Really?TheMarcksPlan wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021 07:40Then it's a good thing for you that Roosevelt didn't express exactly the same thoughts as his military leaders on this subject...Peter89 wrote:The political leaders of the Wallies understood the situation better than a number of their military commanders, and both Roosevelt and Churchill gave orders contradicting their military advisors.
FDR:FDR:"The whole question of whether we win or lose the war
depends on the Russians." Recorded in Morgenthau's diary on June 15, 1942.-------------------------------------------------------Russia alone possesses the manpower potentially able to defeat Germany in Europe. ‘‘Brief Joint Estimate of the Military Situation of the Associated Powers,’’ memo, Dec. 21, 1941, JB 325, serial 729, RG 225, NAI eagerly await the revision of your views in light of the above evidence.Peter89 wrote:I'm not impervious to evidence - on the contrary, really.
Such a revision would force a revision on me regarding past statements such as:
So if I cite a quote from Hitler, it is actually an inevitable, iron law of foreign policy? Something that was bound to happen? Lol.
What these quotes are meaning is that FDR thought that the Russians played a key role in defeating the Germans in mid-late 1941. You try to read something there, that actually wasn't there.
No one denies that the Soviets played a key role in defeating the Germans, but it doesn't mean that the war would be over if the Germans beat the SU. Britain stood alone against the whole Axis for a year, and didn't quit, made no compromise, and showed resolve.
Now that I answered your questions again (seems like I'm not the one who's impervious to evidence), how about answering the very basic question:
What sense does it make to twist a hundred decisions in history, and examine the 101st twist as a plausible alternate history?