There was this little matter of a war going on whose outcome was still in doubt as late as June 1944. Continuity in exigent times matters. And who should have been the VP? Wallace again?

The notion that the slimy Dewey could have done better is laughable.

A less self-absorbed man would have chosen a suitable successor, rather than leaving it to the convention.

The war was never in doubt.

"The war was never in doubt"

Thank you, General OJ. Eisenhower was of a very different opinion prior to the success at D-Day, and much of the general staff were scared when the 101st got surrounded at Bastogne.

bart:

D-Day was a pointless exercise in coddling Stalin.

Clearly, we should have let the Red Army march all the way to Brittany.
As for Roosevelt's successor, we ended with Truman...."God takes care of drunks, little children, and the United States of America.

Noel Erinjeri

But Truman was too unsure of himself to face down the Soviets and too short sighted to ignore them if we weren't going to fight them.

How could FDR not have run in '44? Once he ran in '40 he showed that regardless of Washington's precedent, as far as he was concerned the Presidency was a lifetime job.

bart: In Omar Bradley's memoirs, his main reaction to the Battle of the Bulge is incredulous glee that the Germans were so stupid as to destroy their army so much faster by launching the offensive.

b:

That was after the fact, however. It's easy to be brave years later.

Churchill says something similar in his WWII memoirs...he says he was all up for a German invasion attempt because he thought the Nazis would suffer one of the worst defeats in military history and get hurled back into the sea. You gotta wonder if he was really so gung-ho about the prospect of an invasion when it actually looked like a possibility.

Bart-

The death of a president during war time could have been a bigger distraction. FDR thought he was indispensible. Washington, the man, knew better and tried to set a wise example. The 'laughing boy from Hyde Park' was a foolish, egocentric political hack who confused his party's interests with the nation's.

"his leaving the choice of a running mate to the convention delegates was"

You think he should have stuck with Wallace?

Robert Schwartz:

OJ told me a few days ago that Wallace would've been a bad president but at least he would've kept us out of the Cold War.

Me, I find the concept of having a fellow traveler running the U.S. military a bit unnerving...

Congress was already dominated by conservatives--he'd have been Bill Clinton post-'94.

OJ,

Just one howler from you after another, eh?

Clinton was completely unprincipled. He'd have been a Chinese Communist if it could have gotten him elected. Henry Wallace had principles, just naive ones. He was a basically decent man, who was just 100% wrong about the Soviets. He himself admitted later how he had been duped by the Commies. One cannot imagine a similar mea culpa from Slick Willie.

Matt,

Churchill knew as well as anyone that had the Nazis actually landed in Britain, opposition would have collapsed before teatime.

Nor from FDR, who was equally duped.

The point is they couldn't have.

OJ, while it is obvious that the lives of American GIs would have been spared had we not invaded Normandy and held back like cowards instead of engaging the Germans in combat, it begs the question as to why a Europe completely Nazi or completly Communist would have been preferable to the Europe of our world which was half American?

Because, even assuming they didn't just pummel each other into oblivion, neither the Nazi nor Communist Empires would have lasted until 1989, while we would have had a far healthier society without the Cold War. Instead we damaged our own culture trying to prop up a corpse.

neither the Nazi nor Communist Empires would have lasted until 1989

You know this for a fact how exactly? In our world, the decrepit, inefficient USSR actually did survive that long. With a capitalist base for its command economy, the more rationally organized economy of the reich may have lasted longer.

And don't you care about the peoples of Western Europe who would have been living under tyranny for all these decades? Or all the Jews that would have died had the Nazis had the time to complete the Final Solution.

As for America "propping up" the USSR with a Cold War (though I'm not sure how you can claim this to be true when it was military spending under Reagan that broke the USSR) what would be the difference with the Reich propping up the USSR (and being propped up in turn) in an extended cold war of their own.

Yes, we saved the USSR and it could still barely make it that long. It would have fallen even quicker if it had to try and control more territory.

Nazism and Communism, contrary to popular belief, don't work.

How exactly did we save the USSR?

First by saving them from Hitler, then by leaving them intact at the end of the war, then by the Cold War offering them something to unify against, then by engaging in detente.

First by saving them from Hitler,

And the difference between Hitler and Stalin was what exactly?

then by leaving them intact at the end of the war,

You would prefer Truman had launched a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviets? That's and awful lot of innocent dead bodies, enough to make America guilty of genocide worse than Hitler or Stalin.

Besides, supppose president Judd had gone to congress requesting a declaration of war against the USSR in 1945. Take a guess what the response would be.

Eleanor objected to her husband that the Russians were occupying eastern Europe. He asked her how many Americans would go to war to save Lithuania. Not many, she admitted. He corrected her, not any. If the president failed to launch a war against Communism immediately after WWII it was largely because the American people wanted no such war.

then by the Cold War offering them something to unify against, then by engaging in detente.

Please make up your mind. You can't say we propped them up by being a threat and then say we propped them up by not being a threat.

None, that's the poin.

Yes.

Why not?

If there is no difference, why prefer a Nazi dominated Europe to a continent only half dominated by the Communists?

Despite the fact that you would have loved to butcher millionsof innocent Russian civilians in an all out nuclear strike, would the American people and congress support such a genocidal policy on your part?

Because the statement is internallyhg contradictory, that's why not. How can we support he USSR by being a threat and then support them again by not being a threat. Pick one.

Yes, exactly. What was the point of transferring Easternm Europe from Hitler to Stalin?

They didn't support war with Germany, but fought it anyway.

Fine--topple the Bolsheviks at the end of WWI.

Well for one thing, Hitler was planning to commit genocide of the slavic peoples once he was finished murdering the Jews, gypsies, gays and other undesireables. Those few who were allowed to live would have been reduced to helot status working on planations and serving the German/Nordic colonizers. By comparison, Eastern Europe was better off under Communism. Furthermore, it wasn't just Eastern Europe that would have remained under Nazi domination, but the whole of continental Europe. So why is a completely Nazi Europe preferable to one that was half American?

The American people didn't want to fight anyone until Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war against the USA. As Victor Davis Hanson has noted, the Axis would then recieve the full fury of an aroused and angered democracy. So unless Stalin was equally stupid as Hitler and declares war on the US or invades Western Europe, how do you intend to get the American people and congress to approve your unprovoked attack that would result in the incineration of tens of millions of innocent Russian civilians, women and children?

After such an attack what would be the difference between America and Nazi Germany?

What would be the difference between Orrin Judd and Adolph HItler?

It may disappoint and embitter you, but the American people tend to be more decent than you are. My guess is that your love of war and killing stems from not ever having worn your country's uniform. As a former Air Force officer, it always seems to me that the people without any experience of war are the ones most eager for it.

We did try to topple the Bolshies after WWI. American troops were sent to Murmansk. French, British and Japanese troops also intervened as did the famous Czech Legion (see Bruce Lincoln's "Red Victory"). All the intervenion accopmlished was to trigger the traditional Russian xenophobia and increase recruiting and support for the Red Army.

For the same reason Poland today is preferable to France.

The American people opposed war with Germany after Hitler declared war. GIs in Europe opposed the war they were fighting.

Yes, we should have won instead of quitting.

So how is a completely Nazi Europe like Poland and a half American Europe like France?

No soldier ever likes the war they're fighting in (did you ever wear your country's uniform or see combat). The old GIs I've known were rather proud of their service in Europe. That's also not the impression given by unit histories such as "Band of Brothers". Please provide sources and references proving that GIs opposed the war in Europe.

Easy to say to the Allies that had been bled white by four years of trench warfare and the traditionally isolationist Americans that they should have tried harder against the Bolshies. Please explain how you would have convinced Allied people and governemtns to start another major war even after the first was not yet over.

Since you dodged these questions, I'll repeat them for you:

..how do you intend to get the American people and congress to approve your unprovoked attack that would result in the incineration of tens of millions of innocent Russian civilians, women and children?

After such an attack what would be the difference between America and Nazi Germany?

What would be the difference between Orrin Judd and Adolph Hitler?

Also provide evidence that the American people opposed the war with Germany even after Hitler declared war on the US.

It's why FDR got waxed in the '42 midterm and why Ike snarled at a GI, "Are you still having trouble hating them?", after touring Buchenwald.

Americans hated the Japanese but didn't particularly see why Hitler was our problem.

It's why FDR got waxed in the '42 midterm

With rare exceptions, the party in the white house loses congressional seats in mid terms.

and why Ike snarled at a GI, "Are you still having trouble hating them?", after touring Buchenwald.

That's it? That's the sum total of your evidence that GIs opposed the war in Europe? Somehow, I was hoping for something more substantial.

Since you dodged these questions (again), I'll repeat them for you:

..how do you intend to get the American people and congress to approve your unprovoked attack that would result in the incineration of tens of millions of innocent Russian civilians, women and children?

After such an attack what would be the difference between America and Nazi Germany?

What would be the difference between Orrin Judd and Adolph Hitler?

So how is a completely Nazi Europe like Poland and a half American Europe like France?

Also provide evidence that the American people opposed the war with Germany even after Hitler declared war on the US.

I don't understand your questions. when has a president ever had trouble faking a pretext for war? Who asked us about nuking Hiroshima? How is that different from nuking the Bolsheviks? Are we Hitlerish for doing so or for firebombing Dresden? Were the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from leaving the USSR intact better than the couple hundred thousand or couple million deal;ing with them in a timely fashion would have taken?

We loved killing Japs.

Try New Dealers War by Thomas Fleming, or anything else about the war.

when has a president ever had trouble faking a pretext for war?

Pearl Harbor was a faked pretext? Hitler's declaration of war on America was faked?

Who asked us about nuking Hiroshima?

Nobody, as we were already at war with a Japan that had attacked us.

How is that different from nuking the Bolsheviks?

We would not have already been at war with a USSR that had attacked us.

Are we Hitlerish for doing so or for firebombing Dresden?

Well that's an ongoing debate, one I remeber well from my Air Force days. For the most part, German war production under Speer actually peaked with the bombing campaign. Attempts to terrorize civilians with fire bombings proved to be a failure as well. The destruction of Dresden so late in the war served no definitive military purpose. But all the above was only know after the war.

Were the tens of millions of deaths that resulted from leaving the USSR intact better than the couple hundred thousand or couple million dealing with them in a timely fashion would have taken?

You grossly underestimate the civilian death toll from multiple nuclear strikes on Soviet population centers. Given the the centralized control of food production and distribution, the destruction of transport hubs would have by itself resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of Russians from subsequent famine and disease. Which still leaves begging the question of how do you intend to get the American people and congress to approve your unprovoked attack that would result in the deaths of tens of millions of innocent Russian civilians, women and children?

And the other questions you've been dodging:

After such an attack what would be the difference between America and Nazi Germany?

What would be the difference between Orrin Judd and Adolph Hitler?

So how is a completely Nazi Europe like Poland and a half American Europe like France?

Also provide evidence that the American people opposed the war with Germany even after Hitler declared war on the US. You would think that an unpopular leader wh had dragged America into a war it didn't want and who was gong for an unprecedented 4th term would have been badly beated in the election of 1944. That is, if what you say about American and GI opposition to the war in Europe were true.

Let's cut to the chase, OJ. Why do you wish that Nazis had won?

Because I'm Aryan, wouldn't have affected me.

Because I'm Aryan, wouldn't have affected me.

So as an Aryan, do you approve of the policies of the Third Reich?

No, they should have ignored the West and just attacked the USSR. There'd have been no World War.

Are there no other policies (either planned or actually carried out) or ideological beliefs of the Third Reich that you disapprove? Think hard now.

Hitler considered all Slavs, Poles as well as Russians, to be racially inferior. German colonization of the east was to include Poland as well as European Russia. Now then, how do you propose that Hitler get at the USSR without invading Poland first? The Poland whose independence was guaranteed by Britain and France. Said guarantees resulting inevitably in war with the West.

The Poles would have been happy to fight by his side if he'd just gone after the Communists. They'd already beaten the Bolsheviks once.

Let me repeat the main question:

Are there no other policies (either planned or actually carried out) or ideological beliefs of the Third Reich that you disapprove? Think hard now.

Their emphasis on large families?

Oh well, what can I say to a man who hates FDR more than Hitler?

BTW OJ, there is no such thing as Aryans (aside from the prehistoric invaders of India who established their caste system, but they haven't been heard from in a long time), it's a Nazi myth.

You know, your wife seemed taken aback at your view concerning the ordination of women and your claim that they aren't fully moral. Your brother was surprised at your desire to kill gays. Does either one know that you're a Nazi sympathizer?

So do all mud people claim.

If they hadn't been queer atheist Marxist Darwinists there'd be little to object to about them.