# Who was the Greatest Leader of WWII?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 24, 2006)

Who led his Country with the Best Direction? Even if they lost the war, which leader had all the greatest qualities of sheer genius, loyalty to his nation, respect and obedience from his citizens, good strategies for victory over his enemies, and who also had real impact on the war all over including his enemies?

This poll will last 700 days. I figured that isn't too long a time since goverment polls take years to complete.

Since it's a multiple choice thread you can vote for 1 or 2 or all of them if you want too! Though If everyone did that I don't think we would be able to tell who is the greatest!

I wonder if you agree with me on this. Perhaps I should have put Joseph Goebbels in the poll instead of Heinrich Himmler. Goebbels presented to the German people a Hitler that was seriously mispresented and sympatheticly biased to his views of world domination. Without Goebbel's propoganda, Hitler may not have seemed such a heroic and terrifying figure. 
Well, if you feel Goebbels was a great leader put other. 

And I don't mean Hitler or Goebbel in a good way great or that I support Nazism, but in a evil genius, notorious way of controlling the world. 
They certainly had power, and power for a country often means great leadership to it's people.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 24, 2006)

Still no Poll....


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Apr 24, 2006)

Sorry it took me quite a long time to research all those leaders!


----------



## Maestro (Apr 24, 2006)

Something is wrong with this poll... I just calculated the percentages and it gives a total of 200% !


----------



## davparlr (Apr 24, 2006)

The one who stood high during the darkest of times. Who knew who his friends were, and who his enemies were. How to influence his friends and how to block his enemies. Winston Churchill. The guy who recognized Stalin for who he was.


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 25, 2006)

I had to vote for FDR. He knew his politics well and nudged the US in the slow but right directions.


----------



## Gnomey (Apr 25, 2006)

Winston Churchill for me. I agree with your reasoning davparlr.


----------



## Wurger (Apr 25, 2006)

For me Gen.Charles de Gaulle and Gen.Wladyslaw Sikorski


----------



## plan_D (Apr 25, 2006)

Winston Churchill. He kept the country together, knew what was going on, knew who was who and ultimately led Great Britain to victory.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 25, 2006)

I too, chose Churchill. He really held Britain together through her darkest hours of the war.


----------



## kiwimac (Apr 25, 2006)

Benito Mussolini.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 25, 2006)

kiwimac said:


> Benito Mussolini.




Sweet Benito Mussolini for me toooooooooo weeeeeeeeeeeee lol.


Where is CC to make this three in a row?????


You see that his grand daughter or something is getting involved in politics now. Interesting. That I would think is not a easily sell there, related to one of the most hated leaders of your country ever. Damn she has her work cut out for her.


----------



## Henk (Apr 25, 2006)

Franklin D. Roosevelt for me. He was a great leader and he did great things, but Churchill was just a great leader.

What, Mossolini was a asshole.

Henk


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 25, 2006)

Henk said:


> Franklin D. Roosevelt for me. He was a great leader and he did great things, but Churchill was just a great leader.
> 
> What, Mossolini was a asshole.
> 
> Henk



lol


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 25, 2006)

Churchill. He was a brilliant bulldog.


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 25, 2006)

I picked the guy from denmark for the guts he displayed in wearing the yellow star when the Jewish guys were forced to wear theirs and in others I put others for Tito of yugoslavia the only country to liberate itself


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

Someone explain the reason for choosing Mussolini, please. I just don't get how you can choose a man who led his country to a war that they were were completely and absolutely unable to fight in. With no industry, or proper military ability he took the nation into combat against one the great superpowers of the day and hoped to achieve victory. 

Honest question, why choose him?


----------



## syscom3 (Apr 27, 2006)

Plan D......... Whomever voted for him, I suppose intended it as a joke


----------



## plan_D (Apr 27, 2006)

Both Kiwimac and Hunter voted for him. If it's a joke, then fine. Otherwise, I'm interested in any reasoning.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 27, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Both Kiwimac and Hunter voted for him. If it's a joke, then fine. Otherwise, I'm interested in any reasoning.



Yes it was a joke, he was a jackazz of the highest quality. He was maybe the biggest tool of the war. He did dress nice also, sharp uniform. lol Thats about all he had going for him. lol


But I just like saying "IL DUCE" it just rolls off your tongue, I love saying it. Maybe I will change my name to IL DUCE. lol


----------



## plan_D (Apr 28, 2006)

Just don't go to Italy with that name then.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 29, 2006)

Churchill for obvious reasons and King George VI for inspiring the troops...........


----------



## ozumn (May 5, 2006)

Mannerheim.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 7, 2006)

Okay, I'll be the *^+$ that picks Hitler. He effected the most change in any nation prior to the war, rebuilt his country's war machine, and restored morale to the German population (albeit at the expense of the jews). AND, if it weren't for him, we wouldn't have this forum. Yeah, I know he got all paranoid, delusional, and just downright stupid somewhere in '40-'42, but prior to that...


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2006)

He began making large mistakes in 1941, he certainly was paranoid about the effectiveness of his Heeres. Even with mistakes made in 1941, they could have pulled off a victory. But he continued to fall down, becoming more and more insane. 

From 1933 - 1938, Hitler was the greatest politician in history. From 1938 - 1940, he was (probably) the greatest war leader in history. 1941 - 1942, he was becoming over demanding and arrogant. 1943, he was getting delusional. 1944-1945, he was a complete arse.


----------



## Gnomey (May 7, 2006)

Agreed, good summary pD.


----------



## marconi (May 7, 2006)

Churchill, Roosvelt and Stalin. They did win the war, you know.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2006)

I went with Churchill because of the way he rallied the British people. Plus he looked great with the cigar.


----------



## wmaxt (May 7, 2006)

I think Roosevelt may have had the biggest influence
1. Lend Lease before the war when it was actually illegal.
2. made the ETO the first choice
3. supported both the Manhatten Project and the B-29 while keeping everything else going
4. in spite of the political situation herded the US into a war footing prior to hostilities
5. increased lend lease during the war keeping both Russia and the British going through the toughest parts of the war.

Churchill is right behind him keeping the British in there fighting.

Stalin was a zero, and made mistakes as big as Hitler but had a bigger buffer and got lucky with good people that fought for Russia and not Stalin.

wmaxt


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2006)

FDR's greatest talent was knowing when to leave the strategy of fighting the war with the Generals and admirals.


----------



## plan_D (May 7, 2006)

He was also a naive individual with no farsight concerning the Communists... Churchill on the other hand.


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 7, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> FDR's greatest talent was knowing when to leave the strategy of fighting the war with the Generals and admirals.


Something Stalin was slow to warm up to, but he eventually did. Unlike Hitler, he began to see the sense in leaving military operations up to military men. Unfortunately, millions of Soviets had to die before he woke up.


----------



## syscom3 (May 7, 2006)

As documented in the movie "Pearl Harbor", FDR was also a cripple who could on occasion stand up and walk.

Hollywood wouldnt lie about that would they?


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 8, 2006)

Mackenzie King for me


----------



## marconi (May 8, 2006)

wmaxt said:


> Stalin was a zero, and made mistakes as big as Hitler but had a bigger buffer and got lucky with good people that fought for Russia and not Stalin.



You might be surprised, but Stalin was "worshiped" by Soviet people.When German forces came close to Moscow he refused to leave the city.This greatly improved the morale of troops.


----------



## wmaxt (May 8, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> As documented in the movie "Pearl Harbor", FDR was also a cripple who could on occasion stand up and walk.
> 
> Hollywood wouldnt lie about that would they?



FDR was crippled by polio, with braces and help he could stand and shuffle. He had to have support as his legs, even with braces, would not fully support his weight, if you look for it you'll see an arm or a handrail supporting him whenever he is standing. There was a show about his Polio I think it was called "Warm Springs" which is a spa/polio treatment center FDR owned/supported. I belive his will stipulated that the majority of his holdings went to Warm Springs.

He was not perfect by any means, and often set up competitions between comanders. Example: in the Pacific he never defined wheather Nimitz or MacArthur was in charge of which areas. However he rarely interfered with the combat plans and details of the comanders in the field. 

As for Stalin, I feel he was feared/hated much more than loved (he never brought one good thing to the Russian peasents). The average Russian fought for Russia/Homeland much more intensely than for Stalin who even then had shown his only priority was to be the boss and to bad for everyone else. Just my opinion, but based on numerous interviews I've read of many Russians/Soviets who hated their govt. but loved their country.

wmaxt


----------



## SS427 (Jun 19, 2006)

I would have to go with Roosevelt he was able to assist Churchill and prepare his own country for war while keeping the isolationists at bay, we would have been in far worse shape on Dec 8 1941 if someone else was in office then.


----------



## SS427 (Jun 19, 2006)

plan_D said:


> Someone explain the reason for choosing Mussolini, please. I just don't get how you can choose a man who led his country to a war that they were were completely and absolutely unable to fight in. With no industry, or proper military ability he took the nation into combat against one the great superpowers of the day and hoped to achieve victory.
> 
> Honest question, why choose him?



I don't know maybe they were impressed by the fact that he got "the trains to run on time".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 19, 2006)




----------



## hellothere (Jul 21, 2006)

I chose churchill as he gave loads of moral-boosting speeches and if we had a different PM, our moral would of dropped and we would of suurenderd to Hitler. Also, Churchill wanted to go ashore with the first wave on D-Day, but King George IV stopped him by saying, 'Fine. If youre going, then so am I'


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 22, 2006)

Either Churchill or Dowding for me, especially with the way that the BoB war fought by him, just a pity that he got sidelined afterwards


----------



## bigZ (Jan 21, 2007)

Churchill great leader plus he drank FDR under the table several times. He also pissed in the Rhine. What a guy. 

Mussolini only ever got 1 train running on time when the facist succesfully revolted in Rome. He decided to get their on time after hiding away from the action.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Churchill great leader plus he drank FDR under the table several times.



And that makes a man great? 

Dont take me wrong I think Churchill was a great leader but for that reason...



bigZ said:


> He also pissed in the Rhine. What a guy.



I have done that numerous times. Also in the Thames, Mississippi, Euphratis, Tigris and Danub. Does that make me better?


----------



## bigZ (Jan 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And that makes a man great?
> 
> Dont take me wrong I think Churchill was a great leader but for that reason...
> 
> ...



No it means go to the doctor as you have a bladder problem.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 22, 2007)




----------



## Marcel (Jan 26, 2007)

I voted Churchill for obvious reason and of course our own queen, as she's still considered as a hero in our country, the way she acted during the war.


----------



## ndicki (Jan 26, 2007)

I've just voted for de Gaulle; anyone who can contribute next to nothing to the war effort, be the most pompous ass in allied command, and yet get his country nominated a permanent member of the Security Council has to be admired. Well, manner of speaking...


----------



## bigZ (Jan 26, 2007)

ndicki said:


> I've just voted for de Gaulle; anyone who can contribute next to nothing to the war effort, be the most pompous ass in allied command, and yet get his country nominated a permanent member of the Security Council has to be admired. Well, manner of speaking...



In that case how about Emperor Hirohito for escaping the gallows and retaining his title?


----------



## ndicki (Jan 27, 2007)

Very true! He should have got the chop as soon as look at him. Mind you, if that had been one of the terms of surrender, the Japs wouldn't have bought it, and we'd have had to nuke them again...


----------



## Bernhart (Jan 31, 2007)

wasn't the King of Demark the one that made eveyone Jewish?


----------



## Emac44 (Feb 3, 2007)

As an Aussie John Curtin Prime Minister of Australia. Less I say about Churchill the better ok as for FDR good war time leader and peace time leader for US. As for Stalin except for political differences not much between him and Hitler except a bloody pyscho ward with rubber rooms boing as for the other leaders list on the poll no comment


----------



## dreadnought (Feb 4, 2007)

I don't see how Franklin D. Roosevelt could be called a great WW2 leader, he didn't actually want to get involved and didn't need be worried about his country being bombed up as the USA is so far away from any country that wanted to destroy it/ take its resources in any way. He also had such massive military and industrial strength (compared with everyone except possibly Russia) behind him that he hardly faced any major threats compared with Britain, France and Germany (Germany, mainly because of Britain, France and the Soviet Union). In my opinion the best was Churchill, who kept Britain fighting and managed to bring the US into the war against Germany by showing that Britain was a strong enough allie to beat or at least keep up with the Germans in some areas, e.g. the Mediteranean and Battle of Britain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> I don't see how Franklin D. Roosevelt could be called a great WW2 leader, he didn't actually want to get involved and didn't need be worried about his country being bombed up as the USA is so far away from any country that wanted to destroy it/ take its resources in any way. He also had such massive military and industrial strength (compared with everyone except possibly Russia) behind him that he hardly faced any major threats compared with Britain, France and Germany (Germany, mainly because of Britain, France and the Soviet Union). In my opinion the best was Churchill, who kept Britain fighting and managed to bring the US into the war against Germany by showing that Britain was a strong enough allie to beat or at least keep up with the Germans in some areas, e.g. the Mediteranean and Battle of Britain.



You obviously dont know your history on the other side of the pond. 

He was a wonderful leader. He rallied the people behind him in a way that could not be matched anywhere.

As for threats, no one knew that. At the time Japan very well could have launched an attack for all they knew. 

When the war started the USA was in pretty bad shape when it came to armament and equipment. He rallied the people and they made that production capacity happen. The US was not allways in that state where they could effectivly fight a war.

Last but not least, if it were not for Roosevelt would the English have survived? Would England have recieved the Destroyers? Would England have recieved the Lend Lease equipment? Roosevelt supported the British and he helped the British from the Beginning.

Dont bash him because he is an American.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 4, 2007)

Here here Adler...


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 4, 2007)

dreadnought said:


> I don't see how Franklin D. Roosevelt could be called a great WW2 leader, he didn't actually want to get involved and didn't need be worried about his country being bombed up as the USA is so far away from any country that wanted to destroy it/ take its resources in any way. He also had such massive military and industrial strength (compared with everyone except possibly Russia) behind him that he hardly faced any major threats compared with Britain, France and Germany (Germany, mainly because of Britain, France and the Soviet Union). In my opinion the best was Churchill, who kept Britain fighting and managed to bring the US into the war against Germany by showing that Britain was a strong enough allie to beat or at least keep up with the Germans in some areas, e.g. the Mediteranean and Battle of Britain.


I believe Roosevelt was as important if not more so then Churchill if it wasn't for the USN covering convoys for the Brits before 7 Dec and all the aircraft, armament ,fuel tanks and ships all of this while being challenged by a Senate and Congress that were scepticle of aiding the Brits


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2007)

Agreed, you cant be blind to what really happened in History no matter how much national pride you have.


----------



## Chief (Feb 6, 2007)

Not to mention that Roosevelt was commanding a Nation fighting a war on two theaters. I'm not sayin' that other allies didn't do their part, but it was the US who played the bigger role in the pacific theater.

That's why I choose Roosevelt not for national pride, but it takes a great leader to do the things Roosevelt did in the war.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

The British had a very big part in the PTO. Ever read up on Burma?


----------



## Chief (Feb 6, 2007)

I didn't say they didn't. Ashamed to say I don't know much of what they did in the PTO. But, the British had a top notch military since the Great War at the time, but the US on the other hand was falling way behind when it came to military strength. Not to say that our military was useless, but when compared to countries like England, Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, they really had some catching up to do. 

Also, I'm not sure why they don't talk about the British actions in the PTO virtually at all over here, but I would certainly like too. National pride is no excuse, Opinion is nothing, evidence and fact is what's important.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

I agree but that unfortunatly is the way of thinking in most non history minded people.


----------



## comiso90 (Feb 6, 2007)

I have to go with Churchill.
He possessed Immeasurable charisma yet projected understated confidence. In times of strife, people see what they want to see. Churchill was one of the few that were up to the challenge.

Churchill was the brooding intellectual humorist that personified stubborn tenacity and inspirational leadership. 

Roosevelt always seemed like more of a stern politician or angry uncle and I think he could have tried harder to keep eastern europe out of Soviet hands.


Queen Wilhelmina gets honorable mention too.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 6, 2007)

Like any great leader FDR had his faults(Churchill himself was known to be ruthless and is still hated by the Polish for his connection to a certain assaination). 

Britain is indebted to FDR. It took a brave leader to to introduce the Lend Lease(which we only paid off last December at a very generous 2%). Especially considering the popular anti war feeling present in the US during that period.

On seperate note the Marshal Plan also came in pretty handy too.

Pity the US isn't a colony anymore as we could have ended slavery a generation earlier and the Civil War would probably have been avoided, plus are Americian cousins would now appreciate a nice cuppa instead of that coffee muck.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 6, 2007)

bigZ said:


> Pity the US isn't a colony anymore as we could have ended slavery a generation earlier and the Civil War would probably have been avoided, plus are Americian cousins would now appreciate a nice cuppa instead of that coffee muck.


----------



## bigZ (Feb 11, 2007)

How about including AIoannis Metaxas leader of Greece. Another great leader to come from Ithaca. Gave the Italians a good whipping before the Germans had to intervene.


----------



## rogthedodge (May 15, 2007)

Has to be Churchill


Rallied inpspired the country when many (including certain Lords Royals were all for seeking a treaty)

Helped / convinced FDR that the US had to get involved (ie the isolationists had to be overcome)

Was prepared to be as brutal as Hitler if required (check out the auxilliary units and our mustard gas plans!)

Managed to convince FDR that the 'Europe First' strategy was the correct choice

Saw Stalin for what he was - and disagreed with the FDR/Stalin plans for post-war Europe (particularly Poland) to such an extent he was excluded from the discussions.

All this said FDR was a great man too and played a very astute political game to bring the US into the war / fought the US popular mood and military instinct to concentrate on the Pacific. We owe him a lot.


A few points on previous comments:

HMQ a 'hero'? - the Royal Family spent every night in Windsor, hardly in the firing line! OK so she drove a truck and certainly 'did her bit' but 'hero' is a bit OTT

Convoy protection - surprised to see a Canadian not recognise the extraordinary effort by the Canadian Navy on convoy duties (we haven't forgotten!) - visited the last corvette in Halifax harbour last year and nothing but respect for anyone crossing the Atlantic / fighting in that

Marshall plan - great for the occupied / defeated but the UK was excluded and forced to borrow money at close to market rates - we still owe some £200m on the post-war loan!

R
C/o Pedant Towers


----------



## drgondog (Aug 11, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Has to be Churchill
> 
> 
> Rallied inpspired the country when many (including certain Lords Royals were all for seeking a treaty)
> ...



Roge - I agree Churchill but think he is shortchanged by merely naming him Greatest Leader in WWII. He may be my personal favorite as greatest English speaking leader of all time


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 11, 2007)

rogthedodge said:


> Convoy protection - surprised to see a Canadian not recognise the extraordinary effort by the Canadian Navy on convoy duties (we haven't forgotten!) - visited the last corvette in Halifax harbour last year and nothing but respect for anyone crossing the Atlantic / fighting in that


 I am aware ofr the RCN and it's growth but I was commenting more on the tools of war being supplied by the US prior to 12/41 .How the US prior to 41 in conjunction with Canada built airports that crossed the international boundary landed aircraft on the US side they were towed over the border to Canada so as not to affect nuetrality treaties


----------



## trackend (Aug 12, 2007)

Close but I go for Roosevelt over Churchill. Churchill was a great orator (with great speech writers behind him) and excelled at persuading the US to give support at a very touch and go time, he was also a great wit.
Monty said to him once " I don't smoke I don't drink I'm 100% fit" Churchill replied "well I do smoke I do drink I'm 200% fit".
The problem I feel is that Churchill had a habit of getting involved in military tactics and as a military leader he was poor.

On the other hand I feel Roosevelt had to fight a senate that contained a large number of Isolationists during the early stages of the war yet despite his very poor health he battled away and lead from the front, his conviction was total and his support and confidence in his armed forces unsurpassed. He worked tirelessly in pushing through legislation and before the first bomb had landed in Hawaii the country was getting geared up for war.
Ultimately I believe he worked himself to death he may have not been on the front line with a rifle but the war killed him just as surly as if he had been.
So to me not only did he galvanized the nation at a very politically fractional time, he also made the ultimate sacrifice for his country thats why I vote him the greatest leader of WW2 .


One last thing perhaps not the greatest but worth a mention Is Tito he was ruthless but he certainly lead his nation , caused a huge headache for the Germans tied up thousands of troops and held together a fractional cluster of countries right up till his death in the 80's


----------



## Woods (Aug 12, 2007)

marconi said:


> Churchill, Roosvelt and Stalin. They did win the war, you know.



Churchill lost the English 'Empire' After WW2,down the tubes
Roosevelt was most likely one of the biggest traitors in American history
Stalin had to have been one of the biggest mass murderer's in history

They won the war and lost the peace.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2007)

How was Roosevelt one of the biggest traitors in American history?


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 12, 2007)

Woods said:


> *Churchill lost the English 'Empire' After WW2,down the tubes*Roosevelt was most likely one of the biggest traitors in American history
> Stalin had to have been one of the biggest mass murderer's in history
> 
> They won the war and lost the peace.



Wrong on so many counts:

1. It was the BRITISH Empire

2. Churchill was out of power by the end of '45 - India gained independence in '47

3. The Empire was in decline from '18 onwards

4. Churchill didn't 'lose' the Empire, it was wound down after WW2 due to our bankruptcy, US pressure and agitation for independence.

5. No need for quotes: it wasn't an 'Empire' - it was an Empire!!!!

I don't see how you can argue the US lost the peace - '45 was the start of the US's world-dominance.

USSR managed to retain a massive buffer between them and NATO for over 50 years - again that's not 'losing'.



Perhaps a bit more research before you go near the keyboard?


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 12, 2007)

Yeah, how was FDR a traitor?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2007)

Yeah I am waiting for an answer as well. Somehow I dont think we will get one.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 12, 2007)

Woods said:


> Churchill lost the English 'Empire' After WW2,down the tubes
> Roosevelt was most likely one of the biggest traitors in American history
> Stalin had to have been one of the biggest mass murderer's in history
> 
> They won the war and lost the peace.



One for three. You got the Stalin part right.  

Roosevelt a traitor? Wrong  Think I know what you're going to say. Don't even bring up the *ridiculous* "FDR knew the Japs were gonna attack Pearl Harbor" myth.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 12, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> One for three. You got the Stalin part right.
> 
> Roosevelt a traitor? Wrong  Think I know what you're going to say. Don't even bring up the *ridiculous* "FDR knew the Japs were gonna attack Pearl Harbor" myth.



I gotta say it. 

Even IF Roosevelt had the knowledge that Japan was going to strike and didn't warn Kimmel, it was probably the only way we get in the war and the world is a different place that I don't want to contemplate if we continued to sit on the sidelines for another year.

Even if I disagreed with many of his political inclinations, what he did to the Gold standard, etc - he should get large doses of credit for possibly preventing a major swing toward Socialism or even Communism during the Great Depression!

Perhaps the gentleman has a different definition of 'Traitor' that I don't understand?


----------



## renrich (Aug 12, 2007)

Actually FDR IMHO precipitated a strong swing toward socialism during the Depression deterred somewhat by the Supreme Court but that hardly qualifies him as a traitor. Also some of his agreements with Stalin cost us dearly during the post war years but I believe his judgment was impaired somewhat by his illness at that time although I don't believe he ever regarded the USSR as much of a threat as Churchill did. FDR does not get credit for the Marshall Plan as he was deceased when the MP was initiated. To me Churchill is probably the greatest English speaking leader of all time with the possible exception of George Washington.


----------



## Woods (Aug 13, 2007)

FDR had more communists in his adm. and did more than any other pres. to promote communism. He adored them. And again,we won the war and lost the peace. FDR and Churchill's war led to the enslavement of millions of Eastern Europeans (half of Europe)behind the 'iron curtain' in post war years. And YES...I beleive 100% that he knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Pure treason. Fdr had to bail Engand out. Lend lease was a farce.
What did winnie say? Give us the tools and we can finish the job?(something like that) Right. 

"I think if I give Stalin everything I possibly can, and then ask for nothing in return,he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for world peace and democracy."-- FDR at Yalta


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> And YES...I beleive 100% that he knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Pure treason.



All right, lets hear it. How did he know?  

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2007)

I would like and explanation of how FDR was a communist.

I think for a President at war he did a damn good job.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 13, 2007)

Better than Bushie?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> FDR had more communists in his adm. and did more than any other pres.



*NAME THEM!*​


Woods said:


> FDR had more communists in his adm. and did more than any other pres.
> to promote communism. He adored them. And again,we won the war and lost the peace. FDR and Churchill's war led to the enslavement of millions of Eastern Europeans (half of Europe)behind the 'iron curtain' in post war years. And YES...I beleive 100% that he knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. Pure treason. Fdr had to bail Engand out. Lend lease was a farce.
> What did winnie say? Give us the tools and we can finish the job?(something like that) Right.
> 
> "I think if I give Stalin everything I possibly can, and then ask for nothing in return,he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for world peace and democracy."-- FDR at Yalta



You sound like a poster child from the Joe McCarthy school of consparicy theorists.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 13, 2007)

I really dont know how to have an intelligent debate with someone like him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 13, 2007)

I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 13, 2007)

This guy worries me. 

'FDR Churchill's war'???? Eh?


----------



## mkloby (Aug 13, 2007)

Not that I agree with the above comment by woods, here's an example of legislation that should have been put out to pasture long ago.

Along socialist lines - FDR did give us Social Security. While it did serve a function in a specific place and time - the admin has long outlived its usefullness, not to mention it is a blanketly unfair system and a forced gov't pension plan.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Not that I agree with the above comment by woods, here's an example of legislation that should have been put out to pasture long ago.
> 
> Along socialist lines - FDR did give us Social Security. While it did serve a function in a specific place and time - the admin has long outlived its usefullness, not to mention it is a blanketly unfair system and a forced gov't pension plan.




Social Security was origionally planned as a way to keep the elderly and disabled from living in complete abject poverty.

It was never intended as a retirement fund for everyone.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Social Security was origionally planned as a way to keep the elderly and disabled from living in complete abject poverty.
> 
> It was never intended as a retirement fund for everyone.



So would you argue that SS in its present state is a success? Keep in mind, as long as you don't die, everyone eventually falls into the "elderly" category.

Sadly, many individuals have come to expect social security to care for them in their later years, and have made no plans to deal with retirement on their own.

God knows that I could make better use of the money that gets put in to SSA and plan on my own rather than have Uncle Sam plan for me.


----------



## Woods (Aug 13, 2007)

I scare you?? You guys have GOT to do a little research. (comic books don't count) Please tell me where I am wrong.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2007)

Woods said:


> I scare you?? You guys have GOT to do a little research. (comic books don't count) Please tell me where I am wrong.



Name commies on FDR's staff and YOU do the research as you're the one who shot off their mouth. As as far as your insult about comic books - stop being a d!ck or your life span here will be shortened...


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 13, 2007)

Flyboy, I have a feeling this guy has argued the same things in other forums and always lost the debate. Every single time.

Lets see if he can step up to the plate and argue facts and not rhetoric.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 13, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy, I have a feeling this guy has argued the same things in other forums and always lost the debate. Every single time.
> 
> Lets see if he can step up to the plate and argue facts and not rhetoric.



Agree!


----------



## rogthedodge (Aug 14, 2007)

I don't think he's capable. He's posting from the hip in other sections on here but never able to counter points people raise against him.

@ Woods - I said you 'worry' me (not 'scare' me). It's a polite way of saying you're dumb. 

Probably too subtle for you .


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 14, 2007)

Churchill no doubt and I'm not much a british fan but he inspired the british people and gave them hope.And I saw on tv once how he was visiting a battleship in Normandy and suggested to pay a visit to germans and fire at them.So my respects for this great man.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 14, 2007)

I voted for Winston Churchill. I can remember a good bit of WW-II. I read
all the papers, and found (or tried to) places on the map that most people
never heard of. I really believe he kept the British people together, and
talked FDR out of a lot of things another president would have said "no"
to. He was really devistated when the Japanese sunk those two battle
cruisers, but he overcame his aches and pains, picked up the pieces 
and kept going. He was a statesman, tho, not a stratagist.

Charles


----------



## The Basket (Aug 14, 2007)

Franco kept Spain out the war. Smart boy.

I would go for Harry Truman just to be awkward. Did nukes.


----------



## Woods (Aug 14, 2007)

What the heck was wrong with McCarthy??
Ok..How about Alger Hiss..Claimed he wasn't, but then again..jails are full of 'inocent' victims.
Dexter White seems familiar.
Laughlin Currie comes to mind.(Communist spies)
FDR was a lover of Commies. His wife too for that matter.
Lili St. Cyr (a stripper) Eleanors friend.

"There's nothing wrong with Communists in this country. Several of the best friends I have are Communists. I do not regard the Communists as any present or future threat to our country. In fact, I look upon Russia as our strongest ally in the years to come." -FDR to Rep. Martin Dies

Dr. Henry Beston said about FDR: " Roosevelt was probably the most destructive man who ever lived. He left the civilized west in ruins, the entire East in a chaos of bullets and murder-and our own nation facing, for the first time,an enemy (Russia) whose attack may be mortal. And to crown the summit of such fatal iniquity, he left us a world that can no longer be put together in terms of moral principle."

Sorry about being such a "dick" as you put it. If you want to terminate my time here, so be it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2007)

No we just dont tolerate dicks on this site. If you wish to debate something thats fine but dont throw out cheap shots at people especially when the majority of this forum are middle aged adults and military veterans.


----------



## Woods (Aug 14, 2007)

Oh..the avatar is cute. Who ever saved their baby picture (ultra-sound) sure has come a long way. Still has a big head though.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 14, 2007)

Amen to that....crewchief !!

Charles


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2007)

Well here is your first warning. You only get one from me...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

Woods said:


> Oh..the avatar is cute. Who ever saved their baby picture (ultra-sound) sure has come a long way. Still has a big head though.


The avatar and siggy are fitting of some of the ignorant dribblings you have posted here. They'll go away when you stop being an imbecile!


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

I'd be interested to know how old woods is as he hasn't put it in his profile.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

trackend said:


> I'd be interested to know how old woods is as he hasn't put it in his profile.


God help us if he's over 14 - And to our Brit friends reading this - please be advised that most Americans aren't really this stupid unless they have some kind of advanced brain damage or been dropped on their head as a small child. In our friend's case I think its both.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 14, 2007)

Woods - if you're going to make bold claims, you need to back them up, rather than just state them. You need more than a quote. Put forth irrefutable evidence of FDR's communist credentials - through policies and actions of his administration.

Bear in mind socialism, nor the communist approach to acheiving socialism, is not inherently evil by any means. Several nations throughout the world have instituted social reform with success. Communists historically believed that socialist reform within the liberal democratic state was impossible, and sought another way to bring about socialist reform (whether through armed insurrection or participating in parliamentary politics while advocating the destruction of the capitalist state). There lies the threat that many saw to the capitalist state from communists.

This is beyond the scope of the thread - but Woods doesn't seem to fully grasp the rhetoric that he posts in this thread and others. Give substantiation.


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> God help us if he's over 14 - And to our Brit friends reading this - please be advised that most Americans aren't really this stupid unless they have some kind of advanced brain damage or been dropped on their head as a small child. In our friend's case I think its both.



Its Ok Joe we have our fair share numb nuckers.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 14, 2007)

Woods you have just stirred up a bunch of snakes....
I did the same thing....See page 20 of what do you think of our current president... Just... if you are going to say something back it up if you don't know ask questions the guys are always ready to answer intelligent questions with intelligent answers...
Reguards 
The Aussie


----------



## Woods (Aug 14, 2007)

OK...By your responses, If a pot were a brain,you PC fellows wouldn't have one to pee in.I answered your questions and got this BS in return.Now it's your turn. Prove ME wrong. You can't. So....crap abounds on this forum. 
You come around with messing with my avatar and yet somebody objects to my reference to 'comic books'? Wow. Kinda 'clicky' you fellows are. As long as we all get alongthough ,huh? Disagree and...well we see.Hypocrites to boot. Proud you all must be of your superior....intellect? And hey..any Canadians here? Ask your British friends about 'Dieppe'. A massacre to say the least. The bulk were Canadians. Cannon fodder to appease Uncle Joe. (a Commie?)
I guess I can understand how you fellows stick togeather. With all of the thousands of posts for just ONE member.. Ya got a life? And the boy who lives in Germany,get rid of your picture of the Me-109 and the pilot. You do him and your ancesters(especially WW2) a dis-service.
Try being proud for a change. Eh..you have no idea anyway. Well....kick me off as you would be one of those to jump at the chance. 

As Gomer Pyle would say...Well golllllllyyyy..dumb me down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

Woods said:


> As Gomer Pyle would say...Well golllllllyyyy..dumb me down.


*AND NOW WE SEE THE LOWER 5% OF THE GENE POOL - GOODBYE @SSHOLE!*


----------



## mkloby (Aug 14, 2007)

Geez man - you made comments and didn't back them up... then you tell people to prove you wrong when you haven't even substantiated your comments?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Geez man - you made comments and didn't back them up... then you tell people to prove you wrong when you haven't even substantiated your comments?



THE LOWER 5% OF THE GENE POOL! I bet his parents used him for a human pinata.


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 14, 2007)

Why did you ban him so quick?

I wanted to see what deradler had to say.

 

besides, we could have had a lot of fun at his expense.


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 14, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Why did you ban him so quick?
> 
> I wanted to see what deradler had to say.
> 
> ...



I agree... he was fun...

It was pretty darn funny that he thought the U.S. bailed England out of the Falklands-Malivinas with air support.

I like his avatar!

... are u sure u dont want to start a "Hall of Shame"?


----------



## Haztoys (Aug 14, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Why did you ban him so quick?
> 
> I wanted to see what deradler had to say.
> 
> ...



I'm with syscom3 ... A slow long torture would be more sporting...

FlyboyJ ..Is like a B-52 ... He carpet bombs the Bozo's ...And Flyboy thats a compliment......


----------



## syscom3 (Aug 14, 2007)

I didnt know if he was insulting Deradler... or Hartmann... or the -109... or all three!!!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2007)

you guys are rollin me!!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Why did you ban him so quick?
> 
> I wanted to see what deradler had to say.
> 
> ...



His comments did not deserve a response from me.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 15, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> His comments did not deserve a response from me.



Or from anyone for that matter.

TO


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 15, 2007)

And that's why I pulled the plug on him. He had his chance to prove he really wasn't an imbecile...

Now, back to business....


----------



## Derfman (Dec 19, 2007)

I have a hard time choosing between Churchill, FDR and Truman.

Maybe Churchill, but by a tiny margin.

I know you need hitler on the list, but even from a purely military point of view, the man was a disaster. ALL his successes that succeeded "in spite of his Generals" were things that should have failed, but succeeded only because of the quality of those Generals and the men they led into battle (and in some case, were helped along by opponents that were dumber than anyone had a right to hope for....)


----------



## Freebird (Dec 19, 2007)

trackend said:


> Close but I go for Roosevelt over Churchill. Churchill was a great orator (with great speech writers behind him) and excelled at persuading the US to give support at a very touch and go time, he was also a great wit.
> Monty said to him once " I don't smoke I don't drink I'm 100% fit" Churchill replied "well I do smoke I do drink I'm 200% fit".
> *The problem I feel is that Churchill had a habit of getting involved in military tactics and as a military leader he was poor.*
> 
> ...



Very astute observations, Trackend, and it was perhaps the ghost of "Gallipoli" haunting him that prevented him meddling even more. The British Chiefs of Staff realized that he was wary of overuling them, for if things went badly Churchill's neck was on the line. And our Aussie mates are not wrong when the think that Australia "got the shaft" in WWII, to some extent they did. (Canada shares some blame for that too...)

On the other hand, he had the chance to take the easy road for Britain, a truce with Hitler, after France fell, he absolutely refused. Doing what was "right" was more important than doing what was "safe". Makes you wonder about some of today's US political leaders claiming that they would do "whatever it takes" to keep US "safe". Would they have the courage to take on Hitler, even if it made them less "safe"?

Churchill, with all his flaws, a Great man.


----------



## trigger (Dec 27, 2007)

What about Ike?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2007)

trigger said:


> What about Ike?



Was Ike the President or the leader of the United States in WW2?


----------



## renrich (Jan 14, 2008)

Ike did not become president until 1952. He was the Commander in Chief of SHAEF during WW2. I would not class him with Churchill.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2008)

renrich said:


> Ike did not become president until 1952. He was the Commander in Chief of SHAEF during WW2. I would not class him with Churchill.



Yes I know. I was asking that because he said Ike was the best leader of the war and this was referring to Political leaders.


----------



## renrich (Jan 14, 2008)

I believe that Ike was a good politician as a general having to deal with all the personalities in the Allied high command including Churchill, Monty, Patton, Alexander, DeGaulle, etc. I don't believe he was much of a strategist, for instance, compared to McArthur.


----------



## Urspolar27 (Jan 15, 2008)

For myself.....Romanian Marshal Ion Antonescu


----------



## parsifal (Jun 23, 2008)

*I believe that Ike was a good politician as a general having to deal with all the personalities in the Allied high command including Churchill, Monty, Patton, Alexander, DeGaulle, etc. I don't believe he was much of a strategist, for instance, compared to McArthur*


I dont know about that Richard. Eisenhower had an extraordinarily difficult job. With capable, but self opinionated subordinates like Patton, Monty, De Gaulle and even Mallory to contend with, he had a pretty tough assigment.

Also, by adopting the "broad front" strategy, he was minimising risk, whilst not allowing the germans to concentrate (the exception being, of course, the Ardennes counterattack). When the allies departed from this forula, such as at Arnhem, they got the worst of it.

I am a great fan of Eisenhower, Him and marshall are consistently underrated in my opinion


----------



## Big Rock (Jul 5, 2008)

Of course I would have to go with Churchill. Truly a great motivator. The courage he helped instill in the British people, in the face of the greatest adversity of their day, was remarkable.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 5, 2008)

renrich said:


> I believe that Ike was a good politician as a general having to deal with all the personalities in the Allied high command including Churchill, Monty, Patton, Alexander, DeGaulle, etc. I don't believe he was much of a strategist, for instance, compared to McArthur. He was the Commander in Chief of SHAEF during WW2. I would not class him with Churchill.



If you are comparing "political leaders" perhaps. Churchill was not a brilliant strategist, in fact he was a rather poor Minister of Defence.



Big Rock said:


> Of course I would have to go with Churchill. Truly a great motivator. The courage he helped instill in the British people, in the face of the greatest adversity of their day, was remarkable.



In this I agree, Churchill was an great leader of the British people.



parsifal said:


> *I believe that Ike was a good politician as a general having to deal with all the personalities in the Allied high command including Churchill, Monty, Patton, Alexander, DeGaulle, etc. I don't believe he was much of a strategist, for instance, compared to McArthur*
> 
> 
> I dont know about that Richard. Eisenhower had an extraordinarily difficult job. With capable, but self opinionated subordinates like Patton, Monty, De Gaulle and even Mallory to contend with, he had a pretty tough assigment.
> ...



Again Marshall did a good job building up the US military as head of the army, but as a strategist he had some failings


----------



## JugBR (Jul 11, 2008)

how about stalin ? soviet union was the only country that was invaded by germany and could beign free fighting back, you know what i mean ? the only nation invaded by germany and fights to expel them. and they did it.

btw, among the original leaders of the begining of the war, he was the only one who still in the power in post-war. with eastern europe under his authority and china under his influence.

besides the discussion about good or evil, love or hate, stalin should be one of the greatest leaders of ww2. and also one of the great winners of the conflict.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 13, 2008)

and Stalin had to go scrambling for good generals since he killed most of them in the '30s. Yep, great leader.


----------



## renrich (Jul 13, 2008)

Yep, Stalin was a great leader. He killed all of his closest competitors and terrorised the rest and if you were one of his generals and did not suit him you were eliminated. I still go with Churchill.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 13, 2008)

renrich said:


> Yep, Stalin was a great leader. He killed all of his closest competitors and terrorised the rest and if you were one of his generals and did not suit him you were eliminated. I still go with Churchill.









*1939:*

stalin and hitler signs a treaty, they agreed do not attack themselves and also beign neutral in case of some other power declares war against one of both.

also, and more important: they agreed to divide poland betwen them.

so, when germany invaded poland, the soviet army was in the borderline of this country then, when the last signal of polack resistance in varsaw was crushed, the soviet army invaded poland. isnt that true ?

so, ussr also invaded poland. why declares war just against germany ?

*1941:*

hitler brokes the treaty and attack ussr. england declares supports the soviet union against germany. the barbarossa operation is the largent military operation made by nazi germany, it counts with 70% of their army. 

*1945*

after a brutal and agressive ofensive, the red army arrives in berlin:

in 1939 stalin negotiated with hitler a half of poland, now stalin has half europe, including half germany. 

stalin, a butcher, a cheater, a dictator, a murder and also, the big winner of ww2.

thats my point.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 14, 2008)

102first_hussars said:


> Mackenzie King for me



Can any of the Canucks who voted for Mackenzie-King explain why they think he was a good leader?


----------



## Maestro (Jul 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Can any of the Canucks who voted for Mackenzie-King explain why they think he was a good leader?



Go figure ! I don't get it myself. Why is he even in the list ?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 16, 2008)

Stalin was not a great leader, as such, but i am of the opinion that he was at least better than Hitler. He at least had the good sense not to interfere in operational matters as much as Hitler, and after the absolute act of paranoia he displayed by killing most of his officers, he did settle down enough to allow his army to recover, and produce some of the finest officers of the war, 

I also think he was more realistic about the outcome of the postwar makeup of Europe, although to be fair, so was Churchill. The Americans were naive enough to trust Stalin at the end of the war. And didnt realize what his intentions were viz Eastern Europe


----------



## JugBR (Jul 16, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Stalin was not a great leader, as such, but i am of the opinion that he was at least better than Hitler. He at least had the good sense not to interfere in operational matters as much as Hitler, and after the absolute act of paranoia he displayed by killing most of his officers, he did settle down enough to allow his army to recover, and produce some of the finest officers of the war,
> 
> I also think he was more realistic about the outcome of the postwar makeup of Europe, although to be fair, so was Churchill. The Americans were naive enough to trust Stalin at the end of the war. And didnt realize what his intentions were viz Eastern Europe



i understand your opinion, but i think "greatest" is not "good", or "more ethic", or even "more human", otherwise, the names of stalin and hitler also couldnt being mentioned in this pool, would be waste of time.

my point is besides all his crimes against ucranians, germans, russians, etc... stalin was the great winner of ww2 and the most powerfull man in the world after the conflict. 

you have to remember, stalin sign a treaty with hitler, to share the poland, soviet union also invadede poland in 1939, but only against germany was declared war. why ?

also, hitler betrayed stalin and broke the treaty, starting the barbarossa operation, wich counts at least with 70% of germans army forces. the biggest operation of war. and soviets was the only nation who could expels the germans out their territory, fighting back until berlin.

to end my point is good to remember how was europe before the conflict and the new europe after that.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 16, 2008)

Jug makes a good point, one I never thought of . When Russia invaded Poland on 17 Sept 1939, why didn't Britain and France declare war on Stalin?

The US wasn't involved then Jug so when we did enter it was well beyond Barbarossa and Stalin was an "Ally".


----------



## JugBR (Jul 16, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Jug makes a good point, one I never thought of . When Russia invaded Poland on 17 Sept 1939, why didn't Britain and France declare war on Stalin?
> 
> The US wasn't involved then Jug so when we did enter it was well beyond Barbarossa and Stalin was an "Ally".



yes, you see, stalin would be another enemy of allies and then he became one of the 3 great leaders and also soviets made a great contribution to defeat of 3 reich, after the war, russia raises their territory and also their influence over europe.

considering the dictatorial conotation of soviet government, stalin became the most powerfull person of post-war.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 17, 2008)

An alternative, and perhaps interesting way of looking at this problem is perhaps to work backwards and think about the worst political leaders in WWII.

I am not a great fan of Petain, or Rydz Smigly. Strangely, perhaps, i would not put either Mussolini, or Hitler in the bottom of the list. I dont think much of Goring, and the japanese political assessment prior to PH was also pretty poor as well. I am not all that impressed by Chiang Kai Shek either.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 17, 2008)

parsifal said:


> An alternative, and perhaps interesting way of looking at this problem is perhaps to work backwards and think about the worst political leaders in WWII.
> 
> I am not a great fan of Petain, or Rydz Smigly. Strangely, perhaps, i would not put either Mussolini, or Hitler in the bottom of the list. I dont think much of Goring, and the japanese political assessment prior to PH was also pretty poor as well. I am not all that impressed by Chiang Kai Shek either.



the worst political leaders i believe was all those who dont realized the potential threat was germany. theres was a lot oportunities to see that, but they didnt care.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 17, 2008)

Njaco said:


> Jug makes a good point, one I never thought of . When Russia invaded Poland on 17 Sept 1939, why didn't Britain and France declare war on Stalin?



The situation in Eastern Europe was rather confused. The eastern half of Poland had originally been Russian or Ukrainian land, given to Poland after WWI, it was this land that was re-taken in 1939. The Western Allies were a little bit uneasy about making a big stink about that, especially since the Nazi were job # 1. Churchill actually was looking for ways to help Finland fight the USSR in 1940, but there was no way to send aid.



Maestro said:


> Go figure ! I don't get it myself. Why is {Mackenzie-King} even in the list ?



Perhaps because some people don't know what he did during the war, only that he was PM. {National Pride perhaps} His governments position during the war sure didn't help make things easier. A more flexible policy could have helped out with the ANZAC problems in N. Africa, and might have avoided "Dieppe"


----------



## JugBR (Jul 18, 2008)

freebird said:


> The situation in Eastern Europe was rather confused. The eastern half of Poland had originally been Russian or Ukrainian land, given to Poland after WWI, it was this land that was re-taken in 1939. The Western Allies were a little bit uneasy about making a big stink about that, especially since the Nazi were job # 1. Churchill actually was looking for ways to help Finland fight the USSR in 1940, but there was no way to send aid.



i believe fear of soviet red army is the only logic explanation. because soviet union did not invade poland to recoquest lost terrirtories but to expand the soviet union over what they believed was their "influence area".

its hard to say whos made the polish suffer more, the nazis or the soviets. soviets made a lot of executions and deploys polish prisioners to the german side many war crimes against polish civilians and atrocities vas made by red army. britain signed a treaty with poland but she just didnt acomplish the goal of its treaty, even defeat germany in 1940 sould be almost impossible, after dunkirk evacuation. 

then, the hope of a german defeat was in the soviet hands and the easter front, the barbarossa operation was the real point where nazis start to fall. tragical isnt ? the guy who was so mean likes your worst enemy now was your only hope...

thats why im very interested by that historical figure, stalin, he was the plage and also the cure of another plage, he was an necessary evil, but if allies didnt invaded normandy that evil could reach the beaches of portugal.

the main figure of ww2.


----------

