Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bowing to popular requests.....here is another thread awarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt the contumely he so richly deserves! (Actually, the sort of fake requests by folks who really don't want the truth mentioned.)
1. For the Left, Franklin Roosevelt must be seen as the brilliant savior, not only of America, but of all of the Western world! And, toward that end, all of his endeavors in aiding and abetting Stalin have to be seen as saving the world from Nazism.....
(Notice how frequently the Left anoints 'saviors'?)
Get ready: here it comes...after all.....without Roosevelt's aid to Russia, Hitler would have defeated the USSR, and the rest of the world!!!
(Cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)
That's the alibi that Roosevelt fans use to 'explain' Roosevelt's slavish, servile, obsequious conduct toward Joseph Stalin.
Is the alibi true?
Of course not.....nothing could be further from the truth.
Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!
b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,
c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives.
2. Today, with the research unshrouded by wartime propaganda, who believes that Stalin would have surrendered to Hitler?
Only the usual suspects, the fools who still worship Franklin Roosevelt and need the mythology and hagiography to retain the Liberal worldview of history.
Two facts that make my argument:
a. Stalin could not care less how many Russian lives were lost.... and it was Stalin, rather than Hitler, who killed the most Russians.
b. The Russians were prepared for Hitler's attack; Hitler began Operation Barbarossa with only two months supplies...
And, get this: it is impossible to make an argument that Stalin was any better than Hitler. Stalin was smarter and more devious....and far more evil...than either Hitler or Roosevelt.
3. What the heck would lead anyone to believe that Stalin would surrender to Hitler???
The fabrication is central to any argument designed to shield Roosevelt, and explain his pandering to the homicidal maniac, Stalin.
Sans the view that everything Roosevelt did saved Russia from being steam-rollered by the Nazis, surrendering to Hitler, and giving Hitler a free hand in the west.....well.....the curtain is pulled aside, and everyone can see that the wizard of Hyde Park weren't no wizard at all!
He was to Stalin what pre-pubescent teeny-boppers are to Justin Bieber....love-sick.
You know nothing of our American history and you have no familiar connections to that period of time in America
Just another adopted little Asian girl spew
As predicted, Stalin defender can't answer the OP directly, so he attacks PC
Correll, you are a concrete learners, so be advised to learn from others than PC.
She is part of the JBS rag tag sillies who think FDR, DDE, etc., were willing communist dupes. That's silly conspiracy.
Actually, here is the reality:
a. Stalin would not only not have surrendered, he would have defeated Hitler!
b. He used Roosevelt to make sure that there would be no German resistance to communism in Europe post war,
c. He forced Roosevelt to refuse to accept German surrender, or armistice, extending the war by several years, and costing hundreds of thousands of American lives
OK...lets go there
FDR stays out and Stalin defeats Hitler
1. What happens to German occupied France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Greece and Italy?
2. Instead of an Iron curtain in Europe, we would have had a Communist Europe
3. In the end, Communism fell ....FDR ultimately won
How many FDR hating threads would PC give us then?
Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.
Did you get that?
"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?
And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:
Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'
Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.
You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Too bad you can't read.
The thread disproved everything you posted, you fool.
And this...
3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
What a moron
Allow the Soviets and Nazis to fight to the death with all of Europe as the prize?
In practice....FDR allowed the Soviets and Nazis to exhaust themselves killing millions and beating themselves to a pulp. Then he invaded Normandy and seized Western Europe for the good guys
Genius, pure genius
It's enlightening that you call Hanson Baldwin a moron.
Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 - November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of the New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.[1]
Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Your comment has the quality of a boomerang, doesn't it.
Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.
Did you get that?
"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?
And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:
Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'
Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.
You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.
Did you get that?
"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?
And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:
Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":
"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'
Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.
You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Too bad you can't read.
The thread disproved everything you posted, you fool.
And this...
3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
What a moron
Allow the Soviets and Nazis to fight to the death with all of Europe as the prize?
In practice....FDR allowed the Soviets and Nazis to exhaust themselves killing millions and beating themselves to a pulp. Then he invaded Normandy and seized Western Europe for the good guys
Genius, pure genius
It's enlightening that you call Hanson Baldwin a moron.
Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 - November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of the New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.[1]
Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Your comment has the quality of a boomerang, doesn't it.
Wow....color me impressed
I still side with moron
Show me an outcome that turns out better than what FDR got
PC will reach China some day. . . maybe. FDR's reputation will always be very good.
Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.
It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.
It does no such thing.
There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.
While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.
Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.
Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.
You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Too bad you can't read.
The thread disproved everything you posted, you fool.
And this...
3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'
Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"
What a moron
Allow the Soviets and Nazis to fight to the death with all of Europe as the prize?
In practice....FDR allowed the Soviets and Nazis to exhaust themselves killing millions and beating themselves to a pulp. Then he invaded Normandy and seized Western Europe for the good guys
Genius, pure genius
It's enlightening that you call Hanson Baldwin a moron.
Hanson Weightman Baldwin (March 22, 1903 - November 13, 1991) was the long-time military editor of the New York Times. He won a Pulitzer Prize "for his coverage of the early days of World War II". He authored or edited numerous books on military topics.[1]
Hanson W. Baldwin - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Your comment has the quality of a boomerang, doesn't it.
Wow....color me impressed
I still side with moron
Show me an outcome that turns out better than what FDR got
easy peasy lemon squeezy
What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance!
Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into!
"Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.
Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.
It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.
It does no such thing.
There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.
While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.
Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.
The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"
The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.
PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.
Penelope, you are trolling a thread, albeit a poor one, that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.
It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.
It does no such thing.
There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.
While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.
Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.
There was no plan to exterminate the Jews except the ones left needed to be locked up and put in labor camps due to most were soviet communist. and would pose a danger to Germany. Of course many were involved in Partisan groups and did much damage as can be. No gas camps , and no preplanned extermination plan.
Many died do to typhus, starvation, fighting and of course at the hands of some brutal Germans and Soviets, but only a fool would think the German has a plan for mass extermination of the Jews. Are you aware many jews were also criminals and needed to be locked up as well. Jew Communism was alive and well in Poland.
The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"
The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.
PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.
You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.
The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.
Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:
1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
2. Did you see the date: 1942.
When did the war with Germany finally end?
"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
Three years of American soldiers dying!
3. What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."
Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.
Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.
It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.
It does no such thing.
There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.
While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.
Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.
There was no plan to exterminate the Jews except the ones left needed to be locked up and put in labor camps due to most were soviet communist. and would pose a danger to Germany. Of course many were involved in Partisan groups and did much damage as can be. No gas camps , and no preplanned extermination plan.
Many died do to typhus, starvation, fighting and of course at the hands of some brutal Germans and Soviets, but only a fool would think the German has a plan for mass extermination of the Jews. Are you aware many jews were also criminals and needed to be locked up as well. Jew Communism was alive and well in Poland.
You have a sickness that, I'm afraid, no amount of education will cure.
- The little town of Amstetten, halfway between Vienna and Linz, on the Ybbs River, which flows into the Danube. In May, 1938, the Amstettner Anzeiger was proud to report that “the town swimming pool and sunbath declares that Jews are banned from entering. Now we only have to get rid of the mosquitoes from our pool for it to become really ideal.” The town had become a Fuhrerstadt! By summer, all 28 of Amstetten’s Jews had been expelled.
- Amstetten’s location as the main railway hub supplying both Germany and Italy made it a target of Allied bombers. The first bombs fell on November 19, 1944
- About 25 miles West of Amstetten, on the Danube, was the town of Mauthausen. Prisoners from the concentration camp at Dachau had been sent to build a much larger facility where political prisoners could be held. The state owned Mauthausen expanded, and by 1944, it was grouped with nearby Gusen, as a commercial enterprise.
- The German mining company DEST, used the prisoners as slave labor, to work in the quarries, or to be hired out to local manufacturers and farmers. The Amstetten railway network came in handy to transport the slaves.
- The labor supply was inexhaustible…and when a prisoner’s productivity dropped, they would simply be transported to Mauthausen-Gusen and killed.
- It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)
- Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.
- In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.
- Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten.
- It was a place of inconceivable barbarism whose secrecy liberated its masters into horrific inventiveness. In the camp’s gas chambers, quarries, hospitals, isolation units, and crematoria, in its underground brothel, and on its dissecting tables, a creative degeneracy blossomed.
- The camp was liberated on May 5, 1945 by the 41st Reconnaissance Squad of the US Eleventh Armored Division. They found 85,000 inmates, and estimated the death toll at 320,000. Among the liberated was Simon Wiesenthal.
Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski, “I’m No Monster.”
The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"
The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.
PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.
You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.
The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.
Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:
1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .
Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.
2. Did you see the date: 1942.
When did the war with Germany finally end?
"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945
Three years of American soldiers dying!
3. What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."
Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e., Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.
Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.
What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?
