# Roosevelt's Greatest Blunder



## PoliticalChic

1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*



Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.

Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.

But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*



2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.

Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693



Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.

a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *

BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..." 
The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html


Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt. 
Churchill knew nothing of the plan.


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



4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.

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


b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943. 
LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.

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




And so was born Allied doctrine.
And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....

*Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*


----------



## Moonglow

Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?


----------



## rightwinger

FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties

Who won?


----------



## rightwinger

_But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*_

PC channels Neville Chamberlain


----------



## guno

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*




You know nothing about our period in history, nor do you have any connection to that period in history, just right wing cut and past drivel
Try speaking and learning from people who lived at that time and what the country was going through and how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists


----------



## Moonglow

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about our period in history, nor do you have any connection to that period in history, just right wing cut and past drivel
> Try speaking and learning from people who lived at that time and what the country was going through and how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists
Click to expand...

She secretly desires that Japan still controlled Korea...


----------



## guno

rightwinger said:


> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?




Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge


----------



## guno

Moonglow said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about our period in history, nor do you have any connection to that period in history, just right wing cut and past drivel
> Try speaking and learning from people who lived at that time and what the country was going through and how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She secretly desires that Japan still controlled Korea...
Click to expand...


And admired Tokyo Rose


----------



## Moonglow

Considering that the UK and the USSR were allies before the USA entered the war makes her claim even more silly...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?


 

The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
Click to expand...

Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?




Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.

Those 'casualties'?

Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...




You Leftists are all the same, huh.


----------



## rightwinger

guno said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge
Click to expand...

 
The Soviets gave up 20 million dead and PC bitches about lend lease


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
Click to expand...



Calm down.

Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?

Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.

But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.
> 
> Those 'casualties'?
> 
> Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Leftists are all the same, huh.
Click to expand...

 
Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII

You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?


----------



## Manonthestreet

What about Yalta......


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviets gave up 20 million dead and PC bitches about lend lease
Click to expand...



"...gave up..."???????

No, you liar....Stalin slaughtered them.

*World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal"by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.*

*The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.*




*That's Joseph Stalin....the man that Franklin Roosevelt said was just like us.*


----------



## rightwinger

_But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*_


PC

In your "surrender" were you going to allow the Nazis to keep their concentration camps?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.
> 
> Those 'casualties'?
> 
> Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Leftists are all the same, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII
> 
> You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?
Click to expand...





You remain both a liar an a worshiper of communist icons.



".I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII."

Unlike you, here's what a real American wrote:

1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:"* 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"

Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that *our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; *our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."


Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and* the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.*

But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.


----------



## guno

rightwinger said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviets gave up 20 million dead and PC bitches about lend lease
Click to expand...

My father was in the Navy and was on convoys for lend lease, on  my mothers side (cousins and aunts and uncles)  were murdered in hitlers camps , the OP knows nothing about WWII.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> _But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*_
> 
> 
> PC
> 
> In your "surrender" were you going to allow the Nazis to keep their concentration camps?





Where is 'my surrender' you gutter snipe?

It is Roosevelt who surrendered, early and often....to Stalin....beginning in 1933.

And....he allowed Stalin to keep his concentration camps.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
Click to expand...

It never began in Western Europe, which is what Stalin wanted, yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded....FDR wanted to take Africa.....and he did...Pissing off his supposed master....


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.
> 
> Those 'casualties'?
> 
> Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Leftists are all the same, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII
> 
> You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remain both a liar an a worshiper of communist icons.
> 
> 
> 
> ".I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII."
> 
> Unlike you, here's what a real American wrote:
> 
> 1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:"* 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*
> Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
> 
> Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that *our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; *our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and* the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.*
> 
> But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.
Click to expand...

 
You and Mr Hanson Baldwin sure are a couple of fucking idiots

Let Germany and USSR fight it out?
What about France, England, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Finland?

The winner gets to keep them?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
Click to expand...

The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions. 

Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never began in Western Europe, which is what Stalin wanted, yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded....FDR wanted to take Africa.....and he did...Pissing off his supposed master....
Click to expand...




".... yet according to your propaganda, with links provided, FDR did not do as Stalin demanded..."

False and total rubbish.


1. In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations*. Harry Hopkins and George Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'*



Starting to get the picture?
The only "second front" that counted, according to Stalin and Roosevelt, was the one that Stalin named as the "second front." 


2.*"This talk about a 'second front' is getting annoying,"*a letter to the editor dated February 23, 1943, begins.
Listing assorted theaters of war including *China, The South Pacific, Burma, and North Africa,*the writer concludes "that when people talk about a second front what they mean is a ninth front"
From "Our Indispensible Fronts," NYTimes, February 25, 1943.
Quoted in "American Betrayal," West, p.269.


3.*Somehow, only an Allied invasion via Normandy would count as an authentic 'second front.'*
How to understand these decisions?
"Washington (U.P.)- A highly reliable informant who has first hand information of events in the Soviet Union said tonight*the Russian people would not regard even a major Allied success in North Africa as the answer to their desire for the opening of a second front."*
“Drive in North Africa Not Enough,” New York Times, October 28, 1942.


a. Give FDR credit: he sent over 100,000 Allied troops into North Africa in November. Yet he, Marshall, and Hopkins never waivered from northern France as their 'second front.'

b.*"Stalin Still Insisting *On That Second Front...belittles fighting in Africa." NYTimes, November 8, 1942

c.*"Soviet Renews Cry*For Second Front"
NYTimes, March 12, 1943


----------



## CrusaderFrank

FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin killed 60 million of his own people.
> 
> Those 'casualties'?
> 
> Perhaps you, and FDR, should be more concerned with dead Americans.....rather than...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Leftists are all the same, huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well PC....I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII
> 
> You still worshiping Neville Chamberlain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You remain both a liar an a worshiper of communist icons.
> 
> 
> 
> ".I imagine we could have just stayed home during WWII."
> 
> Unlike you, here's what a real American wrote:
> 
> 1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:"* 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'*
> Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
> 
> Hanson Baldwin declares: "It is obvious that *our concept of invading western Europe in 1942 was fantastic; *our deficiencies in North Africa, which was a much needed training school, proved that."
> 
> 
> Eisenhower, the military expert, favored a limited probe via France and* the real attack elsewhere, and Hanson Baldwin, long-time military editor of the New York Times, thought the the western attack 'fantastic,' and Churchill was opposed as well.*
> 
> But Stalin favored it....so, therefore did his agent, Harry Hopkins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Mr Hanson Baldwin sure are a couple of fucking idiots
> 
> Let Germany and USSR fight it out?
> What about France, England, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway and Finland?
> 
> The winner gets to keep them?
Click to expand...




Watch how easily I show exactly what you are..a vulgar, lying, Roosevelt/communism apologist....

"*Hanson Weightman Baldwin* (March 22, 1903 - November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of the _New York Times_. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics."
Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao


Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
Click to expand...



Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
*I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.

1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.

Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"




a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.

He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher



b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."
Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39




c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
*Churchill?s Southern Strategy



d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:

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

Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.



Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*


----------



## PoliticalChic

FDR....Blunder???


Blunder???


5. Well, some might say 'unconditional surrender,' in the light of Nazi atrocities, ...it was a great idea!  After all, isn't 'total war' the correct response to the *'total guilt' of all Germans? *


Isn't it true that all of the German people had an unswerving, monolithic, uniform belief in Hitler and in Nazism?




Think hard on that one.


If you believe it to be the case....wouldn't one hold the same belief about all of the Russians had an unswerving, monolithic, uniform belief in Stalin and communism?

They didn't.


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

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



And another fact....there is no Nazi atrocity what was not surpassed by greater atrocities by the communists.

Who do you think taught the Nazis how to build and operate concentration camps?



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

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


----------



## Porker

PoliticalChic said:


> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...



The most LETHAL thing Roosevelt "fabricated" was the USA's entry into WWII. He made all the right moves to piss-off Japan so intently as to finally attack our sitting duck Navy purposely harbored at Pearl Harbor and knew in advance, the time, when, and where it would happen. And kept Admiral Husband E. Kimmel in total darkness about the imminent attack which annihilated almost 3,000 of our own military and native Hawaiians (furture citizens to be). ROOSEVELT directed and choreographed the event almost as if he were Hirohito, himself. All to serve his ultimate purpose of getting our country into the European War against Axis power Germany,


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where was this elusive second front that Stalin made FDR take?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
Click to expand...


You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.


----------



## regent

I wonder if Germany has its political chics rewriting history on how Germany could have won the war? If only the USSR had surrendered like it did in WWI; that surrender alone would have meant FDR lost the war and Hitler declared the winner. Or suppose Hitler had pursued the Abomb with more vigor instead of relying on the Messerschmidt 109? Or suppose Hitler had put all Germany to work building V missles to reach New York? Then again suppose Stalin hurt so much from ingrown toenails he decided to end the war and seek help from a toenail man in Spokane? Or suppose....


----------



## guno

in 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin begin a nine-day conference in Moscow, during which the war with Germany and the future of Europe are discussed.

Germany’s defeat now seemed inevitable, and Stalin was prepared to commit the USSR to intervening in the war against Japan once Germany had formally surrendered. This optimistic outlook enabled a significant portion of the talks to center on the relative spheres of influence of the two superpowers in a postwar European environment. Churchill ceded the disposition of Romania, which Stalin’s troops were liberating from German control even as the conference commenced, to the Soviet Union. But the British prime minister was keen on keeping the Red Army away from Greece. “Britain must be the leading Mediterranean power.” They made a deal: Romania for Greece.

Churchill was more accommodating elsewhere, willing to divvy up the spoils of war. Yugoslavia could be cut down the middle, east for Russia, west for the West. Churchill also laid out a plan by which the German populations of East Prussia and Silesia would be moved into the interior of Germany, with East Prussia split between the USSR and Poland, and Silesia handed over to Poland as compensation for territories Stalin already occupied and intended to keep.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The western coast of Europe.....Normandy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
> The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.
Click to expand...




"The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."

*Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?


I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....

...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> I wonder if Germany has its political chics rewriting history on how Germany could have won the war? If only the USSR had surrendered like it did in WWI; that surrender alone would have meant FDR lost the war and Hitler declared the winner. Or suppose Hitler had pursued the Abomb with more vigor instead of relying on the Messerschmidt 109? Or suppose Hitler had put all Germany to work building V missles to reach New York? Then again suppose Stalin hurt so much from ingrown toenails he decided to end the war and seek help from a toenail man in Spokane? Or suppose....




"... rewriting history..."

Liar.

I link, source, and quote to back up everything I post.

Stop slurping Roosevelt's and Stalin's boots.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Porker said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most LETHAL thing Roosevelt "fabricated" was the USA's entry into WWII. He made all the right moves to piss-off Japan so intently as to finally attack our sitting duck Navy purposely harbored at Pearl Harbor and knew in advance, the time, when, and where it would happen. And kept Admiral Husband E. Kimmel in total darkness about the imminent attack which annihilated almost 3,000 of our own military and native Hawaiians (furture citizens to be). ROOSEVELT directed and choreographed the event almost as if he were Hirohito, himself. All to serve his ultimate purpose of getting our country into the European War against Axis power Germany,
Click to expand...




Actually,Porks, there is another element to the Pearl Harbor story....I've done some research on same...and will post it when I have the time.


----------



## PoliticalChic

6.  So..*..who opposed the 'unconditional surrender' policy?*

Our military opposed Roosevelt's greatest blunder.



" General *Albert Coady Wedemeyer*... was a United States Army commander who served in Asia during World War II from October 1943 to the end of the war. Previously, he was an important member of the War Planning Board which formulated plans for the Invasion of Normandy. He was General George Marshall's chief consultant when in the Spring of 1942 he traveled to London with General Marshall and a small group of American military men to consult with the British in an effort to convince the British to support the cross channel invasion." Albert Coady Wedemeyer - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


In his biography and analysis of the war, *he devotes an entire chapter to the 'unconditional surrender' policy, saying "We annulled the prospect  of winning a real victory by the call for unconditional surrender....*

Our demand for unconditional surrender naturally *increased the enemy's will to resist and forced even Hitler's worst enemies to continue fighting..." *  "Wedemeyer Reports!: An objective, dispassionate examination of World War II, postwar policies, and Grand Strategy,"
by Albert C. Wedemeyer, p. 95-96.




7.* [The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europe *through its usefulness to German domestic propaganda that used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies, *and its suppressive effect on the German resistance movement *since even after a coup against Adolf Hitler:

"...those Germans — and particularly those *German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by *their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."
Michael Balfour, "Another Look at 'Unconditional Surrender'",_International Affairs_(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 46, No. 4 (Oct., 1970), pp. 719-736


Was Roosevelt stupid...??? 


*Unconditional surrender.....FDR's obedience to Joseph Stalin....and his greatest blunder.*


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, were did the USA and GB invade first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
> The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."
> 
> *Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?
> 
> 
> I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....
> 
> ...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.*
Click to expand...

You distort quotes and avoid addressing the high casualties that would have occurred. Nor do you address the political consequences of a million casualties in Europe before Japan was dealt with. FDR orchestrated the winning of WWII and saved untold numbers of American lives doing it. The proposals you dream about would have cost millions of American lives and if your plans had been followed, ended with NAZI leadership still in control of Germany thanks to your imagined conditional surrender.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calm down.
> 
> Was the query 'where' did the invasion begin....and where should it have continued?
> Italy...which the Allies controlled, which had surrendered, where we had 200,000 troops.
> 
> But...Stalin wouldn't hear of it....so Roosevelt obeyed.
> 
> 
> 
> The allies did not control Italy. When Italy surrendered the Germans controlled much of Italy and would continue to control it until almost the end of the war. The allies took control of Italy defensive line by defensive line. The defensive lines consisted of mountain ranges and expertly designed series of defensive positions.
> 
> Again, PC attempts to propagate a thread with a glaring and obvious nugget of misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the most glaring fact: you're a fool....
> *I'll prove my case with expert witnesses.*
> 
> *1. Stalin wanted Central and Eastern Europe left for Red Army occupation....so, naturallyFDR put pressure on Churchill, and George Marshall, the same, on Eisenhower.*
> 
> *Basically...'I don't care if attack via Italy is the right course....if Uncle Joe wants us to go West, France it shall be!"*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *a. General Carl Spaatz, American World War II general and the firstChief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and top commander of strategic bombingin Europe, "didn't think OVERLORD [Normandy] was necessary or desirable.*
> 
> *He said it would be a much better investment to build up forces in Italy to push the Germans across the Po, taking and using airfields as we come to them, thus shortening the bombing run into Germany.*
> *"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," p. 447-448, by Harry C. Butcher*
> 
> 
> 
> *b.General Ira Eaker, "of the United States Army Air Forcesduring World War II. Eaker, as second-in-command of the prospective Eighth Air Force, "Ira C. Eaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediastated that it would be"easier to support a trans-Adriatic operation than the invasion of southern France.The bases, he pointed out, hadalready been established in Italy.....but the southern France operation would have to be supported from new bases in Corsica. After the meeting was over, General Marshall commented ....to General Eaker: "You've been too damned long with the British."*
> *Hanson W. Baldwin, "Great Mistakes of the War," p. 38-39*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *c. "One of the few Americans to agree with Churchill and Alexander was Lt. Gen. Mark W. Clark, commander of US Fifth Army in Italy,who said in his 1951 autobiography that "the weakening of the campaign in Italy in order to invade southern France, instead of pushing on into the Balkans, wasone of the outstanding political mistakes of the war. The Italian campaign did have military value. It knocked Italy out of the war and it tied down more than 20 German divisions"*
> *Churchill?s Southern Strategy*
> 
> 
> 
> *d.Eisenhower himself stated that the Adriatic-Italy attack made more sense:*
> 
> *"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO. In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."*
> *FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361*
> *That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961*
> 
> *Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....*
> *One month later he was given his fifth star....and changed his mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....*
> 
> *....but not Stalin or Roosevelt.....or some dope called 'Camp.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not know or care about the difference between battles of maneuver and frontal assaults. FDR concerned himself with American casualties. The warfare in Italy was one that depended greatly on frontal assaults that caused huge numbers of casualties. Warfare next to and along with the Soviets in the Balkans would have been one of continuous frontal assaults of charging up mountains and hills and through narrow valleys. The American Army had been built for battles of maneuver that kept casualties down where flanking maneuvers coupled with overwhelming firepower were used rather than hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of soldiers were thrown into the battle as fodder. The alternative of depending on frontal assaults like the Soviets preferred was dependent on accepting those huge numbers of casualties to fight a WW1 style war.
> The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it. There would still be Japan when the war in Europe was done. Seems easy to make and recommend plans that might cost millions of casualties when you don't have to worry about the politics and writing all those letters to mothers, fathers and wives of the men you are sending to their deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The "experts" you quote were not looking at the big picture the way FDR had to look at it."
> 
> *Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?
> 
> 
> I provided the testimony of Spaatz, Eaker, Clark, and Eisenhower.....and Churchill.....
> 
> ...and you claim that the orders of a homicidal psychopath are the ones to accede to.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You distort quotes and avoid addressing the high casualties that would have occurred. Nor do you address the political consequences of a million casualties in Europe before Japan was dealt with. FDR orchestrated the winning of WWII and saved untold numbers of American lives doing it. The proposals you dream about would have cost millions of American lives and if your plans had been followed, ended with NAZI leadership still in control of Germany thanks to your imagined conditional surrender.
Click to expand...




Au contraire.

I make an unassailable argument leading to a conclusion that you dolts can't defeat.

I quote experts, military and political.



No arguments that 'unconditional surrender' was a peachy-keen idea???



8. Many Allied leaders agreed with General* Wedemeyer*, that Roosevelt's 'unconditional surrender' announcement unified and stiffened Germany's resolve not to surrender, ....they knew that it would prolong the war. Included with Wedermeyer were Winston Churchill, Brit foreign minister Anthony Eden, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Ambassador to Moscow Averell Harriman, and others.
" The Memoirs of Cordell Hull in two volumes," 1570, 1575


Now....you mention casualties....

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

Get that?

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


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

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



9. BTW.....*the same view comes from the German side.* "All to whom I talked dwelt on* the effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war*. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been* to surrender sooner, separately or collectively.*"
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. *Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ." *
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher

*

Now...you lying sewer rat.....show where I "distort quotes."


Waiting.*


----------



## regent

Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."




So saith Joseph Stalin.


----------



## Dot Com

guno said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about our period in history, nor do you have any connection to that period in history, just right wing cut and past drivel
> Try speaking and learning from people who lived at that time and what the country was going through and how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists
Click to expand...

PoliticalSpice is obsessed w/ pinning the "COMMIE!!!" label on one of this great nation's finest Presidents.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So saith Joseph Stalin.
Click to expand...

So saith everyone at the time. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure to make a deal with the NAZI criminals. A lot of lives were lost and a lot of grief was endured to bring the NAZI's to the point of wanting to surrender. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure so that Hitler and his henchmen could continue with life like the war to that date was just a bump in the road.


----------



## rightwinger

Another PC thread where she bemoans the fact that we sided with the Soviets instead of the Nazis

Political Chic does love those Concentration camps


----------



## oldfart

rightwinger said:


> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?



I guess PC would have been happier if Hitler had won.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So saith Joseph Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So saith everyone at the time. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure to make a deal with the NAZI criminals. A lot of lives were lost and a lot of grief was endured to bring the NAZI's to the point of wanting to surrender. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure so that Hitler and his henchmen could continue with life like the war to that date was just a bump in the road.
Click to expand...




"So saith everyone at the time."

That's another lie.

Throughout the thread I've noted experts opposed to same...and if you weren't such a Roosevelt lap dog you'd speak the truth.


Let's slap you in the kisser again:

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


2. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that *the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- * on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless. 
As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International,  1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges. 
West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.

a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party." Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.

3. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement." 
* "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt,*
p. 130-131.


Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.



4. "...he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.


5. *In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. 

He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "
For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590

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


*Based on what has occurred....does FDR sound like a total moron, or what?*

*Unlike you, who is simply a liar.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Another PC thread where she bemoans the fact that we sided with the Soviets instead of the Nazis
> 
> Political Chic does love those Concentration camps





The fact that I reduce you to lies indicates that everything I post is factual...and you know it.


----------



## rightwinger

Lets look at the FDR record during WWII

Turned the US from the 18th largest military to a Superpower
Formed the allied forces and somehow got  the USSR to do most of the fighting and dying for four years while we waited till mid 1944 to form a second front
Greenlighted the atomic bomb
Commander in Chief for wars in two diverse theaters
Liberated Western Europe
Defeated Japan
Left the US as the only economic Superpower after WWII

Greatest President in modern times


----------



## Ravi

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*


Are you saying those Americans that died in WW2 were just an offering to Stalin? Seriously, PC?


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So saith Joseph Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So saith everyone at the time. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure to make a deal with the NAZI criminals. A lot of lives were lost and a lot of grief was endured to bring the NAZI's to the point of wanting to surrender. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure so that Hitler and his henchmen could continue with life like the war to that date was just a bump in the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So saith everyone at the time."
> 
> That's another lie.
> 
> Throughout the thread I've noted experts opposed to same...and if you weren't such a Roosevelt lap dog you'd speak the truth.
> 
> 
> Let's slap you in the kisser again:
> 
> *1. There was FDR close friend, on equally a Sovietophile,  William Christian Bullitt, Jr.. Also an extreme Liberal, a radical, he had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism. *
> *"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.*
> 
> 
> 2. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that *the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- * on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless.
> As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International,  1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges.
> West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.
> 
> a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party." Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.
> 
> 3. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement."
> * "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt,*
> p. 130-131.
> 
> 
> Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
> 
> 
> 5. *In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. *
> 
> *He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "*
> *For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590*
> 
> 
> 6. FDR replied:
> "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning.* I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country*, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
> William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94
> 
> 
> *Based on what has occurred....does FDR sound like a total moron, or what?*
> 
> *Unlike you, who is simply a liar.*
Click to expand...

Well of course, anyone and everyone who does not agree with you is a liar. I exaggerated when I used the word "everyone".  I should have said "the vast overwhelming majority" because there were in fact a few people in the entirety of the the world who agreed with your idea for a conditional surrender. When you start counting the NAZI's you can find many who agree with you. To answer your question as to FDR sounding like a moron, or what, I would answer that that "what" was appropriate. "What" being a genius and you being the moron. In addition, FDR had integrity and a moral compass, unlike you, he would not throw away the lives of those who fought for our freedom and make deals with the monsters that tried to take it from us. He decided to squash them like bugs while you would have liked to sit down with them and sip champagne as you made new friends.


----------



## rightwinger

regent said:


> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."


 
Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ravi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying those Americans that died in WW2 were just an offering to Stalin? Seriously, PC?
Click to expand...



So glad you could make it to today's lesson...."Accuracy in History," presented by moi....

Stalin demanded 'unconditional surrender' as a policy rather than simply allowing the Germans to surrender.

The result of acquiescing to said demand.....

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

Get that?

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


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

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'


I hope you're taking notes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
Click to expand...




None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.

In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.

Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.


----------



## Moonglow

Hitler was never going to surrender...


----------



## Ravi

Moonglow said:


> Hitler was never going to surrender...


That's because FDR paid him not to.


----------



## Moonglow

Ravi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was never going to surrender...
> 
> 
> 
> That's because FDR paid him not to.
Click to expand...

Via Stalin...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So saith Joseph Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So saith everyone at the time. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure to make a deal with the NAZI criminals. A lot of lives were lost and a lot of grief was endured to bring the NAZI's to the point of wanting to surrender. We didn't sacrifice all that blood and treasure so that Hitler and his henchmen could continue with life like the war to that date was just a bump in the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "So saith everyone at the time."
> 
> That's another lie.
> 
> Throughout the thread I've noted experts opposed to same...and if you weren't such a Roosevelt lap dog you'd speak the truth.
> 
> 
> Let's slap you in the kisser again:
> 
> *1. There was FDR close friend, on equally a Sovietophile,  William Christian Bullitt, Jr.. Also an extreme Liberal, a radical, he had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism. *
> *"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.*
> 
> 
> 2. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that *the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- * on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless.
> As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International,  1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges.
> West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.
> 
> a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party." Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.
> 
> 3. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement."
> * "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt,*
> p. 130-131.
> 
> 
> Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
> 
> 
> 5. *In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. *
> 
> *He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "*
> *For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590*
> 
> 
> 6. FDR replied:
> "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning.* I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country*, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
> William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94
> 
> 
> *Based on what has occurred....does FDR sound like a total moron, or what?*
> 
> *Unlike you, who is simply a liar.*
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well of course, anyone and everyone who does not agree with you is a liar. I exaggerated when I used the word "everyone".  I should have said "the vast overwhelming majority" because there were in fact a few people in the entirety of the the world who agreed with your idea for a conditional surrender. When you start counting the NAZI's you can find many who agree with you. To answer your question as to FDR sounding like a moron, or what, I would answer that that "what" was appropriate. "What" being a genius and you being the moron. In addition, FDR had integrity and a moral compass, unlike you, he would not throw away the lives of those who fought for our freedom and make deals with the monsters that tried to take it from us. He decided to squash them like bugs while you would have liked to sit down with them and sip champagne as you made new friends.
Click to expand...




"FDR had integrity and a moral compass,..."

I realize that this is the thrashing of an expired equus....but I do so get the amusement that goes with exposing you as a lying lap dog of FDR's.


Roosevelt embraced the the murderer of millions....and knew exactly what Stalin was guilty of.

*Since FDR knew of Stalin's genocides, was Roosevelt a man without a moral compass?
Absolutely!

FDR chose to recognize Stalin's regime in 1933... eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine*

"In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)



Malcolm Muggeridge "was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin's regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. "




Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books



*For those who don't know, Stalin starved millions to death to gain control of their property, their farms.*

*"1932-1933 .... Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union, set in motion events designed to cause a famine in the Ukraine to destroy the people there seeking independence from his rule. As a result, an estimated 7,000,000 persons perished..."The History Place - Genocide in the 20th Century: Stalin's Forced Famine 1932-33*


*Think Roosevelt knew?*
*You can't deny it, can you.*


----------



## Moonglow

*FDR chose to recognize Stalin's regime in 1933... eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine*
*

 I do loves a good fairy tale....



			ECONOMY
The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement
The Koch family, America's biggest financial backers of the Tea Party, would not be the billionaires they are today were it not for the godless empire of the USSR.
		
Click to expand...

The Tea Party movement's dirty little secret is that its chief financial backers owe their family fortune to the granddaddy of all their hatred: Stalin's godless empire of the USSR. 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 Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement Alternet*


----------



## Moonglow

I guess all Communist tyrant lovers really don't care where there money comes from....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> *FDR chose to recognize Stalin's regime in 1933... eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine
> 
> 
> I do loves a good fairy tale....
> 
> 
> 
> ECONOMY
> The Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement
> The Koch family, America's biggest financial backers of the Tea Party, would not be the billionaires they are today were it not for the godless empire of the USSR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Tea Party movement's dirty little secret is that its chief financial backers owe their family fortune to the granddaddy of all their hatred: Stalin's godless empire of the USSR. 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 Roots of Stalin in the Tea Party Movement Alternet*





PLeeeeezzzzzzeee!

I post facts.

*1. "On November 16, 1933,* President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union following a series of negotiations in Washington, D.C. with the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov."
Recognition of the Soviet Union 1933 - 1921 1936 - Milestones - Office of the Historian


And Litvinov went back to the Russian Embassy laughing at Roosevelt


2. Did Roosevelt have any reason to*believe that Stalin would live up to his word*?
Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement: Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'" On September 23, 1939, Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee.
The Winona Republican-Herald on Newspapers.com

And Dombrowsky testified that *Litvinov boasted that he pulled the wool over FDR's eyes:*

"Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us to recognize the debts we owed them and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one was a corker; they wanted us to promise freedom of religion in the Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. *I was very much prompted to offer that I would personally collect all the Bibles and ship them over."*
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.



And 82 years later...they're still laughing at you dunces.


----------



## Moonglow

So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?


----------



## Dot Com

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?




So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?

The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> "So saith everyone at the time."
> 
> That's another lie.
> 
> Throughout the thread I've noted experts opposed to same...and if you weren't such a Roosevelt lap dog you'd speak the truth.
> 
> 
> Let's slap you in the kisser again:
> 
> *1. There was FDR close friend, on equally a Sovietophile,  William Christian Bullitt, Jr.. Also an extreme Liberal, a radical, he had worked for Woodrow Wilson, and, of course, was a fervent believer in internationalism. *
> *"Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed Bullitt the first US ambassador to the Soviet Union, a post that he filled from 1933 to 1936." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.*
> 
> 
> 2. Ambassador Bullitt soon recognized the truth. Every 'pledge,' 'promise,' and 'assurance," that *the Soviets had tricked Roosevelt into believing- if 'believing' is the accurate explanation- * on war debt, on the treatment of American nationals and property in the USSR, on religious freedom, on subversion in the United States, and, of course, on fomenting revolution in the United States, was worthless.
> As dense a Liberal as Bullitt was, he saw Stalin convene the world's Communist parties, including the American Communist Party (CPUSA), in the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International,  1935. CPUSA leaders Earl Browder and William Foster took leading roles. So much for the pledges.
> West, "American Betrayal," p. 197.
> 
> a. "This not only proved that [the Soviets] still pursued the goal of world revolution, but it also proved that they were breaking their promise in the letters exchanged between Roosevelt and Litvinov in November 1933 which stipulated that Moscow would have nothing to do with the American Communist Party." Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p. 49.
> 
> 3. Bullitt suggested that Roosevelt would feel obliged to break relations. He was wrong. "If we should not [break relations] the Soviet Government would be convinced that it could break its pledges with impunity and would feel free to direct actively the American communist movement."
> * "For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt,*
> p. 130-131.
> 
> 
> Future ambassador William H. Standley gave similar advice to FDR.....which he also ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. "...he later became an outspoken anticommunist..... Though Bullitt arrived in the Soviet Union with high hopes for Soviet-American relations, his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure he was openly hostile to the Soviet government. He remained an outspoken anticommunist for the rest of his life."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.
> 
> 
> 5. *In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. *
> 
> *He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies. "*
> *For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt,"  Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590*
> 
> 
> 6. FDR replied:
> "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning.* I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country*, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."
> William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94
> 
> 
> *Based on what has occurred....does FDR sound like a total moron, or what?*
> 
> *Unlike you, who is simply a liar.*


How much of that "wall of text" did you type PoliticalSpice?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
Click to expand...




1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?

2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?

3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional

Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?

Could it be..........HITLER


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
Click to expand...

You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or as the Oxford tome on WWII with historians contributing from many nations say, "any war aim other than unconditional surrender would have been inappropriate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
Click to expand...



1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?

2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?

3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.

Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun is still hallucinating that Hitler would have accepted her terms of surrender in 1943


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

Who would have accepted terms for Germany?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
Click to expand...





Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.

Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*


10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:

"The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."

How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?



The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."

BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.

*Want to guess at who was on the panel?*

If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.

*All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*

BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."

Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76




Get it, you dope????

*Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*

FDR followed the orders.


And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
Yup...Stalin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you believe PC wanted to let the Nazis off the hook?
> She would have left the death camps in place...some of the "conditions" PC would have accepted is that Germany gets to keep its death camps, Hitler lives, Nazi Germany survives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...
Click to expand...




Stupid comment....basically your version of a white flag,huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
Click to expand...




1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?

2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?

Yes or no?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun is still hallucinating that Hitler would have accepted her terms of surrender in 1943
Click to expand...



Show where I said that, liar.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is true, of course, and folks reading your posts recognize you as an inveterate liar....beginning with your avi.
> 
> In point of fact, one can always tell what the Left....you....are doing by what you accuse others of doing.
> 
> Your post is an attempt to excuse the far worse atrocities of your soul mate, Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid comment....basically your version of a white flag,huh?
Click to expand...

Not at all, since what really happened is not what you are claiming...


----------



## rightwinger

Political Chic and her prom date


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that Hitler would do what ever Stalin told him to do...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid comment....basically your version of a white flag,huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all, since what really happened is not what you are claiming...
Click to expand...



So....either all of the folks I quoted....and quoted correctly...are lying.....

....or you are.

Let's leave that determination to the reader.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> What type of conditional surrender do you think Hitler would have accepted that resulted in his trial?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
Click to expand...

 
Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun

Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Political Chic and her prom date







I believe I've put you in your place.

You know it, too.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Why is it you have never posted a critique of communism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
Click to expand...





No prob.

As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You said we should have pursued a conditional surrender instead of unconditional
> 
> Who do you think would have had to approve the terms of a conditional surrender?
> 
> Could it be..........HITLER
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender

You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 3. Are you attempting to use the 'stupidity defense,' i.e., that there is no possibility of the war ending without a Hitler-surrender.
> 
> Or....to put that another way....Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
Click to expand...




So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
Click to expand...

 
Do you understand what "conditional surrender" means?

It means you have to have someone accept the terms


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who would have accepted terms for Germany?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
Click to expand...

By you inferring that the USSR made the choice for unconditional surrender, since they knew Adolf would not surrender...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
Click to expand...




Why?


You need more of a beating?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what "conditional surrender" means?
> 
> It means you have to have someone accept the terms
Click to expand...





I'm waiting for your admission that you are a congenital liar.

Go ahead....confession is good for the soul.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what "conditional surrender" means?
> 
> It means you have to have someone accept the terms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for your admission that you are a congenital liar.
> 
> Go ahead....confession is good for the soul.
Click to expand...

 
I am the most honest poster on USMB

I know that doesn't account for much, but ya take what you can get


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are claiming that Grand Daddy Koch did not develop the oil fields of Stalin's USSR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
Click to expand...

You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Do you admit you are a chronic liar?
> 
> 2. Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time for some unrelated cut and paste Frau Braun
> 
> Still looking for you to identify who. than Hitler, could have accepted terms of surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By you inferring that the USSR made the choice for unconditional surrender, since they knew Adolf would not surrender...
Click to expand...





Have no fear!

Your education will continue:

11. What was really behind Stalin and his agents provoking Roosevelt into authorizing the 'unconditional surrender' policy?


General Wedemeyer:
" We failed to realize that unconditional surrender and *the annihilation of German power would result in a tremendous vacuum in Central Europe into which the Communist power and ideas would flow."*



Get it now????


*The only one who could benefit from extending the war was Stalin.*



a. "_Wedemeyer explains, “We poisoned ourselves with our own propaganda and let the Communist serpent we took to our bosom envenom our minds and distort our ideals.” [Hanson] Baldwin is more matter-of-fact. “We became victims of our own propaganda,” he wrote. “Russian aims were good and noble. Communism had changed its spots.”_

_We were victims, all right, but not of “our own” propaganda; it was their propaganda. It was propaganda *conceived in Moscow and disseminated by bona fide Kremlin agents, mouthpieces and organizers of Communist parties, fellow travelers, and many, many dupes (“ liberals,” “all the best people,” opinion makers, etc.)*. …"   Diana West, "American Betrayal," p.291_


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...you've given up attempting to challenge my facts, and are now attempting to change the subject?
> 
> The facts with which you and the history-challenged coterie cannot contend include:
> a. FDR was a vassal of Joseph Stalin
> b. FDR extended WWII with commensurate deaths and injury to American Soldiers by following Stalin's orders to declare unconditional surrender as American policy
> c. FDR embraced a pathological murderer and knew exactly what he was doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.
Click to expand...




Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, I'm not burdened by the indoctrination that you are.

This was in the OP:
2. Franklin*Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.

Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693

....as was this:

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


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No prob.
> 
> As soon as you answer this: Can you find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what "conditional surrender" means?
> 
> It means you have to have someone accept the terms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for your admission that you are a congenital liar.
> 
> Go ahead....confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am the most honest poster on USMB
> 
> I know that doesn't account for much, but ya take what you can get
Click to expand...





Being as uneducated as you are, you are reduced to lying constantly.
I've documented that in this thread....but, of course,it was hardly necessary.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unconditional surrender was discussed and adapted at the Casablanca Conference in January of 1943. It was adopted as policy as the best insurance for post war peace in Europe. One member that normally attended these conferences was notably absent. Stalin was not at the Casablanca conference. Roosevelt and Churchill made the decision without Stalin's input. Check it out. It's in all the encyclopedia's and history books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, I'm not burdened by the indoctrination that you are.
> 
> This was in the OP:
> 2. Franklin*Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> ....as was this:
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:*"Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
Click to expand...


Not good enough. Sherwood is using heresay. Hopkins was dead for three years when he wrote his book. Where did he get the quote and why is there a space in the quote? No way to judge the context of the quote. The one from Elliott needs to be sourced by something other than Manly, the pen name for an anti FDR fascist from the 30's and into the McCarthy era.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, I'm not burdened by the indoctrination that you are.
> 
> This was in the OP:
> 2. Franklin*Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> ....as was this:
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:*"Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good enough. Sherwood is using heresay. Hopkins was dead for three years when he wrote his book. Where did he get the quote and why is there a space in the quote? No way to judge the context of the quote. The one from Elliott needs to be sourced by something other than Manly, the pen name for an anti FDR fascist from the 30's and into the McCarthy era.
Click to expand...




Actually....you've come up with the best description for you: "Not good enough."


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, I'm not burdened by the indoctrination that you are.
> 
> This was in the OP:
> 2. Franklin*Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> ....as was this:
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:*"Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good enough. Sherwood is using heresay. Hopkins was dead for three years when he wrote his book. Where did he get the quote and why is there a space in the quote? No way to judge the context of the quote. The one from Elliott needs to be sourced by something other than Manly, the pen name for an anti FDR fascist from the 30's and into the McCarthy era.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually....you've come up with the best description for you: "Not good enough."
Click to expand...

You are the boasting about how accurate your research is and how you can prove everything you claim. I say you are taking comments made by FDR out of context, at the very least. When you build a foundation it has to be strong or what rests on it falls apart. That is why the ideas you present fall apart. Your ideas are weak. You do not present history. You present political agenda driven conspiracy theories.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Who else could have?  You do know who the Fuhrer was don't ya?  He is the one who you would have had to get to accept your conditional surrender
> 
> You do realize what happened to those who went to Hitler and suggested surrender don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So......you're admitting that you lied, and it is not possible for you to ' find any post of mine where I stated that Hitler would surrender?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you understand what "conditional surrender" means?
> 
> It means you have to have someone accept the terms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for your admission that you are a congenital liar.
> 
> Go ahead....confession is good for the soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am the most honest poster on USMB
> 
> I know that doesn't account for much, but ya take what you can get
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being as uneducated as you are, you are reduced to lying constantly.
> I've documented that in this thread....but, of course,it was hardly necessary.
Click to expand...


I am the most honest poster on USMB

If you don't believe it, I can post it in my signature


----------



## Dot Com

PoliticalChic said:


> Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, .....


Which High School are you referring to PoliticalSpice?


----------



## Dot Com

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie...in this case based on your ignorance.
> 
> Now....once again....*watch me belt this one out of the park!*
> 
> 
> 10. As mentioned earlier, although* Roosevelt claimed that he came up with the idea of demanding 'unconditional surrender,"....he didn't. *The original State Department notes say that the policy was affirmed on May 6, 1942, and "reaffirmed" on May 20, 1942:
> 
> "The Subcommittee on Security Problems of the Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy at its third meeting on May 6, 1942 began a consideration of armistice and unconditional surrender.....quick agreement on the matter was reached."
> 
> How could there be 'quick agreement' when, as discussed above, many officials, political and military, disagreed with the policy?
> 
> 
> 
> The notes continue: "The subcommittee agreed to begin its discussion...with the assumption that unconditional surrender would be extracted from the principal defeated states."
> 
> BTW....the note also states that the subcommittee head, Norman L. Davis, appraised the President.
> 
> *Want to guess at who was on the panel?*
> 
> If you guessed Lauchlin Currie, Laurence Duggan, Alger Hiss,  Julian Wadleigh, and  Harry Dexter White....you  get to pick any cupie doll from the top shelf.
> 
> *All of whom have subsequently been revealed as Kremlin spies.*
> 
> BTW....also on the committee was Virginius Frank Coe, and Harold Glasser, and David K. Niles, a communist who "spoke in a sense for* Harry Hopkins *in accord with the wishes of the President."
> 
> Notes from "U.S. Department of State, _*Postwar Foreign Policy Preparations, 1939- 1945*_," prepared by Harley A. Notter (Washington, D.C., 1949),p. 76
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it, you dope????
> 
> *Stalin's agents on the panel 'came up with unconditional surrender.'*
> 
> FDR followed the orders.
> 
> 
> And...so you don't embarrass yourself further....check out Elizabeth Bentley's testimony about the origin of the Morganthau proposal.
> Yup...Stalin.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap! You found one of Cordell Hull's advisory sub committees from WWII that discussed the possibility of unconditional surrender. How many of those advisory sub committees did the Sec. of State have during WWII? Good thing he had that one. If not for that subcommittees unconditional surrender would have never been thought of. Everyone knows FDR never had an original thought. He would have never thought of such a thing on his own. BTW, where did that quote you are using that says FDR claimed to have originated the idea for unconditional surrender come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> You need more of a beating?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You use so many crappy sources that I was wondering if you actually had a reliable one for this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it....not only am I far better educated than you are, I'm not burdened by the indoctrination that you are.
> 
> This was in the OP:
> 2. Franklin*Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> ....as was this:
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:*"Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not good enough. Sherwood is using heresay. Hopkins was dead for three years when he wrote his book. Where did he get the quote and why is there a space in the quote? No way to judge the context of the quote. The one from Elliott needs to be sourced by something other than Manly, the pen name for an anti FDR fascist from the 30's and into the McCarthy era.
Click to expand...

that had to leave a mark


----------



## PoliticalChic

12.  Well, if the Kremlin clique were the first to "know" about this radical new policy, unconditional surrender, a plan designed to prostrate Stalin's singular enemy before him,....who didn't know?


a. "[America's longest serving] Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull, ...had absolutely no clue as to when or how unconditional surrender became U.S. policy, Hull offers a sad little tag line to the disconnections....'Originally, this principle had to formed part of the State Department's thinking. We were as much surprised as Mr. Churchill...In our postwar planning discussion in the State Department, which had begun more that three years prior to the Casablanca Conference, we had not embraced the idea of unconditional surrender.'
*"The Memoirs of Cordell Hull," Hull, p. 1570-1571*


b. "[Harry] Hopkins biographer George McJimsey argues that Roosevelt was determined to make the announcement about unconditional surrender at Casablanca because he saw the 'doctrine as *an approach to Stalin...a device- along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front-  for convincing Stalin of his good will.'* 
*"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," McJimsey, p. 278-279.*




One more time?

What was Roosevelt's motive for 'unconditional surrender'???

Franklin Roosevelt's actions were not aimed at speeding the end of the war, or reducing the loss of American lives.......they were aimed at endearing himself to Uncle Joe.....the slaughterer of 60 million of his own citizens. (see How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill 



Of course.....*functioning as a servant of Joseph Stalin might be Roosevelt's biggest mistake.*


----------



## regent

[QUOTE Old "Unconditional Surrender" Grant would have been proud he caused such a ruckus with his surrender terms at Fort Donelson, but later Grant will be better known as Butcher Grant.
A number of historians have claimed that the terms ending the first World War were responsible for WWII. The allies would try to make the end of WWII the end, and not the seeds planted for WWIII. For the past seventy years it seems to be working.


----------



## Unkotare

guno said:


> ... how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists




Oh? Did he give hope to the Americans he threw into concentration camps?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> [QUOTE Old "Unconditional Surrender" Grant would have been proud he caused such a ruckus with his surrender terms at Fort Donelson, but later Grant will be better known as Butcher Grant.
> A number of historians have claimed that the terms ending the first World War were responsible for WWII. The allies would try to make the end of WWII the end, and not the seeds planted for WWIII. For the past seventy years it seems to be working.





"For the past seventy years it seems to be working."

Well...yeah....if you don't count Mao's communist China, the Korean and VietNam wars....

Roosevelt's efforts are directly responsible for each of the above.


----------



## PoliticalChic

If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

6. No 'Cold War.'

7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'


----------



## rightwinger

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

Everyone knew that
2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

After they fought, which one would have ended up with France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Greece and Finland?
3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

Nazi resistance was not capable of winning
4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....PC once again claims the war could have ended in 1940
5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

Eventually, they did
6. No 'Cold War.'

We wouldn't need one. Either Germany or USSR would control all of Europe
7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'

Always has been


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.
> 
> 1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.
> 
> 2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.
> 
> 3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.
> 
> 4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.
> 
> 5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.
> 
> 6. No 'Cold War.'
> 
> 7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'


Why don't you time travel and show us how it's done? Hind sight is 20/20, but you don't know what will happen next week.....


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.
> 
> 1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.
> 
> 2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.
> 
> 3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.
> 
> 4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.
> 
> 5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.
> 
> 6. No 'Cold War.'
> 
> 7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you time travel and show us how it's done? Hind sight is 20/20, but you don't know what will happen next week.....
Click to expand...




I did.

Post #105


----------



## Camp

Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts  (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts  (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
> The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
> It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.




1. "Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender."
Who said anything about Hitler surrendering?

Why would you pretend that was the only possibility?


2. "The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender."
Clearly, you are a liar.
Unless....you can find any post of mine where I claimed that.


3. "It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage."
Well...it's my scholarship vs. your Rooseveltian ideology.

And I win.


*This is your chance: show where I claimed "some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender."*

Either that or get down on your knees and apologize.


----------



## regent

If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia  would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia  would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?





Oooh...oooh!

Call on me!

Call on meeee!


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia  would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooh...oooh!
> 
> Call on me!
> 
> Call on meeee!
Click to expand...

OK, OK that little girl in the back seat, with the paste bottles all about her.


----------



## PoliticalChic

There are a limited number of possibilities.

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


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


Get that?

"*I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man."*


*Everyone else in the world knew exactly what kind of man Stalin was.*




*More coming.....btw....you have breakfast stains on your tie.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

2. He was totally enthralled with Stalin...and wanted to be just as ruthless.
He needed Stalin's approval above all else.

"[Harry] Hopkins biographer George McJimsey argues that Roosevelt was determined to make the announcement about unconditional surrender at Casablanca because he saw the 'doctrine as*an approach to Stalin...a device- along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front- for convincing Stalin of his good will.'
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," McJimsey, p. 278-279.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

3. . The following analysis of Dennis J. Dunn's_"Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow."_

"Adopting* the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence,*"*Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy"*(pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted *Roosevelt to mislead the American public*and ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove *that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..*." (Dunn, p. 4, 6).


In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally." Imbued with "absolute morality," Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimum*standards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes."*

*These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin"*(Dunn, pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews


----------



## PoliticalChic

4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.

Raise your pay, reggie.


----------



## Andylusion

guno said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge
Click to expand...


That's true... however...    Part of the reason why the Soviets had such horrific losses, was specifically because of their absolute brutality towards the Germans.

Stalin openly support rape, murder, and pillaging by Soviet troops, and the troops carried out that order to the fullest.

It's not surprising that America losses were much lower, when we treated the Germans humanly, and the Russians did not.

The Americans had supply trains, that kept our troops supplied as they advanced.   Russian troops 'lived off the land'.  When they entered a city, they ate all the food they could find, raped all the women, killed the men, and everything they could pack up and move, they stole.

How is this shocking that the Germans fought to the bitter death the Russians, while entire towns surrendered to the allies?

Remember, Stalin motivated his troops, by placing blocking units behind the front line, and if anyone ran the wrong way, they were shot.   Stalin cared little to nothing for the lives of his people, which only became more evident after the war was over, and the real horrors started.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts  (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
> The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
> It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.





Silence????


Can't find any such post of mine????


Another custard pie smashed in the dope's kisser.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts  (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
> The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
> It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silence????
> 
> 
> Can't find any such post of mine????
> 
> 
> Another custard pie smashed in the dope's kisser.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't necessary to go on one of your wild goose chases. The OP and very basis of it supports my contentions and comment that you challenge.  It is obvious that in order to reject an unconditional surrender as a viable policy, a conditional one would have to be sought. You are proposing a conspiracy theory that requires other conspiracy theories to support your primary conspiracy theory. I pointed out Hitler's rejection of conditional surrenders or any other kind of surrender. That leaves the only type of surrender to be the one where everyone is destroyed until only the people willing to surrender unconditionally remain. You kill them until they are coming out of the basements with white flags or totally rejecting the wartime leadership and everything it stood for. That is what happened. It is history. You are in the history forum. It is not the conjecture and guessing forum or the conspiracy theory forum.
FDR did the right thing. He made sure the NAZI's were beat into the basements and pleading for mercy. He assisted and allowed Stalin to smash them like bugs. He set a precedent that war criminals like the NAZI's would not be allowed to escape justice. Your ideas about conditional surrender would not have done that.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.


FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president. Call me if that changes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts  (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
> The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
> It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silence????
> 
> 
> Can't find any such post of mine????
> 
> 
> Another custard pie smashed in the dope's kisser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't necessary to go on one of your wild goose chases. The OP and very basis of it supports my contentions and comment that you challenge.  It is obvious that in order to reject an unconditional surrender as a viable policy, a conditional one would have to be sought. You are proposing a conspiracy theory that requires other conspiracy theories to support your primary conspiracy theory. I pointed out Hitler's rejection of conditional surrenders or any other kind of surrender. That leaves the only type of surrender to be the one where everyone is destroyed until only the people willing to surrender unconditionally remain. You kill them until they are coming out of the basements with white flags or totally rejecting the wartime leadership and everything it stood for. That is what happened. It is history. You are in the history forum. It is not the conjecture and guessing forum or the conspiracy theory forum.
> FDR did the right thing. He made sure the NAZI's were beat into the basements and pleading for mercy. He assisted and allowed Stalin to smash them like bugs. He set a precedent that war criminals like the NAZI's would not be allowed to escape justice. Your ideas about conditional surrender would not have done that.
Click to expand...




Well, well, well....what have we here?

Let's see....you were caught in a lie...

.* "The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender."*
Clearly, you are a liar.
Unless....you can find any post of mine where I claimed that."

Obviously there is no such post.
And now you're trying to hid same in that post.....

Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

Have I told you how scummy I believe liars are?

Or has everyone who knows you already appraised you of what they think of you?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
Click to expand...



He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
Click to expand...



That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'

A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.

I'll never understand that.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
Click to expand...

Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
Click to expand...




It seems I correctly identified you earlier.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.
> 
> Raise your pay, reggie.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
Click to expand...

Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR still number one Kiddo, top of the heap, America's best president....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
Click to expand...




Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....


1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....

or...

2. You simply don't care to know the truth.



Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
"_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was the worst villain ever to sully the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of the mistakes of FDR, as are the hundreds of America's best historians since they first rated presidents in 1948. What kinds of idiot would I be if I took the word of some poster that wore a superwoman outfit, over all the best historians America has to offer? Add to that I lived through that period of our history and am well aware of mistakes FDR and many others of that period made.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That poster, among others, never even tries to deny the faults  and evils of his hero....he simply shrugs and claims the approval of 'historians.'
> 
> A characteristic of Liberals.....righteousness has no place in their firmament.
> 
> I'll never understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well aware of the mistakes of FDR, as are the hundreds of America's best historians since they first rated presidents in 1948. What kinds of idiot would I be if I took the word of some poster that wore a superwoman outfit, over all the best historians America has to offer? Add to that I lived through that period of our history and am well aware of mistakes FDR and many others of that period made.
Click to expand...




And here is where you reveal yourself to be a liar:
" What kinds of idiot would I be if I took the word of some poster that wore a superwoman outfit, ..."


I never give my opinion without the quotes, links, and documentation.

That's why you are unable to deny them.

And...why you will never be anything but an apologist/lapdog for Roosevelt.


True, isn't it.


----------



## regent

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got any more scholarly information to share on FDR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems I correctly identified you earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are we now switching from FDR to me? I know who I am, how about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stick to you for a moment....you know, as a prime example of the sort of Roosevelt apologist one comes across....
> 
> 
> 1. Either you are simply a desperate individual who has such little faith in himself that he relies on the opinion of others, you know, those 'historians' you constantly refer to....
> 
> or...
> 
> 2. You simply don't care to know the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...and the truth about Roosevelt?
> "_*Nous sommes trahis*_!" (We are betrayed!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well aware of the mistakes of FDR, as are the hundreds of America's best historians since they first rated presidents in 1948. What kinds of idiot would I be if I took the word of some poster that wore a superwoman outfit, over all the best historians America has to offer? Add to that I lived through that period of our history and am well aware of mistakes FDR and many others of that period made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is where you reveal yourself to be a liar:
> " What kinds of idiot would I be if I took the word of some poster that wore a superwoman outfit, ..."
> 
> 
> I never give my opinion without the quotes, links, and documentation.
> 
> That's why you are unable to deny them.
> 
> And...why you will never be anything but an apologist/lapdog for Roosevelt.
> 
> 
> True, isn't it.
Click to expand...

There are sources and there are sources and that is why future historians spend so much time in college courses learning to tell the difference.
There are quotes links and documentation that said, George Washington as a child chopped down a cherry tree and told his father the truth, but did he?
FDR is one of my heroes but so is Truman, Lincoln, Jefferson, even Jackson. I have some respect for Reagan, he was not afraid to deal with the USSR--and he did vote for FDR.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

Oh look,its the USMB troll that has an obsession over FDR again.


----------



## rightwinger

FDRs greatest blunder:

Letting Stalin lose 25 million while we only lost 400,000
The US moving from the 17th largest military to number one in the world
The US having the only functioning economy at wars end


What was he thinking?


----------



## rightwinger

Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR


----------



## Agit8r

PoliticalChic said:


> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*



Should we have accepted conditional surrender from the Japanese as well?

Would have been less fireworks, for sure...


----------



## Political Junky

rightwinger said:


> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR


Not bad for a president who came to power in Hoover's Depression. Look what he did in those years he had in the White House.


----------



## rightwinger

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for a president who came to power in Hoover's Depression. Look what he did in those years he had in the White House.
Click to expand...

And he did it all over the protests of Republicans


----------



## Political Junky

rightwinger said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for a president who came to power in Hoover's Depression. Look what he did in those years he had in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And he did it all over the protests of Republicans
Click to expand...

Yes, and Ronald Reagan, a Democrat at the time, supported FDR all the way.


----------



## Marxist

The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then the Americans.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR


And at the wars start  we had 43 bases not on American soil, after, 4,600.....


----------



## Agit8r

Marxist said:


> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then the Americans.



And our government was wise to let them do so.


----------



## Moonglow

But that's what Stalin wanted for FDR......He ordered him to do it....


----------



## Steven_R

If FDR had a failing during WW2 it was not reigning in MacArthur. He just let the man do whatever he wanted up to and including diverting the resources in the Pacific War so MacArthur could start his own campaigns just for his ego. That and letting the British decide to let the USAAF take extreme losses by doing daylight bombing.


----------



## regent

Steven_R said:


> If FDR had a failing during WW2 it was not reigning in MacArthur. He just let the man do whatever he wanted up to and including diverting the resources in the Pacific War so MacArthur could start his own campaigns just for his ego. That and letting the British decide to let the USAAF take extreme losses by doing daylight bombing.


My thinking on MacArthur was that America needed a hero at the moment. I remember one American hero that took shape a pilot was supposed to have aimed his airplane for a Japanese ship kamikaze style and all untrue. The skypilot in the song was another hero.
MacArthur was pretty much hated by most of us in the Pacific. "Stick with Mac and never get back, Move over God it's me Mac." and on and on. There was no shortage of good American generals and to let that egomaniac command troops was one of FDR's big mistakes.


----------



## Unkotare

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for a president who came to power in Hoover's Depression. Look what he did in those years he had in the White House.
Click to expand...



Yeah, no U.S. President built concentration camps like FDR did. He was scum.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.




It's not like they had any choice in the matter.


----------



## regent

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
Click to expand...

They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> FDRs greatest blunder:
> 
> Letting Stalin lose 25 million while we only lost 400,000
> The US moving from the 17th largest military to number one in the world
> The US having the only functioning economy at wars end
> 
> 
> What was he thinking?




It was not FDR who "let" the SU lose 25 million people. 

FDR did not do much to move the US up either. Hitler was the madman that set Europe on fire.

The United States was lucky to have two large oceans protecting US from the carnage.


FDR did show a lack of concern for the Post War situation.

And signing an agreement with Stalin, with the benefit to US is that Stalin promises to have free elections in Soviet Occupied Europe?

Really? What the hell was that about?


----------



## Unkotare

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
Click to expand...



It would have been the end of the soviet. And the boys on the front lines literally had no choice. It was charge ahead poorly armed if at all, or be shot in the back for not doing so.


----------



## Unkotare

SS St Louis The ship of Jewish refugees nobody wanted - BBC News


FDR s troubling view of Jews - latimes


FDR s Jewish Problem The Nation


----------



## Political Junky

Unkotare said:


> SS St Louis The ship of Jewish refugees nobody wanted - BBC News
> 
> 
> FDR s troubling view of Jews - latimes
> 
> 
> FDR s Jewish Problem The Nation


Nixon And Billy Graham Anti-Semitism Caught On Tape

"This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," the nation's best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life.
"You believe that?" Nixon says after the "stranglehold" comment.
"Yes, sir," Graham says.
"Oh, boy," replies Nixon. "So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it."
"No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," Graham replies.

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."


----------



## rightwinger

Agit8r said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And our government was wise to let them do so.
Click to expand...

That FDR was a rascal


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been the end of the soviet. And the boys on the front lines literally had no choice. It was charge ahead poorly armed if at all, or be shot in the back for not doing so.
Click to expand...

They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land, they were true soldiers.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stalin sure pulled a fast one on FDR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not bad for a president who came to power in Hoover's Depression. Look what he did in those years he had in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, no U.S. President built concentration camps like FDR did. He was scum.
Click to expand...

Yeah, remember what we did to Indians? Idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....




Whether they wanted to or not.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Yeah, remember what we did to Indians?....





And that somehow justifies the scumbag FDR's concentration camps? Illogical douche.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, remember what we did to Indians?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that somehow justifies the scumbag FDR's concentration camps? Illogical douche.
Click to expand...

You act like I support horrid actions by states... I don't support the camps under Roosevelt, but you're being a hypocrite to say he was the worst president to do this.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.
Click to expand...


Your aversion to logic is pathetic.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, remember what we did to Indians?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that somehow justifies the scumbag FDR's concentration camps? Illogical douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I support horrid actions by states...
Click to expand...



Read your own posts.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your aversion to logic is pathetic.
Click to expand...

You're stupidity is astounding, are you telling me that the Russians didn't have more people die then any of the other allies? Didn't have to deal with a massive invasion? That the US didn't draft soldiers?


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> you're being a hypocrite to say he was the worst president to do this.




He was, and you don't know what "hypocrite" means.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, remember what we did to Indians?....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that somehow justifies the scumbag FDR's concentration camps? Illogical douche.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You act like I support horrid actions by states...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read your own posts.
Click to expand...

I never support horrid actions by states in any of my posts, give me an example.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're being a hypocrite to say he was the worst president to do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was, and you don't know what "hypocrite" means.
Click to expand...

Yeah, remember the trail of tears?


----------



## Unkotare

Utter disregard for logic.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Utter disregard for logic.


Keep saying one sentence bullshit and refuse to acknowledge the deaths of millions of indians.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter disregard for logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep saying one sentence bullshit and refuse to acknowledge the deaths of millions of indians.
Click to expand...






Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Utter disregard for logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep saying one sentence bullshit and refuse to acknowledge the deaths of millions of indians.
Click to expand...



Have you ever heard of a red herring?


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
Click to expand...



Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
There was never such a possibility.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

guno said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties
> 
> Who won?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British  as they knew  the Red army was going to take revenge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Soviets gave up 20 million dead and PC bitches about lend lease
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My father was in the Navy and was on convoys for lend lease, on  my mothers side (cousins and aunts and uncles)  were murdered in hitlers camps , the OP knows nothing about WWII.
Click to expand...


Sorry for your loss

Shut the fuck up you Moron


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
Click to expand...


"Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine

You people are truly sick fucks


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
Click to expand...

 
Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
Click to expand...

 
Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
Click to expand...




Are you hiding behind the fabrication that I claimed that Hitler would surrender?

I never said any such thing.

But...the many anti-Nazi Germans...beginning with the entire Abwehr...the German Military Intelligence apparatus tried to make arrangements with the British, and then the Americans from 1937 on.


For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
Click to expand...




Actually, Stalin beat Germany and the United States.
The proof is how many individuals like you exist today.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
Click to expand...




For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?


Waiting.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Stalin beat Germany and the United States.
> The proof is how many individuals like you exist today.
Click to expand...

 
Seems we came out of WWII as the biggest economic and military power

What a "blunder" by FDR


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

Your affection for Hitler is well documented


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Stalin beat Germany and the United States.
> The proof is how many individuals like you exist today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we came out of WWII as the biggest economic and military power
> 
> What a "blunder" by FDR
Click to expand...



The result of FDR's blunders was that communism was given a home and a warm welcome in the United States....

...and, as I stated....you are the proof.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
Click to expand...



Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.



Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.

Still waiting for you to back that up.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.
> 
> 1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.
> 
> 2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.
> 
> 3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.
> 
> *4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.
> 
> 5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.
> 
> 6. No 'Cold War.'
> 
> 7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'


 
*4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.

In this post, Frau Braun repeats her urging of appeasement  to Adolph Hitler

Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR

But to Frau Braun, that is the outcome of choice


.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
Click to expand...



1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
You are a congenital liar.


2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.

Still waiting for you to back that up


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.
> 
> 1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.
> 
> 2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.
> 
> 3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.
> 
> *4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.
> 
> 5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.
> 
> 6. No 'Cold War.'
> 
> 7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.
> 
> In this post, Frau Braun repeats her urging of appeasement  to Adolph Hitler
> 
> Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR
> 
> But to Frau Braun, that is the outcome of choice
Click to expand...




Anti-Nazi Germans


rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.
> 
> 1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.
> 
> 2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.
> 
> 3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.
> 
> *4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.
> 
> 5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.
> 
> 6. No 'Cold War.'
> 
> 7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties*.
> 
> In this post, Frau Braun repeats her urging of appeasement  to Adolph Hitler
> 
> Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR
> 
> But to Frau Braun, that is the outcome of choice
Click to expand...




1. I have never suggested either appeasing Hitler, nor even dealing with him.
Never....as proven by the fact that you cannot find any such post of mine.
*You simply lie to defend FDR, the lover of all things communist.*


2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."

a. No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.


b. "...Hitler marching into the USSR."
That's a joke, seeing what did happen to the German army in Russia.



3...the many anti-Nazi Germans...beginning with the entire Abwehr...the German Military Intelligence apparatus tried to make arrangements with the British, and then the Americans from 1937 on.


*For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?

So....which are you more of, an ignoramus or a liar?*


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a bigger fool would think Hitler would surrender
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
> You are a congenital liar.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up
Click to expand...

 

Frau Braun

You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated

Your attempt at appeasement while Hitler holds Western Europe and is beginning his attack on the USSR shows where your loyalties lie. Just in time for Hitlers birthday


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
> You are a congenital liar.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated
> 
> Your attempt at appeasement while Hitler holds Western Europe and is beginning his attack on the USSR shows where your loyalties lie. Just in time for Hitlers birthday
Click to expand...




"You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940,..."

If that is the case....why aren't you able to quote any such post of mine?

Try as you will....lie as you will....you cannot did the fact that Franklin Roosevelt was Joseph Stalin's vassal.

Do you know what a vassal is?

"vassal....a person  in a subordinate position to another."


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
> You are a congenital liar.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated
> 
> Your attempt at appeasement while Hitler holds Western Europe and is beginning his attack on the USSR shows where your loyalties lie. Just in time for Hitlers birthday
Click to expand...



Did the Confederacy still 'hold' the South after the surrender at Appomattox?

You are both a liar and a fool.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
> You are a congenital liar.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated
> 
> Your attempt at appeasement while Hitler holds Western Europe and is beginning his attack on the USSR shows where your loyalties lie. Just in time for Hitlers birthday
Click to expand...




"You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated..."

Your big lie of the day, huh?  
I mean....after your avi.


A coup with the Allies aiding the anti-Nazi Germans would have ended Hitler and the Nazis.

FDR and Stalin would not allow that because a free Germany would have been able to oppose Stalin after the war.


----------



## PoliticalChic

There were lots of anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans....many in high positions.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For clarity....are you not aware of same or are you performing your usual method....lying?
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your affection for Hitler is well documented
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it isn't....as proven by the fact that you can find no posts to support your slander, you liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Seems you create these pro-Hitler threads just in time for his birthday
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Can you show any to be pro-Hitler...or are you hiding the fact that they are anti-Stalin and Stalin's partner, FDR.
> You are a congenital liar.
> 
> 
> 2. Now...you also suggested that I claimed that Hitler would surrender.
> 
> Still waiting for you to back that up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> You criticize FDR for not settling with Hitler in May 1940, five years before Hitler was defeated
> 
> Your attempt at appeasement while Hitler holds Western Europe and is beginning his attack on the USSR shows where your loyalties lie. Just in time for Hitlers birthday
Click to expand...


RW, it is one thing to disagree with PC's scenario, (of regime change in Germany in 1940).

It is a completely different matter to misrepresent what she is saying as appeasing Hitler.

You are being a troll.


----------



## rightwinger

Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"

I'm not making this up 

_2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_

May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning

Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender

You can't make this shit up


----------



## Camp

How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> There were lots of anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans....many in high positions.


 
Germany was in euphoria over their endless military victories. They were not about to turn their country over to "anti-Nazis" who would surrender

They seem to have remembered what surrender meant in 1918


----------



## rightwinger

Camp said:


> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?


 
The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up





But you make up stuff all the time.

I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...

You simply lie,


"[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."

*Exactly  what would have happened.


I can back up everything I post.


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



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

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


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

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

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

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


Again?

"...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."

Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
Click to expand...




Another attempt at your lies?

How about in 1937....when the anti-Nazis began their attempts.

By 1945, Roosevelt's lack of support for them allowed Hitler to murder most.

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

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

a. "*Archival evidence indicates that the Soviet’s wanted the war to continue *long enough for them to conquer Eastern Europe and in order for Germany to be utterly destroyed or “pastoralized” which was called for in t*he Morgenthau Plan which was actually written by Soviet spy Harry Dexter White*.
The Soviets were also clamoring for a “second front” in France in order to deflect the allies out of Italy and the Balkans which was too close to Russia."
Chuck Morse Speaks: The Canaris Cover-up




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




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




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

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



See....unlike you...many Germans were anti-communist as well as anti-Nazi.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?





"How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"

Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.


See if you can challenge any of it.
Double-dog dare ya.'


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up



Look at your own words.

"Frau Braun seems to think that FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender".


THat completely contradicts your claim that PC was criticizing FDR for not "settling with Hitler" or that she was for "appeasing Hitler".

Attacking her scenario for being  unrealistic is one thing.

THat is not what you have been doing. You are been misrepresenting her scenario and attacking her based on your version of her scenario.

That is something a troll does.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at your own words.
> 
> "Frau Braun seems to think that FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender".
> 
> 
> THat completely contradicts your claim that PC was criticizing FDR for not "settling with Hitler" or that she was for "appeasing Hitler".
> 
> Attacking her scenario for being  unrealistic is one thing.
> 
> THat is not what you have been doing. You are been misrepresenting her scenario and attacking her based on your version of her scenario.
> 
> That is something a troll does.
Click to expand...




"contradicts"

"misrepresenting"


You are far too kind to the wind-bag.


I just challenged the other Roosevelt boot-licker .....let's see what he says.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
Click to expand...



THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.

5 years might be the very best case scenario.

2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?

One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.

But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.

Did FDR believe that?

Did he have any plans to follow up on that?

Did he just write off Eastern Europe?

Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?


----------



## Marxist

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The brave soldiers of the USSR sacrificed far more to fight Germany then[sic] the Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not like they had any choice in the matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a choice. In World War one the Russians surrendered to the Germans, and that was always one of the allied fears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool could believe that Stalin would ever surrender to Hitler.
> There was never such a possibility.
Click to expand...

Of course stalin would never surrender. .-.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
Click to expand...



"Did he just write off Eastern Europe?"

*1. By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'*

*Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. *


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


*Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,": *
*"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."*



*2. Along came President Roosevelt, with the typical progressive blind eye to human suffering and slaughter. He ignored the 3-5 million starved to death in the Ukraine by the regime of the USSR, and rushed to embrace it, offering recognition in November of 1933.*




*The saddest of all is the moron, Camp, claiming that Roosevelt had 'a moral compass.'*


----------



## haissem123

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*


After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
Click to expand...

You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.


----------



## Marxist

PoliticalChic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Did he just write off Eastern Europe?"
> 
> *1. By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'*
> 
> *Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. *
> 
> 
> *Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. *
> 
> 
> *Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,": *
> *"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."*
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Along came President Roosevelt, with the typical progressive blind eye to human suffering and slaughter. He ignored the 3-5 million starved to death in the Ukraine by the regime of the USSR, and rushed to embrace it, offering recognition in November of 1933.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The saddest of all is the moron, Camp, claiming that Roosevelt had 'a moral compass.'*
Click to expand...

Roosevelt obviously had a "moral compass," and if you want to talk about the USSR...


----------



## PoliticalChic

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
Click to expand...




There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.

"...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
You're truly a moron, aren't you.

Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.


----------



## Marxist

PoliticalChic said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
Click to expand...

 
Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace. 
Hitler was funny that way


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
Click to expand...




Just admit I've destroyed you.
That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.

How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
Click to expand...




Just as I thought.
You get your education from 'the Magic 8-Ball"


----------



## Marxist

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
Click to expand...

I've lost all hope, you should drink some bleach, hitler would appreciate that.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
Click to expand...


You meant to say Patton instead of Progressive founding father josrf


rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
Click to expand...


There was at least one attempt on his life. No doubt a real peace would have lead to others


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
Click to expand...

 
He had little choice

Possession is nine tenths of the law and the Soviets were unwilling to give up conquered territory after losing 20 million people


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Marxist said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've lost all hope, you should drink some bleach, hitler would appreciate that.
Click to expand...


Since you lost all hope, maybe there's a bottle of Clorox in your future


----------



## Marxist

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had little choice
> 
> Possession is nine tenths of the law and the Soviets were unwilling to give up conquered territory after losing 20 million people
Click to expand...

Good for the soviets.


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to say Patton instead of Progressive founding father josrf
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was at least one attempt on his life. No doubt a real peace would have lead to others
Click to expand...

 
Patton?

Patton may have killed 20,000 Germans
Uncle Joe killed 8 million


----------



## Marxist

CrusaderFrank said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've lost all hope, you should drink some bleach, hitler would appreciate that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you lost all hope, maybe there's a bottle of Clorox in your future
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to say Patton instead of Progressive founding father josrf
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was at least one attempt on his life. No doubt a real peace would have lead to others
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Patton?
> 
> Patton may have killed 20,000 Germans
> Uncle Joe killed 10 million
Click to expand...


Uncle Joe killed more Soviets


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was the greatest enabler of history's two greatest Progressive mass murderers: Stalin and Mao
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, enter the echo chamber...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Uncle" Joe, beloved by Americans biggest scumbag President FDR immediately AFTER starving 6 to 7 million people to death in the Ukraine
> 
> You people are truly sick fucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Joe beat Hitler for FDR
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You meant to say Patton instead of Progressive founding father josrf
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was at least one attempt on his life. No doubt a real peace would have lead to others
Click to expand...

There was around 32 attempts on Hitlers life...


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
Click to expand...





Good to see you've given up your previous lies re: that I claimed surrender would have been via Hitler.

I love beating liars like you into submission.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
Click to expand...

I just refuted your documentation by explaining how you have misused and misrepresented your analysis of the importance and authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. You use a method of misrepresentation by quoting real quotes, but distorting them and misrepresenting them. The actual quotes may be accurate, but the meanings you give to them are inaccurate and manipulated to conform to your agenda. Point of fact is that your analysis of Canaris and the Abwehr is distorted and misrepresented and you can not show my analysis of your distortion is inaccurate. My analysis is factually spot on.
You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west at a time that he was discussing an alliance between Spain and Germany with Franco. It shows your lack of knowledge and expertise in the diplomatic activities during the time frame you are claiming to be expert about.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you've given up your previous lies re: that I claimed surrender would have been via Hitler.
> 
> I love beating liars like you into submission.
Click to expand...

 
Frau Braun

Your fantasies about FDR brokering "peace" with a nearly non-existent German resistance only prove your intent to appease Hitler

As it worked out

Soviets did all the dying and we ended up with the only functioning economy after the war plus the strongest military

Not too shabby....hey Eva?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just refuted your documentation by explaining how you have misused and misrepresented your analysis of the importance and authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. You use a method of misrepresentation by quoting real quotes, but distorting them and misrepresenting them. The actual quotes may be accurate, but the meanings you give to them are inaccurate and manipulated to conform to your agenda. Point of fact is that your analysis of Canaris and the Abwehr is distorted and misrepresented and you can not show my analysis of your distortion is inaccurate. My analysis is factually spot on.
> You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west at a time that he was discussing an alliance between Spain and Germany with Franco. It shows your lack of knowledge and expertise in the diplomatic activities during the time frame you are claiming to be expert about.
Click to expand...




The only thing you did was bloviate.

You are no expert....you're the moron who wrote 'Roosevelt had a moral compass."


You should have 'moron' monogrammed on all of your jumpsuits....that's what they give you to wear in the 'nervous hospital,' don't they?



"You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west ...."

Absolutely.

As were dozens of other highly positioned anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.

See if your keepers will let you order some books.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you've given up your previous lies re: that I claimed surrender would have been via Hitler.
> 
> I love beating liars like you into submission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your fantasies about FDR brokering "peace" with a nearly non-existent German resistance only prove your intent to appease Hitler
> 
> As it worked out
> 
> Soviets did all the dying and we ended up with the only functioning economy after the war plus the strongest military
> 
> Not too shabby....hey Eva?
Click to expand...




"....brokering "peace" with a nearly non-existent German resistance only prove your intent to appease Hitler..."

Destroying you is so simple because you are so stupid.


Watch:

"Colonel General Ludwig BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,_Goerdeler's Struggle_, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between *early 1937* and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons *interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime *(Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,_German Resistance_, p. 153).




C'mon....are you an imbecile or simply a lying fool?

Which is it?



Need a list of some of the anti-Hitler resistance.....or is there a library nearby?

What????

You don't own a library card?
Shocker.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just refuted your documentation by explaining how you have misused and misrepresented your analysis of the importance and authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. You use a method of misrepresentation by quoting real quotes, but distorting them and misrepresenting them. The actual quotes may be accurate, but the meanings you give to them are inaccurate and manipulated to conform to your agenda. Point of fact is that your analysis of Canaris and the Abwehr is distorted and misrepresented and you can not show my analysis of your distortion is inaccurate. My analysis is factually spot on.
> You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west at a time that he was discussing an alliance between Spain and Germany with Franco. It shows your lack of knowledge and expertise in the diplomatic activities during the time frame you are claiming to be expert about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you did was bloviate.
> 
> You are no expert....you're the moron who wrote 'Roosevelt had a moral compass."
> 
> 
> You should have 'moron' monogrammed on all of your jumpsuits....that's what they give you to wear in the 'nervous hospital,' don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> "You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west ...."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> As were dozens of other highly positioned anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.
> 
> See if your keepers will let you order some books.
Click to expand...

You are the one bloviating. You continue to deflect and escape responding to the critical analysis I have provided regarding your opinions about Canaris and the Abwehr which form an integral position in your thesis. Your method of deflecting is just boring. Insults are the best you can do. If you were as smart as you claim or you had valid ideas you would be able to respond intellectually and not consistently and constantly rely on hurling generic insults at all who challenge your ideas or opinions.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender?"
> 
> Answered in detail with links and sources in posts #194 and #195.....you dope.
> 
> 
> See if you can challenge any of it.
> Double-dog dare ya.'
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just refuted your documentation by explaining how you have misused and misrepresented your analysis of the importance and authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. You use a method of misrepresentation by quoting real quotes, but distorting them and misrepresenting them. The actual quotes may be accurate, but the meanings you give to them are inaccurate and manipulated to conform to your agenda. Point of fact is that your analysis of Canaris and the Abwehr is distorted and misrepresented and you can not show my analysis of your distortion is inaccurate. My analysis is factually spot on.
> You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west at a time that he was discussing an alliance between Spain and Germany with Franco. It shows your lack of knowledge and expertise in the diplomatic activities during the time frame you are claiming to be expert about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you did was bloviate.
> 
> You are no expert....you're the moron who wrote 'Roosevelt had a moral compass."
> 
> 
> You should have 'moron' monogrammed on all of your jumpsuits....that's what they give you to wear in the 'nervous hospital,' don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> "You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west ...."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> As were dozens of other highly positioned anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.
> 
> See if your keepers will let you order some books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one bloviating. You continue to deflect and escape responding to the critical analysis I have provided regarding your opinions about Canaris and the Abwehr which form an integral position in your thesis. Your method of deflecting is just boring. Insults are the best you can do. If you were as smart as you claim or you had valid ideas you would be able to respond intellectually and not consistently and constantly rely on hurling generic insults at all who challenge your ideas or opinions.
Click to expand...



Here you go, you moron...now I have to teach you vocabulary as well as history:

blo·vi·ate
ˈblōvēˌāt/
_verb_
USinformal

talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

I link, source, document everything I post.....while you, with very little effort, have become our number one source of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Did he just write off Eastern Europe?"
> 
> *1. By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'*
> 
> *Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. *
> 
> 
> *Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. *
> 
> 
> *Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,": *
> *"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."*
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Along came President Roosevelt, with the typical progressive blind eye to human suffering and slaughter. He ignored the 3-5 million starved to death in the Ukraine by the regime of the USSR, and rushed to embrace it, offering recognition in November of 1933.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The saddest of all is the moron, Camp, claiming that Roosevelt had 'a moral compass.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt obviously had a "moral compass," ..
Click to expand...


All evidence to the contrary.


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frau Brauns "military and diplomatic strategy"
> 
> I'm not making this up
> 
> _2. "Ending the war in May 1940 (before we were even in it) would have left Hitler in control of most of Western Europe and Hitler marching into the USSR."
> a. *No it wouldn't...it would have ended Hitler's reign...and turned over Germany to anti-Nazis who would have surrendered to the Allies.*_
> 
> May 1940, Hitler controls France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway....Operation Barbarossa is just beginning
> 
> Frau Braun seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender
> 
> You can't make this shit up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you make up stuff all the time.
> 
> I've asked you to support several of your statements in just the last few posts....and you haven't been able to...
> 
> You simply lie,
> 
> 
> "[The real American] seems to think FDR could have magically turned Germany over to the anti-Nazis who would quickly surrender."
> 
> *Exactly  what would have happened.
> 
> 
> I can back up everything I post.
> 
> 
> Roosevelt's fear of "offending" Stalin resulted inhis administration ordering that the German anti-Nazi resistance be totally disregarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was thechief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris. Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
> 
> Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> “Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
> 
> 
> Did you see the date: 1942.When did the war with Germany finally end?
> 
> "May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
> 
> What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
> "... fear of offending Russia..."
> 
> Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
> i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
> *
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> "...*on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
> 
> Get it, you lying sack of sewage???*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Canaris would have been quickly executed, just like everyone else who tried to broker a peace.
> Hitler was funny that way
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you've given up your previous lies re: that I claimed surrender would have been via Hitler.
> 
> I love beating liars like you into submission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frau Braun
> 
> Your fantasies about FDR brokering "peace" with a nearly non-existent German resistance only prove your intent to appease Hitler
> 
> As it worked out
> 
> Soviets did all the dying and we ended up with the only functioning economy after the war plus the strongest military
> 
> Not too shabby....hey Eva?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....brokering "peace" with a nearly non-existent German resistance only prove your intent to appease Hitler..."
> 
> Destroying you is so simple because you are so stupid.
> 
> 
> Watch:
> 
> "Colonel General Ludwig BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,_Goerdeler's Struggle_, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).
> 
> As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between *early 1937* and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons *interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime *(Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,_German Resistance_, p. 153).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon....are you an imbecile or simply a lying fool?
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Need a list of some of the anti-Hitler resistance.....or is there a library nearby?
> 
> What????
> 
> You don't own a library card?
> Shocker.
Click to expand...

 Which does what to prove your point?

Ummmm...nothing?


----------



## haissem123

PoliticalChic said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
Click to expand...

suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german


----------



## Moonglow

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
Click to expand...

You know, that sideways vagina thing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
Click to expand...


hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
Click to expand...

Millions suffer in today's world also....


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing your assessments on Canaris and the Abwehr. Many of the the leaders of that military intelligence group were not even Nazi party members and under constant investigation and harassment of the SS. The Abwehr was subservient to the SS. If compared to US military intelligence of today it would be like comparing the DIA to the CIA.  It had limited and well defined tasks and duties that were mostly restricted to purely military duties. Canaris failed in his assignment to reach agreement with Franco in 1940, and Germany and Spain had working relationships and diplomatic agreements during the time frame you think he could have negotiated some kind of terms with GB and the USA. You are making your silly case by simply overstating the authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. Your lack of understanding of the German power structure allows you to live in the fantasy world you have created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit I've destroyed you.
> That's why you can't quote my documentation to show any thing untrue about it.
> 
> How, someone with the advanced education that I have has to put up with the nipping at my heels from a history-challenged imbecile like you is a sign of the deterioration of America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just refuted your documentation by explaining how you have misused and misrepresented your analysis of the importance and authority of Canaris and the Abwehr. You use a method of misrepresentation by quoting real quotes, but distorting them and misrepresenting them. The actual quotes may be accurate, but the meanings you give to them are inaccurate and manipulated to conform to your agenda. Point of fact is that your analysis of Canaris and the Abwehr is distorted and misrepresented and you can not show my analysis of your distortion is inaccurate. My analysis is factually spot on.
> You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west at a time that he was discussing an alliance between Spain and Germany with Franco. It shows your lack of knowledge and expertise in the diplomatic activities during the time frame you are claiming to be expert about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you did was bloviate.
> 
> You are no expert....you're the moron who wrote 'Roosevelt had a moral compass."
> 
> 
> You should have 'moron' monogrammed on all of your jumpsuits....that's what they give you to wear in the 'nervous hospital,' don't they?
> 
> 
> 
> "You are arguing that Canaris should have been or could have been discussing surrender terms with the west ...."
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> As were dozens of other highly positioned anti-Nazi, anti-communist Germans.
> 
> See if your keepers will let you order some books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one bloviating. You continue to deflect and escape responding to the critical analysis I have provided regarding your opinions about Canaris and the Abwehr which form an integral position in your thesis. Your method of deflecting is just boring. Insults are the best you can do. If you were as smart as you claim or you had valid ideas you would be able to respond intellectually and not consistently and constantly rely on hurling generic insults at all who challenge your ideas or opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, you moron...now I have to teach you vocabulary as well as history:
> 
> blo·vi·ate
> ˈblōvēˌāt/
> _verb_
> USinformal
> 
> talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
> 
> I link, source, document everything I post.....while you, with very little effort, have become our number one source of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

You still are deflecting and avoiding giving actual answers to the factual data that makes your ideas and opinions look so stupid. You are like the little kid who has her hand stuck in the cookie jar. You are claiming you are not a cookie thief because, gosh, your hand has been stuck in the jar and you never actually got a cookie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
Click to expand...


But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
Click to expand...

Millions of Americans came home to peace and prosperity thanks to FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe. If not for FDR's manipulation of Stalin that convinced him to sacrifice over 10 million Soviet soldiers to drain the Nazi forces of manpower and equipment before D-Day, America would have been forced to sacrifice millions of men. That is just one of the reasons there are two major Memorials to FDR and he is rated as one of the most popular and the greatest President in modern history.


----------



## Moonglow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
Click to expand...

Eh, I am sure there is someone being done in by left and right sides...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of Americans came home to peace and prosperity thanks to FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe. If not for FDR's manipulation of Stalin that convinced him to sacrifice over 10 million Soviet soldiers to drain the Nazi forces of manpower and equipment before D-Day, America would have been forced to sacrifice millions of men. That is just one of the reasons there are two major Memorials to FDR and he is rated as one of the most popular and the greatest President in modern history.
Click to expand...


"FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe" means you're a clueless Moonbat

FDR was Stalin's sock puppet


----------



## PoliticalChic

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
Click to expand...



You disgusting little dwarf.....

Which are, more stupid or more vulgar?


Remedial education here:

The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal *attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.*

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems."
http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


1. The film opens showing the method used to kill millions of civilians...hands tied behind their backs, an expertly aimed shot to the back of the head, the fall into a mass grave. *Not the Nazis....Stalin's Soviets....and this went on for years, well before FDR embraced the USSR.*

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

3. Shortly thereafter the Nazis found it more useful to stress differences, and the earlier campaign posters showing similarities disappeared, posters with both the hammer and sickle and the swastika. (18:30)

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

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

The film goes on to show a series of Nazi and Russian propaganda posters....except for the language, almost identical.


4. The Soviet Premier Molotov warned the West not to fight Nazi ideology. And in his address to the Supreme Soviet in the Kremlin, *Molotov declared that fighting Nazi ideology was actually a crime.....because the two ideologies and methods were the same.* Molotov oversaw the extermination of 7 million Ukrainians; Hitler, the Jews.

a. Many J*ews fled to the USSR....where Stalin rounded them up, and delivered them to the Gestapo *as a gesture of friendship.



5. "*The Soviet NKVD trained the SS, taught them how to build concentration camps, as they had been operating for 20 years before the origin of the Nazis." *Viktor Suvorov, former Soviet Military Intelligence Officer.
"According to Suvorov,Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason* Stalin provided significant material and political support toAdolf Hitler, *while at the same time preparing theRed Armyto “liberate” the whole ofEuropefrom Nazi occupation." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Rammed that down your throat, huh?

Learn to respect you better, you little filth.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had little choice
> 
> Possession is nine tenths of the law and the Soviets were unwilling to give up conquered territory after losing 20 million people
Click to expand...



He had lots of choices.

He didn't have to sign a treaty when the US agreed to Staling occupying a fourth of Germany and much of Eastern Europe in exchange for promises from Joseph Freaking Stalin.

He could have demanded concessions in return for the vast amounts of aid that lend lease provide.

He could have NOT formally allied with the Soviet Union, and just accorded them co belligerent status.

He could have NOT run for the 4th term and had the US represented by someone who wasn't so old and sick at Yalta.

He could have NOT extended Lend Lease to the Soviets.



As the OP suggests he could have refused the Unconditional Surrender demand from Uncle Joe.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
Click to expand...


A bit of an exaggeration....
I don't believe it's actually millions who have to read your stupid posts......


----------



## haissem123

PoliticalChic said:


> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You disgusting little dwarf.....
> 
> Which are, more stupid or more vulgar?
> 
> 
> Remedial education here:
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal *attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.*
> 
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems."
> http://www.economist.com/node/11401983
> 
> 
> 1. The film opens showing the method used to kill millions of civilians...hands tied behind their backs, an expertly aimed shot to the back of the head, the fall into a mass grave. Not the Nazis....Stalin's Soviets....and this went on for years, well before FDR embraced the USSR.
> 
> 2.  A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925.(Article provided in the film)
> 
> 3. Shortly thereafter the Nazis found it more useful to stress differences, and the earlier campaign posters showing similarities disappeared, posters with both the hammer and sickle and the swastika. (18:30)
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> The film goes on to show a series of Nazi and Russian propaganda posters....except for the language, almost identical.
> 
> 4. The Soviet Premier Molotov warned the West not to fight Nazi ideology. And in his address to the Supreme Soviet in the Kremlin, *Molotov declared that fighting Nazi ideology was actually a crime.....because the two ideologies and methods were the same.* Molotov oversaw the extermination of 7 million Ukrainians; Hitler, the Jews.
> 
> a. Many Jews fled to the USSR....where Stalin rounded them up, and delivered them to the Gestapo as a gesture of friendship.
> 
> 5. "*The Soviet NKVD trained the SS, taught them how to build concentration camps, as they had been operating for 20 years before the origin of the Nazis." *Viktor Suvorov, former Soviet Military Intelligence Officer.
> "According to Suvorov,Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason* Stalin provided significant material and political support toAdolf Hitler, *while at the same time preparing theRed Armyto “liberate” the whole ofEuropefrom Nazi occupation." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Rammed that down your throat, huh?
> 
> Learn to respect you better, you little filth.
Click to expand...

hey stupid, you can think  you know history and judge whose more evil but what the germans did deserved their country's total destruction. period. doesn't matter how bad stalin was. germany started it and was rightfully held accountable. you fucking moron. stop memorizing the past is shit. watching it repeat is what you are best at.   your german is showing lady. that's why you think you are somebody's superior? lol


----------



## Camp

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of Americans came home to peace and prosperity thanks to FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe. If not for FDR's manipulation of Stalin that convinced him to sacrifice over 10 million Soviet soldiers to drain the Nazi forces of manpower and equipment before D-Day, America would have been forced to sacrifice millions of men. That is just one of the reasons there are two major Memorials to FDR and he is rated as one of the most popular and the greatest President in modern history.
Click to expand...



"... FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe."

You really go out of your way to prove what a moron you are, don't you.

Really....it's not necessary.


----------



## PoliticalChic

haissem123 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I*n his tireless and unending efforts to placate, favor, win the approval of homicidal maniac Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt offered up the lives of 150,000 American soldiers in said endeavor.*
> 
> 
> 
> Lend lease was a mistake in that it prioritized materials for Russia that were sorely needed by American troops.
> 
> Allowing Stalin to determine the location of a 'second front' over the objections of American generals, and of Winston Churchill, was a mistake.
> 
> But the worst blunderwas bowing to *Stalin's demands that Germany be pulverized, reduced to ashes, rather than be allowed to surrender.....the doctrine of 'unconditional surrender'....was the very worst.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Franklin *Roosevelt was known to fabricate *all sorts of things...that he wrote Haiti's constitution, that his cabinet would be made to swear to a balanced budget, that he came up with the idea of 'Lend Lease,'....none of which are true.
> He also put out the idea that 'unconditional surrender' of Germany originated with him.
> 
> Robert Sherwood, Harry Hopkins official biographer, quotes Roosevelt as saying "The thought popped into my mind...and the next thing I knew I had said it."
> Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins; Vol II," p. 693
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the policy was first mentioned in January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference.
> 
> a. The State Department Casablanca Conference records explains that this controversial surrender policy came from *a meeting of a State Department and Council on Foreign Relations panel. *
> 
> BTW....that was the same panel with "...working alongside him in the Council was* Alger Hiss*, a newly elected member sympathetic to the left wing of the Democratic Party,..."
> The group functioned via this mantra:* "Cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union is as essential as almost anything in the world today,* and unless and until it becomes entirely evident that the U.S.S.R. is not interested in achieving cooperation, we must redouble, not abandon, our efforts, when the task proves difficult." http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/first_transformation.html
> 
> 
> Since the group briefed Roosevelt prior to January 1943, clearly the idea of 'unconditional surrender did not originate with Roosevelt.
> Churchill knew nothing of the plan.
> 
> 
> 3. Actually, the very first use of the phrase 'unconditional surrender" at Casablanca was by* Harry Hopkins.* One day earlier, January 23, before the President announced it, Hopkins told the grand vizier of Morocco, "The war will be pursued until Germany, Italy, and Japan agree to unconditional surrender."
> "Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," by George McJimsey, p.277
> and FRUS: Washington and Casablanca, p. 703.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. When, on January 24, 1943, Roosevelt read several pages of notes discussing the doctrine to reporters, according to Sherwood, *"carefully prepared in advance,".*..one might ask who regularly prepared and edited said notes.
> 
> a. *Harry Hopkins*,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was *a Soviet agent."* and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins
> 
> 
> b.  Life magazine ran a spread on Hopkins on September 22, 1941, calling his a one-man cabinet to Roosevelt. In fact, he lived at the White House, in the Lincoln Bedroom, from May 1940 to December 1943.
> LIFE - Google Books, p. 93.
> 
> c. Elliott [Roosevelt, FDR's son] attributes this comment to his father:* "Of course, it's just the thing for the Russians. They couldn't want anything better. Unconditional surrender! Uncle Joe might have made it up himself."*
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And so was born Allied doctrine.
> And the policy that ensured Soviet domination over half of Europe....at the cost of American lives and treasure....
> 
> *Any guess as to where the policy actually originated?*
> 
> 
> 
> After what Germany did to the work it shouldn't have been pulverize as a lesson it and the world to come would never forget? Shut the fuck up you fucking jerk off. They got off light compared to the hundreds of millions killed and put through hell because of their stupid national pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing that the Nazis did that they didn't, either learn from Stalin....or that Stalin didn't do worse.
> 
> "...to the hundreds of millions killed..."
> You're truly a moron, aren't you.
> 
> Now watch your language or I'll have to give you the beating you deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You disgusting little dwarf.....
> 
> Which are, more stupid or more vulgar?
> 
> 
> Remedial education here:
> 
> The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal *attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.*
> 
> "Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems."
> http://www.economist.com/node/11401983
> 
> 
> 1. The film opens showing the method used to kill millions of civilians...hands tied behind their backs, an expertly aimed shot to the back of the head, the fall into a mass grave. Not the Nazis....Stalin's Soviets....and this went on for years, well before FDR embraced the USSR.
> 
> 2.  A year after Lenin's death, 1924, the NYTimes published a small article about a newly established party in Germany, the National Socialist Labor Party, which "...persists in believing that Lenin and Hitler can be compared or contrasted...Dr. Goebell's....assertion that Lenin was the greatest man second only to Hitler....and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight...." November 27, 1925.(Article provided in the film)
> 
> 3. Shortly thereafter the Nazis found it more useful to stress differences, and the earlier campaign posters showing similarities disappeared, posters with both the hammer and sickle and the swastika. (18:30)
> 
> a. "Hitler often stated that he learned much from reading Marx, and the whole of National Socialism is doctrinally based on Marxism." George Watson, Historian, Cambridge.
> 
> b. "Socialists in Germany were national socialists, communists were international socialists." Vladimir Bukovsky.
> 
> The film goes on to show a series of Nazi and Russian propaganda posters....except for the language, almost identical.
> 
> 4. The Soviet Premier Molotov warned the West not to fight Nazi ideology. And in his address to the Supreme Soviet in the Kremlin, *Molotov declared that fighting Nazi ideology was actually a crime.....because the two ideologies and methods were the same.* Molotov oversaw the extermination of 7 million Ukrainians; Hitler, the Jews.
> 
> a. Many Jews fled to the USSR....where Stalin rounded them up, and delivered them to the Gestapo as a gesture of friendship.
> 
> 5. "*The Soviet NKVD trained the SS, taught them how to build concentration camps, as they had been operating for 20 years before the origin of the Nazis." *Viktor Suvorov, former Soviet Military Intelligence Officer.
> "According to Suvorov,Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason* Stalin provided significant material and political support toAdolf Hitler, *while at the same time preparing theRed Armyto “liberate” the whole ofEuropefrom Nazi occupation." Viktor Suvorov - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Rammed that down your throat, huh?
> 
> Learn to respect you better, you little filth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey stupid, you can think  you know history and judge whose more evil but what the germans did deserved their country's total destruction. period. doesn't matter how bad stalin was. germany started it and was rightfully held accountable. you fucking moron. stop memorizing the past is shit. watching it repeat is what you are best at.   your german is showing lady. that's why you think you are somebody's superior? lol
Click to expand...




1. "...doesn't matter how bad stalin was."
Good to see your first retreat.

The beatings aren't over, you slimy little twerp.


2. "germany started it."
No, you moron....the alliance of Germany and Russia 'started it.'

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

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

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

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

3. Archival footage shows *Nazi and Russian officers partying together. The USSR became the supplier of oil, iron ore, construction materials for Hitler's Blitzkrieg. And trainloads of grain, even while Russians were starving.*

a. Communist party members throughout Europe were ordered to sabotage their nation's forces, and* aid the Nazi attackers.* The French Communist Party, July 1940: "It is comforting to see workers talking to German soldiers as friends,...'well done, comrades, and keep it up,' ...the brotherhood of man will not be forever a hope, it will become a living reality."



You're as dumb as asphalt....aren't you.

Now go wash out your mouth with soap, and pick up a history book...in that order.
NOW.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.




What a pack of lies.

Every post of mine is documented, and provides scholarship.

As for name calling....my eschewing of profanity is the only thing that prevents my being even more accurate.

I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers to let you know how I really feel.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> haissem123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> suck it super whore. hundred of millions suffered. stalin didn't teach nazi shit. you must be a german
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of Americans came home to peace and prosperity thanks to FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe. If not for FDR's manipulation of Stalin that convinced him to sacrifice over 10 million Soviet soldiers to drain the Nazi forces of manpower and equipment before D-Day, America would have been forced to sacrifice millions of men. That is just one of the reasons there are two major Memorials to FDR and he is rated as one of the most popular and the greatest President in modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "... FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe."
> 
> You really go out of your way to prove what a moron you are, don't you.
> 
> Really....it's not necessary.
Click to expand...

The moron would be the one who thinks Stalin manipulated the USA into accepting 407,000 military deaths in Europe defeating the Germans while the Soviets lost around 12,000,000. FDR had Stalin fighting year after year and gave him aid and equipment to do it. 400 hundred thousand vs. 12 million. Who manipulated who?


----------



## Dot Com

Camp said:


> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.


yep. PoliticalSpice is trying to get people riled-up over a 2nd rate, petro, gangster state lol.


----------



## Dot Com

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> hundreds of million suffered under FDR's buddy Uncle Joe
> 
> 
> 
> Millions suffer in today's world also....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But only a few from Progressive mass murderers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Millions of Americans came home to peace and prosperity thanks to FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe. If not for FDR's manipulation of Stalin that convinced him to sacrifice over 10 million Soviet soldiers to drain the Nazi forces of manpower and equipment before D-Day, America would have been forced to sacrifice millions of men. That is just one of the reasons there are two major Memorials to FDR and he is rated as one of the most popular and the greatest President in modern history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "... FDR's manipulation of Uncle Joe."
> 
> You really go out of your way to prove what a moron you are, don't you.
> 
> Really....it's not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moron would be the one who thinks Stalin manipulated the USA into accepting 407,000 military deaths in Europe defeating the Germans while the Soviets lost around 12,000,000. FDR had Stalin fighting year after year and gave him aid and equipment to do it. 400 hundred thousand vs. 12 million. Who manipulated who?
Click to expand...

Don't resort to logic, that will only confuse politicalspice.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Dot Com said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> yep. PoliticalSpice is trying to get people riled-up over a 2nd rate, petro, gangster state lol.
Click to expand...



No, you imbecile....I simply provide the truth.

If you're so stupid you choose to ignore it.....that's on you.


----------



## regent

So what seems to be the outcome of this thread is that when Germany declared war on the US, America  should have surrendered to Germany. Had we surrendered we would not have to  invade Normandy, saving all those American lives. Then peace would have reigned in Europe.
Next, the Japanese incident regarding Pearl Harbor.


----------



## PoliticalChic

regent said:


> So what seems to be the outcome of this thread is that when Germany declared war on the US, America  should have surrendered to Germany. Had we surrendered we would not have to  invade Normandy, saving all those American lives. Then peace would have reigned in Europe.
> Next, the Japanese incident regarding Pearl Harbor.




"So what seems to be the outcome of this thread is that when Germany declared war on the US, America should have surrendered to Germany."

Seems your posts have gone from attempted humor to abject stupidity.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your aversion to logic is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're [sic] stupidity is astounding....
Click to expand...




Really, genius?


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were fighting for the USSR, to defend their land.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your aversion to logic is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're [sic] stupidity is astounding....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, genius?
Click to expand...

Yes, genius.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pack of lies.
> 
> Every post of mine is documented, and provides scholarship.
> 
> As for name calling....my eschewing of profanity is the only thing that prevents my being even more accurate.
> 
> I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers to let you know how I really feel.
Click to expand...

No, if your conspiracy theory had merit you would be defending your analysis of Canaris with academic responses to my refuting of your analysis. Instead you are simply refraining from adding to your silly ideas and answering the refuting with name calling. When posters refute and contest your out of context and distorted "documentation" and "sources" you respond like a child. If you were able to respond to the criticism about your use of Canaris and the Abwehr with scholarship you would. The fact is you do not have a workable knowledge of the Nazi intelligence systems or how they ranked. You do not know the players and the positions of authority that they held. Unfortunately for you, you are attempting to portray yourself as an expert on a subject that has an abundance of people who have invested lifetimes of experience and study due to their direct relationship to the topic. Your lack of expertise and knowledge on this subject is obvious.


----------



## Marxist

Unkotare said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> How could Germany surrender if Hitler didn't surrender? Is there evidence somewhere to indicate there was a force in Germany that could rebel against Hitler and his doctrine of no surrender under any conditions and go against him without being lined up in front of a wall and shot or strung up with piano wire?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The magical "anti-Nazis" of Frau Brauns fantasies did not even have enough power in May 1945 to arrange terms of surrender. This with the Nazi army crumbling and manned by little boys and old men
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe anti-Nazis of 1945 knew that there was no chance of any "terms of surrender". Allied policy had been very clear for a long time.
> 
> 5 years might be the very best case scenario.
> 
> 2 years? A border in the COld War that does not run right down the middle of Germany? Perhaps a setup that defuses that Cold War?
> 
> One does have to judge historical figures based on what they knew at the time.
> 
> But FDR signed an agreement with Stalin, where Stalin promised to have free elections in Soviet occupied Europe.
> 
> Did FDR believe that?
> 
> Did he have any plans to follow up on that?
> 
> Did he just write off Eastern Europe?
> 
> Did he give any consideration for the Balance of Power in the Post War world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Did he just write off Eastern Europe?"
> 
> *1. By agreeing to Stalin's demands that the 'second front' be via Western Europe, rather than the Italy-Adriatic, Franklin Roosevelt was agreeing to turn Central and Eastern Europe over to occupation by the Red Army....and its 'tender mercies.'*
> 
> *Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. *
> 
> 
> *Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. *
> 
> 
> *Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,": *
> *"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."*
> 
> 
> 
> *2. Along came President Roosevelt, with the typical progressive blind eye to human suffering and slaughter. He ignored the 3-5 million starved to death in the Ukraine by the regime of the USSR, and rushed to embrace it, offering recognition in November of 1933.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The saddest of all is the moron, Camp, claiming that Roosevelt had 'a moral compass.'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt obviously had a "moral compass," ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Yeah, your opinion is hilarious, partisan hackery is not needed.


----------



## Marxist

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a pack of lies.
> 
> Every post of mine is documented, and provides scholarship.
> 
> As for name calling....my eschewing of profanity is the only thing that prevents my being even more accurate.
> 
> I wasn’t born with enough middle fingers to let you know how I really feel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, if your conspiracy theory had merit you would be defending your analysis of Canaris with academic responses to my refuting of your analysis. Instead you are simply refraining from adding to your silly ideas and answering the refuting with name calling. When posters refute and contest your out of context and distorted "documentation" and "sources" you respond like a child. If you were able to respond to the criticism about your use of Canaris and the Abwehr with scholarship you would. The fact is you do not have a workable knowledge of the Nazi intelligence systems or how they ranked. You do not know the players and the positions of authority that they held. Unfortunately for you, you are attempting to portray yourself as an expert on a subject that has an abundance of people who have invested lifetimes of experience and study due to their direct relationship to the topic. Your lack of expertise and knowledge on this subject is obvious.
Click to expand...

BOOOOOOM.


----------



## LA RAM FAN

camp WHY do you do it? our resident troll PC here is just so lonely she seeks attention.


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether they wanted to or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, the US wasn't drafting soldiers? The russians fought harder and sacrificed the most.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your aversion to logic is pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're [sic] stupidity is astounding....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, genius?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, genius.
Click to expand...



"Your" sure?


----------



## Unkotare

Marxist said:


> Roosevelt obviously had a "moral compass," ...



Oh yeah, the lying, irresponsible, adulterer who threw innocent AMERICANS into his concentration camps had a "moral compass."

You must be as much a scumbag as he was.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.



PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
Click to expand...

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
Click to expand...



You remain a low-life liar.


----------



## Marxist

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a low-life liar.
Click to expand...

Keep loving hitler.


----------



## Camp

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a low-life liar.
Click to expand...

I did not call you a low-life liar. I believe you believe what you write. You are like the detective that decides who the guilty party is and creates and designs the case to confirm your suspects guilt. The good detective will forestall judgement until after the investigation is concluded and all the evidence is reviewed. The good detective gets the guilty party convicted. The bad detective that prejudges the suspect puts an innocent person in jail and allows the criminal to go free and commit more crimes. See the difference.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
Click to expand...


I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?


----------



## Correll

Marxist said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a low-life liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep loving hitler.
Click to expand...



Hey, Camp, what do you think about this "well thought out and documented argument"? 

Good stuff, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You remain a low-life liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did not call you a low-life liar. I believe you believe what you write. You are like the detective that decides who the guilty party is and creates and designs the case to confirm your suspects guilt. The good detective will forestall judgement until after the investigation is concluded and all the evidence is reviewed. The good detective gets the guilty party convicted. The bad detective that prejudges the suspect puts an innocent person in jail and allows the criminal to go free and commit more crimes. See the difference.
Click to expand...



You wrote:
"Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. "

Every thesis I construct is carefully documented, linked, sourced.

QED you are a low-life liar.

You've earned the appellation.


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.
> 
> If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
Click to expand...

I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she presents and foundations of her theses and ideas that she promotes.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.
> 
> If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.
Click to expand...



You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.

This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.


PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.

BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.

And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.

In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?


----------



## Camp

Correll said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.
> 
> If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.
> 
> This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.
> 
> 
> PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.
> 
> BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.
> 
> And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.
> 
> In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
Click to expand...

IMO two things had great influence on FDR's post war thoughts about the balance of power in Europe. First, he had little regard or concern for the eastern European slavic countries that sided with Germany. My thoughts are that he had little respect for the slavic people and was probably affected by racism. It seemed easy for him to sacrifice eastern Europe to the Soviets. Many of those nations had fought to defeat the Soviets, contributing large amounts of manpower, resources and entire armies to the cause. Eastern Europe were the spoils of war for the Soviets to his way of thinking is what I suspect. A fair tradeoff for the hoped for cooperative relations after the war. Something he may have been able to pull off, but not those that replaced him after his death. Was he overconfident? We will never know. Of course there is another scenario. The one where eastern Europe was a trap for the Soviets. A trap that would caused the Soviets to spend vast resources on occupation forces and rebellions. 
All speculation since he passed before the post war arrived.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.


That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.
Click to expand...


Topic: Stalin

You: Not on topic

See the problem?


----------



## Camp

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.
> 
> 
> 
> That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Topic: Stalin
> 
> You: Not on topic
> 
> See the problem?
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try reading the title to the thread.


----------



## Correll

Camp said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.
> 
> Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...
> 
> 
> Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories,  that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.
> 
> If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.
> 
> This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.
> 
> 
> PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.
> 
> BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.
> 
> And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.
> 
> In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IMO two things had great influence on FDR's post war thoughts about the balance of power in Europe. First, he had little regard or concern for the eastern European slavic countries that sided with Germany. My thoughts are that he had little respect for the slavic people and was probably affected by racism. It seemed easy for him to sacrifice eastern Europe to the Soviets. Many of those nations had fought to defeat the Soviets, contributing large amounts of manpower, resources and entire armies to the cause. Eastern Europe were the spoils of war for the Soviets to his way of thinking is what I suspect. A fair tradeoff for the hoped for cooperative relations after the war. Something he may have been able to pull off, but not those that replaced him after his death. Was he overconfident? We will never know. Of course there is another scenario. The one where eastern Europe was a trap for the Soviets. A trap that would caused the Soviets to spend vast resources on occupation forces and rebellions.
> All speculation since he passed before the post war arrived.
Click to expand...



The idea of giving an empire more territory in order to weaken it would be very unlikely for a man who grew up and lived his entire life in a world dominated by the large European Empires.

Remember born 1882!


IMO, FDR, based on the Nazi early successes, overestimated their chances of victory, and thus mostly ignored long term problems for the short term.

This tendency may have been greatly worsened by his poor health.


IMO, FDR expected the British and French Empires to survive and flourish once WWII was over.

As they had his entire life.

In this he was badly mistaken.

IMO, he expected that the British Empire would be the Power that had to contend with the much more powerful Soviet Union being created with the addition of a large European Empire.


In this he was badly mistaken.


IMO, he viewed Imperialism as a greater evil than Communism, and this explains his tolerance for known communists in his administration.

IN this, in 1945, he was badly mistaken. Imperialism was a dying force and Communism was a grave and increasing danger.


THese errors did indeed lead him to take steps that greatly benefited Stalin and the SU, to the detriment of the interests of the US, and indeed the world.

And set up the Cold War.


----------

