Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmmm, interesting theory.
However, the Soviet Union first started falling apart in 1990-1991, 2-3 years after Reagan left office.
Was he also responsible for what happened between 1989-1991?
And you are giving Reagan entirely the credit for all of this? Really?
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermathby George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
When ever you’re ready just yell “check please.”
Burns is good at these documentaries. Most of the Roosevelt stuff I've seen many times, so none of it is new, but it's nice to have it gathered in all together like that and in sequence and narrated.
I agree.
I watched this show, loved it. But I was left wondering about the media NOW. TMZ and every paparazzi under god's green earth would have shouted out every failure, every indiscretion and the fact FDR had a physical disability since 1921....Why did the media have so much discretion then and none NOW?
I agree. The media then would never print anything detremental to the POTUS.
Today Roosevelt would be out on his ass for all of his infidelities. Same goes for Kennedy.
Wonder if Burns will be mentioning those little factoids in his documentary??
Roosevelt was a great war time Prez but he did nothing to end the great depression. In fact the things he did do extended that depression. He wasn't as great as some would like to believe.
Hmmm, interesting theory.
However, the Soviet Union first started falling apart in 1990-1991, 2-3 years after Reagan left office.
Was he also responsible for what happened between 1989-1991?
And you are giving Reagan entirely the credit for all of this? Really?
Funny how Reagan is responsible for what happened right after his terms ended, but George W. Bush isn't responsible for what happened right after his terms ended.
#ConservativeHistory
Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????
Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~
Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.
Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....
But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.
Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:
"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."
Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:
1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.
If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
2. Bear in mind, 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
b. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..."
Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.
3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
Did I just eat your lunch, or what????
Never doubt me again.
Never.
In other words: The US government recognized the Soviet government, opening diplomatic and trade relations between the two. My answer to that is: So what?
He is absolutely correct.Well, maybe some hope, but a lot more debt than hope. Reagan managed to triple the debt.I think few people realize just how many public projects were completed by the WPA. So much of what you read is about waste, costs, delays, and mistakes. However, the American infrastructure was effective rebuilt providing American the backbone it would needed to support the war effort. The WPA built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, built, repaired, or improved 124,011 bridges 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; and more than 5,900 schools.Get out and travel a bit all you FDR detractors. His public works projects built thousands of beautiful post offices, court houses, and thousands of beautiful campgrounds for which I will ever be grateful. He put millions of people to work, including painters, writers, and poets. And look at the quality of what all those people produced. For his day, FDR probably pumped more American dollars back into America than any other president. His legacy is secure. He was a great president who loved this country. He didn't poison the wells like latter day democrat presidents. There was nothing hateful about the man.
Other notable public works projects included the Hoover Damn, Grand Coulee Damn, the Overseas Highway that connects Miami and Key West, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Triborough Bridge, and LaGuardia Airport.
Also, the Empire State Building, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Shasta Dam in California, and the nation's first freeway in Los Angeles.
What the fuck did Ronald Reagan ever build?
Hmmm...ask the East Germans, and the Poles, and the Lithuanians, and the Latvians, and the Estonians, and...well, you get the picture...I hope. Hope! That's what Ronald Reagan built. Hope!
You're a lying sack of shit.
Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
Well, maybe some hope, but a lot more debt than hope. Reagan managed to triple the debt.I think few people realize just how many public projects were completed by the WPA. So much of what you read is about waste, costs, delays, and mistakes. However, the American infrastructure was effective rebuilt providing American the backbone it would needed to support the war effort. The WPA built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, built, repaired, or improved 124,011 bridges 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; and more than 5,900 schools.Get out and travel a bit all you FDR detractors. His public works projects built thousands of beautiful post offices, court houses, and thousands of beautiful campgrounds for which I will ever be grateful. He put millions of people to work, including painters, writers, and poets. And look at the quality of what all those people produced. For his day, FDR probably pumped more American dollars back into America than any other president. His legacy is secure. He was a great president who loved this country. He didn't poison the wells like latter day democrat presidents. There was nothing hateful about the man.
Other notable public works projects included the Hoover Damn, Grand Coulee Damn, the Overseas Highway that connects Miami and Key West, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Triborough Bridge, and LaGuardia Airport.
Also, the Empire State Building, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Shasta Dam in California, and the nation's first freeway in Los Angeles.
What the fuck did Ronald Reagan ever build?
Hmmm...ask the East Germans, and the Poles, and the Lithuanians, and the Latvians, and the Estonians, and...well, you get the picture...I hope. Hope! That's what Ronald Reagan built. Hope!
Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You forget that the USSR was our ally and partner in WWII. Partners compromise when trying to achieve the same goal for different reasons.
Something that today's fringe doesn't understand, and why we have had the Bush Recession last so long.
Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
I have asked Chic to get her evidence on FDR to the historians as soon as possible so they can see the errors of their history and their research. Apparently she has not done so, as historians keep rating FDR as one of America's three top presidents.Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You forget that the USSR was our ally and partner in WWII. Partners compromise when trying to achieve the same goal for different reasons.
Something that today's fringe doesn't understand, and why we have had the Bush Recession last so long.
Bingo. PoliticalShit's drivel is mostly humorous, but sometimes that troglodyte just doesn't get it at all.
FDR is arguably one of our greatest presidents and led our Union through some of it's darkest hours. Seeing an inevitable war coming our way, he paved the way for the lend-lease act of 1940, he paved the way for industries in the USA to retool into war industries in record time.
PC can go on forever and ever as to who recognized Stalin as head of the USSR, but it only makes her look more looney tunes than she already is. FACT is that Stalin was the designated head of the Soviet Communist Party and therefore Prime Minister - undisputed leader. FDR was smart enough to realize that in war, you build coalitions. Any attempt to try to make FDR look like a communist traitor is just desperation on the part of butthurt Righties who would say anything, do anything as long as it hurts the other side.
But in doing so, PC also defames a number of Righties. Eisenhower recognized Stalin and then Kruschchev as the undisputed leader of the USSR. Both Republican presidential candidates (Wendell Willkie - 1940, Thomas E. Dewey - 1944 and 1948) absolutely recognized Stalin as the undisputed leader of Russia. You can study all of their campaign speeches and you will find NOTHING to the contrary. I did a very long, in-depth study of Wendell Willkie (a very interesting person), a person who went on to help FDR in the war effort after his loss in 1940.
And one final point: if PC thinks this is so earth-shattering and such a revelation, why don't we read about this in University courses? Why is it not in HS history books? Why does history still smile so very much upon FDR?
Answer: serious scholars know that clowns like PC are full of shit.
He is absolutely correct.Well, maybe some hope, but a lot more debt than hope. Reagan managed to triple the debt.I think few people realize just how many public projects were completed by the WPA. So much of what you read is about waste, costs, delays, and mistakes. However, the American infrastructure was effective rebuilt providing American the backbone it would needed to support the war effort. The WPA built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, built, repaired, or improved 124,011 bridges 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; and more than 5,900 schools.
Other notable public works projects included the Hoover Damn, Grand Coulee Damn, the Overseas Highway that connects Miami and Key West, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Triborough Bridge, and LaGuardia Airport.
Also, the Empire State Building, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Shasta Dam in California, and the nation's first freeway in Los Angeles.
What the fuck did Ronald Reagan ever build?
Hmmm...ask the East Germans, and the Poles, and the Lithuanians, and the Latvians, and the Estonians, and...well, you get the picture...I hope. Hope! That's what Ronald Reagan built. Hope!
You're a lying sack of shit.
Don't you know anything except spoonfed Limbaugh?
Well, there's the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and there's......I think few people realize just how many public projects were completed by the WPA. So much of what you read is about waste, costs, delays, and mistakes. However, the American infrastructure was effective rebuilt providing American the backbone it would needed to support the war effort. The WPA built or improved 651,000 miles of roads, built, repaired, or improved 124,011 bridges 19,700 miles of water mains and 500 water treatment plants. Workers built 24,000 miles of sidewalks; 12,800 playgrounds; 24,000 miles of storm and sewer lines; 1200 airport buildings; 226 hospitals; and more than 5,900 schools.Get out and travel a bit all you FDR detractors. His public works projects built thousands of beautiful post offices, court houses, and thousands of beautiful campgrounds for which I will ever be grateful. He put millions of people to work, including painters, writers, and poets. And look at the quality of what all those people produced. For his day, FDR probably pumped more American dollars back into America than any other president. His legacy is secure. He was a great president who loved this country. He didn't poison the wells like latter day democrat presidents. There was nothing hateful about the man.
Other notable public works projects included the Hoover Damn, Grand Coulee Damn, the Overseas Highway that connects Miami and Key West, the Lincoln Tunnel, the Blue Ridge Parkway, the Triborough Bridge, and LaGuardia Airport.
Also, the Empire State Building, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Golden Gate Bridge and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Shasta Dam in California, and the nation's first freeway in Los Angeles.
What the fuck did Ronald Reagan ever build?
Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
OK, prove that.
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
Had the isolationist Republicans won the White House in 1940 we'd all be typing in German or Japanese right now.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
OK, prove that.
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
Post #133 is a lot like post #204.......more of the same mindless nonsense. You are clearly out of your depth.
Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.Really? Then explain how Stalin had any authority over FDR.
They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????
Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~
Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.
Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....
But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.
Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:
"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."
Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:
1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.
If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
2. Bear in mind, 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
b. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..."
Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.
3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
Did I just eat your lunch, or what????
Never doubt me again.
Never.
In other words: The US government recognized the Soviet government, opening diplomatic and trade relations between the two. My answer to that is: So what?
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
OK, prove that.
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
Post #133 is a lot like post #204.......more of the same mindless nonsense. You are clearly out of your depth.
Apparently no amount of evidence will sway you.
Have you ever heard this wise old statement?
"Where there's smoke, there's fire."
Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????
Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~
Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.
Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....
But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.
Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:
"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."
Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:
1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.
If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
2. Bear in mind, 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
b. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..."
Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.
3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
Did I just eat your lunch, or what????
Never doubt me again.
Never.
In other words: The US government recognized the Soviet government, opening diplomatic and trade relations between the two. My answer to that is: So what?
It may difficult for some to comprehend, but one must analyze the totality of FDR's actions, rather than making conclusions from a single action. When one does this, one can come to only one conclusion, if one is capable and open minded. When one doesn't, one is a fool.
Your thought process is akin to claiming Hitler was a great leader, because he constructed the autobahn.
As leader of the Soviet Union? He was. Why not recognize that FACT?
Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?
Who says? ( and whomever you name, that would be their OPINION.)
If that's a factual statement, then back it up with news accounts from the era. Or anything that isn't an OPINION.
OK, prove that.
Prove that with a fact-based link to uncovered or declassified documents from the U.S. government. Because that's the only way that could be proven.
What does that say about Fred Koch?
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't.
They are not FACTS! For fuck's sake!
Now, after all that tap-dancing, answer the question you are avoiding:
How did Stalin have any authority over FDR?
I predict that you will punt again.
"7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
Again - prove that with verifiable facts. You won't. You can't."
Of course I can.
Everything I post is factual and correct.
Stalin insisted that D-Day be via western France....he wanted, and got, all of Eastern Europe under his control. So...he dissuaded FDR from an attack via Italy.
1. As to the question of Eisenhower's preference in attacking Fortress Europa, he stated in 1948: "My own recommendation, then as always, was that no operation should be taken in the Mediterranean except as a directly supporting move for the Channel attack and our planned deployment [of troops out of Italy] should proceed with all possible speed." Eisenhower, "Crusade in Europe," p.198-200
That was after FDR told him what to say.
But, his view before that.......
a. But, in 1943, before he was offered another star:
"Italy was the correct place in which to deploy our main forces and the objective should be the Valle of the PO.In no other area could we so well threaten the whole German structure including France, the Balkans and the Reich itself. Here also our air would be closer to vital objectives in Germany."
FRUS: The conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943, p.359-361
That report was published in "Foreign Relations of the United States" in 1961
Eisenhower's statement was to an audience in November 26, 1943....
" In December 1943, it was announced that Eisenhower would be Supreme Allied Commander in Europe."Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. "The actual plans for the invasion of Europe "was the brain child of the United States army," meaning General Eisenhower, a Marshall protégé, who was in charge of the planning (according to Stimson's book, "On Active Service in Peace and War").
The evidence is conclusive, however, that if Eisenhower's ideas had not been in full accord with those conceived before the war by Marshall and Hopkins, the planning assignment, the supreme command of the allied expeditionary forces, and the five stars that adorned his shoulders would have gone to some other general.
"The Twenty Year Revolution," p.119, Manly
So....Eisenhower was for it (attack via Italy) before he was against it (suddenly for attack via France,)
How's that? In your face!
You have no idea what any of this means. Italy was always the secondary diversionary front, invading France was always going to be the main effort. No one thought Germany was going to be conquered via Italy. No one.
Post # 133 destroyed you.
Now, step off.
Post #133 is a lot like post #204.......more of the same mindless nonsense. You are clearly out of your depth.
Apparently no amount of evidence will sway you.
Have you ever heard this wise old statement?
"Where there's smoke, there's fire."
Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.They were soul-mates.
1. He gave official recognition to Stalin in 1933
2. He provided lend lease largesse to Stalin far and above what was necessary
3. He allowed and encouraged Stalin's spies in his administration.
4. He insisted on a communist as his second vice president
5. He sent uranium and plans for the atomic bomb to Stalin
6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath.
7. He acquiesced to d-day, not where his generals suggested, but where Stalin insisted.
What is your explanation for the above?
And...if your did your own research, and verified same....would you have had the courage to ask your history teachers/professors to explain their support of FDR in the face of these facts?
Would you?
Wait...."completely unsupported by any legitimate historians"....you're pretending you have knowledge of history, much less "legitimate historians"?????
Your ignorance is hidden about as well as a bikini hides 45 pounds of ugly fat~
Now jot this down: never......never.....doubt what I post.
It is completely accurate, your biases notwithstanding.
Your outstanding characteristics, lying imbecile, are so obvious, that this post should come under the heading of 'beating a dead horse.'....
But I can't resist....my guilty pleasure.
Let's take the item that you claim....I eschew vulgar language, so I can't quote you, but with which you disagree vehemently....the one that should have ended any association Roosevelt considered with Stalin:
"6. All of this with the foreknowledge that Stalin was a homicidal psychopath."
Now...watch me make mincemeat out of you:
1. FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace, endorse Stalin....and recognize the USSR.
If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational:
"Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.
2. Bear in mind, 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
b. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..."
Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.
3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?
a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’
Did I just eat your lunch, or what????
Never doubt me again.
Never.
In other words: The US government recognized the Soviet government, opening diplomatic and trade relations between the two. My answer to that is: So what?
It may difficult for some to comprehend, but one must analyze the totality of FDR's actions, rather than making conclusions from a single action. When one does this, one can come to only one conclusion, if one is capable and open minded. When one doesn't, one is a fool.
Your thought process is akin to claiming Hitler was a great leader, because he constructed the autobahn.
That's because the Democrats refused to do the cuts liked they promised.
Isolationists were in both parties not just Republicans. Half of the country was divided on the war issues.
That ideology went out the window when the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, so no we would not be speaking or typing in German or Japanese no matter who was in the White House.
Whenever America is attacked we all come together and agree on war, against anyone who attacks us, be it in WWII or the World Trade Center.
