Could Lincoln replace Churchill and Roosewelt?

Leechard,

Churchill, and Roosewelt, both leaders of UK and US, are, in many historians' and general public's view, praised for their excellent performance in World War II. Chruchill, at the fall of Netherland and Belgium, and the surrender of Britain, made many speeches encouraging his countrymen and the Nazi-occupied region people to fight against Germany and Italy, In battle of Britain, when most of British cities were under the heavy fire of German airplanes, it was Churchill who proclaimed"We can take it', and encouraged British to fight. Later his words in this war was being considered to mobilise the English language and send it into battle. Roosewelt, not merely prepared US into war with Axis power, but also tried many means to restore world peace and prosperity. Together with Churchill, Roosewelt had many conference with many ally nations, China, Soviet Union, and Turkey, to discuss a plan to settle all problems in their regions before the war. Atlantic Charter, made after Churchill and Roosewelt, was a draft of United Nation Charter, which gave birth to Unitef Nations organisation. Bretton Woods meeting, attended by economists around the world, defined the structure of world economic system after world war II, the current one, i mean. Their achievements in military, social, economic and political one would be very great in their times.

However, i do not think that they are best people suitable to head the national government in world war 2. It has been well said of Churchill and Roosewelt mistakes in World War 2. Churchill delayed the invansion of France for 2 years(1942-1944) because not only North Africa was in Axis power, but he and his generals were worried of the WW1 trench warfare likely to be happened in France. So, in 1944, while Allies landed at Normandy and moved eastwards, Soviet Union also moved westward, and in a year time, occupied much of Eastern European countries territories, Poland, Czechsolavkia, Hungary, Romania. It was Roosewelt who agreed to give a huge sum of US money in an aid to Soviet Union in the Yalta meeting. Soviet Union then had more resource to develop their military strength and the power to spread communism in every quarter of globe. By making these mistakes during World War 2, Churchill and Roosewelt turned the world onto a path to cold war, which is a dark page in history.

I may want to ask : if Lincoln was in charge of the war, instead of Roosewelt, Churchill, would the world be better? Lincoln may be well-aware of the nature of Soviet government and Stalin, Soviet leader, and could male a better policy towards Soviet Russia, making it strong enough to defeat Germany but not to threaten the world peace. Lincoln may attack France earlier to allow the war to end in the soonest time possible and avoid to use Nuclear bomb in Japan, to prevent bloodshed and death of civilians there.

I think many historians have asked this before, but still no one can get a satisfactory answer for that. Could you answer this for me?

I welcome any comment made on this topic.

Best wishes,
william

Enjoy the year of Ox



Dear William

This is a imaginative question but not a proper question.
Because every one in history has his own position: i.e., his own thinking network and could not be replaced by another imaginated character.

Lincoln is respected by many, but, he is Lincoln in the contest of history, not
in the contest of creativity.

Leechard