2 year term. Good or bad.

[Combwork]

As I understand it, unless in time of war no U.S. president can hold office for more than two consecutive terms. This might have made sense in the days when large sections of the public were denied the vote but now?

If you have a spectacularly good president, someone universally respected, why should they be forced from office after 8 years?

[piece-itpete]

We've already had one President for Life in spite of G. Washingtons' disapproval.

Be careful, the GOP will reanimate Reagan :)

Btw, no exceptions, war, whatever. It never ceases to amaze me that we held elections at all during the civil war.

Pete

[icenine]

As I understand it, unless in time of war no U.S. president can hold office for more than two consecutive terms. This might have made sense in the days when large sections of the public were denied the vote but now?

If you have a spectacularly good president, someone universally respected, why should they be forced from office after 8 years?

Do some research on why the two limit term came about. Yeah the Republicans were behind it....

[piece-itpete]

Washington was a Republican?

One of the reasons I strongly dislike FDR was his cavalier attitude towards it.

Pete

[Wasillaguy]

I know you meant 2 term limit in your thread title, but Freud got to you. Now we know you really favor reducing each term to only 2 years, and I kinda agree. Between moving in and moving out, they'd barely have time to feck up anything.

[Boreas]

Washington was a Republican?

One of the reasons I strongly dislike FDR was his cavalier attitude towards it.

Pete

Washington wasn't behind it.

FDR was certainly one of the two greatest presidents we ever had and Washington isn't the other one.

John

[finnbow]

Washington wasn't behind it.

FDR was certainly one of the two greatest presidents we ever had and Washington isn't the other one.

John

That could be argued. FWIW, David McCullough considers him the best as he had the opportunity to essentially become our own King George and chose not to. Instead, he restrained any ambition he may have had in service of the nation and set the precedent for all future Presidents.

[Boreas]

That could be argued. FWIW, David McCullough considers him the best as he had the opportunity to essentially become our own King George and chose not to. Instead, he restrained any ambition he may have had in service of the nation and set the precedent for all future Presidents.

So, he's one of out greatest because of what he didn't do. ;)

John

[Bigerik]

So, he's one of out greatest because of what he didn't do. ;)

John

Some would say that is the definition of a great politician. :)

[bobabode]

Be careful, the GOP will reanimate Reagan :)Pete

He would have to run as a Dem...:D

[piece-itpete]

Washington wasn't behind it.

FDR was certainly one of the two greatest presidents we ever had and Washington isn't the other one.

John

As you wish.

A 2 term limit was discussed by the convention but not added. Washington believed it should be, and purposely stepped down after 2 terms even though he easily could've won again.

FDR was the first President to ignore him.

Pete

[d-ray657]

As you wish.

A 2 term limit was discussed by the convention but not added. Washington believed it should be, and purposely stepped down after 2 terms even though he easily could've won again.

FDR was the first President to ignore him.

Pete

And the law FDR broke was . . . . ?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

None, but the law of respect for the Father of our Country :)

Heck I don't remember which election it was, but it was about to be unanimous, a real landslide. One of the states cast their vote for the other guy. The reason? He said only Washington should have that honor.

Pete

[icenine]

As you wish.

A 2 term limit was discussed by the convention but not added. Washington believed it should be, and purposely stepped down after 2 terms even though he easily could've won again.

FDR was the first President to ignore him.

Pete

You mean the citizens of the United States ignored Washington for voting for FDR four times. Of course, Americans would never do that for a Republican now would they......

[piece-itpete]

I understand, but our masters of the universe should know better.

Pete

[icenine]

I understand, but our masters of the universe should know better.

Pete

Pete .....we were much better off with FDR than Dewey or Landon. God makes things work out for a reason.

[piece-itpete]

We know that how exactly? Keep in mind that Hoover started many of FDRs alphabet soup programs, and it still took a massive bloody war to get us out of the depression.

Pete

[icenine]

You do not get it...Hoover did not go far enough. That is why no one wanted to go back to the GOP until the 50s. Hoover and the pain of the Great Depression were one and the same to the average American.

[piece-itpete]

The only real difference is, Hoover would only give aid to the States to distribute, in deference to our system of government, while FDR gave it directly to individuals.

FDR was also a much better speaker.

If folks look at Hoover and the depression as one in the same it is on them, through ignorance.

Pete

[icenine]

The only real difference is, Hoover would only give aid to the States to distribute, in deference to our system of government, while FDR gave it directly to individuals.

FDR was also a much better speaker.

If folks look at Hoover and the depression as one in the same it is on them, through ignorance.

Pete

NO NO NO
read some history of the era

Hoover would not go as far as FDR....he was not ready to use Keyesian economics full tilt like FDR did. FDR was able to instill confidence and pull us out. If Hoover was any good he would have been re-elected. I do not believe in alternative history unless I am reading science fiction.

[piece-itpete]

I agreed he was the better speaker, and mentioned he was willing to, um, push the boundries of Federal government once a few SC justices got out of the way.

He was also very good at running on a bogus neutrality platform. And perhaps refusing refugees.

But he did not pull us out.

Pete

[icenine]

I agreed he was the better speaker, and mentioned he was willing to, um, push the boundries of Federal government once a few SC justices got out of the way.

He was also very good at running on a bogus neutrality platform. And perhaps refusing refugees.

But he did not pull us out.

Pete

What was wrong with being anti-Nazi? I am sure if Hoover was at the helm he would have been the "Savior".

Does not matter what you believe. Americans returned him 4 times to office.

[piece-itpete]

I'm not sure how running on an antiwar platform, or turning away Jewish refugees, makes for anti-nazi.

But yes, he was President-For-Life (sigh).

;)

Pete

[icenine]

Oh you have not brought up how he was in on Pearl Harbor yet Pete....

[piece-itpete]

Because I'm not talking about alternate realities Ice ;)

Perhaps we should agree to disagree :cheers:

Pete

[ebacon]

Because I'm not talking about alternate realities Ice ;)

Perhaps we should agree to disagree :cheers:

Pete

Agreeing to disagree is a limp-wristed way of saying let's fight again tomorrow.

I prefer here's to you, here's to me, if we ever disagree, fuck you, here's to me. And right now I disagree with the neocon path of the Republican party.

[piece-itpete]

....I prefer here's to you, here's to me, if we ever disagree, fuck you, here's to me. ....

LMAO!!!

Pete

[icenine]

Because I'm not talking about alternate realities Ice ;)

Perhaps we should agree to disagree :cheers:

Pete

Friends again hurray:D

For a cold war liberal with a slightly GOP bent from Cleveland your ok!

[bobabode]

friends again hurray:d

for a cold war liberal with a slightly gop bent from cleveland your ok!


bam!:d

[wgrr]

We know that how exactly? Keep in mind that Hoover started many of FDRs alphabet soup programs, and it still took a massive bloody war to get us out of the depression.

Pete

We can debate the topic of WWII pulling us out of the depression another time.

FDR was a very wealthy man, who cared about the common man. He did not have to worry about offending the ruling upper class so he took the fight to them. the ruling elites hated the New Deal. They tried very hard to unseat FDR so he exposed them for what they were without worrying about being ruined financially.

http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/how-fdr-took-forces-wealth-and-power

I worked on the restoration of the cabins at a WPA project a few years ago. One of the guys I was working with pointed out a name on the plaque and told me it was his father who was very young at the time. He then repeated stories his father had told him, years ago about the WPA project, and how it saved his family from utter poverty. The project was in NW Arkansas which was affected by the Dust Bowl so it was very hard to farm and that is how most people made a living here at that time.

One funny thing about the restoration project was the restoration of the permanent concrete picnic tables that were washed away in a flood a few years before. They had to be made to the exact specifications of the original tables. The space between the table and the bench was so small a normal sized adult today can't sit at the tables.

Many of the CCC and WPA projects in this state are now state parks that generates millions of dollars a year for the state. They are a gift that keeps on giving.

One of the unexpected benefits of the projects were the men who worked on them learned to live away from home for extended periods of time, they learned to work as a team on the various projects like dam building, building their housing, and even building outdoor movie theaters that are still used today. They ate together, slept in close quarters, and worked their ass' off during the day. Sounds kind of like basic training for the military. Believe me those hillbilly's could already hit a gnats ass at a hundred yards with a rifle. They were already mostly trained when called up to serve in WWII.

My favorite WPA/CCC projects is the Red Rock Ampatheater near Morrison, Colorado. I saw Dave Matthews there in 95 while visiting a friend. It was an incredible concert. The acoustics were very good in the ampitheater. I saw him again a few years ago. It was good but you could really tell LeRoi Moore was not on woodwinds.

[piece-itpete]

Friends again hurray:D

For a cold war liberal with a slightly GOP bent from Cleveland your ok!

I'm uncertain how to take that :D

Pete

[piece-itpete]

Hey wig, I actually lived in an old CCC dorm for 6 months, and there's their stuff all over the place around here in the parks etc. Built like brick shithouses.

Which I assume from common venacular are built pretty well! :)

Pete

[Dondilion]

I'm not sure how running on an antiwar platform, or turning away Jewish refugees, makes for anti-nazi.

But yes, he was President-For-Life (sigh).

;)

Pete

Context Pete!

World war 1 was still in memory. That European disaster which sucked in Americans!

Still ,outsmarting the opposition, he found a way to supply and support Britain.

[piece-itpete]

Regarding the war, I have no problems with what he actually did (outside of Pearl Harbor prep!). Too easy to armchair quarterback.

But he ran on an antiwar platform...

Pete

[Zeke]

But he ran on an antiwar platform...

Shouldn't everyone?

[bobabode]

Shouldn't everyone?

:) Touche' and amen! Happy Thanksgiving, Zeke!

[icenine]

I do not think anyone ever runs on a pro-war motif...think Nixon and Vietnamization and how long that took plus the escalation of the war into Cambodia. Bush ran on a stay the course sort of campaign re Iraq. I was in Iraq at the time. I was really angry he waited until after the election for the invasion of Fallouja in November in which about 150 men and women died that month. I thought it was sort of put off until after the election so he would not be damaged with the electorate. Speculation but that was how I felt at the time.

I guess the greatest example would be the Wilson campaign slogan "He Kept Us Out of War" which was negated by the resumption of Germany's unrestricted sinking of US merchant ships.....causing us to inter in 1916 or so.

[Dondilion]

I do not think anyone ever runs on a pro-war motif...think Nixon and Vietnamization and how long that took plus the escalation of the war into Cambodia. Bush ran on a stay the course sort of campaign re Iraq. I was in Iraq at the time. I was really angry he waited until after the election for the invasion of Fallouja in November in which about 150 men and women died that month. I thought it was sort of put off until after the election so he would not be damaged with the electorate. Speculation but that was how I felt at the time.

I guess the greatest example would be the Wilson campaign slogan "He Kept Us Out of War" which was negated by the resumption of Germany's unrestricted sinking of US merchant ships.....causing us to inter in 1916 or so.

If my memory serves me......it was the Marines who were sent in to do house to house fighting in Fallouja. What a waste of the flower of our youth!

[JJIII]

If my memory serves me......it was the Marines who were sent in to do house to house fighting in Fallouja. What a waste of the flower of our youth!

My son was involved in that. He doesn't talk about it much.

[Boreas]

I was in Iraq at the time. I was really angry he waited until after the election for the invasion of Fallouja in November in which about 150 men and women died that month.

If my memory serves me......it was the Marines who were sent in to do house to house fighting in Fallouja. What a waste of the flower of our youth!

My son was involved in that. He doesn't talk about it much.

As terrible as it was for our soldiers, it was - and continues to be - far worse for the civilian population of Falujah.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html

John

[noonereal]

We've already had one President for Life in spite of G. Washingtons' disapproval.

Be careful, the GOP will reanimate Reagan :)

Btw, no exceptions, war, whatever. It never ceases to amaze me that we held elections at all during the civil war.

Pete

Ray-gun could never get elected today.

Too liberal for the baggars, too heartless for the left.

[Dondilion]

Ray-gun could never get elected today.

Too liberal for the baggars, too heartless for the left.

The revisionists have erased the Lebanese fiasco - 241 marines dead - and the memory of Gorbachev.

[finnbow]

The revisionists have erased the Lebanese fiasco - 241 marines dead - and the memory of Gorbachev.

Not to mention Iran-Contra.

[Boreas]

The revisionists have erased the Lebanese fiasco - 241 marines dead - and the memory of Gorbachev.

This really belongs in that God damned "Benghazi" thread but there were actually three Lebanese "fiascos". There's the Marine barracks bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing) that you mentioned. It occurred in October of 1983 and was the worst day for the Marines since Iwo Jima.

We remember that one but we tend to forget that just 6 months earlier the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing). In that disaster 63 people were killed.

Reagan said, "This criminal act on a diplomatic establishment will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region." The Congressional response was not to hold hearings so as to assign blame but to authorize an additional $251 million in aid to Lebanon.

There was no other response except to move the embassy to another "more secure" annex. That location was bombed in September of 1983 with the loss of 22 people.

Six months after the first bombing, and only one month after the second, two suicide bombers driving trucks simultaneously struck the US Marine barracks and the barracks housing the 1st French Parachute Chasseur Regiment. We lost 241 people and the French lost 58.

Reagan called the act "despicable" and swore to maintain a military presence in Lebanon. In February 1984 the Marines were withdrawn from Lebanon.

John

[bobabode]

Who can forget the de-mothballing of the New Jersey so we could lob VW sized shells into the Bekaa Valley indescriminately. Terror anyone?:mad:

[BlueStreak]

This really belongs in that God damned "Benghazi" thread but there were actually three Lebanese "fiascos". There's the Marine barracks bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing) that you mentioned. It occurred in October of 1983 and was the worst day for the Marines since Iwo Jima.

We remember that one but we tend to forget that just 6 months earlier the US Embassy in Beirut was bombed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing). In that disaster 63 people were killed.

Reagan said, "This criminal act on a diplomatic establishment will not deter us from our goals of peace in the region." The Congressional response was not to hold hearings so as to assign blame but to authorize an additional $251 million in aid to Lebanon.

There was no other response except to move the embassy to another "more secure" annex. That location was bombed in September of 1983 with the loss of 22 people.

Six months after the first bombing, and only one month after the second, two suicide bombers driving trucks simultaneously struck the US Marine barracks and the barracks housing the 1st French Parachute Chasseur Regiment. We lost 241 people and the French lost 58.

Reagan called the act "despicable" and swore to maintain a military presence in Lebanon. In February 1984 the Marines were withdrawn from Lebanon.

John

And, I thought it was the Elephant that was supposed to have the long memory........

Or maybe it not an act of ineptitude or cowardice......"...if we do it.":rolleyes:

Regards,
Dave

[piece-itpete]

Shouldn't everyone?

When they're ramping up for war? And the left calls the RIGHT sheeple :rolleyes:

Pete

[Boreas]

When they're ramping up for war? And the left calls the RIGHT sheeple :rolleyes:

Pete

And you weren't? Haven't events over the last decade shown you anything about blind obedience and credulity?

John

[piece-itpete]

If I accept your position as correct, it still comes back to, wasn't FDR better than that?

Pete

[Boreas]

If I accept your position as correct, it still comes back to, wasn't FDR better than that?

Pete

Please explain. FDR lied us into two wars?

John

[piece-itpete]

Obfuscation?

Once again, he ran on an antiwar platform while ramping up for ww2. Typical politician.

Pete

[icenine]

Churchill could not have invaded France on D-Day without us.

[Boreas]

Obfuscation?

Once again, he ran on an antiwar platform while ramping up for ww2. Typical politician.

Need I remind you that Japan initiated hostilities by bombing Pearl Harbor and then invading and occupying Guam the next day? Do you recall that these events were followed by the Third Reich, Japan's ally, declaring war on us?

As for "ramping up", the purpose of that was twofold. First, we hoped to make our direct involvement unnecessary by arming Britain and the Soviet Union through the "Lend-Lease" program. Second, our buildup was the only prudent course of action since our efforts to stay out of WWII might, as they did, could prove unsuccessful.

Pete

Churchill could not have invaded France on D-Day without us.

Or even survived too that date without Lend-Lease.

John

[piece-itpete]

I don't recall this being about about the neccessity of ww2, or our contribution as the indispensible country? ;)

Too bad he wasn't honest about it. But then, he's a Democrat :p

Pete

[icenine]

You are doing the old since event A happened event B must have followed. FDR won his third term in 1940. Japan brought the war to the USA in December of 1941. A different world from the one he ran for office in 1940.

[piece-itpete]

So we weren't preparing for war before Pearl Harbor? Or helping our allies as best we could (on the sly, and with credit)? We were a bunch of idiots?

Early on, we were (idiots that is), but Rayburn saved us to a degree. FDR knew damn well in 1940 the war was coming to us.

Or he was an idiot. Which even I don't believe.

Pete

[icenine]

So we weren't preparing for war before Pearl Harbor? Or helping our allies as best we could (on the sly, and with credit)? We were a bunch of idiots?

Early on, we were (idiots that is), but Rayburn saved us to a degree. FDR knew damn well in 1940 the war was coming to us.

Or he was an idiot. Which even I don't believe.

Pete

You are reading history with the benefit of hindsight. Sort of like thinking that Henry Clay who brokered the Compromise of 1850 knew there would be a Civil War 11 years later.

Preparing for war yes. Partial to Great Britain yes. Planning on joining the actual war on 8 Dec 1941? They did not know it was coming to Pearl Harbor is my point

[piece-itpete]

It's called the World War for a reason. Agreed though, Chamberlain didn't see it coming either.

Pete

[icenine]

I just do not understand why you agree with our participation in the War but are upset that FDR was pro-Britain and helping them with lend lease before it.

[piece-itpete]

That would be very strange indeed, if that was indeed what I said ;)

Pete

[Boreas]

That would be very strange indeed, if that was indeed what I said ;)

Pete

Here's what I'm getting from all this revisionism of yours.

Roosevelt wanted war from the get-go and was lying when he said otherwise. The proof is in our military build-up prior to 1941. This wasn't merely to help out the British and the Soviets. Neither was it to prepare as best we could for the unthinkable. Rather it was to prepare us for the war that Roosevelt had wanted all along.

Have I got it? Did Roosevelt also convince the Japanese to attack us in Hawaii and Guam? Did he beg Hitler to declare war on us too?

John

[piece-itpete]

No. It's simple. Roosevelt lied about the coming war to get votes.

Pete

[icenine]

Actually Pete,

Churchill was glad that Pearl Harbor happened in that he knew it would bring the US into the conflict. Which means to say if it had not happened Churchill knew he was not going to have us in Europe..or could not count on us. He did not know it was going to happen either.

If Imperial Japan had drawn the line and stopped with attacking the Philippines, and had not attacked Pearl Harbor, there may have been years of American neutrality, however much we were helping Britain notwithstanding.

[Boreas]

No. It's simple. Roosevelt lied about the coming war to get votes.

Pete

Can you document this?

John

[icenine]

From Wikipedia:

Willkie also accused Roosevelt of leaving the nation unprepared for war, but Roosevelt's military buildup and transformation of the nation into the "arsenal of democracy" removed the "unpreparedness" charge as a major issue. Willkie then reversed his approach and charged Roosevelt with secretly planning to take the nation into World War II. This accusation did cut into Roosevelt's support; in response FDR, in a pledge that he would later regret, promised that he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars."

Yeah he said that about not sending American boys into any foreign wars....but of course Pearl Harbor changed all that.


Actions count...not semantics or campaign pledges. I mean did FDR really have any choice after 7 Dec 1941?


Pete your use of the phrase coming war is sort of wrong...the world was at war since 1939.

[Boreas]

From Wikipedia:

Willkie also accused Roosevelt of leaving the nation unprepared for war, but Roosevelt's military buildup and transformation of the nation into the "arsenal of democracy" removed the "unpreparedness" charge as a major issue. Willkie then reversed his approach and charged Roosevelt with secretly planning to take the nation into World War II. This accusation did cut into Roosevelt's support; in response FDR, in a pledge that he would later regret, promised that he would "not send American boys into any foreign wars."

Yeah he said that about not sending American boys into any foreign wars....but of course Pearl Harbor changed all that.


Actions count...not semantics or campaign pledges. I mean did FDR really have any choice after 7 Dec 1941?


Pete your use of the phrase coming war is sort of wrong...the world was at war since 1939.

Roosevelt never broke that promise either. When a country bombs one of your naval bases on sovereign soil and the next day invades and occupies a second US possession and when a second country declares war on you, the war forced upon you is no longer a "foreign" one.

John

[piece-itpete]

Coming for the US. The great dictatorships have always interested me, and you don't really learn them without learning a lot about ww2.

FDR regarding the coming war reminds me of Obama's 10 months and out BS over Iraq. Anything to get elected.

So we'd have supplied Great Britian with war material and Hitler wouldn't have lifted a finger?

Pete

[Boreas]

FDR regarding the coming war reminds me of Obama's 10 months and out BS over Iraq. Anything to get elected.

We're out, Pete. What's your point?

So we'd have supplied Great Britian with war material and Hitler wouldn't have lifted a finger?

Pete

When Hitler armed Spain and used the Luftwaffe to bomb Republican cities did any other nation respond?

John

[piece-itpete]

Wow, I need a hotkey programmed. FDR knew darn well the war was coming and played up to the isolationists anyway.

What on earth does Spain have to do with the US supplying GB?

Pete

[Boreas]

FDR knew darn well the war was coming and played up to the isolationists anyway.

Where's your proof?

What on earth does Spain have to do with the US supplying GB?

Not much. It does, however, point out the rather problematic nature of declaring war on a country for supporting one's enemy.

Also, there's the unanswerable question of whether, absent Pearl Harbor, Germany would have ever declared war on us. Japan's attack on the US, accompanied as it was by a formal declaration of war, required their Axis partners to sign on.

Would Germany have eventually declared war on us without it essentially being forced upon them by Japan? We'll never know. I tend to doubt it since Germany already had its hands full with Britain and (especially) the Soviet Union. Inviting US to the party would have been, as it proved to be, suicidal.

John

[piece-itpete]

I suppose one could publish a paper on it, but isn't the argument that he wasn't an idiot worth something?

Hitler didn't think much of the US, although he would've preferred to keep us out. If our supplies effected the war (which of course they would) the u boats would've blown them out of the water. Hitler wasn't very good at officailly declaring war - before doing it.

Pete

[icenine]

Roosevelt never broke that promise either. When a country bombs one of your naval bases on sovereign soil and the next day invades and occupies a second US possession and when a second country declares war on you, the war forced upon you is no longer a "foreign" one.

John

Most true....then you also have to consider all of the American lives lost.

[icenine]

Pete is so hard core Republican he just cannot except the good a Democratic President did 70 years ago. Of course if Wilkie would have declared war on Japan on 8 Dec 1941 everything would have been hunky dory.....

[BlueStreak]

No. It's simple. Roosevelt lied about the coming war to get votes.

Pete

OMG! A politician promise peace to get votes? Shocking!:rolleyes:

[piece-itpete]

And you guys talk about deifying the Founders, sheesh! ;)

Pete

[piece-itpete]

OMG! A politician promise peace to get votes? Shocking!:rolleyes:

LOL! At least we're on the same page :)

Pete

[Boreas]

I suppose one could publish a paper on it, but isn't the argument that he wasn't an idiot worth something?

You could also link to someone else's paper in order to support your position. And simply acknowledging that Roosevelt wasn't stupid isn't any help to your argument at all.

Hitler didn't think much of the US, although he would've preferred to keep us out.

Actually, Hitler admired the US. It was the "Jew" Roosevelt that he hated.

If our supplies effected the war (which of course they would) the u boats would've blown them out of the water. Hitler wasn't very good at officailly declaring war - before doing it.

Yet that's exactly what he did. As for the U-Boats, again, that would have been an invitation to disaster for Germany. It would have stretched their resources of ships and crews too thin. That would have taken some heat off the Royal Navy and wouldn't have stopped the flow of arms.

In the end, though it can be argued that the Soviets defeated the Nazis, it's undeniable that taking on the US is what sealed Hitler's fate. There was no way he could have prevailed against the forces that were arrayed against him. That he came as close as he did is ample proof that just one fewer enemy just might have made the difference.

John

[piece-itpete]

What he actually said is readily available to those who seek it. It's good for civics too. Hard to have too much knowledge about how those who would hold us down go about it.

Agreed after the coward Stalin realised he had a chance the USSR did step up. Although if Hitler would've stuck to his original plan he might have won the eastern war.

I'm stepping off the merry go round now ;)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Hitler was a masterful crowd pleaser and manipulator....beyond that, he was a dumbass.
He figured he could order soldiers to not feeze to death during the Russian winter and laughed at the feasability of jets because they had no propellers. He also never figured out that many of his most valuable scientists and businessmen were Jewish, he had either killed them or run them off as quickly as he could. The latter of which worked out pretty good for us.:D

Stalin was a coward. It wasn't until his generals managed to get him out of the way that the tide turned for the Red Army.

Regards,
Dave