Best US President

[mrick]

I posted my educated speculation, you posted what is your (also educated) speculation -- there's little more to do here, except some mopping up.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
-- India was a British colony and would have remained so long after 1948, if the United States, as victorious Ally, had not insisted on "de-colonisation".

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol? US had absolutely nothing to do with it and I would like you to find any possible source claiming that.

[/ QUOTE ]

You LOL? Don't LOL. The process of de-colonisation, ripe anyway after the European powers' weakening post-WWII, was hastened by American pressure to move forward on that course. (The benefits for America itself were obvious.)

In addition to France, Holland, Germany, particularly Great Britain was obliged to de-colonize on account of its dire finances, which were caused by the war, and by its indebt ness to the United States. (Look up Lend/Lease too, a program that created a debt whose final repayment instalment was paid off in 2006!) When the U.S. said "Jump!", Britain would henceforth ask "How high?" --only in a strange accent.

[ QUOTE ]
Japan and the Soviets fought several major border actions prior to WW2.

[/ QUOTE ]Only to the extent that Czarist Russia and Imperial Japan had aspirations for the same plots of land. After a World War II where the USSR would have won or placed under its influence almost all of Western Europe, and after China would've become Japan's playground, the sensible thing for the USSR and Japan would have been to find an accommodation between them. And not to keep fighting on account of some "ideological" differences! Pfft.

This would've been stupidity fit for a Hitler, not a Stalin...

[ QUOTE ]
If Germany sees no real threat and withdraws the vast majority of its soldiers from France to attempt to stop the Soviets, I would say there is definitely a chance that the Allies could launch some type of amphibious invasion of mainland Europe, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]So Britain would have been able to amass the number of soldiers, vessels, tanks, and aircraft needed for a successful landing in Normandy, would it? Britain on its own would have fielded the 73,000 men fielded by the Yanks, contributed the two airborne divisions, and provided the air support ?

Please also remember that before Operation Overlord, the Allies landed in Italy, secured their presence there and started advancing through the mainland, fighting some very tough battles with the Germans and the Italian Mussolini loyalists. The success in Italy allowed for Overlord. You think Great Britain would have been able to carry out the Italian campaign on its own as well? (I.e. carry out TWO successive landings in Europe and defeat Germany in the West??) On what kind of figures do you base all this?

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, plz to be checking your history. Japan didn't go to war with the US to "oppose American threats to their birthright." They simply assumed that America wouldn't stand by and let them seize the European colonies in Asia, although its likely that if they had not attacked at Pearl Harbor, America would have done nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]Japan's reasons for going to war was that they were facing a harmful trade embargo instigated by the United States (a clearly hostile act, BTW), and, more importantly, America was opposing Japan's expansion into the Pacific and China.

As to the Soviet Union's aspirations to the East, you are confusing those (barely extant) aspirations with the Czar's (strong) aspirations. I recommend to anyone interested to study first the 1904 Sino-Japanese War and then about Lushunku Port, aka Port Arthur.