Ken Burns Roosevelt Documentary

[BullKurtz]

If FDR hadn't drastically built up our industry, which made tanks and planes for Britain and the USSR, Germany would have taken Europe, then attacked America from the East as Japan attacked from the west. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore - all in ruins. Most likely Pittsburgh because of Big Steel, and Detroit, too, since it was the center of our large transportation industry.

FDR didn't have to do much arm-twisting to get Detroit (THE ARSENAL FOR DEMOCRACY) to convert from making cars and trucks to tanks and half-tracks. He could have nationalized them I suppose, but the BIG 4 gladly took the government contracts over their domestic customer's needs.....why not, the money was good and the money was certain. I know of no plans Hitler or Hirohito had of occupying the USA. They could have tried to blockade us but we made everything we needed domestically at the time (the good ol days when our corporations gave a shit about their country). I'm not aware of the Germans having aircraft carrier capacity to bomb the eastern cities. The Japs could have given us fits west of the Rockies but would never have tried to land.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

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?

Post #133

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.”

OK, before I expose your dishonesty yet again, answer the question that you avoided:

Which countries did NOT recognize Stalin as the leader of the USSR?

What sort of moron relies on other nations to determine American policy....???

Oh...your sort of moron.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, the Germans had built an aircraft which was capable of going from Europe to NYC and back. Unfortunately for them, it could carry enough fuel to do that, or they could carry bombs, but not both. Their real goal was to build a rocket to launch and against NYC. But, they were too late for that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic has either:

1. Run from this thread as she so often does when she's getting her ass beat
2. Scouring Right-Wing propaganda to further cloud the facts
3. Legitimately not on the site because Real Life

I'm hoping #3, but her history is shaky.

I wiped up the floor with you......what more is there to say???

 

[Discombobulated]

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?

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

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?

Post #133

Like I said......so what? What about it? Were you trying to make a point? If so feel free to make it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????


What an imbecile.

1. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. And on 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.’
   3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist [Nazi]….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
2. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
3. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.
   1. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
   2. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.

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.

You are, of course, a disgusting low-life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Numbers two through seven are absolute bull shit, completely unsupported by any legitimate historians.

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?

Post #133

Like I said......so what? What about it? Were you trying to make a point? If so feel free to make it.

Post #133 destroyed you.

Now....get back under your rock.

 

[Discombobulated]

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.

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????


What an imbecile.

1. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. And on 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.’
   3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist [Nazi]….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
2. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
3. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.
   1. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
   2. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

Some very nearly interesting superficial comparisons here, almost compelling equivalencies. First FDR was a Communist, then he was a Fascist. You just can't seem to make up your mind. Which is it? Fucking hilarious.

 

[Discombobulated]

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?

Post #133

Like I said......so what? What about it? Were you trying to make a point? If so feel free to make it.

Post #133 destroyed you.

Now....get back under your rock.

You spend more time telling yourself that than you ever do making your alleged argument.

 

[gipper]

.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

That is his problem. He attended government schools and believed all that bullshit they told him.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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!

Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.

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.

You are, of course, a disgusting low-life.

Tsk, tsk, you have anger issues, what??

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????


What an imbecile.

1. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. And on 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.’
   3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist [Nazi]….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
2. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
3. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.
   1. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
   2. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

So, because a Nazi propaganda newspaper writes an opinion about FDR, you assume it's the truth.
And you place more credence in the words of Benito Mussolini than in the deeds of our very own president.

No wonder people are not suprised anymore that Righties are unpatriotic traitors.

Just to think, you could have been the Berlin Rose of the 40s, with this kind of behaviour.

Golden, just golden.

Oh, and if you believe that shit, then you really ARE batshit crazy.

 

[Discombobulated]

.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

That is his problem. He attended government schools and believed all that bullshit they told him.

And your problem is that you read some stupid shit on a web site and called it history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

Wow. You'll even slander Eisenhower to further your wingnuttery.

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.

You are, of course, a disgusting low-life.

Tsk, tsk, you have anger issues, what??

I was simply identifying scum like you, who resort to vulgarity when they can't stand how abysmally they've failed in an argument.

That, of course, is why I am never forced to use said language.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.

Yeah! How can he possibly not believe a Nazi newspaper!!!!

Are you actually disputing that Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and FDR's New Deal were on the same page?????


What an imbecile.

1. The National Socialists hailed these ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
   1. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
   2. And on 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.’
   3. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist [Nazi]….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”
   4. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
2. In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
3. English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini. A more specific reason why, in 1933, the New Deal was often compared with Fascism was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.
   1. Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
   2. In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.” Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

So, because a Nazi propaganda newspaper writes an opinion about FDR, you assume it's the truth.
And you place more credence in the words of Benito Mussolini than in the deeds of our very own president.

No wonder people are not suprised anymore that Righties are unpatriotic traitors.

Just to think, you could have been the Berlin Rose of the 40s, with this kind of behaviour.

Golden, just golden.

Oh, and if you believe that shit, then you really ARE batshit crazy.

Post #267 supports my point in detail.

If you read it, you'll be reduced to being a foul-mouthed boor again.



And, if you ever get around to actual research....

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is regarded today as the democratic ideal, a triumphant American response to a crisis that forced Germany and Italy toward National Socialism and Fascism. Yet in the 1930s, before World War II, the regimes of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler bore fundamental similarities. In this groundbreaking work, Wolfgang Schivelbusch investigates the shared elements of these three "new deals"--focusing on their architecture and public works projects--to offer a new explanation for the popularity of Europe's totalitarian systems. Writing with flair and concision, Schivelbusch casts a different light on the New Deal and puts forth a provocative explanation for the still-mysterious popularity of Europe's most tyrannical regimes."
Amazon.com Three New Deals Reflections on Roosevelt s America Mussolini s Italy and Hitler s Germany 1933-1939 9780312427436 Wolfgang Schivelbusch Books

 

[gipper]

Did you ever attend ANY school ever????

That is his problem. He attended government schools and believed all that bullshit they told him.

And your problem is that you read some stupid shit on a web site and called it history.

Oh please....if you bothered to educate yourself, as some us did decades ago, about FDR's betrayal and horrendous leadership, you would know how foolish your position is.

It is unbelievable in this day and age, when numerous historians, experts, and individuals close to FDR have exposed the truth about him, that dunces like you still exist.

Even though you have failed to research FDR, commonsense should tell you he was a disgusting tyrant, fool, and a traitor.

It merely proves how powerful the state is. It can brainwash many who are incapable of thinking and who stubbornly refuse to accept the truth, but chose to accept statist propaganda.

 

[2aguy]

You mean Teddy Roosevelt, the one who believed in eugenics? the guy was a nutter....

 

[Synthaholic]

If FDR hadn't drastically built up our industry, which made tanks and planes for Britain and the USSR, Germany would have taken Europe, then attacked America from the East as Japan attacked from the west. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore - all in ruins. Most likely Pittsburgh because of Big Steel, and Detroit, too, since it was the center of our large transportation industry.

All highly unlikely.

Care to explain why?

We had basically no defense against airplanes dropping bombs before the Roosevelt buildup in the 1930s. What was going to stop Germany and Japan? Farmers with hunting rifles shooting from the cornfields?