Your opinion on president Truman

The French are much like the Germans, in that they feel a compulsive need to ruin everything they touch

>war is ending
>US badly needs France as an ally in a united front against the USSR
>France wants to take back all their colonies
>everyone knows this is a bad idea, but they need France on their side
>France proceeds to lose the country to communists despite the US funding 80% of their war effort by the end, thus setting the stage for a confrontation between the US and Vietnamese communists that would kill millions of people
>France then pulls out of NATO anyway because fuck you, that's why

He was a man true to his word, no more and no less.

Garbage, certainly the worst post-FDR.

>opposed efforts to take down Soviet Russia
>allowed communists to infiltrate our government and steal all sorts of technology
>THEN starts the Cold War
>fascist that kept an iron grip on industry even after WW2 ended
>as well-spoken and even-tempered as Donald Trump, routinely shat on others for his own mistakes
>created the CIA
>sold out to the UK and France to help their fading imperialist regimes, ultimately leading to the Vietnam War and endless Middle-Eastern conflict
>Zionist, created Israel

I don't approve of his using the atomic bomb (although I understand the arguments for it). Other than that, great president.

I heard his gardening skills were pretty good

>Accuse Truman of being a Communist sympathizer
>fascist that kept an iron grip on industry even after WW2 ended

Pick one

I didn't accuse him of being a Communist sympathizer. What he was was a thin-skinned egomaniac that disparaged he generals, dismissed/ignored the threat of Stalin remaining in control of half of Europe, opposed measures to screen known commies from infiltrating his government, sat on his hands for a few years, and then had an "O shit" moment.

>opposed efforts to take down Soviet Russia

US presidents being Stalin's cocksleeve started with FDR desu.

I don't blame FDR for siding with Stalin during WW2; killed millions of Russians regardless on the Eastern Front, while taking care of the Nazis at the same time. He died too soon to know what he might have done differently. I mean, I'm not a big FDR fan either and think a lot of the governmental expansion during his presidency is directly responsible for many of the issues we've seen since, but he was also dealt a shit hand. Truman inherited all of FDR's accomplishments and instead of cleaning things up nicely, he went and fucked things up even further.

I think it's interesting how Truman was raised believing in basically the same racist principles that most of the South had at that time, but when he became President he realized the right thing to do was to fight for equality. He ended segregation in the military, but all the while was deeply conflicted between what he was taught to believe and what he knew was right.

He nuked more Japs than all the other Presidents combined.

10/10 best President

The cold war was starting before WW2 even ended. The strained relationship and divergent interests was not Truman's doing. Before FDR died he realized his original notion of working cooperatively with the USSR hand in hand to build the post-WW2 order was a dream as he came to take full measure of Stalinist Russia.

Simply put two great powers with dissimilar national security interests operating in the same geographical areas are naturally going to have some antagonism even without the ideological divide that separated East from West.

The point is that when WW2 ended, we had a perfect opportunity to tell Stalin to back the fuck down and release many of the occupied nations from their grip. Many of his generals would have supported him. Instead he allowed a thousand years of European history be burned to try and play nice, all the while being suckered as Russia used Truman's Zionist weakpoint to infiltrate our government via Communist Jews.

>The point is that when WW2 ended, we had a perfect opportunity to tell Stalin to back the fuck down and release many of the occupied nations from their grip
I'd love to hear how you'd propose to oust the reds from Eastern Europe without embroiling the US in a worse war than the one they had just finished. In fact I'd love to hear how you'd propose America do it even with military force considering the massive disparity of man power between the US and its allies and the USSR in Europe at the close of the war.

Russia was devastated by the time WW2 was concluded, they didn't have that much more manpower left, and we had nukes. It wouldn't have been that hard.

Absolutely the most based president, and one of the only men who can trigger Fascists, Commies, /pol/, and libertaritards at the same time.

>Allied army positions in central Europe on 10 May 1945. The Soviet numerical superiority in relation to the Western Allies was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe

fpbp

Genius. Brave as fuck. Great american.

This is complete bullshit. The Americans and co had 4.5 million men in Germany by the end of the war plus 1.4 million in Italy. The Soviets had 6.4 million in eastern Europe.

This is from the British Chiefs of Staffs who studied the viability of conducting an offensive against the USSR. They concluded that the chance of success was extremely precarious and if the war became protracted they had little chance at holding back the USSR from sweeping across Western Europe.

its kind of incredible to hear him speak, he's so unbelievably milquetoast
youtube.com/watch?v=nV-go1cuzgE

and this is the guy who said he "did a little jig" after he heard about Hiroshima

I hope you realize that the Nazis were outnumbered by the Soviets as well, and still always killed in higher numbers despite being stretched thin on many fronts and having the world against them. Cockroaches against men.

>europe burned, because he didnt enter total war with the state in control of huge portions of europe

>you

>I hope you realize that the Nazis were outnumbered by the Soviets as well
Yeah and they lost. The USSR had a numerical superiority of men & material in the principle theater as well as a smaller logistical burden than the Allies as most of their supplies must be shipped across the entire Atlantic ocean. There's a reason the British titled the hypothetical war plan as "Operation Unthinkable"

Should have nuked Moscow while he had the chance.

Wouldn't have been necessary. Demand retreat from Central Europe under threat of .
You realize that Russia was using American supplies too right? I'm not saying the West attacks literally the day Hitler offs himself, but six months would have been plenty of time to build up reinforcements. We controlled the Atlantic.

And this all could had been avoided if FDR hadn't been so keen on making sure that the Stalin-senpai would get all of the landlease help he could gt.

How would we have delivered nuclear bombs to moscow when they controlled so much of the area between us and them. ICBMs and B2 stealth bombers didnt exist back then.

Presumably rush the B-36 to prototype stage.

praise jesus

>Wouldn't have been necessary. Demand retreat from Central Europe under threat of
I'd love to know how you'd get a bomber through hundreds of miles of enemy territory to drop the bomb without control of the skies.

I'd love to hear how you'd assemble that force without tipping off the USSR that you're preparing for an offensive and inviting a preemptive attack by a foe that has superiority in men & materials. People tend to start asking questions when you extend their son's, brother's & father's draft service and start shipping them by the millions into Europe AFTER the fighting has ended. It's suspicious to say the least and in any case the US would never be able to assemble a superiority in numbers on the European front.

Not to mention that America is a democracy and its political suicide to start horrible new wars that presumably kill millions citizens for the benefit of countries that most Americans can't even name.

>This is from the British Chiefs of Staffs who studied the viability of conducting an offensive against the USSR

The US Army's 1945 reports place 4.5 million men in Germany and 1.4 million men in Italy at this time.

>They concluded that the chance of success was extremely precarious and if the war became protracted they had little chance at holding back the USSR from sweeping across Western Europe.

They never said that. They said "Our view, is that once hostilities began, it would be beyond our power to win a quick but limited success" (that is, throw the Reds out of Poland with little consequence) "and we should be committed to a protracted war against heavy odds. These odds, moreover, would become fanciful if the Americans grew weary and indifferent and began to be drawn away by the magnet of the Pacific War."

Anyway, Wallies in Germany circa May 1945:

>-4.5 million men as of May 1945
>17,000 tanks
>28,000 combat aircraft
>63,000 artillery pieces

Increase all that by about 30% for Italy.

Wehrmacht involved in Bagration-

>1,000,000 men
>1300 tanks/AGs
>1300 aircraft
>10,000 guns

To fight the above, the Soviets deployed double the number of men, more than triple the number of tanks and other armored vehicles, twice the number of guns and five times the number of aircraft. Against the Western Allies they had either a disadvantage in nearly every single one of these areas, plus a disadvantage in ammo reserves. In terms of tanks the Red Army had 2,000 fewer machines than the Allies did, and almost 7,000 of their park was inoperational. The Soviets also had only 18,500 combat aircraft. In terms of motor vehicles the Red Army was outnumbered close on 2 to 1.

What about per-man combat effectiveness? Look at Bagration again. Against the wildly undermanned and defensively inept Germans, they still suffered 770k casualties to their enemy's 450k and losing more tanks than their enemies had in the entire area of operations period.

To nuke Moscow from Cyprus would have been the same distance as nuking Hiroshima. We could have picked other, closer targets as well, such as Kiev.

The American people got on board with the Korean War easily enough. Many Americans already hated Russia, some (often on the industrialist Republican side) preferred Hitler to Stalin even before the war. Wouldn't have been so difficult to get people on board, but instead Truman just told himself everything would be fine.

>they still suffered 770k casualties to their enemy's 450k and losing more tanks than their enemies had in the entire area of operations period
That's because of two things. One, the Soviets were on the attack. Two, losses are counted differently. For tanks, a German recorded loss was an irrecoverable loss while a Soviet loss is any event that puts a vehicle out of action for a certain amount of hours, including throwing a track. For casualties, Germans didn't count the sick while Soviets did. If you look at permanent losses in terms of manpower, both sides were roughly the same.

>Two, losses are counted differently. For tanks, a German recorded loss was an irrecoverable loss while a Soviet loss is any event that puts a vehicle out of action for a certain amount of hours, including throwing a track

Those numbers come from Krivosheev's totals, and he very specifically only includes irrecoverable losses in his tallies.

>The losses of combat equipment and weapons are considered as irrecoverable, that is, as
not subject to repair and recovery for reuse.

>If you look at permanent losses in terms of manpower, both sides were roughly the same.

Which is absolutely awful as a statement of relative effectiveness when you see how stacked the deck was in the Soviets' favor.

>Krivosheev's totals, and he very specifically only includes irrecoverable losses in his tallies
>Krivosheev
Soviets didn't record permanent losses for vehicles, only operational losses while Germans only recorded irrecoverable losses and not operational losses.

A German tank can have all its crew members killed and not be counted as a loss because it may be recoverable. It is only counted as a loss if it suffers catastrophic damage such as ammunition explosion or if the Soviets advanced passed the tank and it is no longer recoverable. On the other hand, a Soviet tank is considered a loss if it gets stuck in the mud as it is out of action until it gets towed.

The only true way to get a real handle in the different ways of counting is counting crew casualties as you can't fudge those numbers with different counting standards.
>Which is absolutely awful as a statement of relative effectiveness when you see how stacked the deck was in the Soviets' favor.
The deck was also stacked in the Soviet's favor in Europe right after the war. The big differences you see are from different methods of counting losses which I was addressing. Glantz is usually considered the best source for the Eastern Front because he standardizes the statistics and has the most information from the Soviet side as his stuff is written based on opened Soviet archive files after the fall of the USSR.

/thread

>Soviets didn't record permanent losses for vehicles, only operational losses while Germans only recorded irrecoverable losses and not operational losses.

Incorrect. Krivosheev's work specifically tallies irrecoverable losses and is seen as the most reliable source for Soviet losses.

>The deck was also stacked in the Soviet's favor in Europe right after the war.

No it wasn't. The Wallies had an advantage in nearly every area of materiel.

>Incorrect. Krivosheev's work specifically tallies irrecoverable losses and is seen as the most reliable source for Soviet losses.
The Soviets never tallied up their irrecoverable vehicle losses in the first place.

>No it wasn't. The Wallies had an advantage in nearly every area of materiel.
The WAllies had a disadvantage in manpower, armor and experience. The two air forces were similar in size but the Soviets had their air force configured for ground support and the WAllies had their air forces configured for strategic bombing. There is no way at all the WAllies can hold off a more experienced army with vastly superior forces and an air force that was configured for ground support.

>The Soviets never tallied up their irrecoverable vehicle losses in the first place.

Krivosheev did.

>The WAllies had a disadvantage in manpower, armor

The WAllies had more tanks.

>and experience

The Soviets 'experience' translated to them needing massive numerical advantages to accomplish anything and still taking outsized losses. Needing a x2-5 advantage in every area against the woefully under-equipped Germans, they still took more losses. They have absolutely no chance against an opponent as powerful as the WAllies.

>Soviets had their air force configured for ground support and the WAllies had their air forces configured for strategic bombing

The Soviet air force will be a non-factor. The Luftwaffe managed to maintain air superiority and a more than 4-1 casualty ratio in its favor despite consistently being woefully outnumbered and mustering most of its strength to the West. The WAllies fighter corps could easily swat the Soviets, followed by bombing of Soviet logistical hubs.

>There is no way at all the WAllies can hold off a more experienced army with vastly superior forces

Probably not, but they could definitely repulse the Soviets.

The nuke was justified.

Thought the over-the-top anti-commie shtick was a bit much but understandable given the political climate.

Yeah, but a lot of the distance on the Hiroshima mission was open ocean, and by that point in the war Japan's Air Force was virtually nonexistent. Launching a nuclear strike on the USSR would have been much Moreno difficult, as they would have had many more chances to send up interceptors and their Air Force would actually have more than a couple questionably constructed kamikaze planes and a 5 gallon can of gasoline.

>Moreno

*much more difficult

Stupid phone contracted autism and thinks it knows what words to use better than me

What specifically was changed?

He's not my president

Now, the Vice President is on the principles committee of the National Security Council.

This means that he gets the same briefings the president does.

I think this also occurs with CIA intelligence, and it's generally more common for vice presidents t be involved in policy making these days.

>The WAllies had more tanks.
I never knew having 1/2 the amount of tanks is now having more tanks
>The Soviets 'experience' translated to them needing massive numerical advantages to accomplish anything and still taking outsized losses. Needing a x2-5 advantage in every area against the woefully under-equipped Germans, they still took more losses. They have absolutely no chance against an opponent as powerful as the WAllies.
The slavs fought crack troops for 4 years while the WAllies fought reserves.
>The Soviet air force will be a non-factor. The Luftwaffe managed to maintain air superiority and a more than 4-1 casualty ratio in its favor despite consistently being woefully outnumbered and mustering most of its strength to the West.
It's not hard to get a high kd ratio when you destroy most of their air force in air fields at the beginning of the war then have no pilots for the enemy to shoot down toward the end of the war.
>The WAllies fighter corps could easily swat the Soviets
>An air force with high altitude fighters will squat down an air force of similar numbers of low altitude fighters at low altitude
laughing sluts.jpg
>Probably not, but they could definitely repulse the Soviets.
At best they can hold them off at the Rhine and negotiate a ceasefire.

>I never knew having 1/2 the amount of tanks is now having more tanks
>
It's not hard to get a high kd ratio when you destroy most of their air force in air fields at the beginning of the war then have no pilots for the enemy to shoot down toward the end of the war.

Nice try. The vast majority of Soviet aircraft losses were in 1942-1944, a period where the Nazis also largely held air superiority despite the Soviets trying to contest them.

>The slavs fought crack troops for 4 years while the WAllies fought reserves.

Tankies always make this claim, never with any backing. In truth the forces deployed west were proportionally more mechanized and well-equipped than those in the east, with much more air support. In the east they also threw all the dregs of the Axis into the meatgrinder, including but not limited to most of the Ostlegion and the hordes of Hungarian/Romanian light infantry.

>At best they can hold them off at the Rhine and negotiate a ceasefire.

Don't need to, their forces in-theater are already superior to the Soviets and their capacity to field more is drastically superior to the Soviets. Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" tallies each great power's industrial capacity and GDP and comes to the conclusion that the USA alone had something like three times the effective war-making capacity of the USSR (and by the end of WW2, nearly five times the GDP).

>all the praise for Truman ITT
>not knowing he had approval ratings lower than George W.

You faggots

>Approval ratings are a meaningful statistic

Sissy, four-eyed, bakri

Great american president. He got handed a heavy burden but he manged to do well.

>superiority in men & materials
While they had more men, they were not superior in materials at all