Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[Toronado3800]

Now I do agree with PC just a little. Or maybe it is I will throw her a bone.

By December 1941 there were no doubt German generals who learned the supeority of the T-34, of the supeority of Russian engineering for cold weather combat and knew their history. It was a long cold retreat from the gates of Moscow only weeks after the U.S. declared war.

If not in 41 then in 42 as Von Paulus was trapped at Stalingrad one of the Generals had to have a doubt. At least ONE.

And my lord. By 43 when the world's largest tank battle was lost at Kursk and we landed in Italy even a dense fella had to be able to figure out things were not going well.

Still it is alot to think that we could have organized a better coup inside the Reich. What is even more i teresting is to put oneself i the mindset of the age. This was an era where an American man may have fought against the Central Powers and largely Germany in 1918 and lost a brother. Turn around and two decades later he might have lost a son fighting against Germany. Once the anti communist zeal was lost and the evilness of the Nazi's known folks had to think a lesson needed to be taught. Hell, Russians probably really thought this.

Think about our comparably minor troubles in Iraq or fighting the Taliban and how deep seated our feelings are.

 

[Unkotare]

Apparently there is a deranged anti-FDR cult out there that I was not previously aware of.

There seems to have been a deranged cult of fdr worshipers who have been hiding in plain sight for a long time. These zealots seem incapable of recognizing the many sins of that POS.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

He didn't

Germany surrendered in May of 1945. The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.

I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.

Pretty much.

What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.

I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.

"...an unconditional surrender...."

That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.

You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.

Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.

Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.

You become boring.

Perhaps you always were.

I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?

Jesus I just quoted your post:

ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
Click to expand...


You: Germany would have surrendered.

Lying guttersnipe.

"I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"

I said no such thing.


What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.

I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.

I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.

Better, you weasel....I'll wait for you to admit that at no time did I say that Hitler would surrender.
That you're just a lying sack of sewage, a true representative of the sort who absorbs Liberal doctrine.


Waiting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You keep denying that you post lies and yet you keep posting this lie about a great American who did as much or more than anyone to ensure the allies were victorious. "Not to forget, Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy in the Roosevelt White House....he actually lived in the White House....." It's been proven a lie over an over again and Hopkin's unflagging, untiring patriotism demonstrated again and again. Your shameless repeating of this lie for base partisan gain grows more despicable with every un-substantiated repetition.

"Roosevelt purged anti-communist Foreign Service officers when given a "list of officials who were supposedly undermining American relations with Russia" by Soviet Foreign Minister Litvinov. The purges began in 1937, and, ironic, Litvinov was dragged out of his position and replaced with Molotov, by Stalin, because Litvinov was Jewish, and Stalin had treaties with Hitler. The purges were at the behest of Harry Hopkins.
Weil, " A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 91-92

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.

Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
No one had suggested that possibility but you.

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.

Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
So now with all due respect, you may ad hominem about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!

You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.

I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.



You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

He didn't

Germany surrendered in May of 1945. The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.

I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.

Pretty much.

What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.

I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.

"...an unconditional surrender...."

That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.

You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.

Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.

Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.

You become boring.

Perhaps you always were.

I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?

Jesus I just quoted your post:

ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
Click to expand...


You: Germany would have surrendered.

Lying guttersnipe.

"I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"

I said no such thing.


What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.

I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.

I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.

Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

He didn't

Germany surrendered in May of 1945. The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.

I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.

Pretty much.

What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.

I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.

"...an unconditional surrender...."

That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.

You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.

Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.

Obfuscation didn't work.....so now you lie.

You become boring.

Perhaps you always were.

I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?

Jesus I just quoted your post:

ogibillim: So if peace had been negotiated with germany in 1943 who would control France?
Click to expand...


You: Germany would have surrendered.

Lying guttersnipe.

"I lied to say you claimed that Hitler would surrender?"

I said no such thing.


What is pleasing is to have you to point to as an example of the low character of Liberals.

I invite you to elaborate on the scenario in which Germany, in 1943, under any circumstances, was going to surrender to the western Allies.

I'm confident that I'm not the only one who would be entertained by such a tale.

Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.

Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
No one had suggested that possibility but you.

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.

Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

He didn't

Germany surrendered in May of 1945. The OP's premise is that we had won the war by May of 1943.

I think to most people here the preposterousness of that premise is self-evident.

Pretty much.

What kills the ultra-patriots is that Nazi Germany was defeated by the Godless Commies they hate so much.

I invite the author of this thread to return and make her argument as to how FDR could have obtained an unconditional surrender from Germany in May of 1943.

"...an unconditional surrender...."

That was Stalin's phrase, the demand he made on his vassal, Franklin Roosevelt.

You're the one who claimed that Roosevelt could have gotten a surrender out of Hitler in 1943.

Show how he could have gotten a 'conditional' surrender then, in 1943.

So as I new understand Chic, Germany declared war on America Dec, 11, 1941, but if FDR was not a vassal of Stalin he could have accepted Hitlers surrender on Dec. 12, 1941 and the war would have been done. It was the vassal part I think that confuses people.

" he [Hitler] could have accepted Hitlers surrender on Dec. 12, 1941..."

I've said no such thing, and you know it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.

As well he should have.

You forget what happened after World War I. Ebert and the Weimar Government overthrew the Kaiser. After the War, jackholes like Hitler talked about the "Stabbed in the Back" myth, that the German Army was totally winning the war, but then the Communists and the Jews stabbed them in the back and surrendered.

FDR wasn't going to make that mistake again.

 

[Toronado3800]

As well he should have.

You forget what happened after World War I. Ebert and the Weimar Government overthrew the Kaiser. After the War, jackholes like Hitler talked about the "Stabbed in the Back" myth, that the German Army was totally winning the war, but then the Communists and the Jews stabbed them in the back and surrendered.

FDR wasn't going to make that mistake again.

I made an earlier post or two about this.

Do you think there was a feeling or concern that if a similar coup and surrender happened a similar group of fellas would think the conspirators stabbed NAZI Germany in the back just when the Me262 or Panther was on the verge of winning the war?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.

Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
No one had suggested that possibility but you.

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.

Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
So now with all due respect, you may ad hominem about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!

You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.

I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.



You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.

What did you actually say? What is the scenario that would have led to Germany SURRENDERING in 1943?

Where was significant movement in Germany to SURRENDER in 1943? Who were those people? Who was the support behind them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hitler had over 20 attempts on his life to end his reign, yet nothing that Stalin or FDR wanted worked with what Hitler was going to do.

Glad to see you retreat from your earlier obfuscation, that the Allies could have imposed surrender on Hitler.
No one had suggested that possibility but you.

This post, your attempt to save face, falls apart as well, as you haven't responded to the fact that Roosevelt forbid Allied forces from dealing with Canaris and the anti-Nazi resistance.

Twist and turn as thy might.... Hitler was never going to surrender at anytime while he was alive. He always intended Germany to go down with him...Never once did he expose a thought on surrendering, in fact his rage showed when Aldolf Hess parachuted into Scotland to discuss peace and was imprisoned by the Brits..Even England would have no part in a surrender as in WWI. Hitler had to be exterminated along with his fanatic Nazies or it was a waste of time and Germany would yet again be a threat to world peace...
So now with all due respect, you may ad hominem about how Churchill was Stalin stooge before the US was even in ze war, schnell baby, schnell...! Achtung! Das es nienen boobies...!

You have now catapulted yourself into the category of liar.

I challenge you to find any of my posts where I said that Hitler would surrender.



You made that suggestion up, and you keep going back to it because you are unable to deal with what I actually said.

What did you actually say? What is the scenario that would have led to Germany SURRENDERING in 1943?

Where was significant movement in Germany to SURRENDER in 1943? Who were those people? Who was the support behind them?

Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.

 

[Toronado3800]

IMO the SS was so efficient at being ruthless any/many realistic SS officers who wanted to surrender to the after Kursk were afraid of their coworkers killing them.

It is also pretty common to hear by SPRING of 45 of Germans fighting the Russians to the death to allow refugees and their comrads more time to escape west to surrender piecemeal to the Brits and Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:

"The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,

there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.

Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)

The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.

Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."

History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.

I admit that I misread your position on that specific item. I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.

 

[Toronado3800]

The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:

"The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,

there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.

Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)

The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.

Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."

History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender

Interesting.

What hear were they talking about?

A 1942 or 1943 Germany with no Eastern Front would have been a tough nut to crack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[



Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.

I admit that I misread your position on that specific item. I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.

"....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."


One of us is honest, and the other is you.

 

[Toronado3800]

I think a thread debating the value of landing in Southern France would be way more interesting but I am in the settling mood. Let me try to move off the schoolyard name calling....

IF Germany surrendered in 43 what would you have done with it?

After finding the concentration camps I would have scattered the peoples around the world and depopulated the place so we could turn it into a Soviet and French (to the Rhine) maintained park. Two wars in two decades and the gas chambers, ug. I would have given up on German society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The more plausible (to put it mildly) rationale for FDR's 'unconditional surrender' stance:

"The context that is missing -- and far more important than what Fleming supplies -- is the course of the war on the eastern front and relations between the allies. Although the Soviets were in the process of inflicting a crushing defeat on the Germans at Stalingrad,

there was cause to worry that the Germans would try to negotiate a separate peace with Moscow that Stalin might accept.

Indeed, Roosevelt knew (because we had broken their codes) that the Japanese were encouraging the Germans to reach an armistice with the Soviets. (This would become an even greater worry for the western allies, a couple of months later, when a stunningly successful German counter-attack shook Soviet resolve and morale.)

The result of such an armistice would have enabled Hitler to concentrate his forces in the west, making an invasion of the continent much more costly and even, perhaps, providing the Germans with the strength to invade England.

Add to this background the fact that right up until the start of Soviet-German hostilities, the Soviet Union had been negotiating with the Germans to become a signatory to the Tripartite Pact, again at the urging of both Italy and Japan. Roosevelt knew that Stalin was deeply suspicious of the western allies' intentions and resolve, dramatically and worryingly signified by his absence from the [Casablanca] conference."

History News Network Books Why FDR Decided to Demand Unconditional Surrender

Interesting.

What hear were they talking about?

A 1942 or 1943 Germany with no Eastern Front would have been a tough nut to crack.

hear? year? The Casablanca Conference out of which the unconditional surrender edict came was early 1943.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is another resource that thoroughly refutes the OP's imaginative conspiracy theory:

Stalin and the Prospects of a Separate Peace
in World War II

Full text of Stalin and Prospects of Separate Peace

The above much more convincingly makes the case that the US/British call for unconditional surrender was anything but some plot by Stalin;

it was much more so an effort to keep the Soviets in game so to speak.

Keep in mind, in late 1917 early 1918 Russia's new revolutionary government had ditched the Allies to make a separate peace with the Germans.

...you see, these historical ambiguities are much more easily deciphered if one does not have some deranged agenda clouding one's vision,

as is the case of the author of this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.

I admit that I misread your position on that specific item. I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.

"....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."


One of us is honest, and the other is you.

Is life somehow more satisfying by being a perpetual crybaby?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Let me know when you are ready to admit that you lied in saying that I thought Hitler would surrender.

I admit that I misread your position on that specific item. I do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence.

"....do so knowing full well that that will not get any honest debate out of you as consequence."


One of us is honest, and the other is you.

Now that I've posted a much more convincing explanation for the unconditional surrender mandate, feel free to debate me on the relative merits of my case vs. your wild conspiracy theory.