Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation

[PoliticalChic]

When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.

Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.

Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'

There is no excuse for that.

You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.

This help?
1.[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europethrough its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovementsince even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:

"...those Germans — and particularly thoseGerman generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt bytheir inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto 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.


How about this?

2. 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


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 almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe 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 beento 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



It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.

Germany was given a conditional surrender you dopey dingbat. It was what they got at the end of World War I. They began violating it immediately. They secretly found ways to build their military and soon were developing terror bombing in Spain as the volunteer Condor Legion. It was determined early on that they would not get another chance.

Any 'determination' was by Joseph Stalin.

The reason was so that he could roll his ideology across post-war Europe.

And that is all one has to know about Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[Camp]

When the OP slams FDR she is slamming what has come to be known as "America's Greatest Generation". She portrays them as stupid fools who were easily scammed by the evil communist FDR. To PoliticalChic and her lap dogs like Gipper, The GREATEST GENERATION was the dumbest generation. To them, the generation that brought into being the greatest military and economic power the world has ever seen were all stupid fools who were not smart enough to pick a leader.

Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.

Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'

There is no excuse for that.

You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.

This help?
1.[The 'unconditional surrender policy] helped prolong the war in Europethrough its usefulness toGerman domestic propagandathat used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies,and its suppressive effect on theGerman resistancemovementsince even after a coup againstAdolf Hitler:

"...those Germans — and particularly thoseGerman generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt bytheir inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve thetreatment meted outto 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.


How about this?

2. 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


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 almostan additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



3. BTW.....the same view comes from the German side."All to whom I talked dwelt onthe 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 beento 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



It's soooooo easy to put you in your place.

Germany was given a conditional surrender you dopey dingbat. It was what they got at the end of World War I. They began violating it immediately. They secretly found ways to build their military and soon were developing terror bombing in Spain as the volunteer Condor Legion. It was determined early on that they would not get another chance.

Any 'determination' was by Joseph Stalin.

The reason was so that he could roll his ideology across post-war Europe.

And that is all one has to know about Franklin Roosevelt.

The reason was that politics was being left at the edge of the battlefield and the soldiers who fought to the end would be the ones who determined the conditions Individual commanders who had fouhgt and led their men across th0se battlefields would have great amounts of authority and in the case of the Russians, be allowed to keep every inch of ground over ten million of their comrades died for. Some may disagree with that attitude, but they weren't the ones doing the fighting. It is easy to judge 75 years later and talk about all those soldiers settling for conditions and the prospects of sending their sons to war 20 years later because some politicians made "conditions" like their fathers had had to do.

 

[regent]

Of course that's a bald-faced lie, the sort you boot-lickers use to attempt to excuse Roosevelt's actions.

Roosevelt oversaw the slaughter of 150,000 members of that 'greatest generation' by acceding to Stalin's demand for 'unconditional surrender.'

There is no excuse for that.

You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.

WTF! Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan? Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.

But I know...facts mean nothing to you.

My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.

Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?

Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?

You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.

The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.

It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.

Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?

You keep repeating yourself. Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

 

[Syriusly]

You have never been able to substantiate that silly claim about unconditional surrender. Hitler had committed grievous war crimes including the unprecedented bombing of London and heinous crimes against innocent civilians in conquered territories, including Belgium, Holland, Denmark and France. The determination to destroy the Nazi's and demand unconditional surrender had nothing to do with what Stalin wanted. The allies would settle for nothing less than the Nazi's on their knees begging for mercy.

WTF! Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan? Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.

But I know...facts mean nothing to you.

My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.

Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?

Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?

You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.

The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.

It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.

You keep repeating yourself. Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.

 

[regent]

The Japanese and I suspect others often put their industry into civilian population areas, a form of cottage industry, but even so I suspect they would have been bombed anyway.

 

[regent]

Ah, so that is how history is learned, one just thinks history for oneself and bingo there history is. Well it might work for you but not for some, I prefer history that is researched using historical methods as taught in historiography classes. Still, as I remember, wasn't that how Professor Higgins taught music, but that was a movie. Is there where you learned to think-history, a movie that teaches one how to think-history?

You keep repeating yourself. Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

 

[Unkotare]

You keep repeating yourself. Offering the same idiotic appeal to authority, but are unable to dispute any of the heinous actions, constant lying and deceptions, and the terribly ineffective policies of Stalin's Stooge.

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

 

[regent]

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

 

[gipper]

WTF! Do you know of the horrific bombings inflected by the allies against Germany and Japan? Unbelievable suffering committed by Americans on civilians, but I guess you think that justified because Hitler bombed London...but you forgot to mention....funny how you always do forget, that the allies bombed Berlin beforehand.

But I know...facts mean nothing to you.

My facts tell me that civilian industrial targets were not allowed by the British until two days after the area bombings of Rotterdam by the Germans on 14 May 1940. My history also tells me the first bombing of Berlin consisted of dropping 8 bombs on 7 June 1940. Maybe we have different history books.

Do you deny massive aerial bombings of German and Japanese civilians during the war?

Do you deny that Hitler was successfully taking out UK armament sites and had not attacked London UNTIL Berlin had been hit by the allies?

You said or implied the allies had started the area bombardment strategy by bombing Berlin first. I am saying the tactic known as carpet bombing was first used by Germany.

The first British air raid on Berlin took place on 25 August 1940. It was a retaliation raid for the German raid on London on 23 August. The Germans opened that can of worms.

It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.

Ah, are you another "think history" graduate? I don't need to dispute the best historians in American as they have agreed with me since 1948. Of course, those historians have probably not mastered the "think history" method as yet, still relying on the old dig for the truth method.

You merely chose to ignore the facts...like an administration full of commies, actions deliberately intended to assist Stalin, economic policies that harmed millions of Americans and prolonged the Great Depression, imprisoning Americans for no reason, nearly expanding the Supreme Court to impose his will, imposing unconditional surrender terms prolonging the war leading to millions of additional deaths, claiming Hoover was an radical interventionists then intervening more, lying to Americans in 1940 when he proclaimed over and over that no american boys would fight in Europe while making plans for them to do just that, refusing to negotiate with Japan and imposing sanctions against them forcing them to war, ignoring the unwritten rule by Washington to two terms, running in 1944 while on his death bed and lying about it....and on and on it goes...but dunces still think him GREAT!

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.

You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons? Which is it?

You are so terribly confused.

 

[regent]

Well apparently the American people of his time thought so and were willing to violate an unwritten rule and elect FDR to a third term and then to a fourth term. They might still be electing FDR today if they could.
Who was on his death bed lying about running for another term, Washington or FDR?.......

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

 

[Unkotare]

Nice to see you doing exactly what PC ordered you to do.

 

[regent]

Nice to see you doing exactly what PC ordered you to do.

How come you're not doing your interment camp thing?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Washington was a man of honor who understood that America ought not have one man holding office long enough to become a potential dictator. Every president after Washington had the sense of honor to follow his example, until the scumbag fdr came along. Only after that dishonest, power-mad, inhumane, racist, un-American SOB did we have to enshrine Washington's wisdom in a Constitutional Amendment. You are not doing your hero any favors with this line of reasoning.

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

 

[regent]

At the Constitution Convention it was suggested that we have three presidents, not one, it was supported by a few framers then discarded. If we were to have a dictator, Washington would have been number one on the scale, FDR probably second. Neither made the effort. however, but thanks to Republicans FDR will probably hold the title of terms served for years or forever.

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

1. "Still name calling I see,..."
Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.

Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.


2."As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
Not true.
Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.

See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.

 

[gipper]

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

Oh no!!!!....PC is calling me names...boohoo...It is hard not to call you names, when you post foolishness.

 

[gipper]

You are a pathetically failed apologist.

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion? How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII? Why would he do this?
2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre? Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?

Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

Here are couple additional tidbits for you to cry about, regarding your beloved tyrant.
1. Are you aware of FDR's covert involvement with the Polish government prior to the German invasion? How he backed Poland's hard liners against Germany leading to WWII? Why would he do this?
2. Are you aware of FDR's knowledge of the Katyn Massacre? Do you know he knew Stalin did it, but went along with the Soviet version of events anyway?

Nice guy old FDR...the more one researches his actions, the more one realizes how overwhelming the evidence is that he was a disgusting asshole....well one must be able think objectively and logically...you obviously are incapable.

Let's remind all of Katyn....yet another of Stalin's atrocities that FDR had no trouble agreeing to.

1. In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.

a. April 13, 1943, Radio Berlin broadcasts the German discovery of twenty-two thousand corpses of Polish officers "executed by the NKVD when the Soviets held the territory, spring of 1940.

2. April 21, 1943, Stalin tells FDR that it was "German fascists" that massacred the helpless Polish officers. But...he fumed that his and FDR's ally, the Polish government in exile has the nerve to ask the International Red Cross to investigate the crime. Did you get that? Stalin was incensed that the Poles wanted the atrocity investigated.

a. The Red Cross said they would investigate....if all three parties- Germany, Poland, and the USSR agreed. Guess who refused. In fact, Pravda attacked the Poles as "Hitlerite lackeys" who would "go down in history as the helpmates of Cannibal Hitler."
"Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History,"by Leona Schecter and Jerrold Schecter, p. 64.


3. And FDR administration? "No big deal." In fact, the US Office of War Information broadcast exactly what Stalin wanted them to.

a. BTW....in 1990, the Soviets finally admitted that the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet Crime.
Katyn -- 1952 US Congressional findings (Страница 1) — English — Форумы сайта ПРАВДА О КАТЫНИ


4. So....what did FDR know, and when did he know it? "It wasn't only that all was forgiven by FDR; all was ignored."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 204.



reggie....what do your 'historians' tell you to think about Katyn?


BTW....Stalin had the 22 thousand killed so they could not resist communism after the war. It was exactly the same reason he demanded that FDR never allow Germany to surrender until it was "pasturized," and pulverized.



Now is the time for the other dunce, Camp, to rush in and claim FDR was the "moral compass of America."

 

[regent]

No one apologized.

Of course he is correct...you are an apologist.....that covers your attempt to claim that FDR was not a dictator.

He certainly was.

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the Roosevelt manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


You should stick to your default position....'historians' tell you what to think and leave it at that.

Historians tell me their version of history and I find it a little more accurate than the think-it -up-history as used by so many posters. A number of presidents have stretched the Constitution and future presidents will follow that same path. That's politics, or as Jackson said: the Supreme Court made it's decision let them enforce it.

Are you lying to cover your embarrassment at allowing others to do your thinking for you?

Is that the reason?

You know I never provide "think-it -up-history:"my posts are documented, linked and sourced.

They quote folks like Bullitt, Eisenhower, and Kennan, among others.

That's why you can never deny any of it.

You remain a dunce, and have moved into the category of liar.

Still name calling I see, well that's another thing we have to work on. Name calling does not add validity to a questionable post.
As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph, and then build an entire case around those few words, giving us the author's meaning and ideas that just may not hold up in court.

1. "Still name calling I see,..."
Dunce is an accurate description of you, one who claims not to do any thinking, but relying on others to provide same.

Unless you'd care to deny that that is what you post with metronomic regularity.


2."As to your documentation, I think one major flaw you might have is to quote a sentence or paragraph..."
Not true.
Or...you could certainly find the quote- as I give the link to same- and show that it was not what was being said.

See what I mean about you having become a liar as a defense against the truth.

I believe that professional historians may just know more history than I do and even you, so I defer to their history. So it's a contest between your history to prove FDR a communist, and thousands of the nations best historians since 1948 that say FDR was one of the three best if not the best, and I choose their history over yours.