Today's lesson in 'what if' history is how the absence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have changed world history.....for the better.
Unlike what is taught in government school...every statement I make is documented and sourced.
1. There can be no argument about FDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities. He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.
a. "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.
Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.
2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.
3. What about the promises by Stalin that he would reform?
Well, one might say that Roosevelt accepted the Soviet word that they would reform, change....
Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement: Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee.
The Winona Republican-Herald from Winona Minnesota Page 12
a.The Russians laughed about their alleged promisesof future behavior. This is the conversation that Litvinov had with staff at his embassy after the 'agreement' was signed:
"Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us torecognize the debtswe owed them and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one was a corker; they wanted us topromise freedom of religion inthe Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much prompted to offer thatI would personally collect all the Biblesand ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.
4. Clearly, more than a miscalculation....Roosevelt knew of the slaughters and genocides by the Soviet regime, this is how FDR adviser summed it up:
"...the Soviet Union, up to the present time, has been a totalitarian dictatorship in which there has been no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, and a travesty of freedom of religion; in which there has been universal fear of the O.G.P.U. [secret police] and Freedom from Want has been subordinated always to the policy of guns instead of butter."
Roosevelt ignored the facts.
.....what can be the explanation?
This:
Roosevelt yearned for the totalist powers of his pals, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, enjoyed.
Make no mistake: he was on excellent terms with every one of them.
a. His New Deal was a direct copy of Mussolini's. 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.
b. 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 to 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.
Hence...the title of the thread.....unless you believe that Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin, were 'Pro-America.'
Unlike what is taught in government school...every statement I make is documented and sourced.
1. There can be no argument about FDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities. He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.
a. "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.
Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.
2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.
3. What about the promises by Stalin that he would reform?
Well, one might say that Roosevelt accepted the Soviet word that they would reform, change....
Roosevelt signed the recognition agreement: Litvinov "returned to the Soviet embassy.....all smiles....and said 'Well, it's all in the bag; we have it.'"
On September 23, 1939, Dr. D. H. Dombrowsky testified before the Dies committee.
The Winona Republican-Herald from Winona Minnesota Page 12
a.The Russians laughed about their alleged promisesof future behavior. This is the conversation that Litvinov had with staff at his embassy after the 'agreement' was signed:
"Well, it's all in the bag. They wanted us torecognize the debtswe owed them and I promised we were going to negotiate. But they did not know we were going to negotiate until doomsday. The next one was a corker; they wanted us topromise freedom of religion inthe Soviet Union, and I promised that, too. I was very much prompted to offer thatI would personally collect all the Biblesand ship them over."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.33.
4. Clearly, more than a miscalculation....Roosevelt knew of the slaughters and genocides by the Soviet regime, this is how FDR adviser summed it up:
"...the Soviet Union, up to the present time, has been a totalitarian dictatorship in which there has been no freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, and a travesty of freedom of religion; in which there has been universal fear of the O.G.P.U. [secret police] and Freedom from Want has been subordinated always to the policy of guns instead of butter."
Roosevelt ignored the facts.
.....what can be the explanation?
This:
Roosevelt yearned for the totalist powers of his pals, Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, enjoyed.
Make no mistake: he was on excellent terms with every one of them.
a. His New Deal was a direct copy of Mussolini's. 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.
b. 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 to 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.
Hence...the title of the thread.....unless you believe that Mussolini, Hitler, or Stalin, were 'Pro-America.'
