Dresden

[renrich]

Actually Hirohito was only a figurehead in Japan. Tojo was the real leader and he had much experience in war.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Joe B, I agree plus I believe that Roosevelt did not see the Soviet Union and Stalin in the same light that Churchill did. Roosevelt was essentially a socialist and had no idea of the magnitude of the threat of communism and the ambitions of the Soviets. Churchill not only had some experience with warfare but at one time had been a worthy polo player. Hitler would have been in deep do do against Churchill, mounted and with his trusty broom handle Mauser. American presidents for a long time had some military experience but I don't believe that lack of military experience should have disqualified FDR from leading us into war alongside our British cousins. One does not have to die in order to understand that he probably won't enjoy the process.

I would disagree on a couple of points on Roosevelt.

The key policies you could point to which would be aligned with today's brand of Democrat were the WPA type programs and Social Security, but as a life long conservative suspicious of his politics I would have to say he May have saved the country from Revolution during the great Depression by championing and instituting such programs.

I think he underestimated, or believed he had a strategy to contain, USSR post war but I don't think he misunderstood any aspect of totalitarian Governments and Communism was an anathema to our (US Constitution based) way of life.

IIRC Churchill was also an officer in the very bloody Boer War after Cuba? The man had been shat at.

[renrich]

Yes and he was a cavalry officer in the war against the Dervishes(can't remember what it was called) and that was where he used his broom handle. A truly great man and what an experience it would have been to have dinner and drinks with him during his prime. Bill, I really believe that many of FDR's programs during the depression were not particularly helpful and speeded us along the road(upon which we have traveled far) toward socialism. If you recall, our depression was a double dip one and we really did not begin to recover until the 39-40 period when we began a long overdue expansion of the armed forces. I recall reading that FDR said that in the long term we would tend to become more like the USSR and they would become more like us. That was prophetic but it took a country as capitalistic as ours to bring down the USSR and I don't believe that FDR's statement envisioned that type of outcome. Rather I believe he meant that we would become a socialistic state and they would become a more moderate communistic state. I guess my opinion is that FDR's many collectivist programs were of limited impact, the effects of the depression were not as great as presented by historians and our recovery from the downturn was a matter of the economy healing itself with the fortuitous event (for our economy) of war clouds in Europe helping. Of course, my attitude is tempered by being from Texas, where when a Damn Yankee arrived and asked a Texan how the depression was treating Texas, the Texan replied, "We don't have depressions in Texas, however our boom is not as strong as it once was."

[drgondog]

Renrich - I agree with much of what you said, and I was raised in a family with one branch in Atlanta and one branch in Greenville, TX where I was born.
Atlanta branch - old school Repub, Greenville branch converted Dem in style of Southern Dem (current conservative Repub)

From a politics POV in both brances, .
he was a 'persona non grata' but I try to be balanced about my views of his Presidency and I can find no evidence that he wished to push the US to 'be more like USSR'.

Nor can I find evidence that he, politically speaking, was even close to being like Kerry or Ted Kennedy. He would have lost much of the southern Dems had he pushed too hard in those directions (my belief - not supported by any concrete evidence)

Perhaps I have been reading the wrong books?

[Udet]

JoeB, frank and humble opinions are always welcome.

Contradictory?

Whatever it might have seemed it isn´t in reality, and the message should have been clear: if being your partner helps me attaining my goals and securing my best interest then i will be your partner in complete disregard of your background (id est: being a criminal).

As it happens in Partnerships there are causes of dissolution. By summer 1945, the U.S.A. could ascertain the status of things: a quite significant expansion of communist forces in Europe, plus a new attempt this time in the Far East.

Yes, send them a message; loud enough as to let them soviets listen.



Also you have not yet come across discussions where i was the one who brought forward one of the main American weaknesses: their unwillingness -or very low tolerance for that matter- to sustain high losses of men in combat.

A severe handicap when waging a war on your own...but the USA -fortunately- was not alone against the enemy.

Don´t you for one moment think U.S. war planners saw the Red Army as precisely their best tool to counter said weakness? We have an ally with utmost contempt for the lives of their soldiers, and they have them in large numbers; let them be the ones that put the meat into the grinder.


Now, the A-bombs...are you sure the American public was sick of the war? Are you suggesting timely notice of the casualty rate sustained by the armed forces in the PTO and ETO was being given to the public?

There are several incidents that involved frightful loss of American soldiers that were concealed by the government during the war; one fast example: the sinking of the Rohna transport in the Mediterranean -destroyed by German guided missiles- causing the death of over 1,000 U.S. soldiers. The incident remained "classified" until the 1960s.

Was the American public getting something like "real time" footage of the Kamikazes attempting to slam the Navy off Okinawa? I do not know.

Sure the American public knew the war was being won, but did they have anything like an accurate idea of the number of their own dying at the fronts?

[renrich]

Bill, I see your point. I really think that FDR must have thought that our steady movement toward the welfare state was inevitable and a natural progression. He did not have to push it and he may have been right. Taking casualties: The South during the War of Northern Aggression: Approx. one million draftable men- 250000died, The North; Approx. four million draftable men-350000 died. Sounds like the US could stand pretty high casualty rates, although times have changed. I believe that if the US is solidly behind a war aim, they are as willing as any country to accept high casualty rates. However, as in any country there are always the dissenters and in a country with a free press(we certainly have that) those dissenters get more than their share of ink.

[Nikademus]

Neillands made some very good comments about Dresden, and strategic bombing in general. I especially liked how he chose to analyse the process by which governments are moved to conduct such things vs. the more typical finger-waving "He did it first" type thought process. (I believe Guernica was already mentioned of holding that honor for the WWII era)

In the end though I agreed with his statements that all bombing campaigns had civilian morale as part of it's aims. (not counting distant bombing operations in remote regions of the world well away from civie centers of course) Any bomber, when deployed strategically is fundementally a "terror" weapon.

The rest is just nitpickings of interpretations by both participants and postwar historians. Anyone read Donald Miller's recent book on the USAAF air campaign? Some interesting revelations.