Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Eagle_Eye]

Eisenhower himself said he disagreed with FDR's strategy of total war on Nazi Germany, and would have preferred to end hostilities by offering the Nazis more generous surrender terms. But as a soldier, he was required to execute the strategic vision of the president at the operational scale.

Which is what I said.

 

[countryboy]

It is easy to look back with hindsight and see how wrong it was.

There is no guarantee that if you were born in 1920, and did not have the hindsight you have now, that you would have been protesting in 1942 in the streets against the incarceration of Japanese Americans.

Somehow, I do not think you would have protested or lifted a finger to stop it. Even Canada was incarcerating it's citizens of Japanese descent during WW2..

With the perspective we have now, what happened was obviously unconditional and criminal. Bill Clinton did the right thing by apologizing on behalf of the US government and offering some modest - if probably inadequate - compensation.

You're fine with it. Got it. And you would be fine with it again. Only next time, it won't be Japanese Americans, will it?

 

[Cypress]

Which is what I said.

Okay, but to me what you said was dismissive of FDR and did not acknowledge that, strategically, FDR was calling the shots

Damn I thought Ike was Supreme Commander Allied Expeditionary Force (SCAEF) in the European theatre.

I didn't know FDR called all the shots.

How did they get his wheelchair up Omaha beach after it was secured?

If you are saying that General Eisenhower was following orders and executing FDR's strategic vision for winning the war, then we are on the same page.

 

[Cypress]

You're fine with it. Got it. And you would be fine with it again. Only next time, it won't be Japanese Americans, will it?

It is easy to sound like hero when you have the hindsight of 80 years of history.

That is posturing and expecting accolades for something you had nothing to do with.

If you had been born in 1920, there is almost a zero percent chance you would have been in the streets protesting, or lifting a finger in the slightest way to help Americans of Japanese decent. Same with me. It does not make us heroes in the year 2020 to come out against the internment of WW2

 

[Minister of Truth]

Again you prove you know absolutely nothing about the president's role as commander in chief. The president sets policy the military carries out the policy, so dumb ass Ike and McArthur won the war not the FDR or HST.

Given how much other wartime presidents have struggled (Madison, Lincoln, Truman, LBJ, W Bush) to achieve military victories, FDR is really only joined by Polk and McKinley in terms of achieving overwhelming success.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Given how much other wartime presidents have struggled (Madison, Lincoln, Truman, LBJ, W Bush) to achieve military victories, FDR is really only joined by Polk and McKinley in terms of achieving overwhelming success.

I would say the destruction of the Confederacy was an overwhelming success.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Eagle, here is the way war works.

Strategic vision and goals are set by political leaders: FDR, Stalin, Churchill.

Generals and admirals execute those strategies and goals at the operational level: Eisenhower, Nimitz, MacArthur.

Nobody in their right mind ever suggested FDR was checking tide tables for Normandy in June 1944

I hate to tell you no matter how you explain it the president and congress declare war. But it's the flag officers who do the planning fighting and winning the war. Every time a president has gotten involved we have lost. Korea and Vietnam are examples.

 

[Cypress]

I hate to tell you no matter how you explain it the president and congress declare war. But it's the flag officers who do the planning fighting and winning the war. Every time a president has gotten involved we have lost. Korea and Vietnam are examples.

You are flip flopping all over the map.

In post 15 you said all the president did was appoint generals.

In post 21 you then agreed with me that presidents actually develop the strategy, strategic vision, war goals and objectives - and then direct generals to achieve their strategy and goals at the operational level.


Nobody ever suggested FDR was directing the tactics of infantry regiments and armoured divisions

 

[Minister of Truth]

I would say the destruction of the Confederacy was an overwhelming success.

Victory was achieved, and while it's not Lincoln's fault that McClellan went and botched the Peninsula Campaign (which would have captured the CSA early on), it took a long time for Lincoln to find any success.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

You are flip flopping all over the map.

In post 15 you said all the president did was appoint generals.

In post 21 you then agreed with me that presidents actually develop the strategy, strategic vision, war goals and objectives - and then direct generals to achieve their strategy and goals at the operational level.


Nobody ever suggested FDR was directing the tactics of infantry regiments and armoured divisions

Look numb nuts read the fucking constitution. When it comes to war the president recommends officers to general status or promote a general but congress has to ratify it! It's the fucking generals who plan and fight the war not the president. If you are too stupid to understand that there is no reason to continue.

 

[Cypress]

Look numb nuts read the fucking constitution. When it comes to war the president recommends officers to general status or promote a general but congress has to ratify it! It's the fucking generals who plan and fight the war not the president. If you are too stupid to understand that there is no reason to continue.

You just agreed with me in post 21 that FDR and civilian leadership develop the strategy and objectives for the war.

Now you are backtracking and implying all FDR did was appoint generals, and sit back to watch the show.

This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the civilian-miltary relationship in this nation.

FDR, Churchill, and Stalin went to extraordinary lengths to plan a strategy of total war on Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. These strategies and plans are well known to history as the Atlantic Charter, the Yalta Conference, the Pottsdam Conference, etc.

In post 19 I even showed you that Eisenhower himself disagreed with FDR's strategy of total war and utter destruction of Nazi Germany, but as a soldier subservient to civilian authority he was required to follow and execute FDR's orders and FDR's strategic vision


You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I ever suggested that FDR was checking tide tables at Iwo Jima, or picking artillery targets in the Ardennes Forest. You will not find single post from me that ever remotely even suggested that.

We could have had the bad luck of having a weak president, or an isolationist president who would have been satisfied with a limited war on Nazi Germany, and been favorable to ending hostilities by offering the Nazis generous terms of surrender.

The fact is, there are a few times in history where the man meets the hour. Lincoln in the 1860s was one. FDR in the 1940s was another.

 

[archives]

As CIC does the president participate in the planning and execution of military operations? Sorry sport but the CIC picks the commanders to carry out military operations. Thus it was Ike that defeated the Nazi's on the battle field. Not very knowledgeable of how the military operates are you?

Ike could not do anything major without FDR's approval, the Chief Executive is referred to as the Commander in Chief for a reason

 

[archives]

FDR was commander in chief.

More importantly, FDR's vision was a relentless assault on Nazi Germany, waging total war on them to coerce them into an unconditional surrender, occupying Germany, dismantling their government, and re-making them from the ground up.

There was a huge isolationist sentiment in the United States who either did not want to commit to war in Europe, or once committed to war who were willing to consider a conditional surrender with Hitler and offering terms to Nazi Germany.

Now here is a relevant history question for you, do you think FDR purposely held up a second front in Europe till half way thru 1944 knowing that the Russians were winning in the West and didn't want to put American soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily?

 

[archives]

Look numb nuts read the fucking constitution. When it comes to war the president recommends officers to general status or promote a general but congress has to ratify it! It's the fucking generals who plan and fight the war not the president. If you are too stupid to understand that there is no reason to continue.

Your going done a rabbit hole with that view, so lets carry it further, Ike gave the orders, but physically who executed them out, and thus who really won the war?

 

[Cypress]

Now here is a relevant history question for you, do you think FDR purposely held up a second front in Europe till half way thru 1944 knowing that the Russians were winning in the West and didn't want to put American soldiers in harm's way unnecessarily?

I think Churchill may have wanted to bleed the Soviets. Churchill went to Moscow and tried to sell Stalin on the idea of Anglo-American forces opening up an Italian front as a panacea to bringing Hitler to heel. But in some ways I think that was a delay tactic against Stalin's insistence the western powers do their fair share by invading western Europe. An Italian front was never plausibly going to get us into the heart of Germany.

FDR was a very hands on CinC and he overuled some of his generals who proposed a trans-English channel crossing in 1942. I think FDR genuinely felt a 1942 channel crossing would be a disaster, because American armed forces were not prepared for it. I do not think FDR ruled it out as a cynical way to bleed Soviet Russia. Just my two cents. FDR's decision in 1942 to implement Operation Torch in North Africa, in hindsight, was probably the smart strategic move to make.