[malachi151]

I have seen a lot of rhetoric about this issue on all sides. I've always maintained that Roosevelt was anti-communist.

I've seen a lot of cosy talk between he and Stalin though, but was that just for the war effoort, or what?

And also the majority of Americans opposed an alliance with the USSR, but Roosevelt pushed for it.

Roosevelt favored Henry Wallace to be his vice pres in his last term, but the Democratic Party denied him that, and put Truman in his place instead.

Then you have quotes like:

We did discuss international relationships from the point of view of big, broad objectives, rather than details. But on the basis of what we did discuss, I can say even today that I do not think any insoluble differences will arise among Russia, Great Britain and the United States.

In these conferences we were concerned with basic principles -- principles which involve the security and the welfare and the standard of living or human beings in countries large and small. To use an American and somewhat ungrammatical colloquialism, I may say that I "got along fine" with Marshal Stalin. He is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with a stalwart good humor. I believe he is truly representative of the heart and soul of Russia; and I believe that we are going to get along very well with him and the Russian people -- very well indeed.

Britain, Russia, China and the United States and their Allies represent more than three-quarters of the total population of the earth. As long as these four nations with great military power stick together in determination to keep the peace there will be no possibility of an aggressor nation arising to start another world war.

But those four powers must be united with and cooperate with (all) the freedom-loving peoples of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and the Americas. The rights of every nation, large or small, must be respected and guarded as jealously as are the rights of every individual within our own republic.

http://www.mhric.org/fdr/chat27.html

December 24, 1943

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Rosevelt didn't become allies with the USSR because he was not anti-communist...its becasue he needed the USSR. The USSR was the country fighting the Nazis...and which defeated them.

[Stygian]

He didnt need the USSR at all, it was just an alliance of convenience.

[Tex]

He didnt need the USSR at all, it was just an alliance of convenience.

The fact that Churchill was a devout anti-communist allowed Roosevelt to assume the role of mediator between them. Stalin was willing to "feed" millions of his citizens to the Nazi cannons, allowing the US breathing room while the new military industrial complex was "catching up." It could be argued that the British used US, Canadian, and Australian troops in much the same way, both in WWI and at the Normandy beach head, to a lesser extent.

Each of the three major Allies attempted to use one another to lessen their own tasks, and Churchill and Roosevelt both knew that Stalin's cooperation would end when the USSR no longer needed them.

So, it was an alliance of convenience, for all parties. Roosevelt was more inclined towards socialistic solutions than any previous president, but I doubt that he saw any relationship between his social policies and those of the brand of communism that existed at that time.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Stalin was willing to "feed" millions of his citizens to the Nazi cannons, allowing the US breathing room while the new military industrial complex was "catching up." It could be argued that the British used US, Canadian, and Australian troops in much the same way, both in WWI and at the Normandy beach head, to a lesser extent.

Oh you are just pure brains aren't you!!! How did you learn to breath...eh??

What kind of an idiotic statement is that...Stalin was willing to feed millions of his citizens to the Nazi cannons???

God I just love it when History Channel buffs join the debate...

[malachi151]

Exactly, why would Stalin "feed his citizens to the Nazi cannons" to save America and Britain?

[TROI]

." It could be argued that the British used US, Canadian, and Australian troops in much the same way, both in WWI and at the Normandy beach head, to a lesser extent.

How do you mean? We took as much of a beating at Normandy as you yanks and the most challenging thing on the canadian's beach was disembarking and walking to the end of the beach withough getting too much water in your boots.

But WW1 was a whole other ball game. Again we lost a whole generation of young men and fought for the whole duration of the war, we didn't come in late and we didn't leave late. World war one cased the eveual downfall of British hegemony in the world. No one else did it for us.

[malachi151]

Yes, that was a stupid thing to say as well, about the British using Americans.

I think this says it all(I've posted it here before):

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... of_war.htm

[Kristin]

I think perhaps people are getting a little bogged down in the details.

Whether you love or hate the USSR, its effort in WW2 was simply essential for the allied victory.

Fundamentally, the alliance between the allies was not one of "convenience", rather it was forged out of necessity of survival. Motivations behind the allies coming together were based more on a desire for thier own survival, at least initially, rather than playing power politics. Once the Nazi threat was overcome by the mid to late war however, cracks in the alliance formed as each power tried to positition itself to benefit the most from the imminent peace.

In Britains case, the UK would have fallen easily without the help of US forces and the war on the western front between the Nazi's and the USSR.

In the case of the US, without the help of the UK as an expeditionary base in europe, and again, without the war on the western front, an invasion of europe would have been far more difficult and bloody. Also, the US army at that stage of the war would have had considerable difficulty in conducting total warfare in two theatres (europe & asia) simultaneously, and in all likelihood, would've resigned itself to Nazi hegemony in europe, while focusing on the more direct threat of Japan.

Lastly, in the case of the USSR, it is doubtful that they could've overcome the Nazi invasion without the assistance of both the US and Britain, both in terms of equipment supply to the USSR through the lend-lease program, and in terms of the drain on German resources by having to conduct war on two fronts simultaneously.

That's my take at least...

Kristin