Roosevelt....the Un-Reagan

[Dot Com]

It's so simple to deflate the blimp you've become....
...time for more B-12 shots?

1. "I actually find Ann Coulter amusing."
You've never read any of the scholarly and well documented best sellers Queen Ann has written.

2. "Political Chic is just tedious. I would love to debate what she actually says but she cuts and pastes."
Cut and paste is the manner of presentation...not the factual material provided.
And...you don't have enough knowledge to debate me.

Not one single thing I've posted....and documented and sourced via 'cut and paste' has been shown to be less than accurate.

And it will continue so.

"Queen" Anne?

Thats not the first time I heard you use that term PoliticalSpice.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And now for the education that government schooling skipped.

Franklin Roosevelt rejected the Constitution, accepted communism and revered the collective...the true American President, Ronald Reagan, venerated the Constitution, stood for the individual and despised Communism.


1. It was under Franklin Roosevelt that America underwent a sea change, ending the guidance of the Founders, the Constitution, and the emphasis on capitalism in favor of socialism.
It behooves those who wish to understand what happened to analyze what happened....and why.



What Did He Know, and When Did He Know It?

It was through Franklin Roosevelt's tireless efforts that communism found a home in the United States. They don't teach that in government school.
Did FDR know he was providing a red carpet for communism, pun intended, or was he ignorant of the malevolence he was endorsing?



3.Just the other day, I watched journalists asking a Republican presidential contender specific and detailed questions about geo-politics...trying to see what he knew, and how good he would be at applying same to predicting future situations.
Apply same to FDR: was Roosevelt aware of the homicidal pathology of communism, and if so, shouldn't he have put off recognition of the Soviet empire until he perceived a change in those policies?


Let's see FDR's geopolitical education:
Here is his timeline of political education..

Nov 8, 1910 Franklin Roosevelt is elected to the New York State Senate.

In 1913, Franklin Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson.

1920 Franklin Roosevelt ran as the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, alongside James M. Cox. The ticket is defeated by Republicans Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

Nov 6, 1928 Franklin Roosevelt is elected governor of New York.

Following the very last brokered election that produced a winning candidate, Nov 8, 1932 Franklin Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover to become the 32nd President of the United States, receiving 57.4% of the popular vote.

On November 16, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union following a series of negotiations in Washington, D.C. with the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov.



So....here was a professional politician who spent a quarter century learning his craft, before he embraced the Soviet Union in what any astute observer of the world scene knew was a fraudulent agreement.

He had that quarter century to consider, refine, and make judgments about the world, about right and wrong, good and evil.....
It was his considered opinion that all previous Presidents and Secretaries of State were wrong in refusing to embrace the blood-drenched Bolsheviks.


What Did He Know, and When Did He Know It?

I admit, I don't read threads by PC. That said, for another opinion I suggest the reader who has access to Netflix watch the three part series on The Roosevelt's, TR & FDR. Real history by real historians, fact based and with the perspective of the times in which they lived.

Of course you read 'em.....and grind your teeth and pop antacids.


Here's the film you and everyone should watch to learn what FDR endorsed:

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==


"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983

I read the first sentence. It's typical you, the genere of "ain't ____ awful"; the blank reserved for every Democratic President, all liberals, progressives and human beings who hold opinions which differ from your own.

Speaking to your opinions, they are biased, bullshit and boring. You are predictable, partisan and pestiferous (I'll help you here, pestiferous: morally evil and dangerous to society).

Watch your language, Liberal.


Documentation of the joined-at-the-hip relationship of Hitler and Stalin....and, therefore, Roosevelt.

"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


Don't be afraid of education.....go ahead and watch the acclaimed documentary.

I did read this link, but I didn't read the OP so I didn't lie.

That said, there is no mention of FDR in The Soviet Story link, and what was described was the commonality of despotic rule in totalitarian societies. A far cry from anything we've have encountered under FDR or any other POTUS and not something anyone knowledgeable and honest about the history of the 20th Century would dispute.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan invaded Grenada
FDR invaded Europe

All you need to know

 

[Dot Com]

OP is right!!!

FDR is the un-Reagan because he actually "did stuff" instead of making movies like the Gipper did for the duration of the war.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Camp]

Yep- from the viewpoint of Conservatives like yourself- a 'diligent' media would have prevented FDR from leading the United States to victory over Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

Would have prevented Americans from the horrors of Social Security.
Would have prevented Americans from the indignity of unemployment checks
Would have allowed bank runs to thrive as Americans lost faith in banks without depositers insurance.
Would have allowed the farmers to be run out of business

Oh how the Conservatives hate FDR for protecting Americans.

FDR led the United States to war. Harry Truman led the United States to the twisted semblance of victory. FDR promised to end the mild recession in 1932 and under his leadership the recession turned into a man killing bodies in the ditch soup line depression for his next two terms.. The federal government has been running farmers out of business since FDR created the alphabet federal schemes that were designed to make the DNC rich.The Media forced Nixon to resign but in retrospect a 2nd rate burglary doesn't come close to comparing the Constitutional insult of the the incarceration of American citizens without due process.

Oh what bitter Conservative revisionist history.

FDR prepared the United States for war, as the world went up in flames- with Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union were all trying to carve it up.

And when the United States was attacked by Imperial Japan- and when Hitler and Mussolini declared war on the United States- FDR led the United States to victory.

And you are still pissed off about that.

And FDR took the United States from the crushing 25% unemployment in the first year of his presidency to 9% in 1941.

And you are still pissed off about that.

You are still pissed off that FDR was for Americans

So hard to ascertain whether you are more the fool or more the liar.

"FDR prepared the United States for war,..."

Of course he did no such thing.

1. FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone. To quote George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country". FDR had underestimated the Japanese and the Pearl Harbor attack devastated the American Navy and exposed the president's incompetence.

You are an absolute liar and ignoramus. You have been shown in detail on numerous occasions and numerous threads how FDR pushed for and developed the weapons that would win WWII. Instead of producing weapons that would be obsolete he had the MIC concentrate and focus on developing new and modern aircraft and ships, including the carriers that would play the key role of beating Japan, and the aircraft that flew off of them. The bombers that destroyed Germany all lead to FDR's foresight and genius.
Your claim that FDR did very little for the Army in regards to weapons is an outrageous lie that ignores factual history.

And yet another lie.

Who is the liar? I am losing track of all the examples I am posting to prove your lie about FDR doing very little to improve the military. FDR was behind the ESSEX Class carriers. Not a single one was sunk during all of WWII. Roosevelt knew a lot about Navel ships.

en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Essex-class_aircraft_carrier

 

[Dot Com]

Reagan invaded Grenada
FDR invaded Europe

All you need to know

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Dot Com]

PoliSpice should take Trump's advice & either go back to Seoul or be interned

this great nation owes a debt of gratitude to FDR that can never be repaid,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread serves as evidence of the genius of FDR, of his great accomplishments, and proof that government can work to the benefit of the American people – a fact most on the right hate and attempt to conceal, unsuccessfully; FDR was a far superior president than the likes of Reagan, even taking into account FDR's faults and failures.

 

[Dot Com]

This thread serves as evidence of the genius of FDR, of his great accomplishments, and proof that government can work to the benefit of the American people – a fact most on the right hate and attempt to conceal, unsuccessfully; FDR was a far superior president than the likes of Reagan, even taking into account FDR's faults and failures.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And now for the education that government schooling skipped.

Franklin Roosevelt rejected the Constitution, accepted communism and revered the collective...the true American President, Ronald Reagan, venerated the Constitution, stood for the individual and despised Communism.


1. It was under Franklin Roosevelt that America underwent a sea change, ending the guidance of the Founders, the Constitution, and the emphasis on capitalism in favor of socialism.
It behooves those who wish to understand what happened to analyze what happened....and why.



What Did He Know, and When Did He Know It?

It was through Franklin Roosevelt's tireless efforts that communism found a home in the United States. They don't teach that in government school.
Did FDR know he was providing a red carpet for communism, pun intended, or was he ignorant of the malevolence he was endorsing?



3.Just the other day, I watched journalists asking a Republican presidential contender specific and detailed questions about geo-politics...trying to see what he knew, and how good he would be at applying same to predicting future situations.
Apply same to FDR: was Roosevelt aware of the homicidal pathology of communism, and if so, shouldn't he have put off recognition of the Soviet empire until he perceived a change in those policies?


Let's see FDR's geopolitical education:
Here is his timeline of political education..

Nov 8, 1910 Franklin Roosevelt is elected to the New York State Senate.

In 1913, Franklin Roosevelt was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Woodrow Wilson.

1920 Franklin Roosevelt ran as the Democratic candidate for Vice-President, alongside James M. Cox. The ticket is defeated by Republicans Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

Nov 6, 1928 Franklin Roosevelt is elected governor of New York.

Following the very last brokered election that produced a winning candidate, Nov 8, 1932 Franklin Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover to become the 32nd President of the United States, receiving 57.4% of the popular vote.

On November 16, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union following a series of negotiations in Washington, D.C. with the Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Maxim Litvinov.



So....here was a professional politician who spent a quarter century learning his craft, before he embraced the Soviet Union in what any astute observer of the world scene knew was a fraudulent agreement.

He had that quarter century to consider, refine, and make judgments about the world, about right and wrong, good and evil.....
It was his considered opinion that all previous Presidents and Secretaries of State were wrong in refusing to embrace the blood-drenched Bolsheviks.


What Did He Know, and When Did He Know It?

I admit, I don't read threads by PC. That said, for another opinion I suggest the reader who has access to Netflix watch the three part series on The Roosevelt's, TR & FDR. Real history by real historians, fact based and with the perspective of the times in which they lived.

Of course you read 'em.....and grind your teeth and pop antacids.


Here's the film you and everyone should watch to learn what FDR endorsed:

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==


"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983

I read the first sentence. It's typical you, the genere of "ain't ____ awful"; the blank reserved for every Democratic President, all liberals, progressives and human beings who hold opinions which differ from your own.

Speaking to your opinions, they are biased, bullshit and boring. You are predictable, partisan and pestiferous (I'll help you here, pestiferous: morally evil and dangerous to society).

Watch your language, Liberal.


Documentation of the joined-at-the-hip relationship of Hitler and Stalin....and, therefore, Roosevelt.

"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


Don't be afraid of education.....go ahead and watch the acclaimed documentary.

I did read this link, but I didn't read the OP so I didn't lie.

That said, there is no mention of FDR in The Soviet Story link, and what was described was the commonality of despotic rule in totalitarian societies. A far cry from anything we've have encountered under FDR or any other POTUS and not something anyone knowledgeable and honest about the history of the 20th Century would dispute.

Except for the fact that there wouldn't have been a Soviet communist totalitarian regime sans the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I admit, I don't read threads by PC. That said, for another opinion I suggest the reader who has access to Netflix watch the three part series on The Roosevelt's, TR & FDR. Real history by real historians, fact based and with the perspective of the times in which they lived.

Of course you read 'em.....and grind your teeth and pop antacids.


Here's the film you and everyone should watch to learn what FDR endorsed:

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==


"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983

I read the first sentence. It's typical you, the genere of "ain't ____ awful"; the blank reserved for every Democratic President, all liberals, progressives and human beings who hold opinions which differ from your own.

Speaking to your opinions, they are biased, bullshit and boring. You are predictable, partisan and pestiferous (I'll help you here, pestiferous: morally evil and dangerous to society).

Watch your language, Liberal.


Documentation of the joined-at-the-hip relationship of Hitler and Stalin....and, therefore, Roosevelt.

"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


Don't be afraid of education.....go ahead and watch the acclaimed documentary.

I did read this link, but I didn't read the OP so I didn't lie.

That said, there is no mention of FDR in The Soviet Story link, and what was described was the commonality of despotic rule in totalitarian societies. A far cry from anything we've have encountered under FDR or any other POTUS and not something anyone knowledgeable and honest about the history of the 20th Century would dispute.

Except for the fact that there wouldn't have been a Soviet communist totalitarian regime sans the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

History by real historians, not partisan hacks:

The War Against Germany: Despite these early battles in the Pacific, from the beginning of the war the U.S. and Great Britain agreed that their top priority was to defeat Hitler�s Germany, which was deemed the greater military threat. Japan could be finished off after Germany surrendered. The U.S. and Great Britain � the "Western Allies" � worked very closely together in planning and fighting the war. There were tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, however, which was fighting a savage war against Germany in the East. One recurring source of tension was the issue of a "Second Front." With Western Europe under his control, Hitler could concentrate his forces on attempting to defeat the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin desperately wanted the Western Allies to open up a Second Front by invading Western Europe, thus forcing Germany to divided its forces between Eastern and Western Fronts. FDR repeatedly promised Stalin that a Second Front was imminent, but the more cautious Churchill always forced delays. Stalin, suspicious of western intentions, believed that the Western Allies were simply content to sit back and allow the Soviets to do all of the fighting and dying in the war against Hitler. The British, Americans, and Soviets remained Allies, but there were always undercurrents of suspicion and mistrust between them.

http://www.westga.edu/~hgoodson/World War II.htm

 

[Dot Com]

Wasn't Ronnie taking tips from Nancy's astrologer in later years of his presidency?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wasn't Ronnie taking tips from Nancy's astrologer in later years of his presidency?

The way he governed California, I suspect the astrologer was on this staff here.

 

[Dot Com]

Looky what I found w/ a simple search!!!

Joan Quigley

Joan Quigley, the astrologer who helped determinePresident Ronald Reagan's schedule and claimed to have convinced him to soften his stance toward the Soviet Union

Reagan

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

70 years since FDR's death.

70 years of conservative attacks, lies, and efforts to impeach FDR's legacy.

70 years of rightwing failure, this thread another example of that failure.

 

[Dot Com]

70 years since FDR's death.

70 years of conservative attacks, lies, and efforts to impeach FDR's legacy.

70 years of rightwing failure, this thread another example of that failure.

OP has FDRDS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course you read 'em.....and grind your teeth and pop antacids.


Here's the film you and everyone should watch to learn what FDR endorsed:

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==

http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?v=MjQwMQ==


"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983

I read the first sentence. It's typical you, the genere of "ain't ____ awful"; the blank reserved for every Democratic President, all liberals, progressives and human beings who hold opinions which differ from your own.

Speaking to your opinions, they are biased, bullshit and boring. You are predictable, partisan and pestiferous (I'll help you here, pestiferous: morally evil and dangerous to society).

Watch your language, Liberal.


Documentation of the joined-at-the-hip relationship of Hitler and Stalin....and, therefore, Roosevelt.

"The Soviet Story," an award winning documentary clarifying the close and personal attachments of Hitler's Nazis and Stalin's Communists.

"Soviet Story" is the most powerful antidote yet to the sanitisation of the past. The film is gripping, audacious and uncompromising. [...] The main aim of the film is to show the close connections—philosophical, political and organisational—between the Nazi and Soviet systems." http://www.economist.com/node/11401983


Don't be afraid of education.....go ahead and watch the acclaimed documentary.

I did read this link, but I didn't read the OP so I didn't lie.

That said, there is no mention of FDR in The Soviet Story link, and what was described was the commonality of despotic rule in totalitarian societies. A far cry from anything we've have encountered under FDR or any other POTUS and not something anyone knowledgeable and honest about the history of the 20th Century would dispute.

Except for the fact that there wouldn't have been a Soviet communist totalitarian regime sans the tireless efforts of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

History by real historians, not partisan hacks:

The War Against Germany: Despite these early battles in the Pacific, from the beginning of the war the U.S. and Great Britain agreed that their top priority was to defeat Hitler�s Germany, which was deemed the greater military threat. Japan could be finished off after Germany surrendered. The U.S. and Great Britain � the "Western Allies" � worked very closely together in planning and fighting the war. There were tensions between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union, however, which was fighting a savage war against Germany in the East. One recurring source of tension was the issue of a "Second Front." With Western Europe under his control, Hitler could concentrate his forces on attempting to defeat the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin desperately wanted the Western Allies to open up a Second Front by invading Western Europe, thus forcing Germany to divided its forces between Eastern and Western Fronts. FDR repeatedly promised Stalin that a Second Front was imminent, but the more cautious Churchill always forced delays. Stalin, suspicious of western intentions, believed that the Western Allies were simply content to sit back and allow the Soviets to do all of the fighting and dying in the war against Hitler. The British, Americans, and Soviets remained Allies, but there were always undercurrents of suspicion and mistrust between them.

http://www.westga.edu/~hgoodson/World War II.htm

Stop being such a moron.
Do your best.

1. There were lots of 'Second Fronts'...but the only one that Stalin would accept was way off in western France, so that he could grab all of Eastern Europe.

The first front was created by the Nazi attack, "Operation Barbarossa," and the constant demands by Stalin that the Allies open another front to draw off the Germans from Russia.

The unspoken sentiment is that the Germans would defeat the Soviets, and that they desperately needed that 'Second Front.'

What proof of that 'fear' exists? Looking at the great tank battle of Kursk, or a study of Russia's 'three greatest generals, December, January, and February,' certainly don't support same.

No, the truth is that FDR's affections for Stalin and Soviet Communism found it useful to claim that without American support.....the end was near for Uncle Joe


a. What does history tell us about similar attempts to conquer the Russian bear?

"Napoleon began his invasion 550 miles from Moscow and 420 miles from St. Petersburg. Hitler began his invasion from a similar distance."Why Russia Is Marching mdash and Eastern Europe Is Afraid - theTrumpet.com
How did that turn out for the attackers?

2. So....what's all this about a dire need for a "Second Front"....and why did Stalin insist it had to be via the northwestern corner of the continent rather than the south, from Italy and the Adriatic?

And why forbid the allies to allow the surrender of Germany, which would have saved countless American lives?

More to the point....why did Roosevelt go along with this?
Starting to see the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt?


3. So.....did it really matter where the 'second front' is located?
Stalin was adamant about it forming via the northwestern edge of the continent rather than abide by Churchill's wish, Italy.


a. Consider the analysis of NYTimes Russia expert, Edwin James:
" ALLIED FRONT IN ITALY NOT SO FAR FROM REICH; In Other Words, It Is Just as Close to Germany From Any Peninsula Point As It Is From Dnieper THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE"
By EDWIN L. JAMES
September 12, 1943
Pay Articles from September 1943 Part 4 - Site Map - The New York Times

So....why did Stalin insist on the Allies opening the front at Normandy rather than the bases already conquered in Italy?

Here's why: he wanted the Red Army to cut Europe in half , as he would be able to occupy same.

And Roosevelt agreed with him....Roosevelt wanted to give all of Eastern Europe over to this homicidal maniac who slaughtered and oppressed millions!



b.Don't believe that that was the reason for Stalin's insistence on the "second front" being as far west as possible?

"Any time or any place where German forces are engaged by the American and the British represents good luck for Stalin. That is true because Hitler's strength is taxed just as much by fighting to the south as it would be fighting to the west."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 266.
How can one argue with that?


Well.....only if "taxing Hitler's strength" wasn't the aim.....gaining the territory of central Europe for the Red Army was.



c. 'To withdraw from the European continent [Italy] to re-invade the European continent was simply crazy.'
Dunn, "Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin," p.195-196
Yet, Roosevelt sided with Stalin over Churchill, and over General Mark Clark, commander of the 5th US Army, in Italy.
Why?



Still care to deny that Stalin was in charge of Roosevelt's war efforts?
...and Stalin would get his way down to the last American casualty?

In the effort to install world-wide communism, any loss to either America, or to Germany, was a gain for Stalin.

Thank you, Franklin Roosevelt



Did you know that Eisenhower agreed with Churchill that Italy was the correct attack point.....until he was bought off by George Marshall with a fifth star?

Of course you didn't, you uneducated imbecile.

 

[PoliticalChic]

70 years since FDR's death.

70 years of conservative attacks, lies, and efforts to impeach FDR's legacy.

70 years of rightwing failure, this thread another example of that failure.

"70 years of rightwing failure,"

Ask Gorbachev about that, you imbecile.

 

[PoliticalChic]

According to Soviet records, in May of 1942,Harry Hopkins privately coached Foreign Minister Molotov on what to say to FDR to overcome US military arguments against a 'second front' in France.
Eduard Mark, " Venona's source 19 and the 'Trident' Conference of May 1943: diplomacy or espionage?," p.20
(seeEBSEES Mark Eduard Venona s source 19 and the Trident Conference of May 1943 diplomacy or espionage



And “Mr. Molotoff Came to Plead for a Second Front,”New York Times,June 13, 1942.
And, referring to Soviet records of the Hopkins/Molotov meetings: Harry Hopkins A Glimpse into the Russian Records - DocumentsTalk.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....what, exactly, did Stalin want from American foreign policy? The call was for an Anglo-American 'second front,' in Western Europe, to draw German forces away from their attack on mother Russia, the putative 'first front.'

The astute should have noted thatthe real 'first front' was Poland, which had been attacked in 1939 by both Hitler and Stalin.
But, put that aside....


a. After Pearl Harbor, wasn't the South Pacifica second front?


b. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, atBataan.
How about a 'front' there?

c. How aboutNorth Africa?
In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations. Harry Hopkins and George Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Starting to get the picture?
The only "second front" that counted, according to Stalin and Roosevelt, was the one that Stalin named as the "second front."

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


Yup!
'Russia Uber Alles'

What nation did Roosevelt represent, again?