Eviscerating 'The Roosevelt Alibi'

[Correll]

Remember that Stalin is the monster that started the war as an ally of Hitler. Know that he will hold and oppress whatever territory he gains.

Give them co-belligerence status, not allied.

No Lend Lease. Let the Red Army grind on, the slower the better. If it reverses? NOt a problem. As long as the fighting continues Hitler is fighting a two front war.


Plan for D-Day when US and UK forces are ready. If the A-Bomb comes on line before hand, use it to end war.

At some point negotiate a surrender with German Army that includes intensive de-nazification.

THe further west the Red Army line of control the better for the post war situation.

Who knows, maybe there won't be a Cold War at all.

OK...thanks for providing some details

Stalin was a prick...that is a given
Hitler came within a hair of a breakthrough and could easily have won. The alternative of a Nazi held Europe is far worse than any Cold War. Denying needed supplies could have led to that victory
I like FDRs resolution of a Cold War that lasted 45 years without casualties over your solution of a nuclear war
Hitler was unwilling to surrender under any conditions. Even though it cost his country hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. He was not looking for a way out

By the time the US entered the War, the Naiz onslaught in Russia had already been turned around.

HItler could have won, if the Soviets had done a little worse in the summer/fall of 41.

After that, it was very unlikely.

Hitler had to go, as did all high level Nazis.

With US air superiority and/or the Atomic Bomb on the table, IMO the German Army might have been willing to take care of that.

20 July plot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If not...

Then yes, then D-Day or Nuclear bombardment.

How is nuclear war preferable to Cold War?

Because of less loss of life (especially American) and half the continent not being under communist oppression and the whole world not being on the edge of a nuclear holocaust for the next 50 years.

So nuclear holocaust in Russia, in 1944, before the bomb was ready, is preferable to being on the edge of nuclear holocaust?

No, ending the war with a Little Boy bombing in Germany in 45 would be preferable to the conventional holocaust of war that occurred AND the potential of a nuclear holocaust for the next 50 years, and the Korean War, and the Vietnamese War, and all the Proxy wars and the brinkmanship and ect. ect. ect.

 

[Correll]

By the time the US entered the War, the Naiz onslaught in Russia had already been turned around.

HItler could have won, if the Soviets had done a little worse in the summer/fall of 41.

After that, it was very unlikely.

Hitler had to go, as did all high level Nazis.

With US air superiority and/or the Atomic Bomb on the table, IMO the German Army might have been willing to take care of that.

20 July plot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If not...

Then yes, then D-Day or Nuclear bombardment.

Your first sentence is an absolute lie.

In 1942, Hitler's armies advanced and took Stalingrad and 60% of the Caucusus oil fields. The only setback they had in 1942 was in Kursk.

You really are a very stupid person.

It is debatable whether the Nazi's "took" Stalingrad, considering that they never secured the ctiy, the fighting never stopped and that they took horrific losses that permanently weaken the German army.

For you to NOT consider that a setback shows you to be a very stupid person.

YOu know, nobody was calling anyone names until you showed up.

Almost like it's possible for reasonable people to reasonable disagree about an historical matter over 70 years ago...

 

[Correll]

Only an insane person would say the Jews started WWII in 1933.

That is one thing we can agree on.

 

[rightwinger]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

 

[Correll]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

That is my understanding of the internment matter.

 

[Unkotare]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

 

[toxicmedia]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

I don't really care, because you have no interest in history as told by the people that were there, which is the case people who disagree with you are making.

Your side is contrived by GOP strategists who want to rewrite history to aid their electioneering efforts.

In you they found their patsy

 

[rightwinger]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

At the time, it was what considered the best reaction to a perceived threat. FDR reacted to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria of the time. The Japanese Americans paid the price
There were a lot of "unfair" things done to citizens around the world at the time.....this was one of them

You are free to point out all the Americans who were screaming that FDR was wrong for incarcerating the Japanese.

 

[toxicmedia]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

They weren't concentration camps, and to compare them to the places the Jews suffered is a pretty sleazy way to get GOP votes stirred up, but you're not capable of seeing the puppet strings tied to you. So I guess you're not to blame, just impressionable.

 

[Unkotare]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

I don't really care, because you have no interest in history as told by the people that were there, which is the case people who disagree with you are making.

y

Ralph Carr was there.

 

[Correll]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

I don't really care, because you have no interest in history as told by the people that were there, which is the case people who disagree with you are making.

Your side is contrived by GOP strategists who want to rewrite history to aid their electioneering efforts.

In you they found their patsy

THat type of judgement of historical figures with modern standards is not limited to the GOP.

Indeed, on other topics it is debatable that it might be primarily a liberal SOP today.

 

[Camp]

OK...thanks for providing some details

Stalin was a prick...that is a given
Hitler came within a hair of a breakthrough and could easily have won. The alternative of a Nazi held Europe is far worse than any Cold War. Denying needed supplies could have led to that victory
I like FDRs resolution of a Cold War that lasted 45 years without casualties over your solution of a nuclear war
Hitler was unwilling to surrender under any conditions. Even though it cost his country hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. He was not looking for a way out

By the time the US entered the War, the Naiz onslaught in Russia had already been turned around.

HItler could have won, if the Soviets had done a little worse in the summer/fall of 41.

After that, it was very unlikely.

Hitler had to go, as did all high level Nazis.

With US air superiority and/or the Atomic Bomb on the table, IMO the German Army might have been willing to take care of that.

20 July plot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If not...

Then yes, then D-Day or Nuclear bombardment.

How is nuclear war preferable to Cold War?

Because of less loss of life (especially American) and half the continent not being under communist oppression and the whole world not being on the edge of a nuclear holocaust for the next 50 years.

So nuclear holocaust in Russia, in 1944, before the bomb was ready, is preferable to being on the edge of nuclear holocaust?

No, ending the war with a Little Boy bombing in Germany in 45 would be preferable to the conventional holocaust of war that occurred AND the potential of a nuclear holocaust for the next 50 years, and the Korean War, and the Vietnamese War, and all the Proxy wars and the brinkmanship and ect. ect. ect.

How would that be possible, bombing Germany in 1945? The bomb wasn't tested in the New Mexico desert until two months after Germany surrendered. It wasn't ready for deployment until early August.

 

[Statistikhengst]

By the time the US entered the War, the Naiz onslaught in Russia had already been turned around.

HItler could have won, if the Soviets had done a little worse in the summer/fall of 41.

After that, it was very unlikely.

Hitler had to go, as did all high level Nazis.

With US air superiority and/or the Atomic Bomb on the table, IMO the German Army might have been willing to take care of that.

20 July plot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

If not...

Then yes, then D-Day or Nuclear bombardment.

Your first sentence is an absolute lie.

In 1942, Hitler's armies advanced and took Stalingrad and 60% of the Caucusus oil fields. The only setback they had in 1942 was in Kursk.

You really are a very stupid person.

It is debatable whether the Nazi's "took" Stalingrad, considering that they never secured the ctiy, the fighting never stopped and that they took horrific losses that permanently weaken the German army.

For you to NOT consider that a setback shows you to be a very stupid person.

YOu know, nobody was calling anyone names until you showed up.

Almost like it's possible for reasonable people to reasonable disagree about an historical matter over 70 years ago...

You missed the point, asswipe. Germany was still on the advance in 1942. You said they were already weakened and losing in 1942. They weren't and it would have been far worse for Russia had we not entered the war end of 1941. You are trolling, nothing more.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

At the time, it was what considered the best reaction to a perceived threat. FDR reacted to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria of the time

I guess the Germans perceived a threat too. You're ok with that as just what was done in those days?

 

[Unkotare]

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

They weren't concentration camps,

That's what FDR called them, you ignorant buffoon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think that Unkotare is representative of far right revisionists in the case of the Japanese internment camps. His comparison of our internment camps with those camps of Germany is ludicrous and a slap in the face of our internees. They were treated much better if it is a comparison Unkotare wants than those in our enemies' camps.

Unkotare is unhappy (rightfully so) that his family and their were treated as they were. Yes, today, the action is seen and recognized as a civil rights violation of great signficance. Then, the action was deemed necessary.

Unkotare does not like it. OK.

 

[toxicmedia]

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

At the time, it was what considered the best reaction to a perceived threat. FDR reacted to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria of the time. The Japanese Americans paid the price
There were a lot of "unfair" things done to citizens around the world at the time.....this was one of them

You are free to point out all the Americans who were screaming that FDR was wrong for incarcerating the Japanese.

That's the beauty of revisionism, especially if you take it all the way back to Jefferson.

It means you can dream up a Utopian vision of what things would be like if you'd have only elected people who the GOP can claim are more like their candidates today.

Glenn Beck, though his addiction addled messianic mind got this tactic rolling, and probably by accident, came up with a great way to assuage the horrific way the Bush admin ended. Just call yourselves something other than Republicans (Tea Partiers), re-write history so everyone Democrats might like did bad things, and lastly imagine the reality you've always wanted being possible if you vote Republican

 

[rightwinger]

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

At the time, it was what considered the best reaction to a perceived threat. FDR reacted to the post Pearl Harbor hysteria of the time

I guess the Germans perceived a threat too. You're ok with that as just what was done in those days?

Again you resort to hyperbole

Japanese internment camps were wrong but they do not equate to death camps

 

[Unkotare]

t you can't blame all of it happening on Roosevelt....

There is only one president's signature on EO 1066, moron.

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

I don't really care...

Are you too stupid to know, or too gutless to say?

 

[toxicmedia]

You poor little victim of GOP revisionism.

s

What revisionism? Whose signature is on EO 1066, asshole?

Historical revisionism from a perspective 50 years later

FDR was a result of his era and the post Pearl Harbor hysteria. He did not force his view over the objections of Republicans or the American people. What FDR did was similar to what every other 1942 nation was doing in the name of security. Even the Supreme Court did not say it was wrong

50 years later, it was obviously a civil rights violation. At the time, it seemed necessary

So, you're ok with other concentration camps of the same period because it was just what was done then? Interesting.

They weren't concentration camps,

That's what FDR called them, you ignorant buffoon.

Who cares what he called them, they weren't death camps, they were internment camps