# FDR's Lend-Lease....or Stalin's?



## PoliticalChic (Jul 11, 2013)

1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
 Less well known, when told about the spies, *Roosevelt simply laughed.*





2. Another case was *Lend-Lease: 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.*
West, "American Betrayal," chapter two.

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




3. 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.





4. 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.

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

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





5. What was the cost of* FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? *One example, found in Paul Johnson'sw "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore." Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

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





a. Be clear as what 'nothing' meant.
 Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think *Bataan and Corregidor.* The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.

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




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


*Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?*

No doubt.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Jul 11, 2013)

Wait, wait, wait, wait! Wait just a minute there! Are you saying that the US built up it's long time cold War Enemy? Next thing yer gonna' tell us is that Bankers helped Lenin get in power!

American Lend/Lease Bell P-39 Fighter:


----------



## mamooth (Jul 11, 2013)

Was there a point to the OP? We know lend-lease existed. It's absurd to claim it was because FDR was a commie, and pointless to cherrypick dubious factoids.

Quoting Johnson doesn't help credibility either, given that Johnson hated Kennedy for not going war over Cuba, adored dictators like Franco and Pinochet, thought Nixon was a victim of the liberals, and is known for creative versions of history.

Oh, when a B-25 from the Doolittle raid diverted to Russia, the Russians took the crew into custody, as was required by their treaty with Japan. And treated the crew very well. And later helped the crew "escape" into Iran and back to allied lines. Doesn't sound like they hated us.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 11, 2013)

mamooth said:


> Was there a point to the OP? We know lend-lease existed. It's absurd to claim it was because FDR was a commie, and pointless to cherrypick dubious factoids.
> 
> Quoting Johnson doesn't help credibility either, given that Johnson hated Kennedy for not going war over Cuba, adored dictators like Franco and Pinochet, thought Nixon was a victim of the liberals, and is known for creative versions of history.
> 
> Oh, when a B-25 from the Doolittle raid diverted to Russia, the Russians took the crew into custody, as was required by their treaty with Japan. And treated the crew very well. And later helped the crew "escape" into Iran and back to allied lines. Doesn't sound like they hated us.





"It's absurd to claim it was because FDR was a commie,..."



1. "William Albert Wirt (18741938) was a superintendent of schools in Gary, Indiana. Wirt developed the Gary Plan for the more efficient use of school facilities, a reform of the Progressive Movement that was widely adopted in other cities....  After his testimony against the Roosevelt Brain Trust, he was denounced as a reactionary by Democrats and those on the left,..." 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wirt_(educator)



2. You see, Roosevelt's New Deal was riddled with communists....paid agents of Stalin. 
At a dinner party, a number administration officials spilled the beans, spoke openly about the plans to cause a revolution so they can rebuild America in the Soviet's image. 
"Wirt claimed he had "discovered" evidence of a plot within FDR's administration to launch a Bolshevik takeover of the United States..... garnering all kind of media attention, and even testifying before Congress about his evidence of a "concrete plan" for the overthrow of the U.S. government crafted by members of FDR's "Brain Trusters."

*"Roosevelt is only the Kerensky of this revolution," he quoted them. (Kerensky was the provisional leader of Russia just before the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.) The hoodwinked president would be permitted to stay in office, they said, "until we are ready to supplant him with a Stalin." *The Washington Monthly


3. On April 10, 1934, Wirt was brought before a select committee of two Republicans and three Democrats.\
 "Contrary to custom, Wirt wouldn't be allowed to read his 10-minute opening statement (3-2 party line vote), would not be allowed counsel (3-2 party line vote), wouldn't be allowed to rebut charges against him (3-2 party line vote), even the false accusation that he had been jailed for German sympathies (Democrat chairman admitted they were false five days later).
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p.2.

a. The committee (guess the vote) refused to call any of the administration officials Wirt cited, including the Agriculture Department who told Wirt about retarding economic recovery to speed the revolution, and the housing officials planning to collectivize American workers in government planned communities. 
West, Op.Cit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 11, 2013)

Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.





Perhaps we thought there would be too high a risk to reinforce those troops?

How would it compare to the risk of supplying the Soviets?

In July, 1942, a supply convoy called PQ-17 was sent to supply the USSR at Murmansk. Only 11 of the 35 merchant ships in the convoy survived German attacks. 
Robert Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins: An Intimate History," vol.2, p.634-645.





Could an attempt to supply MacArthur have cost more men and material? 




The explanation: an unnoticed, unimagined crime of Communist penetration and influence on American policy, not only during the war....but after.

There was the infamous "betrayal at Yalta" that handed Eastern Europe to the Soviet.


Perhaps a greater betrayal was the besmirching of America's shining moment: at the end of WWII when our leaders allowed the lesson of our great moral and noble achievement to sink from memory to be replaced by postmodern doubt and multicultural division. 
West, "American Betrayal," p. 48.


Certainly appears that FDR was taking orders from elsewhere.....or at least persuaded....or influenced?


----------



## Spoonman (Jul 12, 2013)

what is more damning is the the majority of the supplies provided were never even opened and used during the war.  they sat on docks and in storage yards.  Stalin kept calling for more when he wasn't even using what he was getting.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
> Less well known, when told about the spies, *Roosevelt simply laughed.*
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, if we had shipped those airplanes to the Philippines instead of Russia, they would have been destroyed on the ground along with the rest of the airplanes we had sent to MacArthur. Another little error by Mac. 
Every German killed by the Russians was one German less to oppose the Americans and British. In fact, could we have defeated Germany without the Russians, and what would the allied casualties have been like?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
> ...







4. 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.


So.....you don't want to take the challenge, reggie?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

The scumbag FDR is indefensible for a great many reasons, some you have described quite well above.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



So what's the challenge, to defend a president that was elected four times by the American people (a record) and rated America's greatest president by the most noted historians and presidential experts? 
To offer evidence such as sending butter to Russia might have had more impact if it was also mentioned that FDR physically leaned a lot on his son, and Eleanor's columns were idle chatter and that FDR was such an egoist that he insisted we win our war. 
Still, after all these years I can understand why FDR is still such a thorn to conservatives when they offer us such, as Bush and Romney.  Perhaps there is an estimate somewhere in all those tomes of the number of Americans that would have died if the USSR had made a peace with Hitler? Butter indeed.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




How about to address the very specific points raised by Political Chick instead of avoiding them in favor of sloppy, moist, hero-worship of the worst scumbag ever to soil the office of President of the United States?


----------



## hoosier88 (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. *The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.
> 
> Perhaps we thought there would be too high a risk to reinforce those troops?
> 
> ...



(My bold)

McArthur had perfectly adequate supplies & ammo & arms.  Eisenhower was his XO, & Eisenhower was excellent on logistics.  McArthur, however, detached from the US Army, & getting paid handsomely to head up the Philippine military, decided to defend against a Japanese invasion @ the beaches.  (He didn't have the manpower nor prepared positions.  Nor a plan for callup & formation of units & deployment, after arming & equipping the men.  But he did move his supply depots to just behind the beaches, where they were excellent supplements for the Japanese invasion forces to liberate & celebrate with.)

McArthur also failed to carry out his orders from the US to launch a full-fledged long-range bomber attack (B-17s, as I recall.  That's why B-17s were assigned to the Philippines in the first place) on the Japanese main airbase for the attack on the Philippines in Formosa.  He dithered & wept & basically lost his nerve - darker murmurings are that he took a pile of *baksheesh* from the Philippine governor to throw the match & allow the Japanese into essentially an "open country".  Last laugh on the governor, if that was true.  The Japanese wanted resources & space, & they weren't about to waste a bullet on anyone when there was *katana* & bayonet practice to be had.

So, McArthur had thrown away the supplies he had.  Good milk after bad wouldn't have helped us @ all.  Although MrArthur did buck up after we held a tickertape parade for him & awarded him the Medal of Honor, for gallantly abandoning his command to the tender mercies of the IJA & IJN.

Back @ the main event, FDR sent every scrap of aid he could get to the USSR because they were killing Nazis.  The USSR was the only country killing Nazis in great numbers, & the only WWII country that ever did kill great numbers of Nazis (look @ casualties for WWII) although the USSR itself finally staggered to an end in the 1990s.

Or would you rather be speaking German these days?  If you actually look like your avatar, the *Sonderkommando* might have allowed you to live.  Although given your politics, maybe not.


----------



## Spoonman (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
> ...



macarthur got nothing. men, material.  everything he got was outdated and not wanted by the other generals for the war in Europe.  macarthur was left to rot on the vine.  told to hold out as long as he could with what he had.  his defeat was expected and they only hoped he could hold out as long as he could.  it was very clear the strategy was Europe first.  any resources in the pacific went to Nimitz.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



How about letting PC answer for herself? As for your opinion on FDR how does one answer the charges that the sun revolves about the earth?


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


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





And here you are avoiding facts again in favor of mindless hero-worship.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




The Philippines were written off with the loss of the ships at Pearl, all the Orange plans were to no avail. 
Nimitz got the fleet, because he was navy. There is, and was, tremendous inter-service rivalry and because of that rivalry the Pacific was divided into two primary theaters, Southwest Pacific and Central Pacific. Did that dividing the Pacific lengthen the Pacific war, and did we need to retake the Philippines or was that just a MacArthur's ego trip?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. *The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.
> ...






Was macht Sie glauben, ich spreche kein Deutsch?





" FDR sent every scrap of aid he could get to the USSR because they were killing Nazis."

You really haven't addressed the point.


Unless your argument is that the Russians were dropping bathtubs and pianos on the Nazis, and hardening their arteries with Paula Deen-butter laden dishes.....


Here's that partial list again....

2. Another case was Lend-Lease: 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.
West, "American Betrayal," chapter two.


3. 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.

4. 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.



And, pay special attention to the hearing Congress held on the atomic materials sent....




Need I spell out what the subtext is?


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You might want to do some more homework on Lend-Lease? What was it's objective? Did your author mention reverse lend lease, materials other nations sent to the US including uranium, and cheese?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...





With Michael gone, I might have to recommend you as a replacement....

...'cause that's some mighty fancy foot-work you're doing....


Perhaps it was your inattention....you did have a misplaced question mark in line one....


Re-read from "You really haven't addressed the point" and see if you actually respond to the post.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2013)

> Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.



how could the US supply the Philippines with an over powering Japanese  navy?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2013)

Sometime allies are evil but serve a purpose.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> > Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.
> 
> 
> 
> how could the US supply the Philippines with an over powering Japanese  navy?



Air power.

200 modern fighters that were meant to be there, were re-routed by FDR's orders, to Stalin.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > > Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.
> ...



How do you get them across the ocean, flying them amongst a very strong Japanese land and fleet based air force?
You see at the time we had only a small navy after Pearl Harbor and the area you claim to need them was in Japanese controlled waters. Should we have flown them from Russia?
The priority of the allies was to concentrate on Europe first, Japan secondly.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jul 13, 2013)

Hey, comrade PC...

*How Stalin Funded the Tea Party Movement*






I would rather live under a bridge than live under socialism

tea bagger slogan



Everyone knows that Tea Party revolutionaries fear and hate socialism about as much as the Antichrist. Which is funny, because the Tea Party movements dirty little secret is that it owes its existence to the grandaddy of all Antichrists: the godless empire of the USSR.

What few realize is that the secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family, the main supporters of the right-wing groups that orchestrated the Tea Party movement, would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.

The comrades were good to the Kochs. Today Koch Industries has grown into the second-largest private company in America. With an annual revenue of $100 billion, the company was just $6.3 billion shy of first place in 2008. Ownership is kept strictly in the family, with the company being split roughly between right-wing brothers Charles and David Koch, who are worth about $20 billion apiece and are infamous as the largest sponsors of right-wing causes. They bankroll scores of free-market and libertarian think tanks, institutes and advocacy groups. Reason magazine, Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute are just a few of Koch-backed free-market operations. Greenpeace estimates that the Koch family shelled out $25 million from 2005 to 2008 funding the climate denial machine, which means they outspent Exxon Mobile three to one.






But the Tea Party movementand Koch familys obscene wealthgo back more than half a century, all the way to grandpa Fredrick C. Koch, one of the founding members of the far-rightwing John Birch Society which was convinced that evil socialism was taking over America through unions, colored people, Jews, homosexuals, the Kennedys and even Dwight D. Eisenhower.






*Koch lived up to the slogan: Work hard enough for Comrade Stalin to thank you!*

more for comrade PC...


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jul 13, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Indeed.someone here is indeed hero worshipping and avoiding facts.

worst at the time anyways,Not ever.every president since him with the exception of Kennedy and Carter has been worse than the previous one.

one more point about that bastard FDR that needs to be mentioned that was left out as well is how he withheld intelligence from the admiral fleet and knew japan would attack them and did not tell the navy commanders of the impending strike.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > > Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.
> ...





The Field Marshall was not ready for war in December, he had predicted April so MacArthur wasn't quite ready, in fact, MacArthur learned of Pearl Harbor over commercial radio. The navy in Manila didn't tell Doug. 
The air power MacArthur had, was of course not sufficient, thanks to the Republican Congress that fought FDR on rearming America. When the air force suggested that Formosa be bombed MacArthur stalled but the Japanese did not, and they caught Mac's air force on the ground and destroyed half of it. Had those 200 modern fighters been there half would have been lost in that raid. 
If Stalin did get those 200 modern fighters, and P39's were not top of the line, I hope the Russians used them to destroy Germans.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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



How many times has the Congress investigated Pearl Harbor, and nothing. Have you told the historians, the Congress, the Tea Party, the Republican Party, about the historical information that you have and your opinion that FDR was a bad president, seems they might be very interested in your historical facts?


----------



## hoosier88 (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



(My bold)

The point is - in war, you need to kill your enemies.  McArthur in Philippines, Brits in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, French in Indochina, Dutch in Surinam (was it?) & the allies in all points in Southern Pacific were being driven into the water or inland, cut up & cut off, killed or taken prisoner.  The USSR was killing Nazis.  That's all there was to it.  

The Nazis & USSR had butchered Poland between them, & the USSR got to take over the Baltic States.  Once it was convenient, the Nazis attacked the USSR.  We needed the USSR in the war, certainly the US nor UK, nor the Allies could single-handedly take the massive military & civilian casualties, the massive destruction of goods, plants, denied access to crops & raw materials - that the USSR did & managed to keep on fighting.

It's the same reason we backed the Communists in China over the G'mo - the G'mo sat around a lot & saved his forces & materiel to fight the continuation of the civil war, after WWII was somehow won for him.  The Communist Chinese forces fought & fought & fought the Japanese.

Why would we sent atomic materials to the USSR?  They weren't going to do anything with such materials, even if we had sent them.  But I'll bite:  What atomic materials?  What did we send to the USSR?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...




" That's all there was to it."


Not much of an explanation of the specifics in the OP/posts.

How's this: why don't you just say that it sure looks like FDR was taking orders from his Uncle  Joe.


----------



## hoosier88 (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



(My bold)

Stalin/the USSR was killing Nazis.  They were losing horrendously, trading space & lives for time to reform & reorganize.  But they were holding on, & bleeding the Nazis for every foot of ground they took.

FDR was an educated person, not some trifling B-grade actor who switched parties, ditched his wife, headed up SAG, then denounced unions, talked up Evangelical issues (without actually doing anything for them), then taking up astrology, fer crying out loud.  He appointed his campaign manager to DCIA, who promptly embroiled us in backing the mujahadeen in Afghanistan big time (routing money, supplies, political capital through Pakistan, who skimmed off a lot for their trouble, to destroy their own internal national economy & politics, & to build up their network of proteges, the Pakistani-leaning mujahids, & to build their own nuke infrastructure).

FDR picked people who were effective, & if they weren't, he got rid of them & tried again.  When we needed a hero, he slapped lipstick & the MOH on McArthur & trotted him out for the press.  Same for the B-24 carrier raid on Tokyo - not much of a military threat, but it punctured the illusion of invulnerability that the IJN had cultivated over the decades.

WWII was an ugly business all around, & McArthur played his part, after getting over his initial poor planning & funk @ the actual invasion.  We needed the USSR in the war, & if getting more supplies to them resulted in fewer Germans to fight on the Western Front, FDR considered it a fair trade.  & so he turned on the spigot & never turned it off, until he died in his traces.

He knew perfectly well that Stalin would have shot all the patricians he could get his hands on.  No matter, Stalin needed arms, ammo, food, transport.  We supplied them, & gladly.  We had a war to win.  

The specifics you mention remind me of a *chihuahua* yapping @ my ankles.  Unless he actually bites, it's all show.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...





The truth will set you free.


The thread has made the case that FDR had an inordinate sensitivity, even obeisance, for the USSR and Stalin.

Your fear of that truth leads you to believe that an attack on the great man who saved the world from communism will, somehow, shield the man who enjoyed his empowering the 'evil empire.'


It doesn't.

It simply makes you look foolish.....transparently so,


1. The major player in the Alger Hiss saga was fellow Communist, Whitaker Chambers. In his book, "Witness," Chambers explains is disillusionment as follows. 

In 1938, he determined not only to break with the Communist Party, but to inform on the Party when he could. The reason was that he was informed that Stalin was making efforts to align with Hitler, in 1939, and from any human point of view, the pact was evil.

 As Hitler marched into Poland, Chambers arranged a private meeting with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelts assistant Secy of State. *Chambers detailed the Communist espionage network, naming at least two dozen Soviet spies in Roosevelts administration, including Alger Hiss. Berle reported this to Roosevelt, who laughed, and told Berle to go f---  himself.*
 (Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexaming the Life and Legacy of Americas Most Hated Senator, p. 60)

2.  No action was taken, and in fact, *Roosevelt promoted Hiss.* 
Almost a decade later, Chambers was called before the HUAC and named Hiss as a Soviet agent. Hiss sued Chambers, at which time Chambers presented  four notes in Alger Hiss's handwriting, sixty-five typewritten copies of State Department documents and five strips of microfilm, some of which contained photographs of State Department documents. The press came to call these the "Pumpkin Papers"(Whittaker Chambers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) 

3. And, of course, all doubt was removed in 1995, when the Venona Soviet cables were decrypted.


So....was Roosevelt stupid?

Or, a dupe with eyes wide shut?



BTW....do you know about anti-communist Democrat Martin Dies?

He began the HUAC hearings.

I believe I'll write an OP about how FDR worked to shut down those hearings.


Fell free to write another hagiographic post about your hero....
You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

Do Americans today realize how important it was for the US and Britain to keep the Soviet Union alive and fighting the Germans? 
Perhaps another way to look at Lend Lease is that until DDAY  the Britain and the US were using the USSR to fight Germany. Wonder if Stalin was upset when the allies invaded Africa rather than Europe? Could the US and Britain have defeated Germany without the USSR, and if so at what cost?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 13, 2013)

regent said:


> Do Americans today realize how important it was for the US and Britain to keep the Soviet Union alive and fighting the Germans?
> Perhaps another way to look at Lend Lease is that until DDAY  the Britain and the US were using the USSR to fight Germany. Wonder if Stalin was upset when the allies invaded Africa rather than Europe? Could the US and Britain have defeated Germany without the USSR, and if so at what cost?




You can run, but you can't hide.



"Major George Lacey Jordan started a diary in 1942 when, as liaison to Soviet officials receiving materiel via lend-lease, he grew suspicious about the nature of these airborne shipments from the US over the Arctic to the USSR. 

Stationed at Great Falls, Montana, Major Jordan documented evidence that Americans high up within the FDR administration were providing the USSR with the raw materials, technology, equipment, and know-how to make atomic bombs. And this at a time when our own were still under development in supposed secrecy.

As catalogued in the diaries, all the materiel required for the creation of an atomic pile was transferred to the USSR as early as 1942. The materiel included bomb powder (uranium oxide), graphite in numerous forms, cadmium, cobalt, thorium, and $13,000,000 worth of aluminum tubes."
Major Jordans Diaries  How Lend-Lease diverted Atomic Materials to the USSR - Historum - History Forums



C'mon, reggie.....don't you find that just a little....interesting?


Explanation?


----------



## hoosier88 (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


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



(My bold)

Nah, if you actually read the historum site - under "lend lease ussr nuclear material" you'll see calculations that the amount of uranium transferred couldn't possibly have been enough for a nuke pile.  The amount of weapons-grade fissile U can't have been enough to construct a nuke device, not even assuming 100% efficiency in refining.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 13, 2013)

FDR was very chummy with "uncle Joe" as he called Stalin often at the expense of his relationship with Churchill. FDR was a very sick man when democrats lied to the American people as they ran the near corpse for his 4th term. Stalin was in his prime and ran circles around FDR during critical meetings before the end of the war. It set the stage for the Iron Curtain.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

9/11 inside job said:


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





None have ever been as bad as FDR.


----------



## Unkotare (Jul 13, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> It's the same reason we backed the Communists in China over the G'mo - the G'mo sat around a lot & saved his forces & materiel to fight the continuation of the civil war, after WWII was somehow won for him.  The Communist Chinese forces fought & fought & fought the Japanese.





The Communists and the Nationalists both fought each other as much as they did the Japanese (despite a supposed truce). This is one reason why so much of China was taken and held with such relative speed and ease.  And both sought to position themselves to the greatest advantage at the war's end. Mao planned on this if anything more so than did Chiang Kai-Shek.


----------



## regent (Jul 13, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Do Americans today realize how important it was for the US and Britain to keep the Soviet Union alive and fighting the Germans?
> ...


I'll wait till the movie comes out. If there was any real substance to these charges beyond the evidence offered I would be more concerned. I think some of us accept the fact that the USSR had spies in the US, and I accept the premise that we had and have spies in other nations as well, it's part of the game. How many foreign spies are in our government today and how many do we know about and track? With all its spies the USSR is now gone, Hitler is gone, and many other sources of spies are gone, and we're still here. Maybe our spies are better?
It's our politicians that I fear more than spies; politicians that take us to war based on misinformation, information that supposedly came from our spies. Think of the damage our own spies could do if they lied like politicians.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



That isn't the point, is it.

And, I did read all of it.
And more.


No...the point is two fold: 
1.As the thread indicates,there is more to FDR's relationship with the USSR/Stalin than you apologists allow.

2. Intelligent people such as you and reggie are unable to break free of your childish worship,  and address the real questions of history and politics.





I hope you will continue to read posts of mine that reveal links of FDR's to.....let's call it 'the unknown until now.'

You may comment or not, as you wish.


----------



## regent (Jul 14, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



All those historians with that same childish worship, how do we account for that? How do we account for the American people's childish worship? How do we account for the years of Republican attempts to destroy that childish worship? So many attempts to undo that childish worship and it's still there, and worse, over time, it's no longer considered childish. 
Oppenheimer and the others knew it would only be a matter of time until others built the bomb and the bigger question was should we use it on people or what? 
And of Lend Lease, America sent factories to the USSR along with the butter and some day an author will discover that and out will come a book explaining how we dismantled General Motors and sent it to the USSR under the guise of Lend Lease. 
Thousands of mistakes were made in WWII from bad decisions by PFC's to the president.


----------



## hoosier88 (Jul 14, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



(My bold)

So, are you a Turing routine running on someone's mainframe?  If so, please have the techs dial back on the condescension.  & have them update your DBs - they seem antique.  Try to get some more up-to-date stuff to hurl about.

& thanks for the *permission*, BTW.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

hoosier88 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...





Gee....I thought one who wrote "The specifics you mention remind me of a chihuahua yapping @ my ankles." would appreciate the tone.



"...up-to-date stuff...."
Actually, the material I provide is up-to-date stuff.....and that's exactly what you FDR-worshipers find annoying......

...what you refer to as 'yapping at your ankles.'
Some would call that condescending.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...





So....you'd like to hide behind "All those historians...."??


You use the word 'historian' as though it was other than a synonym for 'Liberal'

...let's disabuse you of that, immediately:

a. "The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919.  Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919.  While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as *most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein."*
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford  DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century  


b. "The leading academics find that the greatest modern Presidents are those that have made government bigger and more powerful, and have expanded the reach of the presidency, i.e., Woodrow Wilson and FDR. By the same token, *those Presidents with a limited-government POV, such as Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, are treated dismissively by journalists and historians."*
Hayward, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama"


c. "The same political correctness showed up in a planned exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The commentary on the exhibit included: For most Americansit was a war of vengeance. For most Japanese, it was a war to defend their unique culture against Western imperialism. * Smithsonian historians* didnt care to comment on the blood war of aggression against China, atrocities in the Philippines and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor."
Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"



d. "Liberals have their pantheon of presidents, established by the *New Deal historians. *"Great presidents," in their view, are those who expand the size and scope of the federal government..." 
Michael Barone, Opinion, Editorials, Columns, Op-Ed, Letters to the Editor, Commentary - Wall Street Journal - Wsj.com




You Leftists will say anything to avoid actual thinking....or confronting reality.


----------



## regent (Jul 14, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> hoosier88 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That up-to-date stuff is over seventy years old, it has been explored, gone over, piece by piece years ago by Republicans in their quest to defame FDR. 
Conservatives can only hope a revival of that old material will be fresh and exciting to a new generation and maybe in book form it will garner a few bucks. 
Perhaps conservatives would do better with a new investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack, or FDR's failure to rearm America. If those fail, how about FDR's dog, Fala?  Fala was good for a short time. 
These new revelations of ancient themes might sell books and excite some, but are pretty much old hat. In fact, I wonder if FDR is our most investigated president?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > hoosier88 said:
> ...





Could you provide links re: atomic material in Lend-Lease to USSR that has been "explored, gone over, piece by piece years ago..." 

...and I'd be happy to provide a rep.


Otherwise you might look like sniveling FDR boot-licker, trying to deflect criticism without actually dealing with it.


And that's not the case.....

....is it?


----------



## regent (Jul 14, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



First, what is atomic material? 
Second, you're getting into your personal attack mode. 
Third, I don't meed to deflect criticism, FDR's place in history is not dependent on these boards or poster's opinions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





Now, now, reggie....

You vowed "That up-to-date stuff is over seventy years old, it has been explored, gone over, piece by piece years ago by Republicans in their quest to defame FDR."


And now you have a new tune?
"First, what is atomic material?"



But....I do love your vid:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PibDMGxiyJw]Sargent Schultz I see nothing - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 14, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





"Second, you're getting into your personal attack mode."

'getting into'????


First thing I do every morning is brush my teeth and sharpen my tongue. 




Don't forget.....'you only hurt the ones you love.'


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
> Less well known, when told about the spies, *Roosevelt simply laughed.*
> 
> 
> ...



2, 6 Revolution took the Russians out of The War to End All Wars.  Omaha beach would have been really well defended by the Germans if Stalin was overthrown mid-war

6a yeah, we got caught ready for war against the 1904 Japanese Navy.  That one had us looking like France in May 1940.

6b, The Russian Front was the big one where the Germans would win or lose the war.  

Also for the last 100 years we have been trying to win over our enemies with love.  I suppose it worked in Japan even after we nuked em.

Your last question of if Stalin was able to infiltrate the US better than we infiltrated Russia is more interesting.  I imagine in 1941 FDR and anyone with military sense feared a 1942 with the German Army in the Urals.  Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk are all taken for granted now but in the 1941 during which we were not at war for 340+ days of, the fall of the Soviet Union seemed as real a possibility as the fall of France.


----------



## Auteur (Jul 30, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. It is well known and documented that FDR's administration was riddled with Stalin's agents, and, in many ways, *policy was directed from Moscow.* Case in point, aid to Mao and resistance to helping Chiang Kaichek.
> Less well known, when told about the spies, *Roosevelt simply laughed.*
> 
> 
> ...



The right-wing paranoia of some in the US never ceases to amaze me. Both the US, and Britain, backed the Soviets because they were in a life and death struggle with fascism, and the Soviets were (unfortunately) temporarily needed. A large portion of the war was fought on the Russian front, and considerable help was needed there in order to avoid disaster. As with economic questions, FDR understood this better than many others in the US, no great surprise I guess.

There was indeed increasing doubt about Soviet intentions in Eastern Europe, but there was no doubt about the consequences of a German victory, or even a standoff with Hitler,  hence the aid. The more extreme statements here are highly dubious however.

Out tens of thousands of planes produced (and destroyed) 200 were not going to sway very much, and would not have saved Singapore. You might also want to look at an atlas, and check the distance between there and the Philippines.

As for not wanting the Russian front to collapse, he was correct. The resources and land base of the Soviet Union falling to fascism would have been a disaster. Japan was already overextended in the Pacific, and Australia, and even more so New Zealand, were not likely to go under. And even if they did, tough as it may seem, they would have been a lesser problem to losing the Eurasian land mass.


----------



## bendog (Jul 30, 2013)

It was FDR's deviously communist plot to use the Red Army to bleed the Nazis throughout 1943 and avoid a real second front till 1944.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 30, 2013)

One stray logic thought I am having is that if FDR was in bed with the left wing Communists and was fighting with them against something it was probably the right wing Hitler.

There is another post or two on here about the leftist Hitler I am going to link this thread to so PC can shut down that line if thinking lol.

Really I believe the step across the ends of the horse shoe is pretty small but hey, its interesting.


----------



## regent (Jul 30, 2013)

The second front in Europe was talked about for 1942, but instead the allies invaded Africa delaying the European front until 1944. Most of Lend lease went to about forty nations and some nations sent America some Lend Lease including Cheese. The sea voyage to the USSR was one of the most hazardous trips and instead of shipping parts we did send factories. And it's true the Russians were not allies like the English, they were very difficult to abide, but still every German they killed was one German less. Might check out the casualty figures.  In that regard it was essential that we keep Russia in the game, in fact, I wonder if we could have won in Europe with out the Russians? But keeping Russia in the war seemed essential for the Allies. I'm sure some remembered that Russia did drop out in WWI and make a separate peace with Germany. But Monday morning quarterbacking seems pretty easy.


----------



## jwoodie (Jul 31, 2013)

OK, the lesson to be taken from the OP is that FDR was a great politician, but not a great "wartime leader."  His decisions usually reflected a path of least resistance, which gave an advantage to his more determined "ally" (Stalin).  About the most that can be said about FDR's conduct of WW2 was that he saved American lives by allowing the USSR and Germany to bleed themselves dry before we invaded Europe.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 31, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> OK, the lesson to be taken from the OP is that FDR was a great politician, but not a great "wartime leader."  His decisions usually reflected a path of least resistance, which gave an advantage to his more determined "ally" (Stalin).  About the most that can be said about FDR's conduct of WW2 was that he saved American lives by allowing the USSR and Germany to bleed themselves dry before we invaded Europe.



I will disagree a bit.  FDR was the driving force behind getting us into the war as fast as we did.  For trivia look up Charles Lindbergh.  Imagine if one of them isolationists, pacifists, NAZI lovers or Stalin haters was president.  It was a real movement at the time.  In some ways I can understand.  Imagine being a WWI vet having to decide to send your kid to the next European war.

Now FDR did not hammer home the importance of planes to the Navy or blitzkreig but hey, we had our navy in the right place.  Guess like Lincoln he was a president who needed generals to be generals.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

bendog said:


> It was FDR's deviously communist plot to use the Red Army to bleed the Nazis throughout 1943 and avoid a real second front till 1944.



You are, of course, a dim-wit.

Do you understand the full implication of "dim"?
Good.

Sadly, you have a great deal of company.


If Roosevelt's plan was to use Russia in the battle against Nazi Germany, which, of course, is absolutely true....

...how do you explain the following:

The inordinate endorsement of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt. 
1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of 
b) *Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union.* 

1933.

WWII began in 1939.


And after the war, with Germany defeated, Roosevelt made certain to turn Eastern Europe over to Stalin.
So....still using the USSR against Nazi Germany?


Really?


So....the Marshall Plan was....what? A ploy?



Wise up.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> One stray logic thought I am having is that if FDR was in bed with the left wing Communists and was fighting with them against something it was probably the right wing Hitler.
> 
> There is another post or two on here about the leftist Hitler I am going to link this thread to so PC can shut down that line if thinking lol.
> 
> Really I believe the step across the ends of the horse shoe is pretty small but hey, its interesting.



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


You should take notes.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 31, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > One stray logic thought I am having is that if FDR was in bed with the left wing Communists and was fighting with them against something it was probably the right wing Hitler.
> ...



Got it.  You believe FDR fought a war against socialist germany because FDR was a socialist.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 31, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > It was FDR's deviously communist plot to use the Red Army to bleed the Nazis throughout 1943 and avoid a real second front till 1944.
> ...



FDR died before the war was over.

What would you of liked Truman to have done?  This is the May 1945, the Red Army is in front of you on the game board.  The army which has been pushing the Germans back since '42.

I find it amazing the politicians were able to talk our public into a war in Korea a few years after.


----------



## bendog (Jul 31, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...



PC's sort of off the deep end here, but FDR really did fail to see the moral depravity of communism.  I've never seen what seemed an adequate reason why.  He certainly understood the danger of fascism, and Huey Long.  A govt that guarantees a volkswagen for every family and a chicken in every pot during a recession, in exchange for civil rights, while also protecting corporate ownership ... if capital swears feality to the Reich, is still a dangerous notion.

FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s.  In the US, capital was so antagonistic towards the New Deal, and the notion that govt could enforce a living wage and let the unions loose, there was at least thought to a coup.  Practical realities, rather than the sanctity of private investment, may have kept FDR from unleashing those like William O. Douglas who thought the New Deal and SEC acts didn't go far enough in regulating corporate behavior, and they had no faith at all in shareholders to constrain predatory behavior.  FDR may have at least in part chosen to not see Stalin for what he was.  But, there's no doubt that FDR (and Churchill) saw the Soviets as having more lives to expend, and less political oppostition to spending them, than did the other two allies.  

FDR repeatedly, with Lend Lease, and outright gifts, and then the second front, avoided any chance that Stalin would make a seperate peace, and require the US and Britian to achieve uncondidtional surrender by the fascists.  That was always FDR's FIRST PRIORITY WITH RUSSIA.  Without Russia, the Battle of the Bulge and Hurtgen Forest would have yielded casualties that poisoned our society like Britan was poisoned by the Somme.

As for Truman and Korea, I think we simply had belief in our leaders who'd gotten us through the depression and then WWII to be the most powerful and stable country ever, that when Truman (and Mao) basically stumbled into a war, they thought they had to back him up, because that's what we did.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...






No, you don't 'got it.'

Clearly the world is far too complex for you.

No doubt when on the 'seventeen items or less' express line, you start counting the 
number of frozen peas in the package.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

bendog said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





A rout!

A veritable chaotic retreat!

And such a simple tactic: pretend that that you can't see the significance of the dates that I've provided in my post.




And then you double down by producing this absurdity: 
"FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

 English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge took the tour* in the early 30s, *and wrote about how gullible these Potemkin Progressives were.  They are, unquestionably, one of the wonders of the age, that I shall treasure til I die, as a blessed memory! The spectacle of them traveling, with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid overcrowded Soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice--all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize." Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes (Author of Something Beautiful for God)




" Nevertheless, the new president [FDR] was* extremely well-informed about the Hitler regime *and its anti-Jewish policies, and early on perceived Nazi Germany as a threat to vital US interests. As persecution of Jews in Germany intensified during the 1930s, however, Roosevelt did not include among his priorities an effort to respond to the growing refugee problem that Nazi policies created."

"... Louis Brandeis wrote to Felix Frankfurter, at that time a professor at Harvard Law School, on April 29, 1933: F.D. [Franklin Delano] has shown amply that he has no anti-SemitismBut this action, or rather determination that there shall be none [i.e., no change in the Hoover immigration policy] is *a disgrace to America and to F.D.s administration.*
Franklin Delano Roosevelt



".... FDR held 
82 press conferences in 1933, and the subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not 
because Roosevelt raised it. It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences 
before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again (then, too, it was at a reporters 
initiative, not Roosevelts)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/WhitewashingFDR.pdf




"The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald's *early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933,* that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler's Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action. 

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, *"a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt,..."*
David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies: Welcome




A sartorial suggestion:
.....you are ruining your pants by dropping to your knees at the mention of FDR's name.....


----------



## jwoodie (Jul 31, 2013)

I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time.  By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 31, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



The years are REALLY important here.  I will also agree FDR was not as progressive with civil rights as one woukd want.  But 1933 is what that said, right?  When did FDR take power?  That Great Depression was pretty bad.  We were in no position to go rescue Jews and even in May of '40 after the fall of France the peace movement was still strong.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bendog said:
> ...





You are dangerously close to becoming a simple apologist....
....not certain which word gets the emphasis.


My post responded to:
"FDR had no knowlege (sic) of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

I was addressing "no knowledge."
I believe I put that notion to rest.



To your point about the depression being "pretty bad."
This was due, largely, to the failure of FDR's policies.

1.	Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the *midst of the second New Deal and Roosevelts second term. The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe* than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2.	In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that  on the whole it *retarded recovery.* 
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


Just thought you should know.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 31, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time.  By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.



"... idealistic ignorance..."

Not so.

The folks in question were lap-dogs of Soviet policy, taking orders from Moscow.

1. Even at their peak, in the 30s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the dupes was critical.

a.	The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: go to rallies, dont let them know you are a communist!, If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,  yell McCarthyism!


2.	*The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919.  Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919.* 
 While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990s which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!

a.	In 1919, Executive Secy of CPUSA, Charles Ruthenberg, wrote the following to Moscow: Hail to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long live the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Long live *the Communist International.*  A loyal Soviet patriot, his ashes are buried in the wall of the Kremlin.  
So, is this just another political party?  idealistic ignorance?

b.	From the November 24, 1919 application of the CPUSA to the Commintern: The final struggle of the communist proletariat will be waged in the United States. Our conquest of power alone assuring the world Soviet Republic! Realizing all of this, the Communist Party prepares for the struggle. Long live *the Communist International,* long live the world revolution! 
 Just like any other political party?  idealistic ignorance?

The above based on Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford, book  DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jul 31, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Lets see how to build bridges....

We as a nation should have seen the dangers of Hitler earlier.  I suppose the segregationists probably did not care however .  It sounds as if you are in the camp which woukd have favored early armorment and I like to think 1936 or '37 me would have been as well.

The merits of the New Deal is a topic to itself.  We need to have a talk about money loops some time & the loss of value during circulation under different inflationary / interest pressures!

Back to the topicish, what was our covert operations system like in the 30's?  After the war it seems all nets were pulled.  We were getting spy planes shot at over Russia and there seemed to be enough spies that they shoukd have a group retirement plan.  Any mention of the ratio of spies we did not have in the 30's vs the spies the Soviets did would further your point.


----------



## regent (Jul 31, 2013)

To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions, nor did they have one then. FDR tried different tactics some worked some failed but he kept trying. In 1937 economists worried that the nation was recovering too fast so they cut some programs and bingo it was too quick. It was all trial and error stuff, but the American people believed FDR was trying and they had confidence. 
In any case Republicans have been looking for something, anything, to downsize FDR; he has been a major thorn to Republicans since 1933. 
Now, the latest, FDR sent butter to the USSR or someplace via Lend Lease is just another attempt. But for all the Republican's investigations expose's and almost got-hims,, FDR was upgraded by historians from third best American president to America's best president, bar none. Yes sir, FDR's still a major thorn.


----------



## ThirdTerm (Jul 31, 2013)

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.


----------



## Beria (Aug 1, 2013)

The Soviet Army supplied the blood , the US supplied the goods of a sort!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

regent said:


> To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions, nor did they have one then. FDR tried different tactics some worked some failed but he kept trying. In 1937 economists worried that the nation was recovering too fast so they cut some programs and bingo it was too quick. It was all trial and error stuff, but the American people believed FDR was trying and they had confidence.
> In any case Republicans have been looking for something, anything, to downsize FDR; he has been a major thorn to Republicans since 1933.
> Now, the latest, FDR sent butter to the USSR or someplace via Lend Lease is just another attempt. But for all the Republican's investigations expose's and almost got-hims,, FDR was upgraded by historians from third best American president to America's best president, bar none. Yes sir, FDR's still a major thorn.



"To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions,..."

Amazingly ignorant....even for you.

Here's a novel approach: 
Use methodology that has worked.



 "*America's greatest depression fighter *was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess in particular, a postWorld War I *depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 *that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.



One of Harding's campaign slogans was *"less government in business,"* and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for *tax cuts* in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. *Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.*

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such *spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes.* On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged *tax and spending cuts.* He noted that a half-billion dollars in compensation and insurance claims were already being paid to 813,442 veterans, and 107,824 veterans were enrolled in government-sponsored vocational training programs.

President-Elect Obama ought to consider the model of Warren G. Harding, whose policies raised Americans standard of living, and* lifted the nation itself out of a depression*

In 1922, the House passed a veterans' bonus bill 333-70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. The senate passed it 35-17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19 just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers.
Harding's Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover wanted government intervention in the economy which as president he was to pursue when he faced the Great Depression a decade later but Harding would have none of it. He insisted that relief measures were a local responsibility."
Not-So-Great Depression | National Review Online




Turning a blind eye to facts, history, and experience.....that's what defines a Liberal.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

Beria said:


> The Soviet Army supplied the blood , the US supplied the goods of a sort!




In a way, it reminds of modern medicine's use of maggots to eat away at gangrene....

The Soviet army, the maggots.....the Nazis, the gangrene.


And, of course, the US is 'modern medicine.'



How ya' like that analogy?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

ThirdTerm said:


> The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.





If Uncle Joe asked Roosevelt to do the following, he would'a done it.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBqlfKtqTgc]Male Russian Dancers Doing a Traditional Dance - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...







Wha'????



Is this post some kind of word-salad?


----------



## Beria (Aug 1, 2013)

Political Chic, Medicine you mean the shite the US supplied to the Soviet Army - Petrol engined tanks not much use in sub zero temps !


----------



## bendog (Aug 1, 2013)

PC, you do realize the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence until 1943, and FDR opposed expanding taking in Jews prior to the war, don't you?

Henry Morgenthau

You are not a bad person, but you have an agenda that is at odds with history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

bendog said:


> PC, you do realize the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence until 1943, and FDR opposed expanding taking in Jews prior to the war, don't you?
> 
> Henry Morgenthau
> 
> You are not a bad person, but you have an agenda that is at odds with history.



".....the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence....."
The US wasn't responsible for the holocaust.




"You are not a bad person,...."

Oh, yeah????



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbjfQOLm3Aw]Michael Jackson - Bad [HD] - YouTube[/ame]




"....you have an agenda...."

Guilty as charged.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

ThirdTerm said:


> The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.



Let me suggest that there was more to Lend-Lease than you seem to be aware of. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition??)

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and &#8220;the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.&#8221;
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


"His reports back to Roosevelt helped justify the U.S. Lend-Lease program which he briefly directed."
WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies . Harry Hopkins | PBS

BTW, Lend-Lease to Russia amounted to $300 billion in today's dollars.
Albert L. Weeks, "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II" p.25


Get this:
"...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."
Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes


----------



## regent (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> ThirdTerm said:
> 
> 
> > The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.
> ...



Could the allies have won the war in Europe without the Russians, and if it was possible to win, how long would it have taken and what would the final cost have been to America? 
Butter indeed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > ThirdTerm said:
> ...





OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of 41. Its function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britainthey paraded in front of the White House, chanting FDR is a fascist, hes starting a war! They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!

a.	*In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! *The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia!  Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasnt a fascistand they changed their name to American Peoples Mobilization.

b.	The HUAC had exposed this group as one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The MolotovRibbentrop Pact


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time.  By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.
> ...



Good information.  I was under the impression that many viewed the excesses of Soviet communism in the 1930's to be a necessary, if distasteful, transitional period towards a workers paradise.  By the 1950's, all but the most strident were aware this was an illusion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

jwoodie said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...




If you get a chance, check out John V. Fleming's "The Anti-Communist Manifestos: Four Books That Shaped the Cold War"


And....best of all, Diana West's "American Betrayal."
It's the bomb!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Stick with the facts and less name calling. You can make points here talking about how behind the times our intelligence community was in the 30's.  The rest of this just seems like excuses or dancing around the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan.  If that is it do not be shy, just pick a point of view that makes sense and quit having such clear cut heros and villans in your life when reality is shades of grey.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Aug 1, 2013)

That last statement on the pact just puts a frown of disappointment on my face.  Either you do not understand or are trying to mislead


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 1, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



1. "Stick with the facts and less name calling."
Why?
You don't like it, ya' big dummy?




2. " our intelligence community was in the 30's"
Wrong.....it was the Democrat assault on the intelligence community, the Pike Committee, and the Church Committee that destroyed our ability...and led to 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11th terror attack, some legislators are now proclaiming their commitment to unleashing the CIA and rebuilding its human assets. Just a short while ago these same legislators were leading the charge to curtail the agency. One such convert is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,* Joseph Biden. The Delaware Democrat was one of seventeen Senators who voted in 1974 to ban all covert operations, and proudly noted during his 1988 campaign for president that he had threatened to go public with covert action plans by the Reagan administration, causing them to cancel the operations. *Hopefully Senator Biden, and other congressional converts, are undergoing a genuine epiphany. Perhaps they now realize, as Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example. It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of* Frank Church and Otis Pike.* As Church himself once argued, the United States should not fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.
History News Network



3. "...the fact you wanted us to declare war on Germany, Russia and Japan."
Hey....you really are a big dummy.


4. "... heros (sic) and villans  (sic) ..."

Dummy isn't the half of it. Don't you have 'spell check'?


5. "...when reality is shades of grey."
The sign of an uneducated Liberal: moral relativism and postmodernism.
Look 'em up....maybe you'll cease being a dummy.


----------



## regent (Aug 1, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Hell of a dance, but let's go back to, could the allies have beaten Germany without Russia and if so what would it have cost America? When Germany declared war on America should we have responded? Germany had no navy, so an invasion of the US was dim but what if Britain surrendered then perhaps Germany would have a navy. Or what would happen to Europe and perhaps much of the world with no resistance to Hitler? 
It is all well and good to sit at our computers and revise history and make light of real problems just to  put FDR into some kind of a bag. But FDR is still number one even with all the historical revisions, and number one by historians.


----------



## Auteur (Aug 1, 2013)

regent said:


> Hell of a dance, but let's go back to, could the allies have beaten Germany without Russia and if so what would it have cost America? When Germany declared war on America should we have responded? Germany had no navy, so an invasion of the US was dim but what if Britain surrendered then perhaps Germany would have a navy. Or what would happen to Europe and perhaps much of the world with no resistance to Hitler?
> It is all well and good to sit at our computers and revise history and make light of real problems just to  put FDR into some kind of a bag. But FDR is still number one even with all the historical revisions, and number one by historians.



Indeed. It was realpolitik, something we are no stranger to today. Vietnam was a mortal foe of the US (they would be coming ashore in California, AK 47s loaded, as one poster here has put it). Now, you get your t-shirts from them. 

China is communist, notionally anyway, certianly non-democratic, and has made threatening noises towards the US, but- they are propping up the sale of US treasury bills, and providing all manner of trade and investment opportunities. Even George Bush 2, the poster boy of corporate feudalism, was mute on the ethics of such a relationship. And today, the US is not threatened in any realistic way. In 1940, it was- big time. It is immense hypocracy to accept the world today, and then condemn FDR for supporting the Soviets in the war.

FDR was actually a master communicator, who could see history, and economics, in a clearer light than most Americans at the time. His dilemma was in how to educate the populace in a way they could accept, and embrace.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 1, 2013)

The scumbag FDR was the closest thing we've ever had to a dictator, and we were lucky to survive him still as a Democratic Republic. He had no respect of the Constitution or loyal Americans, prolonged the Great Depression, and Stalin couldn't have asked for a better dupe to be occupying the White House at the time.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 1, 2013)

Normally I just try to ignore your inane posts, but your flight of fancy is so outrageous it deserves debunking.  



PoliticalChic said:


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



There is no evidence for this slander and it has been repeatedly disproven.  The only actual evidence you present is the hackneyed claim of Major George Racey Jordan, a disgruntled hack who never met Hopkins in his life.



> Get this:  "...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."  Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes



But his allegations were sufficient to be addressed in a Congressional investigation.  Jordan's specific allegation was that Hopkins passed atomic plans to the Soviets.  Apparently the website you lifted the slander from failed to mention the hearings that exonerated Hopkins.  

"Soviet-Atomic Espionage". Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (US Congress): 184192. April 1951.     

In 1990 the issue was revisited when a Soviet defector decided the story could help him sell a book.  



Verne W. Newton said:


> A Soviet Agent? Harry Hopkins?
> 
> The former K.G.B. agent Oleg Gordievsky seems intent on making the same muddle of history that Kremlin planners have made of the economy. He has captured headlines by claiming that Harry L. Hopkins, Franklin D. Roosevelt's trusted friend and adviser, was an "agent of major significance" of the Soviet Union.
> 
> ...


 
Verne W. Newton wrote and co-produced the documentary film "Harry Hopkins: At F.D.R.'s Side" and is the author of "FDR and the Holocaust".  

In a 1998 article, historian Eduard Mark noted that no writer discussing Hopkins has identified any secrets disclosed, nor any decision in which he distorted American priorities in order to help Communism.  [Eduard Mark, "Venona's Source '19' and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943: Diplomacy or Espionage?" Intelligence & National Security, Apr 1998, Vol. 13 Issue 2, p 20] 

Harry Hopkins was FDR's main diplomatic contact and laison with the Soviets in general and Stalin in particular.  His job was to persuade Stalin that Roosevelt was not abandoning him, a daunting task when the Second Front kept being pushed back from 1942 to 1943, and then to 1944.  Roosevelt understood that Stalin might not survive more military bad news and that Stalin or his successor might well negotiate a separate peace with Hitler.  Such a peace would have doomed the Allies in Europe and America could not have been on the winning side of the war.  

What makes your slander more despicable is that Hopkins was diagnosed with stomach cancer in 1939 and told he had four weeks to live.  He died in January 1946.  One of the great patriots of WWII was dying a long, slow, painful death while he struggled to keep Russia in the war.  

I would ask if you have no shame, but we all know the answer to that.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 2, 2013)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...




"The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression" Jean-Louis Panné (Author), Andrzej Paczkowski (Author), Karel Bartosek (Author), Jean-Louis Margolin (Author), Nicolas Werth (Author), Stéphane Courtois (Author), Mark Kramer (Editor, Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator)

Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experiencein the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0674076087]The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression: Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Nicolas Werth, Stéphane Courtois, Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy: 9780674076082: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]



Brought to you by your favorite Sovietophile, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 2, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Normally I just try to ignore your inane posts, but your flight of fancy is so outrageous it deserves debunking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Breaking your promise???

I knew you couldn't stay away.

And I love how you provide the NYTimes as 'proof.' 

"What is infuriating is how the Western press is aiding Mr. Gordievsky's efforts to craft a best-seller."
Certainly a more respectable reason for the tome than the NYTimes' efforts to undermine America.
Don't you agree?




Have you read "The Sword and the Shield"? This top archives was described by the FBI as the most complete and extensive intelligence ever achieved from any source.




"A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.

New evidence that proves that Harry Hopkins, the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent. Andrew had reported this in a book he had written in 1990 based on information provided by Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB officer who had also been smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence. Gordievsky reported that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the illegal Soviet agents in the U.S. during the war, had said that Hopkins was the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.
[url]http://www.aim.org/media-monitor/the-treachery-of-harry-hopkins/


Hard to imagine that after Haynes, Klehr, Venona, Mitrokhin, Bentley, Chambers, et al.....there are still dolts like you ready and more than willing to lick the boots of spies, traitors, collaborators.....


But have no fears....if you ask nicely, I'll post more of the remedial that you so sorely require.


----------



## regent (Aug 2, 2013)

Maybe its time we let the news media in on this information, they'll go nuts when they hear about Hopkins.
Then again, can we trust the news media? And what of the Republicans that supported Lend-Lease,   and supported the war? Commies all.  I often think that Senator McCarthy was suspect he had all those names and never gave them to anybody just waved them around. And what about J. Edgar Hoover, and Stalin were they commies too? It seems to be coming down to, who in the United States is not a communist spy or simple commie?


----------



## jwoodie (Aug 2, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> The scumbag FDR was the closest thing we've ever had to a dictator, and we were lucky to survive him still as a Democratic Republic. He had no respect of the Constitution or loyal Americans, prolonged the Great Depression, and Stalin couldn't have asked for a better dupe to be occupying the White House at the time.



I nominate BHO as his spiritual successor.


----------



## konradv (Aug 2, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> "A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.
> 
> New evidence that proves that Harry Hopkins, the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent. Andrew had reported this in a book he had written in 1990 based on information provided by Oleg Gordievsky, a high-level KGB officer who had also been smuggled out of the Soviet Union by British intelligence. Gordievsky reported that Iskhak Ahkmerov, the KGB officer who controlled the illegal Soviet agents in the U.S. during the war, had said that Hopkins was the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> ...



The book is being pushed by _Accuracy in Media_.  I find it laughable that you'd deride the NYT's credentials, but swallow whole AIM's position, despite their well known penchant for conspiracy theories. 

Accuracy in Media - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 3, 2013)

konradv said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "A new book titled The Sword and the Shield has attracted considerable media attention, because it is based on copies of KGB documents that were smuggled out of the Soviet Union six years ago. Vasily Mitrokhin a KGB archivist had painstakingly copied KGB files for many years.
> ...




Actually, I rarely deride sources.
But I do compare them.


In this case I'm going to suggest that you know you are losing, as you pretend that I'm relying on Accuracy in Media.

I read "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB" and that is what the Harry Hopkins indictment is based on.

No doubt you haven't....have you?


Now...a challenge: if you write a brief summary of your support for Hopkins, and allow me to quote you by name, I'll post an OP on Harry Hopkins, Soviet agent.....and you can try to attack it.



Ready when you are.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Aug 3, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



In regards to 2: 

Work on the reading comprehension.  I was leading you to talk more about the poor state or undeveloped state of our intelligence community in the thirties.  

Difficult as it is for you to believe I was leading you towards a point YOU should be making as part of your arguement.

Oh, and yeah I don't have spell check on the cell.  Lets just say I frequent the board while sitting on the throne on whatever device is handy.  Sorry not to perform to your standards


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 3, 2013)

The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.................................

WWII we aided a known enemy of our Ideology, and our Way of Life, to defeat the bigger threat of Germany and Japan.  We could not let Russia fall as the massive ground battles in Russia were draining German Troops which could have been used to the West instead of the East.  Had Russia fallen, we'd have had a hell of a lot harder time retaking Europe.

So the lend lease act wasn't a bad thing, as our ultimate goal was the defeat of Germany. 

The real problem was the aftermath of Germany's fall.  As now the Enemy of our Enemy is now the MAIN ENEMY OF THE U.S. and basically FREEDOM.  Which led to the Cold War and our countries fighting by proxy around the globe.  The USSR finally fell via it's own sword.  Financially, and from the people themselves who rebelled against the failed policies of Socialism itself.

Which is now why they have turned to Capitalism over Socialism as the later is eventually an utter failure.

Back to FDR. Churchill warned him not to play into Stalin's hands in the battle for Berlin but was ignored.  He tried to remind FDR of the consequences of allowing Stalin to have more territory at the end of the War, but it fell on Deaf and Dumb ears, otherwise he would have pushed our fronts further east to avoid a divided Germany at the end of the War.  A divide that lasted nearly 4 decades.


----------



## editec (Aug 3, 2013)

Thank GOD FDR supplied the Soveit Union.

Had we not I suspect Hitler might have beaten Russia and then England, too.

Incidently my 91 year old father still has a limp that he got while helping supply those ruskies back in WWII.

You're welcome, citizens.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 3, 2013)

Riddle me this.........................

What would have happened had we demanded that Russia turn over the rest of Germany and Poland at the end of WWII.  aka OR ELSE.

Would it have led to another year or two of War?

And finally would it have ended the Cold War before it began?

Point being history shows that not finishing a War leads to more wars or problems in the future, because you don't finish it.

WWII happened because the world didn't finish WWI.
The Cold War happened because we didn't finish WWII.
North Korea is a thorn because we didn't finish the Korean War.
Iraq happened because we didn't finish it the First time.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 3, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.................................
> 
> WWII we aided a known enemy of our Ideology, and our Way of Life, to defeat the bigger threat of Germany and Japan.  We could not let Russia fall as the massive ground battles in Russia were draining German Troops which could have been used to the West instead of the East.  Had Russia fallen, we'd have had a hell of a lot harder time retaking Europe.
> 
> ...




The view above is one that obfuscates the emphasis of the Lend-Lease program.

You claim it was because of a need to keep Russia from falling.
First, they couldn't have made a separate peace with Germany....Operation Barbarossa proved that.
Second, I can easily explode the idea that the program was simply to prevent the Russians from being defeated:

Army Maj. George Racey Jordan was an 'expediter' who kept careful records of what was sent to Russia....and when.


Victory in Europe Dayknown as V-E Day or VE Daywas the public holiday celebrated on 8 May 1945 (in Commonwealth countries, 7 May 1945) to mark the date when the World War II Allies formally accepted the unconditional surrender of the armed forces of Nazi Germany 


According to Jordan, shipments to the USSR via Lend-Lease continued until 1949. 
And, they included the material used to build Russia's atomic bomb.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 3, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend.................................
> ...



We sent shipments around the globe at that time.  The world was destroyed via WWII.  
As for the Nuclear Bomb, I'd have to read more on that subject but I tend to go toward your argument as you are a well informed poster.  The people of Russia were devastated after the War and in the Battle of Stalingrad they ate rats and even their dead.  

So sending in supplies wasn't out of the question even years after the War.  Which also included building materials to help rebuild cities that were literally destroyed.  We did this in Germany and Japan as well, and as a result we had a very large economic boom as our infrastructure was virtually untouched.  The rest of the word was in Ruin.

Quite frankly, we didn't fight Russia then because the World and America were tired of all the dying.  My father, uncles and Father N Law all fought in WWII.  They were of the time and the jest of it from my perception was they were tired of seeing their friends die.  Which was the mindset of the time and WHY WE DIDN'T GO AFTER RUSSIA AT THE TIME.

On hind sight we made the wrong decision by not finishing the job to prevent the problems we had as a result for 4 decades, but at the time so many had died they didn't want more death.  This is reasonable logic for the time, even though we'd have been better off finishing it then.

FDR's decisions towards the end of the War were Naive.  Even when Churchill tried to press him to NOT ALLOW WHAT WAS COMING.  Churchill looked at the bigger picture of what was to come, and FDR didn't.  Yet you also have to take in the casualties of Berlin as well.  Russian lost a lot of people there.

Anyway, it's history and it is what it is.


----------



## Auteur (Aug 3, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> Riddle me this.........................
> 
> What would have happened had we demanded that Russia turn over the rest of Germany and Poland at the end of WWII.  aka OR ELSE.
> 
> ...



It would have led to more than a couple of years of war, it would have been WW3. The Soviets had been invaded by western forces three times in the previous half century or so. They were understandably suspicious it would happen again. Stalin, himself a product of a a paranoid and violent environment, was determined to create a safey corridor around the country. Poland, and as much of Germany as they could get, were indispensible in this plan. This was central the the SU's foreign policy at the time, and they would have gone to war for it.

Yes, the US had the bomb, but the Soviets were working on it, and in fact a test was then only a few years down the road. Tactics always tend to lag technology, as we have seen. Generals were musing over the value of calvary right into WW1. Strategists were also considering nuclear war fighting, using only modified tactics, right into the '50s. Physicists perhaps new better, but many in military circles were still thinking of duking it out, with atom bombs or not.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 4, 2013)

Auteur said:


> It would have led to more than a couple of years of war, it would have been WW3. The Soviets had been invaded by western forces three times in the previous half century or so. They were understandably suspicious it would happen again. Stalin, himself a product of a a paranoid and violent environment, was determined to create a safey corridor around the country. Poland, and as much of Germany as they could get, were indispensible in this plan. This was central the the SU's foreign policy at the time, and they would have gone to war for it.
> 
> Yes, the US had the bomb, but the Soviets were working on it, and in fact a test was then only a few years down the road. Tactics always tend to lag technology, as we have seen. Generals were musing over the value of calvary right into WW1. Strategists were also considering nuclear war fighting, using only modified tactics, right into the '50s. Physicists perhaps new better, but many in military circles were still thinking of duking it out, with atom bombs or not.



One of the great lies that American policy has been based on is the adventurism of the Soviet military.  This has suited the needs of America's defense establishment and pretty much everyone except a few scholars and a small cadre in the intelligence community who were paid to give real analysis stated the truth.  From beginning to end, the Soviet leadership, including Stalin, was extremely risk averse.  

While it might be fun to stop now and let all the folks who have been fed the party line for their entire lives jump in with "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" (a truly delightful and insightful movie), let me make the case since I think you will find it helpful.  

The Soviet Union was created in a political vacuum in 1917 while Russia was disastrously losing WWI.  Kerensky fled and Lenin & Trotsky took over in November 1917.  At first they assured the Allies they would keep Russia in the war and pleaded for war material and economic aid.  The Allies distrusted the Bolsheviks and were reluctant to provide the aid, ending up shipping only small amounts.  In 1918 the counterrevolution began with substantial covert aid from the Allies.  As the Russians saw their nation dismembered by the Whites in Siberia, the North, and the Caucausus and Ukraine; pulled apart by nationalist movements in Finland, the Baltic, Poland, Ukraine, and the Far East (all with some Allied aid); and much of the country occupied by the Germans, the Soviet leadership decided to leave the war.  

Trotsky was sent to negotiate with the Germans.  The terms offered were so unacceptable, Trotsky decided to reject them and announce that Russia was no long participating in the war.  At this point the Allies decided to intervene and Russian ports were occupied by American, British, French, and Japanese troops.  At one point there were 27 separate significant armies involved.  When Germany surrendered all of these troops were still inside Russia.  Allied policy was heavily driven by the Czechoslovak Legion, a force that found itself in Siberia that the Allies had been trying to get to France to fight Germany (I'm not kidding, but look at a map!).  

The Russian Civil War dragged on into 1921.  In 1920, the Poles decided to expand beyond the borders they had initially agreed to and the Russo-Polish War broke out.  Eventually the Allied Powers, the Germans and the Czechs went home; the Whites were defeated; Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland were independent,  and the rest of a devastated Russia was left mostly to its own resources.  To be fair, America under the direction of the man who had organized the Belgian relief (Hoover), provided aid that probably saved millions of Russians from starvation, but millions died in the years 1917--1924.  

In 1924 Lenin dies and the next five years saw the consolidation of power under Stalin.  The reason I recite this tragic tale is the effect it had on all subsequent Soviet leadership.  They have been terrified that the West was constantly planning to destroy them, and their dominant military posture has been defensive, despite all the internationalist propaganda.  

In 1939 the Soviets made a treaty with Germany to divide eastern Europe in general and Poland in particular.  Rather than occupy their zone of Poland, Stalin chose to wait until the Germans had competed most of their occupation before he made a move.  Partly he was concerned that the treaty was a ruse and that Hitler might not stop at the demarcation line.  From that time until Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin scrupulously made deliveries of oil, grain, steel, and war materials to Germany even after Germany had delayed and virtually stopped paying for them.  He was not ready for war with Germany and he knew it.  

In 1940 Stalin miscalculated and attacked Finland.  The issue was a strip of land that was very close to Leningrad.  The Finns resisted far more effectively than anyone expected, but in the end the negotiated the transfer of the contested strip to the Soviets.  This is the only clear example of an aggressive war waged by the Soviets, with the possible exception of the Afgan debacle.  

In the aftermath of WWII, Stalin had agreed to coalition governments in Poland and Czechoslovakia and the division of Germany and Austria.  For a period these agreements held.  I'll end the history lesson here, since this is the time frame in question, except to note that Soviet reluctance to actually engage in military action against the West remained a cornerstone of policy to the end.  

So what would have happened if Stalin had been presented with an ultimatum in 1945 at Potsdam?  First remember that at the time Stalin did not know of the success of the Trinity test and Truman was pressuring him to honor his commitment to join the war with Japan promptly after the defeat of Germany.  The Japanese at the time were trying to get Stalin to mediate a peace with the Allies.  

It makes for a great game of Potsdam poker.  If pressed hard Stalin would surely have delayed war with the Japanese, which at the time from his view would have left the Americans to fight a long and bloody war.  He might even have made the Japanese offer public, in which case war weariness might have become a factor.  At the time the Allies might have suspected bad faith with regard to Poland and Czechoslovakia, but that was not a sure thing.  Even if Stalin backed down, the West had a lot to lose.  

I believe that what Stalin would most likely have done would have depended largely on what was demanded of him.  If America had insisted on a return to the borders of 1939, there would have been war.  Had America accepted the Finnish treaty, the absorption of the Baltics, and the border with Poland, while insisting on the true independence of the rest of central Europe, I believe Stalin would have waited.  

Had war occurred I believe the outcome would have been a Russian sweep over Europe.  Perhaps like in 1920 the Russians would not have made peace and waited to see if the Americans would rather attack the heros of Stalingrad rather than avenge Pearl Harbor.  But if attacked, the Russians would have fought and I don't think America would have been prepared for the American casualties thatwould havemade an invasion of Japan look like a cakewalk.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Aug 4, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > It would have led to more than a couple of years of war, it would have been WW3. The Soviets had been invaded by western forces three times in the previous half century or so. They were understandably suspicious it would happen again. Stalin, himself a product of a a paranoid and violent environment, was determined to create a safey corridor around the country. Poland, and as much of Germany as they could get, were indispensible in this plan. This was central the the SU's foreign policy at the time, and they would have gone to war for it.
> ...



I agree in general.  Our intervention in the Russian civil war is under taught.   Socialism does not work but it is necessary to look at the world from your opponent's point of view to understand.  As crazy as PC and a few others are about Russian spies imagine if Russian troops came over and fought against us a decade before the great depression!  

To make conversation:

I am pretty sure Stalin was aware of the Trinity test but I am not sure to what detail.

Stalin making the Japanese peace offerings public would have sure been interesting.  Their points and ours were not that different.  I am not sure how our public would have reacted.  As it is I view the Japanese not just broadcasting their proposal on every radio frequency they could transmit over as a grave mistake.  And by lord, did they think we were friends with the Russians actually?  I did a bit of a paper on this decades ago in a cultural communications class.  An amazing failure on Japan's part.

Far as a war with the Russians in May of 45, for sure it would have been in our best interest to wait for the war in the Pacific to end.  But if Patton raced for Berlin and started the war I am of the opinion we would have had our own Dunkirk or been pushed into the Pyrenees which wow, might have been a worse meat grinder.  Buy then our Navy could be totally concentrated on the new war with Russia as could our industrial capacity but man, that's a rough one.  One would think until the late 40's our dozens of Essex class carriers and combined air force could have kept the Soviets out of England especially since they had only a hodgepodge navy (lol @ Russia bothering to capture the Graf Zeppelin).  

By 1950 our nuclear superiority was sufficient we could I guess have leveled Russian held France and wherever we could get a bomber through to while the limited Soviet bombs and heavy bombers I suppose could tag London but with severe losses.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 4, 2013)

oldfart said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > It would have led to more than a couple of years of war, it would have been WW3. The Soviets had been invaded by western forces three times in the previous half century or so. They were understandably suspicious it would happen again. Stalin, himself a product of a a paranoid and violent environment, was determined to create a safey corridor around the country. Poland, and as much of Germany as they could get, were indispensible in this plan. This was central the the SU's foreign policy at the time, and they would have gone to war for it.
> ...



Well, I had to open up Pandora's box with my questions.  Your post is a very educated evaluation of the situation at hand, and I appreciate it.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and disagree with some of what you say.

First off, I believe Japan would have surrendered after the bombs even without their losses to the Russians.  Even though they were losing against the Russians their forces were isolated and would not have been able to get back to Japan.  There position would have been insignificant in the Battle for Japan.  So I disagree here.  I believe Japan would have surrendered anyway.

Europe.  Stalin had superior numbers.  Hell he attacked Berlin with about 2.7 million troops.  We had about 4 million in the region.  Stalin had at least double that in the region.  Air power.  Fairly even numbers but we had the advantage of high altitude aircraft.  So we would have gained air superiority over Stalin's forces.  They had no means to counter high altitude bombers so our air force would have bombed them with impunity.  While that alone wouldn't have decided the ground war, it would have greatly influenced the outcome.  We had roughly 80,000 aircraft at the end of the War and productions lines were spitting them out at historical rates.  Eventually had we fought them these numbers would have tripled in size, while the Russians would have taken severe losses.  Another factor we had 16.1 million forces overall.  We owned the seas and would have owned the air.  The War factories not touchable by Germany would have become touchable, and a massive bombing campaign would have started to take a toll on the industrial side of Russia.

Critical War supplies, especially food, would have been cut off aka the lend lease act.  This would have also put Russia at a disadvantage.

I believe we'd have won it, but at a cost of millions of lives.  We had similar populations, but the Russians had already lost 20 to 21 million people, including 12 million troops.  These kind of losses were not sustainable had it continued.  The world would have also lost another 30 million or more people had the fight continued to the bitter end.

Another variable that I believe would have happened.  Many of the troops fighting with Russia were from areas taken by Germany.  Had they known that the U.S. was fighting Stalin to restore these countries to there original borders it is quite possible that a couple of million soldiers in Stalin's army may have started pointing their guns east instead of west.  Stalin was also a TYRANT to his people and the people of Russia might have remembered that the Tyrants slaughtered 20 million of their own people.  Which might have caused a portion of his army to simply stop fighting, as they didn't really like Stalin to begin with.

I believe we could have done more damage to the red army by dropping leaflets instead of bombs on the red army.  Letting them know we were only fighting to restore prewar borders.

Finally, no country in Europe wanted to be ruled by Stalin.  European countries would have joined the fight if faced with being ruled by Stalin.  Which could have added millions of troops to the battlefield.  Secondly, the left over German forces would have fought as well as they would want their whole country back.  Which would have added about 1 million to the fight from the onset.

That is just my stab at it.  Just an opinion.  I read a lot, and had a hard time deciding what to say on this issue.  However, since I opened Pandora's box I felt I had an obligation to take a stab at it.


----------



## editec (Aug 4, 2013)

Auteur said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > Riddle me this.........................
> ...



We did NOT have the material to bomb Russia into submission in 1945, kiddies.

Russia's military forces on the ground in Europe were staggering.

Had we declared war on Russia after Germany fell, I suspect they'd have kicked our asses on the ground for quite some time.

You anti-commies notwits have been fed a load of crap about the invincibility of the Western powers at the end of the war.

The Soviets had 6,400,000 combat hardened and well equiped TROOPS on the ground in Germany, Austria and Eastern Euruope.

You fantasy armchair generals need to so some basic  research.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 4, 2013)

oldfart said:


> While it might be fun to stop now and let all the folks who have been fed the party line for their entire lives jump in with "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" (a truly delightful and insightful movie), let me make the case since I think you will find it helpful.
> 
> The Soviet Union was created in a political vacuum in 1917 while Russia was disastrously losing WWI.




You missed the first step, where the Czarist system lost legitimacy after the humiliation of the Russo-Japanese War.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 4, 2013)

editec said:


> [
> 
> The Soviets had 6,400,000 combat hardened and well equiped TROOPS on the ground in Germany, Austria and Eastern Euruope [sic].






NO, they had exhausted, often starving, ill-equipped troops. The American public would not likely have supported an immediate next-step war at the time, with the war in the Pacific still going on.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Aug 4, 2013)

editec said:


> Auteur said:
> 
> 
> > eagle1462010 said:
> ...



Kiddies and armchair generals.

LOL

They actually had about 8 million in the region with at least another 4 million that could be called up.  Which is why I said we'd be outnumbered at the onset by at least 2 to 1.  That being the U.S. standing alone, which we were not alone.  

You don't take into consideration of Russia being supplied by the U.S.
You don't take into consideration that we would have had air superiority shortly intot the fight, and our air power helped bring Germany to it's knees.  We didn't win the war by ourselves and the Russians played a very significant role, but you underestimate our abilities as well.
You also don't take into the equation as would all of the Russians have fought had they known the fight started to restore Germany, Poland and Czec.........Many of those would have also fought knowing it was to restore their previous boundaries.  It's hard to say whether or not they would fight along side a million German troops though, but I guarantee that about a million of them would have fought to restore the previous German borders.

I would also remind you that Germany attacked Russia with about 2.7 million troops and nearly beat them at the onset.  Only though Human wave attacks did the Russians take them down.  aka sheer numbers.  I remember a German general in Stalingrad saying that as soon as we take out a Division of Russians another 3 show up.

Yet the cost of human wave warfare was taking it's toll on Russia.  They had sustained 12 million casualties to that point even though they outnumbered the Germans nearly 8 to 1.

Either way, it is what it is.  And this is only speculation of what it might have been.


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2013)

The sad thing is that in a democracy often times the citizens must be considered. I don't think the American people would have allowed an attack on the USSR or carry on the war one day longer than absolutely necessary. Already we were discharging troops with the 85 points and getting ready to close up the war-shop. Even with the A-bombs and the means to deliver them, I doubt if any politician was ready to say on to Moscow. 
The beauty of fighting the war on these boards today  is that we don't have to face the problems of that period, we can pick and choose and it becomes quite easy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 4, 2013)

regent said:


> The sad thing is that in a democracy often times the citizens must be considered. I don't think the American people would have allowed an attack on the USSR or carry on the war one day longer than absolutely necessary. Already we were discharging troops with the 85 points and getting ready to close up the war-shop. Even with the A-bombs and the means to deliver them, I doubt if any politician was ready to say on to Moscow.
> The beauty of fighting the war on these boards today  is that we don't have to face the problems of that period, we can pick and choose and it becomes quite easy.






"....often times the citizens must be considered."


1. On April 1, 1944, Victor Kravchenko left Washington for New York, where, at a press conference arranged by the NYTimes, he revealed the truth about the Soviet Union. Two years later he published I Chose Freedom, which played a crucial role in the formation of *public opinion in the formation of the incipient Cold War. *

a.	The front-page article that began, "Accusing the Soviet Government of a 'double-faced' foreign policy with respect to its professed desire for collaboration with the United States and Great Britain and denouncing the Stalin regime for failure to grant political and civil liberties to the Russian people, Victor A. Kravchenko. Fleming, "The Anti-Communist Manifestos,".[ p. 182-183]

b.	Both in Europe, and in the United States, communist supporters engaged I a full court press trying to deny reports about communism and the Soviet Union. Defectors like Kravchenko faced the same sort of barrage that McCarthy did laterand for the same reasons. 


2. During the 1950s, the Gallup Organization responded to new issues and personalities as they related to the ongoing superpower struggle. Joseph McCarthy entered the public opinion polls for the first time, and won initial approval. Fifty percent agreed with McCarthy in a March 1950 survey that there were communists working in the State Department.Note 45 A June 1950 poll found* 45 percent expressed unqualified approval of McCarthy saying "he is anxious to rid us of communists and he is right"; 16 percent expressed qualified approval* with remarks such as "there must be some foundation for his charges, but they are greatly exaggerated"; 31 percent disbelieved McCarthy saying he is "a rabble-rouser seeking personal glory who is trying to get reelected"; 8 percent were unsure what to make of McCarthy. 
Cold War International History Conference: Paper by John White


----------



## oldfart (Aug 4, 2013)

The great thing about counterfactual history is that it dispels the notion that what happened is the only outcome that could have happened.  There is no "correct", only plausible.  



Toronado3800 said:


> I am pretty sure Stalin was aware of the Trinity test but I am not sure to what detail.



I almost put a footnote on this one, but was running long.  This period is unbelievably sensitive to exact dates.  At Potsdam Stalin was unaware of the results of Trinity (hell, Truman got the results at the conference!).   A few days later he probably knew, but not in time to influence his possible decisions at Potsdam.  Now if we move up the date of apotential war with Russia to the German surrender, no one would have known the Trinity results because the test had not occurred.  



Toronado3800 said:


> Stalin making the Japanese peace offerings public would have sure been interesting.  Their points and ours were not that different.  I am not sure how our public would have reacted.  As it is I view the Japanese not just broadcasting their proposal on every radio frequency they could transmit over as a grave mistake.  And by lord, did they think we were friends with the Russians actually?  I did a bit of a paper on this decades ago in a cultural communications class.  An amazing failure on Japan's part.



I learned something.  If there is a way to get access to your paper, I'd be most interested.  My main thought was that with the failure of the sixth War Bond Drive and the anticipated casualties of Operation Olympic, the United States was in an advanced stage of war weariness and the public and political will for military adventurism was virtually nil.  We just wanted the war over.  



Toronado3800 said:


> Far as a war with the Russians in May of 45, for sure it would have been in our best interest to wait for the war in the Pacific to end.  But if Patton raced for Berlin and started the war I am of the opinion we would have had our own Dunkirk or been pushed into the Pyrenees which wow, might have been a worse meat grinder.  Buy then our Navy could be totally concentrated on the new war with Russia as could our industrial capacity but man, that's a rough one.  One would think until the late 40's our dozens of Essex class carriers and combined air force could have kept the Soviets out of England especially since they had only a hodgepodge navy (lol @ Russia bothering to capture the Graf Zeppelin).



Agreed!  I cannot conceive of a sense in which we could have "won" such a war.  



Toronado3800 said:


> By 1950 our nuclear superiority was sufficient we could I guess have leveled Russian held France and wherever we could get a bomber through to while the limited Soviet bombs and heavy bombers I suppose could tag London but with severe losses.



It's hard to comprehend how limited atomic stockpiles were in the 40's and early 50's.  The initial production was three bomb and we used all three.  A third strike on Japan would have been delayed while the bomb was assembled.  We had material for no more more than four or five additional bombs.  After that we were limited by our capacity to produce fissile material, enough for about six bombs a year in 1945--6.  By the Korean War our stockpiles were probably 150--200 weapons and the Soviets 30--40.  

And you are correct that into the 50's the only delivery system available were heavy bombers, neither land based ICBM's nor SLBM's were operational.


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2013)

The Russians were always hard to deal with and after the German surrender were even harder to deal with. Truman too became a little harder to deal with after Trinity but Churchill was also hard to deal wih at times and even DeGaulle. The diplomatic thing may have been one reason Ike was picked for the ETO.  There was always the hope, however, that with the end of the war we could somehow manage to get along. 
I'm sure one of the Russian big complaints was our failure to open a second front early in the war, and lend lease probably never made up for that. In fact, the lend lease rations we sent for the troops, were called Second Front Rations by the Russian GI's.


----------



## oldfart (Aug 4, 2013)

eagle1462010 said:


> I agree with a lot of what you say, and disagree with some of what you say.



I don't agree with some of what I say!   I think I can change my mind and that I can be persuaded.  Especially with alternative histories.  



eagle1462010 said:


> First off, I believe Japan would have surrendered after the bombs even without their losses to the Russians.  Even though they were losing against the Russians their forces were isolated and would not have been able to get back to Japan.  There position would have been insignificant in the Battle for Japan.  So I disagree here.  I believe Japan would have surrendered anyway.



You may well be right.  As it was, it was a close run thing with the attempted palace coup.  Suppose that had been successful in isolating the Emperor and suppressing the surrender broadcast.   As I mentioned above, America was very close to having expended it supply of fissile material and could only produce additional bombs at a rate of perhaps one every two months.  That might not have been enough to force a Japanese surrender.  

An interesting alternative was the Navy's plan to avoid an invasion of the home islands.  With virtually no effective air defense or naval force left and running out of food and raw materials, a blockade might have been more effective (either with or without another bomber offensive or additional atomic attacks).  I cannot see a scenario where Japan could have held out beyond the end of 1945.  



eagle1462010 said:


> Europe.  Stalin had superior numbers.  Hell he attacked Berlin with about 2.7 million troops.  We had about 4 million in the region.  Stalin had at least double that in the region.  Air power.  Fairly even numbers but we had the advantage of high altitude aircraft.  So we would have gained air superiority over Stalin's forces.  They had no means to counter high altitude bombers so our air force would have bombed them with impunity.  While that alone wouldn't have decided the ground war, it would have greatly influenced the outcome.  We had roughly 80,000 aircraft at the end of the War and productions lines were spitting them out at historical rates.  Eventually had we fought them these numbers would have tripled in size, while the Russians would have taken severe losses.  Another factor we had 16.1 million forces overall.  We owned the seas and would have owned the air.  The War factories not touchable by Germany would have become touchable, and a massive bombing campaign would have started to take a toll on the industrial side of Russia.



You make a lot of good points.  The Soviets would not have been successful in a protracted war.  The two questions would have been their capability to sweep to the Channel in a few weeks, or alternatively to have remained in place at see if the Allies were willing to bleed their forces dry.  It's a lomg way from Berlin to the Urals, and no one has made it yet.  



eagle1462010 said:


> I believe we'd have won it, but at a cost of millions of lives.  We had similar populations, but the Russians had already lost 20 to 21 million people, including 12 million troops.  These kind of losses were not sustainable had it continued.  The world would have also lost another 30 million or more people had the fight continued to the bitter end.



This is really the nut of it.  I cannot conceive of the Allies being able to accept the cost of such an effort.  



eagle1462010 said:


> Another variable that I believe would have happened.  Many of the troops fighting with Russia were from areas taken by Germany.  Had they known that the U.S. was fighting Stalin to restore these countries to there original borders it is quite possible that a couple of million soldiers in Stalin's army may have started pointing their guns east instead of west.  Stalin was also a TYRANT to his people and the people of Russia might have remembered that the Tyrants slaughtered 20 million of their own people.  Which might have caused a portion of his army to simply stop fighting, as they didn't really like Stalin to begin with.



This is a little beyond the scope of the present discussion, so I won't make a full argument here.  I think this argument misunderstands the nature of the Red Army and allied forces in 1945.  The argument might have been true of Warsaw Pact forces by 1955, but I don't think it was true in 1945.  



eagle1462010 said:


> Finally, no country in Europe wanted to be ruled by Stalin.  European countries would have joined the fight if faced with being ruled by Stalin.  Which could have added millions of troops to the battlefield.  Secondly, the left over German forces would have fought as well as they would want their whole country back.  Which would have added about 1 million to the fight from the onset.



I think you underestimate the degree to which the ability to wage war or mobilize armed forces had degraded in Europe by mid-1945.  By Potsdam the only significant uncommitted military were Spanish, Swiss, and Swedish.  

Now as I said before, a lot depends on the type of ultimatum.  I don't think a return to 1939 borders was possible, but I think a better outcome could have been achieved in central Europe.  The failure though did not occur at Potsdam, it was the inability or unwillingness to hold Stalin to his agreements 1945--8.


----------



## Auteur (Aug 4, 2013)

I think there would have been a huge resistance to carrying on the war in 1945 among the rank and file of western forces. The US and other countries had put a postive spin on the Soviets as temporary allies, and as the great depression was still a close memory in the minds  of many, the idea of communism wasn't as abhorrent to the average man in the street as it is today. The worst excesses were not generally known, but the worst excesses of captialism were a living memory for those in the front lines in 1945. Telling them that they had a new enemy, after six years of war, and surprise- its our former friends, so go to it, would have been a hard sell.

There was a similar situation after WW1. After four years of senseless slaughter, rebellion was breaking out. Not just in Russia and Germany, but also in the west. Some French troops were in open revolt, dire murmurings were heard in Britain, and there was an incident in Canada, when some troops refused to board ships headed for the intevention in Russia. One could see a lot of turmoil if hostilities were renewed in Germany at the end of the second war.


----------



## regent (Aug 4, 2013)

It is these kinds of things, as people tired of the war, that some of the quarterbacks fail to consider. I think if one lived through that period they might have a different slant on things. Accomplishments that are so easy on the boards today might have drawn second looks, or murder, if they were suggested at the time. 
And that's one problem with a democracy.


----------

