# Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??



## PoliticalChic

Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???




1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.




2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."  
West, "American Betrayal," p.277


a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed. 

And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.

Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....


Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.



Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???

Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?



What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

His love of either Central Planning or Uncle Joe himself, turned FDR into Stalin's personal sock puppet


----------



## rightwinger

Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years?? 

He didn't


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR was a black period in American history. 

His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years. 

His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.


----------



## Moonglow

There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia. 
Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...



The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933


----------



## Ravi

He wanted to nuke Japan.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't





See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.


Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.


Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.


Get ready to take notes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...








"There was no other option, but unconditional surrender..."

You couldn't be more wrong.


You could try to be....but you wouldn't be successful.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
Click to expand...


He didn't


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't
Click to expand...





Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.


When will you realize that I know so very much more than you?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.
> 
> 
> When will you realize that I know so very much more than you?
Click to expand...


Why don't you cut and paste some rightwing propaganda to convince us?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.
> 
> 
> When will you realize that I know so very much more than you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some rightwing propaganda to convince us?
Click to expand...




"Us"???

You have a tapeworm?



Relax....your re-education will follow......slowly.


----------



## regent

As I remember the American people wanted to get into that war full scale as soon as Poland was invaded, but FDR held them back.

Then the America-Firsters put on numerous demonstrations urging FDR to remove Hitler, saying this was our war, in fact, any European war was our war.

Then in spite of FDR's veto, Congress renewed the draft a few days before Pearl to keep Americans in service by an overwhelming vote. 

Our military was at peak strength on Dec 7, and our soldiers had become battle-wise in the first world war, they were ready to tangle with the cowardly incompetent German army. 

Then FDR passed the Neutrality Act preventing America from helping Britain, but the America Firsters defied FDR and sent Britain fifty destroyers and other aid. FDR was furious.

The list is as endless, as is the stupidity of some people that believe this tripe.


----------



## GHook93

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?



I don't see how he extended the war or was anything but a ally of convenience with Stalin. When the tide of the war turned, there was a mad dash to Berlin by the US and Britain from the West and Russia to the East. At that point they viewed each other as adversaries about as much as they view themselves as allies. 

In fact, there were many within the white house that thought we should go to war with Russia, but America was simply exhausted from the most deadly war the world has ever seen and just after the second most deadly war the world has ever seen.

Britain was even more war wary. They voted out Churchill right after his BRAVERY saved the island nation.


----------



## Camp

One might imagine that the thesis being presented will rely heavily on views and opinions regarding the Casablanca Conference and what shaped the decisions made there. Stalin not attending due to his attention to defeating of the German Army at Stalingrad during the very time of the conference, the attendance and influence by de Gaulle, Churchill's insistence of invading Italy and attempting a southern invasion route, progress and analysis of the war in the Pacific the status of war production materials in America, the battle in the Atlantic and the air war over Europe. But it was at Casablanca, without Stalin's attendance that the decision to invade France was made and the decision to demand unconditional surrender was made.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Ravi said:


> He wanted to nuke Japan.


But *not* nuking Japan would have extended the War. All the Military planners at that time agreed about that.


----------



## Ravi

Mad Scientist said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wanted to nuke Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> But *not* nuking Japan would have extended the War. All the Military planners at that time agreed about that.
Click to expand...


Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?

FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).

But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.


----------



## Camp

Ravi said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wanted to nuke Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> But *not* nuking Japan would have extended the War. All the Military planners at that time agreed about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?
> 
> FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).
> 
> But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.
Click to expand...


FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan. Truman made that decision. However, Operation Meeting House, the fire bombing of Tokyo, took place a month before his death.


----------



## rightwinger

If anything, it was the actions of FDR who ended the war two or more years early


----------



## Ravi

Camp said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *not* nuking Japan would have extended the War. All the Military planners at that time agreed about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?
> 
> FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).
> 
> But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan. Truman made that decision. However, Operation Meeting House, the fire bombing of Tokyo, took place a month before his death.
Click to expand...


Hey now. Just because my theory is outlandishly ridiculous doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and dis-proven. Just because he died before it happened doesn't mean that he didn't purposely extend the war for the purpose of nuking Japan.

He didn't know he was going to die, after all.


----------



## Camp

Ravi said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?
> 
> FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).
> 
> But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan. Truman made that decision. However, Operation Meeting House, the fire bombing of Tokyo, took place a month before his death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey now. Just because my theory is outlandishly ridiculous doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and dis-proven. Just because he died before it happened doesn't mean that he didn't purposely extend the war for the purpose of nuking Japan.
> 
> He didn't know he was going to die, after all.
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.



Do you contest the accepted historical record that indicates that the decision for unconditional surrender was reached at Casablanca? How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?


----------



## rightwinger

How FDR shortened the war

1. Reversed the US economy from consumer based to military based
2. Put industry and resources under government control
3. Built strong alliances
4. Strengthened our allies so they could bear more of the burden
5. Manhattan Project


----------



## Meathead

When you've got Nazis and communists killing each other, let it ride.


----------



## rightwinger

Meathead said:


> When you've got Nazis and communists killing each other, let it ride.



We did


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
Click to expand...


Most laughable....Hitler never surrendered, even when the Ruskies were on his doorstep....Your fallacy of the truth has been demoted to another hate filled attempt to yet again play character assassin to a dead man....


----------



## regent

Multiple choice:

A,  FDR  should not have pursued a policy of developing the bomb.

B.  FDR had a working bomb but should have decided not to use it. 

C.  Our predicted invasion casualties were wrong, and the invasion would have been easier.

D.  FDR should have given better surrender terms to Japan than given to Germany.

E.  Whatever decision FDR made would have been wrong. 

F.  FDR still bugs the Republicans, especially the historians that rated FDR as best president.


----------



## Ravi

regent said:


> Multiple choice:
> 
> A,  FDR  should not have pursued a policy of developing the bomb.
> 
> B.  FDR had a working bomb but should have decided not to use it.
> 
> C.  Our predicted invasion casualties were wrong, and the invasion would have been easier.
> 
> D.  FDR should have given better surrender terms to Japan than given to Germany.
> 
> E.  Whatever decision FDR made would have been wrong.
> 
> F.  FDR still bugs the Republicans, especially the historians that rated FDR as best president.


E.  Whatever decision FDR made would have been wrong. 

SSDD


----------



## Moonglow

The Germans and the Japanese were both working on nuclear development with heavy water experiments...


----------



## regent

rightwinger said:


> If anything, it was the actions of FDR who ended the war two or more years early



The GI's in the Pacific had a saying for their end of the war prediction: 
"Golden Gate in 48, breadline in 49."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you contest the accepted historical record that indicates that the decision for unconditional surrender was reached at Casablanca? How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?
Click to expand...







Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-


The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*

Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....


3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *

Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
(see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)




a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..." 
"Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter 

b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
"Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392




4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.





5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.

a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow." 

b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes, 
Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans." 
Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History



Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.




c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News


Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!


----------



## guno

Another amazing thread by little miss Saigon who has no historical family connection to  America of that  time period .of the  depression,  Once again showing that she knows very little about anything, But she is loud about it


----------



## JakeStarkey

OP is fail.

Logistics (particularly assault boats and cargo carriers) in 1943 as the Mediterranean and Pacific theatres competed for assets made anything other than Italian and western Pacific islands targets.

Until western Europe was assaulted in June 1944, the Axis had no trouble keeping the Allies contained on the Italian boot.

The Axis collapsed 11 months later.  If the Allies had stayed in the central and eastern from Mediterranean only from 1942 on, the war in Europe would have lasted until 1948 or later.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?"

She nattered and did not answer the questions.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you contest the accepted historical record that indicates that the decision for unconditional surrender was reached at Casablanca? How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-
> 
> 
> The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*
> 
> Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....
> 
> 
> 3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *
> 
> Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
> (see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter
> 
> b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
> "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
> 
> a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."
> 
> b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,
> Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
> Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
> 
> 
> Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
Click to expand...


Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste

But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC has very little understanding of WWII, Stalin, FDR, communism, and the interacting of the countries and their leaders.


----------



## Camp

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you contest the accepted historical record that indicates that the decision for unconditional surrender was reached at Casablanca? How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-
> 
> 
> The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*
> 
> Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....
> 
> 
> 3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *
> 
> Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
> (see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter
> 
> b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
> "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
> 
> a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."
> 
> b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,
> Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
> Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
> 
> 
> Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
Click to expand...


Completely ignores Japans main motivation, oil. The oil was in the south and controlled by the US and allies. Was no oil in the north.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Excuse me. I was looking for the History board, but I see by the OP that somehow I have ended up in the Rubber Room....


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC has very little understanding of WWII, Stalin, FDR, communism, and the interacting of the countries and their leaders.







"PC has very little understanding of WWII, Stalin, FDR, communism, and the interacting of the countries and their leaders."


You, posting this, is like Doctor Kevorkian pontificating thaqt other doctors don't teach the Heimlich Maneuver well.

That's Jakal being Jakal......idiot.



Bet if you turn around quickly when you speak you'll find lots of eye-rolling.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Vandalshandle said:


> Excuse me. I was looking for the History board, but I see by the OP that somehow I have ended up in the Rubber Room....





Bet you said that in every classroom you've ever entered.

The result is evident.


----------



## whitehall

I can't see how WW2 was extended longer than it needed to be. The Normandy landings took place in 1944 and the Ardennes Offensive aka the Battle of the Bulge in Dec 1944 showed that Germany still had a powerful army. Japan was ready to surrender in the Pacific but Harry Truman would not discuss surrender terms until he got to try out his new toy.


----------



## Steven_R

JakeStarkey said:


> OP is fail.
> 
> Logistics (particularly assault boats and cargo carriers) in 1943 as the Mediterranean and Pacific theatres competed for assets made anything other than Italian and western Pacific islands targets.
> 
> Until western Europe was assaulted in June 1944, the Axis had no trouble keeping the Allies contained on the Italian boot.
> 
> The Axis collapsed 11 months later.  If the Allies had stayed in the central and eastern from Mediterranean only from 1942 on, the war in Europe would have lasted until 1948 or later.



Not just that, but the US Army in 42 was both materially and tactically incapable of fighting the Germans. Kasserine Pass illustrated that. It took a year just to get the Army in any shape to fight. In the meantime, we built up to invade Sicily, took on the heavy bombing role (with severe casualties in the process), started building up for France, and was dealing with that minor dust up in the Pacific. By the end of 43, the US was slogging its way through Italy and was putting on the finishing touches for D-Day.

It wasn't like Marshall and King were sitting in DC looking for ways to hamper the war effort on FDR's orders.


----------



## Ravi

Sad to see PC disrespecting some of America's greatest heroes in an attempt to defame FDR.

Why don't you find a nursing home, PC, and tell those old fighters that they are trash, in your opinion.


----------



## Steven_R

Camp said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-
> 
> 
> The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*
> 
> Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....
> 
> 
> 3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *
> 
> Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
> (see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter
> 
> b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
> "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
> 
> a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."
> 
> b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,
> Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
> Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
> 
> 
> Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely ignores Japans main motivation, oil. The oil was in the south and controlled by the US and allies. Was no oil in the north.
Click to expand...


There is, but it was inaccessible to Japan. Japan only looked into Indochina and the Philippines after the Russians cleaned their clocks in 39 in a nasty border war in Manchuria.


----------



## Two Thumbs

b/c he hadn't killed off enough Americans yet.

There weren't enough jobs for all of them to come back to, so to save his legacy people had to die.

He was, w/o a doubt, the most evil person to ever be President.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Two Thumbs said:


> b/c he hadn't killed off enough Americans yet.
> 
> There weren't enough jobs for all of them to come back to, so to save his legacy people had to die.
> 
> He was, w/o a doubt, the most evil person to ever be President.


----------



## Camp

Steven_R said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely ignores Japans main motivation, oil. The oil was in the south and controlled by the US and allies. Was no oil in the north.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is, but it was inaccessible to Japan. Japan only looked into Indochina and the Philippines after the Russians cleaned their clocks in 39 in a nasty border war in Manchuria.
Click to expand...


It was inaccessible to everyone. There was speculation about Siberian oil in the 30's but it didn't get developed until after the war. First real strike was in 1948. Everything else was as you said, inaccessible to Japan, as you said.

Oil of Russia : www.oilru.com : No. 2, 2010 / THE FIRST SIBERIAN OIL GUSHER


----------



## rightwinger

The leadership of FDR not only helped to end the war early but allowed the US to emerge as the preeminent  global power


----------



## Idadunno

The US was still trying to financially recover from WWI, as were the rest of the allied countries. The US could not afford to get involved with the war, so it rented ships to Britain. Roosevelt stalled the allies as long as possible to keep the US out of the war. The country was broke--really, really, seriously broke.
This became a dire situation for the US later in dealing with Japan. 
Japan and China have been arm wrestling forever. Japan did not want Nazi Germany to get hold of the oil in China, so it moved in and once France fell under Germany, the French controlled Indochina gave in to Japan and let them have it. Japan has always wanted to expand into China--this is a centuries old on-going thing. 
Roosevelt sanctioned Japan to attempt to keep Japan from expanding. Japan had taken Vietnam and the US got most of its rubber from Vietnam so... really, it was just one more thing the US did to piss off Japan. The list is endless, dating back many years and many presidents.  
Hitler was developing an atomic bomb. Roosevelt put a rush order on beating Hitler to it before Hitler dropped it on (possibly) the US. Roosevelt had hoped to use the bomb on Hitler to spare troops on the ground. That did not work out, unfortunately, so the US used its bomb on Japan in hopes of squishing an extension of the war. 
Russia was an ally of Germany until Hitler broke treaty and attacked them. Russia made nice with the US to keep Germany from taking the country. The US and Russia were not friends at all... but they needed each other to stop a madman. 
To truly understand WWII, one must go back to mid 19th century--Otto Bismarck and Prussia. 
WWII did not just happen because a crazy person got a uniform, or because of conspiracy theories about presidents. WWII was a direct result of WWI. What we learned from all that was not to leave countries in destitute situations after wars, never let a madman expand too far, and containment is a country's best friend. We learn from history... but the problem is that few people bother to learn history because conspiracy theories and guesstimations are much more fun.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you contest the accepted historical record that indicates that the decision for unconditional surrender was reached at Casablanca? How was Stalin involved if he was not there? What are the sources relied upon to reach this conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-
> 
> 
> The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*
> 
> Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....
> 
> 
> 3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *
> 
> Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
> (see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter
> 
> b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
> "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
> 
> a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."
> 
> b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,
> Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
> Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
> 
> 
> Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
Click to expand...







Now, I know that you are so old that you hesitate to buy green bananas.....but, try to relax....

I said I'd prove the premise....but not in bumper-stickers.
I document, and link.....

OK...your next lesson is here:

6. The OP provides an indication of the ability, the motive, and the malevolence of Soviet machinations, as  does the post revealing the* KGB plan to set Japan and the United States at each other's throats. *


Earlier I said not to forget this, as it is most significant: 
"* Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset"* since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was *a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., *Secretary of the Treasury."

This was Stalin's leverage to extend WWII. 
*White had Morganthau agree to Stalin's plan for Germany.*

Stalin and his spies in the Roosevelt administration insisted...*.demanded!..*...that Germany *not be allowed to surrender.* It had to be obliterated....

....even though this meant extending the war and *dramatically increasing Allies casualties.*





*Soviet agents engineered the Morgenthau Plan.*

7. Morganthau Plan: *"The Morgenthau Plan, *first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include *measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.* This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. " 
Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


a.  " Morgenthau, Henry (1944). "Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany [The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau] (text and facsimile)".
 Box 31, Folder Germany: Jan.-Sept. 1944 (i297). Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum (published 27 May 2004). 
Archived from the original on 12 November 2013.
 "Demilitarization of Germany: It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the *complete demilitarization of Germany* in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means *completely disarming the German Army and people* (including the *removal or destruction of all war material*), the *total destruction of the whole German armament industry,* and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."






8. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
 Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.

Glimpse the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:

Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:     
 Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?" 
Miss Bentley: *"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted." * 
 Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?" 

 Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them *completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."    *
 Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was a Communist plot to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"    

Miss Bentley: "That is correct. *She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."                                   *                                                                                                    Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103



*Again: ""Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*




For Stalin, Communism's post-war march across Europe could be stymied  by a Germany with any military potential. What better way to obviate same than by using the Allies to obliterate....*not merely accept the surrender*.....but obliterate his most fearsome enemy.



The only question is why Roosevelt agreed to it....and the extension of the war by several years....


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your education is about to be advanced: pay close attention-
> 
> 
> The OP stated that "*We were secretly master-manipulated" by Stalin and the Soviets.*
> 
> Let's get an idea of how thorough, and long-range their planning is.....
> 
> 
> 3. Before we proceed to Stalin's plan for Germany, learn about *how the Soviets operate, starting with Pearl Harbor. *
> 
> Not only did Stalin know about Japanese plans to attack the United States many months in advance, but there is evidence that *the Soviets were involved in instigating the attack on America!*
> (see INVESTIGATIONS: The Case Against I.P.R. - TIME and "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 393-395)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a. From both Tokyo and Washington, KGB cells 'worked in mid-1941 to avert a Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union..."
> "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History," by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter
> 
> b.  *Soviet military intelligence officer,* Richard Sorge, directed the espionage network in Tokyo, which included member of *the Institute of Pacific Relations,* managed to push the Japanese to strike, not north into the Soviet Union, but at American interests.
> "Blacklisted By History," Stanton Evans, p. 390-392
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. In Washington, agent Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, worked at *undermining any rapprochement between the US and Japan,* and influenced the US to provoke the Japanese.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. In 1995, *Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed "Operation Snow," *the plan to manipulate Japan and America into war.
> 
> a.In "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"  Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter make a very strong case for* Pearl Harbor being the most complex and successful KGB operation,* designed to avert a Japanese attack on the USSR, and to force the United States to fight a two-front war, and be unable to stop Stalin from control of at least half of Europe. In 1995, former Kremlin agent Vitaly Pavlov revealed his role in this "Operation Snow."
> 
> b. Pavlov "was sent to the United States seven months before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor *to meet with Harry Dexter White, then director of Monetary Research for the Treasury.* Did "Snow" mean "White"? Yes,
> Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset" since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 *White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury.* Pavlov wrote that the Soviets feared a Japanese attack from the east, and his mission was to discuss with White what could be done to keep the Japanese from joining forces with the Germans."
> Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind 'White was a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury'.....this will prove important later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> c. "The chapter on Pearl Harbor is likewise instructive as to how Soviet agents operated. Japan seriously considered an attack on Russia, but Stalins agents in the Japanese government and in the highly efficient Sorge spy ring on the island nation helped *persuade Imperial Japan to turn its aggression elsewhere. That elsewhere eventually turned out to be Pearl Harbor.* Stalins acolytes in the U.S. were simultaneously pushing a foreign policy against Japan that would lead the Japanese away from any designs on Siberia and toward conflict with America." Infiltration, intrigue and Communists - Conservative News
> 
> 
> Machiavelli could have learned from Stalin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I know that you are so old that you hesitate to buy green bananas.....but, try to relax....
> 
> I said I'd prove the premise....but not in bumper-stickers.
> I document, and link.....
> 
> OK...your next lesson is here:
> 
> 6. The OP provides an indication of the ability, the motive, and the malevolence of Soviet machinations, as  does the post revealing the* KGB plan to set Japan and the United States at each other's throats. *
> 
> 
> Earlier I said not to forget this, as it is most significant:
> "* Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset"* since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was *a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., *Secretary of the Treasury."
> 
> This was Stalin's leverage to extend WWII.
> *White had Morganthau agree to Stalin's plan for Germany.*
> 
> Stalin and his spies in the Roosevelt administration insisted...*.demanded!..*...that Germany *not be allowed to surrender.* It had to be obliterated....
> 
> ....even though this meant extending the war and *dramatically increasing Allies casualties.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Soviet agents engineered the Morgenthau Plan.*
> 
> 7. Morganthau Plan: *"The Morgenthau Plan, *first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include *measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.* This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. "
> Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> a.  " Morgenthau, Henry (1944). "Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany [The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau] (text and facsimile)".
> Box 31, Folder Germany: Jan.-Sept. 1944 (i297). Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum (published 27 May 2004).
> Archived from the original on 12 November 2013.
> "Demilitarization of Germany: It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the *complete demilitarization of Germany* in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means *completely disarming the German Army and people* (including the *removal or destruction of all war material*), the *total destruction of the whole German armament industry,* and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
> Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.
> 
> Glimpse the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:
> 
> Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:
> Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"
> Miss Bentley: *"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted." *
> Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them *completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."    *
> Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was a Communist plot to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "That is correct. *She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."                                   *                                                                                                    Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103
> 
> 
> 
> *Again: ""Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Stalin, Communism's post-war march across Europe could be stymied  by a Germany with any military potential. What better way to obviate same than by using the Allies to obliterate....*not merely accept the surrender*.....but obliterate his most fearsome enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is why Roosevelt agreed to it....and the extension of the war by several years....
Click to expand...


LOL

Does nothing to prove the assertion of your own thread that the war could have ended two years earlier

Why don't you cut and paste some more rightwing revisionist propaganda?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

What would have happened if _things had been different,_ and counter-factual world history is notoriously difficult to prove. 

The world is the way it is and if it were different, we would just as clueless as to what "might have been,"

That being said, no one was in a position to end the war in 1943. The biggest navel victory of all time helped to end the war by cutting japan off from its oil. 

The Battle of Leyte Gulf turned the tide. It was the largest naval battle in history, in terms both of tonnage displaced, and area traversed. 

That notwithstanding, I understand what the OP is saying and I'm certainly not dismissing it. 

I'm not certain that we would have been in a position to negotiate anything with any kind of authority.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting conspiracy theory cut and paste
> 
> But it does nothing to prove the premise of the OP. Do you even know what your own thread is about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I know that you are so old that you hesitate to buy green bananas.....but, try to relax....
> 
> I said I'd prove the premise....but not in bumper-stickers.
> I document, and link.....
> 
> OK...your next lesson is here:
> 
> 6. The OP provides an indication of the ability, the motive, and the malevolence of Soviet machinations, as  does the post revealing the* KGB plan to set Japan and the United States at each other's throats. *
> 
> 
> Earlier I said not to forget this, as it is most significant:
> "* Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset"* since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was *a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., *Secretary of the Treasury."
> 
> This was Stalin's leverage to extend WWII.
> *White had Morganthau agree to Stalin's plan for Germany.*
> 
> Stalin and his spies in the Roosevelt administration insisted...*.demanded!..*...that Germany *not be allowed to surrender.* It had to be obliterated....
> 
> ....even though this meant extending the war and *dramatically increasing Allies casualties.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Soviet agents engineered the Morgenthau Plan.*
> 
> 7. Morganthau Plan: *"The Morgenthau Plan, *first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include *measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.* This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. "
> Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> a.  " Morgenthau, Henry (1944). "Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany [The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau] (text and facsimile)".
> Box 31, Folder Germany: Jan.-Sept. 1944 (i297). Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum (published 27 May 2004).
> Archived from the original on 12 November 2013.
> "Demilitarization of Germany: It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the *complete demilitarization of Germany* in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means *completely disarming the German Army and people* (including the *removal or destruction of all war material*), the *total destruction of the whole German armament industry,* and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
> Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.
> 
> Glimpse the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:
> 
> Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:
> Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"
> Miss Bentley: *"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted." *
> Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them *completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."    *
> Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was a Communist plot to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "That is correct. *She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."                                   *                                                                                                    Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103
> 
> 
> 
> *Again: ""Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Stalin, Communism's post-war march across Europe could be stymied  by a Germany with any military potential. What better way to obviate same than by using the Allies to obliterate....*not merely accept the surrender*.....but obliterate his most fearsome enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is why Roosevelt agreed to it....and the extension of the war by several years....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Does nothing to prove the assertion of your own thread that the war could have ended two years earlier
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some more rightwing revisionist propaganda?
Click to expand...





Now....stay with this.....and have that pair of cardiac paddles handy....

...I'd hate to lose you just as I reach the denouement!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Mad_Cabbie said:


> What would have happened if _things had been different,_ and counter-factual world history is notoriously difficult to prove.
> 
> The world is the way it is and if it were different, we would just as clueless as to what "might have been,"
> 
> That being said, no one was in a position to end the war in 1943. The biggest navel victory of all time helped to end the war by cutting japan off from its oil.
> 
> The Battle of Leyte Gulf turned the tide. It was the largest naval battle in history, in terms both of tonnage displaced, and area traversed.
> 
> That notwithstanding, I understand what the OP is saying and I'm certainly not dismissing it.
> 
> I'm not certain that we would have been in a position to negotiate anything with any kind authority.







1. "... we would just as clueless...." 
That's why I'm here.


2. " ...no one was in a position to end the war in 1943."

Au contraire, brainless...er, headless one!

This thread will prove otherwise.


3. "...I understand what the OP is saying and I'm certainly not dismissing it."

Hold your applause 'til the end....my curtsey.


----------



## Camp

This is one of the weakest conspiracy theories you have ever posted PC. That is saying a lot. Your thesis isn't even held together with a thin thread. More like old cob webs. You should know better than to use those old worn out unreliable and bogus sources to make your points here.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most laughable....Hitler never surrendered, even when the Ruskies were on his doorstep....Your fallacy of the truth has been demoted to another hate filled attempt to yet again play character assassin to a dead man....
Click to expand...


Hitler never surrendered to Uncle Joe. That's the whole point!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> This is one of the weakest conspiracy theories you have ever posted PC. That is saying a lot. Your thesis isn't even held together with a thin thread. More like old cob webs. You should know better than to use those old worn out unreliable and bogus sources to make your points here.






Now....give me a chance to go over all the list you've comprised of all the mistakes in my posts so far.....


....wait.....you didn't provide any?????


(And....the best is yet to come.)


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the weakest conspiracy theories you have ever posted PC. That is saying a lot. Your thesis isn't even held together with a thin thread. More like old cob webs. You should know better than to use those old worn out unreliable and bogus sources to make your points here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....give me a chance to go over all the list you've comprised of all the mistakes in my posts so far.....
> 
> 
> ....wait.....you didn't provide any?????
> 
> 
> (And....the best is yet to come.)
Click to expand...


Yes I did. I pointed out a very key blatant omission you made in ignoring the Casablanca Conference and your apparent lack of knowledge about availability of oil resources to Japan if they had made an early attack on Russia.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the weakest conspiracy theories you have ever posted PC. That is saying a lot. Your thesis isn't even held together with a thin thread. More like old cob webs. You should know better than to use those old worn out unreliable and bogus sources to make your points here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....give me a chance to go over all the list you've comprised of all the mistakes in my posts so far.....
> 
> 
> ....wait.....you didn't provide any?????
> 
> 
> (And....the best is yet to come.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did. I pointed out a very key blatant omission you made in ignoring the Casablanca Conference and your apparent lack of knowledge about availability of oil resources to Japan if they had made an early attack on Russia.
Click to expand...





"the list you've comprised of all the mistakes in my posts so far..."


None.


----------



## Steven_R

PoliticalChic said:


> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.



That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war. 

You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?


----------



## LA RAM FAN

better question is why you have such an obsession over FDR.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I know that you are so old that you hesitate to buy green bananas.....but, try to relax....
> 
> I said I'd prove the premise....but not in bumper-stickers.
> I document, and link.....
> 
> OK...your next lesson is here:
> 
> 6. The OP provides an indication of the ability, the motive, and the malevolence of Soviet machinations, as  does the post revealing the* KGB plan to set Japan and the United States at each other's throats. *
> 
> 
> Earlier I said not to forget this, as it is most significant:
> "* Harry Dexter White had been a Soviet "asset"* since the early 1930s, providing information to Whittaker Chambers, a courier for the communist underground. By 1941 White was *a top aide and adviser to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., *Secretary of the Treasury."
> 
> This was Stalin's leverage to extend WWII.
> *White had Morganthau agree to Stalin's plan for Germany.*
> 
> Stalin and his spies in the Roosevelt administration insisted...*.demanded!..*...that Germany *not be allowed to surrender.* It had to be obliterated....
> 
> ....even though this meant extending the war and *dramatically increasing Allies casualties.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Soviet agents engineered the Morgenthau Plan.*
> 
> 7. Morganthau Plan: *"The Morgenthau Plan, *first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. in a memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany, advocated that the Allied occupation of Germany following World War II include *measures to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war by eliminating its armament industry, and the removal or destruction of other key industries basic to military strength.* This included the removal or destruction of all industrial plants and equipment in the Ruhr area. "
> Morgenthau Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> a.  " Morgenthau, Henry (1944). "Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany [The original memorandum from 1944, signed by Morgenthau] (text and facsimile)".
> Box 31, Folder Germany: Jan.-Sept. 1944 (i297). Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum (published 27 May 2004).
> Archived from the original on 12 November 2013.
> "Demilitarization of Germany: It should be the aim of the Allied Forces to accomplish the *complete demilitarization of Germany* in the shortest possible period of time after surrender. This means *completely disarming the German Army and people* (including the *removal or destruction of all war material*), the *total destruction of the whole German armament industry,* and the removal or destruction of other key industries which are basic to military strength."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Now note the testimony by converted Soviet spy, Elizabeth Bentley, who revealed *Stalin's plans for Germany:*
> Elizabeth Bentley, a former operative of the Soviet underground testified before the Senate subcommittee on August 14, 1951, naming some 80 Soviet spies. Her testimony was summarized in an FBI report, dated November 25, 1945.
> 
> Glimpse the methods and purpose of the Soviet operation:
> 
> Miss Bentley testified as follows about the Morgenthau plan, Stalin's plans for Germany:
> Senator Eastland: "Did you know who drew that plan?"
> Miss Bentley: *"Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted." *
> Senator Ferguson: "That was what the Communists wanted?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "Definitely Moscow wanted them *completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies."    *
> Senator Eastland: "What you say is that it was a Communist plot to destroy Germany and weaken her to where she could not help us?"
> 
> Miss Bentley: "That is correct. *She could no longer be a barrier to protect the western world."                                   *                                                                                                    Manly, 'The Twenty Year Revolution,' p.102-103
> 
> 
> 
> *Again: ""Due to Mr. [Harry Dexter] White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany, because that was what the Russians wanted."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Stalin, Communism's post-war march across Europe could be stymied  by a Germany with any military potential. What better way to obviate same than by using the Allies to obliterate....*not merely accept the surrender*.....but obliterate his most fearsome enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> The only question is why Roosevelt agreed to it....and the extension of the war by several years....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Does nothing to prove the assertion of your own thread that the war could have ended two years earlier
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some more rightwing revisionist propaganda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....stay with this.....and have that pair of cardiac paddles handy....
> 
> ...I'd hate to lose you just as I reach the denouement!!
Click to expand...


You have yet to produce any evidence that FDR could have ended the war two years earlier

Why am I not surprised?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
Click to expand...





1. Did you realize that you post has nothing to do with the conversation in question....between Hopkins and Stalin???


2. Did you miss the significance of Stalin's demanding the same 'unconditional surrender' of both Japan and Germany?


3. Where did you find any mention of "Truman's decision" in the part of my post that you included?


----------



## PoliticalChic

9/11 inside job said:


> better question is why you have such an obsession over FDR.





Why do you have such an aversion to learning?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Does nothing to prove the assertion of your own thread that the war could have ended two years earlier
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some more rightwing revisionist propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....stay with this.....and have that pair of cardiac paddles handy....
> 
> ...I'd hate to lose you just as I reach the denouement!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have yet to produce any evidence that FDR could have ended the war two years earlier
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...






This is the third time I've asked you to relax.




Just you wait.


----------



## Steven_R

PoliticalChic said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did you realize that you post has nothing to do with the conversation in question....between Hopkins and Stalin???
> 
> 
> 2. Did you miss the significance of Stalin's demanding the same 'unconditional surrender' of both Japan and Germany?
> 
> 
> 3. Where did you find any mention of "Truman's decision" in the part of my post that you included?
Click to expand...


Since Hopkins didn't have the authority to demand anything from Truman, and since the buck did stop on HST's desk, it was Truman's decision.

Nevermind all of that. Do you really think FDR or Truman or anyone else was going to ell the American people on the idea of a negotiated truce with Japan? Remember Pearl Harbor and a sneak attack and the Bataan Death March and Wake Island and all the blood spilt on places Americans never heard of before the war cutting off the heads of downed pilots and the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 and a million other atrocities? If anyone in DC even thought about publically getting a negotiated peace, he'd have a real revolt on his hands of just ordinary Americans who wouldn't have heard of anything more than Japan's unconditional surrender.


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> LOL
> 
> Does nothing to prove the assertion of your own thread that the war could have ended two years earlier
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some more rightwing revisionist propaganda?



PC was a cut and paste princess in primary school.

She does not get that Premise requires objective evidence that can develop into a convincing emphasis of its important in the conclusion.  If the KGB was plotting nefarious schemes to put Japan and the USA at war, she has to provide causality not coincidence.  She has done nothing of the sort.

She was taught journalism not logic and not argumentation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did you realize that you post has nothing to do with the conversation in question....between Hopkins and Stalin???
> 
> 
> 2. Did you miss the significance of Stalin's demanding the same 'unconditional surrender' of both Japan and Germany?
> 
> 
> 3. Where did you find any mention of "Truman's decision" in the part of my post that you included?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Hopkins didn't have the authority to demand anything from Truman, and since the buck did stop on HST's desk, it was Truman's decision.
> 
> Nevermind all of that. Do you really think FDR or Truman or anyone else was going to ell the American people on the idea of a negotiated truce with Japan? Remember Pearl Harbor and a sneak attack and the Bataan Death March and Wake Island and all the blood spilt on places Americans never heard of before the war cutting off the heads of downed pilots and the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 and a million other atrocities? If anyone in DC even thought about publically getting a negotiated peace, he'd have a real revolt on his hands of just ordinary Americans who wouldn't have heard of anything more than Japan's unconditional surrender.
Click to expand...



Why argue with her, really.

PC twists evidence to fit the preconceived thesis rather than develop and build the point in context and nuance.

She has never been able to do that on the Board.

She is every bit a totalitarian reactionary as Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler a Nazi, and Stalin a commie.  What is not is a classical liberal steeped in republican constitutionalism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did you realize that you post has nothing to do with the conversation in question....between Hopkins and Stalin???
> 
> 
> 2. Did you miss the significance of Stalin's demanding the same 'unconditional surrender' of both Japan and Germany?
> 
> 
> 3. Where did you find any mention of "Truman's decision" in the part of my post that you included?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Hopkins didn't have the authority to demand anything from Truman, and since the buck did stop on HST's desk, it was Truman's decision.
> 
> Nevermind all of that. Do you really think FDR or Truman or anyone else was going to ell the American people on the idea of a negotiated truce with Japan? Remember Pearl Harbor and a sneak attack and the Bataan Death March and Wake Island and all the blood spilt on places Americans never heard of before the war cutting off the heads of downed pilots and the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 and a million other atrocities? If anyone in DC even thought about publically getting a negotiated peace, he'd have a real revolt on his hands of just ordinary Americans who wouldn't have heard of anything more than Japan's unconditional surrender.
Click to expand...







"...Hopkins didn't have the authority to demand anything from Truman,...."

And you are quoting......yourself?

Since you continue to suggest things not in evidence, one must be puzzled by either your ability or your motives.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yes, "Since you continue to suggest things not in evidence, one must be puzzled by either your ability or your motives" is exactly why we are puzzled by your comments, PC.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Did you realize that you post has nothing to do with the conversation in question....between Hopkins and Stalin???
> 
> 
> 2. Did you miss the significance of Stalin's demanding the same 'unconditional surrender' of both Japan and Germany?
> 
> 
> 3. Where did you find any mention of "Truman's decision" in the part of my post that you included?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Hopkins didn't have the authority to demand anything from Truman, and since the buck did stop on HST's desk, it was Truman's decision.
> 
> Nevermind all of that. Do you really think FDR or Truman or anyone else was going to ell the American people on the idea of a negotiated truce with Japan? Remember Pearl Harbor and a sneak attack and the Bataan Death March and Wake Island and all the blood spilt on places Americans never heard of before the war cutting off the heads of downed pilots and the Rape of Nanking and Unit 731 and a million other atrocities? If anyone in DC even thought about publically getting a negotiated peace, he'd have a real revolt on his hands of just ordinary Americans who wouldn't have heard of anything more than Japan's unconditional surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why argue with her, really.
> 
> PC twists evidence to fit the preconceived thesis rather than develop and build the point in context and nuance.
> 
> She has never been able to do that on the Board.
> 
> She is every bit a totalitarian reactionary as Mussolini was a fascist, Hitler a Nazi, and Stalin a commie.  What is not is a classical liberal steeped in republican constitutionalism.
Click to expand...






What....still no reference to anything I've posted?


What is behind these vapid posts of yours?

Some failed attempt to appear ....relevant?.....knowledgeable?

You are to serious posters what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters.
The eternal loser.







Get lost you little fool.


----------



## PoliticalChic

9. So....in Washington, Stalin's spy Harry Dexter White pushed the Morganthau plan....but *on the military fronts he did something else to prevent the war's end.*

*Stalin refused to allow the Allies to communicate with the anti-Nazi resistance in Germany,* for fear that support of the resistance might lead to the overthrow of Hitler, and Germany's surrender.

Post-war, an able Germany would stand in his way to the spread of the communist empire eastward, all across Europe.





10. Of course, this was no problem for FDR.....
*Roosevelt actually intended for the Red Army to occupy central and eastern Europe*....he said this even before the Red Army left Russia!

a. We know for *a documented fact that Roosevelt regarded Soviet conquest in Europe as a fait accompli. *



On September 3, 1943, Cardinal Spellman spent 90 minutes with Roosevelt, and wrote up a memorandum in which he quoted Roosevelt as saying exactly that!
*Spellman quoted FDR: *"The European people will simply have to endure the Russian domination in the hope that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the Russians." 
"The Cardinal Spellman Story," by Robert I. Gannon, p.224





11. Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Sherwood's book, the authorized Hopkins biography:* "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
*


More to come....but let's review:

a. The anti-Nazi resistance in Germany was neither supported nor recognized by Washington.
b. Roosevelt meant all along to cede half of Europe to Stalin
c.  Stalin wanted Germany totally eliminated from resisting his occupation after the war.
d. Stalin planned Mao's communist China...and, therefore, needed Japan destroyed as well.



Anyone care to deny those facts?


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.


----------



## Camp

JakeStarkey said:


> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.



PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
Click to expand...


This level of academic scholarship got PC a degree from Columbia. Shotgunning unrelated cut and paste is what passes for scholarship


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of academic scholarship got PC a degree from Columbia. Shotgunning unrelated cut and paste is what passes for scholarship
Click to expand...





"This level of academic scholarship...."

Lucky you! No one would ever expect scholarship of any variety from you.


Of course, your posts and the rest of the truth-resisters are of the variety "is not, is not," while mine are linked, and documented....

...and there is more.



12. Logic of every variety dictates that an invading army would make contact with, support, and use, indigenous forces having the same objectives.

True?

Of course true. Yet, subservient to Stalin's wishes....or demands.....the Allies refused any contact with German anti-Nazi resistance forces....even higher ups who would have been amicable to surrender.




 What was the effect of  Stalin's demand that no surrender by Germany be allowed? 

 First, the Allied command was not allowed to support or associate itself with the anti-Nazi resistance. Following the Soviet orders, only unconditional surrender would be considered....an order which prolonged the war by as much as a year: the army which would have overthrown Hitler and surrendered to the Allies would not be allowed to expect any hand in determining conditions of their post-war treatment.



a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) *directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that  "... those Germans &#8212; and particularly those German generals &#8212; who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."                                            German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





13. On May 10, 1945, shortly after the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, General Dwight *Eisenhower saluted and gave credit to Europe's resistance forces. He mentioned them by name,* as follows: France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. 'You fought on,' he said in a speech carried by the BBC,  "regardless of the disappointments you suffered and the danger you have undergone." 
 NYTimes, May 11,  1945, "Eisenhower Praises Anti-Nazi Resistance."



a. Who is missing from Eisenhower's list of national anti-Nazi resistance? 

That's right: German anti-Nazis, of whom *thousands were executed by the Reich.*
"The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945, Third Edition," by Peter Hoffman



Think it was an oversight on his part.....or was he just following orders?

Now...who could possibly give Supreme Commander orders?


Who?



More tomorrow....biting your nails?


----------



## regent

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of academic scholarship got PC a degree from Columbia. Shotgunning unrelated cut and paste is what passes for scholarship
Click to expand...


It seems as if PC has taken some events from history and tried to make them into some sort of conspiracy engineered by FDR. 
For example, Admiral Halsey promised to ride Hirohito's horse when Japan surrendered and  Halsey did not, so that could become some sort of conspiracy between Stalin, FDR and Halsey.


----------



## PoliticalChic

The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....

He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
His sister remained.


"On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime &#8212;* beheaded because her &#8220;brother is beyond our reach.&#8221;*

Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo People&#8217;s Court for undermining the war effort. (&#8220;Wehrkraftzersetzung&#8221; &#8212; German has a word for everything.)

Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister


These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.


----------



## Steven_R

DC and London didn't want Hitler removed from power because Hitler was an idiot. Put someone like Rommel in charge and maybe the Allies lose the war. 

Marshall didn't want to go to war with the Soviets because he knew we would lose and lose badly. By the end of 1945 our economy was already on the ropes, our manufacturing capabilities were maxed out, and our troops were exhausted. Soviet equipment, especially in tanks, was superior to ours in some regards and equal to ours in others. Even in the logistics end of the equation, the Soviets were rapidly approaching the same level the US had, which was showing signs of cracking by the fall of Germany. Add into that a US population already tired of the war.

But it's all some commie plot with Marshall at the middle of it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This level of academic scholarship got PC a degree from Columbia. Shotgunning unrelated cut and paste is what passes for scholarship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems as if PC has taken some events from history and tried to make them into some sort of conspiracy engineered by FDR.
> For example, Admiral Halsey promised to ride Hirohito's horse when Japan surrendered and  Halsey did not, so that could become some sort of conspiracy between Stalin, FDR and Halsey.
Click to expand...





"...tried to make them into some sort of conspiracy engineered by FDR."

No, you dunce....I've more than tried: I've succeeded.
And the conspiracy was engineered by Stalin....FDR was manipulated, totally.

The fact that you have decided that the FDR myth is more important than the truth is not my concern.



Proof?

Not one of my facts can be denied....in fact, you half-heads know better than to even try!


Tomorrow, in the words of Edmond Rostand....."Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!"


En garde!



Did I mention I toyed with foils in college?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Steven_R said:


> DC and London didn't want Hitler removed from power because Hitler was an idiot. Put someone like Rommel in charge and maybe the Allies lose the war.
> 
> Marshall didn't want to go to war with the Soviets because he knew we would lose and lose badly. By the end of 1945 our economy was already on the ropes, our manufacturing capabilities were maxed out, and our troops were exhausted. Soviet equipment, especially in tanks, was superior to ours in some regards and equal to ours in others. Even in the logistics end of the equation, the Soviets were rapidly approaching the same level the US had, which was showing signs of cracking by the fall of Germany. Add into that a US population already tired of the war.
> 
> But it's all some commie plot with Marshall at the middle of it.





The idiot on scene is you.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.



Who needs more historical evidence than that? But evidence of what? FDR, Marshall, extending the war, what?


----------



## Camp

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime &#8212;* beheaded because her &#8220;brother is beyond our reach.&#8221;*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo People&#8217;s Court for undermining the war effort. (&#8220;Wehrkraftzersetzung&#8221; &#8212; German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs more historical evidence than that? But evidence of what? FDR, Marshall, extending the war, what?
Click to expand...


"The OSS and THE LONDON Free Germans" -Strange Bedfellows- by Johathan S. Gould gives a history or OSS support for the German resistance. You will be amazed at how the disinformation campaign to convince the Germans that FDR was strictly opposed to resistance is still believed to this day.

Another good one is American Intelligence and the German Resistance by Jurgen Heidiking


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??



This fails as a straw man fallacy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.



Thank you but it has nothing to do with the OP.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs more historical evidence than that? But evidence of what? FDR, Marshall, extending the war, what?
Click to expand...






I've posted lots of facts in this thread.....

...still waiting for the Roosevelt coterie to find any errors...




Don't bother looking....there aren't any.


----------



## rightwinger

In the end, FDRs leadership resulted in an early ending to te war and saved a hundred thousand or more American lives

It is why he is our greatest modern President


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs more historical evidence than that? But evidence of what? FDR, Marshall, extending the war, what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The OSS and THE LONDON Free Germans" -Strange Bedfellows- by Johathan S. Gould gives a history or OSS support for the German resistance. You will be amazed at how the disinformation campaign to convince the Germans that FDR was strictly opposed to resistance is still believed to this day.
> 
> Another good one is American Intelligence and the German Resistance by Jurgen Heidiking
Click to expand...




Neither book you mention exists according to Amazon.

Hope I didn't make you so nervous that you have to create sources.....





Keep reading......I'm gonna blow that out of the water....

...start with this from post #77:

a. *"A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans  and particularly those German generals  who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This fails as a straw man fallacy.
Click to expand...





Don't be stupid your whole life.....take a day off.


----------



## jillian

i love threads that start out with a totally fabricated premise.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you but it has nothing to do with the OP.
Click to expand...




Have someone read an explain the bottom line you just quoted.....moron.


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.



Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.  

I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.  

Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.  
2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS, 
4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.  

And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.

So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....


----------



## rightwinger

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.
> 
> I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.
> 
> Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
> 1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> 2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
> 3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS,
> 4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
> 5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
> 6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
> 7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
> 8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
> 9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
> 10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
> 11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
> 12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
> 13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
> ....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.
> 
> And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.
> 
> So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....
Click to expand...


_1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin. 
_

All I had to read before I had read enough to realize the rest of the post was not worth reading


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.
> 
> I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.
> 
> Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
> 1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> 2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
> 3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS,
> 4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
> 5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
> 6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
> 7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
> 8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
> 9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
> 10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
> 11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
> 12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
> 13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
> ....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.
> 
> And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.
> 
> So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....
Click to expand...






"So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it...."


This goes beyond 'believe'.....they haven't been able to deny any of the facts posted....

....and it will get better today!


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs more historical evidence than that? But evidence of what? FDR, Marshall, extending the war, what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The OSS and THE LONDON Free Germans" -Strange Bedfellows- by Johathan S. Gould gives a history or OSS support for the German resistance. You will be amazed at how the disinformation campaign to convince the Germans that FDR was strictly opposed to resistance is still believed to this day.
> 
> Another good one is American Intelligence and the German Resistance by Jurgen Heidiking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither book you mention exists according to Amazon.
> 
> Hope I didn't make you so nervous that you have to create sources.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading......I'm gonna blow that out of the water....
> 
> ...start with this from post #77:
> 
> a. *"A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
> The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans &#8212; and particularly those German generals &#8212; who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Oh goodness, the books aren't on Amazon! You have to google the first one. A link won't work because it is access to the CIA Library. Without a coded password you will be blocked to direct access. However, this book is available for online reading if you do as I am instructing. Google "The OSS and the London Free Germans  Strange Bedfellows  by Jonathan S. Gould and you will land in the CIA Library for the limited viewing of that book only.
Google the book by Jurgen Heidiking, American Intelligence and the German Resistance. I'll try and find the site. Think it is at Westview Press.

Here is something you are totally wrong about. I have given you two sources to prove you are wrong. They meet university level standards as reliable sources. You may not have been aware that the information regarding operatives inside Germany were not declassified until 2000. The operation was handled in the spirit of Mincemeat and the Patton's First Army.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.
> 
> I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.
> 
> Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
> 1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> 2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
> 3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS,
> 4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
> 5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
> 6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
> 7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
> 8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
> 9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
> 10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
> 11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
> 12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
> 13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
> ....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.
> 
> And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.
> 
> So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> _
> 
> All I had to read before I had read enough to realize the rest of the post was not worth reading
Click to expand...





At least you're admitting that you read part....

"not worth reading" means it provides facts that destroy the Roosevelt mythology/hagiography.



Here's more undeniable truth that you'll fear reading:




14. By* agreeing to follow Stalin's orders not to allow any communications with the German anti-Nazi resistance, *Franklin Roosevelt extended WWII by at least.....at least....two years.

Wouldn't one expect the Allies to wish a speedy end to the war? 
Only one leader didn't: Joseph Stalin.

a. "*Archival evidence indicates that the Soviets wanted the war to continue *long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or pastoralized which was called for in t*he Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White*. The Soviets were also clamoring for a second front in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia." 
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up




For whatever reason, Franklin *Roosevelt was obsequious, even servile, to Stalin's* every wish. Again....to Stalin's plan...not to American casualties.
Not to Churchill.....only to Stalin.




And here we find the reason why Stalin would not countenance any support for the German resistance: unlike Franklin Delano Roosevelt, *it was resolutely as anti-communist as it was anti-Nazi. *Normally, one wouldn't suppose this would be objectionable to an American leader.....would it?




15. Let's look at *a primary source, Allen Dulles,* first civilian to head the CIA, and its longest serving director. In "Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance," Dulles wrote of that* the German was the only anti-Nazi underground not supported by the United States. (p.22). * 
On page 140, Dulles states "The plotters (anti-Nazi German resistance)...*.were told clearly and repeatedly that we had made common cause with Russia...." as the reason they were frozen out.*

a. The NYTimes told the same story, March 18, 1946: "Full Story of Anit-Hitler Plot Shows That Allies Refused To Assist."




b. What was Stalin afraid would happen if the Allies opened communications with the anti-Nazi Germans? 
This: "The Armistice of Cassibile[1] was an armistice signed on 3 September 1943, and made public on 8 September, between the Kingdom of Italy and the Allies ("United Nations") of World War II. It was signed at a conference of generals from both sides in an Allied military camp...." 
Armistice of Cassibile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*"Armistice: : an agreement to stop fighting a war" *
Armistice - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Stalin could not allow that!!!




So.....where are all the documented denials that you Roosevelt fans are dying to answer with???

There are none, are there.
*Everything I post is correct.*
The conclusion is ineluctable: Roosevelt was more concerned with supporting Stalin and the spread of communism, than with Allied.....American....casualties.




*Roosevelt's actions extended the war by AT LEAST two years.*


----------



## ogibillm

So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?


----------



## ogibillm

Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ogibillm said:


> So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?





Germany would have surrendered.


Who do you suppose would control France????


Why am I left to teach English to dopes????

sur·ren·der verb \s&#601;-&#712;ren-d&#601;r\
: to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed

: *to give the control or use of (something) to someone else*
Surrender - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## PoliticalChic

ogibillm said:


> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.






"PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."

No I didn't.

I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.



The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.


You will learn that it was probably greater than two.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The OSS and THE LONDON Free Germans" -Strange Bedfellows- by Johathan S. Gould gives a history or OSS support for the German resistance. You will be amazed at how the disinformation campaign to convince the Germans that FDR was strictly opposed to resistance is still believed to this day.
> 
> Another good one is American Intelligence and the German Resistance by Jurgen Heidiking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither book you mention exists according to Amazon.
> 
> Hope I didn't make you so nervous that you have to create sources.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading......I'm gonna blow that out of the water....
> 
> ...start with this from post #77:
> 
> a. *"A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
> The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans  and particularly those German generals  who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goodness, the books aren't on Amazon! You have to google the first one. A link won't work because it is access to the CIA Library. Without a coded password you will be blocked to direct access. However, this book is available for online reading if you do as I am instructing. Google "The OSS and the London Free Germans  Strange Bedfellows  by Jonathan S. Gould and you will land in the CIA Library for the limited viewing of that book only.
> Google the book by Jurgen Heidiking, American Intelligence and the German Resistance. I'll try and find the site. Think it is at Westview Press.
Click to expand...







Did you see these actual sources:

15. Let's look at a primary source, Allen Dulles, first civilian to head the CIA, and its longest serving director. In "Germany's Underground: The Anti-Nazi Resistance," Dulles wrote of that the German was the only anti-Nazi underground not supported by the United States. (p.22). 
On page 140, Dulles states "The plotters (anti-Nazi German resistance)....were told clearly and repeatedly that we had made common cause with Russia...." as the reason they were frozen out.

a. The NYTimes told the same story, March 18, 1946: "Full Story of Anit-Hitler Plot Shows That Allies Refused To Assist."


----------



## rightwinger

ogibillm said:


> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.



Remember, we are talking PC here

She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory

But could you imagine her FDR hate threads if we did?


----------



## ogibillm

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?

I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
Click to expand...


Did you read what you just posted?

You say you never claimed the war could have ended in May 1943 then follow up with a claim that it could have

Is it that you are not good at subtraction?

May 1945- two years= May 1943


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany would have surrendered.
> 
> 
> Who do you suppose would control France????
> 
> 
> Why am I left to teach English to dopes????
> 
> sur·ren·der verb \s&#601;-&#712;ren-d&#601;r\
> : to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed
> 
> : *to give the control or use of (something) to someone else*
> Surrender - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


Do you suppose Stalin would have just accepted the surrender of Germany to the western powers and just forfeited the spoils of war? He would have simply allowed the west to write and administer the terms of surrender?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?
> 
> I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice
Click to expand...







It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...

...raise your paw.


Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.

Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."




And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...

I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The literate on the board may have read a famous anti-war novel, "All Quiet On The Western Front," by Erich Maria Remarque....
> 
> He was one of the anti-Nazi Germans....but not in Germany, he left for America.
> His sister remained.
> 
> 
> "On this date (December 16th) in 1943, pacifist novelist Erich Maria Remarque lost his youngest sister to the Nazi regime * beheaded because her brother is beyond our reach.*
> 
> Actually, Elfriede Scholz was convicted (upon the denunciation of her landlady a few weeks before) by the kangaroo Peoples Court for undermining the war effort. (Wehrkraftzersetzung  German has a word for everything.)
> 
> Like her brother, Elfriede was *a staunch opponent of the Nazi government,* and in 1943 that could certainly have sufficed to get her a one-way trip to Plotzensee Prison."
> ExecutedToday.com » 1943: Elfriede Scholz, Erich Maria Remarque?s sister
> 
> 
> These are the kinds of Germans that Joseph Stalin would not allow the Allies to aid...or even communicate with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.
> 
> I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.
> 
> Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
> 1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> 2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
> 3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS,
> 4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
> 5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
> 6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
> 7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
> 8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
> 9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
> 10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
> 11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
> 12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
> 13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
> ....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.
> 
> And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.
> 
> So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it...."
> 
> 
> This goes beyond 'believe'.....they haven't been able to deny any of the facts posted....
> 
> ....and it will get better today!
Click to expand...


I am not surprised by your response, having read many of our uninformed posts.  Being one who loves the State unconditionally (as long as the State is headed by a D), of course you would deny facts.

Is it any wonder tyrants throughout history can do as they wish, when so many dunces walk the Earth...like you.

No doubt if FDR were an R, you would believe it all.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany would have surrendered.
> 
> 
> Who do you suppose would control France????
> 
> 
> Why am I left to teach English to dopes????
> 
> sur·ren·der verb \s&#601;-&#712;ren-d&#601;r\
> : to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed
> 
> : *to give the control or use of (something) to someone else*
> Surrender - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you suppose Stalin would have just accepted the surrender of Germany to the western powers and just forfeited the spoils of war? He would have simply allowed the west to write and administer the terms of surrender?
Click to expand...





"Do you suppose...."

I don't have to suppose anything.....I've got the facts on my side.




"Do you suppose...."

A common tactic to change the subject when the argument goes against you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gipper and PC would have failed a history class if they had authored this argument.

In no way did anything provided in the affirmation support the OP.

That is the only judgement that counts here.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?
> 
> I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
Click to expand...


The only error I could find was that they do nothing to prove your point


----------



## PoliticalChic

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks PC for another well documented thread on FDR.  You have documented over and over again the corruption, lies, and deceit committed by FDR.
> 
> I believe one has to analyze all of FDR's actions, to make conclusions.  When one does this, it is clearly evident that he was a foolish tyrant of monstrous proportions.
> 
> Lets look at a few of the facts we know today about this fraud;
> 1. It has been well documented by historians that FDR loved the USSR and Stalin.
> 2. He ignored the Holodomor, the numerous atrocities committed by Stalin, and covered up the Katyn massacre, he knew Stalin committed, aligned fully with Stalin even though Stalin had previously aligned with Hitler....gave Stalin huge amounts of war material that could have helped America's war efforts in the Pacific.
> 3. Recognized the USSR as his first action as POTUS,
> 4. Surrounded himself with Stalinist spies, even though he was repeatedly warned about them.
> 5. He moved the Pacific fleet to Pearl, over objections from his military command.
> 6. He tried repeatedly to cause a confrontation with Germany in the N. Atlantic to get the war started (just as his buddy Wilson had done to get us into WWI), while lying to the American people that there would be no war.
> 7. He set up Japan for their attack on Pearl by refusing negotiate trade deals, confiscated Japanese assets, exposed a Japanese diplomat in the press for trying to come to an agreement with the US, to avert war.
> 8. Knew the Japanese were to attack Pearl before it happened...never warning commanders at Pearl, and later scapegoated those commanders.
> 9. Ran for a third term, arrogantly ignoring American historical precedent, in ill health.
> 10. Was gravely ill for much of his last years at POTUS, while America was fighting a terrible war....arrogantly ran for a fourth term, while on his deathbed.
> 11. Cheated on his wife repeatedly and cared not if she knew.
> 12. Imprisoned Japanese Americans.
> 13. Knew Stalin was spying on him at Tehran and cared not.
> ....the list is endless, yet many Americans continue to believe the lies from the State about this terrible dunce.
> 
> And do not forget his many unconstitutional actions before WWII, including trying to pack the SC and nearly decade long failed efforts to end the Great Depression, resulting in terrible hardships on millions of Americans.  Denounced Hoover for his interventions in the economy, before winning the office, only to intervene even more.
> 
> So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it...."
> 
> 
> This goes beyond 'believe'.....they haven't been able to deny any of the facts posted....
> 
> ....and it will get better today!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not surprised by your response, having read many of our uninformed posts.  Being one who loves the State unconditionally (as long as the State is headed by a D), of course you would deny facts.
> 
> Is it any wonder tyrants throughout history can do as they wish, when so many dunces walk the Earth...like you.
> 
> No doubt if FDR were an R, you would believe it all.
Click to expand...





I believe your post was meant for someone else....


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Gipper and PC would have failed a history class if they had authored this argument.
> 
> In no way did anything provided in the affirmation support the OP.
> 
> That is the only judgement that counts here.






Did they untie one arm from the straight jacket so you could post that?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, you can play econchick all you want, you still fail.

Your evidence does not support that the War was extended by two years.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> i love threads that start out with a totally fabricated premise.





If your A.D.D. will allow it, read the entire thread.


It is undeniable, as shown by the opposition....they haven't been able to deny any of it.....and, as you have never evidenced any understanding of history....I doubt any significant rebuttal will come from you.


Don't be afraid of the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, we are talking PC here
> 
> She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory
> 
> But could you imagine her FDR hate threads if we did?
Click to expand...





"She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."

You can prove that I haven't reduce you to a lying sack of garbage by providing my words that state that.



Shall I wait, or plan to have a life?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what you just posted?
> 
> You say you never claimed the war could have ended in May 1943 then follow up with a claim that it could have
> 
> Is it that you are not good at subtraction?
> 
> May 1945- two years= May 1943
Click to expand...





No....I'm indicating that FDR kept the war going by AT LEAST two additional years.....at the behest of Joseph Stalin.




"Is it that you are not good at subtraction?"

Actually....I can't come up with anything that I'm not good at.

Revealing you to be a simpleton is one of my finer attributes.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany would have surrendered.
> 
> 
> Who do you suppose would control France????
> 
> 
> Why am I left to teach English to dopes????
> 
> sur·ren·der verb \s&#601;-&#712;ren-d&#601;r\
> : to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed
> 
> : *to give the control or use of (something) to someone else*
> Surrender - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you suppose Stalin would have just accepted the surrender of Germany to the western powers and just forfeited the spoils of war? He would have simply allowed the west to write and administer the terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Do you suppose...."
> 
> I don't have to suppose anything.....I've got the facts on my side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Do you suppose...."
> 
> A common tactic to change the subject when the argument goes against you.
Click to expand...


Cognitive bias and facts are not the same.


----------



## ogibillm

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943."
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> I'm both accurate and truthful.....try to be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> The premise and conclusion of this thread is that the Roosevelt's subservience to Stalin extended the war by at least two years.
> 
> 
> You will learn that it was probably greater than two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?
> 
> I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
Click to expand...

Here's the error - the whole thread js fucking retarded, and sourced to other fucking retards.

Germany would have had no reason to surrender any earlier than they did, and they certainly never gave any indication they wanted to. Where were the diplomats, their envoys, their siits for peace? Why would they have surrendered when the war was going relatively well for them? What grand collusion do you believe happened between the ussr and Roosevelt before the ussr convinced england and the us to open a western front at the Tehran conference, after your proposed date for the end of hostilities? 

Its a stupid premise PC, and you should be ashamed


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?
> 
> I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only error I could find was that they do nothing to prove your point
Click to expand...





You're lying.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Germany sure did look ready to fall. Of course, this map is from January 1944. PC says the war should have ended in May of 1943. Maybe hitler would have been more open to surrender for no reason the previous spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, we are talking PC here
> 
> She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory
> 
> But could you imagine her FDR hate threads if we did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> You can prove that I haven't reduce you to a lying sack of garbage by providing my words that state that.
> 
> Shall I wait, or plan to have a life?
Click to expand...


Simple...prove me wrong

Show where you have "proved" that Germany would have gladly surrendered all of its captured territory in May 1943

Of course Germany would have gladly negotiated peace at that time.....if they could keep their winnings

But I think Mr Stalin would have insisted on continuing his invasion


----------



## PoliticalChic

ogibillm said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that Germany,  in control of nearly all of Europe, would have surrendered it all prior to may 1943?
> 
> I like your style, doubling down on the crazy is a bold choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the error - the whole thread js fucking retarded, and sourced to other fucking retards.
> 
> Germany would have had no reason to surrender any earlier than they did, and they certainly never gave any indication they wanted to. Where were the diplomats, their envoys, their siits for peace? Why would they have surrendered when the war was going relatively well for them? What grand collusion do you believe happened between the ussr and Roosevelt before the ussr convinced england and the us to open a western front at the Tehran conference, after your proposed date for the end of hostilities?
> 
> Its a stupid premise PC, and you should be ashamed
Click to expand...








Time and again, when folks realize they have been destroyed in an argument, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.



I'll consider your post to be the equivalent of a white flag.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, we are talking PC here
> 
> She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory
> 
> But could you imagine her FDR hate threads if we did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> You can prove that I haven't reduce you to a lying sack of garbage by providing my words that state that.
> 
> Shall I wait, or plan to have a life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple...prove me wrong
> 
> Show where you have "proved" that Germany would have gladly surrendered all of its captured territory in May 1943
> 
> Of course Germany would have gladly negotiated peace at that time.....if they could keep their winnings
> 
> But I think Mr Stalin would have insisted on continuing his invasion
Click to expand...







You said "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."


By ignoring my demand that you show where I said that you are accepting my charge that you are a lying sack of garbage.

Good....we're on the same page.


----------



## ogibillm

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the error - the whole thread js fucking retarded, and sourced to other fucking retards.
> 
> Germany would have had no reason to surrender any earlier than they did, and they certainly never gave any indication they wanted to. Where were the diplomats, their envoys, their siits for peace? Why would they have surrendered when the war was going relatively well for them? What grand collusion do you believe happened between the ussr and Roosevelt before the ussr convinced england and the us to open a western front at the Tehran conference, after your proposed date for the end of hostilities?
> 
> Its a stupid premise PC, and you should be ashamed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again, when folks realize they have been destroyed in an argument, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll consider your post to be the equivalent of a white flag.
Click to expand...

Consider it exasperation. 
Just explain how and why germany would have willingly surrendered all their territorial gains and retreated back to Germany prior to may of 43. Please. Why would they give up uncontested land?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> You can prove that I haven't reduce you to a lying sack of garbage by providing my words that state that.
> 
> Shall I wait, or plan to have a life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple...prove me wrong
> 
> Show where you have "proved" that Germany would have gladly surrendered all of its captured territory in May 1943
> 
> Of course Germany would have gladly negotiated peace at that time.....if they could keep their winnings
> 
> But I think Mr Stalin would have insisted on continuing his invasion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> 
> By ignoring my demand that you show where I said that you are accepting my charge that you are a lying sack of garbage.
> 
> Good....we're on the same page.
Click to expand...


I am asking you for terms of any proposed German surrender in May 1943
You have failed miserably in providing them


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?



How is it possible to make these assertions without the consideration of the Casablanca Conference? Easy, use a conspiracy book like AMERICAN BETRAYAL, the old anti FDR standby written by a rw political pundit and ignore actual histories and works done by scholars and people who follow standards required by serious people, like college professors and institutions of higher learning.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC simply has not proven her case, and using _American Betrayal_ merely reveals she has betrayed her own case.

Every time she attacks with _ad homs_, she of course admits fail.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC simply has not proven her case, and using _American Betrayal_ merely reveals she has betrayed her own case.
> 
> Every time she attacks with _ad homs_, she of course admits fail.







"Every time she attacks with _ad homs_,..."

It's my dream job....driving the Karma bus....providing exactly what folks deserve....


Get it, you mouth-breathing, half-witted, scruffy-looking, rotten, lying no good, four-flushing, snake-licking, sleezy, slimy, sticky, stinky, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, hopeless, bug-eyed, foul-mouthed, lying, soiled-soul, sacks of sewage?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to make these assertions without the consideration of the Casablanca Conference? Easy, use a conspiracy book like AMERICAN BETRAYAL, the old anti FDR standby written by a rw political pundit and ignore actual histories and works done by scholars and people who follow standards required by serious people, like college professors and institutions of higher learning.
Click to expand...




You're telling me how to present my case???


I should take advice from a loser like you????


You have yet to find a single error in any thing I've posted.....

...if you weren't a Roosevelt boot-licker, that would tell you something....


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple...prove me wrong
> 
> Show where you have "proved" that Germany would have gladly surrendered all of its captured territory in May 1943
> 
> Of course Germany would have gladly negotiated peace at that time.....if they could keep their winnings
> 
> But I think Mr Stalin would have insisted on continuing his invasion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> 
> By ignoring my demand that you show where I said that you are accepting my charge that you are a lying sack of garbage.
> 
> Good....we're on the same page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you for terms of any proposed German surrender in May 1943
> You have failed miserably in providing them
Click to expand...







"You have failed miserably...."

Every time you dolts use the term "failed" I know I've put a stake through your heart.


Bet I know where you got the word.....all of your report cards.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to make these assertions without the consideration of the Casablanca Conference? Easy, use a conspiracy book like AMERICAN BETRAYAL, the old anti FDR standby written by a rw political pundit and ignore actual histories and works done by scholars and people who follow standards required by serious people, like college professors and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telling me how to present my case???
> 
> 
> I should take advice from a loser like you????
> 
> 
> You have yet to find a single error in any thing I've posted.....
> 
> ...if you weren't a Roosevelt boot-licker, that would tell you something....
Click to expand...


I've pointed out your mistakes as have others. You are guilty of hypothetical condition to promote your cognitive bias and when confronted of such, barricade yourself behind delusion and denial.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to make these assertions without the consideration of the Casablanca Conference? Easy, use a conspiracy book like AMERICAN BETRAYAL, the old anti FDR standby written by a rw political pundit and ignore actual histories and works done by scholars and people who follow standards required by serious people, like college professors and institutions of higher learning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telling me how to present my case???
> 
> 
> I should take advice from a loser like you????
> 
> 
> You have yet to find a single error in any thing I've posted.....
> 
> ...if you weren't a Roosevelt boot-licker, that would tell you something....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've pointed out your mistakes as have others. You are guilty of hypothetical condition to promote your cognitive bias and when confronted of such, barricade yourself behind delusion and denial.
Click to expand...





Name one that I have posted, dunce.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said "She would have been willing to end the war in May 1943 and just let Germany keep all that territory."
> 
> 
> By ignoring my demand that you show where I said that you are accepting my charge that you are a lying sack of garbage.
> 
> Good....we're on the same page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you for terms of any proposed German surrender in May 1943
> You have failed miserably in providing them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You have failed miserably...."
> 
> Every time you dolts use the term "failed" I know I've put a stake through your heart.
> 
> 
> Bet I know where you got the word.....all of your report cards.
Click to expand...


OK

I see where we have reached the point in a Political Chic thread where she has painted herself into a corner and resorts to playing games the rest of the thread

Time for me to drop off


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you for terms of any proposed German surrender in May 1943
> You have failed miserably in providing them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You have failed miserably...."
> 
> Every time you dolts use the term "failed" I know I've put a stake through your heart.
> 
> 
> Bet I know where you got the word.....all of your report cards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> I see where we have reached the point in a Political Chic thread where she has painted herself into a corner and resorts to playing games the rest of the thread
> 
> Time for me to drop off
Click to expand...





You mean 'run away'.....as in "curses, foiled again!!!"


I'll complete it by this afternoon....and tomorrow you can try to lie your way out of the box I'm putting you in.


ta ta.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're telling me how to present my case???
> 
> 
> I should take advice from a loser like you????
> 
> 
> You have yet to find a single error in any thing I've posted.....
> 
> ...if you weren't a Roosevelt boot-licker, that would tell you something....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out your mistakes as have others. You are guilty of hypothetical condition to promote your cognitive bias and when confronted of such, barricade yourself behind delusion and denial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one that I have posted, dunce.
Click to expand...


Lets make it easy, because my answer is that all your facts are not facts, but rather assertions and opinions gleaned from controversial sources and anything coming close to being factual is misrepresented and distorted to fit your agenda. So what is the strongest fact you have presented? I've already shown the foolishness of the one about the Russian's manipulating the Japanese because of your lack of knowledge about oil resources in western Russia. And the one about FDR not allowing German resistance against Nazi's was dispelled with links to scholarly works that showed your lack of knowledge about data that was declassified only a few years ago. So what else. What is your favorite "fact" for the dunce that consistently tears your FDR threads apart like fast food napkins?


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Get it, you mouth-breathing, half-witted, scruffy-looking, rotten, lying no good, four-flushing, snake-licking, sleezy, slimy, sticky, stinky, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, hopeless, bug-eyed, foul-mouthed, lying, soiled-soul, sacks of sewage?_

 PC trolls her own OP.  Yup, fail.  Request this be moved to the conspiracy forum.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've pointed out your mistakes as have others. You are guilty of hypothetical condition to promote your cognitive bias and when confronted of such, barricade yourself behind delusion and denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one that I have posted, dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets make it easy, because my answer is that all your facts are not facts, but rather assertions and opinions gleaned from controversial sources and anything coming close to being factual is misrepresented and distorted to fit your agenda. So what is the strongest fact you have presented? I've already shown the foolishness of the one about the Russian's manipulating the Japanese because of your lack of knowledge about oil resources in western Russia. And the one about FDR not allowing German resistance against Nazi's was dispelled with links to scholarly works that showed your lack of knowledge about data that was declassified only a few years ago. So what else. What is your favorite "fact" for the dunce that consistently tears your FDR threads apart like fast food napkins?
Click to expand...


PC is consistent: failure in journalism, failure as amateur historian.


----------



## Camp

Booknotes :: Watch

This is a C-span video that interviews the author of a book about FDR in regards to his involvement with collecting intelligence and attempts, both failures and successes of being influenced by various operatives.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Booknotes :: Watch
> 
> This is a C-span video that interviews the author of a book about FDR in regards to his involvement with collecting intelligence and attempts, both failures and successes of being influenced by various operatives.








And this is otherwise:


Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted in *his administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.*



16. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the *chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.* Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris . 

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


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

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

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

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






17. "Wilhelm Franz Canaris (1 January 1887  9 April 1945) was a German admiral, and chief of the Abwehr, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During the Second World War, *he was among the military officers involved in the clandestine opposition to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime....* "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris

a. A few weeks before the war ended, *Canaris was hanged by he Nazis.* Hanged twice: "once to show him what death tasted like."
Canaris Hanging Related, New York Times, October 11, 1952.





*More about the anti-Nazi that Roosevelt would not allow his commander to contact* [a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. 
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans  and particularly those German generals  who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." 
German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


18. " The Chabad Lubavitch Hassidic movement has requested that Yad Vashem recognize Nazi Admiral Wilhelm Canaris as a Righteous Gentile. Chief of the Abwehr, the Nazi intelligence service, Canaris played a key role in saving the lives of the Chabad Rebbe Yitzhak Yosef Schneerson and his family along with an estimated 500 Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 according to numerous testimonies..... the refusal of Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Studies establishment to recognize Wilhelm Canaris as a Righteous Gentile is *due to their concern that such recognition might open a can of worms on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration and its conduct during World War II..*
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up






What have we learned? That at least as early as 1942 German anti-Nazis were ready to deal with the Allies to accomplish a surrender.

1942.


Roosevelt extended the war by some three years.......

....and how many American deaths....for 'fear of offending Stalin.'


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Booknotes :: Watch
> 
> This is a C-span video that interviews the author of a book about FDR in regards to his involvement with collecting intelligence and attempts, both failures and successes of being influenced by various operatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is otherwise:
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted in *his administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.*
> 
> 
> 
> 16. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the *chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.* Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> .'
Click to expand...


Roosevelt's so called fear of "offending" Stalin was due to the belief the the NKFD and BDO operations being conducted by the Soviet's were far more important than the small chance of creating a western organized and supported resistance that would more than likely be doomed to failure. The NKFD and BDO operations where meeting with success. Upper level operations were being conducted that were far more valuable and worthy of attention. Infiltration and contact with Canaris was one of them.

First, Adm. was the Chief of the Abwehr, but the Abwerhr  had limited power and in many ways was the low ranking intelligence service. Canaris himself had very limited authority, control and influence with Hitler. In the grand scheme he was very low on the list of the power elite.
So, here is where your statement is wrong. You state that "Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Cannaris."  Wrong. Your very first claim is wrong.

Canaris met directly with FDR's personal representative, George Earle in Turkey in April 1943. A few months later Canaris met with OSS Chief William Donovon in Spain. The exact opposite of what you claim was occurring. FDR was supporting resistance through the NKFD and BDO operations, conducting intelligence and communications with the German staff and exploring a negotiated peace potential with at least one member of Hitler's staff, the one you think and claim wasn't communicating with FDR.


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of that has anything to do with the war not ending in 1943.

The only way it could have happened was if Hitler accepted some sort of deal or if the Allies had beaten him in the field by then.

The first was not possible.

The second condition would have required Allies, at the very least, Hitler to return his forces to the boundaries of Greater Germany and free his conquests.

No evidence exists that he ever would have done such a thing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> None of that has anything to do with the war not ending in 1943.
> 
> The only way it could have happened was if Hitler accepted some sort of deal or if the Allies had beaten him in the field by then.
> 
> The first was not possible.
> 
> The second condition would have required Allies, at the very least, Hitler to return his forces to the boundaries of Greater Germany and free his conquests.
> 
> No evidence exists that he ever would have done such a thing.







You moron....this is not about Hitler accepting anything but a bullet from the anti-Nazi resistance.


----------



## PoliticalChic

19. Let's get to the unrecognized truth: although there is* no basis to believe that communism is any better than Nazism....worse *if judged by numbers slaughtered....the two do not engender the same visceral reaction.  Call some one a Nazi....fighting words! Communist? College professors and pretentious youth apply the term to themselves.

Soviet communism's mastery of manipulation accounts for the disparate knee-jerk reaction to Hitler, and the Nazis.....but the pass given to the far worse actors: Stalin and the communists.




Czeslaw Milosz's study, "The Captive Mind," attempts to explain that disconnect.
 "The book attempts to explain both the intellectual allure of Stalinism and the temptation of collaboration with the Stalinist regime among intellectuals in post-war Central and Eastern Europe. Mi&#322;osz describes the book as having been written "under great inner conflict". 
The Captive Mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


a. "['The Captive Mind'....the famous study of Communist totalitarian thinking, the reasons the Soviets encouraged a singular literary focus on the crimes of Hitler's Germany. 'Concentrating the reader's attention on German atrocities channeled their hatred into a single idrection and so contributed to the psycholoical prepartation' of the country" Milosz wrote. (p.126.)...*.what he describes, however, fits a stream of Hollywood movies for over half a century- one proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime *and all that."
West, "American Betrayal," p. 282.





20. A more sinister ' proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime' is *the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.*
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals! 
FDR was lying! 



September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in* a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war." *
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137





Yet, hordes of self-proclaimed intellectuals practice what of what Aquinas called 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.
For them...and there are several who have made an appearance in this thread, nothing could be worse than revealing* the truth about FDR....just as he did with the Depression, he extended the war by years.
*


----------



## JakeStarkey

I'm indicating that FDR kept the war going by AT LEAST two additional years.....at the behest of Joseph Stalin. * False.  The evidence contradicts that.*

Actually....I can't come up with anything that I'm not good at.  *False.  You lack in appropriateness and professionalism.  You have not shown you are either a good journalist or historian.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

communism vs nazism: yes, they are both horrifically terrible system; yes, they both had allure in the first half of the century beyond national boundaries.

The USSR and the the USA did not have the same ideals but the same enemy in Hitler.

The self-proclaimed intellectual Political Chic practices what Aquinas  defined as 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.

PC may be certifiably insane.


----------



## westwall

Moonglow said:


> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...








Hitler wouldn't have, but his officers would.  In 1944 they approached the American legate in Stockholm and offered to surrender to the Western Allies.  Their one condition was they be allowed to continue the fight in the east.

Based on the history after that, the western world would probably be better off had we accepted.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> communism vs nazism: yes, they are both horrifically terrible system; yes, they both had allure in the first half of the century beyond national boundaries.
> 
> The USSR and the the USA did not have the same ideals but the same enemy in Hitler.
> 
> The self-proclaimed intellectual Political Chic practices what Aquinas  defined as 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.
> 
> PC may be certifiably insane.








The USSR was Hitler's ally in the beginning....or don't you consider the partitioning of Poland as a hostile act?


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wouldn't have, but his officers would.  In 1944 they approached the American legate in Stockholm and offered to surrender to the Western Allies.  Their one condition was they be allowed to continue the fight in the east.
> 
> Based on the history after that, the western world would probably be better off had we accepted.
Click to expand...


And not hold the German state, officials, and military responsible for war crimes?


----------



## JakeStarkey

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> communism vs nazism: yes, they are both horrifically terrible system; yes, they both had allure in the first half of the century beyond national boundaries.
> 
> The USSR and the the USA did not have the same ideals but the same enemy in Hitler.
> 
> The self-proclaimed intellectual Political Chic practices what Aquinas  defined as 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.
> 
> PC may be certifiably insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR was Hitler's ally in the beginning....or don't you consider the partitioning of Poland as a hostile act?
Click to expand...



Thank you.  USSR and Nazi Germany did not share the same ideals and goals but were allies for less than two years.  The USSR, the USA, and the UK were allies for almost four.

The point is that the OP that the war could have ended in 1943 is not based on any reality.


To suggest that it could have in the reality of the time is "cultivated ignorance."


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> I'm indicating that FDR kept the war going by AT LEAST two additional years.....at the behest of Joseph Stalin. * False.  The evidence contradicts that.*
> 
> Actually....I can't come up with anything that I'm not good at.  *False.  You lack in appropriateness and professionalism.  You have not shown you are either a good journalist or historian.*






If you are going to be two faced, at least make one of them pretty.

Not only a moron and a liar....but you have no facility with the use of quotation marks.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your mouth is writing checks that your intellect can't cash.
> 
> 
> When will you realize that I know so very much more than you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut and paste some rightwing propaganda to convince us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Us"???
> 
> You have a tapeworm?
> 
> 
> 
> Relax....your re-education will follow......slowly.
Click to expand...




I don't care who you are, that's funny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

History shows FDR was a Stalin sock puppet and the people of Eastern Europe suffered for generations because of it


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm indicating that FDR kept the war going by AT LEAST two additional years.....at the behest of Joseph Stalin. * False.  The evidence contradicts that.*
> 
> Actually....I can't come up with anything that I'm not good at.  *False.  You lack in appropriateness and professionalism.  You have not shown you are either a good journalist or historian.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to be two faced, at least make one of them pretty.
> 
> Not only a moron and a liar....but you have no facility with the use of quotation marks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have failed to give us a sustainable OP.
> 
> All your whining and pining and distraction cannot save it.
Click to expand...



To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! 
Ive known sheep that could outwit you. 
Ive worn dresses with higher IQs.

I can see you....little fists covering your ears, eyes tightly shut......

That sound? Me...laughing at your denials.




Of course I have provided a documented, linked perspective that proves exactly what the title of the OP states.....

...but wait!

More is coming.



Back to my posts: ....they remain 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!



And, as an aside...I love watching you and other imbeciles post your "is not, is not" vapid denials.

Yeah....really.....I do.


Now....stay tuned: I'll complete the thread later.
Get your 'is not, is not' ready.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wouldn't have, but his officers would.  In 1944 they approached the American legate in Stockholm and offered to surrender to the Western Allies.  Their one condition was they be allowed to continue the fight in the east.
> 
> Based on the history after that, the western world would probably be better off had we accepted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And not hold the German state, officials, and military responsible for war crimes?
Click to expand...






They offered to hand over EVERYONE who the Allies requested to answer for their crimes.....everyone.


----------



## westwall

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> communism vs nazism: yes, they are both horrifically terrible system; yes, they both had allure in the first half of the century beyond national boundaries.
> 
> The USSR and the the USA did not have the same ideals but the same enemy in Hitler.
> 
> The self-proclaimed intellectual Political Chic practices what Aquinas  defined as 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.
> 
> PC may be certifiably insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR was Hitler's ally in the beginning....or don't you consider the partitioning of Poland as a hostile act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  USSR and Nazi Germany did not share the same ideals and goals but were allies for less than two years.  The USSR, the USA, and the UK were allies for almost four.
> 
> The point is that the OP that the war could have ended in 1943 is not based on any reality.
> 
> 
> To suggest that it could have in the reality of the time is "cultivated ignorance."
Click to expand...







Actually there is little to choose from for the regular citizen of either country.  If you were a member of the elite political parties you did very well, if you were the peasantry you did marginally better under Hitler than Stalin but ultimately they were both State controlled economies.  The individual existed for the benefit of the State.  The Germans went so far as to give medals to mothers for breeding children for the State.


----------



## PoliticalChic

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR was Hitler's ally in the beginning....or don't you consider the partitioning of Poland as a hostile act?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.  USSR and Nazi Germany did not share the same ideals and goals but were allies for less than two years.  The USSR, the USA, and the UK were allies for almost four.
> 
> The point is that the OP that the war could have ended in 1943 is not based on any reality.
> 
> 
> To suggest that it could have in the reality of the time is "cultivated ignorance."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is little to choose from for the regular citizen of either country.  If you were a member of the elite political parties you did very well, if you were the peasantry you did marginally better under Hitler than Stalin but ultimately they were both State controlled economies.  The individual existed for the benefit of the State.  The Germans went so far as to give medals to mothers for breeding children for the State.
Click to expand...




1. "The decoration was conferred from 1939 until 1945[5] in three classes of order, bronze, silver, and gold,[2][6] to Reichsdeutsche mothers who exhibited probity, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent.[7][8]"
Cross of Honour of the German Mother - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. And, in another similarity to the above by Middle East fundamentalists....
While Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo&#287;an's call for women to give birth to at least three children has received the support of some individuals and organizations, Turkey currently has a young population, but if current trends continue it will be aging by 2038. Western societies are currently facing an aging population problem. Every family should have three children if we wish to preserve Turkeys young population. http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=139512


Can medals be far behind?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> OP fail, let'd move it to the badlands




I make you soooo mad!

Jump, jump, little piggy!


----------



## PoliticalChic

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler wouldn't have, but his officers would.  In 1944 they approached the American legate in Stockholm and offered to surrender to the Western Allies.  Their one condition was they be allowed to continue the fight in the east.
> 
> Based on the history after that, the western world would probably be better off had we accepted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And not hold the German state, officials, and military responsible for war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to hand over EVERYONE who the Allies requested to answer for their crimes.....everyone.
Click to expand...






Wait....you're not saying that if Roosevelt allowed contact with the anti-Nazi resistance....

...the war would have ended years before it did??????



Holy shish-kabob!





Now....where did I hear that premise before...??

Hmmmmmm........


----------



## westwall

PoliticalChic said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And not hold the German state, officials, and military responsible for war crimes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to hand over EVERYONE who the Allies requested to answer for their crimes.....everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....you're not saying that if Roosevelt allowed contact with the anti-Nazi resistance....
> 
> ...the war would have ended years before it did??????
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shish-kabob!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....where did I hear that premise before...??
> 
> Hmmmmmm........
Click to expand...







Jeez, PC....I have nooooo idea...


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "So is it hard to believe that FDR could have ended the war with Germany and Japan much earlier than 1945?  Of course it is not...and the evidence is there if you are willing to accept it...."
> 
> 
> This goes beyond 'believe'.....they haven't been able to deny any of the facts posted....
> 
> ....and it will get better today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised by your response, having read many of our uninformed posts.  Being one who loves the State unconditionally (as long as the State is headed by a D), of course you would deny facts.
> 
> Is it any wonder tyrants throughout history can do as they wish, when so many dunces walk the Earth...like you.
> 
> No doubt if FDR were an R, you would believe it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe your post was meant for someone else....
Click to expand...


Yes...sorry.

It was meant for our good delusional buddy Rightwinger.


----------



## PoliticalChic

westwall said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> They offered to hand over EVERYONE who the Allies requested to answer for their crimes.....everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait....you're not saying that if Roosevelt allowed contact with the anti-Nazi resistance....
> 
> ...the war would have ended years before it did??????
> 
> 
> 
> Holy shish-kabob!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....where did I hear that premise before...??
> 
> Hmmmmmm........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez, PC....I have nooooo idea...
Click to expand...




Well......the least I can do is support that premise......again!



21. Lest there be any doubt that *the Stalin-Roosevelt policy of ignoring the anti-Nazi resistance in Germany *would have ended the war earlier than May of 1945, consider this: 
*There was significant contact, by said resistance, with the British by 1938!*

Remember the date of Germany's surrender? May 7,1945.
*1938..*.' significant contact, by said resistance, with the British...' Five years earlier! 
How many dead and wounded Americans in those five years?
I'll get to that....,.




a.* By 1942,* [Abwehr chief of German Army Intelligence Wm.] Canaris had a plan before British intelligence that was under serious consideration but, of course, went nowhere. 
"OSS: The Secret History Of America's First Central Intelligence Agency," by Richard Harrris Smith, p. 368





22. *George H. Earle *was FDR's special representative in Europe.
* "In 1940,* Earle...presented a plan to President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) that Earle believed might end the war in Europe early. *The German ambassador and the head of the German secret service secretly proposed to Earle that German troops could surround Hitlers headquarters and turn Hitler over to the Allies as a war criminal. *German troops then would be repositioned to defend against the Russian military. The plot was never approved." George Howard Earle III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was in 1940!!!!

Five years before the end of the war!!!
How many lives would have been saved?
I'll get to that.....



a. " The freedom and democracy for which we fought was destroyed in eastern Europe.  *FDR refused *to accept a black-out of Nazism, the protection of Poland and eastern European nations from Communist domination, and *to save the lives of scores of thousands of American, British and French soldiers and enormous additional war costs.*

The American public has probably never heard of *Governor Earls (sic) repeated attempts to end the war against Germany through the surrender of the German army and the trial and execution of Hitler by our armed forces.*

*If Roosevelt had accepted *this capitulation, practically on his own terms, it would have been the end of Hitler and Nazism.  Freedom and democracy would have been restored to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and other nations.  It is enough to make you weep."                                                                                                              Hamilton Fish, "FDR, The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War 11,"  (pp. 237-241)


I believe that that particular Hamilton Fish was number four in a line of prominent politicians...

Again..."*If Roosevelt had accepted *this capitulation,..."

So...why didn't he?


As told earlier....not to "offend" Joseph Stalin.

Pathetic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What is pathetic is the nonsense here.

The generals would not have handed any over.

But if they would have, then the fault is theirs because they kept failing at overthrowing Hitler.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> What is pathetic is the nonsense here.
> 
> The generals would not have handed any over.
> 
> But if they would have, then the fault is theirs because they kept failing at overthrowing Hitler.





AhhhI see the screw-up fairy has visited us again.



"What is pathetic is the nonsense here."
Were you gazing into a mirror when you posted that?
You have a point there, dunce. But, if you part your hair right no one will notice.


From our resident fortune-teller: "The generals would not have handed any over."

Speaking of which....don't go to a mind-reader, go to a palmist.
I know you have a palm.



OK.....let's characterize our relationship.
There is an ancient saying that has moment, here, in this discussion. It applies to my teaching you:
 "A fool, though in the company of the wise, understands nothing of the doctrine being discussed, as a spoon tastes not the flavor of the soup." 

Nail on the head, huh?



And remember: I have never faked a sarcasm in my life!


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *not* nuking Japan would have extended the War. All the Military planners at that time agreed about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?
> 
> FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).
> 
> But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan.
Click to expand...


They weren't "nukes." They were atomic bombs.


----------



## Unkotare

guno said:


> Another amazing thread by little miss Saigon who has no historical family connection to  America of that  time period .of the  depression,  Once again showing that she knows very little about anything, But she is loud about it



Can you ever manage to post anything without wiping your racist shit all over it, you scumbag?

You're a no-class, racist troll.


----------



## regent

The sad thing here is that historians will probably go on writing history as they have in the past and most of this is all for naught.  I just don't let my kids read any of it.


----------



## Camp

JakeStarkey said:


> What is pathetic is the nonsense here.
> 
> The generals would not have handed any over.
> 
> But if they would have, then the fault is theirs because they kept failing at overthrowing Hitler.



PC made a specific challenge hours ago and many post back. I answered immediately and shredded her conspiracy theory by showing her mistakes and lack of knowledge with the use of impeccable sources and facts . She has not responded, but she has completely changed  and adjusted her thesis and made use of the information I provided. She is clueless about the peace feeler myths being accurately referred to as myths and Soviet unconditional surrender terms and the allies fears of a surrender or peace agreement between Germany and the Soviet's. There is just a whole bunch of worlds PC hasn't a clue about. Quick PC, what was the NKFD? What was the BDO? How do they relate to your conspiracy theory?


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but how much more fun to nuke the bejesus out of them?
> 
> FDR couldn't decide if he loved Hitler and wanted to be a Nazi or if he loved Stalin and wanted to be a pretend socialist that was actually a brutal dictator (depending on what PC is thinking that day).
> 
> But I think we can all agree that he just loved frying some Japanese people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't "nukes." They were atomic bombs.
Click to expand...


Go back to school smart ass. The fission bombs dropped over Japan in WWII were nuclear devices that caused nuclear explosions and hence, nuclear bombs. Fission or fusion, both nuclear.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is pathetic is the nonsense here.
> 
> The generals would not have handed any over.
> 
> But if they would have, then the fault is theirs because they kept failing at overthrowing Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC made a specific challenge hours ago and many post back. I answered immediately and shredded her conspiracy theory by showing her mistakes and lack of knowledge with the use of impeccable sources and facts . She has not responded, but she has completely changed  and adjusted her thesis and made use of the information I provided. She is clueless about the peace feeler myths being accurately referred to as myths and Soviet unconditional surrender terms and the allies fears of a surrender or peace agreement between Germany and the Soviet's. There is just a whole bunch of worlds PC hasn't a clue about. Quick PC, what was the NKFD? What was the BDO? How do they relate to your conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...





"...changed  and adjusted her thesis and made use of the information I provided."

Oooo....look!

Another version of "is not, is not."



This was a brilliant thread, if I don't say so myself!

There can be no doubt as to Stalin's manipulation, and the result of his forcing Roosevelt not to accept surrender feelers from anti-Nazi resistance leaders, like Canaris.



23. "Standing as *an obstacle to any negotiated surrender, as noted by Admiral Canaris, was Roosevelts stubborn adherence to the unconditional surrender* demand that he had announced at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943.  But what could have lain behind a policy that made the achievement of the political aims of the war so much more difficult for the United States? 

 Roosevelts fundamental anti-German prejudice has been offered as one explanation.  But that would not explain the rigid application of* the same policy toward Japan,* as well.  Maybe one could credit that to the anti-Japanese attitude of Roosevelts Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, but no one forced Roosevelt to put the Republican war hawk Stimson in that position." 
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/121031.htm




24. "For more than half a century, every sixth of June, countless patriotic Americans, Britons, Canadians and others gather to pay homage to thousands of young men who "gave their lives for their country" on the beaches of Normandy. 

More than 200,000 American fighting men were killed in World War II, together with 375,000 British and millions of other nationalities. *Most of these deaths occurred after mid-1943, when it was clear to all concerned that the Axis and Japan had lost.* Why did the fighting continue for two years after the issue had been decided?"
John Dombrowski


Again:
" Why did the fighting continue for two years after the issue had been decided?"




And so we have learned that Franklin Roosevelt never let the lives of American and other Allied lives stand in the way of his support for Joseph Stalin.
His majestic mythology.....undeserved.
Contumely.....far too late in coming.

Cyrano:  "Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!"


----------



## Toro

FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth. 

Ever.

So there.


----------



## Camp

Toro said:


> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.



He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was not alive when the Nukes were dropped on Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't "nukes." They were atomic bombs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back to school smart ass. The fission bombs dropped over Japan in WWII were nuclear devices that caused nuclear explosions and hence, nuclear bombs. Fission or fusion, both nuclear.
Click to expand...


They were atomic bombs. Go back to school yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

Toro said:


> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.





Maybe not _ever_, but he sure was one vile piece of shit.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not _ever_, but he sure was one vile piece of shit.
Click to expand...


Ya, so says the guy who doesn't know high school science.

Dictionary.com


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not _ever_, but he sure was one vile piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, so says the guy who doesn't know high school science.
Click to expand...



Says the guy who knows what the difference is, you ignorant dope.


----------



## Mr Liberty

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't "nukes." They were atomic bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back to school smart ass. The fission bombs dropped over Japan in WWII were nuclear devices that caused nuclear explosions and hence, nuclear bombs. Fission or fusion, both nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They were atomic bombs. Go back to school yourself.
Click to expand...


Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons; however, thermonuclear weapons are both fission and fusion weapons.  This is a fact not an opinion. 
Types of Nuclear Bombs | PBS NewsHour


----------



## gipper

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is pathetic is the nonsense here.
> 
> The generals would not have handed any over.
> 
> But if they would have, then the fault is theirs because they kept failing at overthrowing Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC made a specific challenge hours ago and many post back. I answered immediately and shredded her conspiracy theory by showing her mistakes and lack of knowledge with the use of impeccable sources and facts . She has not responded, but she has completely changed  and adjusted her thesis and made use of the information I provided. She is clueless about the peace feeler myths being accurately referred to as myths and Soviet unconditional surrender terms and the allies fears of a surrender or peace agreement between Germany and the Soviet's. There is just a whole bunch of worlds PC hasn't a clue about. Quick PC, what was the NKFD? What was the BDO? How do they relate to your conspiracy theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...changed  and adjusted her thesis and made use of the information I provided."
> 
> Oooo....look!
> 
> Another version of "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> This was a brilliant thread, if I don't say so myself!
> 
> There can be no doubt as to Stalin's manipulation, and the result of his forcing Roosevelt not to accept surrender feelers from anti-Nazi resistance leaders, like Canaris.
> 
> 
> 
> 23. "Standing as *an obstacle to any negotiated surrender, as noted by Admiral Canaris, was Roosevelts stubborn adherence to the unconditional surrender* demand that he had announced at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943.  But what could have lain behind a policy that made the achievement of the political aims of the war so much more difficult for the United States?
> 
> Roosevelts fundamental anti-German prejudice has been offered as one explanation.  But that would not explain the rigid application of* the same policy toward Japan,* as well.  Maybe one could credit that to the anti-Japanese attitude of Roosevelts Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, but no one forced Roosevelt to put the Republican war hawk Stimson in that position."
> http://www.dcdave.com/article5/121031.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24. "For more than half a century, every sixth of June, countless patriotic Americans, Britons, Canadians and others gather to pay homage to thousands of young men who "gave their lives for their country" on the beaches of Normandy.
> 
> More than 200,000 American fighting men were killed in World War II, together with 375,000 British and millions of other nationalities. *Most of these deaths occurred after mid-1943, when it was clear to all concerned that the Axis and Japan had lost.* Why did the fighting continue for two years after the issue had been decided?"
> John Dombrowski
> 
> 
> Again:
> " Why did the fighting continue for two years after the issue had been decided?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so we have learned that Franklin Roosevelt never let the lives of American and other Allied lives stand in the way of his support for Joseph Stalin.
> His majestic mythology.....undeserved.
> Contumely.....far too late in coming.
> 
> Cyrano:  "Then, as I end the refrain, thrust home!"
Click to expand...


The evidence is damning and yet millions of Americans have been duped by the State, in believing FDR a great POTUS.

Disgusting!!!


----------



## NoNukes

Camp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
Click to expand...




Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The OSS and THE LONDON Free Germans" -Strange Bedfellows- by Johathan S. Gould gives a history or OSS support for the German resistance. You will be amazed at how the disinformation campaign to convince the Germans that FDR was strictly opposed to resistance is still believed to this day.
> 
> Another good one is American Intelligence and the German Resistance by Jurgen Heidiking
> 
> 
> 
> y
> 
> 
> 
> Neither book you mention exists according to Amazon.
> 
> Hope I didn't make you so nervous that you have to create sources.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading......I'm gonna blow that out of the water....
> 
> ...start with this from post #77:
> 
> a. *"A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
> The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans  and particularly those German generals  who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goodness, the books aren't on Amazon! You have to google the first one. A link won't work because it is access to the CIA Library. Without a coded password you will be blocked to direct access. However, this book is available for online reading if you do as I am instructing. Google "The OSS and the London Free Germans  Strange Bedfellows  by Jonathan S. Gould and you will land in the CIA Library for the limited viewing of that book only.
> Google the book by Jurgen Heidiking, American Intelligence and the German Resistance. I'll try and find the site. Think it is at Westview Press.
> 
> Here is something you are totally wrong about. I have given you two sources to prove you are wrong. They meet university level standards as reliable sources. You may not have been aware that the information regarding operatives inside Germany were not declassified until 2000. The operation was handled in the spirit of Mincemeat and the Patton's First Army.
Click to expand...


These books will not contain the 'opinions' that she wants. Posting a statement from a book, without factual evidence to back them up, does not make them facts.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be considered crazy only if one were a fool...
> 
> ...raise your paw.
> 
> 
> Begin by admitting that you can find not a single error in any of the linked and documented facts I've posted.
> 
> Go on....go through the thread.....all of you Rooseveltian groopies post nothing but "is not, is not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this thread won't conclude until this afternoon...
> 
> I dare you to stay on board.....and remember to keep your hands inside the ride at all times!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the error - the whole thread js fucking retarded, and sourced to other fucking retards.
> 
> Germany would have had no reason to surrender any earlier than they did, and they certainly never gave any indication they wanted to. Where were the diplomats, their envoys, their siits for peace? Why would they have surrendered when the war was going relatively well for them? What grand collusion do you believe happened between the ussr and Roosevelt before the ussr convinced england and the us to open a western front at the Tehran conference, after your proposed date for the end of hostilities?
> 
> Its a stupid premise PC, and you should be ashamed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again, when folks realize they have been destroyed in an argument, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll consider your post to be the equivalent of a white flag.
Click to expand...


And you resort to failed attempts at humor when you are getting your ass handed to you.


----------



## Agit8r

PoliticalChic said:


> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier



You clearly don't understand what a conditional surrender is


----------



## gipper

Agit8r said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly don't understand what a conditional surrender is
Click to expand...


Wrong.

What you do not understand is that by allowing a corrupt lying politician to make a requirement like unconditional surrender, is complete ignorance.  What makes you think FDR was right and his rule must be abided by, when we know ALL politicians are liars, cheats, and criminals?

You must believe that Americans and others must die, to honor the ignorant demands of a disgusting foolish dumbass politician.  It is you who is


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of PC's evidence supports the thesis and actual history rebukes it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> y
> 
> 
> 
> Neither book you mention exists according to Amazon.
> 
> Hope I didn't make you so nervous that you have to create sources.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep reading......I'm gonna blow that out of the water....
> 
> ...start with this from post #77:
> 
> a. *"A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force) directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime. *
> The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans  and particularly those German generals  who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country." German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh goodness, the books aren't on Amazon! You have to google the first one. A link won't work because it is access to the CIA Library. Without a coded password you will be blocked to direct access. However, this book is available for online reading if you do as I am instructing. Google "The OSS and the London Free Germans  Strange Bedfellows  by Jonathan S. Gould and you will land in the CIA Library for the limited viewing of that book only.
> Google the book by Jurgen Heidiking, American Intelligence and the German Resistance. I'll try and find the site. Think it is at Westview Press.
> 
> Here is something you are totally wrong about. I have given you two sources to prove you are wrong. They meet university level standards as reliable sources. You may not have been aware that the information regarding operatives inside Germany were not declassified until 2000. The operation was handled in the spirit of Mincemeat and the Patton's First Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These books will not contain the 'opinions' that she wants. Posting a statement from a book, without factual evidence to back them up, does not make them facts.
Click to expand...





See if you can find any errors in the quotes and statements I've provided.

When you can't.....well, I was going to ask where that finding leads....but, that would require an ability from you that is not in evidence.




Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????



None....unless you are the dupe that you are revealed to be.


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?



Gawwd you are a pathetic moron. 

The ability of right wingers to distort, misinform and out right LIE and then project their UN-American crap on others  in today's society, without shame  is truly remarkable.  We used to minimize and place you Klowns in the corner, but today's conservatives/GOP has you front and center, proudly and unashamedly rewriting history to fit your ideological 'beliefs'.

I thought your grasp of economics and math was bad, wow your distortion of history would probably have you believe, like Ronnie Reagan believed of himself, was an active participant of WW2 lol


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the error - the whole thread js fucking retarded, and sourced to other fucking retards.
> 
> Germany would have had no reason to surrender any earlier than they did, and they certainly never gave any indication they wanted to. Where were the diplomats, their envoys, their siits for peace? Why would they have surrendered when the war was going relatively well for them? What grand collusion do you believe happened between the ussr and Roosevelt before the ussr convinced england and the us to open a western front at the Tehran conference, after your proposed date for the end of hostilities?
> 
> Its a stupid premise PC, and you should be ashamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again, when folks realize they have been destroyed in an argument, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll consider your post to be the equivalent of a white flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you resort to failed attempts at humor when you are getting your ass handed to you.
Click to expand...





Still no attempt to confront the thesis.

Glad to see that you continue to work to ability.


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
Click to expand...


Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> 
> 
> a. Based on *Stalin's wishes...*..any surrender by Germany would not be accepted until its potential as *a barrier to the spread of communism was obliterated* so that "...Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire" was removed.
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting  with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, *Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany." *
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House.....
> 
> 
> Stalin demanded "unconditional surrender."
> So.....Roosevelt acquiesced.
> 
> 
> 
> Would it not have been in America's interests to see the Nazis and Hitler destroyed earlier, with a surrender of German forces and territories???
> 
> Would not have thousands of American soldier's lives been saved?
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gawwd you are a pathetic moron.
> 
> The ability of right wingers to distort, misinform and out right LIE and then project their UN-American crap on others  in today's society, without shame  is truly remarkable.  We used to minimize and place you Klowns in the corner, but today's conservatives/GOP has you front and center, proudly and unashamedly rewriting history to fit your ideological 'beliefs'.
> 
> I thought your grasp of economics and math was bad, wow your distortion of history would probably have you believe, like Ronnie Reagan believed of himself, was an active participant of WW2 lol
Click to expand...





"Gawwd you are a pathetic moron."

Are you trying to say that we're twins????


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain
Click to expand...





Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......


......none???

Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
Great.

Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?


----------



## Dad2three

regent said:


> As I remember the American people wanted to get into that war full scale as soon as Poland was invaded, but FDR held them back.
> 
> Then the America-Firsters put on numerous demonstrations urging FDR to remove Hitler, saying this was our war, in fact, any European war was our war.
> 
> Then in spite of FDR's veto, Congress renewed the draft a few days before Pearl to keep Americans in service by an overwhelming vote.
> 
> Our military was at peak strength on Dec 7, and our soldiers had become battle-wise in the first world war, they were ready to tangle with the cowardly incompetent German army.
> 
> Then FDR passed the Neutrality Act preventing America from helping Britain, but the America Firsters defied FDR and sent Britain fifty destroyers and other aid. FDR was furious.
> 
> The list is as endless, as is the stupidity of some people that believe this tripe.





WOW the ability of the right to rewrite history IS amazing, they don't let things like  commonly accepted facts get in their way, lol

FDR FOUGHT the conservatives, who like in WW1 were isolationists again, and FDR didn't pass the Neutrality Act, it was pushed in Congress by mainly the conservatives, GOPers.


You wing nuts have no shame in support of your failed ideology!

*(EDIT, SORRY REGENT DIDN'T SEE YOUR LAST SENTENCE. It's amazing how the wing nutters do this crap right?)*


----------



## Dad2three

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......
> 
> 
> ......none???
> 
> Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
> Great.
> 
> Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?
Click to expand...


Your ENTIRE premise is based on distortions, misrepresentations and lies, as someone with an actual degree in history, it's pathetic how conservative, the ones who were on the wrong side of history over and over and over, tend to rewrite and distort history with bullshit OPINIONS based on their ideology!


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time and again, when folks realize they have been destroyed in an argument, their language falls to the vulgar. It's one of those hard to hide psychological tells....your anger at being bested leaks out as vulgarity.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll consider your post to be the equivalent of a white flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you resort to failed attempts at humor when you are getting your ass handed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no attempt to confront the thesis.
> 
> Glad to see that you continue to work to ability.
Click to expand...


There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC keeps trying over and over to make her conspiracy theory stick or be taken seriously and keeps getting the same results of rejection and failure over and over. Didn't Mr. Einstein have something to say about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh goodness, the books aren't on Amazon! You have to google the first one. A link won't work because it is access to the CIA Library. Without a coded password you will be blocked to direct access. However, this book is available for online reading if you do as I am instructing. Google "The OSS and the London Free Germans  Strange Bedfellows  by Jonathan S. Gould and you will land in the CIA Library for the limited viewing of that book only.
> Google the book by Jurgen Heidiking, American Intelligence and the German Resistance. I'll try and find the site. Think it is at Westview Press.
> 
> Here is something you are totally wrong about. I have given you two sources to prove you are wrong. They meet university level standards as reliable sources. You may not have been aware that the information regarding operatives inside Germany were not declassified until 2000. The operation was handled in the spirit of Mincemeat and the Patton's First Army.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These books will not contain the 'opinions' that she wants. Posting a statement from a book, without factual evidence to back them up, does not make them facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can find any errors in the quotes and statements I've provided.
> 
> When you can't.....well, I was going to ask where that finding leads....but, that would require an ability from you that is not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> 
> 
> 
> None....unless you are the dupe that you are revealed to be.
Click to expand...


You still have not provided any facts that FDR prolonged the war 2 years. You are a failure. Give it up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

FDR's actions in behalf of Stalin extended the war for two years is PC's thesis.

Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis.  OP fail.

_Ad homming_ merely demonstrates her loss.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> FDR's actions in behalf of Stalin extended the war for two years is PC's thesis.
> 
> Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis.  OP fail.
> 
> _Ad homming_ merely demonstrates her loss.






"Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis."

Liar.

Of course it does....in fact, proves it.



Which leads to this conundrum.....

...as your posts are so obviously false....it must be that your desire to be associated with me overwhelms your embarrassment in posting such drivel....

so....If you can't live without me, why are you still alive?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dad2three said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......
> 
> 
> ......none???
> 
> Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
> Great.
> 
> Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ENTIRE premise is based on distortions, misrepresentations and lies, as someone with an actual degree in history, it's pathetic how conservative, the ones who were on the wrong side of history over and over and over, tend to rewrite and distort history with bullshit OPINIONS based on their ideology!
Click to expand...





Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided.....

......none???

Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
Great.



When you come up with a quality responsejust give me a callIll be ice skating in Hell.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you resort to failed attempts at humor when you are getting your ass handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still no attempt to confront the thesis.
> 
> Glad to see that you continue to work to ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.
Click to expand...





"There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."

No, there haven't.


Or you would have provide same.



It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.



Good.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> These books will not contain the 'opinions' that she wants. Posting a statement from a book, without factual evidence to back them up, does not make them facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See if you can find any errors in the quotes and statements I've provided.
> 
> When you can't.....well, I was going to ask where that finding leads....but, that would require an ability from you that is not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> 
> 
> 
> None....unless you are the dupe that you are revealed to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still have not provided any facts that FDR prolonged the war 2 years. You are a failure. Give it up.
Click to expand...





So....now you're relying on 'the opacity defense'....that you're simply too stupid to understand the thread.


I'll buy that.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, now I'm going to have to embarrass you again.
> 
> 
> Not only did he extend it by the two years in the title....but there is proof that he could have begun surrender diplomacy by double that time frame.
> 
> 
> Stay tuned....I'm going to prove it.
> 
> 
> Get ready to take notes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......
> 
> 
> ......none???
> 
> Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
> Great.
> 
> Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?
Click to expand...


I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back. You refuse to respond to questions and specifics. You just ignore and keep proclaiming victory. The discussion isn't about you. You offered a thesis, more of a conspiracy theory, and some of us have used it as a spring board to examine a small window of time and circumstances related to WWII. Just because you haven't bothered to check out some of the information and links I have provided does not mean others haven't. You have still not answered a question I asked of you at least two or three times about your knowledge of the NKFD or the BDO.  Not bringing the Casablanca Conference into your theory, not including the NKFD and BDO brings your thesis an automatic failing grade.

Demanding "Unconditional Surrender" was not something FDR invented or original in any aspect. Demanding unconditional surrender is a strategic position used by armies and leaders since the first armies and leaders met on the battlefield with spears, swords, arrows and sling shots.

Most entertaining about this ridiculous conspiracy theory is the way it completely fails to consider one very basic aspect of analysis, the numbers. The numbers on all sides of the battlefields. That means divisions, troops in uniform, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.
The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943. An early surrender of Germany forces would have meant an unstoppable Soviet herd blazing across Europe and only they would decide when they wanted to stop. Any attempt by allied forces to stop them would have been seen as permission and and excuse to take France and Great Britain. 
We can ague my "thesis" with numbers, flat out math. Start with January and February 1943. That puts us right in the "end the war two years early" zone.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dad2three said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions, based on distortions and lies isn't 'proving' ANYTHING. Grow a fuking brain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......
> 
> 
> ......none???
> 
> Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
> Great.
> 
> Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back. You refuse to respond to questions and specifics. You just ignore and keep proclaiming victory. The discussion isn't about you. You offered a thesis, more of a conspiracy theory, and some of us have used it as a spring board to examine a small window of time and circumstances related to WWII. Just because you haven't bothered to check out some of the information and links I have provided does not mean others haven't. You have still not answered a question I asked of you at least two or three times about your knowledge of the NKFD or the BDO.  Not bringing the Casablanca Conference into your theory, not including the NKFD and BDO brings your thesis an automatic failing grade.
> 
> Demanding "Unconditional Surrender" was not something FDR invented or original in any aspect. Demanding unconditional surrender is a strategic position used by armies and leaders since the first armies and leaders met on the battlefield with spears, swords, arrows and sling shots.
> 
> Most entertaining about this ridiculous conspiracy theory is the way it completely fails to consider one very basic aspect of analysis, the numbers. The numbers on all sides of the battlefields. That means divisions, troops in uniform, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943. An early surrender of Germany forces would have meant an unstoppable Soviet herd blazing across Europe and only they would decide when they wanted to stop. Any attempt by allied forces to stop them would have been seen as permission and and excuse to take France and Great Britain.
> We can ague my "thesis" with numbers, flat out math. Start with January and February 1943. That puts us right in the "end the war two years early" zone.
Click to expand...





"I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back."

Of course you did no such thing.

What you attempted to do was change the subject.

No dice.




Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's actions in behalf of Stalin extended the war for two years is PC's thesis.
> 
> Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis.  OP fail.
> 
> _Ad homming_ merely demonstrates her loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis."  Liar.  Of course it does....in fact, proves it.  Which leads to this conundrum........as your posts are so obviously false....it must be that your desire to be associated with me overwhelms your embarrassment in posting such drivel....so....If you can't live without me, why are you still alive?
Click to expand...


_Ad homs_ prove my point, that her evidence does not support the OP.

Let's move it into the badlands, please.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What PC won't respond to factually with evidence is that the logistics could not support in 1943 any possibility of forcing an end to the war, and in 1943 the Axis had no intention of giving back any conquests.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's actions in behalf of Stalin extended the war for two years is PC's thesis.
> 
> Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis.  OP fail.
> 
> _Ad homming_ merely demonstrates her loss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Her evidence in no ways supports the thesis."  Liar.  Of course it does....in fact, proves it.  Which leads to this conundrum........as your posts are so obviously false....it must be that your desire to be associated with me overwhelms your embarrassment in posting such drivel....so....If you can't live without me, why are you still alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Ad homs_ prove my point, that her evidence does not support the OP.
> 
> Let's move it into the badlands, please.
Click to expand...





I love how deeply it wounds you....


Keep bleeding.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> What PC won't respond to factually with evidence is that the logistics could not support in 1943 any possibility of forcing an end to the war, and in 1943 the Axis had no intention of giving back any conquests.






Here...let me hurt you some more:


Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
__________________


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943.





Utter nonsense.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me check all the examples of "distortions and lies" that you've provided......
> 
> 
> ......none???
> 
> Hmmmmm.....so, I'm 100% correct?
> Great.
> 
> Well, then....your post suggests this query: Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back. You refuse to respond to questions and specifics. You just ignore and keep proclaiming victory. The discussion isn't about you. You offered a thesis, more of a conspiracy theory, and some of us have used it as a spring board to examine a small window of time and circumstances related to WWII. Just because you haven't bothered to check out some of the information and links I have provided does not mean others haven't. You have still not answered a question I asked of you at least two or three times about your knowledge of the NKFD or the BDO.  Not bringing the Casablanca Conference into your theory, not including the NKFD and BDO brings your thesis an automatic failing grade.
> 
> Demanding "Unconditional Surrender" was not something FDR invented or original in any aspect. Demanding unconditional surrender is a strategic position used by armies and leaders since the first armies and leaders met on the battlefield with spears, swords, arrows and sling shots.
> 
> Most entertaining about this ridiculous conspiracy theory is the way it completely fails to consider one very basic aspect of analysis, the numbers. The numbers on all sides of the battlefields. That means divisions, troops in uniform, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943. An early surrender of Germany forces would have meant an unstoppable Soviet herd blazing across Europe and only they would decide when they wanted to stop. Any attempt by allied forces to stop them would have been seen as permission and and excuse to take France and Great Britain.
> We can ague my "thesis" with numbers, flat out math. Start with January and February 1943. That puts us right in the "end the war two years early" zone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back."
> 
> Of course you did no such thing.
> 
> What you attempted to do was change the subject.
> 
> No dice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
Click to expand...


Run away little loser. You can't refute my evidence that proves you are an idiot when it comes to FDR and WWII. Your refusal to even attempt to refute the comments that insult and belittle your theory prove the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. The fact you will not even mention the evidence I provided with impeccable sources shows your dumb theory to be null and void of any academic value. Your theory in my opinion, was pure politicized partisan propaganda and disinformation of the ugliest and most dishonest variety. Blatant lies perpetrated to misinform in a malicious manner and for a malicious purpose. But hey, I'm sure will make an attempt to show I am wrong. Good luck.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What PC won't respond to factually with evidence is that the logistics could not support in 1943 any possibility of forcing an end to the war, and in 1943 the Axis had no intention of giving back any conquests.
> 
> 
> 
> Here...let me hurt you some more: Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?  Yep.  Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?  Yep.  Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?  Yep.  So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> __________________
Click to expand...


Thank you for agreeing that it could not have ended in 1943 because of logistics and politics.  Nothing by Stalin interfered with those decisions at all.  The Germans would not have given back conquered countries and populations, meaning FDR and WC and JS and everyone else would have not supported any such nonsense.

I think you would have wanted a treaty made with Germany in 1943 that would have allowed it to keep its conquests as long as it kept fighting in the East.

If you had publicly supported such a scheme in 1943, you would have gone to prison in UK.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


Back it up.  Beginning of 1943, Soviets vs. Western Allies. Let'a see numbers.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back it up.
Click to expand...




If I looked up 'imbecile' in the dictionary, I'm certain I'd see your picture.


The length that you will go to shield Roosevelt is exemplified by this post.


The Soviet Union would not have been a thriving endeavor had it not been for the buffet called "Lend Lease.'


Further....Stalin killed some 20 million of his own people and troops in WWII....


1. 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.




"Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin - NYTimes.com




Were it not for Stalin's stooge, Franklin Roosevelt, the Soviet Union wouldn't have had to wait for Ronald Reagan to put it in its place...

...nor would there have been a Korean War, nor a Red China.


FDR....wadda guy!


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> What PC won't respond to factually with evidence is that the logistics could not support in 1943 any possibility of forcing an end to the war, and in 1943 the Axis had no intention of giving back any conquests.
> 
> 
> 
> Here...let me hurt you some more: Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?  Yep.  Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?  Yep.  Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?  Yep.  So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing that it could not have ended in 1943 because of logistics and politics.  Nothing by Stalin interfered with those decisions at all.  The Germans would not have given back conquered countries and populations, meaning FDR and WC and JS and everyone else would have not supported any such nonsense.
> 
> I think you would have wanted a treaty made with Germany in 1943 that would have allowed it to keep its conquests as long as it kept fighting in the East.
> 
> If you had publicly supported such a scheme in 1943, you would have gone to prison in UK.
Click to expand...





"Thank you for agreeing...."


Liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back. You refuse to respond to questions and specifics. You just ignore and keep proclaiming victory. The discussion isn't about you. You offered a thesis, more of a conspiracy theory, and some of us have used it as a spring board to examine a small window of time and circumstances related to WWII. Just because you haven't bothered to check out some of the information and links I have provided does not mean others haven't. You have still not answered a question I asked of you at least two or three times about your knowledge of the NKFD or the BDO.  Not bringing the Casablanca Conference into your theory, not including the NKFD and BDO brings your thesis an automatic failing grade.
> 
> Demanding "Unconditional Surrender" was not something FDR invented or original in any aspect. Demanding unconditional surrender is a strategic position used by armies and leaders since the first armies and leaders met on the battlefield with spears, swords, arrows and sling shots.
> 
> Most entertaining about this ridiculous conspiracy theory is the way it completely fails to consider one very basic aspect of analysis, the numbers. The numbers on all sides of the battlefields. That means divisions, troops in uniform, tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943. An early surrender of Germany forces would have meant an unstoppable Soviet herd blazing across Europe and only they would decide when they wanted to stop. Any attempt by allied forces to stop them would have been seen as permission and and excuse to take France and Great Britain.
> We can ague my "thesis" with numbers, flat out math. Start with January and February 1943. That puts us right in the "end the war two years early" zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back."
> 
> Of course you did no such thing.
> 
> What you attempted to do was change the subject.
> 
> No dice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Run away little loser. You can't refute my evidence that proves you are an idiot when it comes to FDR and WWII. Your refusal to even attempt to refute the comments that insult and belittle your theory prove the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. The fact you will not even mention the evidence I provided with impeccable sources shows your dumb theory to be null and void of any academic value. Your theory in my opinion, was pure politicized partisan propaganda and disinformation of the ugliest and most dishonest variety. Blatant lies perpetrated to misinform in a malicious manner and for a malicious purpose. But hey, I'm sure will make an attempt to show I am wrong. Good luck.
Click to expand...





"... my evidence..."


All the evidence indicates that you are a moon-struck FDR boot-licker.





"...Blatant lies...."


And the list of same.....is non-existent.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Soviet's would have annihilated the combined allied forces even if those forces combined with the German forces in 1943.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back it up.  Beginning of 1943, Soviets vs. Western Allies. Let'a see numbers.
Click to expand...


"Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease's contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. "

"Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers."


Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)


----------



## PoliticalChic

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up.  Beginning of 1943, Soviets vs. Western Allies. Let'a see numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease's contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. "
> 
> "Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers."
> 
> 
> Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)
Click to expand...





1. George Kennan wrote: "there is no adequate justification for continuing a program of lavish and almost indiscriminate aid to the Soviet Union at a time when there was increasing reason to doubt whether her purposes in Eastern Europe, aside from the defeat of Germany, would be ones which we Americans could approve and sponsor." George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. xvii.

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

3. The original Lend-Lease act provided that, unless sooner terminated by a concurrent resolution by Congress, the authority to enter into lend-lease agreements would end 30 June 1943, and the authority to carry out contracts or agreements with foreign governments would continue until 1 July 1946.

Congress then made one-year extensions of the agreements three times so that the final date for making lend-lease agreements was 30 June 1946, with authority to carry them out until 1 July 1949.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

Camp said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.
Click to expand...


. . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up.  Beginning of 1943, Soviets vs. Western Allies. Let'a see numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Without Western aid, during the war the Soviet population would have been in danger of sharing the fate of those trapped in Leningrad and the earlier victims of collectivization. Even with the American aid, many Russians died from lack of food. Equally important was Lend-Lease's contribution to transportation. It would have been impossible for the Red Army to move the masses of troops and supplies on the primitive roads to the front lines without American Studebaker trucks, which also served as the launching pads for the dreaded Soviet rocket artillery. "
> 
> "Besides weaponry and food, Lend-Lease provided the Soviet Union with other resources, ranging from clothing to metals. With the start of the Cold War, Lend-Lease became a forgotten chapter in Soviet history and was only revived after glasnost. Now, thanks to Russian researchers and this excellent study, the West will have access to the real story. Lend-Lease provided vital help for the Soviet Union when the country was in desperate straits and made a significant contribution to the final victory. It also strengthened Josef Stalin, a fact that did not bother its chief architect, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who saw beyond the Allied victory and looked at Stalin as a counterbalance to the European colonial powers."
> 
> 
> Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II (Book Review)
Click to expand...


Yes, what you write is true. I may disagree with some of the somewhat political implications, but the first portion of your post is certainly correct. I'm not sure the declassification of old Soviet records are needed to reach the same conclusion, but they do reinforce what we already knew.

The question being asked is could the war be ended two years early, meaning in the time zone of early 1943. It doesn't make a difference how Stalin acquired his army, he had it. The politics are sort of irrelevant if we are focused on military ability. Even the need for American Lend Lease at this point in time can be in question. Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.



Blatant lie No. 1


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I provided lots of evidence. Started picking your thesis apart piece by piece way back."
> 
> Of course you did no such thing.
> 
> What you attempted to do was change the subject.
> 
> No dice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Run away little loser. You can't refute my evidence that proves you are an idiot when it comes to FDR and WWII. Your refusal to even attempt to refute the comments that insult and belittle your theory prove the evidence is overwhelming and indisputable. The fact you will not even mention the evidence I provided with impeccable sources shows your dumb theory to be null and void of any academic value. Your theory in my opinion, was pure politicized partisan propaganda and disinformation of the ugliest and most dishonest variety. Blatant lies perpetrated to misinform in a malicious manner and for a malicious purpose. But hey, I'm sure will make an attempt to show I am wrong. Good luck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... my evidence..."
> 
> 
> All the evidence indicates that you are a moon-struck FDR boot-licker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Blatant lies...."
> 
> 
> And the list of same.....is non-existent.
Click to expand...


Quit while you are behind!!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here...let me hurt you some more: Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?  Yep.  Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?  Yep.  Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?  Yep.  So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> __________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for agreeing that it could not have ended in 1943 because of logistics and politics.  Nothing by Stalin interfered with those decisions at all.  The Germans would not have given back conquered countries and populations, meaning FDR and WC and JS and everyone else would have not supported any such nonsense.
> 
> I think you would have wanted a treaty made with Germany in 1943 that would have allowed it to keep its conquests as long as it kept fighting in the East.
> 
> If you had publicly supported such a scheme in 1943, you would have gone to prison in UK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thank you for agreeing...."  Liar.
Click to expand...


 Yes, you admitted your OP is fail.


----------



## Camp

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.
Click to expand...


Well, even if that were true, the folks at the time thought it was worth it. They kept reelecting him over and over. Couldn't be happier with their President. They loved that guy.


----------



## bendog

The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing.  With our allies and the Germans both.  But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.


----------



## Camp

bendog said:


> The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing.  With our allies and the Germans both.  But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.



He knew the 6th Army was being annihilated at Stalingrad. The implications of that victory for Stalin is recognized in Russia but mostly ignored or at least underestimated by the west. FDR understood what it meant. A surrender to the west could not and would not save Germany.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

M.D. Rawlings said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the most evil person who ever lived on earth.
> 
> Ever.
> 
> So there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.
Click to expand...


That's the real FDR...a Stalin Sock Puppet even AFTER UNCLE JOE STARVED 3 MILLION CHILDREN TO DEATH IN THE UKRAINE IN 1933


----------



## bendog

Camp said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing.  With our allies and the Germans both.  But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew the 6th Army was being annihilated at Stalingrad. The implications of that victory for Stalin is recognized in Russia but mostly ignored or at least underestimated by the west. FDR understood what it meant. A surrender to the west could not and would not save Germany.
Click to expand...


He explicitly warned us not to get caught up in any former European colonies ... and we fell right into that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant lie No. 1
Click to expand...




Your opinion sans explanation.....

Might mean something if your opinion did.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, even if that were true, the folks at the time thought it was worth it. They kept reelecting him over and over. Couldn't be happier with their President. They loved that guy.
Click to expand...




Exactly the sort of change of subject/ tap dance that you have become famous for...and have resulted in your status:
David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation.



"...even if that were true...."

That truth is the point.



As for the rest....covered by the first Republican President:
'You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.'


----------



## PoliticalChic

bendog said:


> The only real nugget in the OP was FDR did raise eyebrows with the 'unconditional surrender" thing.  With our allies and the Germans both.  But, he clearly thought that colonial powers was a root cause, and it was.




Everything I've posted is true.



Let's boil it down to this, see if you can deny:

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blatant lie No. 1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion sans explanation.....
> 
> Might mean something if your opinion did.....
Click to expand...


I may have to apologize after reviewing your statement. You are saying that there is no way to argue that either answer a. or answer b. is truth. Your claim is that the statement that Roosevelt was aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda is untrue and there is no way to argue that the statement is truthful. The same for your claim in b. that Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt. You are saying that that statement is untrue and there is no way to argue that it is truthful.
Both a. and b. are false statements and hence can not be argued as true. I agree with you.

You admit the defeat and falsehood of your grand conspiracy theory in the very start of presenting your thesis.


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

CrusaderFrank said:


> M.D. Rawlings said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> He helped some people get some really cool bridges built. If you like bridges you might think that part of his gig was OK. Dams too. He helped people build dams for electric and irrigation and jobs and stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . prolonged the Depression by nearly a decade with asinine policies that artificially inflated prices and wages, shredded the Constitution, herded 110,000 American citizens into internment camps, sold out Eastern Europe and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the real FDR...a Stalin Sock Puppet even AFTER UNCLE JOE STARVED 3 MILLION CHILDREN TO DEATH IN THE UKRAINE IN 1933
Click to expand...


Yep.  And don't forget the Russian people loved good ol' Uncle Joe too . . . except perhaps the 30 to 40 million he deep sixed.


----------



## JakeStarkey

That you hate JS righteously doesn't mean that your hate for FDR is fixed in reality.

Most of the crap you guys provide is . . . hack crap.  Nothing more.


----------



## regent

The real problem is that the Republicans have no FDR, they have a Lincoln but the board= Republicans don't seem to bring old Abe into the FDR argument much. Perhaps Lincoln was too liberal for most? 
So what do Republicans do with FDR's solid place in history? They try to attach conspiracies, communist plots, Stalinism, Trumanism, the war, Peal Harbor, clogged up toilets and even the Great Depression on FDR. The sad thing is for all their hard work and historical distortions history their efforts are ignored by historians, and life goes on as if their arguments didn't exist. 
That's gotta hurt.


----------



## Camp

FDR must be demonized. The oligarchs and corporatist demand it. The accomplishments of FDR are constant reminders that progressive policies, liberal attitudes and even experiments in socialism have benefited generations of Americans and continue to be visible indisputable successes. The FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous.  Some of the nations greatest accomplishments were created during his tenure and at his direction and guidance.


----------



## gipper

When will Americans wake up to the fact, that our political leadership is ROTTEN to the core...and the most rotten of all, is that sick old fool FDR.

The unbelieveable betrayal continues with the following....


> *Stalin receives FDRs blessing as the first American president to officially recognize the Soviet Union.  *Putin receives the scorn of the current regime in Washington.  Stalin?  Well, lets allow Robert Nisbet tell the story, from his book Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship.
> 
> *Roosevelt, of course, made many concessions to Stalin during the war;* I will not focus on the early years, but begin with Yalta  in February, 1945.  By this point, the war in Europe was nearing an end and Americans were moving successfully across the Pacific toward Japan.  Certainly, the worst attributes of Stalin and the Soviets were clear to Roosevelt and the administration.
> 
> In other words, by this point there was no need (as if there ever was one) for further favors to be passed the Soviets way; there was no excuse (as if there ever was one) for claiming ignorance of the unfathomable murder that coursed through Stalins veins.
> 
> Yalta did not hand Eastern Europe to Stalin  he already occupied or would soon occupy much of this, as privately agreed with Roosevelt in Tehran in November 1943.  This private agreement was given concrete form by Roosevelts continuing insistence that the Allies not proceed into Central Europe via the Mediterranean to head off the Soviets (as Churchill would have preferred).  Stalin wanted only an assault from the west against the Germans; Roosevelt ensured this would be the focus.
> 
> *Yalta offered something to Stalin that he could never achieve on his own:
> 
> I have just stressed that Yalta is not the source of the Soviet possessions in eastern Europe; that Teheran is.  But Yalta performed a service to the Soviets that was almost as important to Stalin as the occupied areas themselves.  This was the invaluable service of giving moral legitimation to what Stalin had acquired by sheer force. (P. 70)*
> 
> *As Chester Wilmot wrote in his The Struggle for Europe, the real issue was not what Stalin would or could have taken but what he was given the right to do. (P. 71)*
> 
> That Roosevelt did not agree to send the Allied military into central Europe through the Mediterranean and stop Stalin from taking even more territory is one thing; to legitimize the dark night over Eastern Europe is quite another.
> 
> not only did power over the Baltic and Balkan peoples pass to Stalin; these people had to watch what democracy and freedom they had known before the war disappear, and then suffer the added humiliation of seeing such words as free elections, sovereignty, democracy, independence, and liberation deliberately corrupted, debased, made duplicitous. (P. 71)
> 
> Kind of like the elections in Crimea.
> 
> *After one of the plenary sessions at Yalta, Roosevelt wrote privately to Stalin regarding the Polish government-in-exile in London:
> 
> The United States will never lend its support in any way to any provisional government in Poland that would be inimical to your interests. (P. 72)*
> 
> Yalta removed the post-war possibility of the Americans stating to Stalin Get out. Imagine: the United States government legitimized a massive land-grab by one of the two worst murderers of the 20th century.
> 
> Roosevelt further agreed to every request Stalin had in the Far East as a condition to join the battle against the Japanese  much of the territory belonging (or rightly reverting) to the Chinese, but handed to Stalin without consulting Chiang Kai-shek.
> 
> *Back to Yalta: what happened immediately after the summit?
> 
> On March 6 messages reached Churchillabout mass arrests taking place in Cracow As many as 6,000 former Home Army officers were put in a camp. (P. 78)
> 
> Churchill notified Roosevelt; Roosevelt did not protest to Stalin.*
> 
> *On March 21, Averill Harriman carried a note personally to Roosevelt:
> 
> We must come to clearly realize that the Soviet program is the establishment of totalitarianism, ending personal liberty and democracy as we know it. (P. 81)
> 
> As if this was not known in 1933.*
> 
> A most interesting development regarded the direct communication between Eisenhower and the Soviets.  This was discussed between Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta:
> 
> The President said he felt that the armies were getting close enough to have contact between them and he hoped General Eisenhower would communicate directly with the Soviet Staff rather than through the Chiefs of Staff in London and in Washington. (P. 84)
> 
> Stalin readily agreed.  Stalin was even more pleased when he received a telegram from Eisenhower on March 28.  In it, Eisenhower outlined his military strategy in the coming weeks, making no mention of Berlin  despite Berlin being included in the Combined Chiefs strategy that was unanimously approved at the beginning of February. (P. 84)
> 
> Stalins joy must have been intense. The Soviet capture of Berlin, courtesy of General Eisenhower, would be a crowning completion to a larger Soviet plan to assume hegemony in all of central Europe. (P. 84)
> 
> Nisbet suggests that Eisenhower would never send such a telegram on his own authority  Ike had the endorsement of Marshall, and it is highly doubtful that Marshalls endorsement came without Roosevelts approval, if not at Roosevelts direction.
> 
> What difference did this make? you ask.  The Soviets would have captured Berlin with or without Eisenhowers permission.
> 
> Not so fast.
> 
> The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomerys larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)
> 
> With Berlin practically in sight, Simpsons army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley  who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe.  Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)
> 
> *Churchill protested to Roosevelt  why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs?  Roosevelts reply was a model of the blandly evasive.*
> 
> In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:
> 
> So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily. (P. 87)
> 
> Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended  with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)
> US Supports Giving Half of Europe to Russia ? LewRockwell.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gipper, the enemy was fascism and militarism then not communism.

That came later.


----------



## regent

As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's. 
At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.




What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> FThe FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous.





Throwing around 100,000 innocent, loyal, brave Americans into CONCENTRATION CAMPS was "righteous"? Really? Playing the useful fool for one of the most blood-soaked dictators in human history was "righteous"? You might want to look up "righteous" in the dictionary again.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Gipper, the enemy was fascism and militarism then not communism.
> 
> That came later.



That's the thing Jake.  You have failed understand and accept the truth.

The US should never have aligned with the USSR before and during WWII.  Both Fascism and Communism were enemies of all people who wished to live in freedom.  Sadly, we had a POTUS before and during WWII who failed to comprehend this, and willingly and gladly sided with Communism.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
> At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.



You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.  

The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> FDR must be demonized. The oligarchs and corporatist demand it. The accomplishments of FDR are constant reminders that progressive policies, liberal attitudes and even experiments in socialism have benefited generations of Americans and continue to be visible indisputable successes. The FDR legacy constantly proves to all but the brainwashed blind that his policies were right and righteous.  Some of the nations greatest accomplishments were created during his tenure and at his direction and guidance.



Terribly foolish and uninformed post.

Few if any of the oligarchy and corporatists demonize FDR...because they love him...just like you do.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.
Click to expand...


Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's  were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million.  The Germans lost as many men at Stalingrad as the US lost in the entire European campaign, 416,800.

http://historyofrussia.org/battle-of-stalingrad-facts/


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yep, those eyeballs are rolling at your pretense of writing anything significant.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.
Click to expand...


You are good at being a wise guy and being a conceited little prick, but you really aren't able to back up your crap. What you call "comic book thinking" is being backed up in this thread by reliable and politically neutral sources. Your thinking that cannibalizing the battlefield is about picking up swords and clubs shows your lack of understanding about military science, particularly logistics. Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel.  It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.

Lack of knowledge about Soviet production during the war is an amateurs tell. 
Soviets produced over 36,000 IL-2 Shtumovik's during the war, constantly improving it's effectiveness. Known as "Chunks", they were produced in Russian factories. These were the tank killers, the Russian version of a WWII "Wort Hog". They were called "Flying Tanks" buy the troops. 
Russia produced it's own tanks. Over 64,500 T-34's and T-34-85's were produced. Add over 14,000 SU-70 series TD's plus smaller quantities of Heavies and experimental versions of various T's and TD's and the number rises to over 100,000 Tank's and Tracked Tank Destroyers produced in Russian factories during the time they were fighting the German onslaught. That is over 100,000 armored tracked vehicles, not to included standard armored infantry support and transport vehicles. 

Ilyushin*IL-2 | World of Warplanes

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQO4URJhLTQ"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQO4URJhLTQ[/ame]


[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=fVg6gFmuRlE[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, those eyeballs are rolling at your pretense of writing anything significant.







Kudos on being named key note speaker at Pest-Control Expo!


----------



## M.D. Rawlings

JakeStarkey said:


> That you hate JS righteously doesn't mean that your hate for FDR is fixed in reality.
> 
> Most of the crap you guys provide is . . . hack crap.  Nothing more.



Translation:  "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

This line of dialogue proceeded from an observation made by camp.  I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison here.  That argument is being made elsewhere.  My observations about FDR's actions are historically accurate.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
> At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.
> 
> The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.
Click to expand...



Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
> At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.
> 
> The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.
Click to expand...






You Roosevelt flacks ignoring this is proof positive of the premise of the OP.....

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????



Roosevelt: comfortably residing in Stalin's pocket.


----------



## Camp

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
> At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.
> 
> The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.
Click to expand...

All depends on ones definition of "easy". And what would we have done if we got there first? Like the dog who catches the car. Now what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

M.D. Rawlings said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you hate JS righteously doesn't mean that your hate for FDR is fixed in reality.
> 
> Most of the crap you guys provide is . . . hack crap.  Nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:  "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
> 
> This line of dialogue proceeded from an observation made by camp.  I'm not making a direct 1:1 comparison here.  That argument is being made elsewhere.  My observations about FDR's actions are historically accurate.
Click to expand...


Translation is that FDR haters hate: that's what they do.  He was a great president with serious flaws.  He was not a communist or a communist follower: no objective evidence supports that conclusion.  The American public elected him four times, so all you are doing is going "wah".  No one really cares.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin had defeated the German army at Stalingrad by the end of February and captured over 90,000 troops and left close to a million dead on the battlefield. The Russians were now able to cannibalize the battlefield and their industrial capacity had been reconstituted. The stood with almost 7 million men and women under arms and in uniform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's  were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million.
Click to expand...


And the Russian ability to die in vastly greater numbers than their enemies is somehow proof to you that they could have defeated the combined Allied forces?


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel.  It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.





You did not think that through at all.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of those dead were Russian? 'Cannibalizing the battlefield' is comic book thinking. They were not fighting with swords and clubs. Soviet industrial capacity was nowhere near "reconstituted" to the level of supporting a war against the Allied Powers. Nor was Soviet agricultural capacity and organization. On top of all that, Stalin had purged most of his experienced field officers during his many outbursts of paranoia. Your hypothetical has not a leg on which to stand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. guess I was not clear about the " close to a million dead on the battlefield". That number represents only the axis killed. Germans, Romanians, Hungarians. About a half million were Germans, somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. The Russian KIA's  were somewhere between 1 million and 1.7 million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Russian ability to die in vastly greater numbers than their enemies is somehow proof to you that they could have defeated the combined Allied forces?
Click to expand...


That is not what I stated. The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia had almost 7 million men and women to arm, and more waiting to be conscripted. Every rifle and every bullet counted.Even the scrap metal left on the field of battle was immense. Destroyed tanks, trucks, artillery and artillery pieces contain large amount of reusable steel.  It was used to produce new weapons in the Russian factories located beyond the reach of German bombers. But not all of it was scrap. Much was captured intact and folded directly into Russian use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not think that through at all.
Click to expand...


Explain


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.





Again, you didn't think that through.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast numbers of men and women in uniform represent the favorable odds the Russians had when including attrition factors into battle plans. Soldiers with rifles are weapons. Stalin had more than anyone else. He had more 'soldiers with rifles' weapons than all the combined forces of the western allies combined. Unlike the western allies, he was not overly concerned about sacrificing hundreds of thousands or even millions of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you didn't think that through.
Click to expand...


Again, you use a non response as a response. Let us guess. You don't have one.


----------



## NoNukes

PoliticalChic said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no attempt to confront the thesis.
> 
> Glad to see that you continue to work to ability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."
> 
> No, there haven't.
> 
> 
> Or you would have provide same.
> 
> 
> 
> It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
Click to expand...


Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."
> 
> No, there haven't.
> 
> 
> Or you would have provide same.
> 
> 
> 
> It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.
Click to expand...







I'll have to give that some consideration.....in the event that I'm ever wrong.

 I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

NoNukes said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis. This is obvious from you resorting to name calling and lame attempts at humor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."
> 
> No, there haven't.
> 
> 
> Or you would have provide same.
> 
> 
> 
> It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.
Click to expand...


Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I remember the biggie with taking Berlin was casualties. It cost the Russians 275,000 casualties to take Berlin, plus 80,000 KIA's.
> At the time, WWII had not yet become a board game to be played years later by posters moving pawns about.  Ike was exactly correct, let the Russians take Berlin, they may have even earned the glory, but Berlin was not worth the American casualties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.
> 
> The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.
Click to expand...


Ah...so you can't read.

I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....



> The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomerys larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)
> 
> With Berlin practically in sight, Simpsons army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley  who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)
> 
> Churchill protested to Roosevelt  why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelts reply was a model of the blandly evasive.
> 
> In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:
> 
> So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily. (P. 87)
> 
> Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended  with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)


----------



## Camp

Mad_Cabbie said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "There have been successful attempts to confront your thesis."
> 
> No, there haven't.
> 
> 
> Or you would have provide same.
> 
> 
> 
> It really galls you how, with metronomic regularity, my posts prove irrefutable.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.
Click to expand...


You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Let me reinforce that.

PC does not respond to clear and obvious refutation of her weak OPs.

She hurls _ad homs_ and post reams of material that do not apply to the OP.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have that right.  Read my post above.  It clearly proves that our forces could have easily taken Berlin before the Commie hordes.
> 
> The Germans were fighting the commies as best they could, because they knew the commies would ruthlessly murder them in cold blood, which they did....while our forces sat back and watched.  The Germans would have gladly allowed our forces to take Berlin, rather than your buddies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah...so you can't read.
> 
> I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomerys larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)
> 
> With Berlin practically in sight, Simpsons army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley  who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)
> 
> Churchill protested to Roosevelt  why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelts reply was a model of the blandly evasive.
> 
> In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:
> 
> So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily. (P. 87)
> 
> Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended  with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.

I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.


----------



## Camp

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, if Ike only had your post to show to the Germans about how they would gladly allow us to take Berlin. How come the Germans didn't gladly allow us to land on DDay, or advance across France and Germany? How many Americans lived a long life because we didn't try to take Berlin? Before an operation the military usually creates an expected casualty count, wonder if we had one on the capture of Berlin? Of course the American military didn't have your clear-proof we could easily take Berlin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...so you can't read.
> 
> I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 9th U.S. Army under the command of Lt. General William Simpson, which was then part of Montgomerys larger army group, reached the Elbe River on April 11. (P. 84)
> 
> With Berlin practically in sight, Simpsons army was transferred from the British Montgomery to the American Bradley  who immediately ordered Simpson to stop at the Elbe. Bradley said the order came from Eisenhower (who did nothing without clearance from Marshall). (P. 84)
> 
> Churchill protested to Roosevelt  why not continue the strategy agreed by the Combined Chiefs? Roosevelts reply was a model of the blandly evasive.
> 
> In 1972, General Simpson gave a detailed interview on this matter; after detailing both the strength of his army and supply, as well as the logistics support, Simpson concluded:
> 
> So I think we could have ploughed across there [the Elbe] within twenty-four hours and been in Berlin in twenty-four to forty-eight hours easily. (P. 87)
> 
> Simpson stressed that the area between the Elbe and Berlin was lightly defended  with the heavy German concentrations instead facing the Soviets. (P. 87)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?
Click to expand...


With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The OP has no merit as has been shown in the seven pages.

Let's close the thread as fail and move on.


----------



## whitehall

Steven_R said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
Click to expand...


Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.


----------



## Camp

whitehall said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the same applied to Stalin's view of Japan, a potential impediment to the East. After meeting with Stalin in Moscow on May 28, 1945, Harry Hopkins told Truman that Stalin "prefers to go through with unconditional surrender" regarding Japan. "However, he feels that if we stick to unconditional surrender the Japs will not give up and we will have to destroy them as we did Germany."
> Sherwood, "Hopkins," volume 2, 892-893.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.
Click to expand...


Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?


----------



## whitehall

Camp said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> That date was smack dab in the middle of the Battle of Okinawa. The Japanese inflicted 50,000 allied causalities in that battle alone, and fought almost to the last man. The previous battle was Iwo Jima where the Japs inflicted 25,000 Us casualties and did fight to the last man. There was no indication the Japanese were going discuss any surrender and were instead arming the civilian population to fight to the last man, woman, and child. Some of the military tried to throw a coup when the Emperor announced his decision on August 10 to end the war.
> 
> You don't think that maybe fighting that kind of enemy might have been a factor in Truman's decision making process?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?
Click to expand...


Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?


----------



## Camp

whitehall said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is political. FDR was a dying stroke victim when the Military/industrial machine took over and ordered Marines to take a stinking island fortified for 40 years that could have been bypassed. Marines took Iwo Jima at an incredible cost and the US political machine used it as a basis to promote acceptance for the toy the eggheads developed to be used on real humans. Japan was negotiating surrender terms with Stalin when Truman refused to talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?
Click to expand...


Someone by that name may have made furniture. A fella by the name of Tsyuoshi Hesegawa put forward in scholarly fashion the thesis you appeared to have knowledge of, albeit somewhat distorted, confused, politicized and incomplete. His research and work was put into book form and has become foundation of the premise, or school of thought that you attempted to put forward.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...so you can't read.
> 
> I post this again in the vain hope you might be capable of reading and comprehending....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.
Click to expand...


You need to do some research.

American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin.  Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.  

You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies.  When you research, you will find he was not alone.

Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY?  They were making easy progress.


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a proponent of the Hesegawa school of thought, Racing The Enemy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Hesagawa make mid century furniture?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone by that name may have made furniture. A fella by the name of Tsyuoshi Hesegawa put forward in scholarly fashion the thesis you appeared to have knowledge of, albeit somewhat distorted, confused, politicized and incomplete. His research and work was put into book form and has become foundation of the premise, or school of thought that you attempted to put forward.
Click to expand...


The Historical Society, Boston University


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> By "being in Berlin easily" did Simpson mean he could get to Berlin easily or capture Berlin easily? And did "easily" mean no casualties or just the same number of casualties as on Dday, or just what? Ike had predicted 10,000 Americans killed taking Berlin, and if we had captured Berlin, then what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to do some research.
> 
> American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin.  Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.
> 
> You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies.  When you research, you will find he was not alone.
> 
> Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY?  They were making easy progress.
Click to expand...


Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do some research.
> 
> American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin.  Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.
> 
> You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies.  When you research, you will find he was not alone.
> 
> Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY?  They were making easy progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.
Click to expand...





"....the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia."

OMG.




Here's a little ditty you probably have on your iPod....


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Gen. Simpson, at the time of his interview and speculation about what could have been and what might have happened, he was 84 years old recounting events over a quarter of a century in his past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do some research.
> 
> American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin.  Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.
> 
> You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies.  When you research, you will find he was not alone.
> 
> Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY?  They were making easy progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.
Click to expand...


I find your post most disgusting.

You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution.  NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Camp thinks no such thing, based on his writing, and PC is mindlessly chattering like a chipmunk again.

Read this, all of it if you wish to know what you are discussing.  The Historical Society, Boston University


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to do some research.
> 
> American forces were facing little resistance as they approached Berlin.  Nothing like what the stinking commies were facing.
> 
> You seem to think ONLY Simpson knew the allies could take Berlin before the commies.  When you research, you will find he was not alone.
> 
> Use some logic....why would allied forces be told to stop within a few miles of Berlin....WHY?  They were making easy progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your post most disgusting.
> 
> You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution.  NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.
Click to expand...


I wasn't justifying atrocities you uninformed idiot. I specified "foot soldiers" with the knowledge of the education, intellect and emotional state of the soldiers. Their behavior was predictable. The country of the charging onslaught of undisciplined fighting under the absence of enforceable rules of engagement does not matter. It's called military science. Commanders and their staffs learn military science. Stopping at the Elbe and not fraternizing with the Russian hoard during the close of battle was the responsible command decision.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knew the west could have done as Simpson proposed and beaten the Russians into Berlin. Simpson, like Patton, was not considering the political implications and the risk of a misunderstanding with Russia. There were far more important issues on the table than how Berlin would be divided or controlled. Berlin by this time was rubble in the physical sense. In addition the west did not want to be in close proximity to the Russian conquering army and the atrocities being committed by them on large scale. Understandable for the foot soldiers who where finally cerebrating victory and demanding vengeance and retribution for the horrors and crimes suffered by the Russian people, but not something western troops needed to in any way be affiliated with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find your post most disgusting.
> 
> You think the Russians were justified in mass murder and rape of German people, because it was vengeance and retribution.  NOTHING justifies such actions and if you were informed, you would know many of those Germans who suffered at the hands of the commies, had nothing to do with the heinous actions committed by their government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't justifying atrocities you uninformed idiot. I specified "foot soldiers" with the knowledge of the education, intellect and emotional state of the soldiers. Their behavior was predictable. The country of the charging onslaught of undisciplined fighting under the absence of enforceable rules of engagement does not matter. It's called military science. Commanders and their staffs learn military science. Stopping at the Elbe and not fraternizing with the Russian hoard during the close of battle was the responsible command decision.
Click to expand...


Got it doofus.

If a dunce like you could see the atrocities coming by the commies, don't you think the allied high command and our political leadership could TOO?  

Think real hard on that one...okay?

The commies had already committed numerous unbelievable atrocities as they marched through eastern Europe on their way to Berlin, and not just to Germans.  This was well known to all in leadership positions in the US and Britain.

So....dickhead, getting to Berlin to avert the commie bloodlust, should have been our objective....if our political leadership was not completely controlled by Stalin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at you, it is a shame to see someone so stubborn that they will accept looking like an idiot, rather than admitting that they are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...





"....refuted her thesis with academic responses."


Bogus.


*One more time.*....watch me blow your lies out of the water:

Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?

Yep.


Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?

Yep.


Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?


Yep.



So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????



None....unless you are the dupe that you are revealed to be.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.
> 
> I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.





You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Camp thinks no such thing, based on his writing, and PC is mindlessly chattering like a chipmunk again.
> 
> Read this, all of it if you wish to know what you are discussing.  The Historical Society, Boston University



So then, you must agree with the following statement:

*Truman was justified in incinerating thousands of innocent women and children, by using the bombs on a defenseless nation, to achieve unconditional surrender from Japan and thus avoid Russia's entry into war with Japan.*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not at all.  HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%.  You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Based upon the OP this thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory zone in my opinion!


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.
> 
> I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?
Click to expand...


Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.
> 
> I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
> So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?
Click to expand...





You weasel, Why, then, are you running from post #275?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.
> 
> I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
> So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?
Click to expand...





Did I call you a weasel???

Ooops!

I meant 'you lying sack of effluvia.'



Here is your most recent lie:

"So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?"

Find where I ever said that "Hitler would have surrendered."



You can't can you.

As an apologist for Roosevelt, you are truly scum.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC continues to mindlessly chatter like a chip munk and ignore the fact here OP was defeated in the first page.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about Political Chick for a second - is she wrong about what she wrote? If so, tell us why.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have been told already if you have read the thread. PC won't respond to the challenges and questions that have refuted her thesis with academic responses. Maybe you want to give it a try. I can't speak for the other posters of this thread, but feel free to go through mine and respond to all the post and links I have used to shred her dopey conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....refuted her thesis with academic responses."
> 
> 
> Bogus.
> 
> 
> *One more time.*....watch me blow your lies out of the water:
> 
> Did the German anti-Nazi resistance attempt to link with British and American governments from as early as the late 30's?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Yes, but they did not have the power or authority to produce results and many of them were communist who had already been rejected by Stalin
> 
> Did Stalin insist that so such liaison be allowed, and Germany not allowed to surrender....but be obliterated?
> 
> Yep
> 
> It didn't matter. FDR and Churchill along with de Gaulle didn't formalize unconditional surrender until the Casablanca Conference where Stalin was absent.
> Did Soviet spies in the Roosevelt administration influence the FDR's "Morganthau Plan"?
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Only in you conspiratorial mind.
> 
> 
> So....on what possible basis can it be denied that Roosevelt could have seen an end to Hitler and the Nazis years earlier?????
> 
> Decades of documented reliable scholarly research by thousands of dedicated academics over a period of decades and only political pundits and commentators to refute their mountains of work'
Click to expand...


I wasn't running, just getting bored with refuting the same old stupid concepts that flow out of you conspiratorial brain.


----------



## regent

From these posts I now get the impression that both Germany and Japan spent the entire war trying to surrender, but FDR, because of Stalin, would not let Germany and Japan surrender. Poor Germany and Japan, innocent pawns in that whole war debacle. 
The sooner we get all those history books rewritten the better.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gipper wanted American lives wasted in taking Berlin rather than Soviet lives.
> 
> I am sure PC agrees with Gipper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
> So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?
Click to expand...


You continue to post nonsense.  No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender.  Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.

Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> From these posts I now get the impression that both Germany and Japan spent the entire war trying to surrender, but FDR, because of Stalin, would not let Germany and Japan surrender. Poor Germany and Japan, innocent pawns in that whole war debacle.
> The sooner we get all those history books rewritten the better.



Making lite of the facts, only proves you are lacking intelligence.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> Not at all.  HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%.  You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.



People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.

Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.

The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?


----------



## Camp

One of the more ridiculous claims made during this thread has been that it would have been easy for the allied forces, particularly the 9th under Lt. Gen. Simpson who was under the command of Montgomery at the time, to advance to Berlin ahead of the massive Russian forces. It assumes that the German forces in and surrounding Berlin would have surrendered to allied forces as soon as they showed up, without a fight.  It irresponsibly ignores the consequences of the results of a misguided assumption and would have put American forces in the middle of the final battle of Berlin.

[ame="http://youtube.com/watch?v=xF1W-dhptts"]http://youtube.com/watch?v=xF1W-dhptts[/ame]


Did someone suggest taking Berlin would have been easy?


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%.  You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.
> 
> The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?
Click to expand...


Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%.  You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.
> 
> The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.
Click to expand...




"....to dictate surrender terms...."


Did you know that 'dictate' means  "To prescribe with authority; impose"

If you did know it, you're a liar. If you didn't, a fool.




Never ceases to amaze, the lengths and torture of the language, that you self-proclaimed Roosevelt protectors, will go to.


You know you can't defend the view that anyone......anyone....said that Germany  or Japan should 'dictate surrender terms."


In point of fact, the attempt at obfuscation indicates that you realize your defense is vapid.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  HT was justified because the planning operations staff concluded that the invasion chance of success was no more than 60%.  You need read everything, Gipper, instead of just your politicized and biased folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.
> 
> The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.
Click to expand...


So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable.  Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.  

How dumb is that?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like the thousands of American lives that Roosevelt gave as a token of fealty,  the fidelity of a vassal to his lord, Joseph Stalin, by refusing to accept German surrender years before 1945?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
> So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue to post nonsense.  No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender.  Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.
> 
> Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?
Click to expand...


Explain how Germany would surrender without Hitler approving of a surrender? Claiming that Germany would surrender is the same as claiming Hitler would surrender. What is the difference? So how is that concept not projecting nonsense? Your and PC's claim omits Hitler from the equation and are the ones projecting nonsense. How do you have an intelligent discussion about the WWII European Theater of Operations without including Hitler? You can't, that is the obvious answer. To build a thesis around German surrender in WWII without the inclusion and consideration of Hitler is just friggin retarded.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.
> 
> The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable.  Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.
> 
> How dumb is that?
Click to expand...


The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.


----------



## Meathead

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany wasn't up for surrender. Never was. Hitler controlled Germany and Hitler never offered to surrender. The Germans that even thought surrender was an option were executed. Even Canaris was executed. Wasn't he the one who was hanged twice? They hung him and than stopped the hanging long enough for him to regain consciousness and than hanged him again. Was that one of the Germans who wanted to surrender?
> So what evidence do you have for your retarded claim that Hitler would have surrendered to FDR in 1943?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue to post nonsense.  No one here claimed Hitler was willing to surrender.  Your ability to read and comprehend is suspect.
> 
> Do you believe the German people needed to be destroyed, because their crazed dictator refused to surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how Germany would surrender without Hitler approving of a surrender? Claiming that Germany would surrender is the same as claiming Hitler would surrender. What is the difference? So how is that concept not projecting nonsense? Your and PC's claim omits Hitler from the equation and the ones projecting nonsense. How do you have an intelligent discussion about the WWII European Theater of Operations without including Hitler? You can't, that is the obvious answer. To build a thesis around German surrender in WWII without the inclusion and consideration of Hitler is just friggin retarded.
Click to expand...

Camp, I knew you could major and minor in history, but I never knew you could midget.

Having said that, Camp, as scatter-brained as he is, is right.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable.  Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.
> 
> How dumb is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.
Click to expand...


I thought you would never ask.  I am happy to oblige.  
Once again I post these links.  Will it inform you or are you closed minded?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson




> The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson
> Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace."
> The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?"
> Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[75][76] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[74] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[77]
> "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[67]
> "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[78]
> 
> Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it. The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets.[6]
> Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency &#8212; that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that had been needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.[7] The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll &#8212; nearly twice the total of US dead in all theaters in the Second World War &#8212; is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks and bandied about by ignorant commentators. Unsurprisingly the prize for sheer fatuousness on this score goes to President George H.W. Bush, who claimed in 1991 that dropping the bomb "spared millions of American lives."[8]



And for Truman's true intentions read this.
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf


And how about this??????

*Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that &#8216;On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo &#8211; they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.&#8217;*



and this from Thomas E Woods....have a blown your mind yet?


> by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
> Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Learn Austrian Economics
> [&#8203;IMG]
> 
> 
> In time for the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the leftist National Catholic Reporter treats us to an entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard. (Thanks to Laurence Vance for the link.) My comment, which is &#8220;awaiting moderation,&#8221; ran as follows:
> I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like &#8220;Japan started the war&#8221; helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if &#8220;Japan&#8221; started it, can &#8220;Japan&#8221; be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?
> Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to &#8220;defame our country&#8221; (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with &#8220;our country&#8221.
> I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to &#8220;defame our country&#8221;? Or how about L&#8217;Osservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
> Oh, but &#8220;we&#8221; had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, that&#8217;s all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because that&#8217;s all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions &#8220;alternatives&#8221; to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)
> For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.
> Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.
> Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods



And here is more...


> Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary to End World War II?
> 
> The first use of an atomic bomb in warfare took place on August 6, 1945. The weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the U.S. bomber Enola Gay, instantaneously destroying four square miles in the middle of the population center. The blast killed 66,000 men, women, and children, and injured an additional 69,000. A full 67 percent of Hiroshima&#8217;s buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed.
> The next (and only other) atomic bomb to be dropped in warfare was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later. That blast killed 39,000 civilians and injured another 25,000; 40 percent of the city was destroyed or unrepairable. The Japanese government surrendered to the U.S. government on August 10, 1945.
> Since the last &#8220;good war,&#8221; a debate has ensued over the moral legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons, particularly against civilians. The critics hold that it is a crime to incinerate civilians en masse; defenders commonly claim that the bombing was necessary to bring the war to a close, thereby saving countless American lives.
> Most of those who make this claim do so in earnest. The problem is that this defense is both historically false, and taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.
> But a discussion of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot proceed without an overview of the imperialist motives for Japanese military aggression, which reflected the age-old drive for power through military intimidation and conquest. The Japanese desired a series of conquests, to constitute the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This involved, most importantly, penetration into Korea, Manchuria, China, French Indochina, Malaya, and Burma.
> What was clearly not their goal was a prolonged conflict with the United States or any of the other Allied Powers. After establishing their Asian imperium and a defensive perimeter, the Japanese expected to reach a negotiated peace.
> It should be clear that the attack on the American military base at Pearl Harbor was not a part of the long-term planning of the Japanese government. Indeed, conservatives and isolationists have long held the view that the Roosevelt administration provoked the Japanese into their aggressive stance as a back door to war in Europe.
> Consider the facts leading up to the attack: Roosevelt had made a commitment to Churchill that the United States would enter into the Asian conflict if the British were attacked; the United States was shipping munitions to both Russia and Great Britain; Roosevelt had placed an embargo on oil and metals against Japan; and in the most egregious example, had sent the &#8220;unofficial&#8221; Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese in China in 1941. All were violations of U.S. neutrality and acts of belligerency.
> Vocal critics on the Old Right&#8212;such as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnes&#8212;held that the Roosevelt administration was aware of the attack in advance, both from decoded transmissions and intelligence reports. The weight of history has ironed out the appearance of radicalism from the latter contention. Whatever the truth of the Pearl Harbor affair, an extended war with the United States was not a desire of the Japanese.
> Japanese Objectives
> Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fight&#8212;they did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
> In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
> &#8220;Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur&#8217;s headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelt&#8217;s successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.&#8221;
> Clearly, then, the bomb did not have to be dropped to save the lives of American soldiers. The war in the Pacific could have ended prior to the European conflict. One suspects that the conflagration&#8217;s extension beyond the confines of necessity had more to do with the politics of war than military strategy. The fact that consultation with Stalin played a key role in the decision tends to implicate both what historian William L. Neumann pointed to as &#8220;the historic ambitions of Russia in Asia&#8221; and &#8220;the expansionist element in Stalinist Communism.&#8221;
> The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
> &#8220;Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.&#8221;
> Even if the Japanese had showed no signs of surrender and had remained obstinate in belligerency, the notion that the most human carnage possible must be inflicted on the civilians of an enemy government to force a surrender and minimize the losses of one&#8217;s own troops is perverse. Consider the consequences of adopting a policy of total war. Logically, if you expect an enemy to pursue this strategy, you will do everything in your power to do the same before the enemy has the opportunity to annihilate you.
> Critics of the bombing have made a strong moral case against the action. This is why the defenders of the bombing use strongly moralistic terms themselves. One of the results is possibly the most bizarre and obviously wrong.
> Most veterans and defenders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claim that whatever the reasons for the bombing and its support, racism was not among them. This is simply not true. The U.S. War Department and related agencies that specialized in producing hate propaganda and lies developed specifically racialist attacks on the Japanese.
> Propaganda films, shown to theaters across the country, whipped Americans into war hysteria with films attacking the Japanese with their &#8220;grinning yellow faces.&#8221; American movie audiences were encouraged to cheer as they watched images of the &#8220;upstart yellow dwarfs&#8221; meeting their timely ends. The government played on and encouraged prejudice and specifically racial animosity against the Japanese. To be fair, the Japanese held&#8212;and still hold&#8212;similar views of Americans, views not discouraged by their government.
> The most revealing aspect of this latter point is not that racism was involved in drumming up the war spirit, but rather that the truth of the matter has been so thoroughly obscured.
> Oddly enough, many apologists are conservatives, who should be the first to recognize that the essence of government is its monopoly on violence. This is a paramount consideration in their analysis of the role of the government in domestic affairs. Consistency demands that conservatives begin to apply their principles across the board&#8212;to foreign policy as well as domestic policy. The alternative is the road we now travel, and it leads to total war and the total state.The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education



I have much more damning information from many experts.  If you would like to see them, just ask.

Truism of all TRUISMS: Americans must learn that government ALWAYS lies.  So one should never believe what the government tells you.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable.  Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.
> 
> How dumb is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you seem expert at is the use of a potty mouth and childish name calling and insulting. Give some evidence about this so called opportunity for a peace settlement before Hiroshima and Nagasaki if only we would have guaranteed the Emperor some kind of safe passage. Where does that come from? The most respected and famous Japanese scholar on the subject disagrees with you. Repeat, the most well known and respected Japanese expert and recognized scholar in the world disagrees with your claim. So show us where it is you get your information so we have the opportunity to check it out. The link I provided regarding Hasegawa's scholarly work has been posted at least three times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you would never ask.  I am happy to oblige.
> Once again I post these links.  Will it inform you or are you closed minded?
> 
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico
> The Hiroshima Lie by John V. Denson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for Truman's true intentions read this.
> http://mises.org/journals/scholar/severance.pdf
> 
> 
> And how about this??????
> 
> *Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo  they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.*
> 
> 
> 
> and this from Thomas E Woods....have a blown your mind yet?
> 
> 
> 
> by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
> Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Learn Austrian Economics
> [&#8203;IMG]
> 
> 
> In time for the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the leftist National Catholic Reporter treats us to an entirely conventional rendition and defense of that awful episode in U.S. history, a rendition I might have expected to read in the neoconservative Weekly Standard. (Thanks to Laurence Vance for the link.) My comment, which is awaiting moderation, ran as follows:
> I am shocked that this kind of jingoism and raw collectivism would soil the pages (so to speak) of the NCR. I would expect this in the Weekly Standard. The use of formulations like Japan started the war helps to evade all the relevant moral questions; if Japan started it, can Japan be laid waste? Their political class makes an idiotic and suicidal military move, so every single three-year-old in the country becomes subject to bombing, poisoning, being burned or buried alive, etc.? At what point do we start questioning the logic of this, instead of formulating all our arguments as if this were simply an obvious moral given?
> Instead of asking these hard questions, the kind of questions we are trained from early childhood not to ask, indeed not even to be intellectually equipped to formulate, NCR gives us a collectivist propaganda piece. Anyone who criticizes the decision to drop the bomb is trying to defame our country (again, in classic neocon style, conflating the decisions of a small circle of officials with our country).
> I guess the editor of the Paulist Catholic World was trying to defame our country? Or how about LOsservatore Romano, which also criticized the bombings? Or the great Catholic philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe? Or even Pat Buchanan, who denounces the bombings as acts of barbarism?
> Oh, but we had to burn all those kids alive, comes the reply. Why, thats all the fanatics in Japan would understand! (What if the author had said the police needed to kick in the heads of certain races of people because thats all they would understand? Would you thoughtlessly nod your head at that?) Completely left out of the discussion are the genuine alternatives that existed to dropping the bomb, alternatives that could have worked even with the incorrigible Japanese. (Of course, whenever someone mentions alternatives to a decision made by the U.S. military, he is instantly derided as some kind of leftist dreamer.)
> For what these alternatives were, and for something a little more significant than mindless, knee-jerk cheering of the U.S. military, as if this group of government employees were sacrosanct, I recommend this short piece by historian Ralph Raico.
> Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.
> Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is more...
> 
> 
> 
> Was the Atomic Bomb Necessary to End World War II?
> 
> The first use of an atomic bomb in warfare took place on August 6, 1945. The weapon was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima by the U.S. bomber Enola Gay, instantaneously destroying four square miles in the middle of the population center. The blast killed 66,000 men, women, and children, and injured an additional 69,000. A full 67 percent of Hiroshimas buildings, transportation systems, and urban structures were destroyed.
> The next (and only other) atomic bomb to be dropped in warfare was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki three days later. That blast killed 39,000 civilians and injured another 25,000; 40 percent of the city was destroyed or unrepairable. The Japanese government surrendered to the U.S. government on August 10, 1945.
> Since the last good war, a debate has ensued over the moral legitimacy of the use of nuclear weapons, particularly against civilians. The critics hold that it is a crime to incinerate civilians en masse; defenders commonly claim that the bombing was necessary to bring the war to a close, thereby saving countless American lives.
> Most of those who make this claim do so in earnest. The problem is that this defense is both historically false, and taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.
> But a discussion of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cannot proceed without an overview of the imperialist motives for Japanese military aggression, which reflected the age-old drive for power through military intimidation and conquest. The Japanese desired a series of conquests, to constitute the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity sphere. This involved, most importantly, penetration into Korea, Manchuria, China, French Indochina, Malaya, and Burma.
> What was clearly not their goal was a prolonged conflict with the United States or any of the other Allied Powers. After establishing their Asian imperium and a defensive perimeter, the Japanese expected to reach a negotiated peace.
> It should be clear that the attack on the American military base at Pearl Harbor was not a part of the long-term planning of the Japanese government. Indeed, conservatives and isolationists have long held the view that the Roosevelt administration provoked the Japanese into their aggressive stance as a back door to war in Europe.
> Consider the facts leading up to the attack: Roosevelt had made a commitment to Churchill that the United States would enter into the Asian conflict if the British were attacked; the United States was shipping munitions to both Russia and Great Britain; Roosevelt had placed an embargo on oil and metals against Japan; and in the most egregious example, had sent the unofficial Flying Tigers to attack the Japanese in China in 1941. All were violations of U.S. neutrality and acts of belligerency.
> Vocal critics on the Old Rightsuch as John T. Flynn and Harry Elmer Barnesheld that the Roosevelt administration was aware of the attack in advance, both from decoded transmissions and intelligence reports. The weight of history has ironed out the appearance of radicalism from the latter contention. Whatever the truth of the Pearl Harbor affair, an extended war with the United States was not a desire of the Japanese.
> Japanese Objectives
> Apologists for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki need to consider the overall thrust of the Japanese objectives. These objectives do not square with the notion that Japan was intractably set into a policy of mortal combat with the Americans. Not that the Japanese were not willing to fightthey did so for four bloody and grueling years. Yet the oft-repeated claim that the Japanese were willing to sacrifice every last individual before ending the war is nonsense.
> In reality, the Japanese were willing to end hostilities with the United States as quickly as they began. Startlingly neglected is the January 1945 offer of the Japanese government to surrender. As the eminent English jurist Frederick J.P. Veale pointed out in Advance to Barbarism,
> Belatedly it has been discovered that seven months before it [the atomic bomb] was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthurs headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: In July 1945, as we know, Roosevelts successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsburg the Japanese offer to surrender.
> Clearly, then, the bomb did not have to be dropped to save the lives of American soldiers. The war in the Pacific could have ended prior to the European conflict. One suspects that the conflagrations extension beyond the confines of necessity had more to do with the politics of war than military strategy. The fact that consultation with Stalin played a key role in the decision tends to implicate both what historian William L. Neumann pointed to as the historic ambitions of Russia in Asia and the expansionist element in Stalinist Communism.
> The Japanese offer to surrender came at a time when surrender made sense. Consider the strange apology for the bombing offered by the historian Robert R. Smith, the logic of which may escape even the most alert reader:
> Allied air, surface, and submarine operations had cut the home islands from all sources of raw materials. The effective and close blockade of the Allies established around the home islands would ultimately have made it impossible for the Japanese to supply their military and civilian components with even the bare essentials of life. An early surrender was inevitable, probably even without the impetus supplied by the atomic blasts. It was better for both the Allies and the Japanese the end came when it did.
> Even if the Japanese had showed no signs of surrender and had remained obstinate in belligerency, the notion that the most human carnage possible must be inflicted on the civilians of an enemy government to force a surrender and minimize the losses of ones own troops is perverse. Consider the consequences of adopting a policy of total war. Logically, if you expect an enemy to pursue this strategy, you will do everything in your power to do the same before the enemy has the opportunity to annihilate you.
> Critics of the bombing have made a strong moral case against the action. This is why the defenders of the bombing use strongly moralistic terms themselves. One of the results is possibly the most bizarre and obviously wrong.
> Most veterans and defenders of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claim that whatever the reasons for the bombing and its support, racism was not among them. This is simply not true. The U.S. War Department and related agencies that specialized in producing hate propaganda and lies developed specifically racialist attacks on the Japanese.
> Propaganda films, shown to theaters across the country, whipped Americans into war hysteria with films attacking the Japanese with their grinning yellow faces. American movie audiences were encouraged to cheer as they watched images of the upstart yellow dwarfs meeting their timely ends. The government played on and encouraged prejudice and specifically racial animosity against the Japanese. To be fair, the Japanese heldand still holdsimilar views of Americans, views not discouraged by their government.
> The most revealing aspect of this latter point is not that racism was involved in drumming up the war spirit, but rather that the truth of the matter has been so thoroughly obscured.
> Oddly enough, many apologists are conservatives, who should be the first to recognize that the essence of government is its monopoly on violence. This is a paramount consideration in their analysis of the role of the government in domestic affairs. Consistency demands that conservatives begin to apply their principles across the boardto foreign policy as well as domestic policy. The alternative is the road we now travel, and it leads to total war and the total state.The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have much more damning information from many experts.  If you would like to see them, just ask.
> brn that government ALWAYS lies.  So one should never believe what the government tells you.
Click to expand...


Gipper, those guys aren't experts. What you are using are not scholarly works. They are for the most part essays published on libertarian blog sites. But the point you are making is valid. The decision to nuke Japan was a political decision and not a military one. The problem is that FDR died before it became time to decide on whether to use the nuke or not. Truman made that decision.

 There is also a problem with the conclusion that the military leadership in Japan would have allowed surrender before the nukes were used. This has always been the great debate. The debate among scholars has not been about whether the decision to nuke was military or political. George Marshall even said it was political. The dead end in the debate has always narrowed down to the simple point of, would have and could have the Emperor and his closest allies overrule Tojo and  the military before the dropping of the nukes. Remember, they attempted to assassinate the Emperor over the question of surrender.  That is where the importance of Hasegawa and Racing With The Enemy comes into play. 

The target of the thesis should be Truman, not FDR.


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> People like you are easily duped into believing the lies of the State.
> 
> Do you know why?  Because you fail to see the forest for the trees....I know this will confound you, so let me explain.
> 
> The USA did NOT need to invade Japan AT ALL...never needed to.  Japan would have surrendered long before August '45, if only the US allowed the Emperor to stay on as a figure head, which your beloved murderous Harry Truman refused to allow before he committed histories most heinous war crime...only to allow it afterward.  Does this mean anything to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should America have allowed Japan to dictate surrender terms to the US? That Japan could have surrendered any time it wanted is a given, in fact, when they did decide to surrender the war was over. It was that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...it is your belief that allowing the Emperor to stay on the throne was an outrage and entirely unacceptable.  Thus thousands MORE American military men and Japanese (mostly innocent civilians) must die to enforce a lying scumbag politician's demand for unconditional surrender....only once they had surrendered unconditionally, the Emperor was allowed to stay on the throne by a lying scumbag politician.
> 
> How dumb is that?
Click to expand...


You are that dumb, gipper.  You are why we need men like Marshall, Eisenhower, Truman, and the rest to keep you idiots from policy decisions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1  John V. Denson is nothing but a Mises troll.

John V. Denson - Ludwig von Mises Institute
mises.org/authors/492/John-V-Denson
Ludwig von Mises Institute
John V. Denson is a practicing attorney in Alabama and an adjunct scholar at the Mises Institute.


----------



## gipper

As I thought.  You guys can't get passed your government school brainwashing.  I was one of you once, but then I took the time to do the research.  Luckily for you two, you can benefit from all the hard work I did to find the truth.

My sons, it is not Un-American to disbelieve the government.  However, it is Un-American to believe the lies of a corrupt government.  So please, find the courage to accept the truth.

You have heard the statement. "the truth will set you free." Do you want to be free or a slave?  We shall find out...

I will not give up trying to educate you....just Google the following statements to prove their veracity. 



> One of MacArthur&#8217;s first acts after taking over as Viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He imposed total censorship over journalists on the ground about what really happened at Ground Zero in those doomed cities, again proving the old adage that &#8220;the first casualty of war is truth&#8221;.





> Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: &#8220;the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.&#8221; In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.





> Admiral William Leahy, top military aide to President Truman, said in his war memoirs, I Was There: &#8220;It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. My own feeling is that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.&#8221;





> *And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a personal visit to President Truman a couple of weeks before the bombings, urged him not to use the atomic bombs. Eisenhower said: &#8220;It wasn&#8217;t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.&#8221;*





> Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey&#8217;s official report on the Pacific War appeared.  The authors concluded that&#8230;
> &#8220;the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan&#8230;.certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945 Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.&#8221;





> A major alternative discussed in detail by historian Gar Alperovitz in his indispensable book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb was the possibility of a negotiated peace with Japan involving a relaxation of the American demand for "unconditional surrender." In his monumental work, Alperovitz documents that from April to August 1945 the Japanese made a number of official attempts to secure a negotiated peace settlement and an end to the war. The major sticking point was the fate of Emperor Hirohito &#8212; would the man many Japanese considered to be divine be tried and hanged as a war criminal? In light of this concern, Truman was urged by many of his aides to alter the surrender formula to provide for the preservation of the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. Presented with opportunity after opportunity to craft a compromise, Truman refused to bend. Indeed, the most significant statement of Allied surrender terms prior to the bombings &#8212; the Potsdam Declaration issued July 26, 1945 &#8212; maintained the rhetoric of "unconditional surrender" while not even mentioning the fate of the Emperor. President Truman then most certainly acted without exhausting all other options &#8212; a gross violation of the jus in bello principles enunciated by the Christian Church for centuries.
> 
> The list of Truman's military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who's who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> ?



Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help. 

the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.  

We weren't going to give them that luxury. 

Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.  

And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb. 

But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help.
> 
> the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.
> 
> We weren't going to give them that luxury.
> 
> Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.
> 
> And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb.
> 
> But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.
Click to expand...







"Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help."

You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!


1. 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! 

2. "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 byMartin Weil in   "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world* to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*

Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"


----------



## JakeStarkey

If Japan and USSR had remained neutral, the USA and UK and its empire would not have been able to win and would certainly not lose a war with the Greater German Reich and its European possessions.  The Allies would have not been able to successfully create a beach head in northwestern Europe, and the southeastern European route was bound to fail.

So, yes, the USSR was the key to allied victory.

If the war was solely between Hitler and Stalin, the West would have happily sat it out.

However, Hitler had western Europe under his paw, and the USA and the UK had no choice but to fight.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is* the truth:*
> 
> a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
> b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> 2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The *USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated*, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire.   Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
> West, "American Betrayal," p.277
> ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help.
> 
> the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.
> 
> We weren't going to give them that luxury.
> 
> Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.
> 
> And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb.
> 
> But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.
Click to expand...





".... most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war."

What nonsense.

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!  


1. Roosevelt actually intended for the Red Army to occupy central and eastern Europe....he said this* even before the Red Army left Russia!*

a. We know for a documented fact that Roosevelt regarded Soviet conquest in Europe as a fait accompli. 



2. On September 3, 1943, Cardinal Spellman spent 90 minutes with Roosevelt, and wrote up a memorandum in which he quoted Roosevelt as saying exactly that!
*Spellman quoted FDR*: "The European people will simply have to endure the Russian domination in the hope that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the Russians." 
"The Cardinal Spellman Story," by Robert I. Gannon, p.224





3. Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind* handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. *Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Sherwood's book, the authorized Hopkins biography: *"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
*


----------



## JakeStarkey

_Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin_! 

No truth to that.

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

Reality.


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!



I've got a degree in history. 

You've got a bag full of crazy.  



PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 1. 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!



Meh, not so much.  frankly, I've talked to British and Russians who think that the US really took advantage of them with Lend LEase.  They did most of the fighting, the Americans made a shitload of money.  



PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 2. "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 byMartin Weil in   "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.



It was unlikely the Soviet Regime would have fallen with 11 Time Zones to fall back into. But if it had, it would have been one set up by the Nazis as a colonial regime. 



PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world* to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*
> 
> Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"



But they pretty much did, anyway.  and the end result was that the USSR came out stronger for it. A huge army with experienced battle commanders. 

They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's.  They chose not not.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history.
> 
> You've got a bag full of crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 1. 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, not so much.  frankly, They did most of the fighting, the Americans made a shitload of money.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 2. "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 byMartin Weil in   "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was unlikely the Soviet Regime would have fallen with 11 Time Zones to fall back into. But if it had, it would have been one set up by the Nazis as a colonial regime.
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world* to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*
> 
> Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But they pretty much did, anyway.  and the end result was that the USSR came out stronger for it. A huge army with experienced battle commanders.
> 
> They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's.  They chose not not.
Click to expand...





1. "I've got a degree in history."

Seems not at all consistent with knowledge of history.





2. "I've talked to British and Russians who think that the US really took advantage of them with Lend LEase."

Wow...did they pull the wool over your eyes!!!

They must have known a sucker when they saw you, huh?

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

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

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




3. "They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's.  They chose not not."

No clearer statement could be made to document that you not only know none of the history of the time...
...but that you have been thoroughly inebriated with communist propaganda.


BTW....which was the only nation with the atomic bomb, you dolt?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> _Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin_!
> 
> No truth to that.
> 
> "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
> 
> Reality.







*I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated,* and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> 3. "They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's.  They chose not not."
> 
> No clearer statement could be made to document that you not only know none of the history of the time...
> ...but that you have been thoroughly inebriated with communist propaganda.
> 
> 
> BTW....which was the only nation with the atomic bomb, you dolt?



Without rehashing the rest of your tired stuff about Lend lease (which really was a fraction of Soviet War materials.  They produced most of their own.) They didn't beat the Germans because we gave them butter.  

The Atom Bomb was not that big of a deal in the 1940's.  

True, we agonize about it a lot today, because unlike the Hiroshima bomb, we have the capabilities to wipe out the entire planet today. 

But two or three atom bombs really wouldn't have made that much of a difference had the Soviets decided that they weren't going to stop at the Elbe.  

The reality was the Soviets had a battle-hardened Army in Europe.  

Thankfully, they had also had their fill of war.


----------



## regent

From Pearl Harbor to the end of the war the Republican party must have been telling the American people they had the ideas to end the war two years early. What happened to those ideas and where would we find them today?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin_!
> 
> No truth to that.
> 
> "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
> 
> Reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated,* and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'
Click to expand...

   Your quotes are either inaccurate or out of context.

It's obvious you have very little idea of what happened then and why.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC ignore the truth and relevance of the below which undermines her OP, yet again.

_If Japan and USSR had remained neutral, the USA and UK and its empire would not have been able to win and would certainly not lose a war with the Greater German Reich and its European possessions. The Allies would have not been able to successfully create a beach head in northwestern Europe, and the southeastern European route was bound to fail.

So, yes, the USSR was the key to allied victory.

If the war was solely between Hitler and Stalin, the West would have happily sat it out.

However, Hitler had western Europe under his paw, and the USA and the UK had no choice but to fight._
__________________


----------



## regent

It seemed, at that time, that FDR chose a policy of low American casualties and in exchange, letting the USSR gain more dominance over European land areas? 
Was that FDR's only choice and was that the best choice at the time?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> As I thought.  You guys can't get passed your government school brainwashing.  I was one of you once, but then I took the time to do the research.  Luckily for you two, you can benefit from all the hard work I did to find the truth.
> 
> My sons, it is not Un-American to disbelieve the government.  However, it is Un-American to believe the lies of a corrupt government.  So please, find the courage to accept the truth.
> 
> You have heard the statement. "the truth will set you free." Do you want to be free or a slave?  We shall find out...
> 
> I will not give up trying to educate you....just Google the following statements to prove their veracity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of MacArthur&#8217;s first acts after taking over as Viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He imposed total censorship over journalists on the ground about what really happened at Ground Zero in those doomed cities, again proving the old adage that &#8220;the first casualty of war is truth&#8221;.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: &#8220;the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.&#8221; In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey&#8217;s official report on the Pacific War appeared.  The authors concluded that&#8230;
> &#8220;the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan&#8230;.certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945 Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A major alternative discussed in detail by historian Gar Alperovitz in his indispensable book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb was the possibility of a negotiated peace with Japan involving a relaxation of the American demand for "unconditional surrender." In his monumental work, Alperovitz documents that from April to August 1945 the Japanese made a number of official attempts to secure a negotiated peace settlement and an end to the war. The major sticking point was the fate of Emperor Hirohito &#8212; would the man many Japanese considered to be divine be tried and hanged as a war criminal? In light of this concern, Truman was urged by many of his aides to alter the surrender formula to provide for the preservation of the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. Presented with opportunity after opportunity to craft a compromise, Truman refused to bend. Indeed, the most significant statement of Allied surrender terms prior to the bombings &#8212; the Potsdam Declaration issued July 26, 1945 &#8212; maintained the rhetoric of "unconditional surrender" while not even mentioning the fate of the Emperor. President Truman then most certainly acted without exhausting all other options &#8212; a gross violation of the jus in bello principles enunciated by the Christian Church for centuries.
> 
> The list of Truman's military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who's who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The facts are not what gets disputed. It is how the facts are put together to create a thesis and used to make conclusions. Fact can be hacked together, or what we in the computer age call cut and pasted, to say just about anything you want, or, they can be assembled in a scholarly and academic fashion designed to be open and presented in such a way as to allow other scholars and academia to examine and review conclusions reached by an author. Quotes taken out of context and or distorted can be revealed and challenged. These of course are the  hacks key tools, taking quotes and claiming they mean something that they don't mean. It is the method by which conspiracy theories are built.

In 2014 there are two basic schools of thought regarding the use of nuclear weapons to end the war in Japan. Both accept the same general facts relating to Russian involvement scheduled to began with battle planned for the third week of August 1945, the impact of the Potsdam Conference held in the last part of July and the very beginning of August '45, and the implications of a peace agreement or surrender being obtained before, or after Russia's official entrance via battle. There was a race to obtain a surrender from Japan before Russia committed forces and began actual battle with Japanese forces in Manchuria that would than become unavailable for defense against an Allied invasion of Japan proper or it's home islands. This is the theory that substantiates the thesis that the use of nukes was purely political.

The different schools of thought and competing concepts come from two Japanese scholars. I have mentioned Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. The other scholar is Sadao Asada  the author of "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb".

http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin_!
> 
> No truth to that.
> 
> "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
> 
> Reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated,* and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your quotes are either inaccurate or out of context.
> 
> It's obvious you have very little idea of what happened then and why.
Click to expand...






I accurately quoted FDR, Cardinal Spellman, and Harry Hopkins.
I've even given you the sources....Gannon's book, and the Hopkins authorized biography, by Sherwood.

You, you ignorant dunce, responded with 'is not, is not.'





Roosevelt followed Stalin's every instruction, and ceded Europe to him before his troops even moved into same.
That is critical: Anglo-American Common Law might be invoked if the Red Army had occupied Eastern Europe at the time.
They did not.

Bottom line: sans FDR's support....communism would have remained the material of soap-box orators.
And you'd be right there....applauding.





I appreciate each and every one of your appearances, you simpleton, because of the stain they leave on those trying to oppose my revelatory posts.


That's you, TweedleDumb and TweedleDumber.....the three of you live with the eternal fear that the truth will be revealed....and the worldview that forms the center of all you've ever been taught to believe will be shattered.




And I'm here with a sledge hammer.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You clearly do not understand what and why of the event, PC.

Your disjointed, out of context quotations mean nothing.  Even sane human knows better than to accept anything from a Mises done.

Your OPs are gutted, ripped open, and all you can do is _ad hom_.

That is fine because that is always a symbol of your defeat.

Your sledge hammer in your mind is a small little sand spoon.

I imagine you also subscribe to Peachey's analysis of psychiatry and radical feminism.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> You clearly do not understand what and why of the event, PC.
> 
> Your disjointed, out of context quotations mean nothing.  Even sane human knows better than to accept anything from a Mises done.
> 
> Your OPs are gutted, ripped open, and all you can do is _ad hom_.
> 
> That is fine because that is always a symbol of your defeat.
> 
> Your sledge hammer in your mind is a small little sand spoon.
> 
> I imagine you also subscribe to Peachey's analysis of psychiatry and radical feminism.






I accurately quoted FDR, Cardinal Spellman, and Harry Hopkins.
I've even given you the sources....Gannon's book, and the Hopkins authorized biography, by Sherwood.

You, you ignorant dunce, responded with 'is not, is not.'


----------



## JakeStarkey

Doesn't mean a thing.  You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.

There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.

The logistics and units could not have forced it.

Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.

The OP fails.  All you can say "is could have, could have."  No, PC, in context, no, it could not.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> Doesn't mean a thing.  You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.
> 
> There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.
> 
> The logistics and units could not have forced it.
> 
> Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.
> 
> The OP fails.  All you can say "is could have, could have."  No, PC, in context, no, it could not.






So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....

Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well.



Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression.

He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud.

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


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing.  You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.
> 
> There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.
> 
> The logistics and units could not have forced it.
> 
> Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.
> 
> The OP fails.  All you can say "is could have, could have."  No, PC, in context, no, it could not.
> 
> 
> 
> So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well.  Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression.  He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud.  You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
Click to expand...


You have always fitted your assertions to your philosophy without the evidence to joint them together well.

You keep whining you are right even when you are shown the facts contradict you.

One, the lack of logistic assets and combat units prevented an invasion of the West in 1943.

Two, Hitler had no desire to end the war if he had to give up his conquests.

Those are facts that you can't confront with your silly statements.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean a thing.  You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.
> 
> There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.
> 
> The logistics and units could not have forced it.
> 
> Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.
> 
> The OP fails.  All you can say "is could have, could have."  No, PC, in context, no, it could not.
> 
> 
> 
> So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well.  Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression.  He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud.  You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have always fitted your assertions to your philosophy without the evidence to joint them together well.
> 
> You keep whining you are right even when you are shown the facts contradict you.
> 
> One, the lack of logistic assets and combat units prevented an invasion of the West in 1943.
> 
> Two, Hitler had no desire to end the war if he had to give up his conquests.
> 
> Those are facts that you can't confront with your silly statements.
Click to expand...







There's drool running down your chin again.....disgusting.

Have your nurse wipe that off for you.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well.  Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression.  He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud.  You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have always fitted your assertions to your philosophy without the evidence to joint them together well.
> 
> You keep whining you are right even when you are shown the facts contradict you.
> 
> One, the lack of logistic assets and combat units prevented an invasion of the West in 1943.
> 
> Two, Hitler had no desire to end the war if he had to give up his conquests.
> 
> Those are facts that you can't confront with your silly statements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's drool running down your chin again.....disgusting.
> 
> Have your nurse wipe that off for you.
Click to expand...


Once last chance: show us how peace could have been achieved in the West in 1943.


----------



## regent

JakeStarkey said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have always fitted your assertions to your philosophy without the evidence to joint them together well.
> 
> You keep whining you are right even when you are shown the facts contradict you.
> 
> One, the lack of logistic assets and combat units prevented an invasion of the West in 1943.
> 
> Two, Hitler had no desire to end the war if he had to give up his conquests.
> 
> Those are facts that you can't confront with your silly statements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's drool running down your chin again.....disgusting.
> 
> Have your nurse wipe that off for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once last chance: show us how peace could have been achieved in the West in 1943.
Click to expand...


They get this stuff from blogs on the internet but since the blog does not have enough background they can only go so far and they they run out of air. It sounds plausible to some but others know it's historical garbage.


----------



## Camp

The OP always ends up showing a glaring, obvious and almost comical lack of knowledge in her "I hate FDR" excursions. Not long ago we had to inform her about the invasions of Italy and southern France. This time she seems to have a misguided concept that Germany could have surrendered without Hitler giving his blessing. The most comical one about this particular failed conspiracy theory is her seeming lack of knowledge about Rudolf Hess. How the heck can you discuss the possibility of early surrender in WWII without including Rudolf Hess?


----------



## JakeStarkey

regent said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's drool running down your chin again.....disgusting.
> 
> Have your nurse wipe that off for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once last chance: show us how peace could have been achieved in the West in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They get this stuff from blogs on the internet but since the blog does not have enough background they can only go so far and they they run out of air. It sounds plausible to some but others know it's historical garbage.
Click to expand...


I know.  PC says she was educated in journalism at Columbia U, but when one reads her distorted, biased, conflicted, yet predictable nonsense, one just sighs as if looking at a handicapable child.


----------



## Camp

JakeStarkey said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once last chance: show us how peace could have been achieved in the West in 1943.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They get this stuff from blogs on the internet but since the blog does not have enough background they can only go so far and they they run out of air. It sounds plausible to some but others know it's historical garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  PC says she was educated in journalism at Columbia U, but when one reads her distorted, biased, conflicted, yet predictable nonsense, one just sighs as if looking at a handicapable child.
Click to expand...


Journalist write stories with spin designed to transmit an emotional response that arouses curiosity. They embellish, exaggerate, stretch truth and use all kind of methods to attract a fan base and draw attention. That is not anything like what historians do. I don't know why people think journalist or political pundits and commentators make good historians.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC is trying to build a notable blogger base so she can what . . . preach to the crazy choir.

She has not been able to get over the two criteria that undermine her thesis completely, so she cries and lies and denies and asks 'why me.'


----------



## Toronado3800

There HAS to be some Germand Field Marshall or Sergeant or Private who after experiencing the horrors of Stalingrad or Kursk would have LOVED to surrender to the Americans in '43.  

Frank or PC found a letter from Von Palus or SOMEONE to that effect, right?

Regardless I don't think the peace would have carried if Corporal Smoe surrendered his platoon in Siberian captivity to the Americans. 

There are a couple lessons and inconsistencies here.

One, right or wrong FDR drug us into the war one lend lease act at a time.

Two, it is weird folks call Hittler a socialist and FDR a socialist yet FDR drug us into that war over the objections of the folks who (rightfully) hated Stalin and the socialists.


----------



## Moonglow

He drug us into war?? Yet we were attached and had war declared on us.. Economic sanctions was the reason the Japs attacked the US and Germans declared war on the US because the Japs attacked us,,but Roosevelt drug us into the war...eschewed revisionism at best...


----------



## Camp

Moonglow said:


> He drug us into war?? Yet we were attached and had war declared on us.. Economic sanctions was the reason the Japs attacked the US and Germans declared war on the US because the Japs attacked us,,but Roosevelt drug us into the war...eschewed revisionism at best...


Well FDR had the option of bowing down to the Germans who were attacking our ships, including Navel ships on the open seas. He could have allowed the Germans to dictate that we were not allowed to sell supplies and goods to Great Britain and given up our rights to free travel on the open seas and freedom for American business and industry to trade. That may have kept him from dragging us into war.


----------



## Toronado3800

I will disagree.  All that pre DECEMBER 1941 neutrality violating base for destroyers trading and Atlantic dividing escort responsibility stuff is evidence FDR drug us into the war.  

We fired on the Germans and them on us before the end of '41.

Look up the service histories of the USS Kearney, Rueben James, Niblack and USCGC Northland.  

All in the Atlantic.  I do this WWII naval gaming stuff so I read vessell histories.  Interesting stuff there!


----------



## Moonglow

So FDR should have let the Germans have their way and let down our traditional allies?


----------



## Toronado3800

Disagree with Moonglow to be clear.  I should have quoted.


----------



## Toronado3800

Disagree with Moonglow to be clear.  I should have quoted.


----------



## Toronado3800

Disagree with Moonglow to be clear.  I should have quoted.


----------



## Camp

Are we still debating the USS Greer and who shot first?


----------



## Toronado3800

Camp said:


> Are we still debating the USS Greer and who shot first?



Snazzy.  

It is difficult to detect humor on line but I liked your post.

Sept 4, 1940 also.  Man, early date.


----------



## regent

So why do the best historians in America continue to rate FDR so highly and have done so since the first 1948 rating? I keep asking these conservatives to get their historical data, information and files to those historians that are asked rate the presidents as soon as possible. It seems essential that the historians begin to a-line their history with some of the poster's history.


----------



## JoeB131

regent said:


> So why do the best historians in America continue to rate FDR so highly and have done so since the first 1948 rating? I keep asking these conservatives to get their historical data, information and files to those historians that are asked rate the presidents as soon as possible. It seems essential that the historians begin to a-line their history with some of the poster's history.



Even Conservative Historians put FDR in the top three with Lincoln and Washington. 

But we are talking about the whacky right that doesnt' even like what Lincoln did.


----------



## NYcarbineer

rightwinger said:


> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't



Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.

I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.


----------



## NYcarbineer

regent said:


> So why do the best historians in America continue to rate FDR so highly and have done so since the first 1948 rating? I keep asking these conservatives to get their historical data, information and files to those historians that are asked rate the presidents as soon as possible. It seems essential that the historians begin to a-line their history with some of the poster's history.



In short, it's FDR Derangement Syndrome.


----------



## JoeB131

NYcarbineer said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
Click to expand...


Pretty much. 

What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JoeB131 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
Click to expand...


I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.


----------



## NYcarbineer

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
Click to expand...


Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What to say about Franklin Roosevelt if it can be shown that the offer was on the table....?



ONE year before Germany's actual surrender was a month BEFORE D-Day. 

By all means, let's see those offers of a German surrender to the West on the table in May of 1944.


----------



## Moonglow

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
Click to expand...


Hitler as we know was never going to surrender, if he did it would have been the end of his political career..We also see that even with the face of defeat staring him in the eyes he never surrendered.


----------



## Bfgrn

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.



FDR at the end of WWII (FDR's the big white one to the left)


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler as we we know was never going to surrender, if he did it would have been the end of his political career..We also see that even with the face of defeat staring him in the eyes he never surrendered.
Click to expand...




If only you had an education.....you'd post far more insigntful posts......you know, like mine.


"Operation Valkyrie - The "July Plot" to Assassinate Hitler
(July 20, 1944)
.....Gestapo managed to arrest several Germans involved in plotting to overthrow Adolf Hitler. This included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Klaus Bonhoeffer, Josef Mueller and Hans Dohnanyi. Others under suspicion like Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster were dismissed from office in January, 1944.

Hitler's death was required to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him. Operation Valkyrie was meant to give the plotters control over the government *so they could make peace with the Allies and end the war.*

At least six attempts were aborted before....."
Operation Valkyrie - The July Plot to Assassinate Hitler Jewish Virtual Library


BTW....Canaris, head of the Abwehr, was contacting the Allies as early as 1939....Stalin refused to allow the Allies (Roosevelt) to consider contact and surrender.

True story.


BTW....did you know that library cards are free?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
Click to expand...





Post #348 is a virtual custard pie in your kisser.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #348 is a virtual custard pie in your kisser.
Click to expand...


Deep thinker, or deep stinker?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
Click to expand...





"...an unconditional surrender...."

That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post #348 is a virtual custard pie in your kisser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deep thinker, or deep stinker?
Click to expand...



Post #348 nailed you too, huh?

Consider my suggestion re: library card.
Bet some nice conservative will help you get one.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler as we we know was never going to surrender, if he did it would have been the end of his political career..We also see that even with the face of defeat staring him in the eyes he never surrendered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you had an education.....you'd post far more insigntful posts......you know, like mine.
> 
> 
> "Operation Valkyrie - The "July Plot" to Assassinate Hitler
> (July 20, 1944)
> .....Gestapo managed to arrest several Germans involved in plotting to overthrow Adolf Hitler. This included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Klaus Bonhoeffer, Josef Mueller and Hans Dohnanyi. Others under suspicion like Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster were dismissed from office in January, 1944.
> 
> Hitler's death was required to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him. Operation Valkyrie was meant to give the plotters control over the government so they could make peace with the Allies and end the war.
> 
> At least six attempts were aborted before....."
> Operation Valkyrie - The July Plot to Assassinate Hitler Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> 
> BTW....Canaris, head of the Abwehr, was contacting the Allies as early as 1939....Stalin refused to allow the Allies (Roosevelt) to consider contact and surrender.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that library cards are free?
Click to expand...


A failed coup does not support the rationale of what Hitler never did to fit your premise.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler as we we know was never going to surrender, if he did it would have been the end of his political career..We also see that even with the face of defeat staring him in the eyes he never surrendered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you had an education.....you'd post far more insigntful posts......you know, like mine.
> 
> 
> "Operation Valkyrie - The "July Plot" to Assassinate Hitler
> (July 20, 1944)
> .....Gestapo managed to arrest several Germans involved in plotting to overthrow Adolf Hitler. This included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Klaus Bonhoeffer, Josef Mueller and Hans Dohnanyi. Others under suspicion like Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster were dismissed from office in January, 1944.
> 
> Hitler's death was required to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him. Operation Valkyrie was meant to give the plotters control over the government so they could make peace with the Allies and end the war.
> 
> At least six attempts were aborted before....."
> Operation Valkyrie - The July Plot to Assassinate Hitler Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> 
> BTW....Canaris, head of the Abwehr, was contacting the Allies as early as 1939....Stalin refused to allow the Allies (Roosevelt) to consider contact and surrender.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that library cards are free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A failed coup does not support the rationale of what Hitler never did to fit your premise.
Click to expand...


Hitler didn't order the 6th Army's surrender of Stalingrad either


----------



## Moonglow

Hitler was not into surrendering, it was a do or die situation with him....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no other option, but unconditional surrender...Hitler was never going to negotiate any peace treaty.
> The plan used to pursue the war allowed the US as an untested military force,, to learn how to fight the modern war of combined arms and to build up armed forces which were still weak at unit level. Hitler did the same during the 1930's with the new strategy of blitzkrieg...His troops were allowed to gain experience  before taking on France..and Russia.
> Hindsight is 20-20 to the uninitiated...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans would have surrendered to the US and Brits in a heartbeat. They knew Stalin was a fucking savage who already starved 3 million kids in the Ukraine in 1933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  And what evidence do you have to base this fantasy on?  Show us anything whatsoever that even implies that Hitler was ready to surrender to the West in 1943.  or 1944 for that matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler as we we know was never going to surrender, if he did it would have been the end of his political career..We also see that even with the face of defeat staring him in the eyes he never surrendered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If only you had an education.....you'd post far more insigntful posts......you know, like mine.
> 
> 
> "Operation Valkyrie - The "July Plot" to Assassinate Hitler
> (July 20, 1944)
> .....Gestapo managed to arrest several Germans involved in plotting to overthrow Adolf Hitler. This included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Klaus Bonhoeffer, Josef Mueller and Hans Dohnanyi. Others under suspicion like Wilhelm Canaris and Hans Oster were dismissed from office in January, 1944.
> 
> Hitler's death was required to free German soldiers from their oath of loyalty to him. Operation Valkyrie was meant to give the plotters control over the government so they could make peace with the Allies and end the war.
> 
> At least six attempts were aborted before....."
> Operation Valkyrie - The July Plot to Assassinate Hitler Jewish Virtual Library
> 
> 
> BTW....Canaris, head of the Abwehr, was contacting the Allies as early as 1939....Stalin refused to allow the Allies (Roosevelt) to consider contact and surrender.
> 
> True story.
> 
> 
> BTW....did you know that library cards are free?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A failed coup does not support the rationale of what Hitler never did to fit your premise.
Click to expand...



"....what Hitler never did..."

I know you'll forgive me if I call you a moron.....but can't you read????

It's not about Hitler's wishes....it's the fact.....fact!....that there was a robust anti-Nazi resistance that Stalin would not allow Roosevelt to consider, even though it would have meant surrender years earlier.


----------



## Moonglow

As long as Hitler was in charge there would be no surrender....Did not matter what Roosevelt did or did not do, you can't rewrite history.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> As long as Hitler was in charge there would be no surrender....Did not matter what Roosevelt did or did not do, you can't rewrite history.




You never miss an opportunity to miss the point.

I'll assume you are purposely missing it because it skewers your posts.


----------



## Moonglow

No, I just don't agree with you..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> No, I just don't agree with you..




1. And that, of course, makes you, a posteriori, wrong.

2. And the proof of that is that you have created a premise not in evidence....except in your erroneous posts.

The only ones who claim that surrender would have been a consideration are you and the equally incorrect battalion.

I never said such a thing.



3. My elucidation has simply been that Stalin would not allow FDR to conspire with the ant-Nazi resistance, which would have overthrown Hitler, and sued for peace.

Not Hitler.....that is your obfuscation.....but those around him who disagreed with Hitler's war.



4. Therefore, "I just don't agree with you" really means ", I just don't agree with the truth."
You should know better by now.


----------



## Moonglow

Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.




Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
No one had suggested that possibility but you.

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.

Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
Click to expand...




Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.

You become boring.

Perhaps you always were.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany would have surrendered.
> 
> 
> Who do you suppose would control France????
> 
> 
> Why am I left to teach English to dopes????
> 
> sur·ren·der verb \s&#601;-&#712;ren-d&#601;r\
> : to agree to stop fighting, hiding, resisting, etc., because you know that you will not win or succeed
> 
> : *to give the control or use of (something) to someone else*
> Surrender - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...


Germany would have surrendered in 1943?  Surrendered and withdrew from France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., etc., etc...

Jesus Christ!  good one.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
Click to expand...


I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?

Jesus I just quoted your post:

*ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
Click to expand...*


*   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*


----------



## NYcarbineer

Shame on us for constantly, if anything, underestimating PoliticalChic's stupidity.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
Click to expand...




Lying guttersnipe.

"I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"

I said no such thing.


What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> Shame on us for constantly, if anything, underestimating PoliticalChic's stupidity.





You yearn to be so stupid.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
Click to expand...


I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.

I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.


----------



## regent

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.
> 
> I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.
> 
> I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
Click to expand...

So as I new understand Chic, Germany declared war on America Dec, 11, 1941, but if FDR was not a vassal of Stalin he could have accepted Hitlers surrender on Dec. 12, 1941 and the war would have been done. It was the vassal part I think that confuses people.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
Click to expand...


Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
So now with all due respect, you may *ad hominem *about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!


----------



## NYcarbineer

Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.


----------



## Moonglow

NYcarbineer said:


> Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.


I've met holocaust deniers, angry violent Muslims in jail that attacked to get out the message and old angry repubs from the first half of the 20th century, but none talked the shit that Flank and Polivinylchic dood...


----------



## Moonglow

I could use some of the posts to rewrite a reprise of _*The Producers*_....Nah it wouldn't work,,,,unless the two previous mentioned posters learned to get a damn,,,,sense,,,of,,,of,,,humor and got of the Hannity Prick,,,kick....


----------



## SmedlyButler

You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.


----------



## HenryBHough

FDR would have opted for an invasion of Japan rather than get it over with.  Truman knew the nation was tired of shit like rationing and travel restrictions....the kind of "control their lives" crap that FDR so loved.  So he ended it.

The LAST American president to understand that wars are for winning.


----------



## Moonglow

Except Korea........


----------



## HenryBHough

The party got to him.


----------



## Moonglow

It does me too, I wonder if North Korea will ever break the cease fire?


----------



## Toronado3800

Now I do agree with PC just a little.  Or maybe it is I will throw her a bone.  

By December 1941 there were no doubt German generals who learned the supeority of the T-34, of the supeority of Russian engineering for cold weather combat and knew their history.  It was a long cold retreat from the gates of Moscow only weeks after the U.S. declared war.

If not in 41 then in 42 as Von Paulus was trapped at Stalingrad one of the Generals had to have a doubt.  At least ONE.

And my lord.  By 43 when the world's largest tank battle was lost at Kursk and we landed in Italy even a dense fella had to be able to figure out things were not going well.

Still it is alot to think that we could have organized a better coup inside the Reich.  What is even more i teresting is to put oneself i  the mindset of the age.  This was an era where an American man may have fought against the Central Powers and largely Germany in 1918 and lost a brother.  Turn around and two decades later he might have lost a son fighting against Germany.  Once the anti communist zeal was lost and the evilness of the Nazi's known folks had to think a lesson needed to be taught.  Hell, Russians probably really thought this.

Think about our comparably minor troubles in Iraq or fighting the Taliban and how deep seated our feelings are.


----------



## Unkotare

NYcarbineer said:


> Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.



There seems to have been a deranged cult of fdr worshipers who have been hiding in plain sight for a long time. These zealots seem incapable of recognizing the many sins of that POS.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.
> 
> I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.
Click to expand...




Better, you weasel....I'll wait for you to admit that at no time did I say that Hitler would surrender.
That you're just a lying sack of sewage, a true representative of the sort who absorbs Liberal doctrine.


Waiting.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SmedlyButler said:


> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.






* "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
*Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
> So now with all due respect, you may *ad hominem *about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!
Click to expand...




You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.

I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.



You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.
> 
> I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.
> 
> You become boring.
> 
> Perhaps you always were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Jesus I just quoted your post:
> 
> *ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
> Click to expand...*
> 
> 
> *   You:  Germany would have surrendered.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying guttersnipe.
> 
> "I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> I said no such thing.
> 
> 
> What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.
> 
> I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??
> 
> He didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany surrendered in May of 1945.  The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.
> 
> I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...an unconditional surrender...."
> 
> That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.
> 
> Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So as I new understand Chic, Germany declared war on America Dec, 11, 1941, but if FDR was not a vassal of Stalin he could have accepted Hitlers surrender on Dec. 12, 1941 and the war would have been done. It was the vassal part I think that confuses people.
Click to expand...




" he [Hitler] could have accepted Hitlers surrender on Dec. 12, 1941..."

I've said no such thing, and you know it.


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.



As well he should have. 

You forget what happened after World War I.  Ebert and the Weimar Government overthrew the Kaiser.  After the War, jackholes like Hitler talked about the "Stabbed in the Back" myth, that the German Army was totally winning the war, but then the Communists and the Jews stabbed them in the back and surrendered.  

FDR wasn't going to make that mistake again.


----------



## Toronado3800

JoeB131 said:


> As well he should have.
> 
> You forget what happened after World War I.  Ebert and the Weimar Government overthrew the Kaiser.  After the War, jackholes like Hitler talked about the "Stabbed in the Back" myth, that the German Army was totally winning the war, but then the Communists and the Jews stabbed them in the back and surrendered.
> 
> FDR wasn't going to make that mistake again.



I made an earlier post or two about this.

Do you think there was a feeling or concern that if a similar coup and surrender happened a similar group of fellas would think the conspirators stabbed NAZI Germany in the back just when the Me262 or Panther was on the verge of winning the war?


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
> So now with all due respect, you may *ad hominem *about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.
> 
> I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.
Click to expand...


What did you actually say?  What is the scenario that would have led to Germany SURRENDERING in 1943?

Where was significant movement in Germany to SURRENDER in 1943?  Who were those people?  Who was the support behind them?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
> No one had suggested that possibility but you.
> 
> This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
> So now with all due respect, you may *ad hominem *about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.
> 
> I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did you actually say?  What is the scenario that would have led to Germany SURRENDERING in 1943?
> 
> Where was significant movement in Germany to SURRENDER in 1943?  Who were those people?  Who was the support behind them?
Click to expand...




Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.


----------



## Toronado3800

IMO the SS was so efficient at being ruthless any/many realistic SS officers who wanted to surrender to the after Kursk were afraid of their coworkers killing them.

It is also pretty common to hear by SPRING of 45 of Germans fighting the Russians to the death to allow refugees and their comrads more time to escape west to surrender piecemeal to the Brits and Americans.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:

"The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,

* there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.*

Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)

*The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.*

Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."

History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.



I admit that I misread your position on that specific item.  I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.


----------



## Toronado3800

NYcarbineer said:


> The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:
> 
> "The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,
> 
> * there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.*
> 
> Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)
> 
> *The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.*
> 
> Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."
> 
> History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender



Interesting.

What hear were they talking about?

A 1942 or 1943 Germany with no Eastern Front would have been a tough nut to crack.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NYcarbineer said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that I misread your position on that specific item.  I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.
Click to expand...







"....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."


One of us is honest, and the other is you.


----------



## Toronado3800

I think a thread debating the value of landing in Southern France would be way more interesting but I am in the settling mood.  Let me try to move off the schoolyard name calling....

IF Germany surrendered in 43 what would you have done with it?

After finding the concentration camps I would have scattered the peoples around the world and depopulated the place so we could turn it into a Soviet and French (to the Rhine) maintained park.  Two wars in two decades and the gas chambers, ug.  I would have given up on German society.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Toronado3800 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:
> 
> "The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,
> 
> * there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.*
> 
> Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)
> 
> *The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.*
> 
> Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."
> 
> History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> What hear were they talking about?
> 
> A 1942 or 1943 Germany with no Eastern Front would have been a tough nut to crack.
Click to expand...


hear?  year?  The Casablanca Conference out of which the unconditional surrender edict came was early 1943.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Here is another resource that thoroughly refutes the OP's imaginative conspiracy theory:

*Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace 
in World War II *

Full text of Stalin and Prospects of Separate Peace 

The above much more convincingly makes the case that the US/British call for unconditional surrender was anything but some plot by Stalin;

it was much more so an effort to keep the Soviets in game so to speak.

Keep in mind, in late 1917 early 1918 Russia's new revolutionary government had ditched the Allies to make a separate peace with the Germans.

...you see, these historical ambiguities are much more easily deciphered if one does not have some deranged agenda clouding one's vision,

as is the case of the author of this thread.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that I misread your position on that specific item.  I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."
> 
> 
> One of us is honest, and the other is you.
Click to expand...


Is life somehow more satisfying by being a perpetual crybaby?


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that I misread your position on that specific item.  I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."
> 
> 
> One of us is honest, and the other is you.
Click to expand...


Now that I've posted a much more convincing explanation for the unconditional surrender mandate, feel free to debate me on the relative merits of my case vs. your wild conspiracy theory.


----------



## Picaro

NYcarbineer said:


> Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.



No, just a bunch of morons spreading dumb shit around; being in a cult would require some sort of intellectual effort, however modest.


----------



## Camp

Picaro said:


> No, just a bunch of morons spreading dumb shit around; being in a cult would require some sort of intellectual effort, however modest.



Anti liberal and progressive books and articles have flourished in the last decade as conservative commentators use their writing skills to attracting fans who love nothing more than to hear about the evil or incompetent progressives who have helped to create a horrible world for all the decent true Americans to have to suffer through and with. Ann Coulter comes to mind but there are many others.
FDR is a favorite because he is accepted as a progressive liberal who had great successes. Conservatives do not want that concept to be allowed  to continue. It is difficult to demonize an ideology when one of the most visible proponents and members of that ideological group happens to be a beloved and four time elected President who is credited with ending the greatest depression of all time, ending and winning with genuine victory the greatest war of all time and building an infrastructure that is still being used and benefiting the nation over seven decades after he created it, along with social policies that are also being used and enjoyed by an endless stream of generations of citizens. People are still collecting Social Security, driving over the Golden Gate Bridge, using electricity from all the damns, going to all the post offices and schools and the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world that he built to win WWII is still the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world.  The safeguards he installed to prevent another great depression are still in place even though it has at times been chipped away at and adjusted.
Conservatives hate that FDR met with such success. They have no President that comes even close to comparing to him. Only Presidents who have legacies whose legacies can be pointed at and stand as tributes reach the level of FDR. There are very few of them.


----------



## regent

Picaro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just a bunch of morons spreading dumb shit around; being in a cult would require some sort of intellectual effort, however modest.
Click to expand...

Some seem intent on making FDR into a spy, sellout, puppet of Stalin and so forth, but why? Is it because historians have rated FDR America's best president, or because the American people elected him four times? is it just just plain politics, FDR was a Democrat?  Perhaps, the real cause is the FDR-con job on Stalin about the second front, true, FDR kept the USSR fighting Hitler while America prepared, delayed, prepared again and delayed again the second front? If they are angry that FDR used Stalin, and all knew it, they should think of the Americans that lived long lives because of that FDR con job.


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just a bunch of morons spreading dumb shit around; being in a cult would require some sort of intellectual effort, however modest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some seem intent on making FDR into a spy, sellout, puppet of Stalin and so forth, but why? Is it because historians have rated FDR America's best president, or because the American people elected him four times? is it just just plain politics, FDR was a Democrat?  Perhaps, the real cause is the FDR-con job on Stalin about the second front, true, FDR kept the USSR fighting Hitler while America prepared, delayed, prepared again and delayed again the second front? If they are angry that FDR used Stalin, and all knew it, they should think of the Americans that lived long lives because of that FDR con job.
Click to expand...


The spin doctors have been peddling that on their sites for a few years. Some Tard wrote a silly propaganda book earlier all about smearing Democrats; I don't recall if it was Malkin or Coulter, or another of that ilk, hence all the tards popping up in droves, running around on message boards posting thread after thread after thread, trying to sell it as 'fact'. Free Republic or Town Hall, one of those sites is probably where most of them got it; it's hard to believe most of them have ever actually read a book, so that's the likely source. Nothing to see here, unless you just enjoy Conspiritard Comedy threads.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.


----------



## Picaro

Camp said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, just a bunch of morons spreading dumb shit around; being in a cult would require some sort of intellectual effort, however modest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anti liberal and progressive books and articles have flourished in the last decade as conservative commentators use their writing skills to attracting fans who love nothing more than to hear about the evil or incompetent progressives who have helped to create a horrible world for all the decent true Americans to have to suffer through and with. Ann Coulter comes to mind but there are many others.
> FDR is a favorite because he is accepted as a progressive liberal who had great successes. Conservatives do not want that concept to be allowed  to continue. It is difficult to demonize an ideology when one of the most visible proponents and members of that ideological group happens to be a beloved and four time elected President who is credited with ending the greatest depression of all time, ending and winning with genuine victory the greatest war of all time and building an infrastructure that is still being used and benefiting the nation over seven decades after he created it, along with social policies that are also being used and enjoyed by an endless stream of generations of citizens. People are still collecting Social Security, driving over the Golden Gate Bridge, using electricity from all the damns, going to all the post offices and schools and the most powerful and most technologically advanced military in the world that he built to win WWII is still the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the world.  The safeguards he installed to prevent another great depression are still in place even though it has at times been chipped away at and adjusted.
> Conservatives hate that FDR met with such success. They have no President that comes even close to comparing to him. Only Presidents who have legacies whose legacies can be pointed at and stand as tributes reach the level of FDR. There are very few of them.
Click to expand...


Yes. The overwhelming success of FDR's policies is a major black eye for the inane libertard and right wing economic theories, none of which have ever worked at all, comparatively.


----------



## Picaro

NYcarbineer said:


> Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.



That, and also his mastery of hypnotizing people with his pocket watch, something he probably learned from the Jews who have controlled the world for thousands of years. In fact, there is probably an essay somewhere on how Stalin was a Jew; I don't happen to feel like looking for one at the moment, though. Maybe somebody else might want to indulge in that sort of 'scholarship'.


----------



## regent

Picaro said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and also his mastery of hypnotizing people with his pocket watch, something he probably learned from the Jews who have controlled the world for thousands of years. In fact, there is probably an essay somewhere on how Stalin was a Jew; I don't happen to feel like looking for one at the moment, though. Maybe somebody else might want to indulge in that sort of 'scholarship'.
Click to expand...

That fluoride was a zippo, one sip and the individual became a communist, and some wanted to put it into kid's toothpaste, imagine all those kids would be communists today.


----------



## Moonglow

Right wingers didn't like FDR cause he was a cripple....


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and also his mastery of hypnotizing people with his pocket watch, something he probably learned from the Jews who have controlled the world for thousands of years. In fact, there is probably an essay somewhere on how Stalin was a Jew; I don't happen to feel like looking for one at the moment, though. Maybe somebody else might want to indulge in that sort of 'scholarship'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That fluoride was a zippo, one sip and the individual became a communist, and some wanted to put it into kid's toothpaste, imagine all those kids would be communists today.
Click to expand...


Indeed. Also this, for one. I'm surprised there is no recent thread in the history forum on this one yet, unless I've missed it.

Polio Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Hampering Efforts at Eradication



> _One of the most shocking and sadistic episodes in the history of the world is now being carried out in the United States by Jewish mass poisoners of children! Jonas Salk, Yiddish inventor of a so-called polio vaccine, is directing the inoculation of millions of American children with this sinister concoction of live polio germs. All that is known is that it CAUSES polio in an alarming percentage of children injected with it, while its effectiveness in preventing polio is a myth of Jewish propaganda._
> 
> _As one commentator after another warns over the radio that the Jewish Salk vaccine contains live polio germs which are killing our children, the nation’s press refuses to carry these warnings, preferring to see children die rather than criticize the sacred Jew vaccine. Instead, the press prints testimonial after testimonial in FAVOR of the Jew vaccine from the filthy immoral rats in the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington which is nothing but a publicity bureau for Jewish poisons such as fluorine in water._
> 
> _If we look at history, we discover that the Jews have been attacked many times for poisoning and murdering children, but seldom have they found a method so clever and diabolical as the Salk vaccine. It is not too late to save our children from this latest atrocity of the Jews!_



I can't imagine Roosevelt and the Communists not being behind this one. I'm certain some creative right winger can link him and the Democrats to it, though. Someone probably already has.


----------



## regent

Picaro said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and also his mastery of hypnotizing people with his pocket watch, something he probably learned from the Jews who have controlled the world for thousands of years. In fact, there is probably an essay somewhere on how Stalin was a Jew; I don't happen to feel like looking for one at the moment, though. Maybe somebody else might want to indulge in that sort of 'scholarship'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That fluoride was a zippo, one sip and the individual became a communist, and some wanted to put it into kid's toothpaste, imagine all those kids would be communists today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Also this, for one. I'm surprised there is no recent thread in the history forum on this one yet, unless I've missed it.
> 
> Polio Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Hampering Efforts at Eradication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the most shocking and sadistic episodes in the history of the world is now being carried out in the United States by Jewish mass poisoners of children! Jonas Salk, Yiddish inventor of a so-called polio vaccine, is directing the inoculation of millions of American children with this sinister concoction of live polio germs. All that is known is that it CAUSES polio in an alarming percentage of children injected with it, while its effectiveness in preventing polio is a myth of Jewish propaganda._
> 
> _As one commentator after another warns over the radio that the Jewish Salk vaccine contains live polio germs which are killing our children, the nation’s press refuses to carry these warnings, preferring to see children die rather than criticize the sacred Jew vaccine. Instead, the press prints testimonial after testimonial in FAVOR of the Jew vaccine from the filthy immoral rats in the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington which is nothing but a publicity bureau for Jewish poisons such as fluorine in water._
> 
> _If we look at history, we discover that the Jews have been attacked many times for poisoning and murdering children, but seldom have they found a method so clever and diabolical as the Salk vaccine. It is not too late to save our children from this latest atrocity of the Jews!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't imagine Roosevelt and the Communists not being behind this one. I'm certain some creative right winger can link him and the Democrats to it, though. Someone probably already has.
Click to expand...

Well some of us remember. FDR is supposed to have had polio and a radio comedian, Eddie Cantor started a March of Dimes campaign. (FDR's face was on the dime) so we sent in our dimes to stamp out polio, and bingo polio is now pretty much gone. When I was a kid our school always had two or three crippled kids in a classroom. In the summers we often could not go to the beach and warned to stay out of garbage cans (depression time) because of the fear. Most kids had a real fear of polio, in fact, I had a friend come down with the disease. Anyway check your dimes and there he is FDR, and those dimes may have helped with the vaccine. In any case FDR was involved, and he can't deny it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC's OP that it was FDR's fault the war continued of course has been blown out of the water by her admission that Hitler had no intention of surrendering.


----------



## JakeStarkey

regent said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin got FDR under his control when a Soviet agent at a summit slipped some fluoride into FDR's highball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That, and also his mastery of hypnotizing people with his pocket watch, something he probably learned from the Jews who have controlled the world for thousands of years. In fact, there is probably an essay somewhere on how Stalin was a Jew; I don't happen to feel like looking for one at the moment, though. Maybe somebody else might want to indulge in that sort of 'scholarship'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That fluoride was a zippo, one sip and the individual became a communist, and some wanted to put it into kid's toothpaste, imagine all those kids would be communists today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Also this, for one. I'm surprised there is no recent thread in the history forum on this one yet, unless I've missed it.
> 
> Polio Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Hampering Efforts at Eradication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the most shocking and sadistic episodes in the history of the world is now being carried out in the United States by Jewish mass poisoners of children! Jonas Salk, Yiddish inventor of a so-called polio vaccine, is directing the inoculation of millions of American children with this sinister concoction of live polio germs. All that is known is that it CAUSES polio in an alarming percentage of children injected with it, while its effectiveness in preventing polio is a myth of Jewish propaganda._
> 
> _As one commentator after another warns over the radio that the Jewish Salk vaccine contains live polio germs which are killing our children, the nation’s press refuses to carry these warnings, preferring to see children die rather than criticize the sacred Jew vaccine. Instead, the press prints testimonial after testimonial in FAVOR of the Jew vaccine from the filthy immoral rats in the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington which is nothing but a publicity bureau for Jewish poisons such as fluorine in water._
> 
> _If we look at history, we discover that the Jews have been attacked many times for poisoning and murdering children, but seldom have they found a method so clever and diabolical as the Salk vaccine. It is not too late to save our children from this latest atrocity of the Jews!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't imagine Roosevelt and the Communists not being behind this one. I'm certain some creative right winger can link him and the Democrats to it, though. Someone probably already has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well some of us remember. FDR is supposed to have had polio and a radio comedian, Eddie Cantor started a March of Dimes campaign. (FDR's face was on the dime) so we sent in our dimes to stamp out polio, and bingo polio is now pretty much gone. When I was a kid our school always had two or three crippled kids in a classroom. In the summers we often could not go to the beach and warned to stay out of garbage cans (depression time) because of the fear. Most kids had a real fear of polio, in fact, I had a friend come down with the disease. Anyway check your dimes and there he is FDR, and those dimes may have helped with the vaccine. In any case FDR was involved, and he can't deny it.
Click to expand...


I remember the kids on the steel cane crutches at Commonwealth Elementary.  Still haunts me almost sixty years later.  Yeah, I was scared of polio.


----------



## Picaro

regent said:


> Well some of us remember. FDR is supposed to have had polio and a radio comedian, Eddie Cantor started a March of Dimes campaign. (FDR's face was on the dime) so we sent in our dimes to stamp out polio, and bingo polio is now pretty much gone. When I was a kid our school always had two or three crippled kids in a classroom. In the summers we often could not go to the beach and warned to stay out of garbage cans (depression time) because of the fear. Most kids had a real fear of polio, in fact, I had a friend come down with the disease.



Indeed. I went to a small school, less than 200 total, and at least a dozen kids suffered from it, and those were kids that didn't die from it young, probably a larger number.



> Anyway check your dimes and there he is FDR, and those dimes may have helped with the vaccine. In any case FDR was involved, and he can't deny it.



It was a sinister Stalinist plot to get FDR's face on the dime. He never really had polio, that was just a clever Commie disinformation campaign.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's OP that it was FDR's fault the war continued of course has been blown out of the water by her admission that Hitler had no intention of surrendering.



She appears to have unconditionally surrendered this thread lol.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, like some far right reactionaries, is not unintelligent.

But she can't understand certain concepts.  For instance, our cats understand how a turbine works in the vacuum, but they can't understand how we got the little tiny demon in there.

Inability to cogitate clearly is their problem.


----------



## Picaro

NYcarbineer said:


> She appears to have unconditionally surrendered this thread lol.



Probably researching FDR's links to flouride, polio vaccinations, and Stalin's secret Jewish past, over at the Phora or Free Republic, maybe Alex Jones and Conspiracy Planet as well.


----------



## JoeB131

Here's the problem with PC's argument.  Her argument is that the US could have used diplomacy to get Germany to surrender if we cultivated relationships with the anti-Nazi Germans. 

Ah, the eternal search for the "Good German". We are still looking, 70 years later. 

The thing was, the people who tried to topple Hitler in 1944 didn't do so because they realized what Germany was doing was horribly wrong.  They were all for the War when Germany was winning. And if fact, the coup failed in less than a few hours.  The conspirators started murdering each other so Hitler wouldn't suspect them. (He killed them anyway.) 

Of course, that would have been a horrible idea.  First, it would have allowed a lot of people in the German leadership get off unpunished.  Second, it would set the stage for a second "Stabbed in the Back Myth".   Germany was winning, and they stabbed her in the back.  Pretty much the line that Hitler used inthe 1930's. 

No, the way you win, you have your troops in their ruined cities and their leaders at the business end of a noose.   That way they are very clear that they lost.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with PC's argument.  Her argument is that the US could have used diplomacy to get Germany to surrender if we cultivated relationships with the anti-Nazi Germans.
> 
> Ah, the eternal search for the "Good German". We are still looking, 70 years later.
> 
> The thing was, the people who tried to topple Hitler in 1944 didn't do so because they realized what Germany was doing was horribly wrong.  They were all for the War when Germany was winning. And if fact, the coup failed in less than a few hours.  The conspirators started murdering each other so Hitler wouldn't suspect them. (He killed them anyway.)
> 
> Of course, that would have been a horrible idea.  First, it would have allowed a lot of people in the German leadership get off unpunished.  Second, it would set the stage for a second "Stabbed in the Back Myth".   Germany was winning, and they stabbed her in the back.  Pretty much the line that Hitler used inthe 1930's.
> 
> No, the way you win, you have your troops in their ruined cities and their leaders at the business end of a noose.   That way they are very clear that they lost.



Spoken like a good warmongering Neolib or Neocon....not much difference between these two political factions....they love war because it increases the power of the state...and are too stupid to accept the reality.


----------



## SmedlyButler

PoliticalChic said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
Click to expand...


I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;





If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"

The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"

One of the editor's comments on the article is;

"This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."

I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;

_"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_


----------



## gipper

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"
> 
> The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"
> 
> One of the editor's comments on the article is;
> 
> "This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."
> 
> I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;
> 
> _"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_
Click to expand...


It would appear you think Churchill's admiration of Harry the Hop, a confirmed Soviet spy, is somehow proof that Harry was not a Soviet spy.  This is flawed logic.  Of course Churchill admired him, because he like Winston wanted the total destruction of Germany, but for differing reasons.  Harry wanted German destruction to assist his beloved leader Stalin, in his efforts to subjugate all of Europe.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JoeB is correct, and the rest of you supporting PC are wrong.

You should be concerned about neo-conservatism, but a threat to humanity like Hitler had to be dealt with by war, unrelenting war.

The neo-revisionism of the purveyors of cultural McCarthyism, such as PC and her folks, need to be stopped every time.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"
> 
> The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"
> 
> One of the editor's comments on the article is;
> 
> "This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."
> 
> I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;
> 
> _"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_
Click to expand...





1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
 "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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


2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."* 
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.


See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem with PC's argument.  Her argument is that the US could have used diplomacy to get Germany to surrender if we cultivated relationships with the anti-Nazi Germans.
> 
> Ah, the eternal search for the "Good German". We are still looking, 70 years later.
> 
> The thing was, the people who tried to topple Hitler in 1944 didn't do so because they realized what Germany was doing was horribly wrong.  They were all for the War when Germany was winning. And if fact, the coup failed in less than a few hours.  The conspirators started murdering each other so Hitler wouldn't suspect them. (He killed them anyway.)
> 
> Of course, that would have been a horrible idea.  First, it would have allowed a lot of people in the German leadership get off unpunished.  Second, it would set the stage for a second "Stabbed in the Back Myth".   Germany was winning, and they stabbed her in the back.  Pretty much the line that Hitler used inthe 1930's.
> 
> No, the way you win, you have your troops in their ruined cities and their leaders at the business end of a noose.   That way they are very clear that they lost.





"Here's the problem with PC's argument. Her argument is that the US could have used diplomacy to get Germany to surrender if we cultivated relationships with the anti-Nazi Germans. 

Ah, the eternal search for the "Good German". We are still looking, 70 years later."





1. Another misstatement from ErroneousJoe...

 German anti-Nazis,...*thousands were executed by the Reich.*
"The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945, Third Edition," by Peter Hoffman


2. Roosevelt froze them out: 
a. "A SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters, Allied Expeditionary Force)*directive prohibited activities aimed at promoting German revolt against the Nazi regime.*
The Allied doctrine of unconditional surrender meant that "... those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."
German Resistance to Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In effect, Roosevelt shares responsibility for their deaths, and the thousands of Allied deaths that resulted from his extending the war.


3. Good Germans? 
a. "Wilhelm Franz Canaris (1 January 1887 – 9 April 1945) was a German admiral, and chief of the Abwehr, the German military intelligence service, from 1935 to 1944. During theSecond World War,*he was among the military officers involved in the clandestine opposition to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime....*"
Wilhelm Canaris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

b. A few weeks before the war ended,*Canaris was hanged by he Nazis.*Hanged twice: "once to show him what death tasted like."
“Canaris Hanging Related,” New York Times, October 11, 1952.




3. " The Chabad Lubavitch Hassidic movement has requested that Yad Vashem recognize Nazi Admiral Wilhelm Canaris as a Righteous Gentile. Chief of the Abwehr, the Nazi intelligence service, *Canaris played a key role in saving the lives of the Chabad Rebbe Yitzhak Yosef Schneerson and his family along with an estimated 500 Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943* according to numerous testimonies..... the refusal of Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Studies establishment to recognize Wilhelm Canaris as a Righteous Gentile is *due to their concern that such recognition might open a can of worms on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration and its conduct during World War II...*
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up


----------



## SmedlyButler

PoliticalChic said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"
> 
> The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"
> 
> One of the editor's comments on the article is;
> 
> "This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."
> 
> I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;
> 
> _"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
> "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
> W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harriman made this interesting observation:
> "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. *He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
> Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.
> 
> 
> 2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.
> 
> 
> See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.
Click to expand...


I don't read tea leaves, I read facts. Yes, one of the attributes that made Hopkins a great statesman was his ability to gain the trust of even a psychotic paranoid like Stalin. Again, stop trying to understand history by conjuring conspiratorial visions from sources with the credibility of tea leaves and acquaint yourself with facts for a change.


----------



## PoliticalChic

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"
> 
> The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"
> 
> One of the editor's comments on the article is;
> 
> "This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."
> 
> I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;
> 
> _"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
> "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
> W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harriman made this interesting observation:
> "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. *He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
> Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.
> 
> 
> 2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.
> 
> 
> See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't read tea leaves, I read facts. Yes, one of the attributes that made Hopkins a great statesman was his ability to gain the trust of even a psychotic paranoid like Stalin. Again, stop trying to understand history by conjuring conspiratorial visions from sources with the credibility of tea leaves and acquaint yourself with facts for a change.
Click to expand...




Hopkin's statement "*then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people." is telling.
And that's a fact.
*
It is the eternal great lie of communism.
Harry Hopkins.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Operation Valkyrie was carried out, albeit unsuccessfully, in 1944,  AFTER the Allies 'unconditional surrender' declaration had been made.


----------



## gipper

JakeStarkey said:


> JoeB is correct, and the rest of you supporting PC are wrong.
> 
> You should be concerned about neo-conservatism, but a threat to humanity like Hitler had to be dealt with by war, unrelenting war.
> 
> The neo-revisionism of the purveyors of cultural McCarthyism, such as PC and her folks, need to be stopped every time.



Hitler was a threat to humanity.  Agreed.

Was Stalin a threat to humanity?


----------



## gipper

SmedlyButler said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * "Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins. *
> *Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've wasted a lot of time in the past countering your obstinately deceitful attack on a true American hero. I see at least your not still peddling the lie that Hopkins was "Agent 19". I imagine this "purge" of anti-communist foreign officers your talking about is the removal of several people in foreign affairs who the Roosevelt administration considered too pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler in the run-up to war.  Now I'll refer you again to an article written by authors who share your anti-liberal mindset. It's from Frontpagemag who obviously have perfect "conservative" credentials, here's their masthead;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't read the scroll it says "Inside every liberal is a totalitarian waiting to get out"
> 
> The title of the article is "Was Harry Hopkins A Soviet Spy?"
> 
> One of the editor's comments on the article is;
> 
> "This article is a model of how to evaluate historical evidence, and shows the perils involved when isolated data is plucked from historical sources without adequate acquaintance with the sources themselves or with the scholarly discourse concerning them. It also shows why those who insist Hopkins was a Soviet agent have not carried out a scholarly inquiry, and why their conclusions are unreliable."
> 
> I invite you again to read this article and educate yourself with some facts instead of vicious rumors. Here it is. And I'll remind you again of Churchill's enormous admiration for the man. He would have many laudatory things to say about Hopkins, this is what he said of their first meeting;
> 
> _"Thus I met* Harry Hopkins*, that extraordinary man, who played, and was to play, a sometimes decisive part in the whole movement of the war.  His was a soul that flamed out of a frail and failing body. He was a crumbling lighthouse from which there shone the beams that led great fleets to harbour.  He had also a gift of sardonic humor.  I always enjoyed his company especially when things went ill. . . Harry Hopkins always went to the root of the matter..."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
> "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
> W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harriman made this interesting observation:
> "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. *He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
> Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.
> 
> 
> 2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.
> 
> 
> See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't read tea leaves, I read facts. Yes, one of the attributes that made Hopkins a great statesman was his ability to gain the trust of even a psychotic paranoid like Stalin. Again, stop trying to understand history by conjuring conspiratorial visions from sources with the credibility of tea leaves and acquaint yourself with facts for a change.
Click to expand...


Yeah....Harry was just a nice guy doing a great job for his nation.

If you believe that, you will believe anything.

No need to read tea leaves.  Harry has been extensively studied and the conclusion is without question, he was a scummy soviet spy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

They both were, albeit Hilter was the greater threat.

Communism in the USSR fell on its own inconsistency.

Any one who believes HH was a Soviet spy is guilty of cultural McCarthyism, which is an active intent for malignant purposes to distort the objective narrative for political gain by the far right reactionary haters.

Not going to happen.


----------



## Toronado3800

JakeStarkey said:


> The both were, albeit Hilter was the greater threat.
> 
> Communism in the USSR fell on its own inconsistency.
> 
> Any one who believes HH was a Soviet spy is guilty of cultural McCarthyism, which is an active intent for malignant purposes to distort the objective narrative for political gain by the far right reactionary haters.
> 
> Not going to happen.



Jake, was Harry ever convicted of being a spy?  What is the basis for calling him one do you think?

The quote if redistribution seems like what you would hear from any Christian who believes in the Jesus who wore sandls and spoke of the eye of the needle. Mostly I ignore that stuff and check on the policies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, a la bigderp, blew up this thread with her own commentary.

Let's move on.  If the coup of 1944 succeeded and Hitler was killed, should the Allies negotiated with the Generals and the interior security forces.  I suspect the Generals would have killed Himmler and Goering wherever they could find them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tornado asks, "Jake, was Harry ever convicted of being a spy? What is the basis for calling him one do you think?"  There is no basis for calling HH a spy under US law.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The both were, albeit Hilter was the greater threat.
> 
> Communism in the USSR fell on its own inconsistency.
> 
> Any one who believes HH was a Soviet spy is guilty of cultural McCarthyism, which is an active intent for malignant purposes to distort the objective narrative for political gain by the far right reactionary haters.
> 
> Not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, was Harry ever convicted of being a spy?  What is the basis for calling him one do you think?
> 
> The quote if redistribution seems like what you would hear from any Christian who believes in the Jesus who wore sandls and spoke of the eye of the needle. Mostly I ignore that stuff and check on the policies.
Click to expand...




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

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


----------



## JakeStarkey

And PC quotes a devotee of what is called cultural McCarthyism, an investment is smearing modern America in the name of anti-statism.

No, HH was not a spy.  The key to the bogusness of the comment is the discussion of Normandy.  And if HH did discuss such matters with Stalin, FDR would have given him permission to do so.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> And PC quotes a devotee of what is called cultural McCarthyism, an investment is smearing modern America in the name of anti-statism.
> 
> No, HH was not a spy.  The key to the bogusness of the comment is the discussion of Normandy.  And if HH did discuss such matters with Stalin, FDR would have given him permission to do so.





Judging by experience, if you say Hopkins wasn't a Soviet agent......it's a sure thing he was.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Discussing by that standard, you defaulted your position before posting.

Do show us where the special advisory of FDR to JS was not supposed to discuss private and important matters that would concern the Big Three.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And PC quotes a devotee of what is called cultural McCarthyism, an investment is smearing modern America in the name of anti-statism.
> 
> No, HH was not a spy.  The key to the bogusness of the comment is the discussion of Normandy.  And if HH did discuss such matters with Stalin, FDR would have given him permission to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging by experience, if you say Hopkins wasn't a Soviet agent......it's a sure thing he was.
Click to expand...

The evidence of Hopkins being spy in based on conjecture by Eduard Mark and that conjecture was challenged and put to rest by historians John Earl Hayes and Harvey Klehr. The whole theory of FDR and his being controlled through Hopkins is base on a conjecture, a speculation about who the mysterious agent 19 was. Mark guessed it was Hopkins, but Haryes and Klehr did research that showed there were not only other guess that could be made, but took Hopkins out of the speculation. Insisting that Hopkins was a proven spy by a person claiming to have college level training on methods of historical research is just plain dishonest.


----------



## Picaro

The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Picaro said:


> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.




Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist.
Click to expand...


Harry Hopkins, and you continue to smear him in multiple post over and over, despite evidence that completely cleared his name of any such allegations years ago, even available online since 2009.

documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan

digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notbooks


----------



## JakeStarkey

John Koch and Joe McCarthy had strong communist associations.

That is the same premise, erroneously, used to smear Hopkins.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, you got some splainin to dooh


----------



## Picaro

JakeStarkey said:


> John Koch and Joe McCarthy had strong communist associations.
> 
> That is the same premise, erroneously, used to smear Hopkins.



No. McCarthy was indeed in contact with a German lawyer spreading anti-American propaganda among right wingers in Germany after WW II, who was later exposed as a Soviet agent provocateur; he was also a lawyer representing Nazis at the post-war Nuremberg trials. McCarthy used this guy's propaganda in a 1949 political campaign, and exchanged letters with him. I didn't say McCarthy was a Commie, just pointing out that any conspiratard worth his paranoia would jump on that. Try to keep up, Jake.


----------



## NYcarbineer

PoliticalChic said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist.
Click to expand...


The Soviets wanted the western allies to support unconditional surrender;  the western allies wanted the Soviets to support unconditional surrender.  Those desires represent nothing more complicated than both entities wanting the other to make their job easier.


----------



## Camp

JakeStarkey said:


> John Koch and Joe McCarthy had strong communist associations.
> 
> That is the same premise, erroneously, used to smear Hopkins.


It's more than that. The whole premise that FDR was a tool of Stalin is based on the Harry Hopkins spy myth. It was originally propagated with the publication of the Venona papers and an opinion offered by an Air Force historian, Eduard Mark, that Hopkins was "Source 19", a provider of information to the USSR. It wasn't until a review took place of a newer source, the Vassiliev notebooks, and comparisons were done with the notebooks and and the Venona papers that two historians, Haynes and Klehr, were able to show beyond any doubt that Hopkins was not source 19 and that source 19 was in fact Laurence Duggan. This put a crimp, to say the least, in all the FDR conspiracy theories and all the books written on the subject null and void misinformation trash writing. Those who continue to use this kind of misinformation do so to promote a dishonest political agenda designed to demonize an American hero of WWII.


----------



## Toronado3800

Venona project

Is this pretty much the accepted skinny on Venona?

Guesss a fella who was worried the SOVIETS would sue for a seperate peace, deputy Chief of Military Intelligence (G-2), Carter W. Clarke, started it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Here is the  description of the Venona Projects' mission:

[This] _community_ [is] _dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows._


----------



## Toronado3800

JakeStarkey said:


> Here is the  description of the Venona Projects' mission:
> 
> [This] _community_ [is] _dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.
> 
> Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows._



The site I linked thanked a Professor Peter Dale Scott who seemed somewhat of a hippie in the 60's.  Of course who wasnt protesting Vietnam.  His conspiracy theory fascination with JFK I guess is an interesting concern about JFK.  It is just something google found me.  I will read more.


----------



## Picaro

Camp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Koch and Joe McCarthy had strong communist associations.
> 
> That is the same premise, erroneously, used to smear Hopkins.
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than that. The whole premise that FDR was a tool of Stalin is based on the Harry Hopkins spy myth. It was originally propagated with the publication of the Venona papers and an opinion offered by an Air Force historian, Eduard Mark, that Hopkins was "Source 19", a provider of information to the USSR. It wasn't until a review took place of a newer source, the Vassiliev notebooks, and comparisons were done with the notebooks and and the Venona papers that two historians, Haynes and Klehr, were able to show beyond any doubt that Hopkins was not source 19 and that source 19 was in fact Laurence Duggan. This put a crimp, to say the least, in all the FDR conspiracy theories and all the books written on the subject null and void misinformation trash writing. Those who continue to use this kind of misinformation do so to promote a dishonest political agenda designed to demonize an American hero of WWII.
Click to expand...


For some reason these morons in the Fever Swamps apparently seem to think people who vote for Democrats  will read this conspiracy gibberish and suddenly get all outraged and start voting for Paulistas or Romney or something, who knows. I assume their parents never told them most voters don't read message boards, and most who do especially  ignore history or political sub-forums, so their inane ravings are a lost cause, and are only good for providing amusement for those who just don't have enough to do, like most of the posters in this thread.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Picaro said:


> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.





Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:

"Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."


I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....

They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."


Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?


Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
...and I always ask for examples.


In return......this:


----------



## Picaro

NYcarbineer said:


> The Soviets wanted the western allies to support unconditional surrender;  the western allies wanted the Soviets to support unconditional surrender.  Those desires represent nothing more complicated than both entities wanting the other to make their job easier.



A hard lesson was learned from WW I, re the mistake of not occupying Germany, which allowed later propagandists like the Nazis to peddle the ridiculous myth that Germany didn't lose the war,and were 'screwed' at Versailles. Demanding unconditional surrender was meant to not repeat that mistake.


----------



## Picaro

PoliticalChic said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
Click to expand...


Well, I mostly just ignore inane cranks and idiotic liars for the most part. No need to take it personally, though; you're not the only one I ignore. Katasung has pretty much made all of you wannabees redundant, and is far more entertaining, which is why he/she/it/mutant is an innernetz legend and the gold standard for innernetz conspiracy posting, while you're just another talentless mediocre dumbass.

But don't let this critique discourage you; keep trying and maybe one day you'll get better at it, you never know. I'm writing it to help you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Picaro said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I mostly just ignore inane cranks and idiotic liars for the most part. No need to take it personally, though; you're not the only one I ignore. Katasung has pretty much made all of you wannabees redundant, and is far more entertaining, which is why he/she/it/mutant is an innernetz legend and the gold standard for innernetz conspiracy posting, while you're just another talentless mediocre dumbass.
> 
> But don't let this critique discourage you; keep trying and maybe one day you'll get better at it, you never know. I'm writing it to help you.
Click to expand...





"Well, I mostly just ignore inane cranks and idiotic liars for the most part."

I don't. I call you Liberal liars out, and expose you.


Your word salad aside, you are unable to find even one example of your comment about poor little communists who were 'smeared."


Pretty much an example of what passes for knowledge from the Left......little trained seals.


The conclusion: your charge was a lie.....and that makes you a liar.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC, you are goofy and loony.

If your docs do not start a new series of meds, you will always be doing this and going nowhere.

The OP was exploded early on.

You danced and pranced, lifting and shifting, ending and descending right where you began.

You will not get better until you admit you are ill.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> No, the way you win, you have your troops in their ruined cities and their leaders at the business end of a noose.   That way they are very clear that they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a good warmongering Neolib or Neocon....not much difference between these two political factions....they love war because it increases the power of the state...and are too stupid to accept the reality.
Click to expand...


As opposed to a Libertarian Loon, who thinks they'll stop the Nazis with their squirrel guns...or something. 

Sorry, can't see the defeat of the Axis Powers as anything but a GOOD thing.


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
> "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
> W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harriman made this interesting observation:
> "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. *He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
> Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.
> 
> 
> 2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.
> 
> 
> See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.



Yawn.   Fact is, we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us. 

And frankly, getting economic justice after the war would have been a good thing, and both Republicans and Democrats worked towards that end. 

That was before Republicans went crazy, though.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
Click to expand...

Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.

You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC instinctively lies.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> No, the way you win, you have your troops in their ruined cities and their leaders at the business end of a noose.   That way they are very clear that they lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a good warmongering Neolib or Neocon....not much difference between these two political factions....they love war because it increases the power of the state...and are too stupid to accept the reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As opposed to a Libertarian Loon, who thinks they'll stop the Nazis with their squirrel guns...or something.
> 
> Sorry, can't see the defeat of the Axis Powers as anything but a GOOD thing.
Click to expand...


Sorry guy, but Nazi Germany never attacked the USA and would have never declared war against the USA, had not FDR set up the Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor.

The defeat of the Axis lead to the enslavement of all of E. Europe by Uncle Joe and decades of Cold War including the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.  

Are related to Uncle Joe, Joey?


----------



## PoliticalChic

JakeStarkey said:


> PC instinctively lies.




I never lie.

Here, let me prove it: you're a moron.


----------



## PoliticalChic

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 1. Averell Harriman was special envoy of FDR.
> "At theTehran Conferencein late 1943 Harriman was tasked with placating a suspicious Churchill while Roosevelt attempted to gain the confidence of Stalin."
> W. Averell Harriman - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Harriman made this interesting observation:
> "When Stalin saw him [Hopkins] enter the conference room [Tehran]he got up, walked across the room and shook hands with him. I never saw him do that to anybody, even Roosevelt. *He was the only man I ever saw Stalin show personal emotion for." *
> Encounter Magazine interview, 1981.
> 
> 
> 2. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's alter ego, was the most powerful individual in the. government because of his singular, almost hypnotic influence upon the President. Even before the United States formally entered the war,* Hopkins made it clear that he saw the struggle as a world revolution.* In an article published in the American Magazine in July, 1941, he wrote: "This is not only a fight for freedom of speech, religion and assembly. It is a fight for economic freedom for the people of the world, a fight to fulfill in this generation all that our fathers fought and strove for in the last 200 years. . . When a democratic victory is won, *then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.95.
> 
> 
> See if you can read those tea leaves, Smugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.   Fact is, we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us.
> 
> And frankly, getting economic justice after the war would have been a good thing, and both Republicans and Democrats worked towards that end.
> 
> That was before Republicans went crazy, though.
Click to expand...




"we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us."

Actually, we got more Stalin than we needed.

You're the proof.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Sorry guy, but Nazi Germany never attacked the USA and would have never declared war against the USA, had not FDR set up the Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The defeat of the Axis lead to the enslavement of all of E. Europe by Uncle Joe and decades of Cold War including the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.
> 
> Are related to Uncle Joe, Joey?



Wait, now, FDR set the Japanese up? 

I thought the Japanese carefully planned a precision operation involving six aircraft carriers and 400 planes.  

You make it sound like FDR tricked them into being in a hotel room with a hooker and some crystal meth. 

Here's the reality. Most of Eastern Europe threw in with Hitler, it's kind of hard to feel bad for them. Poland, maybe.  Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary- they all joined the Axis powers.  

Here's the reality.  Stalin won World War II.  We were just kind enough to hold his coat for him while he did it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
Click to expand...




"Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."


----------



## JoeB131

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> "we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us."
> 
> Actually, we got more Stalin than we needed.
> 
> You're the proof.



NO, i'm not liberal because of Stalin. 

I'm liberal because your boy Bush fucked up everything.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> "we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us."
> 
> Actually, we got more Stalin than we needed.
> 
> You're the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, i'm not liberal because of Stalin.
> 
> I'm liberal because your boy Bush fucked up everything.
Click to expand...


But that makes no sense Joey...not surprising.

W was a progressive just like you.  The Rs are progressives just like you.

You are really fucked up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Progressives are not monolithic, and the country does not Gipper's politics and way of governing, period.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
Click to expand...



One, smearing is wrong.

Two, that question has been answered with plenty of examples many times elsewhere on the board, so

Three, you no more than others who fall back to this last bastion of defense get "just once more."


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
Click to expand...

I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.

documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan

The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.

digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks

The above link gives access to the source used to debunk the Hopkins spy myth. Included are all eight notebooks in Russian, English translation and scanned page by page copies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
Click to expand...




Stop begging.


Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist.


Try again: "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."


Short answer: you can't.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging.
> 
> 
> Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist.
> 
> 
> Try again: "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Short answer: you can't.
Click to expand...

I provided what you asked for. You are just being a petty little jerk who doesn't have the character to respond in a professional way. You say you have numerous sources from scholars to back you up but don't list them. So show us one source from an actual scholar of history that supports your claim and did so after the Haynes and Klehr debunking. 
And by the way, I am not begging. I am enjoying doing what I always do when you disparage FDR and the heroes of WWll. I am making it clear that you know nothing about WWll, you are an agenda driven political hack who literally hacks together her conspiracy theories by cherry picking disjointed quotes and pasting them together to make ridiculous and fraudulent claims. 
Anyone who has questions of your honesty and professionalism need only click on the links I have provided, and yours for comparison. Mine could be used at a professional level and yours would be
laughed about at a professional level.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging.
> 
> 
> Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist.
> 
> 
> Try again: "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Short answer: you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided what you asked for. You are just being a petty little jerk who doesn't have the character to respond in a professional way. You say you have numerous sources from scholars to back you up but don't list them. So show us one source from an actual scholar of history that supports your claim and did so after the Haynes and Klehr debunking.
> And by the way, I am not begging. I am enjoying doing what I always do when you disparage FDR and the heroes of WWll. I am making it clear that you know nothing about WWll, you are an agenda driven political hack who literally hacks together her conspiracy theories by cherry picking disjointed quotes and pasting them together to make ridiculous and fraudulent claims.
> Anyone who has questions of your honesty and professionalism need only click on the links I have provided, and yours for comparison. Mine could be used at a professional level and yours would be
> laughed about at a professional level.
Click to expand...




"Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."


Three strikes and you're out.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging.
> 
> 
> Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist.
> 
> 
> Try again: "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Short answer: you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided what you asked for. You are just being a petty little jerk who doesn't have the character to respond in a professional way. You say you have numerous sources from scholars to back you up but don't list them. So show us one source from an actual scholar of history that supports your claim and did so after the Haynes and Klehr debunking.
> And by the way, I am not begging. I am enjoying doing what I always do when you disparage FDR and the heroes of WWll. I am making it clear that you know nothing about WWll, you are an agenda driven political hack who literally hacks together her conspiracy theories by cherry picking disjointed quotes and pasting them together to make ridiculous and fraudulent claims.
> Anyone who has questions of your honesty and professionalism need only click on the links I have provided, and yours for comparison. Mine could be used at a professional level and yours would be
> laughed about at a professional level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Three strikes and you're out.
Click to expand...

I'm not at bat you dope. You are, and you quit without taking a swing. You loose by default. I hit home runs with my links and indisputable sources and you struck out over and over.


----------



## Camp

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> The above link gives access to the source used to debunk the Hopkins spy myth. Included are all eight notebooks in Russian, English translation and scanned page by page copies.
Click to expand...


PoliticalChic can not answer the post that met her challenge.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop begging.
> 
> 
> Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist.
> 
> 
> Try again: "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Short answer: you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided what you asked for. You are just being a petty little jerk who doesn't have the character to respond in a professional way. You say you have numerous sources from scholars to back you up but don't list them. So show us one source from an actual scholar of history that supports your claim and did so after the Haynes and Klehr debunking.
> And by the way, I am not begging. I am enjoying doing what I always do when you disparage FDR and the heroes of WWll. I am making it clear that you know nothing about WWll, you are an agenda driven political hack who literally hacks together her conspiracy theories by cherry picking disjointed quotes and pasting them together to make ridiculous and fraudulent claims.
> Anyone who has questions of your honesty and professionalism need only click on the links I have provided, and yours for comparison. Mine could be used at a professional level and yours would be
> laughed about at a professional level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> Three strikes and you're out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not at bat you dope. You are, and you quit without taking a swing. You loose by default. I hit home runs with my links and indisputable sources and you struck out over and over.
Click to expand...



Not at bat....true.....you've struck out.

And, more to the point....you're too dumb to realize the significance of being unable to name any non-communist who was ruined, smeared, etc.

Every time I pin one of you dorks to the wall by simply asking you to name one of the myriad poor patriots who was maligned by Senator McCarthy, you go 'hrrrumphhh.....er...ah..." and fail to do so.



Shouldn't it be evident, even to a simpleton like you, that this broad-brush myth is simply that.....a myth???


----------



## JakeStarkey

"Numerous scholars have proven that Hopkins was just that: communist" is a troll statement based on the clear and objective evidence here.

The cultural McCarthyism that produces deliberately false statements like "Numerous scholars . . ."  gives the implication that a poorly organized and poorly led movement is attempting to rewrite the American narrative.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> The above link gives access to the source used to debunk the Hopkins spy myth. Included are all eight notebooks in Russian, English translation and scanned page by page copies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic can not answer the post that met her challenge.
Click to expand...


She can't because she lost the argument long ago.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> The above link gives access to the source used to debunk the Hopkins spy myth. Included are all eight notebooks in Russian, English translation and scanned page by page copies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic can not answer the post that met her challenge.
Click to expand...




Au contraire....answered fully, and repetitively.

And......you still cannot find any other to fulfill your charg


JakeStarkey said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarthyites just smeared every single diplomat stationed in China during WW II as a 'Commie', along with anybody FDR even just said 'Hello' to. They're amazingly not at all paranoid about McCarthy's ties to a Communist agent in Germany, though, nor Fred Koch's very close ties to Stalin for two decades, and then suddenly becoming a big John Bircher. lol Apparently only Democrats could become Commie agents, and it somehow wouldn't occur to the Soviets to think of planting any in the right wing parties for some reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty-four hours ago I asked the following:
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> 
> I marvel at the inability of the Liberals/leftists to rise about first stage thinking.....
> 
> They accept propaganda wholesale, e.g., "The McCarthyites just smeared blah blah blah...."
> 
> 
> Doesn't it ever occur to them to determine if same is true by researching if any of it is true?
> 
> 
> Time and again I hear that "smeared," "ruined the lives," etc......
> ...and I always ask for examples.
> 
> 
> In return......this:
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying just seems to come natural to you when you get wrapped up in your delusional conspiracy theories.
> 
> You made your challenge in Post # 440 at 6:58 pm. I responded with an answer that included two links to detailed records that included analysis of your own links 9 minutes later in Post #441 at 7:07 pm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Name one who was 'smeared' but wasn't a communist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I named Harry Hopkins. You have smeared him by accusing him of being a communist spy in this thread. The links I provided are the very latest and most scholarly accepted sources on the subject available. They show him to have never been a communist spy and trace the fraudulent myth back to it's original source and debunk it. Two of the historians, Haynes and Klehr are rw favorites because of their works regarding USSR spying in the 20's, 30's and onward. So, you have the most recognized scholars of the topic of Soviet spying and infiltration of the US Government, recognized on the right and the left, debunking your claim about Harry Hopkins. Your source for the fraudulent claim is a sock puppet, Chesley Manly, for an anti FDR newspaper publisher, Robert McCormick, who spread his agenda by using a made up hack writer whose work isn't recognized by anyone other that hard core McCarthyites. It was McCormick under the name of Manly who published the top secret RAINBOW FIVE papers on the front page of the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 4, 1941. Rainbow Five was the code name for America's contingency plans for war. Hitler quoted them and the article in his Declaration of War as evidence of America's intent to wage war against Germany. They were only contingency plans but that is not the way McCormick presented them in the Tribune, nor was it the way Hitler presented it.
> Your sources, or my sources, lets allow those interested in this thread judge for themselves.
> 
> documentstalk.com/wp/alexander-vassilievs-notes-venona-and-laurence-duggan
> 
> The above link gives a detailed account of how Haynes and Klehr debunked the Hopkins spy myth.
> 
> digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/86/Vassiliev-Notebooks
> 
> The above link gives access to the source used to debunk the Hopkins spy myth. Included are all eight notebooks in Russian, English translation and scanned page by page copies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic can not answer the post that met her challenge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She can't because she lost the argument long ago.
Click to expand...



About the same time that you lost your mind?


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC continues to lie.

She blew up her own OP conclusively.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> "we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us."
> 
> Actually, we got more Stalin than we needed.
> 
> You're the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, i'm not liberal because of Stalin.
> 
> I'm liberal because your boy Bush fucked up everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that makes no sense Joey...not surprising.
> 
> W was a progressive just like you.  The Rs are progressives just like you.
> 
> You are really fucked up.
Click to expand...


Okay, you see, when someone says something crazy like, "The two parties are exactly the same', you really can dismiss anything else they say because they probably should be wrapping tin-foil around their heads.


----------



## NYcarbineer

While some women might say 'not tonight, I have a headache', PC likely says, 'not tonight, I'm busy looking for Communists _under _ the bed...'

Seriously the idea that FDR somehow blundered by not finding a way to leave Germany and most of its Wehrmacht and political structure intact, via some sort of 'conditional surrender', and to thus perpetuate for another generation the geopolitical dynamics of 20th century Europe is simply lunacy,

deranged FDR-hating lunacy.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Sorry guy, but Nazi Germany never attacked the USA and would have never declared war against the USA, had not FDR set up the Japanese in attacking Pearl Harbor.
> 
> The defeat of the Axis lead to the enslavement of all of E. Europe by Uncle Joe and decades of Cold War including the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.
> 
> Are related to Uncle Joe, Joey?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, now, FDR set the Japanese up?
> 
> I thought the Japanese carefully planned a precision operation involving six aircraft carriers and 400 planes.
> 
> You make it sound like FDR tricked them into being in a hotel room with a hooker and some crystal meth.
> 
> Here's the reality. Most of Eastern Europe threw in with Hitler, it's kind of hard to feel bad for them. Poland, maybe.  Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary- they all joined the Axis powers.
> 
> Here's the reality.  Stalin won World War II.  We were just kind enough to hold his coat for him while he did it.
Click to expand...


Your post merely proves you know nothing about what you post.


JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> "we needed Stalin more than Stalin needed us."
> 
> Actually, we got more Stalin than we needed.
> 
> You're the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, i'm not liberal because of Stalin.
> 
> I'm liberal because your boy Bush fucked up everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that makes no sense Joey...not surprising.
> 
> W was a progressive just like you.  The Rs are progressives just like you.
> 
> You are really fucked up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, you see, when someone says something crazy like, "The two parties are exactly the same', you really can dismiss anything else they say because they probably should be wrapping tin-foil around their heads.
Click to expand...


Okay guy, when you claim the parties are different, it only means you have been duped. 

The Rs and Ds are nearly identical.  They both believe in deficit spending, welfare, warfare, bigger government, obamacare...yep that's right.... you probably think the Rs will repeal it.  They will not.  Many Rs approved of crazy leftists nut jobs on the SC....that Nazi witch Ginsberg got many R votes...so did the two whackos Sotomayor and Kagan.  Many Rs refused to vote to remove a felon in BJ Bubba Clinton from office.  And on and on.

No amount of truth will get through those blinders you have on.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Okay guy, when you claim the parties are different, it only means you have been duped.
> 
> The Rs and Ds are nearly identical.  They both believe in deficit spending, welfare, warfare, bigger government, obamacare...yep that's right.... you probably think the Rs will repeal it.  They will not.  Many Rs approved of crazy leftists nut jobs on the SC....that Nazi witch Ginsberg got many R votes...so did the two whackos Sotomayor and Kagan.  Many Rs refused to vote to remove a felon in BJ Bubba Clinton from office.  And on and on.
> 
> No amount of truth will get through those blinders you have on.



Oh, I have no concern that Obamacare will be repealed if the Country has a brain tumor and puts the GOP back in.  They'll just modify it so big businesses benefit until we finally bite the bullet and go to single payer like every other civilized country.  

Here's the thing.  Most Americans want some form of welfare.  Most Americans want bigger government.  To say that 'the parties agree on these things' is dumb, because the people have agreed on them.  The parties are merely discussing how to best implement what the majority wants. 

not the small sliver of Libertarian Kooks who get less than a million votes a year.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Okay guy, when you claim the parties are different, it only means you have been duped.
> 
> The Rs and Ds are nearly identical.  They both believe in deficit spending, welfare, warfare, bigger government, obamacare...yep that's right.... you probably think the Rs will repeal it.  They will not.  Many Rs approved of crazy leftists nut jobs on the SC....that Nazi witch Ginsberg got many R votes...so did the two whackos Sotomayor and Kagan.  Many Rs refused to vote to remove a felon in BJ Bubba Clinton from office.  And on and on.
> 
> No amount of truth will get through those blinders you have on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I have no concern that Obamacare will be repealed if the Country has a brain tumor and puts the GOP back in.  They'll just modify it so big businesses benefit until we finally bite the bullet and go to single payer like every other civilized country.
> 
> Here's the thing.  Most Americans want some form of welfare.  Most Americans want bigger government.  To say that 'the parties agree on these things' is dumb, because the people have agreed on them.  The parties are merely discussing how to best implement what the majority wants.
> 
> not the small sliver of Libertarian Kooks who get less than a million votes a year.
Click to expand...


Ah guy...do you not know both parties are owned by big business?  Really?  

D voters, like you, want socialism...failing to understand or comprehend that it is a terribly flawed ideology that will never work, but will enrich and empower a small elite...the very same elite you claim to despise.  You and your kind have not figured that out, when a 12 year could easily do so.

You claimed you dumped the R party because of W.  That is total nonsense, but you silly leftists just are not smart enough to see the truth.  W like Romney, like Christie, like McCain, like most of the leading Rs ARE PROGRESSIVES LIKE YOU.  

So...hating W is hating yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Well, guy, you make sure you libertarians provide us with a fine alternative...


----------



## Camp

JakeStarkey said:


> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.


And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
Click to expand...


Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....

so says a fool.


----------



## JakeStarkey

when in fact PC and Crusader Frank are reactionary dupes of M. D. Rawlings


----------



## JakeStarkey

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
Click to expand...


Indeed, you are, and thanks to you for admitting it.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> Well, guy, you make sure you libertarians provide us with a fine alternative...



I know you can't help but twist our debate to my political beliefs.  But guy...our debate is about YOUR beliefs.  

You hate W and claim to have left the R party because of him and have magically become a flaming D party lover, when in fact, W governed exactly like a D.  You are most confused...


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guy, you make sure you libertarians provide us with a fine alternative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you can't help but twist our debate to my political beliefs.  But guy...our debate is about YOUR beliefs.
> 
> You hate W and claim to have left the R party because of him and have magically become a flaming D party lover, when in fact, W governed exactly like a D.  You are most confused...
Click to expand...


NO, not confused at all. 

My problem with Bush wasn't ideology, it was competence.  The guy just didn't know what the fuck he was doing. And in his second term, he surrounded himself with cronies who didn't keep him in line. 

We gave Bush the keys to the car, and he crashed it into a tree.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
Click to expand...

But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.


----------



## rightwinger

Obama had a chance to end WWII in 1943....he failed to do it


----------



## JakeStarkey

McCarthy had a chance to end the war in 1943.  But didn't.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
Click to expand...


The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.  

You can't fix stupid.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, guy, you make sure you libertarians provide us with a fine alternative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you can't help but twist our debate to my political beliefs.  But guy...our debate is about YOUR beliefs.
> 
> You hate W and claim to have left the R party because of him and have magically become a flaming D party lover, when in fact, W governed exactly like a D.  You are most confused...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, not confused at all.
> 
> My problem with Bush wasn't ideology, it was competence.  The guy just didn't know what the fuck he was doing. And in his second term, he surrounded himself with cronies who didn't keep him in line.
> 
> We gave Bush the keys to the car, and he crashed it into a tree.
Click to expand...


Of course Bush was a fool, a liar, and incompetent.  Just like the doofus in the WH now, but you refuse to see Big Ears is very much like W.  

The power elite of both parties seek the same goals and those goals are harmful to the American people.  Both are liars, cheats, and criminals.  You can see this in the R party, but refuse to see it in the D party.  That makes you a partisan fool.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
Click to expand...

People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.
Click to expand...


bullshit!

You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence.  You believe it to be revisionist history.  So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.

Tis what it is, bro.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> Of course Bush was a fool, a liar, and incompetent.  Just like the doofus in the WH now, but you refuse to see Big Ears is very much like W.
> 
> The power elite of both parties seek the same goals and those goals are harmful to the American people.  Both are liars, cheats, and criminals.  You can see this in the R party, but refuse to see it in the D party.  That makes you a partisan fool.



No, guy, I just don't worry about it.  

I would LOVE to have my life back that I had when Bill Clinton was President. 

I wouldn't care how many Branch Davidians he burned alive or how many blow jobs he was getting in the White House.  My life was substantially better when he was in the White House. But I used to be one of you wingnuts who got upset about those things. 

Bush managed to get us into wars he fought badly. (Seriously, how much of a fuckup do you have to be to screw up wars against two impoverished countries?) He crashed the stock market twice, got us into two recessions, let a major city get flooded, and at the end of it, i was left with an underwater mortgage and a busted 401K and a 20% reduction in salary.

My view on Obama is that he's trying his best, but you have a GOP which would rather bankrupt the country than let this guy win.  That's all manner of fucked up. 

But go play with your toys in the Libertarian Romper Room and let the grown-ups talk.  

.


----------



## NYcarbineer

JakeStarkey said:


> McCarthy had a chance to end the war in 1943.  But didn't.



I think our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic is making a reference of sorts to how much better things turned out when we didn't go for an unconditional surrender of North Korea 60 years ago.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence.  You believe it to be revisionist history.  So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.
Click to expand...

Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC's two sources: one is old and so far out of date that is not acceptable in any professional sense, and the other is a conspiracy work taken apart by the right and left.


----------



## gipper

Camp said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence.  You believe it to be revisionist history.  So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.
Click to expand...


So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.

Do you come to this forum NEW every day?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence.  You believe it to be revisionist history.  So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.
> 
> Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
Click to expand...

I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> J routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.




You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.
Click to expand...

Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?


----------



## Unkotare

Camp said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?
Click to expand...


As I said, you have NEVER done so. You playing internet teenager shouting "Aw man, pwnd! Yeeeeaaaah boooiiiiy...I winses!" does not constitute a "debunking."


----------



## Camp

Unkotare said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said, you have NEVER done so. You playing internet teenager shouting "Aw man, pwnd! Yeeeeaaaah boooiiiiy...I winses!" does not constitute a "debunking."
Click to expand...

So, translated from bull crap language, that means, no I can't find an anti FDR WWII thread that you didn't debunk and I am afraid to mention one because I know you will show me exactly how you debunked it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Unkotare does not like FDR, Camp, because of the interment camps (Unko likes using the term 'concentration camps') and goes all bonkers if you question him on it.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.
> 
> 
> 
> And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and  try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....
> 
> so says a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
> So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
> The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times.  Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.
> 
> You can't fix stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit!
> 
> You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence.  You believe it to be revisionist history.  So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal.  You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.
> 
> Do you come to this forum NEW every day?
Click to expand...

I keep asking you people to get your data before those historians that rate the presidents. For some reason, they seem to be unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal. Those historians and presidential experts since 1948 have been rating FDR as one of the top three best and recently as America's best president. If you have evidence to the contrary it is your job to get your material to them. How can historians know about presidents and history unless posters keep them informed? And for gosh sake let us know how grateful the historians were for the data.


----------



## JoeB131

NYcarbineer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> McCarthy had a chance to end the war in 1943.  But didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic is making a reference of sorts to how much better things turned out when we didn't go for an unconditional surrender of North Korea 60 years ago.
Click to expand...


Is she Korean?  I thought she was Filipina.


----------



## JakeStarkey

She is an African America orphan of an Okinawan woman.


----------



## Friends

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.


 
Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
Click to expand...


WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.

FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.



Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
Click to expand...

How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear
Click to expand...

Really? Which of PC's sources in this thread do you claim would be allowed to be used to write a college thesis or even a article in a historical journal? Which one do you stand behind and why?


----------



## Toronado3800

regent said:


> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?



The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it   

In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.

The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.  

FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).

Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.


----------



## Freemason9

I've always believed that the war was extended so that Germany could exact the maximum economic and infrastructure damage on the USSR. The Soviets were decimated by the war, and Stalin was actually bitter because of the long delay of the allied invasion force. By the time the U.S was fully engaged, we had grown our industrial base to its full potential, the USSR was in shambles, and so was most of Europe (by 1945, the U.S. had fully 50% of the entire world's manufacturing).

The timing of the war's ending had the maximum potential outcome for the U.S.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear
Click to expand...


That is Bush#3, but truth is truth.  The evidence does not carry the weight.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
Click to expand...


Instead of being unemployed, guy joined the military...duh


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
Click to expand...


You got *EVERYTHING* Wrong. It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself.

You don't know dick about Reagan, FDR or basic economics so what's the fucking point of even "Debating" you


----------



## regent

Toronado3800 said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
Click to expand...

In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
Click to expand...


Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.

FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR real Legacy:

Presided over an economy worse than the 7 Biblical Lean Year which did not improve until Hitler Conquered France, 

Tuskegee Experiments, where black males were denied treatment so they could experimented upon to test the virulence and pathology of syphilis 

Allowed genuine Communist spies in the WH and US State Department to direct US policy

Interred over 100,000 innocent Japanese Americans,

Let Joe Stalin direct US War Plans including "Unconditional Surrender" becoming the guiding theme for WWII resulting in the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Fought the first battle of WWII in Africa (which never attacked us) against the French!

Aided history's greatest Mass Murderer Chairman Mao in getting control of China

Enslaved Eastern Europeans by turning it over to history Number #2 Mass Murderer, "Uncle" Joe Stalin

Cuddled up to Dictator Stalin in 1933 immediately AFTER "Uncle" Joe staved Ukrainians to death including 3MM Children


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is Bush#3, but truth is truth.  The evidence does not carry the weight.
Click to expand...


Did you just pick words at random to posit your response? There's no connection between any of them


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
Click to expand...




CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
Click to expand...




CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
Click to expand...

Where is it written that the Great Depression was the same as Harding and Coolidge's? A number of factors go into the creation of a depression, and even the intensity of a recession/depression can be different. America went through some short and some long, depressions and some more intense and some less intense. The Great Depression was the most severe and Hoover had almost four years to apply Harding and Coolidge's solutions to that economic problem, wonder if he tried? The Great Depression is probably the most studied and researched economic disaster in our history; wonder what the economists, and historians have come up with. We already know what the politicians have come up with.


----------



## Toronado3800

CrusaderFrank said:


> You got *EVERYTHING* Wrong. It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself.
> 
> You don't know dick about Reagan, FDR or basic economics so what's the fucking point of even "Debating" you



Settle down Frank.  The cuss words and big letters do not reflect well.

Ok.  Lets take the TVA.  What did it cost and result in?  Was it a good program?

Lets take the recommissioning of the Missouri and Wisconsin.  What did they cost and result in?

No cussing just thoughts.

I am gonna venture to say the TVA cost future money to put people to work building things.  Those things were dams and land improvements which made the land more valuable and electricity cheaper for the southern industrial revolution.  Worth it?

The battleship rebuilding was deficit spending and put Americans to work THAT day.  They floated for a bit.  If you think it intimidated Russia or helped ojr military flex their muscle great.  They made hella missile platforms.  Now the Soviet Union is aoart and we have fragmented Russia to deal with.  The U.S.S.R was bad for sure.  Worth it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CrusaderFrank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is Bush#3, but truth is truth.  The evidence does not carry the weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just pick words at random to posit your response? There's no connection between any of them
Click to expand...


Your failure to realize that there is a connection reveals your inability to constructively think.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got *EVERYTHING* Wrong. It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself.
> 
> You don't know dick about Reagan, FDR or basic economics so what's the fucking point of even "Debating" you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down Frank.  The cuss words and big letters do not reflect well.
> 
> Ok.  Lets take the TVA.  What did it cost and result in?  Was it a good program?
> 
> Lets take the recommissioning of the Missouri and Wisconsin.  What did they cost and result in?
> 
> No cussing just thoughts.
> 
> I am gonna venture to say the TVA cost future money to put people to work building things.  Those things were dams and land improvements which made the land more valuable and electricity cheaper for the southern industrial revolution.  Worth it?
> 
> The battleship rebuilding was deficit spending and put Americans to work THAT day.  They floated for a bit.  If you think it intimidated Russia or helped ojr military flex their muscle great.  They made hella missile platforms.  Now the Soviet Union is aoart and we have fragmented Russia to deal with.  The U.S.S.R was bad for sure.  Worth it?
Click to expand...


CF refuses to recognize the collective effort rewards individuals.  He is trapped in a fantasist social cultural political model that cannot exist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GD was pretty scary.  Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy.  Like myself he probably remembers that era.  Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity.  Not a crazy idea.  Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it
> 
> In the case of WWII it sure did help.  Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world.  Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.
> 
> The GD arose out of a similar circumstance.  WWI was not WWII but did not help.  We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.
> 
> FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out.  No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty.  SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan.  Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).
> 
> Oh well.  In general I love the New Deal.  It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the end it always sounds like the problem with FDR's New Deal was that FDR didn't spend enough. Conservatives can accept war time spending but not Depression spending. FDR always had the desire to balance the budget, yet as we have discovered start of the cure was Keynes, we simply didn't spend enough. The problem with Keynes, in a democracy is that we never pay back the borrowed money, politicians just can't bring themselves to get to that point. The New Deal also meant less pressure to create a new type of government or economic system for America as some other nations did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harding and Coolidge inherited an economy just as bad and in they CUT Spending and CUT taxes and in 18 months UE Dropped from 12% to 4%.
> 
> FDR raised taxes and spending and had 2 whole terms of failure -- 20% Average unemployment.  Worse than the 7 Biblical Lean years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where is it written that the Great Depression was the same as Harding and Coolidge's? A number of factors go into the creation of a depression, and even the intensity of a recession/depression can be different. America went through some short and some long, depressions and some more intense and some less intense. The Great Depression was the most severe and Hoover had almost four years to apply Harding and Coolidge's solutions to that economic problem, wonder if he tried? The Great Depression is probably the most studied and researched economic disaster in our history; wonder what the economists, and historians have come up with. We already know what the politicians have come up with.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.
> 
> Tis what it is, bro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is Bush#3, but truth is truth.  The evidence does not carry the weight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just pick words at random to posit your response? There's no connection between any of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your failure to realize that there is a connection reveals your inability to constructively think.
Click to expand...


The connection is that your only response to PC is to say she's a mean poopyhead for using big words you don't understand


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Toronado3800 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got *EVERYTHING* Wrong. It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself.
> 
> You don't know dick about Reagan, FDR or basic economics so what's the fucking point of even "Debating" you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down Frank.  The cuss words and big letters do not reflect well.
> 
> Ok.  Lets take the TVA.  What did it cost and result in?  Was it a good program?
> 
> Lets take the recommissioning of the Missouri and Wisconsin.  What did they cost and result in?
> 
> No cussing just thoughts.
> 
> I am gonna venture to say the TVA cost future money to put people to work building things.  Those things were dams and land improvements which made the land more valuable and electricity cheaper for the southern industrial revolution.  Worth it?
> 
> The battleship rebuilding was deficit spending and put Americans to work THAT day.  They floated for a bit.  If you think it intimidated Russia or helped ojr military flex their muscle great.  They made hella missile platforms.  Now the Soviet Union is aoart and we have fragmented Russia to deal with.  The U.S.S.R was bad for sure.  Worth it?
Click to expand...


TVA should be privatized. 

Recommissioning the Iowa Class battleships was a great idea and one of the few expenditures actually contained in the Constitution

I know you feel bad that Reagan broke up the USSR, tough. Just deal with it


----------



## JakeStarkey

PC ad homs from the beginning, and CF thinks hat acceptable, then cries when she is dealt with in kind.

CF, the world will not pay attention to your wheeziness.  That is a simple fact.

If you cannot constructively respond to people and issues with which you disagree, you will fail.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_CrusaderFrank: It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself._

Low information tool talk from the far right.  Try this in a modern university, private or public, and you will have your hands full.  You are going to be asked to produce a solid body of objective evidence (which M.D. did not produce, by the by) untainted by confirmation bias up front.

Climate change denial, confirmation bias, creation "science", confirmation science: folks, always ask for the hard unbiased evidence.  Doesn't exist.


----------



## Toronado3800

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> You got *EVERYTHING* Wrong. It's scary that you FDRbots just parrot back whatever you're instructed and never bother to learn anything for yourself.
> 
> You don't know dick about Reagan, FDR or basic economics so what's the fucking point of even "Debating" you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down Frank.  The cuss words and big letters do not reflect well.
> 
> Ok.  Lets take the TVA.  What did it cost and result in?  Was it a good program?
> 
> Lets take the recommissioning of the Missouri and Wisconsin.  What did they cost and result in?
> 
> No cussing just thoughts.
> 
> I am gonna venture to say the TVA cost future money to put people to work building things.  Those things were dams and land improvements which made the land more valuable and electricity cheaper for the southern industrial revolution.  Worth it?
> 
> The battleship rebuilding was deficit spending and put Americans to work THAT day.  They floated for a bit.  If you think it intimidated Russia or helped ojr military flex their muscle great.  They made hella missile platforms.  Now the Soviet Union is aoart and we have fragmented Russia to deal with.  The U.S.S.R was bad for sure.  Worth it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TVA should be privatized.
> 
> Recommissioning the Iowa Class battleships was a great idea and one of the few expenditures actually contained in the Constitution
> 
> I know you feel bad that Reagan broke up the USSR, tough. Just deal with it
Click to expand...


So you think the TVA helped the country idea AND the 500 ship navy or whatever the recommissioning program was called, helped the country?  

(Don't go too nuts on me being a hippie.  That BB avatar pic of mine I assume was taken after recomissioning)

You did a better job not being rude btw.  Thank you.


----------



## Picaro

And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> PC ad homs from the beginning, and CF thinks hat acceptable, then cries when she is dealt with in kind.
> 
> CF, the world will not pay attention to your wheeziness.  That is a simple fact.
> 
> If you cannot constructively respond to people and issues with which you disagree, you will fail.


One of us has to fake that he's a republican. Is that because nobody would pay attention to you as your true progressive self?


----------



## JakeStarkey

CF, is ad hom and fabrication all you got?  You are a far right social con, not a mainstream Pub.  I could vote for a McCain, a Jindal, a Christie.  You can't.  So don't keep wah'ing, and let's talk about the future, because we are not going backwards.

On the other hand, a Perry or a Santorum or whatever from the far rioght will never be nominated, so let's work together for a better GOP.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Picaro said:


> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.


2 whole terms of Keynesian failure

8 years 1933-1940

20% unemployment

Hitler ended the FDR depression


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of being unemployed, guy joined the military...duh
Click to expand...

And how many women went to work to replace the men in the military? Nope, so how did gearing up for war end the Great Depression any other ideas on


CrusaderFrank said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> 
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
Click to expand...

So why do the top historians of our nation rank FDR as America's greatest president? Are they aware of your historical evidence? By the way Keynes and FDR did not see eye to eye, but FDR used the same concepts but only after the Congress prevented him from cutting government spending.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a black period in American history.
> 
> His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.
> 
> His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of being unemployed, guy joined the military...duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many women went to work to replace the men in the military? Nope, so how did gearing up for war end the Great Depression any other ideas on
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do the top historians of our nation rank FDR as America's greatest president? Are they aware of your historical evidence? By the way Keynes and FDR did not see eye to eye, but FDR used the same concepts but only after the Congress prevented him from cutting government spending.
Click to expand...


Because they're lying


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> 
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
Click to expand...


Meh, not really.  

In fact, the Depression was over by 1935.  The probelm was that FDR listened to the Assclowns who told him to cut back on spending which caused the 1937 recession.  (The ignorant think the Great Depression was one long event throughout the 1930's, but it wasn't.) 

The reality was, the New Deal was half-hearted Keynesian spending at best.   World War II allowed the kind of government spending that the Keynesians really wanted.


----------



## Picaro

The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.

As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.

I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.

Thanks, Frank!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Picaro said:


> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!


The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.

I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> 
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meh, not really.
> 
> In fact, the Depression was over by 1935.  The probelm was that FDR listened to the Assclowns who told him to cut back on spending which caused the 1937 recession.  (The ignorant think the Great Depression was one long event throughout the 1930's, but it wasn't.)
> 
> The reality was, the New Deal was half-hearted Keynesian spending at best.   World War II allowed the kind of government spending that the Keynesians really wanted.
Click to expand...

So Keynesian economics only works when you can eliminate tens of millions of men from the workforce through either conscription or mass murder


----------



## regent

CrusaderFrank said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Friends said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of being unemployed, guy joined the military...duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many women went to work to replace the men in the military? Nope, so how did gearing up for war end the Great Depression any other ideas on
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do the top historians of our nation rank FDR as America's greatest president? Are they aware of your historical evidence? By the way Keynes and FDR did not see eye to eye, but FDR used the same concepts but only after the Congress prevented him from cutting government spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they're lying
Click to expand...

So many and for so long. Think of it since 1948, almost seventy years, America's most noted historians and experts on presidents all lying, including those historians that consider themselves conservatives. What is there about history that turns people into liars or commies?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.
> 
> FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years!  Who did that help?  Can't you count?
> 
> 
> 
> How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Instead of being unemployed, guy joined the military...duh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how many women went to work to replace the men in the military? Nope, so how did gearing up for war end the Great Depression any other ideas on
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again we see the usual cognitive dissonance embodied in far right economic fantasies. FDR's Keynesian policies were 'failures', but magically war time Federal spending, coupled with rationing and a draft, are what 'ended the Depression'. Can't have it both ways, well, unless you're a ideologue with no grasp of reality or how ridiculously contradictory what you're  claiming is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 whole terms of Keynesian failure
> 
> 8 years 1933-1940
> 
> 20% unemployment
> 
> Hitler ended the FDR depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do the top historians of our nation rank FDR as America's greatest president? Are they aware of your historical evidence? By the way Keynes and FDR did not see eye to eye, but FDR used the same concepts but only after the Congress prevented him from cutting government spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they're lying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many and for so long. Think of it since 1948, almost seventy years, America's most noted historians and experts on presidents all lying, including those historians that consider themselves conservatives. What is there about history that turns people into liars or commies?
Click to expand...


Look at the facts and the track record, FDR was a DISASTER! Had been been a real man like George Washington or Calvin Coolidge, he would have only served two terms. Instead he wanted to be like his Uncle Joe Stalin -- a dictator for life. So he got us into WWII after the end of his unmitigated disaster of a second term


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar



Except most presidential surveys of historians list FDR in the top 3, and most of the same surveys put Coolidge in the bottom quarter. 

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## JoeB131

CrusaderFrank said:


> [
> 
> Look at the facts and the track record, FDR was a DISASTER! Had been been a real man like George Washington or Calvin Coolidge, he would have only served two terms. Instead he wanted to be like his Uncle Joe Stalin -- a dictator for life. So he got us into WWII after the end of his unmitigated disaster of a second term



If his second term was such a disaster, why did he not only win a third term, but win decisively?

He carried 38 states, with 449 electoral votes and won 55% of the electorate.


----------



## JoeB131

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> In fact, the Depression was over by 1935.  The probelm was that FDR listened to the Assclowns who told him to cut back on spending which caused the 1937 recession.  (The ignorant think the Great Depression was one long event throughout the 1930's, but it wasn't.)
> 
> The reality was, the New Deal was half-hearted Keynesian spending at best.   World War II allowed the kind of government spending that the Keynesians really wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> So Keynesian economics only works when you can eliminate tens of millions of men from the workforce through either conscription or mass murder
Click to expand...


, but win decisively?

He carried 38 states, with 449 electoral votes and won 55% of the electorate.[/QUOTE]

When we truly implemented Keynesian economics in the 1950's and 1960's, we had our greatest prosperity. But discussing economics like you is like throwing pearls before swine. 

If FDR wasn't a successful president, he certainly wouldn't have won re-election three times.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Look at the facts and the track record, FDR was a DISASTER! Had been been a real man like George Washington or Calvin Coolidge, he would have only served two terms. Instead he wanted to be like his Uncle Joe Stalin -- a dictator for life. So he got us into WWII after the end of his unmitigated disaster of a second term
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his second term was such a disaster, why did he not only win a third term, but win decisively?
> 
> He carried 38 states, with 449 electoral votes and won 55% of the electorate.
Click to expand...


Because....

*You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*

Not unlike you being fooled by Big Ears, big government, Democrats, liberalism, socialism, AGW, and so much more.

It is clear YOU can be fooled ALL the time.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Look at the facts and the track record, FDR was a DISASTER! Had been been a real man like George Washington or Calvin Coolidge, he would have only served two terms. Instead he wanted to be like his Uncle Joe Stalin -- a dictator for life. So he got us into WWII after the end of his unmitigated disaster of a second term
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his second term was such a disaster, why did he not only win a third term, but win decisively?
> 
> He carried 38 states, with 449 electoral votes and won 55% of the electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because....
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> Not unlike you being fooled by Big Ears, big government, Democrats, liberalism, socialism, AGW, and so much more.
> 
> It is clear YOU can be fooled ALL the time.
Click to expand...


Again, guy, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. 

And the only reason why I voted for him in 2012 is because the GOP nominated a fucking MORMON. 

And why would I believe in AGW?  Oh, yeah, because I'm 52 years old, and I see that winters are a lot milder and summers a lot hotter than there were when I was a kid.  Oh, yeah, and 95% of Climate Scientists say it is so.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Look at the facts and the track record, FDR was a DISASTER! Had been been a real man like George Washington or Calvin Coolidge, he would have only served two terms. Instead he wanted to be like his Uncle Joe Stalin -- a dictator for life. So he got us into WWII after the end of his unmitigated disaster of a second term
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If his second term was such a disaster, why did he not only win a third term, but win decisively?
> 
> He carried 38 states, with 449 electoral votes and won 55% of the electorate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because....
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> Not unlike you being fooled by Big Ears, big government, Democrats, liberalism, socialism, AGW, and so much more.
> 
> It is clear YOU can be fooled ALL the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, guy, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008.
> 
> And the only reason why I voted for him in 2012 is because the GOP nominated a fucking MORMON.
> 
> And why would I believe in AGW?  Oh, yeah, because I'm 52 years old, and I see that winters are a lot milder and summers a lot hotter than there were when I was a kid.  Oh, yeah, and 95% of Climate Scientists say it is so.
Click to expand...


Now that last paragraph proves you can be fooled all the time.

Thank you for proving my point...though I suspect you are incapable of understanding your own foolishness.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> And why would I believe in AGW?  Oh, yeah, because I'm 52 years old, and I see that winters are a lot milder and summers a lot hotter than there were when I was a kid.  Oh, yeah, and 95% of Climate Scientists say it is so.



Now that last paragraph proves you can be fooled all the time.

Thank you for proving my point...though I suspect you are incapable of understanding your own foolishness.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, unlike Conservatards, I can analyze evidence. 

"Why, that Science contradicts my world view!!! I reject Science!" 

Evolution. Global Warming.  Disagrees with your world-view and you reject it.  

The rest of us don't have that luxury.  We live in the real world.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> And why would I believe in AGW?  Oh, yeah, because I'm 52 years old, and I see that winters are a lot milder and summers a lot hotter than there were when I was a kid.  Oh, yeah, and 95% of Climate Scientists say it is so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that last paragraph proves you can be fooled all the time.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point...though I suspect you are incapable of understanding your own foolishness.
Click to expand...


Yeah, unlike Conservatards, I can analyze evidence.

"Why, that Science contradicts my world view!!! I reject Science!"

Evolution. Global Warming.  Disagrees with your world-view and you reject it. 

The rest of us don't have that luxury.  We live in the real world.[/QUOTE]

Let me decode your response.

What you should have posted:
The elite Left says AGW is real...so I dutifully believe them.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Let me decode your response.
> 
> What you should have posted:
> The elite Left says AGW is real...so I dutifully believe them.



No, I believe them because 

1) They are scientists who specialize in the study of this issue, and 95% of them say this is a problem.  

2) They can show me evidence proving their point- Higher temperatures, melting ice caps, melting permafrost, and so on.  

3) I can see evidence in the context of my own life, where we had BRUTAL winters here in Chicago when I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, but the winters now... meh, not so much.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me decode your response.
> 
> What you should have posted:
> The elite Left says AGW is real...so I dutifully believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe them because
> 
> 1) They are scientists who specialize in the study of this issue, and 95% of them say this is a problem.
> 
> 2) They can show me evidence proving their point- Higher temperatures, melting ice caps, melting permafrost, and so on.
> 
> 3) I can see evidence in the context of my own life, where we had BRUTAL winters here in Chicago when I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, but the winters now... meh, not so much.
Click to expand...


There is a ton of evidence that clearly shows a lack of warming and that AGW is nothing more than a big government hoax.

I can't help you when you are blinded by propaganda.

AGW is politics...not science.


----------



## regent

Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns


CrusaderFrank said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
Click to expand...


Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good. 
s


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
Click to expand...


Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me decode your response.
> 
> What you should have posted:
> The elite Left says AGW is real...so I dutifully believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I believe them because
> 
> 1) They are scientists who specialize in the study of this issue, and 95% of them say this is a problem.
> 
> 2) They can show me evidence proving their point- Higher temperatures, melting ice caps, melting permafrost, and so on.
> 
> 3) I can see evidence in the context of my own life, where we had BRUTAL winters here in Chicago when I was growing up in the 1960's and 1970's, but the winters now... meh, not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a ton of evidence that clearly shows a lack of warming and that AGW is nothing more than a big government hoax.
> 
> I can't help you when you are blinded by propaganda.
> 
> AGW is politics...not science.
Click to expand...




gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.
Click to expand...

And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic slowdown in the 1920's actually started in 1927 for most Americans, and unemployment started rising, just a few years after the 1919-1921 recession after WW I. The stock market promised higher returns than investing in real businesses and sucked up money like a sponge, just like all  the other  'booms' have, before and after the 1920's, including the current one. The economy began turning around within months of FDR's election, and by 1937 was almost back to pre-Depression levels of output.
> 
> As always, large increases in productivity rates caused employment to lag way behind, a recurrent problem throughout the 19th and 20th century, right up to today. Pile 'outsourcing' to 'business friendly' slave labor and sweatshop countries, like Red China and Viet Nam, Mexico, etc. through various scams like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, and the domestic economy ends up with almost no connection to the Wall Street and Greenwich, Conn. economy people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet live in.
> 
> I see Frank weighed in to provide a fine example of the clueless cognitive dissonance I was talking about.
> 
> Thanks, Frank!
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?
Click to expand...


It only takes a little commonsense, something you apparently lack.

Any historian who claims murderous, deceptive, corrupt, and heinous acts by politicians makes them great, is an idiot....and naturally a statist historian.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe schools should drop history from their curriculumns
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing consistent throughout all Progressive thought is that it is founded on repeated and pathological lies. Once I fully understood just how pervasive this is, how it's down to the DNA level it became so much easier to deal with you fuckers.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid and it really makes no difference you got everything totally wrong. But again you can't get to the Imaginary Greatness of FDR unless you're a pathological liar. You also can only disparage the phenomenal record of Coolidge by being a fucking liar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do schools even teach history if all historians are liars? Maybe history is a subject that should be dropped from schools along with some science courses and other subjects that raise controversy? Another solution might be two types of history courses: one type taught by historians and another by politicians.  Come to think of it this could be my chance to teach medicine. Surely there is controversy in the medical field and I have lots of ideas on medicine. Doctor Regent, M.D. Sounds pretty good.
> s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not all historians are liars.  Only statist historians are liars.  There is a difference, but you are incapable of seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So tell us how to see the difference. So far, if an historian believes FDR was a great president he is a liar, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It only takes a little commonsense, something you apparently lack.
> 
> Any historian who claims murderous, deceptive, corrupt, and heinous acts by politicians makes them great, is an idiot....and naturally a statist historian.
Click to expand...


----------



## regent

Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?



Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.

You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens?  Now try to think hard on that question.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.
> 
> You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens?  Now try to think hard on that question.
Click to expand...

Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.


----------



## gipper

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.
> 
> You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens?  Now try to think hard on that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.
Click to expand...


I see you did not think too hard about my question.  Not surprised.

If you just do a little research into the lives of historians who criticized and exposed the state, you will find the answer.  It is a task I fear beyond your abilities.


----------



## regent

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I want to have common sense like you but the hard part is understanding why historians have to lie to be an historian. Is it only those that teach high school, college or graduate school history that are liars, if so can we trist the other historians to tell the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that post should tell you something, but alas I have little faith.
> 
> You see...when an historian exposes the state, for what it is, guess what happens?  Now try to think hard on that question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aha, that's probably the reason for tenure in schools, right? It's all starting to fall in place now. Those school districts without tenure have their historians over the proverbial barrel, they have to lie to hold their jobs, but with tenure historians don't have to lie to hold their jobs and can expose the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you did not think too hard about my question.  Not surprised.
> 
> If you just do a little research into the lives of historians who criticized and exposed the state, you will find the answer.  It is a task I fear beyond your abilities.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to say, but keep it up. In the meantime I discovered why historians are given tenure and why they are liars.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> [
> 
> *There is a ton of evidence that clearly shows a lack of warming and that AGW is nothing more than a big government hoax.*
> 
> I can't help you when you are blinded by propaganda.
> 
> AGW is politics...not science.



Uh, no, there really isn't.  but your ignorance of science is duly noted.


----------



## Picaro

Camp said:


> And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.



Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.


----------



## gipper

Picaro said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.
Click to expand...


Yep...because everyone knows politicians ALWAYS tell the truth and would never deceive the people.


----------



## Camp

gipper said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet not one single historian of repute can be found to support the OP of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's because it isn't a History thread, and it belongs in the Conspiratard forums, not here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep...because everyone knows politicians ALWAYS tell the truth and would never deceive the people.
Click to expand...

So all historians are politicians?


----------



## Toronado3800

Sigh.

Well lets go for some facts.  Tell me about the 1943 German peace offers.


----------

