# Think You Know Who Won WWII?



## PoliticalChic

Did we....really?


Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?


Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?

Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.






1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.

A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." 
NYTimes, November 27, 1925.

a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."* 
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.

b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." 
Vladimir Bukovsky.

2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan." 
Vladimir Bukovsky.

3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*





4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*

a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.

5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."






6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.



So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.


7. Move forward:
*The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.

Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."





8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII. 
"This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished." 
West, "American Betrayal," p.255.

9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."* 
 Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414





10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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

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 [Hopkins] 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




*So....who won WWII?*


----------



## Spoonman

more expansionism took place after WWII than we prevented by fighting it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"

Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.


----------



## Agit8r

I have this sense of deja vu, like we've already discussed this exhaustively... or at least until it got silly.

Maybe for a change we could talk about our present day struggles, like our war against militant fundamentalism.


----------



## rightwinger

The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth

Of course we won. Both economically and militarily


----------



## Spoonman

rightwinger said:


> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily



and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.


----------



## rightwinger

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


How did the Soviets do?


----------



## Agit8r

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Hey, we held out longer there than the Soviets did


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.

WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.

and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.







1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
The end of national sovereignty.

2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
Ibid.



Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.




Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."

Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.


Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.

And will remain so.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Agit8r said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, we held out longer there than the Soviets did
Click to expand...





Wrong.


But....an idea for another OP.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How did the Soviets do?
Click to expand...




Which Soviets?


The peasants lost.

The communists won.


----------



## Moonglow

> ...and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.



Nazi's hated the communist and had frequent fights until Hitler became Chancellor and outlawed the communist party.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Soviets do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Soviets?
> 
> 
> The peasants lost.
> 
> The communists won.
Click to expand...


When in Russian history have the peasants ever won anything in a political manner?


----------



## Moonglow

Does the rhetoric of the outward belly buttons that hate democrats and communist ever get passed cutting off their noses to spite their faces? A continuous barrage of misinformation trying to explain away US success since Hoover failed at running the American economy or society. The extreme side of Polivinylchics political affiliation never ceases to rewrite history trying to make the US look dirty. Yet no GOP leader has done as much for the forward progress of the US than the democrats and their positive attitude they hold in politics versus the I hate America politics from the GOP or what ever party they affiliate themselves with.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> ...and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's hated the communist and had frequent fights until Hitler became Chancellor and outlawed the communist party.
Click to expand...




Posting in light of items #1-2-3-4-and 5 in the OP, you come off like a moron.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's hated the communist and had frequent fights until Hitler became Chancellor and outlawed the communist party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting in light of items #1-2-3-4-and 5 in the OP, you come off like a moron.
Click to expand...


No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.


----------



## Camp

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should consider learning the difference between "Total War" and "Limited War". You may also wish to investigate "Rules of Engagement".
In regards to Afghanistan, President Bush made the decision to designate the war as a "Limited War". He in fact designated the entire "War on Terrorism" as a very defined limited war. He had a window of oppurtunity immediatly following and for a short time after 911 to declare total war on international terrorism. He (USA and allies) could have demanded unconditional surrender or implemented total annihilation from or to international terrorist and their supporters, including al Qaeda and the Taliban. He didn't. He blew his chance at greatness and at best he left a mess and a loss or stalmeted war to be dealt with by whoever followed him.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did the Soviets do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Soviets?
> 
> 
> The peasants lost.
> 
> The communists won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When in Russian history have the peasants ever won anything in a political manner?
Click to expand...





You've certainly missed the point of the post to which you are, ostensibly, responding.



Please,...come back after you've had your coffee.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Does the rhetoric of the outward belly buttons that hate democrats and communist ever get passed cutting off their noses to spite their faces? A continuous barrage of misinformation trying to explain away US success since Hoover failed at running the American economy or society. The extreme side of Polivinylchics political affiliation never ceases to rewrite history trying to make the US look dirty. Yet no GOP leader has done as much for the forward progress of the US than the democrats and their positive attitude they hold in politics versus the I hate America politics from the GOP or what ever party they affiliate themselves with.




Here's a simple challenge.

Defend your "misinformation" charge.

Where is it so?




"Yet no GOP leader has done as much for the forward progress of the US than the democrats and their positive attitude they hold in politics versus the I hate America politics from the GOP or what ever party they affiliate themselves with."

1. If you believe that that is an actual sentence, and/or that it makes sense, you must be sitting in an Ojibwe sweat lodge, on peyote.


2. If, within that cloud of drug induced haze you mean that the Democrats are better for this nation....

a. Reagan added $17 trillion to the economy

b. Republicans began the earned income tax credits.

c. Democrats emasculated the intelligence community, with 9/11 being the result

d. Democrats installed a program which the CBO just claimed would remove 2.3 million jobs


.....and that's for starters.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's hated the communist and had frequent fights until Hitler became Chancellor and outlawed the communist party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting in light of items #1-2-3-4-and 5 in the OP, you come off like a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.
Click to expand...




The OP has links and sources.


Rectitude is my goal, not your opinion.


Notice...I have a proprietary pride in veracity.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was patterned after Mussolin's fascism....and the NRA comes straight from Raffaelo Viglione's "The Corporate State."



This is the salient point:

*" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to the Soviet Union." *
This, from page 48 of Chesly Manly's "The Twenty Year Revolution."




Manly's 250 page book can be read entirely on line, and will be eye-opening to those who have never learned how successful communism has been in moving into a dominant position in the United States.

http://library.mises.org/books/Ches...r Revolution from Roosevelt to Eisenhower.pdf


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's amazing how PC plows through Liberal talking points, well like, Germany's early panzers tore through miles of Russian countryside in '41 and 42


----------



## Agit8r

PoliticalChic said:


> Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was patterned after Mussolin's fascism....and the NRA comes straight from Raffaelo Viglione's "The Corporate State."



Bullshit:

http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf

"I consider that a Government which means to relieve rapidly peoples from after-war crises should allow free play to private enterprise, should renounce any meddling or restrictive legislation, which may please the Socialist demagogues, but proves, in the end, as experience shows, absolutely ruinous"
 --* Benito Mussolini*; from speech to International Congress of the Chambers of Commerce (March 18, 1923)


----------



## rightwinger

The US won WWII.....It was in all the papers


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> The US won WWII.....It was in all the papers



Stalin grabbed most of the good real estate


----------



## Indeependent

The British and French Empires were replaced by the US Empire.
The Soviet Union?  More interested in conquest than Capitalism.
The Russian Federation?  Interested in Authoritarian Capitalism and refused to buy US T-Bills in early 2009.


----------



## mamooth

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's amazing how PC plows through Liberal talking points,



You must be looking at a different thread. I just see PC doing her usual tapdance, where she avoids any actual point other than how deranged she is towards any liberals.

Back on planet earth, one wonders how the US and UK would have forcibly ejected a Soviet army that outnumbered them from eastern Europe, while also fighting Japan. Air superiority we had, but it still would have been a massive bloodbath on both sides, with the outcome not clear. We could have lost, and seen the Soviets roll over France.

One also wonders why someone would claim a policy that succeeded was a failure. The Soviets collapsed and eastern Europe was liberated without a bloodbath. The policies of FDR and Truman were completely vindicated.

And let's get people's sympathies out in the open. Do PC or any of the righties here think we should have sided with the Nazis?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Agit8r said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was patterned after Mussolin's fascism....and the NRA comes straight from Raffaelo Viglione's "The Corporate State."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit:
> 
> http://www.ub.edu/graap/bel_Italy_fascist.pdf
> 
> "I consider that a Government which means to relieve rapidly peoples from after-war crises should allow free play to private enterprise, should renounce any meddling or restrictive legislation, which may please the Socialist demagogues, but proves, in the end, as experience shows, absolutely ruinous"
> --* Benito Mussolini*; from speech to International Congress of the Chambers of Commerce (March 18, 1923)
Click to expand...




I love having reduced you to less than civil language, as it is the equivalent of the white flag.




Here, your remediation:

1.	The current narrative is geared toward minimizing the relationship between *Roosevelts New Deal, and that of Mussolini and of Hitler*and that only due to the exigencies of the Second World War did it become necessary for Roosevelt to assume extreme powers identified with those of the other two regimes.

2.	In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europes largest industrialized nation.

a.	At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. 
freedomsite.net - freedomsite Resources and Information. This website is for sale!




3.	*The National Socialists hailed these relief measures* in ways you will recognize: 

a.	May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (Peoples Observer): *Roosevelts Dictatorial Recovery Measures*.

b.	And on January 17, 1934, We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America and *Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains of thought *in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers own dictatorial Fuhrerprinzip.

c.	And [Roosevelt], too demands that* collective* good be put before individual self-interest. *Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist.one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.*

d.	The paper also refers to the fictional appearance of democracy.





4.	In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, *have been attempting to adopt for the United States. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany  
cited in Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, vol.2, p. 27.




5.	English and French commentators routinely *depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. *A more specific reason why, in 1933, *the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one.* 

And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. *The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolinis corporatism *as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.

a.	*Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelts Looking Forward,* in which he said [as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people. 
Popolo dItalia, July 7, 1933.

b.	In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of New Frontiers, by FDRs Secy of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: Wallaces answer to what America wants is as follows: *anything but a return tyo the free-market,* i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century. 
Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.



6.	*Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies *were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone too far in the Russian direction, and a Democrat accused FDR of trying to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country. 
Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, p. 27. 

a. The similarities of the economics of *the New Deal to the economics of Mussolinis corporative state or Hitlers totalitarian state* are both close and obvious. 
Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party.

b. Roosevelts Secy of the Interior, proclaimed: What we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression When He Died




Care to respond?
.......or not.


----------



## emilynghiem

I think the human spirit survives all these wars and keeps winning.
the healing of the children and push for peace education after the Bombings in Japan.
the women and children recovering and rescuing others from trafficking and slavery
still devastating poor regions around the world.
the people building schools, clinics and orphanages while politicians boast of who killed how many first.

the meek shall inherit the earth
the real peacemakers and people doing all the work behind the scenes
the doctors in Iraq saving lives with no resources and their hospitals in shambles
the people in Afghanistan teaching kids in dirt poor schools built by charity

these are the people who win victories while the rest of the world suffers in war we inflict on each other



PoliticalChic said:


> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin &#8211;materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
> Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
> The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.
> 
> 
> 7. Move forward:
> *The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.
> 
> Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
> "This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.255.
> 
> 9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."*
> Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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
> 
> 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 [Hopkins] 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*


----------



## PoliticalChic

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing how PC plows through Liberal talking points,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be looking at a different thread. I just see PC doing her usual tapdance, where she avoids any actual point other than how deranged she is towards any liberals.
> 
> Back on planet earth, one wonders how the US and UK would have forcibly ejected a Soviet army that outnumbered them from eastern Europe, while also fighting Japan. Air superiority we had, but it still would have been a massive bloodbath on both sides, with the outcome not clear. We could have lost, and seen the Soviets roll over France.
> 
> One also wonders why someone would claim a policy that succeeded was a failure. The Soviets collapsed and eastern Europe was liberated without a bloodbath. The policies of FDR and Truman were completely vindicated.
> 
> And let's get people's sympathies out in the open. Do PC or any of the righties here think we should have sided with the Nazis?
Click to expand...




I'm gonna advance you one full step, from moron, to lying moron.




"Do PC or any of the righties here think we should have sided with the Nazis?"

Why is that even a consideration.

The Nazis and the Communists were siblings.


1. FDR supported Stalin in every way possible....to the detriment of American troops and American interests.


2. A view into the mind of Franklin Roosevelt can be glimpsed through the words of George Kennan, " American adviser, diplomat, political scientist, and historian, best known as "the father of containment" and as a key figure in the emergence of the Cold War. He later wrote standard histories of the relations between Soviet Union and the Western powers. He was also a core member of the group of foreign policy elders known as "The Wise Men". George F. Kennan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


" After commenting bitterly on the inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in 
the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States, *Kennan turns more directly to FDR *alone:

 I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadnt been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that* if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russias cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.*

*For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature?*
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf



3. ."Not only did FDR overlook the external evidence; *FDR ignored the counsel of key experts at the State Department, *which, at the time, was home...to an educated and experienced cadre of anti-Communists....who would be neutralized and purged...._n 1937...the Russian research library at the State Department was broken up, the files on Communists, foreign and domestic, ordered destroyed. The second, in 1943. Both purges took place under Soviet pressure and even direction as when in March 1943 Foreign Minister Litvinov, incredibly, handed over a list of American diplomats the Soviets wanted fired....a "guilt offering to Stalin from Roosevelt"... 
West, "American Betrayal," p.193.


4. What could, should have happened? When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941,* America should have done nothing.*..no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance!

Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into! 

"*Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile*, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in   "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service"_


----------



## rightwinger

As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home

Great political and military strategy by FDR


----------



## longknife

Of course I know!

It was Germany and Japan!!!

Look at how much better they are now than before the war.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem fair. You get to use the same old worn out debunked, biased, conspiracy theory, distorted, taken out of context, twisted sources, but you don't want others to use 'historians' or textbooks'. Heck, it appears you have now begun to use pre-war German newspaper propagand articles as sources. C'mon, articles to convince the German people that Hitler's ideas coincided with FDR's and that he was viewed with respect by the world community are supposed to be taken as factual? This crap came straight from Goebbels.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR








As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge. 


Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem fair. You get to use the same old worn out debunked, biased, conspiracy theory, distorted, taken out of context, twisted sources, but you don't want others to use 'historians' or textbooks'. Heck, it appears you have now begun to use pre-war German newspaper propagand articles as sources. C'mon, articles to convince the German people that Hitler's ideas coincided with FDR's and that he was viewed with respect by the world community are supposed to be taken as factual? This crap came straight from Goebbels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what " debunked" means?
> 
> 
> Seems not, since I post only truth.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> 
> Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...


FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact

No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem fair. You get to use the same old worn out debunked, biased, conspiracy theory, distorted, taken out of context, twisted sources, but you don't want others to use 'historians' or textbooks'. Heck, it appears you have now begun to use pre-war German newspaper propagand articles as sources. C'mon, articles to convince the German people that Hitler's ideas coincided with FDR's and that he was viewed with respect by the world community are supposed to be taken as factual? This crap came straight from Goebbels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what " debunked" means?
> 
> 
> Seems not, since I post only truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I think I know what "debunked" means. It is what some respected and recognized historians did to the conspiracy theory book written by a conservative political commentator that you continue to use. American Betrayal by Diana West is not recognized as anything other that a rivisionist hack job.
> Debunked means revealing something is untrue. It means exsposing or ridiculing something as a sham and falsehood. The description of how you use sources is accurate. It becomes obvious to anyone who bothers to check out your sources. They only work for people who are impressed by your lay-out and text presentation, the show us something bright and shiney crowd.
Click to expand...


----------



## whitehall

FDR was so popular that the democrat party risked the future of the US in order to maintain political power and run a virtual corpse for a 4th term. It's possible that FDR experienced a number of strokes and wasn't even in his right mind during the important conferences regarding the post WW2 world. His medical records disappeared from a locked safe shortly after he died and it seems that the fawning media might have been relieved that they could continue to prop up the fake legacy .


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic's greatest lie of all is that she is "eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science" while ignoring terms, texts subject and objective, peer reviewed material, and so on and so forth.

She is the self-condemned narcissist.  

Here are the traits of the narcissistic personality.  More can be found at Characteristics of the Narcissist | NarcissisticAbuse.com

_1. Self-centered. His needs are paramount.

2. No remorse for mistakes or misdeeds.

3. Unreliable, undependable.

4. Does not care about the consequences of his actions.

5. Projects faults on to others. High blaming behavior; never his fault.

6. Little if any conscience.

7. Insensitive to needs and feelings of others.

8. Has a good front (persona) to impress and exploit others.

9. Low stress tolerance. Easy to anger and rage.

10. People are to be manipulated for his needs.

11. Rationalizes easily. Twists conversation to his gain at others expense.  If trapped, keeps talking, changes the subject or gets angry.

12. Pathological lying.

13. Tremendous need to control situations, conversations, others.

14. No real values. Mostly situational.

15. Often perceived as caring and understanding and uses this to manipulate.

16. Angry, mercurial, moods.

17. Uses sex to control

18. Does not share ideas, feelings, emotions.

19. Conversation controller. Must have the first and last word.

20. Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentment.

21. Secret life. Hides money, friends, activities.

22. Likes annoying others. Likes to create chaos and disrupt for no reason.

23. Moody  switches from nice guy to anger without much provocation.

24. Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations.

25. Seldom expresses appreciation.

26. Grandiose. Convinced he knows more than others and is correct in all he does.

27. Lacks ability to see how he comes across to others.  Defensive when confronted with his behavior.  Never his fault.

28. Can get emotional, tearful. This is about show or frustration rather than sorrow.

29. He breaks womans spirits to keep them dependent.

30. Needs threats, intimidations to keep others close to him.

31. Sabotages partner. Wants her to be happy only through him and to have few or no outside interests and acquaintances.

32. Highly contradictory.

33. Convincing.  Must convince people to side with him.

34. Hides his real self.  Always on

35. Kind only if hes getting from you what he wants.

36. He has to be right. He has to win. He has to look good.

37. He announces, not discusses. He tells, not asks.

38. Does not discuss openly, has a hidden agenda.

39. Controls money of others but spends freely on himself.

40. Unilateral condition of, Im OK and justified so I dont need to hear your position or ideas

41. Always feels misunderstood.

42. You feel miserable with this person. He drains you.

43. Does not listen because he does not care.

44. His feelings are discussed, not the partners.

45. Is not interested in problem-solving.

46. Very good at reading people, so he can manipulate them.  Sometimes called gaslighting._


----------



## mamooth

PoliticalChic said:


> I'm gonna advance you one full step, from moron, to lying moron.



As usual, you ran from a simple direct question, throwing up a wall of insults and irrelevant bullshit to cover your retreat.

Do you think the western powers should have sided with the Nazis against the Soviets?

It's a simple question. Yes or No?

(By the way, this is how you handle PC-types. Ignore the bullshit avalanche, and stay focused on what she's trying to avoid.)


----------



## natstew

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi's hated the communist and had frequent fights until Hitler became Chancellor and outlawed the communist party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Posting in light of items #1-2-3-4-and 5 in the OP, you come off like a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.
Click to expand...


Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.

Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.


----------



## mamooth

natstew said:


> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.



Then why don't you tell us exactly what her point is? Since she won't actually state a point, other than she hates FDR, you could help her out considerably by doing so.

Being a lapdog is easy, and you've shown you're good at that. Can you do better?


----------



## Camp

natstew said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Posting in light of items #1-2-3-4-and 5 in the OP, you come off like a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.
Click to expand...


Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Here are the traits of the narcissistic personality.  More can be found at Characteristics of the Narcissist | NarcissisticAbuse.com







1. Self-centered. His needs are paramount.

2. No remorse for mistakes or misdeeds.

etc...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> 
> Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
Click to expand...








Au contraire....

...Stalin made FDR dance to his tune.



I believe I'll construct an OP demonstrating that.....


----------



## natstew

Camp said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
Click to expand...


Where are are your sources that 'debunk' her?  

shiney?
aticulate?
researced?
Learn to spell or get 'spell check'.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic's greatest lie of all is that she is "eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science" while ignoring terms, texts subject and objective, peer reviewed material, and so on and so forth.
> 
> She is the self-condemned narcissist.
> 
> Here are the traits of the narcissistic personality.  More can be found at Characteristics of the Narcissist | NarcissisticAbuse.com
> 
> _1. Self-centered. His needs are paramount.
> 
> 2. No remorse for mistakes or misdeeds.
> 
> 3. Unreliable, undependable.
> 
> 4. Does not care about the consequences of his actions.
> 
> 5. Projects faults on to others. High blaming behavior; never his fault.
> 
> 6. Little if any conscience.
> 
> 7. Insensitive to needs and feelings of others.
> 
> 8. Has a good front (persona) to impress and exploit others.
> 
> 9. Low stress tolerance. Easy to anger and rage.
> 
> 10. People are to be manipulated for his needs.
> 
> 11. Rationalizes easily. Twists conversation to his gain at others expense.  If trapped, keeps talking, changes the subject or gets angry.
> 
> 12. Pathological lying.
> 
> 13. Tremendous need to control situations, conversations, others.
> 
> 14. No real values. Mostly situational.
> 
> 15. Often perceived as caring and understanding and uses this to manipulate.
> 
> 16. Angry, mercurial, moods.
> 
> 17. Uses sex to control
> 
> 18. Does not share ideas, feelings, emotions.
> 
> 19. Conversation controller. Must have the first and last word.
> 
> 20. Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentment.
> 
> 21. Secret life. Hides money, friends, activities.
> 
> 22. Likes annoying others. Likes to create chaos and disrupt for no reason.
> 
> 23. Moody  switches from nice guy to anger without much provocation.
> 
> 24. Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations.
> 
> 25. Seldom expresses appreciation.
> 
> 26. Grandiose. Convinced he knows more than others and is correct in all he does.
> 
> 27. Lacks ability to see how he comes across to others.  Defensive when confronted with his behavior.  Never his fault.
> 
> 28. Can get emotional, tearful. This is about show or frustration rather than sorrow.
> 
> 29. He breaks womans spirits to keep them dependent.
> 
> 30. Needs threats, intimidations to keep others close to him.
> 
> 31. Sabotages partner. Wants her to be happy only through him and to have few or no outside interests and acquaintances.
> 
> 32. Highly contradictory.
> 
> 33. Convincing.  Must convince people to side with him.
> 
> 34. Hides his real self.  Always on
> 
> 35. Kind only if hes getting from you what he wants.
> 
> 36. He has to be right. He has to win. He has to look good.
> 
> 37. He announces, not discusses. He tells, not asks.
> 
> 38. Does not discuss openly, has a hidden agenda.
> 
> 39. Controls money of others but spends freely on himself.
> 
> 40. Unilateral condition of, Im OK and justified so I dont need to hear your position or ideas
> 
> 41. Always feels misunderstood.
> 
> 42. You feel miserable with this person. He drains you.
> 
> 43. Does not listen because he does not care.
> 
> 44. His feelings are discussed, not the partners.
> 
> 45. Is not interested in problem-solving.
> 
> 46. Very good at reading people, so he can manipulate them.  Sometimes called gaslighting._







I feel terrible!


Your attempt to compete cost you valuable time from the 24-hour Cartoon Network.

But its so charming of you to attempt to join in the discussion, considering how little you know.
Im tempted to give you the oh-so-Progressive E for Effort.




But, back to my fav subject.....moi.

The posts that your are, daily, unable to either absorb or even address....
.......their construction is one of my vanities. I find it satisfying to perform, convivial, competitive, absorbing and even artistic. 

What amazes me is that poets don't rush home, unpack their pens, and write odes to my posts!




I'll be expecting an intelligent post from you about the same time that Muammar Gaddafi drops bin Laden and Zawahiri off at Sunday school, Jimmy Hoffa pulls up with a stack of union ballots, or Amelia Earhart is circling overhead....


----------



## longknife

It always amazes me how the uninformed attack the messenger instead of reading the links or truly examining the content of the message.

That's why it's much better to ignore them than try to change their petrified minds.


----------



## High_Gravity

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US came out of it in better shape than any nation on earth
> 
> Of course we won. Both economically and militarily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and today, over 10 years into it, or military can't even shut down a bunch loosely banded terrorists in a small country like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


Thats largely in part because our troops are fighting this war with their hands tied behind their backs, hell an international scandal started when our Marines pissed on a few Talibs. If a Marine pissed on a Kraut in WW2 nobody would have cared.


----------



## PoliticalChic

mamooth said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna advance you one full step, from moron, to lying moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you ran from a simple direct question, throwing up a wall of insults and irrelevant bullshit to cover your retreat.
> 
> Do you think the western powers should have sided with the Nazis against the Soviets?
> 
> It's a simple question. Yes or No?
> 
> (By the way, this is how you handle PC-types. Ignore the bullshit avalanche, and stay focused on what she's trying to avoid.)
Click to expand...






Post #31 must have destroyed you, as you were afraid to re-post or respond to same.

It was a scholarly answer to your inane suggestions, the ones proving that you are as clueless on this subject as you have proven to be on every other topic ....and that explains you ignoring it.


Good.


It warms my heart.



Drop by any.....every.....time you require an education.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worse than you inability to grasp the obvious and stop posting your brand of garbage which lowers any esteem we may hold for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
Click to expand...






Wait.....weren't you the liar who claimed that it was only the Right that claimed "Obama- messiah".....and I produced...what, a dozen or so Liberal sources that claimed him so???


That was you, wasn't it.



Hmmmm.....that does seem to explain your ire.....



To sink lower you'd have to dig with heavy machinery. 
Or explosives


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.....weren't you the liar who claimed that it was only the Right that claimed "Obama- messiah".....and I produced...what, a dozen or so Liberal sources that claimed him so???
> 
> 
> That was you, wasn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....that does seem to explain your ire.....
> 
> 
> 
> To sink lower you'd have to dig with heavy machinery.
> Or explosives
Click to expand...


I remember making a comment in reqards to the Obama messiah thing, but I don't remember that it was directed at you or a response from you. Not really the kind of thread that I would be very interested in. Perhaps you are mistaken.


----------



## mamooth

Okay, so Frank admits to worshipping Obama. Kind of weird, but it doesn't hurt anyone, so whatever floats his boat.


----------



## Camp

natstew said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the "we" you speak of? PoliticalChic makes the most intelligent, articulate, researched posts on this site. Sources are listed and quoted.
> 
> Oh.............I get it!.............you and the other Libtards esteem,.........well that doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are are your sources that 'debunk' her?
> 
> shiney?
> aticulate?
> researced?
> Learn to spell or get 'spell check'.
Click to expand...


Oh stop worrying about my speed writing and/or spelling. Spend your time checking out her sources. Read beyond the short quote and you will quickly discovers the distortions and purposeful misinformation. Read the Ron Rodash review in Front Page, a conservative publication, of  West's book American Betrayal.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait.....weren't you the liar who claimed that it was only the Right that claimed "Obama- messiah".....and I produced...what, a dozen or so Liberal sources that claimed him so???
> 
> 
> That was you, wasn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....that does seem to explain your ire.....
> 
> 
> 
> To sink lower you'd have to dig with heavy machinery.
> Or explosives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember making a comment in reqards to the Obama messiah thing, but I don't remember that it was directed at you or a response from you. Not really the kind of thread that I would be very interested in. Perhaps you are mistaken.
Click to expand...




Perhaps you are a liar.

The following is said post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/334359-the-lies-of-franklin-roosevelt-14.html

Quote: Originally Posted by Camp View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Cecilie1200 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by regent View Post

Maybe in your eyes a failure, but in the eyes of the voters of that period, a total success. During FDR's time the American people elected FDR four times in a row, a reward the people gave to no other president. Add to the people's electing FDR four times, the historians since 1948 have rated FDR as one of the three greatest American presidents and in the last rating, rated FDR as America's greatest president. Winning four elections and historians rating FDR as America's greatest president, is not proof nor even evidence of a failed presidency?
And in the eyes of voters of this period, Obama is the Messiah. The fact that you can get retards in the moment to believe anything impresses no one but other retards.
Obama is not viewed as the Messiah. His approval ratings are below 50%. The actual far left are almost always angry with him.* The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right to convince low information supporters like yourself that they are intellectually above those who support Obama.* Hence, people who disagree with your political values are "retards". In the meantime, if one goes back and reads your post on the subject of FDR they find absolutely no facts or even opinions in regards to the subject. Instead they find jiberish, name calling, silly insults, etc. In other words, nothing intellectual or academic. Think about this, you just called what American's have come to call "The Greatest Generation" a bunch of retards. The people who worked themselves out of the worlds greatest depression and went on to win the worlds greatest war in history were a bunch of retards according to you. Really, give it some thought. Who is the retard, or at least who is the one with a retarded thought process?




"*The whole Messiah thing is a propaganda ploy by the right....blah blah blah...."*

Not satisfied with being identified as a moron....now you insist on adding 'liar' to the appellation.....



Coulter:
The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals is the tendency to worship and idolize their political leaders. Le Bon explained that mobs can only grasp the very simple and very exaggerated. Their chosen images must be absolute and uncompromising 

Passionate adoration are the primitive emotions of a mob, sentiments generally associated with women, children, and savages, according to Le Bon. 




Check out some examples.


1. The Hollywood celebrities pledge Go to 3:54: "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind." Creepy? 
Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher's I Pledge Video - YouTube







2. Time's Nancy Gibbs who opened this week's cover story by comparing Obama with Jesus: Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope... In the November 17 issue.

3. Chris Matthews: "If you're in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit moving." Book Monitor (Current Edition)

4. Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow  a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy.... Times Joe Klein, October 23, 2006 cover story, "Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President."






5. NBCs Matt Lauer noted that people have called Obama  The Savior, The Messiah, The Messenger of Change,  Today Show, NBC, October 20, 2008.

6. The New York Times Judith Warner reported, Many women- not too surprisingly  were dreaming about sex with the president [Obama].http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...t-a-president/
the Obamas are not just a beacon of hope, inspiration and demigodlikeness, Ibid.


7. David Cordero, 24, made the sculpture for his senior show after noticing all the attention Obama has received: "All of this is a response to what I've been witnessing and hearing, this idea that Barack is sort of a potential savior that might come and absolve the country of all its sins," Cordero said.Sculpture of Obama as Jesus causes stir - politics - Decision '08 - Barack Obama News - msnbc.com

8. . In its November 22, 2010 issue, Obama has been shown by Newsweek on its cover page with multiple arms balancing several policy issues while raising his left leg mimicking the cosmic dance of the Hindu deity; considered a manifestation of Lord Shiva.
... Newsweek has named Obama "god of all things" on its cover.
SOURCE: Times of India (November 20, 2010).






9. I havent seen a politician get this kind of walk-on-water coverage since Colin Powell a dozen years ago flirted with making a run for the White House, said Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz on Meet the Press in February 2007

10. Samantha Fennell, formerly an associate publisher of Elle, wrote on the magazines website a month later: When I attended my second Obama Live fund-raiser last week at New York Citys Grand Hyatt, . . . I was on my feet as Senator Obama entered the room. Fate had blessed me in this moment. . . . In a moment of divine intervention, he saw me,

11.Filmmaker Spike Lee, predicting an Obama victory, implicitly compared the candidate with Christ: Youll have to measure time by Before Obama and After Obama. . . .





12. Jesse Jackson, Jr. called Obamas securing the Democratic nomination so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.


13. . Louis Farrakhan went one better, according to the website WorldNetDaily: Barack has captured the youth. . . . Thats a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.


14. His followers needed to re-elect him to a second term, so that he could continue to accomplish the promises he made, thus, realizing his vision of America as a more perfect political union or heaven here on earth.
The Gospel According to Apostle Barack, by Barbara A. Thompson.

15. "Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?"
-- Daily Kos






I have more if you're not choking enough on the above.


Really makes you look like a fool, doesn't it.....


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> 
> Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire....
> 
> ...Stalin made FDR dance to his tune.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I'll construct an OP demonstrating that.....
Click to expand...


Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?

Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe

Who's zooming who?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you bothered to check any of her sources?  Like I said in an earlier post, she impresses the easy to impress. The "show us the bright and shiney object crowd". What you see as intelligent, aticulate researced post others see as a dog and pony smoke and mirrors show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are are your sources that 'debunk' her?
> 
> shiney?
> aticulate?
> researced?
> Learn to spell or get 'spell check'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh stop worrying about my speed writing and/or spelling. Spend your time checking out her sources. Read beyond the short quote and you will quickly discovers the distortions and purposeful misinformation. Read the Ron Rodash review in Front Page, a conservative publication, of  West's book American Betrayal.
Click to expand...





How about you actually read a book, numbskull.

That's "Radosh." Seems you're not too familiar with him, are you.

Tomorrow I'll post something by Radosh.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire....
> 
> ...Stalin made FDR dance to his tune.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I'll construct an OP demonstrating that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?
> 
> Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe
> 
> Who's zooming who?
Click to expand...





"Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?"


Absolutely.

You must realize by now that I don't post anything I can't back up.

I'll construct an OP to prove same....maybe two or three.

But, no worry, you being Liberal, you won't have to admit that you're wrong.


----------



## bendog

Actually, as far as 1945-1999 go, the Krauts and Nips won, but that was sort of the point.  They got what they needed and stopped invading people.  And other nations benefited from the free trade.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire....
> 
> ...Stalin made FDR dance to his tune.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I'll construct an OP demonstrating that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?
> 
> Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe
> 
> Who's zooming who?
Click to expand...



"Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."

Here comes more of your education.




World War II left *over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans.* Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. 

More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: 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" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.




"Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."

Stalin didn't 'lose' them.....

....he killed them.




Aren't you glad you came by today?
Look at how much your learned.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bendog said:


> Actually, as far as 1945-1999 go, the Krauts and Nips won, but that was sort of the point.  They got what they needed and stopped invading people.  And other nations benefited from the free trade.





Do you do any research?


I do.


Lots.


Here's a suggestion that will lead you to some amazing realizations.....Operation Snow.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Au contraire....
> 
> ...Stalin made FDR dance to his tune.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I'll construct an OP demonstrating that.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?
> 
> Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe
> 
> Who's zooming who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Here comes more of your education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II left *over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans.* Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: 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" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Stalin didn't 'lose' them.....
> 
> ....he killed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you glad you came by today?
> Look at how much your learned.
Click to expand...


You fail to define fraction

Regardless, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses and the population endured suffering that could not be imagined by Americans safely at home

FDR played Stalin as his people paid the price for the war and the US reaped the benefits

FDR was the master


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?
> 
> Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe
> 
> Who's zooming who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Here comes more of your education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II left *over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans.* Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: 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" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Stalin didn't 'lose' them.....
> 
> ....he killed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you glad you came by today?
> Look at how much your learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to define fraction
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses and the population endured suffering that could not be imagined by Americans safely at home
> 
> FDR played Stalin as his people paid the price for the war and the US reaped the benefits
> 
> FDR was the master
Click to expand...



FDR was a scumbag, a liar, a fool, and a power-hungry threat to our Republic.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin made FDR dance to his tune?
> 
> Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe
> 
> Who's zooming who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Here comes more of your education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II left *over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans.* Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: 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" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Stalin didn't 'lose' them.....
> 
> ....he killed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you glad you came by today?
> Look at how much your learned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fail to define fraction
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses and the population endured suffering that could not be imagined by Americans safely at home
> 
> FDR played Stalin as his people paid the price for the war and the US reaped the benefits
> 
> FDR was the master
Click to expand...




I will prove otherwise.

Stay tuned.


----------



## regent

It may have been one of the greatest con-jobs in history. First Roosevelt promised Stalin a second front in 1942, and instead we invaded Africa. Then Churchill promised Stalin a second front in 1943 and we invaded the soft underbelly, which incidently didn't turn out too soft. During that time the Russians were taking huge casualties, but not to worry we would send them lend-lease materials of war. Finally we invaded in 1944 and a year later it was over. If we rated wars by the number of lives saved we really came out on top and that should make us feel good. But there are so many facets to that war that a simplistic look at one phase or item is unrealistic.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> It may have been one of the greatest con-jobs in history. First Roosevelt promised Stalin a second front in 1942, and instead we invaded Africa. Then Churchill promised Stalin a second front in 1943 and we invaded the soft underbelly, which incidently didn't turn out too soft. During that time the Russians were taking huge casualties, but not to worry we would send them lend-lease materials of war. Finally we invaded in 1944 and a year later it was over. If we rated wars by the number of lives saved we really came out on top and that should make us feel good. But there are so many facets to that war that a simplistic look at one phase or item is unrealistic.





I'll correct all of the errors in your post at a later date.....


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Here comes more of your education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World War II left *over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans.* Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.
> 
> More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: 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" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Stalin lost 20 million people while FDR was still fretting over invading Europe."
> 
> Stalin didn't 'lose' them.....
> 
> ....he killed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you glad you came by today?
> Look at how much your learned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to define fraction
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses and the population endured suffering that could not be imagined by Americans safely at home
> 
> FDR played Stalin as his people paid the price for the war and the US reaped the benefits
> 
> FDR was the master
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a scumbag, a liar, a fool, and a power-hungry threat to our Republic.
Click to expand...


Greatest President since Lincoln

Turned us into a Superpower and took the country to a new level


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> It may have been one of the greatest con-jobs in history. First Roosevelt promised Stalin a second front in 1942, and instead we invaded Africa. Then Churchill promised Stalin a second front in 1943 and we invaded the soft underbelly, which incidently didn't turn out too soft. During that time the Russians were taking huge casualties, but not to worry we would send them lend-lease materials of war. Finally we invaded in 1944 and a year later it was over. If we rated wars by the number of lives saved we really came out on top and that should make us feel good. But there are so many facets to that war that a simplistic look at one phase or item is unrealistic.



We laid back while the Soviets bled rivers. We finally invaded Normandy when the Soviets had already turned the tide on the Nazis. Then we claimed half the spoils

FDR and Churchill played Stalin for a sucker


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to define fraction
> 
> Regardless, the Soviets suffered horrendous losses and the population endured suffering that could not be imagined by Americans safely at home
> 
> FDR played Stalin as his people paid the price for the war and the US reaped the benefits
> 
> FDR was the master
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a scumbag, a liar, a fool, and a power-hungry threat to our Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greatest President since Lincoln
> 
> Turned us into a Superpower and took the country to a new level
Click to expand...



Worst president we've ever had. Hell, just a shitty human being as well.


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a scumbag, a liar, a fool, and a power-hungry threat to our Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest President since Lincoln
> 
> Turned us into a Superpower and took the country to a new level
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Worst president we've ever had. Hell, just a shitty human being as well.
Click to expand...

FDR: Great man....beloved President


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greatest President since Lincoln
> 
> Turned us into a Superpower and took the country to a new level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Worst president we've ever had. Hell, just a shitty human being as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR: Great man....beloved President
Click to expand...




FDR: A liar, a racist, an adulterer, a dupe...a power-hungry threat to our people and our Constitution


----------



## mamooth

PoliticalChic said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you ran from a simple direct question, throwing up a wall of insults and irrelevant bullshit to cover your retreat.
> 
> Do you think the western powers should have sided with the Nazis against the Soviets?
> 
> It's a simple question. Yes or No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #31 must have destroyed you, as you were afraid to re-post or respond to same.
Click to expand...


If someone opposed allying with the Nazis, they would simply say so, especially after being directly asked about it twice. Instead of giving us a simple "no", you ran from the question twice. 

Conclusion: You think we should have allied with the Nazis, but you lack the guts and honesty to say so.

The only thing worse than Nazi-sympathizing trash is cowardly lying Nazi-sympathizing trash. If you're going to be a Nazi sympathizer, at least be upfront about it.


----------



## bendog

PoliticalChic said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as far as 1945-1999 go, the Krauts and Nips won, but that was sort of the point.  They got what they needed and stopped invading people.  And other nations benefited from the free trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do any research?
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> 
> Here's a suggestion that will lead you to some amazing realizations.....Operation Snow.
Click to expand...

But you should not listen to the voices.


----------



## PoliticalChic

mamooth said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, you ran from a simple direct question, throwing up a wall of insults and irrelevant bullshit to cover your retreat.
> 
> Do you think the western powers should have sided with the Nazis against the Soviets?
> 
> It's a simple question. Yes or No?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #31 must have destroyed you, as you were afraid to re-post or respond to same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If someone opposed allying with the Nazis, they would simply say so, especially after being directly asked about it twice. Instead of giving us a simple "no", you ran from the question twice.
> 
> Conclusion: You think we should have allied with the Nazis, but you lack the guts and honesty to say so.
> 
> The only thing worse than Nazi-sympathizing trash is cowardly lying Nazi-sympathizing trash. If you're going to be a Nazi sympathizer, at least be upfront about it.
Click to expand...





From post #31:



"Do PC or any of the righties here think we should have sided with the Nazis?"

Why is that even a consideration.

The Nazis and the Communists were siblings.



You may certainly claim that you are too stupid to glean the answer, as the proof of your stupidity is evident in your posts......

...but, plead though you may, you will never be able to dictate how I answer you questions.




Let me put it as nicely as possible:
You have a Titanic intellect in a world full of icebergs


----------



## PoliticalChic

bendog said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, as far as 1945-1999 go, the Krauts and Nips won, but that was sort of the point.  They got what they needed and stopped invading people.  And other nations benefited from the free trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you do any research?
> 
> 
> I do.
> 
> 
> Lots.
> 
> 
> Here's a suggestion that will lead you to some amazing realizations.....Operation Snow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you should not listen to the voices.
Click to expand...





I have to admit that I was trying a bit of an experiment..... offering that clue to see if there was even the tiniest desire for knowledge present.

I should admit, also, that your post verifies my hypothesis.


----------



## Steven_R

rightwinger said:


> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR



I'm not sure that was even a real decision so much as just how the situation played out. Us equipment was subpar for the first years of the war (and even until the end. The M4 Sherman was a terrible tank, but we could just keep making them at an incredible rate). US troops had to learn tactics the hard way in 1942 in North Africa (e.g. Kasserine Pass). It was '43 before Italy could be invaded and '44 before France was even feasible. About all the US could offer was Lend-Lease and to take on the role of the daylight bombing campaigns because we were the only ones able to replace the planes and aircrews lost.


----------



## rightwinger

Steven_R said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that was even a real decision so much as just how the situation played out. Us equipment was subpar for the first years of the war (and even until the end. The M4 Sherman was a terrible tank, but we could just keep making them at an incredible rate). US troops had to learn tactics the hard way in 1942 in North Africa (e.g. Kasserine Pass). It was '43 before Italy could be invaded and '44 before France was even feasible. About all the US could offer was Lend-Lease and to take on the role of the daylight bombing campaigns because we were the only ones able to replace the planes and aircrews lost.
Click to expand...


Well put

And the question remains, who won the war?

Could the Soviets losing 20 million people and suffering an invasion be considered winning?  At what price?

We lost 400,000 men and had our home front untouched. We emerged a political and military superpower at nowhere near the price


----------



## Steven_R

Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.

Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding. 

I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?


----------



## regent

Steven_R said:


> Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.
> 
> Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding.
> 
> I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?





Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.
> 
> Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding.
> 
> I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.
Click to expand...




Spoken like a true pacifist!


War does not determine who is right - only who is left.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Losing the 20 million was no problem to Stalin. He could twist the screws a bit more on dissidents and gave the low level Russians at least something they could rally around (that whole save Motherland Russia thing). Plus the sheer amount of territorial gains and a buffer zone in East Europe the Soviets ended up with made it worthwhile.
> 
> Obviously France and Britain lost far more than any gains. Both countries were effectively bombed flat, economies in ruins, and their colonial empires began being dismantled in the process of rebuilding.
> 
> I'm not even sure how much I would count the US in the winner's column to be honest. With the Pax Britania over, someone had to step into the void to ensure stability and the only western nation left was the US. The US economy hummed along for the next 25 years, but that was more because nobody else had any manufacturing capabilities left at all. Then with the US being transformed into a world peacekeeper at odds with Soviet expansion we did get into that military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, constant low level war (either as an active player like in Korea or Vietnam or by using another conflict as a proxy war like with Afghanistan). It forced the US to get into bed with some very nasty characters like Diem and Saddam and Pinochet and hurt US images overseas. Plus all the foreign entanglements that came along with NATO, SEATO, and the UN. How much money and lives did the next 50 years worth of WW2 victory really cost Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true pacifist!
> 
> 
> War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
Click to expand...


For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.


----------



## Moonglow

Russia has no shortage of oppressive despotic, cruel killing tyrants in her history.I don't believe that Stalin was any worse than the Romanov Dynasty or those of preceding rulers to Ivan the terrible, to include the Khanates of the Mongrels.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we put too much faith in wars anymore? Seems wars never turn out the way one planned, even by winning. In fact, today's wars might be laying the ground work for tomorrow's problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true pacifist!
> 
> 
> War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.
Click to expand...




You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.


Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Russia has no shortage of oppressive despotic, cruel killing tyrants in her history.I don't believe that Stalin was any worse than the Romanov Dynasty or those of preceding rulers to Ivan the terrible, to include the Khanates of the Mongrels.






This won't come as a new experience for you: you're wrong.

Your cavalier attitude with respect to the slaughter of millions of human beings marks you as ....what....a Liberal?


But, on to the numbers...

You should read the speech Solzhenitsyn gave on the subject.


1.  Before the Russian Revolution, the number of execution by* the czarist government came to seventeen (17) per year, *according to Solzhenitsyn.

 He pointed out that, in comparison, the Spanish Inquisition, at its height, destroyed 10 people per month.


a. But, during the revolutionary years 1918-1919, Marxist Lenin's Cheka executed, without trial, more than one thousand (1,000) people a month.


*At the height of Stalin's terror, 1937-1938, tens of thousands of people were shot per month. Solzhenitsyn, "Warning To The West."*


2. From Solzhenitsyn's "Warning To The West,"... "Here are the figures: 17 a year, 10 a month, more than 1 ,000 a month, *more than 40,000 a month! *Thus, that which had made it difficult for the democratic West to form an alliance with pre-revolutionary Russia had, by 1941, grown to such an extent and still did not prevent the entire united democracy of the world  England, France, the United States, Canada, and other small countries  from entering into a military alliance with the Soviet Union, How is this to be explained? How can we understand it? " Full text of "Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom"




Possibly not you, but many wonder how Franklin Roosevelt could have overlooked this.....'situation.'

Perhaps he had your attitude.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true pacifist!
> 
> 
> War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.
> 
> 
> Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.
Click to expand...


Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private.  The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> For my military duty I'm waiting for my father to run for president and then I'll help him with his presidential campaign, and bingo my duty to country will be over and done with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.
> 
> 
> Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private.  The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
> The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?
Click to expand...





Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on  your side of the aisle.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have skipped over Obama's service.
> 
> 
> Not to worry.....historians will tell you what to make of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private.  The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
> The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on  your side of the aisle.
Click to expand...


If the people made a mistake you should inform the people of their error, but that does not  change Obama's military status? Obama is still Commander in Chief and neither Romney, nor his sons are elegible for VA benefits at this time. Of course the Republicans might write a law saying that sons that help their fathers run for president is considered to be military service and is retroactive to the 2012 election. Buy War Bonds.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama must have about six years in by now, I mean being commander-in-chief must be as important as being a private.  The C in C will get a pension and may even be elgible for VA care?
> The thing was that Romney never was commander in chief so his son's helping on Romney's campaign may not qualify as military service. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the nation made the mistake in the election.....a mistake becoming evident even to many on  your side of the aisle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the people made a mistake you should inform the people of their error, but that does not  change Obama's military status? Obama is still Commander in Chief and neither Romney, nor his sons are elegible for VA benefits at this time. Of course the Republicans might write a law saying that sons that help their fathers run for president is considered to be military service and is retroactive to the 2012 election. Buy War Bonds.
Click to expand...





Absurd criticism of Romney.

Really absurd.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
> Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
> The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.
> 
> 
> 7. Move forward:
> *The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.
> 
> Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
> "This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.255.
> 
> 9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."*
> Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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
> 
> 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 [Hopkins] 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*



We did. 

Next question.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
> The end of national sovereignty.
> 
> 2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
> Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."
> 
> Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
> I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.
> 
> 
> Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
> That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.
> 
> And will remain so.
Click to expand...


Your conclusion is silly. 

If "the only reason" why the USSR fell is because of "Reagan," then you tacitly admit that communism works. 

The reason why the USSR fell isn't because of Reagan (put those Pom-poms down, girl!), though he certainly was a catalyst. The reason why it fell was because communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources. That was the fundamental reason why the USSR collapsed. It probably would have collapsed earlier had OPEC not been created since oil was the USSR's primary earner of hard currency.


----------



## Toro

A comment - I think Reagan was a good President, but its amusing to see conservatives make fun of liberals worship of messiah Obama while they elevate Reagan to God-like status for Saving the World.


----------



## nodoginnafight

> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.



LOL - so let's argue this historical topic with referring to history?????


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> A comment - I think Reagan was a good President, but its amusing to see conservatives make fun of liberals worship of messiah Obama while they elevate Reagan to God-like status for Saving the World.




Isn't saving the world worth that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
> The end of national sovereignty.
> 
> 2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
> Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."
> 
> Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
> I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.
> 
> 
> Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
> That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.
> 
> And will remain so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your conclusion is silly.
> 
> If "the only reason" why the USSR fell is because of "Reagan," then you tacitly admit that communism works.
> 
> The reason why the USSR fell isn't because of Reagan (put those Pom-poms down, girl!), though he certainly was a catalyst. The reason why it fell was because communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources. That was the fundamental reason why the USSR collapsed. It probably would have collapsed earlier had OPEC not been created since oil was the USSR's primary earner of hard currency.
Click to expand...




1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."

Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.

Where do you see "works" in there?




2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."

 "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung,  in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary." 
George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.

Its evil nature is the reason it fell.


----------



## regent

Gorby offered Reagan a deal to end the cold war and Reagan grabbed it. Both Reagan and Gorby are to be commended for making the deal. It was a deal that would never have been offered under Stalin. It was also fortunate that Reagan was a Republican or the boards would be filled with posts explainng how the Democratic president sold out America and worse, was a commie lover and all the rest of the usual tripe.


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."
> 
> Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.
> 
> Where do you see "works" in there?



I didn't say *I* thought it worked.  I said that believing Communism fell "because of Reagan" tacitly implies that Communism as a socioeconomic system works because it assumes that the gross misallocation of resources can continue forever.  That's the argument you are making.  If Carter had beaten Reagan, your argument infers that Communism would have continued on and on.  I'm telling you that communism as an economic system is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse.  

Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many.  Communism doesn't work because it creates gross distortions and misallocations of economic resources.  What that means is that communism diverts resources to useless and wasteful functions, which eventually destroys the capital stock of the country.  That's a pro-free market argument. 

If Reagan had never been President, communism would have collapsed eventually anyways.




> 2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."
> 
> "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.
> 
> Its evil nature is the reason it fell.



Yes, yes, genocide is bad, but imperialism by Western powers killed tens of millions of people in the 19th century also and capitalism didn't fall because of it.  Simply because a lot of people die does not mean a socioeconomic system will inevitably collapse.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "...then you tacitly admit that communism works."
> 
> Figures for slaughter by communist regimes runs between 100 million and 138 million.
> 
> Where do you see "works" in there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say *I* thought it worked.  I said that believing Communism fell "because of Reagan" tacitly implies that Communism as a socioeconomic system works because it assumes that the gross misallocation of resources can continue forever.  That's the argument you are making.  If Carter had beaten Reagan, your argument infers that Communism would have continued on and on.  I'm telling you that communism as an economic system is inherently unstable and will eventually collapse.
> 
> Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many.  Communism doesn't work because it creates gross distortions and misallocations of economic resources.  What that means is that communism diverts resources to useless and wasteful functions, which eventually destroys the capital stock of the country.  That's a pro-free market argument.
> 
> If Reagan had never been President, communism would have collapsed eventually anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "...communism, unlike capitalism, will eventually collapse unto itself due to the gross misallocation of resources."
> 
> "Early socialists publically advocated genocide, in the 19th and 20th centuries. It first appeared in Marx's journal, Rheinishe Zeitung, in January of 1849. When the socialist class war happens, there will be primitive societies in Europe, two stages behind- not even capitalist yet- the Basques, the Bretons, the Scottish Highlanders, the Serbs, and others he calls 'racial trash,' and they will have to be destroyed because, being two stages behind in the class struggle, it will be impossible to bring them up to being revolutionary."
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge University.
> 
> Its evil nature is the reason it fell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, genocide is bad, but imperialism by Western powers killed tens of millions of people in the 19th century also and capitalism didn't fall because of it.  Simply because a lot of people die does not mean a socioeconomic system will inevitably collapse.
Click to expand...





"Communism didn't fall because one man was once President, though Reagan was one catalyst of many."

I certainly agree that I can name three others who deserve credit...none of them Soviets.


But this is the essence of why Reagan deserves the largest share of the credit:

"Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. His genial grin and wise-cracking demeanor concealed a spine of steel when push came to shove. Yet at their next meeting in Reykjavik in 1986, where Gorbachev would not budge on the "Star Wars" question, Reagan was decisive and unforgiving. He recalls in An American Life how he stood up from the table to proclaim that the meeting was over. Then he turned to his Secretary of State: "Let's go, George. We're leaving." Like any good diplomat, Shultz was crushed by so much roughness, but Reagan was completely unfazed. Later on, he explained: "I went to Reykjavik determined that everything was negotiable except two things, our freedom and our future."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_3/?tag=content;col1


----------



## namvet

who dropped the last bomb??? case closed


----------



## Steven_R

Communism is best described as rust covered by fresh paint. The USSR didn't fall because of anything more than the laws of economics coming up against an untenable economic system. If Reagan did anything it was push the timetable up when the Soviets had to make the choice between guns and butter because they couldn't do both.


----------



## Camp

Only idiots would question who won WWII. Germany was looted, large numbers of it's women were raped by plundering Russian's as the German soldiers were marched off by the Russian's to die in slave labor camps. The Russian's would return to lives of hopeless poverty of drinking vodka to escape the destitution of life in general as their wives and mothers stood in lines to hopefully get a weekly ration of chicken or horse meat, chunk of margerine, bottle of sunflower oil and bag of potatoes. Meanwhile, back in America, returning soldiers were going to universities and colleges or trade schools, getting good jobs, buying houses and cars, installing white picket fences and building bar-b-cue's in their backyards for weekend steak and hamburger with all the fixin's family and friend parties. Only idiots would ask such a stupid question. Who won WWII?


----------



## Toro

Canada.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> Canada.






In the eighth round of the shoot-out?????


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eighth round of the shoot-out?????
Click to expand...


I hope you recognize my sig!


----------



## namvet

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the eighth round of the shoot-out?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you recognize my sig!
Click to expand...


hockey pucks won the war???


----------



## Art__Allm

PoliticalChic said:


> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.



Well, many prominent Russian historians now agree with the arguments of Suvorov (Rezun). 

The declassified Russian document support the argument that Stalin was planning an offensive war on Europe in May 1941, and he believed that Hitler would weaken the capitalist system, and after that Soviet tanks could invade Europe and beat Hitler and the rest of Europe.



> Stalin's Missed Chance is a study by Russian military historian Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, author of several books and articles on Soviet military history.
> 
> Stalin's Missed Chance covers a theory of planned Soviet invasion raised by Viktor Suvorov, author of highly controversial books such as Icebreaker. Unlike Suvorov's works, Meltyukhov's book is based on archive materials, some of which were until recently classified. Contrary to many Western scholars (David Glantz, John D. Erickson, Richard Overy and others), Mikhail Meltyukhov concurs with Suvorov's claim that Stalin and the Soviet military leadership had planned an offensive against Germany in 1941.
> 
> ...
> The basic idea of Soviet military planning consisted in the fact that the Red Army was to concentrate near the border under the disguise of maneuvers and to go over into a sudden, decisive attack. "The absence of any references to the possible defensive operations of the Red Army shows that the discussion was not about the preparation for a pre-emptive strike but for the assault on Germany and its allies. This idea is clearly expressed in the document of May 15, 1941, by which the Red Army was to be guided in the beginning of war." Meltyukhov suggests that the assault on Germany was initially planned to take place on June 12, 1941, but was postponed because the Soviet leadership feared an Anglo-German reconciliation against the Soviet Union after the flight of Rudolf Hess on May 12, 1941.[16]
> 
> The basis for this assumption is revealed by Molotov's recollection 40 years later in a conversation with Russian journalist Ivan Stadnyuk: "I don't remember all the motives for cancelling this decision, but it seems to me that Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess' flight to England played the main role there. The NKVD reconnaissance reported to us, that Hess on behalf of Hitler had proposed the United Kingdom to conclude peace and to participate in the military march against the USSR... If we at this time would have unleashed ourselves a war against Germany, would have moved forces to Europe, then England could have entered the alliance with Germany without any delay... And not only England. We could have been face to face with the entire capitalist world".[17]
> 
> Stalin's Missed Chance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




The flight of Rudolf Hess to the UK scared Stalin, he was afraid that the entire Western world was now against the Communists.

That explained the strange behaviour of Stalin in the first two weeks after the German invasion. He planned an offensive and he did not believe that Hitler would dare to attack the superior SU without getting the support of "capitalists" (UK and USA)

There is evidence that Brits managed to fool Hitler into believing that they would not mind if he attacks the SU. That may be the reason why they killed Rudolf Hess, the man who desperately tried to prevent a large scale carnage of European people.



> Nazi Rudolf Hess was 'murdered by British agents in prison to stop him revealing war secrets but Scotland Yard was told NOT to investigate'
> .http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8604099



The ruling elite of the Western countries decided that Communism is less dangerous to their interests, though Stalin was eager to convert the entire Europe into a GULAG-System.

If Americans had not invented the nuclear bomb, Stalin would have easily conquered the entire Europe after wWII and fulfilled his plans. 

The Soviets had a huge superiority of military power even before WWII (twice as many planes as Hitler, and four times more tanks before WWII, and to the end of WWII the Soviets managed to produce an astronomical amount of superior tanks, rockets and planes that were able to reach the Atlantic shore in a couple of weeks.

The western powers were scared to death by Stalin after WWII, that is the reason why they abandoned their Morgenthau Plan and re-armed what was left of Germany immediately after WWII.

Hitler was never a threat neither to the UK nor to the USA, he admired the British Empire and the United States. He was an Anglophile who tried to avoid a war with Anglo-Saxons in any case. The flight of Rudolf Hess to the UK was a desperate attempt to prevent a genocidal war between Germans and Anglo-Saxons.

But the owners of British and American media managed to stampede the Brits and Americans into a fraternal war with Germans, because the British and American media never told their readers the truth about Stalin.

They portrayed the mass murderer Stalin as a "good guy" in their media, that is the reason why Brits and Americans accepted the union with the most murderous regime that existed till the beginning of WWII.

How many civilians were killed by Stalin till the outbreak of WWII?

Well, only during the Holodomor were killed more than 7 Million Christians, and the total number of killed Christians till the outbreak of WWII was more than 10 Million.

And how many civilians were killed by Hitler till the outbreak of WWII?

It is obvious that Stalin was the greatest murderer in September 1939 and even in June 1941, but Western powers preferred a union with a person who intended to establish a GULAG-System on the entire European continent.

Does that make any sense? Millions of life could have been saved, if western powers had the intention to avoid WWII.

And according to Churchill it was very easy to avoid WWII.

Here are his words:



> Sinews of Peace  (1946)
> by Winston Churchill
> 
> Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken here and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. *There never was a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today
> *
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sinews_of_Peace



They could have easily prevented WWII, but they did not. The question is why?

Well, only if we assume that the interests of the British and American elite and their voters did not coincide, then we can find the answer.



PoliticalChic said:


> *So....who won WWII?*



The banksters?


----------



## Peterf

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it was, we allowed the Soviets to do the majority of the fighting and dying in Europe while we sat back untouched at home
> 
> Great political and military strategy by FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> 
> Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
Click to expand...


Maybe you thank FDR.   But not all the Poles, Czecks, Hungarians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians he gave to his murderous buddy Stalin.

FDR - my candidate for the worst US president of all,  in a rather crowded field.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Peterf said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As usual, your posts are informed by political bias rather than historical knowledge.
> 
> 
> Try to remember the benefits of my input when you celebrate Thanksgiving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made the Soviets expend the blood while we came out of the war as a superpower with all of our industry intact
> 
> No doubt we won the war.....we have FDR to thank
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you thank FDR.   But not all the Poles, Czecks, Hungarians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians he gave to his murderous buddy Stalin.
> 
> FDR - my candidate for the worst US president of all,  in a rather crowded field.
Click to expand...







The wingster was told what to think many years ago.....and now he simply perseverates.....and drools.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Art__Allm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, many prominent Russian historians now agree with the arguments of Suvorov (Rezun).
> 
> The declassified Russian document support the argument that Stalin was planning an offensive war on Europe in May 1941, and he believed that Hitler would weaken the capitalist system, and after that Soviet tanks could invade Europe and beat Hitler and the rest of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin's Missed Chance is a study by Russian military historian Mikhail Ivanovich Meltyukhov, author of several books and articles on Soviet military history.
> 
> Stalin's Missed Chance covers a theory of planned Soviet invasion raised by Viktor Suvorov, author of highly controversial books such as Icebreaker. Unlike Suvorov's works, Meltyukhov's book is based on archive materials, some of which were until recently classified. Contrary to many Western scholars (David Glantz, John D. Erickson, Richard Overy and others), Mikhail Meltyukhov concurs with Suvorov's claim that Stalin and the Soviet military leadership had planned an offensive against Germany in 1941.
> 
> ...
> The basic idea of Soviet military planning consisted in the fact that the Red Army was to concentrate near the border under the disguise of maneuvers and to go over into a sudden, decisive attack. "The absence of any references to the possible defensive operations of the Red Army shows that the discussion was not about the preparation for a pre-emptive strike but for the assault on Germany and its allies. This idea is clearly expressed in the document of May 15, 1941, by which the Red Army was to be guided in the beginning of war." Meltyukhov suggests that the assault on Germany was initially planned to take place on June 12, 1941, but was postponed because the Soviet leadership feared an Anglo-German reconciliation against the Soviet Union after the flight of Rudolf Hess on May 12, 1941.[16]
> 
> The basis for this assumption is revealed by Molotov's recollection 40 years later in a conversation with Russian journalist Ivan Stadnyuk: "I don't remember all the motives for cancelling this decision, but it seems to me that Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess' flight to England played the main role there. The NKVD reconnaissance reported to us, that Hess on behalf of Hitler had proposed the United Kingdom to conclude peace and to participate in the military march against the USSR... If we at this time would have unleashed ourselves a war against Germany, would have moved forces to Europe, then England could have entered the alliance with Germany without any delay... And not only England. We could have been face to face with the entire capitalist world".[17]
> 
> Stalin's Missed Chance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The flight of Rudolf Hess to the UK scared Stalin, he was afraid that the entire Western world was now against the Communists.
> 
> That explained the strange behaviour of Stalin in the first two weeks after the German invasion. He planned an offensive and he did not believe that Hitler would dare to attack the superior SU without getting the support of "capitalists" (UK and USA)
> 
> There is evidence that Brits managed to fool Hitler into believing that they would not mind if he attacks the SU. That may be the reason why they killed Rudolf Hess, the man who desperately tried to prevent a large scale carnage of European people.
> 
> 
> 
> The ruling elite of the Western countries decided that Communism is less dangerous to their interests, though Stalin was eager to convert the entire Europe into a GULAG-System.
> 
> If Americans had not invented the nuclear bomb, Stalin would have easily conquered the entire Europe after wWII and fulfilled his plans.
> 
> The Soviets had a huge superiority of military power even before WWII (twice as many planes as Hitler, and four times more tanks before WWII, and to the end of WWII the Soviets managed to produce an astronomical amount of superior tanks, rockets and planes that were able to reach the Atlantic shore in a couple of weeks.
> 
> The western powers were scared to death by Stalin after WWII, that is the reason why they abandoned their Morgenthau Plan and re-armed what was left of Germany immediately after WWII.
> 
> Hitler was never a threat neither to the UK nor to the USA, he admired the British Empire and the United States. He was an Anglophile who tried to avoid a war with Anglo-Saxons in any case. The flight of Rudolf Hess to the UK was a desperate attempt to prevent a genocidal war between Germans and Anglo-Saxons.
> 
> But the owners of British and American media managed to stampede the Brits and Americans into a fraternal war with Germans, because the British and American media never told their readers the truth about Stalin.
> 
> They portrayed the mass murderer Stalin as a "good guy" in their media, that is the reason why Brits and Americans accepted the union with the most murderous regime that existed till the beginning of WWII.
> 
> How many civilians were killed by Stalin till the outbreak of WWII?
> 
> Well, only during the Holodomor were killed more than 7 Million Christians, and the total number of killed Christians till the outbreak of WWII was more than 10 Million.
> 
> And how many civilians were killed by Hitler till the outbreak of WWII?
> 
> It is obvious that Stalin was the greatest murderer in September 1939 and even in June 1941, but Western powers preferred a union with a person who intended to establish a GULAG-System on the entire European continent.
> 
> Does that make any sense? Millions of life could have been saved, if western powers had the intention to avoid WWII.
> 
> And according to Churchill it was very easy to avoid WWII.
> 
> Here are his words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinews of Peace  (1946)
> by Winston Churchill
> 
> Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken here and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. *There never was a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today
> *
> Sinews of Peace - Wikisource, the free online library
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They could have easily prevented WWII, but they did not. The question is why?
> 
> Well, only if we assume that the interests of the British and American elite and their voters did not coincide, then we can find the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The banksters?
Click to expand...







A famous passage in Whittaker Chambers' "Witness" continually bears remembering: 

"You don't understand the class structure of American society," said Smetana, "or you would not ask such a question. In the United States, the working class are Democrats. The middle class are Republicans. *The upper class are Communists.*"


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Gorby offered Reagan a deal to end the cold war and Reagan grabbed it. Both Reagan and Gorby are to be commended for making the deal. It was a deal that would never have been offered under Stalin. It was also fortunate that Reagan was a Republican or the boards would be filled with posts explainng how the Democratic president sold out America and worse, was a commie lover and all the rest of the usual tripe.






This is the pap that was fed to followers like you to try to hide the credit that Reagan deserves.


"SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? *It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire.* At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1


----------



## mamooth

And PC gives her stamp of approval to posts saying we should have sided with the Nazis against Stalin.

That's how far gone they are in their partisan sickness. Solely to further hate against FDR and liberals, they'd throw their lot in with the Nazis.


----------



## PoliticalChic

mamooth said:


> And PC gives her stamp of approval to posts saying we should have sided with the Nazis against Stalin.
> 
> That's how far gone they are in their partisan sickness. Solely to further hate against FDR and liberals, they'd throw their lot in with the Nazis.





"And PC gives her stamp of approval to posts saying we should have sided with the Nazis against Stalin."

Let's see such a quote.


'Else you're a lying sleaze bag.


Oh....you are a lying sleaze bag....in that case, never mind.


----------



## Bleipriester

The USA were the big winner of the WWII. America overtook the world´s leadership from the British Empire.


----------



## Toro

Russia was a wasteland in the west.  It lost millions of people and much of its infrastructure was destroyed.

Bleipriester is correct.  The US was the dominant Superpower.  It's currency became the world's reserve currency.  It was the unquestioned leader in manufacturing and an economic behemoth the USSR could not match.  Global institutions from the World Bank to GATT were effectively US institutions.  The US took command over Western military operations through NATO.  It's culture was spread throughout the world - who gave a fuck about Russian movies?  It's corporations sold products that people around the world wanted.  

Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> Russia was a wasteland in the west.  It lost millions of people and much of its infrastructure was destroyed.
> 
> Bleipriester is correct.  The US was the dominant Superpower.  It's currency became the world's reserve currency.  It was the unquestioned leader in manufacturing and an economic behemoth the USSR could not match.  Global institutions from the World Bank to GATT were effectively US institutions.  The US took command over Western military operations through NATO.  It's culture was spread throughout the world - who gave a fuck about Russian movies?  It's corporations sold products that people around the world wanted.
> 
> Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII.





Soviet communism = international socialism.

That translates into the end of national sovereignty.




Have you heard of 'The United Nations."

It's inception was due to Soviet spies in America.



"A young American diplomat was *the leading force in the designing of the United Nations*. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary* planning for the U.N.* was done. 

He was *Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn *(Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). 

At Yalta it was agreed that the *Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.* At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and *Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. *for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. *Alger Hiss *was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know




*"Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII."*

Really?


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorby offered Reagan a deal to end the cold war and Reagan grabbed it. Both Reagan and Gorby are to be commended for making the deal. It was a deal that would never have been offered under Stalin. It was also fortunate that Reagan was a Republican or the boards would be filled with posts explainng how the Democratic president sold out America and worse, was a commie lover and all the rest of the usual tripe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the pap that was fed to followers like you to try to hide the credit that Reagan deserves.
> 
> 
> "SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? *It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire.* At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
Click to expand...


So Reagan got outsmarted too? Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans, unless... unless the Americans were secret commies themselves? Hard to to believe, but Reagan did vote for FDR and he did live in Chicago for a time, in fact near the University of Chicago, where Obama taught, and where they worked on you know what at Stagg Field. Now it's becoming clear, Reagan was also a union leader, and he was in the movie business, and got divorced. Reagan also stayed in Hollywood during the war making propaganda films. It's understandable now why Reagan tried to destroy our economy with his tripling the debt and then meeting Gorbachev and finally making the "deal."


----------



## Art__Allm

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII."*
> 
> Really?



He means the American financial elite, the "upper class" that financed the rise of Bolshevism in Russia.

What to the American Middle Class, they lost the war, because "Cultural Communists" invaded the USA after WWII, and today USA became in cultural regard a communist country.

"Political Correctness", "Racism" and "Hate Speech" are code words from the vocabulary of Communists, these buzz words are used to eliminate the freedom of speech and all other freedoms that were the highest values of the USA before WWII.


----------



## Art__Allm

regent said:


> So Reagan got outsmarted too? Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans, unless... unless the Americans were secret commies themselves?



There are different classes and different lobbies in America.
The term "Americans" does not make any sense.

What Americans do yo mean?

The Middle Class?

The Financial Elite?

Do you really believe that the American Middle Class (that is now disappearing) and the American Financial Elite are the same people who have the same interests?

Oh boy! How old are you?


----------



## Art__Allm

mamooth said:


> And PC gives her stamp of approval to posts saying we should have sided with the Nazis against Stalin.



Every government is supposed to represent the interests of the MAJORITY of the population it represents.

In some cases to stay out of European conflicts or the conflicts between Israel and his neighbours is in the BEST interests of the majority of Americans, though it may be not in the interests of the American "upper class", speak the American "financial elite".

Do you get my drift?


----------



## Toro

PoliticalChic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia was a wasteland in the west.  It lost millions of people and much of its infrastructure was destroyed.
> 
> Bleipriester is correct.  The US was the dominant Superpower.  It's currency became the world's reserve currency.  It was the unquestioned leader in manufacturing and an economic behemoth the USSR could not match.  Global institutions from the World Bank to GATT were effectively US institutions.  The US took command over Western military operations through NATO.  It's culture was spread throughout the world - who gave a fuck about Russian movies?  It's corporations sold products that people around the world wanted.
> 
> Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet communism = international socialism.
> 
> That translates into the end of national sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard of 'The United Nations."
> 
> It's inception was due to Soviet spies in America.
> 
> 
> 
> "A young American diplomat was *the leading force in the designing of the United Nations*. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary* planning for the U.N.* was done.
> 
> He was *Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn *(Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).
> 
> At Yalta it was agreed that the *Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.* At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and *Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. *for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.
> 
> All of this seemed well and good until three years later. *Alger Hiss *was exposed as a communist spy...."
> What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII."*
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...


No offense, PC, but extreme right-wing sources with plots of communist conspiracies to take over world government via the UN are pretty nutty.  It sounds very 9/11 twoofer-sih.  These so-called communist spies in the US government co-opted everyone else to impose their vision of communist world government on the rest of the unsuspecting Congress and the American people.  Uh-huh.  And Churchill was a communist too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gorby offered Reagan a deal to end the cold war and Reagan grabbed it. Both Reagan and Gorby are to be commended for making the deal. It was a deal that would never have been offered under Stalin. It was also fortunate that Reagan was a Republican or the boards would be filled with posts explainng how the Democratic president sold out America and worse, was a commie lover and all the rest of the usual tripe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the pap that was fed to followers like you to try to hide the credit that Reagan deserves.
> 
> 
> "SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? *It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire.* At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Reagan got outsmarted too? Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans, unless... unless the Americans were secret commies themselves? Hard to to believe, but Reagan did vote for FDR and he did live in Chicago for a time, in fact near the University of Chicago, where Obama taught, and where they worked on you know what at Stagg Field. Now it's becoming clear, Reagan was also a union leader, and he was in the movie business, and got divorced. Reagan also stayed in Hollywood during the war making propaganda films. It's understandable now whyand then meeting Gorbachev and finally making the "deal."
Click to expand...




1. "Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans..."

No....they didn't have to 'outsmart' Liberals, Progressives and Democrats.....those folks agreed with everything the communists believed.



2. "Reagan did vote for FDR ..."

If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.


&#8213; Winston Churchill



3. " Reagan tried to destroy our economy with his tripling the debt..."

In a universe of ignorant statements, this one takes the proverbial cake.

Read and learn:


a.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.

b.	But*.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion*

c.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, *the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets*, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




You should take notes on my posts, reggie.


----------



## Chaussette

* Think You Know Who Won WWII?*

The Jews.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.


What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.

"On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
-Adolf Hitler


----------



## edthecynic

longknife said:


> Of course I know!
> 
> It was Germany and Japan!!!
> 
> Look at how much better they are now than before the war.


That's because they were limited in military spending as part of their surrender.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> Coulter:
> The mob characteristic most gustily exhibited by liberals...


Coulter is probably the only person more ignorant than you!

June 9, 2011
RUSH:  Ann, do you mean...? *In "mob," do you mean physical, literal mob-like behavior, or do you mean intellectual mob-like? What kind of mob behavior do you mean here?*

COULTER:  That's a great question, because it's both, actually.  The first quarter of the book is on how *liberals are a psychological mob.  It has to do with their slogans,* how they formulate arguments. They get a lot of slogans, whereas *conservatives just don't speak in slogans and we don't understand slogans,* and for good reason:  It's always sort of glib and superficially appealing, but if you stop and actually think about it for five seconds, *slogans never make sense.*


As gas prices soar, Republicans and oil company executives have revived a rallying cry that echoed around the country the last time gas prices spiked: *"Drill, baby, drill!"
Ann Coulter - Apr 23, 2011*


Popular CON$ervoFascist slogans:
Drill, Baby, Drill; 
I hope he fails; 
Drill here, drill now, pay less; 
9-9-9 means jobs, jobs, jobs.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.
> &#8213; Winston Churchill


As is typical of every quote you post, that is a fake. Churchill never said it, but you never research anything you post, you just copy and paste from GOP scripted hate sites.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....*and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." *
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.


As is typical of CON$ervoFascist half quotes, what comes after the .... is quite important. When Goebbels spoke those words to a Nazi Party meeting a RIOT broke out resulting in one death, such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx! The dishonest Right leave that out and PompousCheek is too lazy to check anything she copy and pastes.

The full quote:
On the speakers assertion that Lenin was the greatest  man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism  and the Hitler faith was very slight, *a faction war opened *with whizzing beer glasses.
  Joseph Goebbels​


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> War does not determine who is right - only who is left.


Your idol couldn't have said it better!

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.  
&#8213; Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Letters and Notes

"It is not truth that matters, but victory."
- Adolf Hitler


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia was a wasteland in the west.  It lost millions of people and much of its infrastructure was destroyed.
> 
> Bleipriester is correct.  The US was the dominant Superpower.  It's currency became the world's reserve currency.  It was the unquestioned leader in manufacturing and an economic behemoth the USSR could not match.  Global institutions from the World Bank to GATT were effectively US institutions.  The US took command over Western military operations through NATO.  It's culture was spread throughout the world - who gave a fuck about Russian movies?  It's corporations sold products that people around the world wanted.
> 
> Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soviet communism = international socialism.
> 
> That translates into the end of national sovereignty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you heard of 'The United Nations."
> 
> It's inception was due to Soviet spies in America.
> 
> 
> 
> "A young American diplomat was *the leading force in the designing of the United Nations*. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary* planning for the U.N.* was done.
> 
> He was *Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn *(Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).
> 
> At Yalta it was agreed that the *Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.* At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and *Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. *for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.
> 
> All of this seemed well and good until three years later. *Alger Hiss *was exposed as a communist spy...."
> What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Without a doubt, the US was the big winner of WWII."*
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No offense, PC, but extreme right-wing sources with plots of communist conspiracies to take over world government via the UN are pretty nutty.  It sounds very 9/11 twoofer-sih.  These so-called communist spies in the US government co-opted everyone else to impose their vision of communist world government on the rest of the unsuspecting Congress and the American people.  Uh-huh.  And Churchill was a communist too.
Click to expand...





1. No offense taken.

I love the debate.

I hope you take notice of my providing indisputable facts....communists, internationalists, one-worlders, behind the formation and advancement of the United Nations.


I recommend "Sovereignty or Submission: Will Americans Rule Themselves or be Ruled by Others?" by John Fonte.



2.	Lets be clear: on a world-wide stage, the alternative is national sovereignty,  Sans the strong arm of the United States, the United Nations is seen for what it is: a luncheon club for windbags who dont pay their parking tickets. Yet, it serves an important function for the totalitarians who dream of world domination: a front as they slowly but surely embezzle power, primarily in our nation.

3.   The delivery also of the people into the subjection of a foreign power, either by the prince, or by the legislative, is certainly a change of the legislative, and so a dissolution of the government: for the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent society, to be governed by its own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the power of another.
Locke, Of Civil Government, bk2, ch19, sect.217.


4. Beware the sheeps clothing of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), or United Nations  convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women,  (CEDAW), or the Rights of the Child Convention, etc.

a. Global governance movement claims precedence over a wide area of issues: budget practices, law enforcement, criminal law, criminal law, school curriculum, textbooks, immigration, border enforcement, healthcare, parental care, discipline of children, employment, multilingualism, gender composition of government bodies, among others. UN Human Rights treaties address all of the above.


And all they want in return is our freedom.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....*and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." *
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> As is typical of CON$ervoFascist half quotes, what comes after the .... is quite important. When Goebbels spoke those words to a Nazi Party meeting a RIOT broke out resulting in one death, such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx! The dishonest Right leave that out and PompousCheek is too lazy to check anything she copy and pastes.
> 
> The full quote:
> On the speakers assertion that Lenin was the greatest  man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism  and the Hitler faith was very slight, *a faction war opened *with whizzing beer glasses.
>  Joseph Goebbels​
Click to expand...







" ....such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx!"

But not Goebbels, and not Hitler.

They believed, and began, as Marxists.....that is the import of the article.



Dope.


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.
> 
> "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
> -Adolf Hitler
Click to expand...




Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.


So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.


Dunce.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the pap that was fed to followers like you to try to hide the credit that Reagan deserves.
> 
> 
> "SO ON WHOM or what do we bestow the title of the "evil empire's" killer? Was it Mikhail Gorbachev himself who pulled down what Lenin and Stalin had built up? *It is tempting to finger Gorbachev, but this would ascribe too much wisdom and foresight to a man who wanted merely to reform, but not to relinquish, the empire.* At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable: "There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people."
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_77/ai_n6353166/pg_6/?tag=content;col1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Reagan got outsmarted too? Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans, unless... unless the Americans were secret commies themselves? Hard to to believe, but Reagan did vote for FDR and he did live in Chicago for a time, in fact near the University of Chicago, where Obama taught, and where they worked on you know what at Stagg Field. Now it's becoming clear, Reagan was also a union leader, and he was in the movie business, and got divorced. Reagan also stayed in Hollywood during the war making propaganda films. It's understandable now whyand then meeting Gorbachev and finally making the "deal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "Sounds like the commies outsmarted all the Americans..."
> 
> No....they didn't have to 'outsmart' Liberals, Progressives and Democrats.....those folks agreed with everything the communists believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "Reagan did vote for FDR ..."
> 
> If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.
> 
> 
> &#8213; Winston Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> 3. " Reagan tried to destroy our economy with his tripling the debt..."
> 
> In a universe of ignorant statements, this one takes the proverbial cake.
> 
> Read and learn:
> 
> 
> a.	Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
> 
> b.	But*.the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion*
> 
> c.	Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, *the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets*, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
> 
> George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan - WSJ.com
> 
> Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should take notes on my posts, reggie.
Click to expand...


Ah, that Keynes, he even got to Reagan. The thing presidents forget about Keynes is that the borrowed money is to be paid back during the prosperous periods. Did Reagan then pay back the borrowed money during that prosperous period you speak of? Nope, Bush then borrowed more doubling the debt this time and America is once again on its way to a recession/depression.
See it works like this: borrow money when broke, pay back the money when it rolls in. I bet Republicans pointed this out to Reagan and Bush constantly, perhaps even to shutting down the government to get their attention.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.
> 
> "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
> -Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
Click to expand...


I would like to see that hammer and sickle with swastika poster. Do you have a source?


----------



## Chaussette

Didn't the jews win WWII?


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.
> 
> "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
> -Adolf Hitler
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
Click to expand...


A number of people including Americans did not believe Hitler during that period of history. Hitler even lied to the Germany people him, telling them all sorts of whoppers simply to get them to follow him? The sad thing is that it seems some Americans still believe in things Hitler said, and  use Hitler's quotes as  coming from that great swastika in the sky. Who would have dreamed that after all these years we would be telling people that Hitler lied.


----------



## Spoonman

did we really win?  what exactly did we win?  the cost of the Korean war? the Vietnam war? Yugoslavia? Afghanistan? Iraq?  the cold war?  the cost of protecting Europe and japan? the cost of rebuilding them?  the cost of all of our other police actions and massive foreign aid when we can't even take care of our own people?  Is Russia $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting? do we really have the freedoms we claim we have? our government spies on us just as much as Russia.  our government takes away our freedoms when they need to for their own advantage.  hell they even have liberals willingly helping them to do so.


----------



## hazlnut




----------



## PoliticalChic

hazlnut said:


>








No problem....it was meant for adults.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.
> 
> "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
> -Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would like to see that hammer and sickle with swastika poster. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...




Of course I do!!



- The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop

The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
 "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Jake gets reflexively defensive whenever anyone attacks: Obama, ObamaCare, Communists and Communism; that's how you can tell he's a real "Republican Moderate"


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of bullshit! But that is what is expected of PompousCheek! Your idol hated Marxism.
> 
> "On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp."
> -Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A number of people including Americans did not believe Hitler during that period of history. Hitler even lied to the Germany people him, telling them all sorts of whoppers simply to get them to follow him? The sad thing is that it seems some Americans still believe in things Hitler said, and  use Hitler's quotes as  coming from that great swastika in the sky. Who would have dreamed that after all these years we would be telling people that Hitler lied.
Click to expand...




The German people???

Really?


These German people:


On March 12, 1938, Hitlers troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month,* and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.* 

They 'believed lies' that really smart guys like you wouldn't believe?
Really funny from a guy who believes so many of the Rooseveltian lies.






It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.


&#8213; Ronald Reagan


----------



## PoliticalChic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Jake gets reflexively defensive whenever anyone attacks: Obama, ObamaCare, Communists and Communism; that's how you can tell he's a real "Republican Moderate"





Include Roosevelt in that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Spoonman said:


> did we really win?  what exactly did we win?  the cost of the Korean war? the Vietnam war? Yugoslavia? Afghanistan? Iraq?  the cold war?  the cost of protecting Europe and japan? the cost of rebuilding them?  the cost of all of our other police actions and massive foreign aid when we can't even take care of our own people?  Is Russia $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting? do we really have the freedoms we claim we have? our government spies on us just as much as Russia.  our government takes away our freedoms when they need to for their own advantage.  hell they even have liberals willingly helping them to do so.





Can we add this?


1. *Government control of private sector activity.*..is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, *nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 *(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately. 
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107. 



2. *Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine.* For context, there was Henry Sigerist: 
"He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished 
(The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33). 

b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as *medical totalitarianism.* He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for* state control o*ver all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."  
Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see that hammer and sickle with swastika poster. Do you have a source?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do!!
> 
> 
> 
> - The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist
Click to expand...


Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see that hammer and sickle with swastika poster. Do you have a source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do!!
> 
> 
> 
> - The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.
Click to expand...




In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....*and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." *
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> As is typical of CON$ervoFascist half quotes, what comes after the .... is quite important. When Goebbels spoke those words to a Nazi Party meeting a RIOT broke out resulting in one death, such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx! The dishonest Right leave that out and PompousCheek is too lazy to check anything she copy and pastes.
> 
> The full quote:&#8220;On the speaker&#8217;s assertion that Lenin was the greatest  man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism  and the Hitler faith was very slight, *a faction war opened *with whizzing beer glasses.&#8221;
> &#8212; Joseph Goebbels​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " ....such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx!"
> 
> But not Goebbels, and not Hitler.
> 
> They believed, and began, as Marxists.....that is the import of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Dope.
Click to expand...

Idiot!

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." -Mein Kampf

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." -Hitler Quote Bullock

The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I&#8230; expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Adolf Hitler

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." -Adolf Hitler

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Early Nazi posters included the hammer and sickle with the swastika.
> 
> 
> So did many of the memorials they built in Poland after both Hitler and Stalin attacked in 1939.
> 
> 
> Dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A number of people including Americans did not believe Hitler during that period of history. Hitler even lied to the Germany people him, telling them all sorts of whoppers simply to get them to follow him? The sad thing is that it seems some Americans still believe in things Hitler said, and  use Hitler's quotes as  coming from that great swastika in the sky. Who would have dreamed that after all these years we would be telling people that Hitler lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German people???
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> These German people:
> 
> 
> On March 12, 1938, Hitlers troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month,* and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.*
> 
> They 'believed lies' that really smart guys like you wouldn't believe?
> Really funny from a guy who believes so many of the Rooseveltian lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
> 
> 
> &#8213; Ronald Reagan
Click to expand...


No, no, I believe the noted American historians of our past and today. I do, however, have a little trouble believing Hitler at times, call me foolish, I even think Hitler may have fibbed a little about the Austrian vote you mention. Did Hitler usually conduct honest elections? 
Is it possible that Hitler fudged a little on both the Austrian election and the results?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see that hammer and sickle with swastika poster. Do you have a source?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do!!
> 
> 
> 
> - The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.
Click to expand...





I don't 'make a claim'.....I simply provide the truth.

You asked for a source....I provided same.


Now get off your lazy behind and do the requisite research......

...research that I've already done.





"Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid?"

This is really funny.

I give you the opportunity to prove me wrong....and you whine that it isn't convenient enough for you.





 So. tell me....how long have you been living at the corner of Ignorance and Bliss?


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do!!
> 
> 
> 
> - The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...
Click to expand...


No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times. 
Now work on your reading comprehension.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I do!!
> 
> 
> 
> - The Soviet Story (Docu) - Full Movie / English - LivingScoop
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connectionsphilosophical, political and organisationalbetween the Nazi and Soviet systems." Europe.view: Telling the Soviet story | The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...
Click to expand...






"yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information."


You moron....I gave you the item from 'The Economist" verifying the value of the documentary.


You're so stupid, I bet you'd got fired from the M & M factory for throwing away all the W's .


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link requires watching an 85 minute propaganda film. Are you kidding? You make the claim that a hammer and sickle appear on a Nazi poster but can not provide an image? Why in the world would anyone who is familiar with your sources trust that this image will appear in a film in such a way as to make your point valid? Is there no better link? Is there a genuine image or is this a misrepresentation of some sort? I have ones with the swastika shown with a worker and hammer during the time they were trying to lure communist workers into the party, but I have never seen one with the communist hammer and sickle symbol. There is a poster attacking both the swastika and the hammer and sickle symbols with spear symbols attacking the symbols by a third nationalist party. I'm not going to watch an 85 minute propaganda film loaded with images of dead bodies (yes, I checked out the first few minutes) and obvious propaganda just to learn you are once again misrepresenting and distorting information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...



Its only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!

Lame excuse, loser.

I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.



"...due to PC's reputiation...."

So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.





You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is typical of CON$ervoFascist half quotes, what comes after the .... is quite important. When Goebbels spoke those words to a Nazi Party meeting a RIOT broke out resulting in one death, such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx! The dishonest Right leave that out and PompousCheek is too lazy to check anything she copy and pastes.
> 
> The full quote:On the speakers assertion that Lenin was the greatest  man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism  and the Hitler faith was very slight, *a faction war opened *with whizzing beer glasses.
>  Joseph Goebbels​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " ....such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx!"
> 
> But not Goebbels, and not Hitler.
> 
> They believed, and began, as Marxists.....that is the import of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Dope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot!
> 
> "The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." -Mein Kampf
> 
> "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." -Hitler Quote Bullock
> 
> The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread.
> -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
> 
> "In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." -Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Click to expand...




You can run but you can't hide.

Stick to the photo that you posted.

Who related Nazism and communism????


Right....Goebbels and Hitler.



You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. .




= sending up the white flag


Why bother starting in on a discussion if you are just going to tuck tail and run away so soon?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number of people including Americans did not believe Hitler during that period of history. Hitler even lied to the Germany people him, telling them all sorts of whoppers simply to get them to follow him? The sad thing is that it seems some Americans still believe in things Hitler said, and  use Hitler's quotes as  coming from that great swastika in the sky. Who would have dreamed that after all these years we would be telling people that Hitler lied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The German people???
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> These German people:
> 
> 
> On March 12, 1938, Hitlers troops rolled over the border from Germany, into Austria. This was the Anschluss, the annexation of Austria into Greater Germany. Three days later, Hitler entered Vienna, greeted by an enthusiastic crowd of up to one million people. A plebiscite was held in less than a month,* and 99.7% of Austrians voted to join the Third Reich.*
> 
> They 'believed lies' that really smart guys like you wouldn't believe?
> Really funny from a guy who believes so many of the Rooseveltian lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
> 
> 
> &#8213; Ronald Reagan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no, I believe the noted American historians of our past and today. I do, however, have a little trouble believing Hitler at times, call me foolish, I even think Hitler may have fibbed a little about the Austrian vote you mention. Did Hitler usually conduct honest elections?
> Is it possible that Hitler fudged a little on both the Austrian election and the results?
Click to expand...





"Is it possible that Hitler fudged a little on both the Austrian election and the results?"


Now, now....you don't have to go out of your way to prove that you're clueless.

"Hitler's car crossed the border in the afternoon at Braunau, his birthplace. In the evening, he arrived at Linz and was given an enthusiastic welcome. The enthusiasm displayed toward Hitler and the Germans surprised both Nazis and non-Nazis,..."
Anschluss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Its only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
> 
> Lame excuse, loser.
> 
> I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> "...due to PC's reputiation...."
> 
> So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."
Click to expand...


Don't worry about my sloppy typing. Worry about trying to use an 85 minute movie as a viable source. Your just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread. And any sensible person knows an hour and a half long movie can not be used or sited as a viable source without providing specific details on how it relates to the claim and where exactly the source offers confirmation of a claim. Where meaning the minutes and seconds into the film or video.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Your [sic] just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread. ....





If you have any self-respect at all, you're embarrassed at what you've just done to any credibility you might have had.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
> 
> Lame excuse, loser.
> 
> I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> "...due to PC's reputiation...."
> 
> So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't worry about my sloppy typing. Worry about trying to use an 85 minute movie as a viable source. Your just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread. And any sensible person knows an hour and a half long movie can not be used or sited as a viable source without providing specific details on how it relates to the claim and where exactly the source offers confirmation of a claim. Where meaning the minutes and seconds into the film or video.
Click to expand...






"Worry about trying to use an 85 minute movie as a viable source."


I see your argument.

After all, 85 minutes represents more time than you've spent in getting an education.




So....basically, you're just gonna admit that the source I provided - as a favor to you, when you asked- proves that the Nazis had both the swastika and the hammer and sickle on their posters.


Good boy!

Doggie treat??




"Your just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread."

Ooooo....just look at that language!
You must be so aggg-rrriiivvv-ated that the only thing destroyed was your reputation.

True?






Let me summarize:

Me:  Pay-per-view!

You: Pay-per-weight.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your [sic] just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any self-respect at all, you're embarrassed at what you've just done to any credibility you might have had.
Click to expand...


I think it is for more embarrassing to have a thesis about D-Day and WWII without the knowledge of V Missiles and the invasion of Italy than the misuse or spelling of the word you're on a message board.
Now how about you find that mythical image of the official Nazi poster with the hammer and sickle.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your [sic] just pissed off at the way I destroyed your bullshit on your Stalin D-Day thread. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any self-respect at all, you're embarrassed at what you've just done to any credibility you might have had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is for more embarrassing to have a thesis about D-Day and WWII without the knowledge of V Missiles and the invasion of Italy than the misuse or spelling of the word you're on a message board.
> Now how about you find that mythical image of the official Nazi poster with the hammer and sickle.
Click to expand...





Heck...you're right.

I probably made up that stuff about the Nazis having both swastikas and hammer and sickle on their posters.

Whew!

Sure is a good thing that you are a lazy warthog-faced buffoon who wouldn't check out the source that I provided!

I mean...how could I live it down when you came back with a great big 'AHA!," proving that it didn't exist............

I'd have to run to my room and hide!!!!




But...*.if it's there*........what would that say about you? It would verify the old saw "The 13th chime of a clock, not only does it make no sense, but it calls into question the validity of the 12 chimes that preceded it."

Yup...everything you post. Worthless.




You know it's there don't you.
...'cause you're learned that I never lie.


Especially about you, you ugly stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking Nerf herder.


----------



## Synthaholic

There needs to be a _Faux History_ sub-forum reserved as PoliticalChic's sandbox.


----------



## Chaussette

Chaussette said:


> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.



That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> There needs to be a _Faux History_ sub-forum reserved as PoliticalChic's sandbox.





What an....'interesting'.....post.


I was especially fascinated to read the examples of falsity that you were able to glean.


Oh...wait....you couldn't find any....you were simply blowing hot air.....




I'll say this for you, bro....you're consistent.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> " ....such was the hate by the Nazis for Marx!"
> 
> But not Goebbels, and not Hitler.
> 
> They believed, and began, as Marxists.....that is the import of the article.
> 
> 
> 
> Dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot!
> 
> "The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." -Mein Kampf
> 
> "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." -Hitler Quote Bullock
> 
> The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread.
> -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
> 
> "In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." -Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run but you can't hide.
> 
> Stick to the photo that you posted.
> 
> *Who related Nazism and communism*????
> 
> 
> Right....*Goebbels* and *Hitler*.
> 
> 
> 
> You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
Click to expand...

You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.

The Hitler quotes clearly show his hatred for Marxism and the newspaper article clearly quotes only Goebbels, not your idol, Hitler. Not only that Goebbels relates Hitler to Marx, not Communism. As the article points out Goebbels tried it twice with riotous results for contradicting the Fuehrer both times. You take liberties with the facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

How the heck can I be a great poster, when the only opposition I get is gnats like Syndy, Ed, and Camp????


I mean, seriously.....Would Muhammad Ali have been considered great if his opposition was nothing but three year olds????



What are the chances that I could talk you three into triple suttee?


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot!
> 
> "The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." -Mein Kampf
> 
> "Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." -Hitler Quote Bullock
> 
> The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread.
> -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
> 
> "In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." - Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." -Adolf Hitler
> 
> "The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can run but you can't hide.
> 
> Stick to the photo that you posted.
> 
> *Who related Nazism and communism*????
> 
> 
> Right....*Goebbels* and *Hitler*.
> 
> 
> 
> You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.
> 
> The Hitler quotes clearly show his hatred for Marxism and the newspaper article clearly quotes only Goebbels, not your idol, Hitler. Not only that Goebbels relates Hitler to Marx, not Communism. As the article points out Goebbels tried it twice with riotous results for contradicting the Fuehrer both times. You take liberties with the facts.
Click to expand...







Actually, it's more than simple *to prove that you are the liar*.....and, in your case the word "simple" is more than appropriate.



A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article *(the photo which you were so good as to supply)*  about a newly established party in Germany,* the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler *can be compared or contrasted...Dr. *Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."* November 27, 1925.




Yes, *Hitler invested his psychotic needs with doctrines learned from Karl Marx,* the first modern political philosopher to recommend genocide.

And that is why this quote has great moment:

 "Liberals claim the center by placing socialism on the left and national socialism on the right, even though Lenin/Stalin and Hitler/other Nazis had much in common as they centralized power and preached hatred. 

A more accurate spectrum would place* totalitarians of many stripes on the left* and defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom on the right. WORLD | Let's admit who we are | Marvin Olasky | July 17, 2010

Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.






And so, dear friends, Eddie-boy serves the purpose he was born to serve: comic relief.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can run but you can't hide.
> 
> Stick to the photo that you posted.
> 
> *Who related Nazism and communism*????
> 
> 
> Right....*Goebbels* and *Hitler*.
> 
> 
> 
> You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.
> 
> The Hitler quotes clearly show his hatred for Marxism and the newspaper article clearly quotes only Goebbels, not your idol, Hitler. Not only that Goebbels relates Hitler to Marx, not Communism. As the article points out Goebbels tried it twice with riotous results for contradicting the Fuehrer both times. You take liberties with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's more than simple *to prove that you are the liar*.....and, in your case the word "simple" is more than appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article *(the photo which you were so good as to supply)*  about a newly established party in Germany,* the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler *can be compared or contrasted...Dr. *Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight[**, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses.]...."* November 27, 1925.
Click to expand...

That half quote has already been discredited, I added the part you edited out so you can't play dumb again. Stamping your feet and repeating your lies will never make them the truth, child.


----------



## Synthaholic

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There needs to be a _Faux History_ sub-forum reserved as PoliticalChic's sandbox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an....'interesting'.....post.
> 
> 
> I was especially fascinated to read the examples of falsity that you were able to glean.
> 
> 
> *Oh...wait....you couldn't find any....*you were simply blowing hot air.....
Click to expand...


I didn't look for any.  Why?  Because...



edthecynic said:


> You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.



So why should I bother?


----------



## Art__Allm

PoliticalChic said:


> Yes, Hitler invested his psychotic needs with doctrines learned from Karl Marx, the first modern political philosopher to recommend genocide.



Do you know who was the teacher of Marx!

Moses Hess, who talked about race struggle!




> Hess originally advocated Jewish integration into the universalist socialist movement, and was a friend and collaborator of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Hess converted Engels to Communism, and introduced Marx to social and economic problems. He played an important role in transforming Hegelian dialectical idealism theory of history to the dialectical materialism of Marxism, by conceiving of man as the initiator of history through his active consciousness.
> 
> Hess was probably responsible for several "Marxian" slogans and ideas, including religion as the "opiate of the people." Hess became reluctant to base all history on economic causes and class struggle, and he came to see the struggle of races, or nationalities, as the prime factor of history.
> 
> Moses Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The student of Moses Hess (Marx) was preaching (to non-Jews) the class struggle and the negation of the existence of racial interests or racial solidarity.

But Moses Hess himself was preaching (to Jews) the race struggle and racial solidarity.





> "Even an act of conversion cannot relieve the Jew of the enormous pressure of German anti-Semitism. The Germans hate the religion of the Jews less than they hate their race - they hate the peculiar faith of the Jews, less than their peculiar noses."
> 
> "The race struggle is the primal one, and the class struggle secondary. The last dominating race is the German."
> 
> Moses Hess - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Moses Hess was a German citizen, but he believed that German Christians and German Jews were of different races, and he preached a race struggle between the Jewish race and the Germanic race. He believed that Germanic race is an enemy of the Jewish race.

BTW, his book "Rome and Jerusalem" was written before Adolf Hitler was born.

Hess is buried in Israel and he is considered to be one of the most important proto- Zionist:



> Hess's contribution, like Leon Pinsker's Autoemancipation,[3] became important only in retrospect, as the Zionist movement began to crystallize and to generate an audience in the late nineteenth century. When Theodor Herzl first read Rome and Jerusalem he wrote about Hess that "since Spinoza jewry had no bigger thinker than this forgotten Moses Hess" and that he would not have written Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) if he had known Rome and Jerusalem beforehand. Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky honored Hess in The Jewish Legion in World War as one of those people that made the Balfour declaration possible, together with Herzl, Rothschild and Pinsker.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Hess


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.
> 
> The Hitler quotes clearly show his hatred for Marxism and the newspaper article clearly quotes only Goebbels, not your idol, Hitler. Not only that Goebbels relates Hitler to Marx, not Communism. As the article points out Goebbels tried it twice with riotous results for contradicting the Fuehrer both times. You take liberties with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's more than simple *to prove that you are the liar*.....and, in your case the word "simple" is more than appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article *(the photo which you were so good as to supply)*  about a newly established party in Germany,* the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler *can be compared or contrasted...Dr. *Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight[**, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses.]...."* November 27, 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That half quote has already been discredited, I added the part you edited out so you can't play dumb again. Stamping your feet and repeating your lies will never make them the truth, child.
Click to expand...






Did Goebbels say it or not?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There needs to be a _Faux History_ sub-forum reserved as PoliticalChic's sandbox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an....'interesting'.....post.
> 
> 
> I was especially fascinated to read the examples of falsity that you were able to glean.
> 
> 
> *Oh...wait....you couldn't find any....*you were simply blowing hot air.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't look for any.  Why?  Because...
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just can't stop yourself from lying, even after being exposed to the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why should I bother?
Click to expand...





So....to review.....every thing I said is true, and everything you said is a lie.


Now...to the main topic: you, and suttee.


How about it?


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> I think it is for more embarrassing to have a thesis about D-Day and WWII without the knowledge of V Missiles and the invasion of Italy than ...





And who is it you _imagine_ to be lacking in such knowledge?


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's more than simple *to prove that you are the liar*.....and, in your case the word "simple" is more than appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article *(the photo which you were so good as to supply)*  about a newly established party in Germany,* the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler *can be compared or contrasted...Dr. *Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight[**, a faction war opened with whizzing beer glasses.]...."* November 27, 1925.
> 
> 
> 
> That half quote has already been discredited, I added the part you edited out so you can't play dumb again. Stamping your feet and repeating your lies will never make them the truth, child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Goebbels say it or not?
Click to expand...

Well, at least you are no longer claiming Hitler said it.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you are attempting to refute a source without even seeing it? Yeah, that lends you credibility...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It&#8217;s only fun when someone bites it big time: that&#8217;s where you come in!
> 
> Lame excuse, loser.
> 
> I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> "...due to PC's reputiation...."
> 
> So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."
Click to expand...


Ya OKAY PC, or OK or Okey Dokey. And I am so sorry for putting an i in the word reputation.
Your source is as a expected, a gross exaggeration and distortion. Using your link, I began watching the film "The Soviet Story". The source you reference comes in at 16:05. There was no poster as you claim. What is depicted is the Tag der Arbeit medal. And even that medal does not display the hammer and sickle and the official symbol. It shows the Swastika Eagle symbol and a hammer behind one wing, a sickle behind the other wing and the body of the eagle along with a figure of a face and head separating the hammer and sickle. The Tag der Arbeit in no way represents what you claim. The swastika eagle is separating the communist symbol.


----------



## Chaussette

Chaussette said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.
Click to expand...


Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?


----------



## bripat9643

Chaussette said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?
Click to expand...


Is he black?  I should have known.  No wonder he hates the Confederacy so viscerally.


----------



## Synthaholic

_*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_

The Allied Forces.

It was in all the papers.


----------



## Toro

bripat9643 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he black?  I should have known.  No wonder he hates the Confederacy so viscerally.
Click to expand...


 [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]


----------



## Unkotare

Toro said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he black?  I should have known.  No wonder he hates the Confederacy so viscerally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]
Click to expand...



"He" is not black, you mouth-breathing imbeciles. Nice to see that Kenny Konfederacy (brisplat) didn't miss an opportunity to make an ass of himself AGAIN. Nice too, to see that he found a like-minded 'partner' to share intimate moments of stupidity with.


----------



## Unkotare

Chaussette said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?
Click to expand...



You a racist? You?! I'm shocked. Shocked!   You idiot.


----------



## Chaussette

Unkotare said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is he black?  I should have known.  No wonder he hates the Confederacy so viscerally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "He" is not black, you mouth-breathing imbeciles. Nice to see that Kenny Konfederacy (brisplat) didn't miss an opportunity to make an ass of himself AGAIN. Nice too, to see that he found a like-minded 'partner' to share intimate moments of stupidity with.
Click to expand...

You're the fucking imbecile who couldn't figure out what I was saying. Retard.


----------



## Unkotare

Chaussette said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "He" is not black, you mouth-breathing imbeciles. Nice to see that Kenny Konfederacy (brisplat) didn't miss an opportunity to make an ass of himself AGAIN. Nice too, to see that he found a like-minded 'partner' to share intimate moments of stupidity with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the fucking imbecile who couldn't figure out what I was saying. Retard.
Click to expand...



What 'race' am I supposed to be this time, douche?


----------



## PoliticalChic

edthecynic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That half quote has already been discredited, I added the part you edited out so you can't play dumb again. Stamping your feet and repeating your lies will never make them the truth, child.
> 
> 
> 
> Did Goebbels say it or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least you are no longer claiming Hitler said it.
Click to expand...




So....this is your retreat post?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
> 
> Lame excuse, loser.
> 
> I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> "...due to PC's reputiation...."
> 
> So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya OKAY PC, or OK or Okey Dokey. And I am so sorry for putting an i in the word reputation.
> Your source is as a expected, a gross exaggeration and distortion. Using your link, I began watching the film "The Soviet Story". The source you reference comes in at 16:05. There was no poster as you claim. What is depicted is the Tag der Arbeit medal. And even that medal does not display the hammer and sickle and the official symbol. It shows the Swastika Eagle symbol and a hammer behind one wing, a sickle behind the other wing and the body of the eagle along with a figure of a face and head separating the hammer and sickle. The Tag der Arbeit in no way represents what you claim. The swastika eagle is separating the communist symbol.
Click to expand...




"Your source is as a expected, a gross exaggeration and distortion..."

Fib.


"...does not display the hammer and sickle and the official symbol. It shows the Swastika Eagle symbol and a hammer behind one wing, a sickle behind the other wing ..."


So......both the Nazi and communist symbols are evident?


Yes they are.




"The Tag der Arbeit in no way represents what you claim. The swastika eagle is separating the communist symbol."

Way.



In fact, the picture you describe is provided with a voice-over that explains the Karl Marx origin of the Nazi movement, and that factional fighting among the Nazis caused them to stop including the hammer and sickle that was included in early Nazi flyers.




Gee.....seems like you fail every time you doubt me.

There's a lesson there.


----------



## SmedlyButler

Synthaholic said:


> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.



She meant the "other" WWll.


----------



## edthecynic

PoliticalChic said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Goebbels say it or not?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you are no longer claiming Hitler said it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So....this is your retreat post?
Click to expand...

No, it is your surrender post.



PoliticalChic said:


> *Who related Nazism and communism?*???
> 
> 
> Right....Goebbels and *Hitler*.


----------



## Synthaholic

Unkotare said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> "He" is not black, you mouth-breathing imbeciles. Nice to see that Kenny Konfederacy (brisplat) didn't miss an opportunity to make an ass of himself AGAIN. Nice too, to see that he found a like-minded 'partner' to share intimate moments of stupidity with.
> 
> 
> 
> You're the fucking imbecile who couldn't figure out what I was saying. Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What 'race' am I supposed to be this time, douche?
Click to expand...

Asian.


----------



## edthecynic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not refuting the alleged evidence. I am stating that due to PC's reputiation in regards to providing viable sources I am not going to spend my time on what my own evidence indicates is probably a wild goose chase. That is not the same as to refute. I have refuted her evidence plenty of times.
> Now work on your reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its only fun when someone bites it big time: thats where you come in!
> 
> Lame excuse, loser.
> 
> I'm glad to see you're not letting education get in the way of your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> "...due to PC's reputiation...."
> 
> So....I take it you weren't a finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're as useless as the "ay" in "Okay."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya OKAY PC, or OK or Okey Dokey. And I am so sorry for putting an i in the word reputation.
> Your source is as a expected, a gross exaggeration and distortion. Using your link, I began watching the film "The Soviet Story". The source you reference comes in at 16:05. There was no poster as you claim. What is depicted is the Tag der Arbeit medal. And even that medal does not display the hammer and sickle and the official symbol. It shows the Swastika Eagle symbol and a hammer behind one wing, a sickle behind the other wing and the body of the eagle along with a figure of a face and head separating the hammer and sickle. The Tag der Arbeit in no way represents what you claim. The swastika eagle is separating the communist symbol.
Click to expand...

As always, reality is quite different from PompousCheek's cut & paste fantasy land. It was an attempt by Hitler's Nationalists to hijack the divided workers Parties. It had nothing to do with Marx or Marxism.

German Holidays and Customs in May

*Tag der Arbeit - 1. Mai*
Oddly, the widespread custom of celebrating Labor Day on the first of May (*am ersten Mai*)  was inspired by events in the United States, one of the few countries  that does not observe Labor Day in May! In 1889, a congress of world  socialist parties was held in Paris. The attendees, sympathizing with  striking workers in Chicago in 1886, voted to support the United States  labor movement's demands for an 8-hour day. They selected May 1, 1890 as  a day of commemoration for the Chicago strikers. In many countries  around the world May 1 became an official holiday called Labor Daybut  not in the U.S., where that holiday is observed on the first Monday in  September. Historically the holiday has had special importance in  socialist and communist countries, which is one reason it is not  observed in May in America. The U.S. federal holiday was first observed  in 1894. Canadians also have observed their Labor Day since September  1894. 
 In Germany, May Day (*erster Mai*, May 1st) is a national holiday and an important day, partly because of *Blutmai*  ("bloody May") in 1929. That year in Berlin the ruling Social  Democratic (SPD) party had banned the traditional workers'  demonstrations. But the KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) called  for demonstrations anyway. The resulting bloodbath left 32 people dead  and at least 80 seriously injured.* It also left a big split between the  two workers' parties (KPD and SPD), which the Nazis soon used to their  advantage. The National Socialists named the holiday Tag der Arbeit ("Day of Labor")*, the name still used in Germany today. 

From wiki:

*Germany*

 In April 1933, the recently installed Nazi government  declared May 1 the "Day of National Work," an official state holiday,  and announced that all celebrations were to be organized by the  government. *Any separate celebrations by communists, social democrats or  labour unions were banned.* After the World War II, May 1 remained a state holiday in both East and West Germany. In communist East Germany, workers were _de facto_ required to participate in large state-organized parades on Mayday. Today in Germany it is simply called the "Day of Labour" (_"Tag der Arbeit"_), and there are numerous demonstrations and celebrations by independent workers' organizations. Today, Berlin witnesses yearly demonstrations on May Day, the largest organized by labour unions, political parties and others by the far left and Autonomen.


----------



## Dante

dis-eased mind started the op. We all know who won WWII


----------



## Peterf

Chaussette said:


> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.



Sometimes comments on message boards are so wrong headed that they take one's breath away.    The Jews were essentially wiped out in Europe.   Thriving and productive communities were eradicated.    And you think they WON the war?


----------



## Peterf

PoliticalChic said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> did we really win?  what exactly did we win?  the cost of the Korean war? the Vietnam war? Yugoslavia? Afghanistan? Iraq?  the cold war?  the cost of protecting Europe and japan? the cost of rebuilding them?  the cost of all of our other police actions and massive foreign aid when we can't even take care of our own people?  Is Russia $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and counting? do we really have the freedoms we claim we have? our government spies on us just as much as Russia.  our government takes away our freedoms when they need to for their own advantage.  hell they even have liberals willingly helping them to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can we add this?
> 
> 
> 1. *Government control of private sector activity.*..is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too. Indeed, *nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917 *(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately.
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. *Obama wasn't the first Bolshevik to support socialized medicine.* For context, there was Henry Sigerist:
> "He devoted himself to the study of history of medicine. Socialized Medicine in the Soviet Union (1937), and History of Medicine were among his most important works. He emerged as a major spokesman for "compulsory health insurance". ...He attacked the American Medical Association because of his conflicting views on socialized medicine." Henry E. Sigerist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> a. And, Sigerist was one of the apologists for Stalin, including his state-engineered famine in the Ukraine. 7 million perished
> (The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33).
> 
> b. Sigerist "shared with the architects of Soviet health policy under Stalin an outlook best described as *medical totalitarianism.* He really believed that humanity would be better off if every individual were under the medical supervision of the state from cradle to grave....[and] Sigerist's belief in the necessity for* state control o*ver all aspects of medicine ultimately made him an apologist for state control over most aspects of human life."
> Fee and Brown, eds. "Making Medical History: The Life and Times of Henry E. Sigerist," p. 252
Click to expand...


Perhaps 95% of Europeans support some sort of state provision of health care.   Tell me PC are we all Bolsheviks?  Am I one too?


----------



## Chaussette

Peterf said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes comments on message boards are so wrong headed that they take one's breath away.    The Jews were essentially wiped out in Europe.   Thriving and productive communities were eradicated.    And you think they WON the war?
Click to expand...


They got support to establish their own country, and still use the holocaust today to gain sympathy and support for their cause and country. Slam dunk winners.


----------



## Peterf

Chaussette said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Think You Know Who Won WWII?*
> 
> The Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes comments on message boards are so wrong headed that they take one's breath away.    The Jews were essentially wiped out in Europe.   Thriving and productive communities were eradicated.    And you think they WON the war?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They got support to establish their own country, and still use the holocaust today to gain sympathy and support for their cause and country. Slam dunk winners.
Click to expand...


Western support for the establishment of the state of Israel long preceded WWII.   from memory the Balfour declaration was made in 1924.

My sympathy and support for Israel does not rest on the holocaust but on its nature as a democracy and a decent state:  the only one in what is more properly called the Near East.


----------



## Chaussette

Peterf said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes comments on message boards are so wrong headed that they take one's breath away.    The Jews were essentially wiped out in Europe.   Thriving and productive communities were eradicated.    And you think they WON the war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They got support to establish their own country, and still use the holocaust today to gain sympathy and support for their cause and country. Slam dunk winners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Western support for the establishment of the state of Israel long preceded WWII.   from memory the Balfour declaration was made in 1924.
> 
> My sympathy and support for Israel does not rest on the holocaust but on its nature as a democracy and a decent state:  the only one in what is more properly called the Near East.
Click to expand...


Not to worry, I'm totally on the opposite side of any side that arabs are on. 

But without WWII, maybe Israel is never born.


----------



## Art__Allm

Peterf said:


> Western support for the establishment of the state of Israel long preceded WWII.   from memory the Balfour declaration was made in 1924.



There was nothing about an exclusive "Jewish state" in the Balfour declaration.
The Jewish banker Rothshild just demanded from the Brits that they would have to conquer Palestine and allow the Jews to settle there, if they wanted to get any help from Jewish bankers. Great Britain was in a desperate situation, they were losing the war, and they were ready to sign a peace agreement with Germany.

Jewish bankers used their influence and promised to British government that they would involve the USA into the WWI, if the Brits conquered Palestine.

But in this declaration there was nothing about a separate Jewish State, and Brits would not have signed a declaration that guarantees to the Jews a separate state on the cleansed Palestinian territory. Brits were fooled by the Zionists, they tried their best and fought the Jewish terrorism in Palestine, losing a lot of British soldiers who were killed by Jewish extremists in Palestine.

If Brits knew what will happen after they signed the Balfour Declaration, they would probably signed a peace treatment with Germany.



Peterf said:


> My sympathy and support for Israel does not rest on the holocaust but on its nature as a democracy and a decent state:  the only one in what is more properly called the Near East.



Israel was created via terror, Menachem Begin was a bloody terrorist who killed nonsenses British soldiers.

The first leader, who recognized Israel, was the mass murderer Stalin, and Stalin was the one who voted with 5 votes for the partition of Palestine, and he was the first to help Israel with weapons.

After that Zionists started their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and replaced the native Semitic population of the region with migrants from different countries.

This was a violation of international laws, ethnic cleansing and the replacement of the population is prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.

But due to the influence of the Israel Lobby in the USA Zionists can get away with their crimes.

Israel is an apartheid regime which goes on with ethnic cleansing and land theft, the Israeli government is still promoting segregation.

How can somebody in his right mind call Israel, which has a racial "law or return" (only Jews are permitted to migrate to Israel, but the expelled Palestinians are prohibited from returning to their homes) a democracy?

Do non-Jewish Palestinians have the same value in Israel, like Jewish Israelis?

Would American Jews be happy, if they were treated in the USA like Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel?

Would Jewish Americans be happy, if Christian Americans called the USA a "Christian State" and forced the Jews to pledge allegiance to the "Christian state"?

Would the American Jews be happy, if in the USA only marriages between Christians and Jews were illegal, like it is the case in Israel?

Would the American Jews be happy, if white Christians had a privileged right to migrate to the USA?

In Israel, white Jews have a privileged right to "return" to Israel!

Can you answer these simple questions?


----------



## Art__Allm

Chaussette said:


> Not to worry, I'm totally on the opposite side of any side that arabs are on.
> 
> But without WWII, maybe Israel is never born.



Zionists dreamed about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine since 1851.
The British "Christian" Benjamin Disraeli decided in 1877 that Brits would have to conquer Palestine for the Jews, and he was sure in 1877 that in fifty years (about 1927) a million of Jewish migrants will already be resettled to Palestine. How could they have achieved their dream without ethnic cleansing and genocides against the native Semitic population of Palestine?



> In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views: "He then unfolded a plan of restoring the nation to Palestine&#8212;said the country was admirably suited for them&#8212;the financiers all over Europe might help&#8212;the Porte is weak&#8212;the Turks/holders of property could be bought out&#8212;this, he said, was the object of his life...." Coningsby was merely a feelermy views were not fully developed at that time&#8212;since then all I have written has been for one purpose. The man who should restore the Hebrew race to their country would be the Messiah&#8212;the real saviour of prophecy!" He did not add formally that he aspired to play this part, but it was evidently implied. He thought very highly of the capabilities of the country, and hinted that his chief object in acquiring power here would be to promote the return".[20][21] 26 years later, Disraeli wrote in his article entitled
> 
> *"The Jewish Question is the Oriental Quest" (1877) that within fifty years, a nation of one million Jews would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British.*
> 
> History of Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The fate of Palestinians was already signed in 1877, the money of Jewish bankers was used to achieve this goal. That is why Zionists supported the Brits in WWI (Brits were ready to sign a peace agreement with Germans, because they were losing in WWI), and that was the reason why they managed to involve the USA in WWII.

And Hitler was the guy who laid the foundation of Israel with his Haavara Agreement and his anti-Jewish policy.

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zionists needed the young and healthy European Jews in Palestine (they did not care about old Jewish people), and they needed the money of German Jews that were transferred to Palestine via the Haavara Agreement.

There was also a British proposal to create a Jewish State in Uganda, there was a lot of free land in this British colony.

But Zionists did not agree to that plan:




> The idea was brought to the Zionist Congress at its sixth meeting in 1903 in Basel. There a fierce debate ensued. The African land was described as an "ante-chamber to the Holy Land" and a Nachtasyl (temporary night shelter), but other groups felt that accepting the offer would make it more difficult to establish a Jewish state in Ottoman Palestine, and also that the Jewish nation would not be able to claim itself as native to that land, since there were no historic or culture links between the Hebrews and East Africa. Before the vote on the matter, the Russian delegation stormed out in opposition.[why?] By a remaining vote of 295 to 177, it was decided to send an "investigatory commission" on expedition to examine the territory proposed.
> ..
> 
> After receiving this report, the following Congress in 1905 decided to politely decline the British offer. Some Jews viewed this as a mistake; they then split from the ZO and established the Jewish Territorialist Organization, with the explicit aim of establishing a Jewish state anywhere, not just in Palestine. A few[Jews did move to Kenya, but most settled in the urban centres. Some of these families remain to this day.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda_Scheme



As we see, most Zionists rejected all other plans for a Jewish State, they needed Palestine because of their racial and religious fanaticism (they were racists that believed that they are the real biological descendants of the ancient Hebrews), and they did not care about the native Palestinian population, they were ready to wage a war against them and ethnically cleans the territory for a couple of million of young and healthy Jewish migrants, and they did not care about the fate of the old and sick Jews.

How could they have achieved their goal without Hitler?



> At the Zionist Congress in London in 1937, Dr. Weizmann established the line of policy with his words:
> 
> "The hopes of Europe's six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked, 'Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?' I replied, 'No'....*From the depths of the tragedy I want to save two million young people*...The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They were dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world...Only the branch of the young shall survive...They have to accept it."
> 
> Chaim Weizmann | True Torah Jews





> During the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weizman, the first "Jewish statesman" stated:
> *"The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important". *
> 
> Weizman's cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation
> *"One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".*
> 
> The Role of Zionism in the Holocaust



As we see, Zionists needed only a couple of young and healthy Jews in Palestine, and the needed the money of German Jews.

They were not eager to pay any money for the migration of ALL Jews from Europe to any other place, like Madagascar. They only cared about the migration of young and healthy Jews to Palestine, and they were only ready to pay for this migration.



> Rademacher recommended on 3 June 1940 that Madagascar should be made available as a destination for the Jews of Europe. With Adolf Hitler's approval, Adolf Eichmann released a memorandum on 15 August 1940 calling for the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years, with the island governed as a police state under the SS.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan


----------



## Synthaholic

Chaussette said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> They got support to establish their own country, and still use the holocaust today to gain sympathy and support for their cause and country. Slam dunk winners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Western support for the establishment of the state of Israel long preceded WWII.   from memory the Balfour declaration was made in 1924.
> 
> My sympathy and support for Israel does not rest on the holocaust but on its nature as a democracy and a decent state:  the only one in what is more properly called the Near East.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to worry, I'm totally on the opposite side of any side that arabs are on.
> 
> But without WWII, maybe Israel is never born.
Click to expand...

The creation of Israel, the country, was not imperative in order to ensure the survival of Jews, or their religion.  There were plenty of Jews, pre-Israel, and there would have been plenty of Jews without the creation of a political state called Israel.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.



Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan

Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
Click to expand...

Liberals and conservatives alike were OK with not losing to Nazi Germany, and allying with the Soviets were the only way we were going to win and save Europe.

It was in all the papers!


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
Click to expand...


Perhaps tha's why Patton was not in command of Overlord, he was fighting a political war and not military. Ike had placed Patton  in the right place with the right command.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps tha's why Patton was not in command of Overlord, he was fighting a political war and not military. Ike had placed Patton  in the right place with the right command.
Click to expand...


The right position...for Uncle Joe.

Patton would have ended the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin way ahead of "Uncle" Joe

Patton knew they had the Germans trapped in the Falaise Pocket and did everything short of resigning to make his "Superiors" see the benefit of closing the pocket and crushing German resistance in the West.

How different the world would be without your beloved Communists running most of Eastern Europe


----------



## Unkotare

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
Click to expand...



"Ok"? Why, it's their ideal! Gulags, reeducation camps and all!


----------



## Moonglow

So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?



It stopped with Reagan for a spell --and he took a bullet for it.

Actually Reagan, ignored their advice even the CIA-KGB wing


----------



## Toro

Art__Allm said:


> There was nothing about an exclusive "Jewish state" in the Balfour declaration.
> The Jewish banker Rothshild ...



Stopped reading right there.

Not worth it thereafter.


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Soviet Unions spies and control of our government ended when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It stopped with Reagan for a spell --and he took a bullet for it.
> 
> Actually Reagan, ignored their advice even the CIA-KGB wing
Click to expand...


So Eisenhower and Nixon were commie stooges also?


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
Click to expand...


Leftists - who you call 'liberals'  - see FDR as their hero.   FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.


----------



## Unkotare

Peterf said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftists - who you call 'liberals'  - see FDR as their hero.   FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.
Click to expand...




Sounds like you two are in agreement then.


----------



## Peterf

Unkotare said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists - who you call 'liberals'  - see FDR as their hero.   FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you two are in agreement then.
Click to expand...


Yes indeed it does.  And why not?


----------



## Unkotare

bripat9643 said:


> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chaussette said:
> 
> 
> 
> That fucking asshole jroc negged me for this comment. I ask you, who came out the best after WWII? The Jews, that's who. They got support to invade Palestine and boot all those lazy arabs out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that dumb ****** unkoretard just negged me and called me an anti-semite? Geez, I'm happy the Jews won. He couldn't figure that out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he black?  I should have known. ...
Click to expand...



Hey idiot, you want to guess another 'race' for me? Or did you run away from this thread with your tail between your legs and your foot in your mouth?


----------



## Unkotare

Peterf said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leftists - who you call 'liberals'  - see FDR as their hero.   FDR was OK with Soviet Communism to the point that he prefered the murderous tyrant Stalin to the democrat Churchill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you two are in agreement then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed it does.  And why not?
Click to expand...



No reason why not.


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
Click to expand...


You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...


----------



## Unkotare

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Think You Know Who Won WWII?*_
> 
> The Allied Forces.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
Click to expand...




He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps tha's why Patton was not in command of Overlord, he was fighting a political war and not military. Ike had placed Patton  in the right place with the right command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right position...for Uncle Joe.
> 
> Patton would have ended the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin way ahead of "Uncle" Joe
> 
> Patton knew they had the Germans trapped in the Falaise Pocket and did everything short of resigning to make his "Superiors" see the benefit of closing the pocket and crushing German resistance in the West.
> 
> How different the world would be without your beloved Communists running most of Eastern Europe
Click to expand...


An entire thread could be dedicated to Falaise and the proposition that Patton could have accomplished what you suggest. Bradley and Eisenhower had other plans for Patton and did not want to risk the 3rd Army in an engagement that would stretch it out along a 40 mile front with only 4 Divisions facing 19 German Divisions. Not only was the 3rd Army smaller than it would later become, this was the Normandy breakout and fuel for Patton's armour was not in the abundance it would later become, nor had the Red Ball express been established the way it would later. This was early in the ground war, only 2 months after D-Day and allied forces were still situating themselve.


----------



## Peterf

Unkotare said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
Click to expand...


My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.


----------



## regent

Peterf said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
Click to expand...


Yep, old blood and guts. 
I'd like to think that many American commanders kept in mind two things: taking their objective and saving lives. A number of commanders did exactly that, but a few also used the war to enhance their egos. Generally the enlisted soon knew the difference
I don't know that Patton had ego in mind so much as objectives. 
One of the sad things about some professional soldiers is that they spend all their time simply waiting for a war, and when one comes they have to make the most of it.


----------



## Moonglow

Unkotare said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton thought WWII Was a huge strategic failure for the Allies because if left most of Eastern Europe in the hands of the descendants of Genghis Khan
> 
> Liberals seem to be OK with Soviet Communism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
Click to expand...


The only reason he stopped was direct orders from Eisenhower...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peterf said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
Click to expand...


Clearly, your entire database on Patton comes from one baised movie


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly, your entire database on Patton comes from one baised movie
Click to expand...


On the contrary, my perception of Patton comes from extensive study,  over a period of 40 years, of WWII - particularly in Europe.

One small example.   In Sicily Patton left the hard slog of defeating the Germans on the East coast and around Etna to the British.   He charged around in the strategically unimportant West 'capturing' cities like Palermo defended, if at all, by remnants of Italian units.   When he eventually reached a more strongly defended town he attacked head-on with scant preparation and incurred heavy and needless casualties.

That this third-rate general saw fit to strut around with two pearl-handed revolvers reveals much about him.


----------



## kucing

is very good


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, old blood and guts.
> I'd like to think that many American commanders kept in mind two things: taking their objective and saving lives. A number of commanders did exactly that, but a few also used the war to enhance their egos. Generally the enlisted soon knew the difference
> I don't know that Patton had ego in mind so much as objectives.
> One of the sad things about some professional soldiers is that they spend all their time simply waiting for a war, and when one comes they have to make the most of it.
Click to expand...


How many lives would have been saved  had the US and Brits won the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin ahead of the Russian?


----------



## Unkotare

Moonglow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason he stopped was direct orders from Eisenhower...
Click to expand...




You don't think he had time to slap a few more if that somehow encapsulates his entire military career? Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peterf said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, your entire database on Patton comes from one baised movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, my perception of Patton comes from extensive study,  over a period of 40 years, of WWII - particularly in Europe.
> 
> One small example.   In Sicily Patton left the hard slog of defeating the Germans on the East coast and around Etna to the British.   He charged around in the strategically unimportant West 'capturing' cities like Palermo defended, if at all, by remnants of Italian units.   When he eventually reached a more strongly defended town he attacked head-on with scant preparation and incurred heavy and needless casualties.
> 
> That this third-rate general saw fit to strut around with two pearl-handed revolvers reveals much about him.
Click to expand...


Uh huh.  







^ Not Patton






^ Patton


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne

So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented

How many lives did he save?


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne
> 
> So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented
> 
> How many lives did he save?



So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that. 
But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

"Bypass Trier. It would take too many divisions to capture it." Omar Bradley to Patton

"Have already taken city, do you want me to give it back?" -- Patton's reply


----------



## Camp

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne
> 
> So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented
> 
> How many lives did he save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that.
> But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.
Click to expand...


Patton needed more than one commander to keep him in check. He came under the direct command of Gen. Omar Bradley and Bradley kept him in check. If Patton had gotten his way and not been held in check at Bastogne he would have turned victory into defeat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne
> 
> So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented
> 
> How many lives did he save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that.
> But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.
Click to expand...


No, not at all. Patton was the best military strategist the Allies had; were he and Bradly to have changed jobs (as they did before the Soldier Slap incident) he would have closed the Falaise Pocket, and would NEVER have supported Operation Market Garden

Looking back you have to wonder if Uncle Joe was behind the publicity around the Soldier Slap and trying to derail Patton


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne
> 
> So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented
> 
> How many lives did he save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that.
> But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all. Patton was the best military strategist the Allies had; were he and Bradly to have changed jobs (as they did before the Soldier Slap incident) he would have closed the Falaise Pocket, and would NEVER have supported Operation Market Garden
> 
> Looking back you have to wonder if Uncle Joe was behind the publicity around the Soldier Slap and trying to derail Patton
Click to expand...


How silly of us not to realize that Stalin was behind the slap, the real question then becomes was this all a soviet plot, if so was Patton just an innocent party?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that.
> But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. Patton was the best military strategist the Allies had; were he and Bradly to have changed jobs (as they did before the Soldier Slap incident) he would have closed the Falaise Pocket, and would NEVER have supported Operation Market Garden
> 
> Looking back you have to wonder if Uncle Joe was behind the publicity around the Soldier Slap and trying to derail Patton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How silly of us not to realize that Stalin was behind the slap, the real question then becomes was this all a soviet plot, if so was Patton just an innocent party?
Click to expand...


Not behind the Slap, but behind the PR to derail Patton because of the Slap. See? The Slap -- so what? 

Stalin had near complete control of the Allies pace into Germany. On faulty intelligence, Ike even sent Patton to the non-existent National Redoubt, again stalling Third Army's Drive into Berlin.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also when Ike called him to the meeting about relieving 101st at Bastogne, Patton already knew why he was being asked to attend and gave his general ordered to draw up a plan to relieve Bastogne
> 
> So when he was asked what Third Army could do, he already had a plan formed and ready to be implemented
> 
> How many lives did he save?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Ike had Patton in the right slot, anything higher might have meant some disasters and anything lower not utilizing his ability. Perhaps the greatest military need is to find people with the ability to place the right people in those right slots? America being a democracy and all, the American people have frowned on misusing its troops and Hitler and Stalin didn't have that problem, and our casualty counts show that.
> But Patton always knew he was being checked by someone higher, and in the end that checking  worked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all. Patton was the best military strategist the Allies had; were he and Bradly to have changed jobs (as they did before the Soldier Slap incident) he would have closed the Falaise Pocket, and would NEVER have supported Operation Market Garden
> 
> Looking back you have to wonder if Uncle Joe was behind the publicity around the Soldier Slap and trying to derail Patton
Click to expand...


To bad you have to bring in the nonsense about Uncle Joe.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all. Patton was the best military strategist the Allies had; were he and Bradly to have changed jobs (as they did before the Soldier Slap incident) he would have closed the Falaise Pocket, and would NEVER have supported Operation Market Garden
> 
> Looking back you have to wonder if Uncle Joe was behind the publicity around the Soldier Slap and trying to derail Patton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How silly of us not to realize that Stalin was behind the slap, the real question then becomes was this all a soviet plot, if so was Patton just an innocent party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not behind the Slap, but behind the PR to derail Patton because of the Slap. See? The Slap -- so what?
> 
> Stalin had near complete control of the Allies pace into Germany. On faulty intelligence, Ike even sent Patton to the non-existent National Redoubt, again stalling Third Army's Drive into Berlin.
Click to expand...


Now you are on to something, not the PR slap thing, the Nat. Redoubt diversion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How silly of us not to realize that Stalin was behind the slap, the real question then becomes was this all a soviet plot, if so was Patton just an innocent party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not behind the Slap, but behind the PR to derail Patton because of the Slap. See? The Slap -- so what?
> 
> Stalin had near complete control of the Allies pace into Germany. On faulty intelligence, Ike even sent Patton to the non-existent National Redoubt, again stalling Third Army's Drive into Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you are on to something, not the PR slap thing, the Nat. Redoubt diversion.
Click to expand...


Again, Patton told Ike, there was no National Redoubt, but after talking with Russian General, Ike ordered Patton to halt his drive on to Berlin and head to the "National Redoubt"


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, old blood and guts.
> I'd like to think that many American commanders kept in mind two things: taking their objective and saving lives. A number of commanders did exactly that, but a few also used the war to enhance their egos. Generally the enlisted soon knew the difference
> I don't know that Patton had ego in mind so much as objectives.
> One of the sad things about some professional soldiers is that they spend all their time simply waiting for a war, and when one comes they have to make the most of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many lives would have been saved  had the US and Brits won the war 6 months sooner and been in Berlin ahead of the Russian?
Click to expand...


Probably quite a lot of lives, mainly Russian and German.

FDR had agreed with Stalin at Yalta that the Soviets would take Berlin and the Eastern half of Germany.   Strategy was decided by the president, not the generals.   So neither Patton's nor Montgomery's ideas of a major strike on a narrow front had a chance of being adopted.


----------



## Steven_R

Peterf said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to love a leader that beat and berated his shell shocked troops...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
Click to expand...


Yep. The Sicily Campaign showed that Patton was more concerned with Patton than he was with US troops. He wanted the glory and was willing to pay for it with their blood. 

Alexander pushed to have Patton Court-Martialed over Sicily, but Ike wouldn't have any of it, largely due to his friendship with Patton.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Steven_R said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He slapped one soldier and this is your definition of him as a whole? Do you think that's reasonable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. The Sicily Campaign showed that Patton was more concerned with Patton than he was with US troops. He wanted the glory and was willing to pay for it with their blood.
> 
> Alexander pushed to have Patton Court-Martialed over Sicily, but Ike wouldn't have any of it, largely due to his friendship with Patton.
Click to expand...


George C Scott was not really Patton

"Patton told the army group commander in no uncertain terms that he wanted his army unleashed. He explained 'it would be inexpedient politically for the Seventh Army not to have equal glory in the final stage of the campaign.' Patton asked for authorization to drive north to split the Axis forces and to clear out remaining resistance in the west. Alexander agreed, providing Seventh Army hold a crucial road network near Caltanissetta in the center of the island. 'If I do what I am going to do,' Patton confided to his diary, 'there is no need of holding anything, but 'it's a mean man who won't promise,' so I did.'

Patton wasted no time putting his new plan into action. He created a Provisional Corps under the command of Major General Geoffrey Keyes, his deputy commander, and sent it northwest towards Palermo while Bradley's II Corps set out for the north coast, knifing across the island's center through tough German defenders. Facing light resistance from largely dispirited Italian troops, Keyes' troops 'moved so fast that often the German and Italian 88s [88mm anti-tank guns], which they captured en route, had not been pointed around or set up to shoot against them.' On July 22 Truscott's Division entered Palermo after covering an astonishing 100 miles in just 72 hours. Wild celebrations and ebullient Sicilians greeted the Americans. Support for Italy's Fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini was nowhere to be seen. The next day the 45th Division of Bradley's II Corps reached the coast at Termini, 25 miles to the east. Until he took matters into his own hands, Patton wrote in his diary, 'Monty was trying to command both armies and getting away with it.' Now Seventh Army was making its mark."

http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-general-george-s-pattons-race-to-capture-messina.htm

No one should remain ignorant, getting all of their information from one movie


----------



## Steven_R

Go read Monty's and Alexander's memoirs. Patton "lost" the orders he got to not take Messina.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Steven_R said:


> Go read Monty's and Alexander's memoirs. Patton "lost" the orders he got to not take Messina.



After Kasserine Pass, the Brits had no respect for the US Army. Patton was reestablishing the brand.


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go read Monty's and Alexander's memoirs. Patton "lost" the orders he got to not take Messina.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After Kasserine Pass, the Brits had no respect for the US Army. Patton was reestablishing the brand.
Click to expand...

 

After Dunkirk the British had little to crow about, but the disparaging of other armies is as old as warfare. 
MacArthur who should have known better said he didn't think much of Australian soldier, but then came Buna. We sterotyped the Japanese soldier as nearsighted and so on but found out differently. It may be what armies and nations do to raise their morale and feel braver, sort of like bar-talk, or maybe board-talk. 
Kasserine was the first experience for the Americans and the first combat is a weeding experience, garrison officers replaced and so on.


----------



## SayMyName

In the end, it worked out the way it should have. The Nazis were crushed. It was best that the Soviets had that opportunity, for I doubt that word "crushed" could have been used if the Western Allies made it to Berlin first. I seem to recall too many old SS around in the Western side (Bad Windsheim, Coburg, Rothenburg, Nuremburg, et al.) when I attended family parties of one of my ex-wives, including my own damn wedding. *wink* Good parties, though.


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> My perception of Patton is that in a personal search for glory he was careless of the lives of the soldiers under his command.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The Sicily Campaign showed that Patton was more concerned with Patton than he was with US troops. He wanted the glory and was willing to pay for it with their blood.
> 
> Alexander pushed to have Patton Court-Martialed over Sicily, but Ike wouldn't have any of it, largely due to his friendship with Patton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George C Scott was not really Patton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one should remain ignorant, getting all of their information from one movie
Click to expand...


Nobody thinks that this Hollywood movie or any other can be relied upon for historical accuracy.   Certainly not Steven R or me.   

Ike would not criticise Patton in public for the simple reason that Americans needed a 'brilliant general' to admire and in the want of a real one Patton was hyped up to fill that role.   His soldiers knew that he was a barely competent braggart but no one was going to ask them for an opinion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peterf said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. The Sicily Campaign showed that Patton was more concerned with Patton than he was with US troops. He wanted the glory and was willing to pay for it with their blood.
> 
> Alexander pushed to have Patton Court-Martialed over Sicily, but Ike wouldn't have any of it, largely due to his friendship with Patton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George C Scott was not really Patton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one should remain ignorant, getting all of their information from one movie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that this Hollywood movie or any other can be relied upon for historical accuracy.   Certainly not Steven R or me.
> 
> Ike would not criticise Patton in public for the simple reason that Americans needed a 'brilliant general' to admire and in the want of a real one Patton was hyped up to fill that role.   His soldiers knew that he was a barely competent braggart but no one was going to ask them for an opinion.
Click to expand...


Well, then you must be a complete fucking ignorant moron, there's no other explanation

To call Patton "Barely competent braggart" is just plain fucking stupid


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peter F...Steve R

How did I not see that?


----------



## Peterf

CrusaderFrank said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> George C Scott was not really Patton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one should remain ignorant, getting all of their information from one movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that this Hollywood movie or any other can be relied upon for historical accuracy.   Certainly not Steven R or me.
> 
> Ike would not criticise Patton in public for the simple reason that Americans needed a 'brilliant general' to admire and in the want of a real one Patton was hyped up to fill that role.   His soldiers knew that he was a barely competent braggart but no one was going to ask them for an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then you must be a complete fucking ignorant moron, there's no other explanation
> 
> To call Patton "Barely competent braggart" is just plain fucking stupid
Click to expand...


IYAOEO - that means in your arrogant and obscenely expressed opinion.

It saddens me that one with whom I often agree should throw a tantrum when he encounters a contrary opinion.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

JakeStarkey said:


> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.



no wonder your such an idiot.

our textbooks in american history classes are edited with what our corrupt government wants you to hear.our government got to rewrite history with THEIR version of events.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Peterf said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that this Hollywood movie or any other can be relied upon for historical accuracy.   Certainly not Steven R or me.
> 
> Ike would not criticise Patton in public for the simple reason that Americans needed a 'brilliant general' to admire and in the want of a real one Patton was hyped up to fill that role.   His soldiers knew that he was a barely competent braggart but no one was going to ask them for an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you must be a complete fucking ignorant moron, there's no other explanation
> 
> To call Patton "Barely competent braggart" is just plain fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IYAOEO - that means in your arrogant and obscenely expressed opinion.
> 
> It saddens me that one with whom I often agree should throw a tantrum when he encounters a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...



crusader retard can face facts about events and politicians that he has always known to be true,,but when someone comes on here and destroys his long held beliefs that he has been brainwashed into belieivng to be true,he lives in denial and out of frustration,he evades facts and has meltdowns knowing he is cornered.


as everybody does who encounters resident troll Crusader Retard,like everybody else that tries to have a discussion with him,I see you also have spotted how Frank ignores facts that prove him wrong and is indeed too arrogant to admit it when he has been proven wrong.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.
> 
> WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.
> 
> and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window



you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.
> 
> WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.
> 
> and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.
Click to expand...





Really....?


Then you might like to consider this:

"At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
*"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest


----------



## LA RAM FAN

PoliticalChic said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.
> 
> WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.
> 
> and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might like to consider this:
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
> *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
> The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest
Click to expand...


yep really.you really should pick up this book of Bunchs "tearing down the myth." and read it.
Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth' : NPR


It shreads to pieces the lies that resident troll Crusader Retard e -whom Im convinced is a couson of Reagans,because of his the meltdowns he has here at this site when he gets proven wrong about reagan never addressing facts.

Its a waste of my time posting this link though because like all reaganuts,you wont read it.anytime i challenge you reagan  worshippers to read it,you never take up that challenge and run away from it. Bunch backs up his book with actual sources from back then in the 80's listed in the book as well. a fact crusader retard always ignores when I say that acting like i never posted that.

you would know all this to be true if you ever actually bothered to read the posts of dante,myself and many others who have shreadded to pieces the lies the CIA controlled media has spread about him ever since his death on this thread here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/277663-reagan-and-conservatives-revisonist-history-101-a.html


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.
> 
> WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.
> 
> and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.
Click to expand...


The USSR collapsed all on their own

LOL

Yeah, send that to Pee Wee Herman, he's looking for new material

LOL

That's funny


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Peterf said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody thinks that this Hollywood movie or any other can be relied upon for historical accuracy.   Certainly not Steven R or me.
> 
> Ike would not criticise Patton in public for the simple reason that Americans needed a 'brilliant general' to admire and in the want of a real one Patton was hyped up to fill that role.   His soldiers knew that he was a barely competent braggart but no one was going to ask them for an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then you must be a complete fucking ignorant moron, there's no other explanation
> 
> To call Patton "Barely competent braggart" is just plain fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IYAOEO - that means in your arrogant and obscenely expressed opinion.
> 
> It saddens me that one with whom I often agree should throw a tantrum when he encounters a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...


Don't take it personally. 

Had Patton and Bradley never changed position as happened after the soldier Slap. The US and Brits would have been in Berlin months ahead of the Soviets.

Patton wrote extensively in his diaries and he was spot on in his assessment of the war effort. As it was happening, he wrote that he wanted to seal shut the Falaise Pocket, he was against Monty's MarketGarden and said Ike was on crack for believing the "National Redoubt"

He all but resigned over the boneheaded decision (Bradley's and Ike's) to left German 7th Army escape Falaise


----------



## CrusaderFrank

LOL 

The USSR Collapsed on their own

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

9/11 inside job said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might like to consider this:
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
> *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
> The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yep really.you really should pick up this book of Bunchs "tearing down the myth." and read it.
> Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth' : NPR
> 
> 
> It shreads to pieces the lies that resident troll Crusader Retard e -whom Im convinced is a couson of Reagans,because of his the meltdowns he has here at this site when he gets proven wrong about reagan never addressing facts.
> 
> Its a waste of my time posting this link though because like all reaganuts,you wont read it.anytime i challenge you reagan  worshippers to read it,you never take up that challenge and run away from it. Bunch backs up his book with actual sources from back then in the 80's listed in the book as well. a fact crusader retard always ignores when I say that acting like i never posted that.
> 
> you would know all this to be true if you ever actually bothered to read the posts of dante,myself and many others who have shreadded to pieces the lies the CIA controlled media has spread about him ever since his death on this thread here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/277663-reagan-and-conservatives-revisonist-history-101-a.html
Click to expand...







"Will Bunch, of the Philadelphia Daily News, was an identified member of JournoList - an email group of approximately 400* "progressive" and socialist *journalists, academics and "new media" activists.

JournoList members reportedly *coordinated their messages in favor of Barack Obama and the Democrats, and against Sarah Palin and the Republican Party.* JournoList was founded in 2007 and was closed down in early 2010."
Will Bunch - KeyWiki



You certainly have the correct avi.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

It's not like I actually lived through the Reagan Years and formed my own opinions, ya know. I need 9/11 and Dante to interpret it for me.

Tell me more about what an awesome guy Gorby was!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The "American" Left can never forgive Reagan for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", promising to destroy them, and overseeing their collapse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtYdjbpBk6A]Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## edthecynic

CrusaderFrank said:


> The "American" Left can never forgive Reagan for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", promising to destroy them, and overseeing their collapse
> 
> Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube


Pink Floyd brought down the wall. St Ronnie merely plagiarized them.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2zpA5dvUl4]Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall - All Parts (best audio) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## regent

Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer? 
What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler. 
The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.





Total nonsense.


"Gorby" is the attempt by the Left to hide the fact that Reagan reversed all of the benefits that FDR provided to make certain that world communism was nourished.

So....you Leftists struggle to siphon off the benefits of Reagan's victory and try to claim it for one of you champions, the Soviet leader.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Gorby" is the attempt by the Left to hide the fact that Reagan reversed all of the benefits that FDR provided to make certain that world communism was nourished.
> 
> So....you Leftists struggle to siphon off the benefits of Reagan's victory and try to claim it for one of you champions, the Soviet leader.
Click to expand...


Another way to look at it is how long did America fight communism? We fought the Korean War, the Vietnam War and  other wars to stop USSR's imperialism? How much did America spend fighting communism in lives and money before Reagan ever took office? 
No one is trying to take away Reagan's moment, another president might not have accepted Gorby's offer, but Reagan did. Was Reagan's acceptance of Gorby's deal a surrender by Reagan or the results of a long bitter war that America has waged against communism over a long span of years? Your attempt to change history, changes nothing, but only reinforces some people's thinking. 
It's now time for some name calling. 

If Gorby had not offered Reagan a deal and Reagan accepted if neither one of those events occurred would we still


----------



## Uncensored2008

PoliticalChic said:


> Total nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Gorby" is the attempt by the Left to hide the fact that Reagan reversed all of the benefits that FDR provided to make certain that world communism was nourished.
> 
> So....you Leftists struggle to siphon off the benefits of Reagan's victory and try to claim it for one of you champions, the Soviet leader.



Isn't it funny that once Communism fell, Gorby became a Global Warmist.

From Red to Green with no change at all......


----------



## PoliticalChic

Uncensored2008 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total nonsense.
> 
> 
> "Gorby" is the attempt by the Left to hide the fact that Reagan reversed all of the benefits that FDR provided to make certain that world communism was nourished.
> 
> So....you Leftists struggle to siphon off the benefits of Reagan's victory and try to claim it for one of you champions, the Soviet leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny that once Communism fell, Gorby became a Global Warmist.
> 
> From Red to Green with no change at all......
Click to expand...





Now....just hold on, Uncensored!

That was from Red to Red!!! 
Give the guy credit for consistency.




 In the Iron Curtain countries, where there were no constitutional democracies and no private property rights, the central planning ethic could be fully realized; the results have been shown to be catastrophic. But, in dire need of a mitigation for their beloved Marxism, the failure, it was posited, was due to the fact that it hadnt been tried using the bounty of the West!

a. When the Soviet Union fell, many fellow travelers migrated to the environmental movement. So much so, that the movement is often referred to as the Watermelon Movement: green on the outside, red on the inside.

b. Delingpole does an excellent job of cutting through he jargon and presenting the essentials. But where the book really shines is exposing the politics behind this manufactured crisis. From a review of Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have been taken to school time and time again that contrary to your lies,reagan did not beat the USSR.that the soviet union collpased on its own and it did not matter who was the president at the time reagans cousin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might like to consider this:
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
> *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
> The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yep really.you really should pick up this book of Bunchs "tearing down the myth." and read it.
> Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth' : NPR
> 
> 
> It shreads to pieces the lies that resident troll Crusader Retard e -whom Im convinced is a couson of Reagans,because of his the meltdowns he has here at this site when he gets proven wrong about reagan never addressing facts.
> 
> Its a waste of my time posting this link though because like all reaganuts,you wont read it.anytime i challenge you reagan  worshippers to read it,you never take up that challenge and run away from it. Bunch backs up his book with actual sources from back then in the 80's listed in the book as well. a fact crusader retard always ignores when I say that acting like i never posted that.
> 
> you would know all this to be true if you ever actually bothered to read the posts of dante,myself and many others who have shreadded to pieces the lies the CIA controlled media has spread about him ever since his death on this thread here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/277663-reagan-and-conservatives-revisonist-history-101-a.html
Click to expand...


oh one more thing.this thread isnt about Reagan so I wont post it here but over here on post # 1349 on this Reagan thread of Danta's,here are more facts that show Crusader Retard and the other reaganut trolls are indeed trolls who ignore facts that Reagan had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the soviet union.

apparently high ranking credible officials like this guy in this video in that post of mine  are not credible to trolls like Crusader Retard and the thread starter of this thread though.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-91.html

as always,you Reaganut trolls get your ass handed to you on a platter and demonstrate your ignorance about the pathetic lame duck president ronnie reagan.

Now with Crusader Retard,I can understand HIM being a long deep close cousin of the Reagans and all,why he  he TROLLS here everyday all the time and goes into meltdown mode throwing tantrems when he cant refute facts.

you others are idiots though to ignore all these posts on this thread by danta, myself and others that have taken you reaganuts to school and handed your asses to you on a platter time and time again over there watching you all always change the subject when cornered NEVER addressing facts.  proving you all are easy for the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh can easily manipulate your minds.congrats on demonstrating how they so easily can manipulate your minds with lies spun by them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might like to consider this:
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
> *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
> The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep really.you really should pick up this book of Bunchs "tearing down the myth." and read it.
> Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth' : NPR
> 
> 
> It shreads to pieces the lies that resident troll Crusader Retard e -whom Im convinced is a couson of Reagans,because of his the meltdowns he has here at this site when he gets proven wrong about reagan never addressing facts.
> 
> Its a waste of my time posting this link though because like all reaganuts,you wont read it.anytime i challenge you reagan  worshippers to read it,you never take up that challenge and run away from it. Bunch backs up his book with actual sources from back then in the 80's listed in the book as well. a fact crusader retard always ignores when I say that acting like i never posted that.
> 
> you would know all this to be true if you ever actually bothered to read the posts of dante,myself and many others who have shreadded to pieces the lies the CIA controlled media has spread about him ever since his death on this thread here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/277663-reagan-and-conservatives-revisonist-history-101-a.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh one more thing.this thread isnt about Reagan so I wont post it here but over here on post # 1349 on this Reagan thread of Danta's,here are more facts that show Crusader Retard and the other reaganut trolls are indeed trolls who ignore facts that Reagan had NOTHING to do with the collapase of the soviet union.
> 
> apparently high ranking credible officials like this guy in this video in that post of mine  are not credible to trolls like Crusader Retard and the thread starter of this thread though.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-91.html
> 
> as always,you Reaganut trolls get your ass handed to you on a platter and demonstrate your ignorance about the pathetic lame duck president ronnie reagan.
> 
> Now with Crusader Retard,I can understand HIM being a long deep close cousin of the Reagans and all,why he  he TROLLS here everyday all the time and goes into meltdown mode throwing tantrems when he cant refute facts.
> 
> you others are idiots though to ignore all these posts on this thread by danta, myself and others that have taken you reaganuts to school and handed your asses to you on a platter time and time again over there watching you all always change the subject when cornered NEVER addressing facts.  proving you all are easy for the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh can easily manipulate your minds.congrats on demonstrating how they so easily can manipulate your minds with lies spun by them.
Click to expand...


^ CIA Disinformation specialist, he's on the other thread posting interviews with his CIA Buddies


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> The "American" Left can never forgive Reagan for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", promising to destroy them, and overseeing their collapse
> 
> Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube



there goes the resident troll again retreating to his pathetic video when cornered by that book i mentioned  that shreads to pieces his lies.ignoring the facts in the book with actual sources  and only listening to some irrelevent video.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

before my last post,someone farted in here.
hey crusader retard,when your ready to grow up and read the book and discuss his book that you have proven in spades you wont read ,well talk.

otherwise im not interested in hearing your whiney meltdowns you have here everyday when your cornered.since you wont grow up and read the book and can only can post this all the time-and always do this as well

here is what else i have to say to you troll.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Who let the troll out?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. World domination and control under one government....The United Nations formed through the efforts of Soviet agents in the United States Government
> The end of national sovereignty.
> 
> 2. Heavy progressive taxation and taxation of inheritances.
> Mandated in chapter two of The Communist Manifesto
> Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)
> 
> 3. Control of education...resulting in a population that is unaware of the dominance of collectivism at the cost of individualism....e.g., you.
> Ibid.
> 
> 
> 
> Had it not been for President Reagan, Stalin's plan would have been totally and irrevocably successful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, as for "Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings."
> 
> Herein you highlight perhaps the major difference between the two of us.
> I am eminently equipped to research and make judgments about any.....any.....topic, whether it be science, or social science.
> 
> 
> Unlike you, lazy and ill-equipped in ability, I take all challenges and accept no answer that I have not investigated.
> That is why you are no more than a follower, a lock-step Liberal.
> 
> And will remain so.
Click to expand...


That was Congressman Larry McDonalds belief.  He was Patton's first cousin and was assassinated by the Russians when they shot his plane down.   In a crossfire interview Larry McDonald puts the blame squarely on the UN and NGO's such as CFR, Trilat, Bilderberg and also accused those at the higher echelons of CIA as assisting. Everything he warned of decades ago is now coming to fruition.  Patton should have been permitted to finish the job.  Huge mistake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.



Reagan was "Fearful"

LOL

He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"

LOL


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Congressman Larry McDonald warning Americans about the UN and NGO communist agenda:

[ame=http://youtu.be/-jG58LN3RUU]Larry McDonald - John Birch Society Chairman - CFR NWO - 1983 2/2 - YouTube[/ame]





I consider Congressman Larry McDonald to be a true hero.  His plane was shot down by the Russians a few months after this interview.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "American" Left can never forgive Reagan for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", promising to destroy them, and overseeing their collapse
> 
> Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there goes the resident troll again retreating to his pathetic video when cornered by that book i mentioned  that shreads to pieces his lies.ignoring the facts in the book with actual sources  and only listening to some irrelevent video.
Click to expand...


Maybe you can post an interview with another of your CIA Friends


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


An atomic war is not the same as a playground brawl, where one insults the other while wallowing in one's own bravado. If Reagan wasn't fearful of an atomic war he should never have been president, and should have asked for his money back from the growing-up school.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atomic war is not the same as a playground brawl, where one insults the other while wallowing in one's own bravado. If Reagan wasn't fearful of an atomic war he should never have been president, and should have asked for his money back from the growing-up school.
Click to expand...




Facile.


One wonders, reggie, why you choose not to indict Franklin Roosevelt for making certain that Stalin had said atomic weapons?





1. Major George Lacey Jordan started a diary in 1942 when, as liaison to Soviet officials receiving materiel via lend-lease, he grew suspicious about the nature of these airborne shipments from the US over the Arctic to the USSR. 

Stationed at Great Falls, Montana, Major Jordan documented evidence that Americans high up within *the FDR administration were providing the USSR with the raw materials, technology, equipment, and know-how to make atomic bombs. *And this at a time when our own were still under development in supposed secrecy.

As catalogued in the diaries, all the materiel required for the creation of an atomic pile was transferred to the USSR as early as 1942. The materiel included bomb powder* (uranium oxide), graphite in numerous forms, cadmium, cobalt, thorium, and $13,000,000 worth of aluminum tubes. *

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






And the result of FDR's actions?

2. And the result, a disaster for America. 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





3. 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.

a. 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.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An atomic war is not the same as a playground brawl, where one insults the other while wallowing in one's own bravado. If Reagan wasn't fearful of an atomic war he should never have been president, and should have asked for his money back from the growing-up school.
Click to expand...


Reagan was fearful that he would listen to the advise of Democrats and Communists

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you might like to consider this:
> 
> "At no point, however, did Gorbachev want to yield Moscow's pride of place as the number two superpower. And he was blissfully confident that the risks were tolerable:
> *"There is no reason to fear the collapse or the end of socialism", Gorbachev assured Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu three weeks after the Berlin Wall had been breached *and three weeks before the Romanian dictator was executed by his own people.
> Reagan was made from far sterner stuff than was his Soviet counterpart. "
> The 'Amazing and Mysterious Life' of Ronald Reagan | The National Interest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep really.you really should pick up this book of Bunchs "tearing down the myth." and read it.
> Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth' : NPR
> 
> 
> It shreads to pieces the lies that resident troll Crusader Retard e -whom Im convinced is a couson of Reagans,because of his the meltdowns he has here at this site when he gets proven wrong about reagan never addressing facts.
> 
> Its a waste of my time posting this link though because like all reaganuts,you wont read it.anytime i challenge you reagan  worshippers to read it,you never take up that challenge and run away from it. Bunch backs up his book with actual sources from back then in the 80's listed in the book as well. a fact crusader retard always ignores when I say that acting like i never posted that.
> 
> you would know all this to be true if you ever actually bothered to read the posts of dante,myself and many others who have shreadded to pieces the lies the CIA controlled media has spread about him ever since his death on this thread here.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/277663-reagan-and-conservatives-revisonist-history-101-a.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh one more thing.this thread isnt about Reagan so I wont post it here but over here on post # 1349 on this Reagan thread of Danta's,here are more facts that show Crusader Retard and the other reaganut trolls are indeed trolls who ignore facts that Reagan had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the soviet union.
> 
> apparently high ranking credible officials like this guy in this video in that post of mine  are not credible to trolls like Crusader Retard and the thread starter of this thread though.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/histo...onservatives-revisonist-history-101-a-91.html
> 
> as always,you Reaganut trolls get your ass handed to you on a platter and demonstrate your ignorance about the pathetic lame duck president ronnie reagan.
> 
> Now with Crusader Retard,I can understand HIM being a long deep close cousin of the Reagans and all,why he  he TROLLS here everyday all the time and goes into meltdown mode throwing tantrems when he cant refute facts.
> 
> you others are idiots though to ignore all these posts on this thread by danta, myself and others that have taken you reaganuts to school and handed your asses to you on a platter time and time again over there watching you all always change the subject when cornered NEVER addressing facts.  proving you all are easy for the CIA controlled media and mouthpieces full of hot air like Rush Limbaugh can easily manipulate your minds.congrats on demonstrating how they so easily can manipulate your minds with lies spun by them.
Click to expand...


9/11 CIA troll... You keep saying "facts" but its like "inconceivable" if you know what I mean

Sent from my Chinese Supercomputer made from XBox parts Bush sent to China


----------



## Uncensored2008

regent said:


> An atomic war is not the same as a playground brawl, where one insults the other while wallowing in one's own bravado. If Reagan wasn't fearful of an atomic war he should never have been president, and should have asked for his money back from the growing-up school.



Yeah, because when he brought down your beloved Soviet Union, he ended the specter of nuclear war. And that makes you sad.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

CrusaderFrank said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "American" Left can never forgive Reagan for calling their home team an "Evil Empire", promising to destroy them, and overseeing their collapse
> 
> Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall" - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there goes the resident troll again retreating to his pathetic video when cornered by that book i mentioned  that shreads to pieces his lies.ignoring the facts in the book with actual sources  and only listening to some irrelevent video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you can post an interview with another of your CIA Friends
Click to expand...


maybe you can grow up kid and stop being afraid to read the book.

you always demostrate to everyone on these boards your hypocrisy.thanks for giving me ammunition to destroy your lover reagan talking about the CIA  because as i have said many times before-only to watch you cowardly run away from this fact evading it always changing the subject-when carter-our last decent president we have had since JFK our last GREAT president,when carter got in office,he like JFK,also tried to get rid of the CIA. 

He fired Fords appointe CIA director and futuer president George Bush sr and brought in Stansfield Turner who immediately cleaned house getting rid of all CIA covert specialists and reformed the CIA.soon as Carter got out of office,Reagan got in,fired Turner and replaced him with William Casey who made the CIA happy again returning them to their ways of covert secret operations and dirty tricks again. as always,in your desperate attempts to defend your lover and cousin reagan,all you did was prove FOR me,how he was evil and corrupt unlike carter.


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the trolls.



Says the homeless guy, posting on a library computer, while muttering about how aliens are eating his brain waves.....


----------



## Unkotare

!

Did this guy finally get so nuts they kicked him out of the institution...I mean the Conspiracy Forum?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> there goes the resident troll again retreating to his pathetic video when cornered by that book i mentioned  that shreads to pieces his lies.ignoring the facts in the book with actual sources  and only listening to some irrelevent video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can post an interview with another of your CIA Friends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe you can grow up kid and stop being afraid to read the book.
> 
> you always demostrate to everyone on these boards your hypocrisy.thanks for giving me ammunition to destroy your lover reagan talking about the CIA  because as i have said many times before-only to watch you cowardly run away from this fact evading it always changing the subject-when carter-our last decent president we have had since JFK our last GREAT president,when carter got in office,he like JFK,also tried to get rid of the CIA.
> 
> He fired Fords appointe CIA director and futuer president George Bush sr and brought in Stansfield Turner who immediately cleaned house getting rid of all CIA covert specialists and reformed the CIA.soon as Carter got out of office,Reagan got in,fired Turner and replaced him with William Casey who made the CIA happy again returning them to their ways of covert secret operations and dirty tricks again. as always,in your desperate attempts to defend your lover and cousin reagan,all you did was prove FOR me,how he was evil and corrupt unlike carter.
Click to expand...

 
trolls like this thread starter are brainwashed by the CIA controlled media and people like william casey. casey AGAIN was evil and corrupt unlike stansfield turner. who is william casey? these were HIS words,not mine.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


William Casey

congrats on proving to the world how frauds and liars like william casey and ronald reagan brainwashed your warped little minds.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from the trolls.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5AoBglEBDw]CIA agent talks about aliens - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> there goes the resident troll again retreating to his pathetic video when cornered by that book i mentioned  that shreads to pieces his lies.ignoring the facts in the book with actual sources  and only listening to some irrelevent video.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can post an interview with another of your CIA Friends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe you can grow up kid and stop being afraid to read the book.
> 
> you always demostrate to everyone on these boards your hypocrisy.thanks for giving me ammunition to destroy your lover reagan talking about the CIA  because as i have said many times before-only to watch you cowardly run away from this fact evading it always changing the subject-when carter-our last decent president we have had since JFK our last GREAT president,when carter got in office,he like JFK,also tried to get rid of the CIA.
> 
> He fired Fords appointe CIA director and futuer president George Bush sr and brought in Stansfield Turner who immediately cleaned house getting rid of all CIA covert specialists and reformed the CIA.soon as Carter got out of office,Reagan got in,fired Turner and replaced him with William Casey who made the CIA happy again returning them to their ways of covert secret operations and dirty tricks again. as always,in your desperate attempts to defend your lover and cousin reagan,all you did was prove FOR me,how he was evil and corrupt unlike carter.
Click to expand...


Like JFK, Reagan took a bullet for trying to go against the establishment

Or did that never happen?


----------



## Uncensored2008

9/11 inside job said:


> Ahh l the government handlers of these trolls are REALLY getting desperate this truth about reagan is being exposed the way they sent them here so QUICKLY after my last post to troll this thread. the truth hurts i see.



Oh yes, everyone is in fear that a toothless hobo like you, standing at the freeway offramp, will expose them...

You've got it all figured out.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Here is the REAL Ronald reagan exposed.facts you tolls NEVER have an answer for.

Reagan's was the most corrupt administration in the lifetime of most Americans


Let us remember Reagan as he really was : 



Liar 
Thief 
Mass murderer 
Supporter of abortion 
War criminal 
 
 

Destroyer of freedom 
Traitor of the American people 
Corporate whore 
Destroyer of the environment


----------



## LA RAM FAN

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe you can grow up kid and stop being afraid to read the book.
> 
> you always demostrate to everyone on these boards your hypocrisy.thanks for giving me ammunition to destroy your lover reagan talking about the CIA  because as i have said many times before-only to watch you cowardly run away from this fact evading it always changing the subject-when carter-our last decent president we have had since JFK our last GREAT president,when carter got in office,he like JFK,also tried to get rid of the CIA.
> 
> He fired Fords appointe CIA director and futuer president George Bush sr and brought in Stansfield Turner who immediately cleaned house getting rid of all CIA covert specialists and reformed the CIA.soon as Carter got out of office,Reagan got in,fired Turner and replaced him with William Casey who made the CIA happy again returning them to their ways of covert secret operations and dirty tricks again. as always,in your desperate attempts to defend your lover and cousin reagan,all you did was prove FOR me,how he was evil and corrupt unlike carter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like JFK, Reagan took a bullet for trying to go against the establishment
> 
> Or did that never happen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck Reagan cousin,i took you to school on this once before,better bone up on memory courses and your reading comprehension skills caus i already told you this.
> 
> yeah he took a bullet for ORIGINALLY in his first two months of office, going against the establishment like JFK did.
> 
> Like JFK in his FIRST two months in office,he was like JFK,going against the establishment,like JFK,he also was trying to get the word out about UFO's to the american people,but AFTER he took the bullet,his policys DRAMATICALLY changed for the worse for the american people .
> 
> He THEN started serving wall street and the establishment being their willing puppet seving them instead of the american people.
> 
> They fired a warning shot at Carter not trying to kill him.just to warn him.Its not near as well known as reagans is because it wasnt shown all over the news everywhere like reagans has been over the years. The CIA found about about carter trying to get rid of them so they fired a warning shot at him in his last year in office when he got serious about trying to get rid of them.He then backed off.
> 
> They sent a message to him,-we know what your doing,stop it or you will suffer the same fate kennedy did.carter caved in.so did reagan after the assassian.BOTH of them became willing puppets for the establishment.they were not brave like JFK was.Kennedy knew they were plotting against him,but he wasnt a coward like reagan and carter were.HE nebver became their puppet like they did and went to his grave serving the american people instead of wall street liek your lover reagan and carter did.
> 
> oh and nice game of  dodgeball form you  as always,dodging how  reagan served the establishment firing carters appointee Turner from the CIA who cleaned that organization up,and brought in dirty tricks specialist Casey.miserable fail as always.
> 
> again you really shold do yourself a favor,all you ever do hereis HELP me prove how your an idiot retard.
Click to expand...


people talk about the assassination attempt on Reagan whom he got the message to play ball with us or you will end up like kennedy because the FACTS prove after that,that he started serving wall street and the establishment and not the people and that his policys DRASTICALLY changed after that.

well carter got the message as well and stopped his plans to try and get rid of the CIA completely after that.proof in the pudding there was an assassination attempt on carter as well-not to kill him but to give him a warning he would end up like jfk if he continued with his plans to get rid of the CIA.


1979 U.S. President Jimmy Carter Assassination Attempt: CIA To Carter &#8220;Play Ball Or We&#8217;ll Kill You Like We Did JFK.&#8221;

Monday, December 31, 2012 14:27


On May 5, 1979, Raymond Lee Harvey was arrested by the Secret Service while he awaited the arrival of Jimmy Carter at a Cinco de Mayo Mexican festival at the Los Angeles Civic Center Mall. Shortly thereafter, they arrested Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz, who had been standing nearby. Raymond Lee Harvey had been carrying a revolver and blank cartridges.

His story, later confirmed by Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz, was that they had been part of a plot involving two Mexican men who had been staying at the nearby Alan Hotel, and who were going to shoot Carter. Shooting the blanks was supposed to create a distraction for the real assassins.

When police checked the hotel they found an empty shotgun case and three rounds of live ammunition in a room rented by a Mexican man who had checked out on the day of Carter&#8217;s visit.

Although the authorities had what appears to be a confession backed up by some hard evidence at the hotel, charges were apparently dismissed on the basis of insufficient evidence. &#8216;Raymond Lee Harvey&#8217; plus &#8216;Osvaldo Espinoza Ortiz&#8217; equals &#8216;Lee Harvey Osvaldo&#8217;, which is close enough to send Carter a message. He appears to have received the message:

Carter and Reagan were both cowards because they caved in to the establishment and served them after that.Kennedy did not.

JFK was our last REAL president.One who did not bow down to the establishment and served the american people instead of wall street and the establishment.he knew they would kill him but he forged ahead anyways trying to do something about the corruption in our government that went on back then and still continues today.He was a patriot. the CIA is the reason the world is in the mess that it is today and had JFK lived,he would have gotten rid of them and the world would not be screwed up with phony wars around the country killing innocent women and children everyday like they are happening now today.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Quote: Originally Posted by CrusaderFrank  
Patton said that WWII was a huge strategic failure for the US and Brits because is left much of Eastern Europe in the hands of "the descendants of Genghis Khan" and he was correct.

WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.

and Liberal apologists for the USSR can kiss my Santa-white ass in Macy's window




WWII left Eastern Europe enslaved to Soviet Communism and it wasn't until Reagan beat the USSR that they would be free again.


It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan&#8217;s and Thatcher&#8217;s unremitting malice toward the communist state. 

Reagan Didn?t End the Cold War » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/why-ronald-reagan-didnt-r_b_819445.html


as always,you get your ass handed to you on a platter from me.

knowing your fucked up logic you have,you'll probably post that video of reagans tear down that wall speech and say you countered me.


----------



## Toro

lol


----------



## regent

9/11 inside job said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was fearful of an atomic war and when Gorby offered Reagan a deal, Reagan grabbed it. Stalin would not have offered the deal but Gorby did, and what American president since Hoover would not have also grabbed the USSR offer?
> What we might remember is that Marxian communism had no chance of ever lasting. The USSR dropped it a few years after their revolution, also America fought the USSR every step of the way except when America needed the Russians to fight Hitler.
> The end result of the war, the USSR economic system and America's long battle resulted in Gorby's deal, and while I'm  no Reagan fan at least he recognized a deal when offereed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9XHwmAojLw]I Love That Story - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No icon
> 
> yeah and if you were not such a dubfuck troll who worship reagan,you would see your bias and understand that because of those actions of Regan,he PROLONGED THE COLD WAR instead of ending it dumdfuck.
Click to expand...


Well maybe Reagan wasn't fearful of war even an atomic war, I mean Reagan served during WWII, he made movies and after some studio work would go home and get tucked in for the night. I bet he thought: Gee wars ain't so bad but tomorrow another tough day at the studio.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

regent said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> I Love That Story - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No icon
> 
> yeah and if you were not such a dubfuck troll who worship reagan,you would see your bias and understand that because of those actions of Regan,he PROLONGED THE COLD WAR instead of ending it dumdfuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe Reagan wasn't fearful of war even an atomic war, I mean Reagan served during WWII, he made movies and after some studio work would go home and get tucked in for the night. I bet he thought: Gee wars ain't so bad but tomorrow another tough day at the studio.
Click to expand...


Reagans stupity of putting missiles in europe only delayed the cold war that Gorbechev ended.only an idiot would believe that Reagan ended the cold war.

these facts here below cant be denied.

It should be remembered that Reagan was in office for over four years before Gorbachev came to power, and Thatcher for six years, but in that period of time nothing of any significance in the way of Soviet reform took place despite Reagan&#8217;s and Thatcher&#8217;s unremitting malice toward the communist state.

The Russian  and the american people have ONLY Gorbechev to think for the collapse of communism in the soviet Union.


----------



## PoliticalChic

"Obama's press secretary decorates home with Soviet propaganda...
But keen observers may notice the kitchen decor in the photo: Soviet propaganda posters. They really are the perfect pop of color whether you are the dour and sincere Nikita Khrushchev or the cheeky press-wrangler for a president who is constantly accused of being a socialist himself."
Obama's press secretary decorates home with Soviet propaganda - The Week



Then, there was this....

"OBAMA DEBATE COACH NAMED MAO AS FAVORITE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER
......Anita Dunn. She&#8217;s the former White House staffer who said this to a group of high schoolers in June 2009:
The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa...."
Obama Debate Coach Named Mao as Favorite Political Philosopher



Still doubt that Stalin and the Soviets won?


----------



## rightwinger

Can someone explain how Putin and Cheney are any different?


----------



## westwall

rightwinger said:


> Can someone explain how Putin and Cheney are any different?








Why don't you tell us how they're the same...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Can someone explain how Putin and Cheney are any different?






So...I brought up some examples of Democrats endorsing communists, and you felt obliged to provide the usual attempt at equivalence that evil uses to mitigate their side/actions.


How predictable.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain how Putin and Cheney are any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...I brought up some examples of Democrats endorsing communists, and you felt obliged to provide the usual attempt at equivalence that evil uses to mitigate their side/actions.
> 
> 
> How predictable.
Click to expand...


Shows who really won WWII

Our Republican Party now worships Russian dictators


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> He put Pershing II and Minutemen Missiles in Europe because he was "Fearful"
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> I Love That Story - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No icon
> 
> yeah and if you were not such a dubfuck troll who worship reagan,you would see your bias and understand that because of those actions of Regan,he PROLONGED THE COLD WAR instead of ending it dumdfuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well maybe Reagan wasn't fearful of war even an atomic war, I mean Reagan served during WWII, he made movies and after some studio work would go home and get tucked in for the night. I bet he thought: Gee wars ain't so bad but tomorrow another tough day at the studio.
Click to expand...







Did you vote for the rapist who wrote to Col. Holmes that he despised the American military?

'Cause, you know, if you did, it would cast quite the green glow on stuff you post about the great man, Ronald Reagan....the guy who won the Cold War without firing a shot.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone explain how Putin and Cheney are any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...I brought up some examples of Democrats endorsing communists, and you felt obliged to provide the usual attempt at equivalence that evil uses to mitigate their side/actions.
> 
> 
> How predictable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shows who really won WWII
> 
> Our Republican Party now worships Russian dictators
Click to expand...






Jay Carney's not a Republican.

Anita Dunn's not a Republican.

A Republican didn't promise the Soviets that he'd be more flexible.



I appreciate your doubling down on the attempt to whitewash the communists....


If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
> Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
> The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.
> 
> 
> 7. Move forward:
> *The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.
> 
> Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
> "This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.255.
> 
> 9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."*
> Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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
> 
> 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 [Hopkins] 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*





"The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have. 

Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. 

Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation."
Gates of Vienna: Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Please "prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,'"
> 
> Your suggestion to not do so is as sensible as review committees by non-scientists of scientific findings.



nat4900 lol!!! Did you bother to read the OP before you posted that?!!!!  LOL


----------



## Bleipriester

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
> Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
> The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.
> 
> 
> 7. Move forward:
> *The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.
> 
> Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
> "This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.255.
> 
> 9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."*
> Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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
> 
> 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 [Hopkins] 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have.
> 
> Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about.
> 
> Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation."
> Gates of Vienna: Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism
Click to expand...

I love Americans who can´t distinguish their libs from Soviet socialism. So cute! Leave it alone. It has nothing to do with that liberalism. They were that liberal, homosexuality earned you five years of labor camp - the dream of every gay.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bleipriester said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we....really?
> 
> 
> Or are we the victims of hugely successful manipulation by the Soviets, tied to politicians,  weak of mind and/or character?
> 
> 
> Were we fighting the Nazis, with the aid of our Soviet ally?
> 
> Or were these two 'bad cop- good cop' playing the rubes of America?
> Rather than prove your case by referring to 'historians' or 'textbooks,' let's look at the final result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Background on the two* "mortal enemies," *Communists and Nazis.
> 
> A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...."
> NYTimes, November 27, 1925.
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of *National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism."*
> George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 2.  When Hitler began his advances on other countries, Stalin refused to join the nations talking of stopping him. Stalin was, in fact, pleased that Hitler was destroying the old order throughout Europe. "There will be no parliaments, no trade unions, no armies, no governments....then Stalin will come as the liberator...millions of people will be sitting in concentration camps, hoping someone will liberate them, then Stalin and the Red Army will come and liberate them. That was his plan."
> Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> 3. But Hitler didn't have the supplies nor resources he needed, so *August 23, 1939, Soviet Russia' Foreign Minister Molotov signs the Nazi-Soviet Non-aggression Pact while German Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop and Soviet leader Josef Stalin look on, while standing under a portrait of Lenin materials to be provided in later economic agreements.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. *September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East.* The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the *hammer and sickle along side the swastika.*
> 
> a.  The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.
> 
> 5. Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.
> 
> a.  Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Viktor Suvorov " is a Soviet Army Cold War-era Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom, eventually becoming a famous writer and historian." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In his 2008 "The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II," Suvorov explains that *Stalin materially assisted Nazi Germany *in its aggression so that the Soviet Union could intervene at the proper time and seize all of continental Europe for itself. Hopefully, Germany and the West would exhaust themselves fighting each other.
> 
> 
> 
> So....their doctrines were essentially the same, they attacked the same targets, they used the same methods of governance....and agreed to split Europe between themselves.
> Stalin 'used' Hitler....but expected to, ultimately,overpower him.
> The aim of communism was, and is, world domination.
> 
> 
> 7. Move forward:
> *The war ended with the Soviet military occupation of half of Europe.* There is no possible argument that could conclude that Joseph Stalin was any better than Adolph Hitler. None. Yet, "Nazi" produces a visceral response. "Communist," none such.
> 
> Yet many answer the title of the OP with "democracy won."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Lies, cover-up, *censorship by American leaders* cloud the true nature of the victory of WWII.
> "This [the results of WWII] was, after all, the Kremlin dream, the Communist grail. Now it was real, its headquarters rising in concrete and steel over Turtle Bay *in New York City*, brought into existence by a bevy of *Soviet agents *lodged deep in the vitals of the  United States and other Western governments.....Think about what [Harry] Hopkins, [Alger] Hiss and [Harry Dexter] White actually accomplished."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.255.
> 
> 9. *"Thus the world found itself in 1945 *at the conclusion of catastrophe with a whole series of* international institutions-* ranging from commercial agreements , to exchange rates, to war credits and loans, to the administration of territories without governments, to the ambulating world without citizenship, to* the United Nations itself*- which had been imposed by the United States. But even more important was the fact that *all the "charters" and constitutions of these world institutions had been composed by America's leading Soviet agents."*
> Gregor Dallas, "1945: The War That Never Ended," p. 413-414
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10.  In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador (to Moscow) 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
> 
> 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 [Hopkins] 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The simple fact is that we never won the Cold War as decisively as we should have.
> 
> Yes, the Berlin Wall fell, and the Soviet Union collapsed. This removed the military threat to the West, and the most hardcore, economic Marxism suffered a blow as a credible alternative. However, one of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about.
> 
> Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist rhetoric and thinking have penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the Universities to the media. Islamic terrorism is explained as caused by “poverty, oppression and marginalization,” a classic, Marxist interpretation."
> Gates of Vienna: Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love Americans who can´t distinguish their libs from Soviet socialism. So cute! Leave it alone. It has nothing to do with that liberalism. They were that liberal, homosexuality earned you five years of labor camp - the dream of every gay.
Click to expand...




Although I have no love for imbeciles like you... I do try to educate them.

Here we go:

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

*They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism






How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.


In your face, you imbecile.....
...You're so dense that light bends around you.


----------



## Bleipriester

PoliticalChic said:


> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”


Your government. They also love his Machiavellianism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bleipriester said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> 
> 
> Your government. They also love his Machiavellianism.
Click to expand...



It was fun putting you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.

Drop back any time you need be slapped around again.


----------



## Bleipriester

PoliticalChic said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> 
> 
> Your government. They also love his Machiavellianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was fun putting you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.
> 
> Drop back any time you need be slapped around again.
Click to expand...

Claim your victory as long as they don´t have invented the proper pills yet. In fact you have a booger, Liberals, and everything and everyone you consider bad is equal to Liberals. Pure black and white.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Bleipriester said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”
> 
> 
> 
> Your government. They also love his Machiavellianism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It was fun putting you in your place....last seat in the dumb row.
> 
> Drop back any time you need be slapped around again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claim your victory as long as they don´t have invented the proper pills yet. In fact you have a booger, Liberals, and everything and everyone you consider bad is equal to Liberals. Pure black and white.
Click to expand...



Claiming???

Claiming????

You scuttled off with your tail between your legs.



Begging for another chance?
Sure.

Here we go:

Let's begin with definitions.
Nazism, communism, socialism..Liberalism, Progressivism,.and fascism....

1. Which stem from the works of Karl Marx?
2. Which is a form of command and control big government?
3. Which has no problem with genocide, actual or figurative, as an accepted procedure on its political enemies?
4. Which is based on the collective over the individual?
5. Which oppresses and/or slaughters its own citizens as pro forma (including depriving them of a living)....?
6. Which represents totalitarian governance?
7. Which believes that mandating/dictating every aspect of their citizen's lives is their prerogative?
8. Which aims for an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life

9. Which restricts free speech and thought?

10. Which can be summed up in Hegel's “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest”



And, of course, they all are do...they are all consubstantial.

*They are all the same in their ultimate plan for society: a totalitarian regime with the peons marching lock-step.*



Nazism

Communism

Socialism

Fascism

Progressivism

Liberalism






How about pointing out which of them are defenders of religious, political, and economic freedom, and recognize the individual as the most important element of society?
Right....none of 'em.
Only right wing philosophies...i.e., conservatism.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Di
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*



Well many people did.

The United States absolutely- we ended up being the most powerful nation on earth, the only intact major industrial power and without millions of our citizens killed, and our government intact.

Nazi Germany- defeated.
Fascist Italy- defeated.
Imperial Japan- defeated.
All three to become our close allies.

USSR- no longer exists. 

And the United States is still the most powerful country on earth.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Di
> 
> *So....who won WWII?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well many people did.
> 
> The United States absolutely- we ended up being the most powerful nation on earth, the only intact major industrial power and without millions of our citizens killed, and our government intact.
> 
> Nazi Germany- defeated.
> Fascist Italy- defeated.
> Imperial Japan- defeated.
> All three to become our close allies.
> 
> USSR- no longer exists.
> 
> And the United States is still the most powerful country on earth.
Click to expand...




Gads, you're a fool.

But.....exactly what the Democrats want you to be.


1. The Socialist International carries the torch for Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, and Josef Stalin. Pay no attention to the desperate attempts by socialists to distance themselves from Stalin. For our purposes, it suffices to observe that *every single tenet of the Socialist International is the exact opposite of the principles upon which America was founded, and which define the U.S. Constitution.*

For our purposes it suffices also to observe that members of the U.S. Congress are required to furnish an oath whereby they will preserve, protect, and defend said Constitution.

DSA/USA, the "Democratic Socialists of America" are the U.S. arm of the Socialist International. They share the symbol of the fist holding the rose, and they share the tasks to be accomplished - in our case, an altogether different America. You may verify all this at www.dsausa.org.

Some time ago - the date is missing from the descriptions - 58 members of the U.S. House of Representatives formed a subdivision of the Democratic Socialists of America and called it* the Progressive Caucus.* Their statement of purpose, as well as their membership list, formed an integral part of the dsausa web site. The membership list appeared on the screen with the continuous background of the fist holding the rose, should anyone have missed the connection with the Socialist International.

Following the exposure in this newspaper of the Progressive Caucus (November 10 & 11, 1998), action was taken to hide the true nature of the organization, and its membership list was eventually taken off the dsausa web site. In fact, the only listing to be found right now is a web site maintained by Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only member professing to be a socialist. But interested parties can type "Progressive Caucus" in a search engine, such as Google, and find the dsausa link right up front. The link brings up a screen saying "the page cannot be displayed," but the listing confirms its prior existence.

2. "Question: If an international organization existed to carry the torch for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and if a person running for Minority Leader had past or present ties to such an organization, what are the chances the New York Times would find it irrelevant to the matter at hand?

None. Zero. Nada.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has long been, and is now, a member of the Executive Committee of the Progressive Caucus. Her election as Minority Leader would firmly establish the link between the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Socialist International.

The U.S. Constitution places no restrictions on political creeds. There is no earthly reason why socialists could not be elected to Congress if The People so choose. There is a question of honesty, though. Candidates for office ought to put their cards on the table.

The Democratic Party has been the permanent or temporary home for an awesome line-up of great Americans, from Thomas Jefferson to Ronald Reagan. *The political philosophy known as Socialism was devised to combat and prevail over Anglo-American principles, law, economics. Every version of socialism, from Nazism and Bolshevism to the mildest form of Social Democracy is fundamentally opposed to Anglo-American attitudes.*

If the moment has come when the Democratic Party sees no other way "to be different" except by embracing Socialism, that is a sad day for all Americans."

Putting the Cards on the Table




I recognize that you are beneath learning from the above.....but, it is there for others to read and learn from.


----------

