVERYONE here can agree on that.
But at the end of the day, he was able to help the US through the ashes of WWII without loosing its way. And we owe him that, because FDR is a throwback to the old days where stupid economic policy was more closely tied to well-intentioned naivety than it was special-interest Realpolitik, and to Leftists who were actually willing to support Democracy abroad, even by war. He was not perfect, but you do not have to be perfect to be good.
Posted by Turtler
08/22/2009 at 08:28 PM
Turtler, the Americans entered the schneider trophy did they not? that is where Mitchell cut his teeth, my point is that desk jockeys are just that, administrators, Camm and Mitchel and Whittle, plus all the others who threw their genius into the pot were brilliant inventors, some of whom flew their inventions (the use had theirs too but the military there was too aloof)
FDR created the depression out of a downturn, his economic policy was pure communist, that is why it was so bad, with accidents some will go our way.Look how prez Hussain is following FDRs footsteps, no accident at all.
Aside from tanks, the bulk of the russians decent planes and a large proportion of their transport was American and english supplied (but mostly english paid for)
As for the U boats they could not use radio as it attracted the depth charges and bombs, telegraph??? enigma was helping the allies more .
The mosquito beat the Mustang into front line use as it was in production by late 41, I dont think the RAF happened to put an old merlin into one of the unusable allison powered paperweights untill mid 42
I wonder where Hitlers cruelty would have gone without Stalin giving him ideas (death camps, secret police, genocide)
The germans had a lot of advanced ideas they put in to production, rockets, electronic guided missiles, rocket fighters, jet fighters and bombers. Luckily despotic idealogical leaders soon get disconnected from reality so most of the good stuff failed to appear before it was too late, the usa did well out of it though.
Didnt Stalin get rid of most of the bolshevicks in the end? you might go astray judging who is a commie by who the commies kill, in the end the socialists go for everything communist, there is no difference except the socialists, as well as all the manifold faults of communism are liars, cheats and cowards.
I think Stalin expected Hitler to invade across the channel, this would have reduced the german and english armed forces to tatters and Staling could stroll in and take the lot (why else would Stalin feed and arm germany up to the day of the invasion of russia? he was told of the plans and the build up)Posted by Chris Edwards
08/22/2009 at 10:54 PM
Chris:
hat is where Mitchell cut his teeth, my point is that desk jockeys are just that, administrators, Camm and Mitchel and Whittle, plus all the others who threw their genius into the pot were brilliant inventors, some of whom flew their inventions (the use had theirs too but the military there was too aloof)
True, but the point is? How does this tie in with FDR (the main point that started this entire thing)?
FDR created the depression out of a downturn,
Debatable, particularly since 1929 makes this little thing look like a walk in the park and improvement was next to (if not) nonexistant.
his economic policy was pure communist, that is why it was so bad,
Again, FDR was not a communist, he just was far too nice with them. The problem with FDR was that his economic policy was pure Keynes. But while Keynesian economics are bad, they were not Communism, and while FDR did make several moves that are still damaging today, he hardley ordered the collectivization of all property and land (the VERY ESSENCE of Communism), to the extent he (often foolishly) intervened in corporate affairs, he usually did so temporarily and indirectly (much like others had).
with accidents some will go our way.Look how prez Hussain is following FDRs footsteps, no accident at all.
If anything, Obama is going far, far beyond what even FDR would have considered healthy, given the wholesale takeover of nearly an entire industry with hardly a whisper of opposition allowed to have an effect. If such a thing happened, more often then not, FDR simply allowed them to fold.
Aside from tanks, the bulk of the russians decent planes and a large proportion of their transport was American and english supplied (but mostly english paid for)
Yes, I know the Russians screwed the West over on supplies and gear in both world wars. I’m not arguing with you about that.
As for the U boats they could not use radio as it attracted the depth charges and bombs,
Oh YES, they could. But they only really used it when they were either safe or when they really had no choice in the matter, because (as you imply) the Allies could trace the frequency with SONAR.
telegraph???
It is a long and complicated process involving recording the signals and playing them out on an audible medium, but it could be done (though a few actually carried some telegraph wire, though it was largely discarded later).
enigma was helping the allies more .
Not really, since German subs learned never to stick around for long after a signal (even with Enigma), and it was notably one of the few sections of the German military that doubted Enigma’s invincibility (rightfully), so the paranoia affected their use of it as well (and to their advantage).
The mosquito beat the Mustang into front line use as it was in production by late 41, I dont think the RAF happened to put an old merlin into one of the unusable allison powered paperweights untill mid 42
Not really and certainly not in any great numbers. The main useage they saw in late 1941-early 42 was on the Burma/India frontier against Japan (where aerial supplies were in far greater scarcity and onboard radar even moreso), and they never really grew into the ETO until towards the end of Africa (midlate 42- early 43). The Mustang was far more prominent by this time, and it this also does not change my larger point: that the Mosquito and the Mustang were built for two different roles.
I wonder where Hitlers cruelty would have gone without Stalin giving him ideas (death camps, secret police, genocide)
Sorry governor, but you’re giving him too much credit and the Germans themselves FAR too little.
Death Camps? See what they did in Nambia and Kenya.
Secret Police? Dates back to Fredrick the Great, but Bismarck practically re-invented the wheel on that account.
Genocide? Again: See German Africa before WWI and the areas of occupied Europe in WWI.
Hitler didn’t create all that was rotten with Germany, after all.
The germans had a lot of advanced ideas they put in to production, rockets, electronic guided missiles, rocket fighters, jet fighters and bombers.
As did pretty much every other nation, I might add (hell, even the POLES were examining the practicality of jet engines in a VERY limited degree before 1939).
Luckily despotic idealogical leaders soon get disconnected from reality so most of the good stuff failed to appear before it was too late,
With the Atomic Bomb and Hitler’s failure to acquire that due to his bans on what he called"Jewish Science” in favor of a mythical “Aryan Science” that might be the case, but for the rest it was largely due to the fact that supplies were limited and development was still difficult for anybody.
Didnt Stalin get rid of most of the bolshevicks in the end?
No, he himself was a Bolshevik. Stalin got rid of many of his fellow self-proclaimed “Old Bolsheviks” in order to solidify his power and eliminate all opposition, but they were hardly all the Bolsheviks.
you might go astray judging who is a commie by who the commies kill, in the end the socialists go for everything communist, there is no difference except the socialists, as well as all the manifold faults of communism are liars, cheats and cowards.
Hardly. There is enough of a gap between the various stripes of the two that I am not comfortable making that generalization like you are (study the Russian civil War and the Spanish Civil War). Largely Swiftian? Sure, but not entirely.
I think Stalin expected Hitler to invade across the channel, this would have reduced the german and english armed forces to tatters and Staling could stroll in and take the lot (why else would Stalin feed and arm germany up to the day of the invasion of russia? he was told of the plans and the build up)
A. True.
B. It seems like you are just latching on to minutiae while failing to address the main reason I started this: the bottom line is that this started over your slander of FDR which I have addressed, and I demand that you stop. You are welcome to needle him for any number of reasons, but yakking about the Mustang (which was DESIGNED AS DEMANDED BY THE BRITS) and Lend-Lease is both false and simply foolish. You are welcome to needle FDR all you want when justified, but you need to do the research first. If you cannot get this much straight, then it is useless talking to you. Do you understand?
Posted by Turtler
08/23/2009 at 12:41 AM
Turtler, the title bar is what this post is about, I do understand that FDR rode roughshod over the constitution, as do a lot of democrats, I see socialists as low life communists, you dont, bear in mind I have seen the intrinsic collectivism that socialists desire, it has destroyed my country. You facts are a little awry (sonar?? look it up, it was Hu-Duf that stopped use of radio, even the “burst"transmissions attracted the allies, a surfaced sub stood out on radar.
Leaving my personal opinion of FDR aside he caused some really odd policies, the Europe first policy, why? given the circumstances that brought the USA into the war why europe first, can you give any reason other that the commies were about to go down? while hollywood portrayed him as a hero he was involved in ignoring all clear warnings about the pearl harbour attack, good leaders were thrown under the bus there.
You are nearly there with FDR, you accept all his screw ups but not the intent, good thing the dems dont control the internet yet and we still have free speech as we can, in this long winded and educational way (I have had to look lots up in books here) agree to differ!
Im off to explore my new country, see you later
ChrisPosted by Chris Edwards
08/23/2009 at 09:28 AM
Chris:
Turtler, the title bar is what this post is about, I do understand that FDR rode roughshod over the constitution, as do a lot of democrats
To an extent, yes, but he never tried to override it or dispose of it. He was a politician, and so he interpreted it as was beneficial to him, but he remained within the limits of his oath of office.
I see socialists as low life communists, you dont, bear in mind I have seen the intrinsic collectivism that socialists desire, it has destroyed my country.
On the whole, my feelings about Socialists are roughly the same as yours, and my main feeling about the Communist-Socialist divide is that it is overly convoluted and for outsiders bizarre (including myself), but it does exist, and people have been killed over it. In addition, while Socialism by its very nature is a failed, hopeless system and the majority of those who subscribe to it are either naive or malicious, the fact remains that amongst there ranks, there have been several staunch allies of Democracy (google Alexander Kerensky or Mario Soares), and the sad fact is that however unpleasant the political system is, we cannot really afford to outlaw it (just like it is a mistake to outlaw the fascists) without suffering a degradation in protection of individual rights.
You facts are a little awry
Perhaps, but they are true.
(sonar?? look it up, it was Hu-Duf that stopped use of radio, even the “burst"transmissions attracted the allies, a surfaced sub stood out on radar.
True, but yes, it did. The ability to pick up an object on it was rather dependent on both the mass of said object, and a U-Boat at default operating procedure would be vulnerable enough. When the antenna was extended (and it WAS rather large), the U-boat stood out like Times Square, particularly since its unique shape was vastly different from virtually any natural formation (though Hu-Duf picked up the electronic signals).
Leaving my personal opinion of FDR aside he caused some really odd policies,
Agreed.
the Europe first policy, why? given the circumstances that brought the USA into the war why europe first, can you give any reason other that the commies were about to go down?
Absolutely, because the choice had much to do with the nature of the war and of our adversaries.
As we were quick to learn, Japan was a maritime power. It expanded along the sea lanes and at the rear of the powerful IJN. On land, it was formidable but inflexible, as shown by its failure to decisively defeat either China of the USSR. And the thing about Maritime powers is that they are vulnerable: Japan was dependent on conquered territories in the South that were not naturally connected to the Japanese home islands, and was thus dependent on a navy not only to continue expanding, but also to consolidate and exploit what already had been conquered. As not only FDR, but indeed most senior Allied staff recognized, once Japan’s naval power was crippled, its empire strung throughout the Southern Islands would be vulnerable to elimination at our leisure while famine and shortage of supplies took a toll on the Japanese forces trapped down South by our naval victories. In addition, any naval victories Japan earned could be outdone by our superior production of naval and air forces, and as such, the Empire remained eternally vulnerable so long as the Western Allies had a navy, while in contrast the Japanese had no easy way of striking at any of the major Western Allies in a way that would drive them from the region (Australia, New Zealand, British India, and China could only be occupied after extensive and costly land campaigns, and the US remained almost untouchable behind the chain of its island defenses and the USN).
Germany was an entirely different matter. It was a terrestrial power: it expanded not in the path of its navy in most cases (and where it did it was exceeding vulnerable, as Germany’s WWI colonies and the Italian colonies of WWII proved), but behind the masses of its infantry. Unlike the Japanese, the Germans were far more hardened and well equipped for ground warfare, a strength that was only partially offset by their somewhat lesser vigor and fanatacism. The German soldier may not have been the best equipped or trained or motivated in the world (though plenty were done very well), but Germany’s larger and heavier armerment was a decisive advantage in the early years of the war, and as anybody who has read about the dying rampage of a Tiger knows, it remained troublesome to the end. The German navy was vastly smaller and had far less experience, but it could hold its own against the Russians in the Baltic and was capable of harassing Western shipping in the Atlantic, which for a land-based power was all that would be required until perhaps Operation Sealion or further campaigns outside of Europe. Unlike the Japanese, the Germans primarily gathered their resources not from faraway islands or lands, but from the conquered territories of mainland Europe. Oil and a few other goods could be choked off by naval blockade, but beyond that, Germany was largely able to maintain and expand its Empire using what it already had. Against such a vast and rather secure force, “Island Hopping” was never going to work: you had to systematically take back all that Germany had conquered, with precious few exceptions. And had Hitler succeeded in destroying the USSR, he would have been able to call upon virtually all the resources of mainland Europe while the Western Allies would be unable to counter him. Unlike Japanese shipping lands- which could be interdicted or cut by small naval forces- the German supply lines would have been largely internal and almost immune from attack save from partisans or air, and without a large enemy on the mainland, the Germans could spread their forces in greater concentration to the point where the question of an Amphibious attack succeeding would be VERY much in doubt.
In short, if the USSR had fallen, the Germans would have dominated all of mainland Europe, and that even CHURCHILL, the perennial anti-Communist of the Western Allies, FAVORED FDR’s strategy, should show that it was hardly only to save Stalin’s wretched hide; it was about saving THEIR OWN wretched hides by saving Stalin’s from Hitler. Why? Because Churchill had actually FOUGHT in the campaigns of 1918, when Germany had crushed all opposition to itself on the mainland save for France, Italy, and Greece, and it was already quite advanced in its partition of Russia and Eastern Europe. Were it not for American aid, the growing competence and technological advantages of the Western Allies, and the weariness of Germany, Churchill knew all too well that they could have lost the First World War. When WWII degenerated into a reverse of that situation, with Russia holding out, Churchill recognized the need to supply Stalin with the ammunition and supplies he needed to avoid being deposed by Hitler, however atrocious Stalin and his cronies were.
And part of the reason that he advocated it was percisely because it would LIMIT Soviet power in Europe. Had all the Western Allies focused on the war against Japan, Moscow would have little reason to not purge all the Western Allied loyalists in Europe (hell, he did that readily enough in Eastern Europe!), and the only limit to its power would have been how far West it could go. By forcefully intervening in Europe, FDR helped set the groundwork for the containment of Stalin’s ambitions by resurrecting Western Europe before Stalin could remake it in his monsterous image, a fact that I think we can all agree made the world a FAR safer and freer place.
In short, Germany First was very much the logical and rational action to take. Japan could hardly go anywhere, given the dedication of most of the American navy to that task, and the realization that Germany had to be prevented from obtaining hegemony on mainland Europe was by no means limited to Stalin or the Democratic Leftists in the Western Allies like FDR, and by returning the Europe, the Western Allies could check Soviet designs on Western Europe by meeting them at the Elbe rather than at the Channel.
The while hollywood portrayed him as a hero he was involved in ignoring all clear warnings about the pearl harbour attack, good leaders were thrown under the bus there.
Ah yes, Pearl Harbor. Another justifiable tarnish on his record, but probably not to the full extent you think. We had every reason to believe that Japan would attack us in an attempt to break the embargo (indeed they even sent us an ultimatum and later a declaration of war prior to Pearl to that effect, with the latter apparently lost in the mail), and Japanese troop and naval movements were hardly innocent. However, some defense needs to be given to FDR in that the proposition that they were attacking Pearl was hardly obvious at the time. You need to remember that Pearl Harbor was hundreds of miles away from Japanese territory, and was apparently protected by the larger Philippines and the islands between the two. The intercepts we were able to pick out were hardly definitive, and the popular opinion amongst the War staff was that they were going after the Philippines (in fact, the ACTUAL forces dedicated to attacking the Philippines and British Malaysia were in Taiwan at the time, unlike the task force that hit us, which departed from Southern Japan). In addition, the Japanese did pretty much everything they could to camoflague their target until the last possible moment (right up to leaving a large portion of the communication staff for those ships in port in order to give American intel the Illusion that large sections of the fleet were still in dock), and it would have been the VERY rare intel man who could have found this out. In short, Pearl Harbor succeeded in large part because it was almost recklessly daring and backed up by extensive disinformation, and FDR’s failure to discern the vector of attack was hardly unique. Yes, the blame was largely shifted, sometimes inappropriately, but the fact remains that the attack was a success says more about the strengths of the Japanese navy than it does about the weaknesses of our command (though, granted, it does say a lot about that).
You are nearly there with FDR, you accept all his screw ups but not the intent,
You, on the other hand, are so deluded that you think that anybody with a D next to their name is an insane, power-hungry Socialist. Granted, that isn’t too much of a stretch on most occasions, but in these cases, you are so patently unfair and biased that you shoot yourselves in the foot by refusing to examine the situation fairly. That you site things like Germany First and the Mustang as crippling flaws for FDR says more about your inability to learn about the history and your lack of perspective on the era than it does about it. FDR did much that was wrong, but the fact is that not all of it was done for selfish or cynical reasons, not all of it was obviously wrong at the time, and not all of it was done because he was a Liberal (can you imagine REAGAN or TRUMAN trying to predict where the Japanese fleet would turn up on December 6th, 1941????). In addition, he did much that was right: by setting the stage with Lend-Lease and supplying both the Western Allies and the Soviets, he kept them in the game long enough to limit German hegemony on Europe to perimeters from which counterattacks could be led to purge it completely. As such, however much we may disdain Franklin Delano Roosevelt for his economic foolishness at home and his rapid capitulation to Stalin on Eastern Europe, the debt we and the rest of the Western world owes to him cannot be erased. He was the leader of the US at a time that would have been supremely trying for any leader, and that he was able to lead the US intact and victorious through the fires of WWII says much about him, statist or not, Keynesian or not, Liberal or not.
If only our current crop of Liberals were half as decent as he was.
good thing the dems dont control the internet yet and we still have free speech as we can
Agreed.
And by the way, are you German, and where is your “new country?”
Regards.
Posted by Turtler
08/23/2009 at 12:42 PM
The great Spelling and Sentence construction war was lost in public school. The vetrans of that struggle limp among us dragging their pencils. Or in this case, laptops.
Next entry: crowder time
Previous entry: IT'S AUGUST 21st ... 1 9 3 9 The issue is Danzig .... 13 DAYS TO WAR