# Tender Mercies: A Roosevelt Love Story



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."                                                                         
….it must have relied on a belief in Stalin's 'tender mercies.'



2. A telling insight comes from close friend, and, equally a Sovietophile,  William Christian Bullitt, Jr.. 
Bullitt was also an extreme Liberal, and a radical who had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism. 
"*Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, *a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936."                                                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.

*Bullitt did try to stop FDR. *In 1935, he had written to FDR about the Comintern Congress, and he followed that with a cable to Secretary of State Hull, that included that there had been "...no decrease in the *determination of the Soviet Government to produce a world revolution.*..If this basic postulate of the Soviet Government is understood, there is nothing in nothing in Soviet domestic or foreign policy that is not clear.' He went on to explain that *Stalin yearned for a US-Japan war,*  after Japan had been thoroughly defeated....to acquire Manchuria and Sovietize China." 
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 52.


*Even so....FDR refused the advice of Bullitt.*




3. In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William *Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. *He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish *Soviet domination of Europe.' *He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "
For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590

a. FDR replied: "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. *I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man*. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that* if I give him everything* I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, *he won't try to annex anything *and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace." 
William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94

Brilliant analysis by Roosevelt, huh?




How to explain this? Well, the CIA has an interesting take:

4.Perhaps it was something else, entirely:

 "In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that *even a psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records* has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because *he was “gripped by clinical depression."* How “Uncle Joe” Bugged FDR — Central Intelligence Agency


Mentally ill??????
How could that be true of the great god of the Democrats?????


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ….it must have relied on a belief in Stalin's 'tender mercies.'
> 
> 
> ...


At the end of WWII the Soviets had the most powerful army on the planet yet we never went to war with them and they and most of their proxies no longer exist.  All in all not a bad outcome, thanks FDR.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ...




"At the end of WWII the Soviets had the most powerful army on the planet..."

Au contraire.

Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians. Of course, he was totally correct.
More important, Stalin knew he was correct....and so did Franklin Roosevelt, whose raison d'être was to make certain that Soviet communism survived and ended up ruling Europe after the war.



"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. *The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. *"They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ...





"....yet we never went to war with them ..."

What I like about your posts, is that they represent the outcome of the cultural Marxism that Roosevelt welcomed to America, and now controls our schools.

You must be a government school grad, huh?



Now....the facts: of course we went to war with them, you dunce.

*FDR's love affair with Stalin, and with communism, was a disaster for America: he encouraged Soviet spies in his administration.
*
 On April 5, 1951, Judge Irving R. Kaufman sentenced the Rosenbergs to death for theft of atomic secrets, and, resulted in "the communist aggression in Korea, with the resultant casualties exceeding 50,000 and who knows but that millions more of innocent people may pay the price of your treason."
Judge Kaufman's Sentencing Statement in the Rosenberg Case

*a. *It is clear today, based on archival evidence, unearthed by researchers in Russia and released in the United States, that Kaufman was correct. *"Absent an atomic bomb, Stalin would not have released Pyongyang's army to conquer the entire Korean peninsula. Confident that his possession of atomic weapons neutralized America's strategic advantage, Stalin was emboldened to unleash war in Korea in 1950."                                                                                                          *Haynes, Klehr, and
Vassiliev, "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America," p.  143, 545. And Romerstein and Breindel,"The Venona Secrets," p. xv, 253.

b. It is important to connect the treachery with the impact of that treachery: the theft of the nuclear technology with *36,940 Americans killed, 91,134 wounded, and 8,176 still missing, *and this does not include at least two million civilian lives claimed on both sides.
Bruce Cumings, "The Korean War: A History.'

 Included were 1.3 million South Korean casualties, including 400,000 dead. North Korea, 2 million casualties, and 900,000 Chinese soldiers killed.


thanks FDR.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


"They are a scurvy race and simply savages"

Patton sounds a lot like Hitler there.  His sentiment was likely echoed by both Hitler and Napoleon.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Do you honestly believe that without the Rosenbergs the Soviets would never have been able to make their own bomb?  If we hadn't fought the North Koreans in 1950 we'd just have had to fight them in 1960.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





Let's check:


As with Prague, *Patton’s request to secure Berlin was denied.* Sadly, after Patton finally reached the ravaged city, he wrote his wife on July 21, 1945,_” for the first week after they took it (Berlin), *all women who ran were shot and those who did not were raped.* I could have taken it (instead of the Soviets) had I been allowed.”_



In the end, yes Patton was a genius commander such as are many today within the purged ranks of military leadership but never forget, *Roosevelt was ultimately the string puller and hence, Russia got its way* and the libtards destroyed the face of the planet for the next 50 years until the dissolution of the Soviet machine."
The Foresight of Patton FrontPage Magazine



a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? *We are going to have to fight them sooner or later,* within the next generation. Why not do it now while our Army is intact and the damn Russians can have their hind end kicked back to Russia in three months? We can do it easily with the help of the German troops we have, if we just arm them and take them with us. They hate the bastards."
Ladislas Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ...



We would have cut the fuel supply to the Soviet Air Force and all those big lumbering Russian tanks and artillery would have been nothing more than target practice for the Army AirForce.

FDR was a Stalin sock puppet who condemned half of Europe to 70 years of Hell


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





I use fact, and you use your Magic 8-Ball.

Sooo.....you are a government school grad.



And, no,the Rosenbergs were only the nearest cause of the Russians gaining the Atomic Bomb.

*The real cause was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.*

a. "The President has directed that 'airplanes be delivered in accordance with protocol schedules by the most expeditious means.' To implement these directives, the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for US Army Air Forces." From the diaries of Maj. George Racey Jordan, supervisory 'expediter' of Soviet Lend-Lease aid, p. 20.

b. At Congressional Hearing Regarding Shipments of Atomic Material to the Soviet Union During WWII, Washington GPO, 1950, p.909-910, Major Jordon would tell Congress that he kept this presidential directive on his person to show incredulous officers.



c.The full significance of these Lend-Lease shipments was not made clear to Major Jordan until February 1950 when he picked up a copy of Life magazine. Inside was an illustrated article on the atom bomb:

‘I learned for the first time that a plutonium pile consists of giant blocks of graphite, surrounded by heavy walls of concrete and honeycombed with aluminum tubes. In these tubes, it was related, are inserted slugs of natural uranium, containing one per cent of U-235. The intensity of the operation was declared to be governed by means of cadmium rods.’

So illuminating was this information that he carried this article with him during one of his appearances before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Major Jordan’s observations were later published in the book:
From Major Jordan's Diaries
© 1952 by George Racey Jordan, USAF (Ret.)
with Richard L. Stokes
Originally published in 1952 by
Harcourt, Brace & Company, New York
Reprinted by American Opinion, 1961

Major Jordans Diaries  How Lend-Lease diverted Atomic Materials to the USSR - Historum - History Forums


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? *We are going to have to fight them sooner or later,* within the next generation."
> Ladislas Farago, Patton: Ordeal and Triumph


Yet we did not fight them before they vanished so he was wrong now wasn't he?

How many more would have died if we did fight them at that time?  How different would the world look today if we had?


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

pc and frank are obsessed with fdr...freaky


----------



## candycorn (May 16, 2018)

I do enjoy the crazy obsession they have with FDR


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? *We are going to have to fight them sooner or later,* within the next generation."
> ...





Of course we fought them, you moron.

What do you imagine (I almost said 'think') Korea, and Vietnam, were?


“Between 1974 and 1980, while the United States wallowed in post-Vietnam angst, 10 countries had fallen into the Soviet orbit: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Yemen, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada and Afghanistan. Never had the Soviets lost an inch of real estate to the West. The Brezhnev Doctrine stated simply that once a country went Communist, it would stay Communist. In other words, the Soviet empire would continue to advance and gain territory…” "How the East Was Won"


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

G.T. said:


> pc and frank are obsessed with fdr...freaky




*Those who cannot remember* the past *are *condemned to repeat it. George *Santayana* 


Seems he had you in mind.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

candycorn said:


> I do enjoy the crazy obsession they have with FDR




Hi, Ugly!

Here for your history lesson?

And not a moment too soon!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

5. Mitigating the conclusion that *Roosevelt was mentally unbalanced*, the CIA report goes on to suggest these as anodynes...

"Rather, the operant factors were: *the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion, his profound ignorance *of the Bolshevik dictatorship, his projection of humane motives onto his Soviet counterpart, his determined resistance to contradictory evidence and advice, and his wishful thinking based on geopolitical designs—mindsets supported and reinforced by his appointed advisors."

Ibid.


WHAT???/

He's 'stupid'???


Well....let's assume that one opts for 'he was stupid,' rather than 'he was mentally unbalanced.'
What does that say for those chanting his praises today?






*"...the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion, his profound ignorance ..."

Tell me that doesn't sound just like Hussein, too!*


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Folks like the OP use Patton like a crutch to support their distorted interpretation and revision of history. Patton's success on the battlefield was dependent on a long list of attributes he had no control of. He commanded an Army dependent on supplies to keep his Armored division able to fight. That included massive amounts of fuel, ammunition, replacements of both men and tanks lost on the battlefield, air support and other commands to cover his flanks and rear.
Patton was like a prima donna who demanded everything focused on him and his mission at the expense of other missions and concerns.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> We would have cut the fuel supply to the Soviet Air Force and all those big lumbering Russian tanks and artillery would have been nothing more than target practice for the Army AirForce.


How, I thought at the end of the war the USSR occupied the Romanian oil fields?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We would have cut the fuel supply to the Soviet Air Force and all those big lumbering Russian tanks and artillery would have been nothing more than target practice for the Army AirForce.
> ...


Just like with the atomic bomb, they had the raw materials but needed one of their spies to steal the secrets of conversion into aviation fuel.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Revisionist like the OP like to make predictions of how FDR would have handled Stalin and the entire ending of WWII, but of course, they in fact offer nothing more than speculative predictions and guess's. That is because FDR died before the war ended. That makes it seem easy for the revisionist. Especially when they pretend to have special powers that enable them to present their speculations as facts. They can cite a letter or report, a quote from a book or opinion article and say "look, here is the proof."
The OP's nonsense has been debunked for over 75 years by generations of historians.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > We would have cut the fuel supply to the Soviet Air Force and all those big lumbering Russian tanks and artillery would have been nothing more than target practice for the Army AirForce.
> ...


Not only did they control the Romanian oil fields, Russia was the 2nd largest oil producer in the world, 2nd only to the US. And they still hadn't developed their western oil fields.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





"... interpretation and revision of history."

I provide facts.

I notice you were unable to find a single error in my posts.....and there will be more.


Now...wipe that polish from Roosevelt's boots off your tongue....it's gross.






"He commanded an Army dependent on supplies to keep his Armored division able to fight. That included massive amounts of fuel, ammunition, replacements...."

Guess where Stalin got his?

 I challenge FDR apologists to explain government largesse to Soviet Russia, even superseding Allied, or even American military needs. Or American civilian needs: 217,660,666 pounds of butter shipped to the USSR during a time of strict state-side rationing. John R. Deane, "The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Cooperation With Russia," p.94-95.

Further, supplies didn't just "flow" to the Soviet Union, they flooded it, including non-military supplies: a tire plant, an oil refinery, pipe-fabricating works, over a million miles of copper wire, switchboard-panels, lathes and power tools, textile machinery, woodworking, typesetting, cranes hoists, derricks, air compressors, $152 million in women's 'dress goods,' 18.4 million pounds of writing paper, cigarette cases, jeweled watches, lipstick, liquor, bathtubs, and pianos.

a. " A year and a half after WWII began in Europe, Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease supplied a prodigious amount of war materiel to Russia, without which the embattled Red Army, the only challenge to Hitler’s forces, would have been defeated. The temporary congruence of interests was called an alliance, albeit a strange one. For example, when the Americans tried to find a way that long-range American bombers could land in Russia to re-fuel, so as to bomb deep into Germany, the Russians were found to be suspicious, ungrateful, secretive, xenophobic, unfriendly, in short….a great deal of take and very little give." “The Anti-Communist Manifestos,”  by John V. Fleming, chapter six




Notice that I am always 100% correct?


----------



## del (May 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> *We would have cut the fuel supply to the Soviet Air Force* and all those big lumbering Russian tanks and artillery would have been nothing more than target practice for the Army AirForce.
> 
> FDR was a Stalin sock puppet who condemned half of Europe to 70 years of Hell



we didn't supply fuel to the soviets


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Revisionist like the OP like to make predictions of how FDR would have handled Stalin and the entire ending of WWII, but of course, they in fact offer nothing more than speculative predictions and guess's. That is because FDR died before the war ended. That makes it seem easy for the revisionist. Especially when they pretend to have special powers that enable them to present their speculations as facts. They can cite a letter or report, a quote from a book or opinion article and say "look, here is the proof."
> The OP's nonsense has been debunked for over 75 years by generations of historians.




Let's see you find any errors in any of my posts, you dunce.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Something else the Russians had, large numbers of German scientist who had been working on development of the A-bomb for years.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Of course we fought them, you moron.
> 
> What do you imagine (I almost said 'think') Korea, and Vietnam, were?


Complicated, limited, proxy wars with a combination of local and global causes.  US and Russians rarely fought each other.  They were certainly not WWIII


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ...




Huh????

Who told you that?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we fought them, you moron.
> ...




You remind me of nothing so much as Confederate General Wise, chased by Union General Cox, referring to his retreat a 'retrograde movement' of his troops. 

Nice retrograde movement, there.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."


First sentence of the OP's post is BS. The US did not cede military strategy to Russia and Stalin at any time during WWII. American military commanders designed and executed strategies that minimized US casualties and obtained maximum assistance from allies, particularly the USSR. By the time the US hit the beaches of Normandy and began it's land war Russia was decimating German forces on the eastern front. That was the American strategy the OP complains about. The US with FDR at the helm used millions of Russian soldiers who died in action against Germany to weaken the forces Americans faced when they put boots on the ground western Europe.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Let's remember, the liar is a government school grad.


Bet he didn't know this:

*a. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal"byNikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.*

*b. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcibly repatriated between 1944 and 1947." "Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present," by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.*



There's an army Stalin could count on, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ...




 "The US did not cede military strategy to Russia and Stalin at any time during WWII."

Absolutely did.

*Stalin insisted* on a 'second front,' the assumption being that Hitler's attack on the Soviet homeland, June 21, 1941, was the 'first front.'

Further, *Stalin insisted....demanded* .....that the second front be as far west in Europe as possible....so that at war's end, *the Red Army could occupy and control all of Eastern Europe.*

This meant that, although the Allies had control of Italy and could advance north into Germany, the Adriatic second front was *not acceptable to Stalin....only Normandy, France, was.*




*Soviet Spy Hopkins and 'Yes,sir, yes sir' George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's* tender mercies.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Revisionist like the OP like to make predictions of how FDR would have handled Stalin and the entire ending of WWII, but of course, they in fact offer nothing more than speculative predictions and guess's. That is because FDR died before the war ended. That makes it seem easy for the revisionist. Especially when they pretend to have special powers that enable them to present their speculations as facts. They can cite a letter or report, a quote from a book or opinion article and say "look, here is the proof."
> ...


Done, post #29. First sentence of you OP.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Further, *Stalin insisted....demanded* .....that the second front be as far west in Europe as possible....so that at war's end, *the Red Army could occupy and control all of Eastern Europe.*
> 
> This meant that, although the Allies had control of Italy and could advance north into Germany, the Adriatic second front was *not acceptable to Stalin....only Normandy, France, was.*


Whatever Stalin wanted, the invasion of Italy was a nightmare for the Allies.  The terrain was too easy for the Germans to defend.  To defeat the Germans we needed to get our tanks onto the flat terrain of Northern Europe.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Not only did I reveal your lie.....but guess who else knew it was a lie?

"*Italy was the correct place* in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. *In no other area *could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be *closer to vital objectives in Germany."* 
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in *November* 26, 1943....

But Stalin said nooooooooooo....

He demanded that mid-Europe be left for the Red Army to occupy.....and Roosevelt bent over and grabbed his ankles....said 'da!!!!'


In your face, booooyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Further, *Stalin insisted....demanded* .....that the second front be as far west in Europe as possible....so that at war's end, *the Red Army could occupy and control all of Eastern Europe.*
> ...




Not only did I reveal your lie.....but guess who else knew it was a lie?

"*Italy was the correct place* in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. *In no other area *could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be *closer to vital objectives in Germany."* 
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in *November* 26, 1943....

But Stalin said nooooooooooo....

He demanded that mid-Europe be left for the Red Army to occupy.....and Roosevelt bent over and grabbed his ankles....said 'da!!!!'


In your face, booooyyyyyeeeeeeeee!!!!


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> "The US did not cede military strategy to Russia and Stalin at any time during WWII."
> 
> Absolutely did.
> 
> ...



Normandy was the logical and western France was the obvious place to begin the western front. Claiming the USA was guided by and influenced by Stalin to pick Normandy as the starting point is beyond silly. Normandy was the perfect pick for resupply and transportation and Great Britain had the airbases that could and would supply air support for the invasion and continued actions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "The US did not cede military strategy to Russia and Stalin at any time during WWII."
> ...




Eisenhower said one thing, and you, to hide the truth about Roosevelt, say the opposite.

Who to believe.


Was Churchill on your side?

Nah.

*"Churchill strongly opposed the cross channel invasion both on military and political grounds. He was thinking about the future of Europe and the world, with Germany destroyed and triumphant communism dominating the Eurasian heartland. This prompted a difficulty for American "Russia First" strategists." A major factor in all American thinking of that time," writes General Eisenhower, "was a lively suspicion that the British contemplated the agreed-upon cross-channel concept with distaste and with considerable mental reservations. . . ."*
*Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution"*


*Smashed another custard pie in your ugly kisser, huh?*


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You did a thread about this years ago and got slapped and exposed for not knowing what you were talking about. You did not know how to equate geography of the battlefield, ignored the fact that allies were having great difficulty fight in and through that geography, and you ignored the fact that a mountain range called the Alp's created a difficulty, particularly in retrieving and rescuing downed airmen.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Everything.....every single thing....I post is 100% true, accurate and correct.

You prove it by being unable to refute any of my posts.





Another stake through your heart?

Stalin demanded that Roosevelt continue the war until 'unconditional surrender.'

See, many anti-Nazi Germans were ready to fight Hitler, but Stalin couldn't allow any German post-war resistance to Communism...

So Roosevelt agreed.
He could have ended the war with a victory before Normandy.


Know what that means?

*To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died –a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to Roosevelt's refusal to allow a treaty to end the war.*



United States suffered *292,000 combat deaths. Fully a third to a half during the last few years......could have been avoided.*
World War II casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


100,000 American boys.....
*They were sacrificed, Roosevelt's love-token, to Stalin by this love-sick, puerile United States President.
What other explanation is there?*


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Holy crap, you are reverting to the non-existent fake propagandist Manly and the propaganda book published by the anti FDR lobby under that made up name. Same traitors that leaked US war preparations and contingencies a week before Pearl Harbor and was used by Hitler in his Declaration of War against the US.
Post a link for a bio on Manly. Tell folks about how a "writer" named Manly was given credit for leaking Rainbow Five to the Tribune.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





I love it when you squeal like the stuck pig you are.

Anyone can read the book themselves, and see what a pinko you are:

Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution"

The Twenty-Year Revolution: from Roosevelt to Eisenhower | Chesly Manly


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





More????

Sure:

. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by *Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.


a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins






Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father: *"Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122



As always, everything I post is documented.

Write soon, y'hear?


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> As always, everything I post is documented.
> 
> Write soon, y'hear?


Everything you post is documented with distortions and nonsense that would never be accepted in an academic or scholarly environment. Your threads, like this one, belongs in the conspiracy theory forum, not the history forum.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Remember when you wrote this absurdity:
"FDR was a great moral compass for the country and the world."
Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation

Let's check:


6. For some background about Soviet governance, and Joseph "Uncle Joe" Stalin...the slaughter of millions of his own citizens:


*a. The whole world knew of: "In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." Gareth Jones (journalist) - Wikipedia*

*b. Malcolm Muggeridge "  was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. " http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Uncollected-Writings-Muggeridge/dp/1570759057&tag=ff0d01-20*

*Think Roosevelt knew?*


You betcha'!!!

*...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. *


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


So we should have left Hitler in power you think?

So why did we insist on the unconditional surrender of Japan?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...





Tissue?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






Seems you know less than nothing.



*"RESISTANCE INSIDE GERMANY*
Despite the high risk of being caught by police with the help of their many informers, some individuals and groups attempted to resist Nazism even in Germany. Socialists, Communists, trade unionists, and others clandestinely wrote, printed, and distributed anti-Nazi literature. Many of these rebels were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.

There were many plots to assassinate Hitler during the war."
Resistance inside Germany


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Deflect and evade when you can not defend with facts. Your documented nonsense are not documents to prove or even support your agenda and thesis. You are just using random nonsense and opinions to support your conspiracy theories. You promote fake history to promote your agenda. You are not a historian or even knowledgeable person about history. You are a hack that uses conspiracy theories to promote a partisan agenda.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Everything I post is linked, documented and supported.

I am an historian in the truest sense of the term.

How about we leave the determination up to readers.....m'kay?



And.....more to come......better get the antacids.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


That is what you always post to defect away from answering actual challenges.
Where did you earn your advanced degree in history to claim you are a historian in the "truest sense of the term"? Are you a professor of history? Have you published books about history?

Having links and alleged documentary evidence does not make your post true or accurate. The best conspiracy theorist are the best experts at distorting and misrepresenting random alleged evidence.

You still refuse to answer a question about one of you "documented evidence" sources. Why? Who is Manly and why should anyone believe the partisan misinformation put out under that name?


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






Lol @ the butthurt!


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Don't know why you would think that. I look forward to slapping PC around when she does an anti-FDR thread.


----------



## bodecea (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


The OP is like those she supports who were pro-Hitler and Mussolini before the war...and encouraged the profitable sale of American scrap metal to the Japanese.  Tho we got that metal back during the war via bombs and bullets.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> *"RESISTANCE INSIDE GERMANY*
> Despite the high risk of being caught by police with the help of their many informers, some individuals and groups attempted to resist Nazism even in Germany. Socialists, Communists, trade unionists, and others clandestinely wrote, printed, and distributed anti-Nazi literature. Many of these rebels were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps.
> 
> There were many plots to assassinate Hitler during the war."
> Resistance inside Germany


So it was the Left that opposed Hitler?  I guess that means you were wrong when you equated the Left with Nazism in previous threads.  Thanks it takes a wise person to admit they were wrong.

I noticed none of the resistance groups named included the Army or industry.

I also await your answer to why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Japan if we only insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany due to Stalin?


----------



## whitehall (May 16, 2018)

If it wasn't for the criminal conspiracy in the MSM that never met a democrat they didn't like FDR would have gone down in history as a failed egomaniac tyrant who should have been impeached for violating the most basic freedom in the Constitution when he locked up American citizens without due process. FDR's foreign policy was laughable. The FDR administration thought Japan was a pushover and Hitler was a benevolent dictator. It's no secret that FDR enjoyed his time with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" and even made jokes about Churchill with Stalin in Churchill's presence.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Still looking for any errors in my posts?


Keep lookin'.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

bodecea said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Can you find any errors in my posts?

No?

Wadda ya' imagine that means?


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

whitehall said:


> If it wasn't for the criminal conspiracy in the MSM that never met a democrat they didn't like FDR would have gone down in history as a failed egomaniac tyrant who should have been impeached for violating the most basic freedom in the Constitution when he locked up American citizens without due process. FDR's foreign policy was laughable. The FDR administration thought Japan was a pushover and Hitler was a benevolent dictator. It's no secret that FDR enjoyed his time with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" and even made jokes about Churchill with Stalin in Churchill's presence.


And crazy Americans elected to the Presidency four times, historians have rated him one of America's greatest President's, and his legacy in the form of programs and infrastructure still serving and standing after over 74 years remains the strongest legacy of any President of the 20th century.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

whitehall said:


> If it wasn't for the criminal conspiracy in the MSM that never met a democrat they didn't like FDR would have gone down in history as a failed egomaniac tyrant who should have been impeached for violating the most basic freedom in the Constitution when he locked up American citizens without due process. FDR's foreign policy was laughable. The FDR administration thought Japan was a pushover and Hitler was a benevolent dictator. It's no secret that FDR enjoyed his time with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" and even made jokes about Churchill with Stalin in Churchill's presence.





The accomplishments of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary 
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.

7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
8. He extended the Depression rather than ended it.
9.. He invalidated the Constitution, and made the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp
10.Through his efforts Joseph Stalin didn't just survive...he thrived, and FDR encouraged and promoted communists in government.
11. He changed the relationship between the people and the government...and not in a good way
12. He extended WWII by at least two years, therefore responsible for the loss of blood and treasure over those years.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


I already did. I posted it. The first sentence of your OP is BS.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't for the criminal conspiracy in the MSM that never met a democrat they didn't like FDR would have gone down in history as a failed egomaniac tyrant who should have been impeached for violating the most basic freedom in the Constitution when he locked up American citizens without due process. FDR's foreign policy was laughable. The FDR administration thought Japan was a pushover and Hitler was a benevolent dictator. It's no secret that FDR enjoyed his time with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" and even made jokes about Churchill with Stalin in Churchill's presence.
> ...




".... historians have rated him one of America's greatest President's...."

Then why can't his best suck-up, you, find any errors in the posts I provide?


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Joe Stalin defeated Hitler and sacrificed 20 million people
FDR came in after Stalin had crushed the German Army and did mop up duty while taking half of Europe 

FDR played Joe Stalin


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





And I proved that I am correct, and provided statements by both Eisenhower and Churchill to prove what I said.



Next!


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 12. He extended WWII by at least two years, therefore responsible for the loss of blood and treasure over those years.



One of the more ridiculous claims made by the OP. She thinks the war against Nazi Germany and Japan could have been won in 1943.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win


Cognitive dissonance.  How could we find ourselves on the same side as the Communists?  There could only be one reason, a traitor in our government!!!  CONSPIRACY.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You provided your usual distortions. You are taking comments made shortly after the African campaign and during the high casualties and difficulties of the Italian campaign and before the results of the air campaign of Germany could be evaluated. In other words, you are using comments made before important factors could be included in the evaluations of strategy could be made. These comments were also made before the Russian victories on the Eastern Front could be included in the analysis. No one could guess the huge blunders Hitler would make on the eastern front.

This is how the OP is able to claim her facts are "true". They may be true but they are taken completely out of context and obsolete for the period she is discussing.

Still, no explanation as to who her major and main source of information is. She has facts but can not tell us who these facts come from.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 12. He extended WWII by at least two years, therefore responsible for the loss of blood and treasure over those years.
> ...




Let's check, and puncture you, you windbag:


*Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris: 'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.




Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims" Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945


What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war? 
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.




Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1939–1952, serves as the head of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of the United Kingdom intelligence community. 


Aside from any Roosevelt apologists who whine 'is not, is not,' the above is sourced and linked.....

....it is undeniable.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win
> ...





*Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse." 
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


Yup! 
'Russia Uber Alles' 

What nation did Roosevelt represent, again?*


----------



## del (May 16, 2018)

lol

russians would have stomped patton into unrecognizable chunks for reasons that are well documented and obvious to anyone with a half a brain.

chunky just keeps chunking


----------



## regent (May 16, 2018)

I have suggested to Chic, a few times, that she gather her evidence and send it to the historians that rate the presidents. At that time the historians were communists so evidence meant nothing. But there should be a few conservative historians that would make use of her evidence so the historians do not keep voting FDR as America's greatest president.
Of course there is the other problem, the people's vote, 4X.



















































;,. the people's vote--four times.
















; of the American people voting for FDR four times.
DR


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


This is what conspiracy theorist do. The basis for the OP's claim that FDR could have ended the war in 1943 is that a British Intelligence Chief claims his own British Foreign Office prevented his from making contact with a member of Hitler's staff and discussing the removal of Hitler by coup or assassination. Hence, FDR is responsible for prolonging the war? Does that make sense to anyone?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





 "Hence, FDR is responsible for prolonging the war? Does that make sense to anyone?"

Oh, but he was.


You need another spanking???

No prob.


*There was a large and well-organized anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany, and Stalin demanded that it never be recognized....or even its existence admitted.*


"In a certain sense *there was not a single year between 1933 and 1945 during which there was not some contact or attempt at contact, between the anti-Hitler opposition and either Britain or the Unites States, or both."* The Greatest War Crime


Just as he extended the Depression though counter-productive policies and stupidity,*Franklin Roosevelt extended WWII by years......years that cost thousands of American lives....by his affiliation with Stalin.
Stalin demanded that the Allies ignore German anti-Nazi resistance; Roosevelt bowed to the demand, as he did to Stalin's other demands.*
Just one more example of Roosevelt's infatuation with the blood-drenched homicidal maniac, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin.




In October of 1944, the AP bureau chief in Berlin, Louis Lochner tried to file a story on the *anti-Nazi Germans* operating out of France. The US military censors blocked the story.

"The government official in charge of censorship was forthcoming enough to confide to Lochner that there was *a personal directive from the president of the United States 'in his capacity as commander in chief forbidding all mention of the German resistance."
"Hitler and America,"by Klaus P. Fischer



"....a personal directive from the president...."*

Why?


Fischer quotes Lochner as follows: "Stories of the existence of a resistance movement did not fit into the concept of Unconditional Surrender."



How ya' like them apples, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeee??????


----------



## mudwhistle (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Sometimes the truth is a bitch. 
Anyone from Germany can tell about Russians and the way they act.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win
> ...


Why?

Because the Communists were engaged with Hitler in a fight to the death 
If they had just been fighting among themselves, we probably would have just let them

But we wanted to defend England and liberate France, Belgium, Netherlands and Norway. To do that we needed to fight the Nazis

Besides......Germany declared war on us


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Roosevelt was correct in his view that Germany was a greater threat than Japan.  The Russians were grinding up the German Army while NZ and Aus made little impact on Germany.  Once Germany was defeated NZ and Aus would be liberated from Japan with ease.  

If Russia was defeated or made peace with Hitler we never have been able to liberate France and defeat Germany.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

mudwhistle said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > "They are a scurvy race and simply savages"
> ...


Anyone from Russia can tell about Germans and the way they act.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





Bet you learned that in government school, huh?

They taught you that Hitler and Stalin would have joined forces, after June 22 of 1941?


Really?


Your head cold without this????


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Agree

If Hitler moved most of his forces into Western Europe, we never would have dislodged him


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Political Chic (Frau Braun) is still outraged that we took sides against Hitler


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Not join forces but just cease fighting.  They had a non-aggression pact in 1939, why not one in 1943?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




When you learn to read, look up Operation Barbarosa.


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Because she took you to the woodshed for the 10,000th time.


----------



## alang1216 (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Not join forces but just cease fighting.  They had a non-aggression pact in 1939, why not one in 1943?
> ...


I know enough about it to ask what does it have to do with anything?  

You think Stalin would care enough about the Russian people to want to avenge them and take the chance of losing power?  If he thought peace was in his interest...


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win




Misrepresentation is a white flag of surrender.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

*A little background on FDR’s BFF…..his ‘Uncle Joe.’*

*7.  Stalin was born in Georgia, began learning to speak Russian when he was eight or nine.  He took the nickname 'Koba,' a character in a popular book.*

*" The Patricide ... *is a novel by Alexander Kazbegi, first published in 1882. The novel is a love story, but it also addresses many socio-political issues of 19th century Georgia. The novel portrays critical realism of the 19th century.... The novel takes place in 19th century Georgia, when Georgia was occupied by the Russian Empire."            The Patricide - Wikipedia





*Based on his background, one might imagine that Stalin had a soft spot, 'tender mercy' for his homeland, Georgia.  *
*Wrong.*

In 1921, Lenin, and Stalin, annexed Georgia. And Stalin advised it be done with* maximum force.*



He demanded of the local Bolsheviks: 

*" You must draw a white-hot iron over this Georgian land!… It seems to me you have already forgotten the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. You will have to break the wings of this Georgia! Let the blood of the petit bourgeois flow until they give up all their resistance! Impale them! Tear them apart!"                                               Suggestion Box for Future Book Discussions ~*




*This was the man that Roosevelt had a crush on……a psychopathic homicidal maniac.*


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


She has never bested me in any of her anti-FDR threads and certainly has not taken me or anyone else to the "woodshed" in this one. We get it, you hate FDR for putting Japanese Americans into internment camps and dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. But none of the nonsense the OP promotes takes anyone to a woodshed of means diddly squat on how Americans and the world views the world leader that saved America and the world 75 or 80 years ago.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win
> ...


Wrong


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Revisionist history is all they have

PC only does it because she thinks she is irritating liberals


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > We all know Political Chic is still outraged that Hitler didn’t win
> ...


The flag of surrender is when someone like the OP, Political Chic refuses to answer questions but instead evades and deflects or simply ignores. A participant in a debate, even one on a message board can not claim success if they leave basid questions and challenges unanswered and ignored the way this OP has done.


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





This is all you ever manage: denying facts, idol worship, and repeating logical fallacies like the Rainman of losing arguments on the internet.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Ya, how many new adherents to PC's nutty conspiracy theory do you think she got with this thread?


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Last week we had some anti-FDR person trying to convince us that FDR should have ended the Great Depression seven years earlier than when it ended. That means they claimed he should have ended it before he was inaugurated in 1933.
This week someone is telling us he should have ended WWII two years earlier than when it ended, or two years after it started. Apparently, sacrificing tens of thousand of US Airmen bombing Germany, sinking most of their Navy and decimating their air force was not enough to get the job done. Oh, and lets not leave out defeating their Army in North Africa and invading Italy. FDR should have done more and done it quicker according to the WWII expert writing this thread fantasy.
He could have talked to one of Hitler's staff and convinced him to implement a coup or assassination.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




I wreck you every single time.


Let's prove it.....


"Hence, FDR is responsible for prolonging the war? Does that make sense to anyone?"

Oh, but he was.


You need another spanking???

No prob.


*There was a large and well-organized anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany, and Stalin demanded that it never be recognized....or even its existence admitted.*


"In a certain sense *there was not a single year between 1933 and 1945 during which there was not some contact or attempt at contact, between the anti-Hitler opposition and either Britain or the Unites States, or both."* The Greatest War Crime


Just as he extended the Depression though counter-productive policies and stupidity,*Franklin Roosevelt extended WWII by years......years that cost thousands of American lives....by his affiliation with Stalin.
Stalin demanded that the Allies ignore German anti-Nazi resistance; Roosevelt bowed to the demand, as he did to Stalin's other demands.*
Just one more example of Roosevelt's infatuation with the blood-drenched homicidal maniac, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin.




In October of 1944, the AP bureau chief in Berlin, Louis Lochner tried to file a story on the *anti-Nazi Germans* operating out of France. The US military censors blocked the story.

"The government official in charge of censorship was forthcoming enough to confide to Lochner that there was *a personal directive from the president of the United States 'in his capacity as commander in chief forbidding all mention of the German resistance."
"Hitler and America,"by Klaus P. Fischer



"....a personal directive from the president...."*

Why?


Fischer quotes Lochner as follows: "Stories of the existence of a resistance movement did not fit into the concept of Unconditional Surrender."






How ya' like them apples, boooooyyyyyyyeeeeeee??????


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

*A little more on FDR's BestFriendForever?????*


*8. Robert C. Tucker, Sovietologist historian, known best as a biographer of Stalin, wrote: "Nowhere [during the 'Great Purge'] were victims subjected to more atrocious treatment than in Georgia."*
*"Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941," by Robert C. Tucker, p. 488.*



a. Mamia Oreakhelashvili  " After the Sovietization of Georgia, Orakhelashvili served as chairman of the Georgian Revkom and secretary of the Central Committee of the Georgian Communist Party. He later became deputy chairman of the Georgian Council of People’s Commissars ..."
Mamia Orakhelashvili - Wikipedia

During the 'great terror purges' of the late 1930s, 425 of the 644 members of the Georgian party congress were put to death.

Oreakhelashvili had his eyes put out and his eardrums perforated while his wife was forced to watch.

Stalin......Tender mercies.




b. Then there was party chief Nestor Lakoba, who had died before the purges, and buried with honor. They had his body dug up and burned, and is wife tortured to death in the presence of his 14-year-old son. The son was sent to the gulag....than brought back and shot.


c. Buda Mdivani was a veteran Georgian Bolshevik and Soviet government official energetically involved in the Russian Revolutions and the Civil War, who led Georgian Communist opposition to Joseph Stalin's centralizing policy....he was tortured for three months, and then shot....his wife, four sons, an daughter, were then shot as well.







Yet, even after the above, and the show trials.....Roosevelt said * "I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."*

Franklin Roosevelt....a very sick man, morally and intellectually......and whose supporters are even sicker.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Last week we had some anti-FDR person trying to convince us that FDR should have ended the Great Depression seven years earlier than when it ended. That means they claimed he should have ended it before he was inaugurated in 1933.
> This week someone is telling us he should have ended WWII two years earlier than when it ended, or two years after it started. Apparently, sacrificing tens of thousand of US Airmen bombing Germany, sinking most of their Navy and decimating their air force was not enough to get the job done. Oh, and lets not leave out defeating their Army in North Africa and invading Italy. FDR should have done more and done it quicker according to the WWII expert writing this thread fantasy.
> He could have talked to one of Hitler's staff and convinced him to implement a coup or assassination.



Two years before the war ended (1943) Germany was still winning. 
Any attempt to end the war two years early would have involved ceding Western Europe and making some kind of peace with the Soviets

Only a Nazi sympathizer like Political Chic would think that is a good deal


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






 Logical fallacy again.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

This is the point in the OP simply reposts the same cut and paste posts over and over, all the while continuing to evade answering the specific questions she has been challenged with by multiple participants in the thread. 

One would think explaining who a major source being used in a debate or message board discussion is would be a legitimate question. PoliticalChic insist on using this controversial source over and over, but refuses to explain who or what the source is.

It's shameful that a thread like this one is posted in a history forum as if it represented legitimate history when it probably should be in a conspiracy forum or the rubber room.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> This is the point in the OP simply reposts the same cut and paste posts over and over, all the while continuing to evade answering the specific questions she has been challenged with by multiple participants in the thread.
> 
> One would think explaining who a major source being used in a debate or message board discussion is would be a legitimate question. PoliticalChic insist on using this controversial source over and over, but refuses to explain who or what the source is.
> 
> It's shameful that a thread like this one is posted in a history forum as if it represented legitimate history when it probably should be in a conspiracy forum or the rubber room.



"... *a personal directive from the president of the United States 'in his capacity as commander in chief forbidding all mention of the German resistance."*

Are you ready to admit that the post obliterated you????

Speak up, you dunce.


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Not a logical fallacy at all. It is a question asking for  a subjective or an objective response. You do not want to respond so you are evading a response by calling the question a logical fallacy.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > This is the point in the OP simply reposts the same cut and paste posts over and over, all the while continuing to evade answering the specific questions she has been challenged with by multiple participants in the thread.
> ...


German Resistance was next to non existent in WWII
Outside of failed plots to assassinate Hitler they had no capability to “end the war”


----------



## Camp (May 16, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > This is the point in the OP simply reposts the same cut and paste posts over and over, all the while continuing to evade answering the specific questions she has been challenged with by multiple participants in the thread.
> ...


That is called a national security measure to make sure all concerned and even those on the edge of concern knew that such discussions were of the highest secret classification and could only be mentioned under  the most secret conditions and protocols.

You really are the dunce in this discussion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

9. This is not to say that Roosevelt was the only one who bent over to the Left.
Hardly.
There are similar anti-America statists, Leftists, slithering all over this board.


The Leftists, like John Dewey, George Bernard Shaw, Fabian Socialists Beatrice and Sidney Webb, H.G. Wells, etc., like FDR, never wavered.
Government is god, human lives are expendable, slavery is freedom.




"Stalin's show trials which led to *the deaths of millions* of people in the Soviet Union during the 1930s were strongly defended by the British author and playwright George Bernard Shaw.

An extraordinary document to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London next month reveals that *Shaw continued to defend the Russian leader's excesses* despite growing doubts on the political Left in Britain.

Shaw, who became *an apologist for Stalin* after being invited to visit the Soviet Union in 1931, was sent a typewritten questionnaire about one of the early show trials by the journalist Dorothy Royal.

They often have to be pushed off the ladder with a rope around their necks," wrote Shaw, apparently *justifying Stalin's execution of many* of those who had led the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.

Shaw argued that what he called "this Russian trial" had been exaggerated and he rejected suggestions that the accused had only pleaded guilty because they had been drugged or tortured.


*At least 720,000 people were executed in the terror that followed*. *Millions more died from hunger and ill-treatment in concentration camps."* 
How Shaw defended Stalin's mass killings


“You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"




“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




 I am not surprised that you don’t understand what a logical fallacy is given how incessantly you fall back upon them.


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Not true.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Of course, you are correct.

Harry Hopkins biographer, George McJimsey, makes the claim that, *after Stalin and his spies in the administration demanded that the Allies never open communication with the anti-Hitler Germans, and accept only unconditional surrender- which would leave Germany in no condition to hinder Stalin's post war efforts to control all of Europe, Roosevelt viewed "the doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device, along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front for convincing Stalin of his good will."*
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy,"
by George McJimsey, , p. 278-279


There were many *anti-Nazi Germans who could have aided in the war efforts. Stalin would not allow their participation in the war* because they were anti-communist as well. These Germans wanted surrender, but not the 'unconditional surrender' that Stalin imposed on Roosevelt.


 "Most importantly, the (anti-Nazi, anti-communist) opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitlerwould, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943.

Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a *German Government which met democratic requirements*, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."


a. "In March, 1944, von Papen decided to make another effort to persuade FDR, through Earle, to mitigate "unconditional surrender" and *accept a separate surrender of the German armies to the Western Allies.* He decided, in case of favorable reply to his probe, to secretly fly Earle to Germany for a discussion of terms and conditions with two members of the Beck-Goerdeler resistance group: Count Gottfried Bismarck (grandson of the Iron Chancellor) and Berlin Chief of Police, Count Wolf-Heinrich Helldorf (von Papen,_Memoirs_, p. 522; and Wedemeyer,_Wedemeyer Reports!_, p. 418).


b. One of the leaders of the anti-Nazi, and anti-communist underground in Germany was "*Wilhelm Franz Canaris*(1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was aGerman admiraland chief of the_Abwehr_, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During the Second World War, he was among the military officers involved in theclandestine oppositiontoAdolf Hitlerand theNazi regime. He was executed inFlossenbürg concentration campfor the act of high treason." Wilhelm Canaris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Again....Canaris was the head of German military intelligence who, for years, tried to align with the Allies to overthrow Hitler.

Stalin demanded that no contact with the anti-Nazi underground be allowed.....and Roosevelt obeyed, like a good little slave.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 16, 2018)

*....there was a large anti-Nazi, anti-communist German underground.

'In a certain sense there was not a single year between 1933 and 1945 during which there was not some contact or attempt at contact, between the anti-Hitler opposition and either Britain or the Unites States, or both. The Greatest War Crime

Wilhelm Canaris

Franz von Papen

Colonel General Ludwig Beck Beginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79). As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann, German Resistance, p. 153). The Greatest War Crime


Carl Friedrich Goerderler

Ulrich von Hassell

Johannes Popitz

Kurt von Hammerstein

Job Wilhelm Georg Erdmann Erwin von Witzleben (4 December 1881 – 8 August 1944) was a German officer, by 1940 in the rank of a Field Marshal(Generalfeldmarschall), and army commander in the Second World War. A leading conspirator in the 20 July plot,[1]he was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht armed forces in a post-Nazi regime Erwin von Witzleben - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.General Edward Wagner

General Georg Thomas

Major General Hans Oster

General Friederich Olbricht

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg

Wilhelm Leuchner

Julius Leber

Helmuth von Moltke

Baron Kurt von Lersner

Most importantly, the opposition to Hitler would have to be assured that the people who were about to risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow Hitler would, if they succeeded, be faced with something better than the "unconditional surrender" formula proclaimed as a British-American war aim at the Casablanca Conference of Churchill and Roosevelt in January 1943. Von Papen needed to know "whether they would grant, to a German Government which met democratic requirements, the rights to which Germany's history and position entitled her. This must be the decisive factor in any further step (von Papen,Memoirs, p. 499; and Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer Reports! New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1958, p. 417.)."


Franz Von Papen promised to get in touch with FDR. He decided to ask his friend, Baron Kurt von Lersner (a friend of FDR) to make contact with the former governor of Pennsylvania, Commander George H. Earle, FDR's personal representative (i.e., eyes and ears) for the Balkans, stationed in Istanbul. In the meantime, German Intelligence chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, long in contact with the Beck-Goerdeler group, had also decided to make the same attempt through Navy Captain Paul Leverkuehn, an internationally-known lawyer and acquaintance of William J. Donovan, head of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (Heinz Hoehne, Canaris, trans. J. Maxwell Brownjohn Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979, pp. 482-83; Ritter, Goerdeler's Struggle; and von Papen, Memoirs, pp. 488-89, 499.). 

*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 16, 2018)

alang1216 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > a. "Hell, why do we care what those goddamn Russians think? *We are going to have to fight them sooner or later,* within the next generation."
> ...


Eastern Europe and Washington DC would have been free of Communism for over 70 years!!!!


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Wrong


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...






Wallowing in ignorance is not the way to make a point.


----------



## rightwinger (May 16, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Still wrong


----------



## Unkotare (May 16, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Typical liberal ^^^


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...




And not just liberal.....

*During Jack Cafferty's time as a co-anchor of CNN's morning program, he reported on March 31, 2004 that "It's a red-letter day here in America. Air America, that communist radio network, starts broadcasting in a little while." Cafferty was unyielding when CNN colleague Soledad O'Brien responded by saying that the new talk-radio network was not communist but liberal. He replied: "Well. Aren't they synonymous?"*


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...






* In order to deny that the policy, 'unconditional surrender,' was advantageous, even necessary, only to the Soviet Communists, one must argue that America could not agree to give anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans, who were helpful to the United States, any special consideration after they deposed Hitler, and surrendered.



But we did exactly that for lots of Germans!



a. Due to Roosevelt, we had no spying infrastucture in Russia, and needed same after the war. Germans did....and the anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans became our CIA.

"Gehlen Organization or Gehlen Org was an intelligence agency established in June 1946 by U.S. occupation authorities in the United States Zone of Germany, and consisted of former members of the 12th Department of the German Army General Staff (Foreign Armies East, or FHO). It carries the name of Wehrmacht Major general Reinhard Gehlen, head of the German military intelligence in the Eastern Frontduring World War II....

The Org was for many years the only eyes and ears of the CIA on the ground in theSoviet Bloc nations during the Cold War. The CIA kept close tabs on the Gehlen group: the Org supplied the manpower while the CIA supplied the material needs for clandestine operations, including funding, cars and airplanes.

Every German POW returning from Soviet captivity to West Germany between 1947 and 1955 was interviewed by Org agents. Those returnees who were forced to work in Soviet industries and construction and were willing to participate, represented an incomparable source of information, a post-war, up-to-date picture of the Soviet empire as it evolved.[2]"
. Gehlen Organization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




b. Need I mention Wernher von Braun, and the German rocket scientists who aided America post-war, and became NASA?



Of course the United States could have accepted surrender....years before 1945.
But that would have meant insulting the world's most proficient homicidal killer, Roosevelt's lord and master, Joseph 'Koba' Stalin.*


----------



## rightwinger (May 17, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Thank you


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

The OP does not understand or have knowledge of why unconditional surrender has been a military strategy since armies began fighting each other with sharpened sticks and sling shots, spears and arrows.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> The OP does not understand or have knowledge of why unconditional surrender has been a military strategy since armies began fighting each other with sharpened sticks and sling shots, spears and arrows.




Clearly, it is you who pretends not to understand.

The demand for 'unconditional surrender' came directly from the Kremlin, and Roosevelt, dutifully, acquiesced to Stalin.

 The very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by *Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.


Harry Hopkins.....
*Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


Pretty much the same role you fill, huh?


----------



## rightwinger (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> The OP does not understand or have knowledge of why unconditional surrender has been a military strategy since armies began fighting each other with sharpened sticks and sling shots, spears and arrows.



The OP wanted Germany to win WWII


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > The OP does not understand or have knowledge of why unconditional surrender has been a military strategy since armies began fighting each other with sharpened sticks and sling shots, spears and arrows.
> ...


Hopkin's was the eyes and ears of America inside the Kremlin. He was a spy for the USA and ingratiated himself into the Soviet High Command and Stalin's inner circle at great risk to his life. In doing so he opened himself up for attack as a Stalin dupe or friend after his death.
The controversy about Hopkins seems never ending, but here is what Gen. George Marshall had to say about him.

    "He was a *heroic* figure of the war. He rendered a service to his country which will never even vaguely be appreciated."
                                                                  Gen. George C. Marshall


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




You lie.


He was an agent of Soviet Russia....not a problem for Franklin Roosevelt, who welcomed 'Uncle Joe's' agents in his administration.



*There is absolutely no evidence of Hopkins's patriotism *outside of the fact that he worked in the White House. None. All that there is an assumption, a faith based in wishful thinking. It provides for Hopkins the kind of benefit of the doubt that the Liberals never give to an opponents, as in Goldwater's vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or Trent Lott joking that Strom Thurmond had been elected.

*In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis,* a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away. 
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: *"it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19.  *
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a.  See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173





Please, write soon.....I enjoy smashing these custard pies in your ugly kisser.


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.

For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.
> 
> For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.




 "It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked."

That's not what the CIA report says:

*In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis,* a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away. 
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: *"it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19. *
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173



Caught you lying for the Kremlin again, huh?


----------



## Moonglow (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.If Franklin Roosevelt had had a teenager’s crush on Joseph Stalin, that might explain his actions vis-a-vis that homicidal megalomaniac, as when he ceded Allied military strategy, and control over half of Europe to "Uncle Joe."
> ….it must have relied on a belief in Stalin's 'tender mercies.'
> 
> 
> ...


Spamulicious redundancy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.
> 
> For many years his and FDR opponents claimed he was an agent of the Soviets referred to as "Agent 19" in a Soviet message. It was later proven that Agent 19 was not Hopkins and identified as a British citizen. Hence, the only evidence against Hopkins was debunked.




"Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war."

Lend Lease was a Kremlin plan, agreed to by their servant, Franklin Roosevelt.

a. "*The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease.* *As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR.....* *in November 1940 Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins.* *Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.*” justice4germans.com

b. The program was finally authorized by Congress and signed into effect on March 11, 1941. By November, after much heated debate, Congress extended the terms of Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union, even though the USSR had already been the recipient of American military weapons and had been promised $1 billion in financial aid. 
FDR signs Lend-Lease - Mar 11, 1941 - HISTORY.com

c. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, and put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse." George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.



When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Hopkins was in charge of the lend lease program that shipped hundreds of tons of supplies from the US to the USSR during the war. This gave him a very special advantage in making friends with Soviet leaders. Hopkins could arrange for all kinds of "special" requests to be transported to the USSR as part of the lend lease program.
> ...


Your link and conclusion is obsolete. In 2014 world known historians Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes identified the British citizen as "source 19", thus, rendering your conclusion as obsolete.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Here is a link to ultra conservative Front Page Magazine. It is written by historian John Earl Haynes. He addresses the Mark conclusion you use as a source. In fact, he discusses the conversations he had directly with Mark in regards to source 19.

It was Haynes and Klehr who were the historians that found the real source 19 and proved it was not Hopkins.

frontpagemag.com/fpm/200900/was-harry-hopkins-soviet-spy-john-earl-Haynes

Remind me, what is your link to a CIA report claiming Hopkins was source 19?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Well, then, you must be able to cite the CIA retraction of their report.....
 the CIA report says:

*In 1998, the late US Air Force historian Eduard Mark published a break-through Hopkins analysis,* a meticulous examination of what appears to be the first damning document to emerge from the Venona record against Hopkins. It was a partly decrypted Venona cable, authored by Akhmerov, in which a very senior Roosevelt administration official, code named "Source 19," conveyed the content of a private, top secret conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill in late May 1943 about the invasion of Normandy, which, at the time, was a year away. 
By a process of elimination, this is what Mark concludes: *"it is probable virtually to the point of certainty" that Harry Hopkins is Source 19. *
Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943; Diplomacy or Espionage?" From "Intelligence and National Security 113, no. 2, April 1998, p. 1-31.

a. See http://65.54.113.26/Publication/57558173


Shall I wait, or will you simply admit your lie?


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Could this be of any interest, one wonders?


*Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR. "At the Tehran Conference in late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin." *
*W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia*


*Harriman made this interesting observation:*

* "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
*Encounter Magazine interview, 1981. *


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


That is not a CIA report and I provided a link to a conservative magazine with an article by a recognized historian and friend of the author you used as a source. The article contains conversations they had about the subject.

Even though I am providing links and backing up all of my posts your continue to call me a liar. It really looks like you are the one trying to lie. You said you had a CIA report to support you claim. You do not have a CIA report to support your claim. You lied. You have obsolete articles by a historian, but historical works often become obsolete when new data is obtained. Someone is always finding old letters, ignored documents, etc. when that happens and a historian gets hold of the newly discovered data, the old data sometime becomes obsolete. If you were the historian you claim to be you would know this.

This is a tactic used by conspiracy theorist. They used old outdated information and data to weave the story they want to tell. And always, they claim their theories are documented and thus, proven. Well, they are documented with outdated obsolete documents or data and they prove nothing. If they tried to do this while submitting a college thesis they would get booted out of the class and program will a sub-failing grade. Probably dismissed for cheating.


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Could this be of any interest, one wonders?
> 
> 
> *Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR. "At the Tehran Conference in late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin." *
> ...


Again, you ignore or miss the obvious. Hopkins was in charge of lend lease, Stalin was dependent of the lend lease program and all of it had to go through Harry Hopkins. He had to approve of everything Stalin asked for. Hopkins was on a  mission to become a trusted friend of Stalin and while doing so, promote the US strategy of having Stalin supply unlimited manpower to the eastern front to decimate the German Armies and air forces before the US and allies confronted them on the western front an the D-Day invasion.


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




Of course you're a liar.....you deny that Harry Hopkins was a Soviet spy.


" How did this massive penetration and policy twisting occur? Deception, Evans mentioned at a recent lecture, succeeds best when people want to be deceived. *Franklin Roosevelt’s willful blindness* to Stalin’s malignant goals, aggravated by the President’s health problems, was clearly a major cause. FDR saw what he wanted to see: that Josef Stalin liked him and would cooperate in preserving a peaceful and just world. That mindset went hand-in-hand with a New Deal bureaucracy chock-a-block with* Soviet agents, Communist party members and ardent Stalinist sympathizers, including two FDR confidants, Lauchlin Currie and Harry Hopkins, FDR’s most trusted friend who for several years lived at the White House."*
Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News



Sooooo.....by extension, wasn't Franklin Roosevelt a Soviet spy as well????


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.




Actually, had Roosevelt listened to his generals, and attacked via Italy, and not followed Stalin's instructions to attack via western Europe (so as to leave half of Europe to occupation by Stalin's Red Army, the war would have been over years earlier with the commensurate saving of US Army lives.

Roosevelt didn't care about US lives.....want proof?

Sure....

*20,000 Americans that Roosevelt and Eisenhower allowed Stalin to kill...keep.*

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed *25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands* that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and *by force* if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, *Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the [25,000] hostage American POWs.*

On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, *signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control."*
http://www.nationalalliance.org/wwii/wwii.htm

National Alliance of Families



This is not idle conversation.....this is 20,000 American boys left to die in Stalin's gulags.

Left by Roosevelt, Hopkins, Marshall.....

....and Eisenhower.



Now.....who did Roosevelt serve again.....the US or the USSR?

Same question to you.....


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You are really showing yourself to be a scummy little low life. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not make them a liar. It seems that no matter how much evidence I provide and how many links to support my opinion you are going to call me a liar.

There was never anything more than suspicion and allegations to implement Harry Hopkins as a spy. Now, evidence has been found to disprove the factors that made him suspicious, yet you insist on ignoring that evidence or even address it. I posted it in this thread. You make believe it doesn't exist. Typical hack. Dishonest and ready to name call and insult rather than address issues and facts.

By the way, your latest link is another sign of you dishonesty. It has nothing to do with Harry Hopkins. You are trying to change the narrative and escape from topic like the bullshyt artist you are.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





More, you liar???

Sure thing.


Former Communist Whittaker Chambers testified to Congress in 1948 about the formation of Communist "study groups" within the U.S. government from which espionage agents were recruited. One of those groups, led by Lee Pressman, was established within the Department of Agriculture in late 1933, and Hopkins was a member of that group.


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What is the source of your latest rant. Are you really lowering even you own scuzzy low standards and going directly to "guilt by association"?
OK, show us your source. Provide the link. I am pretty sure it will be a fake unreliable source of no real historical value, but go ahead and provide the source.


----------



## PoliticalChic (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Who is "us"???
Other communist sympathizers?????



http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm




And, "corroborating and entirely independent evidence of Hopkins’ likely treason has come to light in the pages of an obscure book by Emanuel M. Josephson.  The title is _The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt_, and while it does have a very intriguing chapter on FDR’s demise, the main subject of the book is better captured by the subtitle, _A History of the Roosevelt-Delano Dynasty, America’s Royal Family._  The following passage is on pp. 145-146:

a. In later years, Murray Garsson, the munitions manufacturer who was convicted for bribery and irregularities in connection with war contracts, reported that Harry Hopkins had been very helpful to him in securing and handling those contracts.  In return for his help, Hopkins had demanded and received liberal payment for his influence.  Garsson regularly paid Hopkins’s numerous losses on bets on the horse races.  But one form of payment demanded by Hopkins stood out as most odd, Garsson said.

b. Garsson maintained quarters at the Wardman Park Hotel in Washington in connection with his war contracts.  But he spent his weekends in New York with his family.   Harry Hopkins demanded of Garsson that he permit him and his friends to use the quarters during the weekends, and that he defray the cost of refreshments and entertainment.  Garsson permitted Hopkins and his guests to charge their expenses to his account.

c. In looking over his bills, Garsson noted the names of the persons who had signed the tabs charged to him.  Among Harry Hopkins’s associates who had signed tabs were Carl Aldo Marzani and the whole array of the members of what was later proved to be the Hal Ware (Communist) cell that operated in the Government.  Garsson stated that he did not become aware of the fact that he was acting as involuntary host to Hopkins’s Communist cell until after Marzani had been convicted and sent to jail for perjury in swearing in his State Department application that he was not, and never had been, a member of the Communist Party.

3. Josephson, who was hardly an admirer of Roosevelt and his New Deal, lacks references for his allegations, but many factors militate in favor of their basic accuracy.  The strongest of these is that they dovetail perfectly with the other Soviet-agent charges against Hopkins and, coming much earlier, they could not have been influenced by them.  In combination, the charges are much stronger than any one of them is alone.  http://www.dcdave.com/article5/110211.htm


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


This person truly soiled herself and emerged herself in nonsense. Her source now is someone called "DC Dave". The source admits his source can not prove the story, but a guy convicted of various crimes says he had a deal with Hopkins and as payment to Hopkins paid hotel and bar tabs for a group of communist that Hopkins was alleged to have been connected to in some way.  Can't be proven because there is absolutely no evidence, but the convicted crook is alleged to be reliable by some guy named DC DAVE!!!


Seriously, read DC Dave's thrilling account of espionage at the highest levels of government during WWII !!!


----------



## Camp (May 17, 2018)

By the way, none of the crooks who tried to make a deal for lighter sentences by telling lies about Hopkins was successful in getting sentence reductions. They served hard time in prison. Their stories were as useless back then as they are today.

See for yourself. Research Murray Garsson.


----------



## whitehall (May 17, 2018)

Camp said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't for the criminal conspiracy in the MSM that never met a democrat they didn't like FDR would have gone down in history as a failed egomaniac tyrant who should have been impeached for violating the most basic freedom in the Constitution when he locked up American citizens without due process. FDR's foreign policy was laughable. The FDR administration thought Japan was a pushover and Hitler was a benevolent dictator. It's no secret that FDR enjoyed his time with Stalin and called him "Uncle Joe" and even made jokes about Churchill with Stalin in Churchill's presence.
> ...



You have to consider that the entire U.S.  media was part of the FDR administration for at least two terms and the only message available to Americans was filtered either through the government or the liberal media which was nothing but the propaganda arm (still is) of the democrat party. There was no alternate news source for the better part of the 20th century than the liberal media. Democrats ran a dying man for his 4th term who may have had several strokes and the media knew it but they  never told the American people. FDR's medical records disappeared from a locked safe within days of his death and nobody in the media was curious. FDR appointed a former KKK member to the supreme court and Justice Black paid him back with a majority opinion that justified the incarceration of American citizens without due process and that was the end of it. The fix was in for FDR's four elections but Americans got smarter and better informed. The media tried to create an equally fake legacy for Truman but he couldn't even get enough support in his own party to run for a full 2nd term after the debacle of Korea.


----------



## regent (May 17, 2018)

I wonder if Americans are as happy having Trump as president, as Americans were to have FDR as president during two of the most trying periods in our history. It was a great period to have a competent president able to handle the Depression and WWII, and historians know it and give him credit.
It must hurt Republicans, yet they had Lincoln. Still, they seldom seem to mention Lincoln as a great president. How come?


----------



## regent (May 19, 2018)

Wonder what Lincoln did that was so wrong that Republicans barely acknowledge him as a great president and a Republican?


----------



## rightwinger (May 19, 2018)

Camp said:


> The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.


The Soviets did the bulk of the fighting against the Nazis
The US provided much of the war machine, but most of the fighting and dying took place in the east


----------



## Unkotare (May 19, 2018)

regent said:


> Wonder what Lincoln did that was so wrong that Republicans barely acknowledge him as a great president and a Republican?





Straw man again. Nothing but logical fallacy, as usual.


----------



## Camp (May 19, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.
> ...


There is no accurate number for how many Russian's were picked up in villages and cities, loaded on trains and trucks (supplied by the USA) and taken directly to the front to die in suicidal mass attacks. Russians can only guess somewhere between 12 and 16 millions were probably lost. That does not account for civilian casualties.


----------



## Unkotare (May 19, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > The US beat Nazi Germany with help from allies, including the USSR, but it was the US strategy of FDR that beat the Nazi's and Harry Hopkins played a major roll in that victory. It is shameful that he is disparaged and slandered by hacks with political agendas.
> ...




They did the bulk of the dying, thanks in no small part to Stalin’s paranoia.


----------



## rightwinger (May 19, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



And because they were invaded by the Germans

The Soviets did the heavy lifting against the Nazis


----------



## Unkotare (May 19, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Stupidity all around.


----------



## regent (May 23, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder what Lincoln did that was so wrong that Republicans barely acknowledge him as a great president and a Republican?
> ...


This is more like a thinking question. Can you think of why the Republican Party does not give accolades to Lincoln. Lincoln is a close tie to FDR  but it almost seems like he is shunned by Republicans. Why?


----------



## Unkotare (May 23, 2018)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



False premise.


----------



## regent (Jun 21, 2018)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


 And the evidence that it is a false premise is...? And please don't give us the internment camp defense.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 22, 2018)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





Republicans do not "shun" Lincoln. From now on, if you need more help understanding why your own arguments are illogical, I'm going to have to charge you.


----------

