Eviscerating 'The Roosevelt Alibi'

[Unkotare]

I wouldn't call myself an expert on "history", ...

Nobody would.

 

[toxicmedia]

Not sure why you chose that aimless thought process.

Maybe because you said something like this "The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history..." you disingenuous douche?

But they haven't read anything about FDR, and I'm sure nobody on the anti FDR side of this argument, on this thread, have even read the book they're quoting.

The GOP talking points in this book found there way to you through conservative media electioneering efforts

 

[toxicmedia]

I wouldn't call myself an expert on "history", ...

Nobody would.

Ahh, the old "I told you first" aproach

 

[Unkotare]

Not sure why you chose that aimless thought process.

Maybe because you said something like this "The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history..." you disingenuous douche?

But they haven't read anything about FDR...

Oh? Did obama touch you with his magic wand and tell you that you had mind reading powers? Just how stupid are you?

 

[Unkotare]

The GOP talking points in this book found there [sic] way to you through conservative media electioneering efforts

The stupid assumptions you keep repeating found THEIR way to you through an obama-genitals bong.

 

[Dot Com]

He was an superb President who was suffering from a debilitating illness but didn't let the public know YET he brought this great nation through the War AND put it on the industrial/economic world stage so suck it retards.

 

[toxicmedia]

Not sure why you chose that aimless thought process.

Maybe because you said something like this "The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history..." you disingenuous douche?

But they haven't read anything about FDR...

Oh? Did obama touch you with his magic wand and tell you that you had mind reading powers? Just how stupid are you?

You didn't read it.

 

[toxicmedia]

The GOP talking points in this book found there [sic] way to you through conservative media electioneering efforts

The stupid assumptions you keep repeating found THEIR way to you through an obama-genitals bong.

I don't smoke weed, or pole. And in case you forgot, I didn't vote for Obama.

I learned about Russian-American relations during and after WWI from multiple sources, and you're just parroting revisionism from one hopelessly biased source.

Oh yeah, make that two sources, your angry relatives, and the only camp you've been to was sixth grade summer camp.

Wait, three sources, a biased hit piece book, angry relatives, and the GOP

 

[Picaro]

Did you see Normandy and the relatively weak German resistance once we landed? Imagine ten times the resistance and the full German airforce opposing us.

Did you see the stats of U.S. war production versus Germany’s? Now imagine all the production capacity not being diverted to Lend-Lease made available to produce even more, and add Britain’s shipments to that, then add the shipping capabilities that wouldn’t have been necessary , then add that available capacity to somewhere in the Med, and instead of one ‘Normandy’ add three or four more at other locations, are just add it to the Normandy invasion, take your pick.

On the German side, you can subtract what was looted from the East, especially food and oil supplies, Germany would be facing a famine by ‘44 at the latest, and subtract the production that utilized slave labor from captured Russian soldiers and other Slav states as well.

You could also add as a possibility Japan wouldn’t have been likely to have declared war if Germany had merely just invaded France and the Netherlands, which would have freed up even more resources for the U.S. and Britain; the Japanese declared war in no small part because of pressure from Hitler; without his successes in driving the Soviets back I would say it is was a safe bet they wouldn’t have succumbed to his pressure to attack the U.S. if Hitler had only France to point to as a measure of his worth as a war ally.

Re a later post asserting having the ‘entire German Air Force’? The U.S. produced some 300,000 aircraft, Britain somewhere near half that; Germany produced a tenth of that. Not much of a challenge to overcome. Multiply most other war production by about the same factor of superiority.

 

[Picaro]

Really? How do you know this?

In reality, just about anyone would have been a better POTUS than FDR?

As I posted, Wilkie was merely going to do the same thing as Roosevelt did re the war. No point in removing a proven leader with massive popular support for an unknown when you already have the most popular President in history, with a proven record of ability to lead, eh?

Can't think of anyone around at the time who would have been 'better', but then I'm not a libertoon, which is probably handicapping me ...

 

[Picaro]

Picture Normandy in June 1944, with Panzer Divisions near all the beaches instead of a few in reserve. Picture 88's everywhere. Picture the German intelligence with 100% focus on the English Channel.

Eisenhower and Montgomery wouldn't even have been able to talk Churchill in to that if you asked him when he was drunk and Hitler just punched him in the face personally.

It must suck to be so desperate to be angry that you set aside the true for the false.

Picture not being limited to Normandy, and having the entire Med and Black Sea for a playground, and the entire production capacity of the U.S. and Britain devoted to just one front if it decided on just that. Picture Germany not having near the capacity to cover all coastlines, and not having air superiority nor command of the seas, and having to crowd all those extra Panzer divisions and making them just more fodder for P-51s and other ground attack planes, and having very limited no fuel resources to operate them, just to name a couple of things.

I’m not angry, and I’m not a FDR basher, just the opposite; leave the Emily Letella Moments for Jake; he specializes in them.

 

[Picaro]

Picaro, are you done gaming the situation I gave you?

Then factor in the ME jet as a fighter in mass production.

Showing your ignorance yet again.

Settle down, Jake. If you keep drooling and ranting, your nurse will have to strap you down and give you a shot yet again.

The Me 262 was in mass production, Jake; 1,400 were produced. Germany could only field about 300, of which only around 100 saw combat. Of course you don’t have a clue as to why that is. The key to being even a mediocre troll is to have at least some idea of what you’re talking about. Jake. Try reading a book once in a while and see if that helps. It might up your game; only slightly in your case, but a little anyway. Better than nothing at all, as is the case now.

It couldn’t stay in the air long, and in so few numbers it wasn’t going to do any decisive damage against a typical bombing raid of 1,200 bombers with fighters.

Messerschmitt Me-262

The Messerschmitt ME 262

 

[rightwinger]

Did you see Normandy and the relatively weak German resistance once we landed? Imagine ten times the resistance and the full German airforce opposing us.

Did you see the stats of U.S. war production versus Germany’s? Now imagine all the production capacity not being diverted to Lend-Lease made available to produce even more, and add Britain’s shipments to that, then add the shipping capabilities that wouldn’t have been necessary , then add that available capacity to somewhere in the Med, and instead of one ‘Normandy’ add three or four more at other locations, are just add it to the Normandy invasion, take your pick.

On the German side, you can subtract what was looted from the East, especially food and oil supplies, Germany would be facing a famine by ‘44 at the latest, and subtract the production that utilized slave labor from captured Russian soldiers and other Slav states as well.

You could also add as a possibility Japan wouldn’t have been likely to have declared war if Germany had merely just invaded France and the Netherlands, which would have freed up even more resources for the U.S. and Britain; the Japanese declared war in no small part because of pressure from Hitler; without his successes in driving the Soviets back I would say it is was a safe bet they wouldn’t have succumbed to his pressure to attack the U.S. if Hitler had only France to point to as a measure of his worth as a war ally.

Re a later post asserting having the ‘entire German Air Force’? The U.S. produced some 300,000 aircraft, Britain somewhere near half that; Germany produced a tenth of that. Not much of a challenge to overcome. Multiply most other war production by about the same factor of superiority.

Our lend lease war production was going to those who were actually doing the fighting at the time......the Soviets
Instead of a million Americans dying in the liberation of Europe, we had ten million soviets dying for us
Germany would have all the food and oil they need. Remember, we withheld lend lease and Stalin lost

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

We funded Russia because they were the enemy of our enemy. FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time. We also Funded Great Brittan. Brits and Europeans always credit Russia with winning the war, they always seem to leave that out. FDR wasn't a saint, true enough. But GW Bush, MR. WMDs that weren't there invading Iraq and destabilizing the area, lets get back to more relevant and recent political American villains.

Your post reeks of such abysmal ignorance, one scarcely knows where to begin.

Perhaps you should invest in a library card.

1. Roosevelt rushed to do what no previous President had chosen to do: recognize Russia and give it world entree.
That was 1933.
Who was the enemy he was shielding us from in 1933?

2. "FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time."
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." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. 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

Everyone knew, you dunce!

For some reason, I just can't take you seriously. Seriously. GW Bush invades a country after a major terrorist attack that had nothing to do with anything. FDR? Like your post, PC. Irrelevant. Moot.

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

 

[rightwinger]

Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)



1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)



Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.


Is the alibi true?








Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.


Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!

b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,

c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.






2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.


Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.

b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...


And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.




3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.

Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!

He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.

We funded Russia because they were the enemy of our enemy. FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time. We also Funded Great Brittan. Brits and Europeans always credit Russia with winning the war, they always seem to leave that out. FDR wasn't a saint, true enough. But GW Bush, MR. WMDs that weren't there invading Iraq and destabilizing the area, lets get back to more relevant and recent political American villains.

Your post reeks of such abysmal ignorance, one scarcely knows where to begin.

Perhaps you should invest in a library card.

1. Roosevelt rushed to do what no previous President had chosen to do: recognize Russia and give it world entree.
That was 1933.
Who was the enemy he was shielding us from in 1933?

2. "FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time."
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." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. 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

Everyone knew, you dunce!

For some reason, I just can't take you seriously. Seriously. GW Bush invades a country after a major terrorist attack that had nothing to do with anything. FDR? Like your post, PC. Irrelevant. Moot.

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

 

[PoliticalChic]

We funded Russia because they were the enemy of our enemy. FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time. We also Funded Great Brittan. Brits and Europeans always credit Russia with winning the war, they always seem to leave that out. FDR wasn't a saint, true enough. But GW Bush, MR. WMDs that weren't there invading Iraq and destabilizing the area, lets get back to more relevant and recent political American villains.

Your post reeks of such abysmal ignorance, one scarcely knows where to begin.

Perhaps you should invest in a library card.

1. Roosevelt rushed to do what no previous President had chosen to do: recognize Russia and give it world entree.
That was 1933.
Who was the enemy he was shielding us from in 1933?

2. "FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time."
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." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. 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

Everyone knew, you dunce!

For some reason, I just can't take you seriously. Seriously. GW Bush invades a country after a major terrorist attack that had nothing to do with anything. FDR? Like your post, PC. Irrelevant. Moot.

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

As you have never been able to either quote sources or show that anything is out of context.....

...you must be lying again.

 

[rightwinger]

Your post reeks of such abysmal ignorance, one scarcely knows where to begin.

Perhaps you should invest in a library card.

1. Roosevelt rushed to do what no previous President had chosen to do: recognize Russia and give it world entree.
That was 1933.
Who was the enemy he was shielding us from in 1933?

2. "FDR didn't know how much a monster Stalin was at the time."
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." Gareth Jones journalist - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

a. 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

Everyone knew, you dunce!

For some reason, I just can't take you seriously. Seriously. GW Bush invades a country after a major terrorist attack that had nothing to do with anything. FDR? Like your post, PC. Irrelevant. Moot.

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

As you have never been able to either quote sources or show that anything is out of context.....

...you must be lying again.

There is ample evidence that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste

Primarily, that it in no way supports your bizarre claims

 

[PoliticalChic]

For some reason, I just can't take you seriously. Seriously. GW Bush invades a country after a major terrorist attack that had nothing to do with anything. FDR? Like your post, PC. Irrelevant. Moot.

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

As you have never been able to either quote sources or show that anything is out of context.....

...you must be lying again.

There is ample evidence that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste

Primarily, that it in no way supports your bizarre claims

Yet you can't seem to provide it.

You are a proven liar, right from your avi on.

It's what you Liberals/Democrats do....

 

[rightwinger]

The reason it's hard to take the anti FDR crowd seriously, is because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources.

What they did was latch onto this GOP driven hit piece created specifically to assassinate the character of a Democratic icon.

During WWII, the American people didn't think much about the Russians being a threat, in fact, they knew very little about them.

The GOP has hung their hats on revisionism, and it's a necessary component of the larger GOP strategy of back seat political driving.

If only the GOP would have been in charge since the beginning, we wouldn't have any problems at all

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

As you have never been able to either quote sources or show that anything is out of context.....

...you must be lying again.

There is ample evidence that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste

Primarily, that it in no way supports your bizarre claims

Yet you can't seem to provide it.

You are a proven liar, right from your avi on.

It's what you Liberals/Democrats do....

You know....you might be able to fake that your quotes actually have the remotest thing to do with your bizarre claims but rather than cutting and running, you insist on doubling down with even more unrelated cut and pastes

Look, if you want to troll......which seems to be your sole purpose for being here, you need to stop being so obvious

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...because there is not one of them that read history, and formed the opinion they hold based on what they read from multiple sources."


I have.

And prove it with documentation and links every time.


So...that's really your problem....and your solution is to lie and buddy up with morons like Mary.

Cut and pasting out of context does not equate to reading

As you have never been able to either quote sources or show that anything is out of context.....

...you must be lying again.

There is ample evidence that you don't bother to read what you cut and paste

Primarily, that it in no way supports your bizarre claims

Yet you can't seem to provide it.

You are a proven liar, right from your avi on.

It's what you Liberals/Democrats do....

You know....you might be able to fake that your quotes actually have the remotest thing to do with your bizarre claims but rather than cutting and running, you insist on doubling down with even more unrelated cut and pastes

Look, if you want to troll......which seems to be your sole purpose for being here, you need to stop being so obvious

1. I recognize your retreat.

2. I have asked you, in the past, to explain why you use 'cut and paste' as a pejorative.
You have never been able to do so, yet continue as thought is actually is so.
Does this mean you aim to be know as 'stupid' as well as a liar?

I'd be happy to accommodate.