A "reasonable slice" would have been well to the East of the Elbe, and likely, well to the East of the Oder. Remember, Stalin started the war virtually on Hitler's side.
FDR Wank
- Thread starter David bar Elias
- Start date
A "reasonable slice" would have been well to the East of the Elbe, and likely, well to the East of the Oder. Remember, Stalin started the war virtually on Hitler's side.
And the United States did jack-shit for the first two years of the war.
That would explain the arms shipments and naval support for the British from 1940 onwards
And that was his own doing, not anyone else's. Besides, France suffered tremendously in the war, and yet they did NOT get control of what they sought after the war.
Not nearly at the level of what the Soviet Union suffered--plus, France didn't have the leverge the Soviet Union did.
While true, Stalin gained lands out of that war that were never historically Russian, notably wht is today Kaliningrad Oblast. Additionally, one finds it telling that the new Soviet border with Poland was eerily similar to the frontiers agained by the USSR as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
I Always Thought, Thiis Was Ironically Useful to The Poles ...While true, Stalin gained lands out of that war that were never historically Russian, notably wht is today Kaliningrad Oblast. Additionally, one finds it telling that the new Soviet border with Poland was eerily similar to the frontiers agained by the USSR as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
A Longer Coastliine, Including a Sliightly Larger Total Area, All at The German's Expense No Less ...
In Exchange for Territory they Diidn't Even Bother Defendiing in 1939, And Was Generally Poorer than The Western Half Anyway!
I Always Thought, Thiis Was Ironically Useful to The Poles ...
A Longer Coastliine, Including a Sliightly Larger Total Area, All at The German's Expense No Less ...
In Exchange for Territory they Diidn't Even Bother Defendiing in 1939, And Was Generally Poorer than The Western Half Anyway!
I thought that Poland faced a net loss as a result of the border changes after the war.
Poland's borders should have been changed after the war period. The Poles ruled over a polygot nation with substantial Jewish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Belorussian minorities. East of the Curzon line Poles were really only present in the urban areas. If Poland had got its pre-war boundaries back, you have the possibility of another Yugoslavia.
HurganPL
Banned
The Curzon line doesn't represent ethnic boundry. Beyond it in pre-1939 they were concetrated areas of Polish majority.
Yes but it wasn't the large factor-Poland after the war was a sea of ruins. The destruction can't be described. Whole cities were leveled down, and attempts were made to destroy Poland completely as a nation in cultural and physical sense. So it really didn't brought anything to Poland.
I think you're asking for a more hawkish roosevelt who's willing to risk war with the nation pulling the brunt of the war against Germany, right?
Come on, that 's just plain fucking stupid. Supercharged FDR? That makes him sound like a battery.
PS
Wank, Wanker, Wankity, Wankiest, Wankson, Wannkingtonshirevilletown
I'm asking for a more Hawkish and economically traditional liberal (instead of Keynesian) Roosevelt who does many things differently, the most important of these relating to the war.
Oh, please...spare us. A lot of what he used in the New Deal was based on measures Hoover began. Furthermore, although the New Deal got things going for a while, the late 1930s saw a recession that threatened to undo much of what he accomplished; only the demands imposed by war shook off the lingering effects of the depression. And that's for starters: we need not go into Yalta or anything quite like that.
That would explain his dozen years of interventionist economic policies and unconstitutional pensions schemes.