Was he an objectively good president?

>highway system
>good
i suppose the fact that it was a national network was a very good way to integrate the nation. however, it set the awful precedent of dependence on fossil fuels and refusing to consider alternate modes of transport that are more fuel efficient and therefore beneficial for the public good. car culture is cancerous imo, even though i quite like nice looking cars.

The economic benefits of the highway system are almost too much to be put into words. it made us the absolute colossal superpower we are today.

>implying we shouldn't have let Patton march right into Berlin

>too much to be put into words.
please try, i'm interested to hear another opinion on the matter. i suppose trucking is a shit ton more versatile than train tracks and therefore for innovative ways to orient production. the mobility it gave people allowed them to move to different parts of the country where jobs were more quickly. on the other hand, massive suburbanization imo is not beneficial for the environment and psychologically. massive highways are dehumanizing eyesores that quite literally could cut apart communities and reinforce racial and social segregation. they can cause atrocious noise pollution and air problems and, as they were built, the highways were atrocious at handling commutes to the city, sacrificing unimaginable amounts of productive hours sitting in commuter traffic jams.

Basically, Economically, they were a godsend that completely transformed this country the way the train system did 100 years previously, socially they made the country accessible for every man woman and child. They also saved the lives of many people either directly or not.

However, they also caused massive environmental problems, destroyed much beautiful and natural land, and solidified the dependence on oil. However, I say the pros outweigh the cons in this case.

Here is a website I found a while ago. It isn't the newest, but it gives you actual facts. I can go into the economic benefits of it specifically, but i am pretty sure it is obvious

publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm

Yea, let Patton pull a Rommel and outrun his supply lines, it's not like a robust logistical network wins wars or anything.

The 8th air force systematically knocked out rail, bridges, and roads all over France in the run-up to D-day. While this prevented the Germans from reinforcing, it also meant that your logistics after pushing the Germans back is going to have troubles.

The only way to alleviate the situation is capturing Dutch ports in good condition and early, so supplies could be unloaded there. This would not only shorten the distance from depot to the front, but also Dutch infrastructure was in better shape.

However, Market Garden didn't work out, and the Dutch Ports opened too late to allow for a sustained drive into Germany.

But the Americans did build impromptu bridges when needed, and it's not like every single bridge was destroyed, as the Allies knew they were going to have to be using the same bridges. I will admit that Patton had a tendency to outrun his supply lines though.

I am getting the assumption that you think I mean Patton fighting Germany quicker to get to Berlin, where I am instead talking about Patton fighting the Ruskies and taking Berlin. Am I incorrect?

You are indeed correct, but we both really know that's a really retarded idea.

The problem the allies found out with logistics as they pushed into France is the "extra rocket fuel" problem. Since the French rail system was wrecked both by the bombers and the retreating Germans, they had to use trucks for long distance hauling. The problem is that getting 100 gallons of fuel across France requires 100 gallons of fuel for the trucks carrying that 100 gallons. That was too much strain for the port facilities to handle as the Allies stopped on the edge of Germany.

Well I am sure you know of the American "Red Ball Express" that was just a continual haul of trucks all across Europe? Well because trucks and fuel were never really a problem for the Allies (Not on the front lines, just general supply), then the wasted fuel was not a pressing issue for the Allies. What was an issue were the ports in Europe like you said.

however, these supplies were shared by all Allied forces, and sometimes the focus was put on one general over the other, as we saw with Patton's "mad dash across France" where he was slowed so Monty (I think) could defeat his portion of the Germans and catch up to Patton. If Patton was given the priority for supplies, and Patton's flanks were well protected, then it's not impossible to think that Patton could get to Berlin first, albeit a much messier and rushed affair.

I am curious why you think the Allies attacking the Russians would be a bad idea. Do you think the Russians would win?

I'm willing to place money on the highway system being the greatest infrastructure project the world has ever known, and it was largely successful.

youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Gonna take the opportunity to share my favorite Eisenhower moment

Washington would be proud

Whatever else can be said, he was certainly redpilled on the military-industrial complex.