Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was Stalin's JV team

 

[Correll]

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942- was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in.

How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.

And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?

1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.

2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.

1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's

And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it.

You responded with 'nukes'

Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

FDR had no nukes- ever. You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.


2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.



3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.



4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.



5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".



6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.

Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation.

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945.

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected.

But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.


5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them.

Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control.

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45

You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes.

The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.

1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly.

2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted.

3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little.

4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.

The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism.

5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland.

6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.

 

[Correll]

No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis

It was probably a mistake on Stalin's part to ally with Hitler and invade a nation between them, thus removing the buffer state between Nazi Germany and COmmunist USSR, and then trust Hitler to NOT invade him.

That's bad policy on Stalin's part, not bravery or sacrifice.

 

[Syriusly]

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942- was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in.

How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.

And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?

1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.

2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.

1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's

And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it.

You responded with 'nukes'

Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

FDR had no nukes- ever. You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.


2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.



3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.



4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.



5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".



6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.

Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation.

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945.

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected.

But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.


5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them.

Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control.

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45

You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes.

The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.

1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly.

2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted.


3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little.


4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.

The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism.

5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland.

6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.

By the way- I am enjoying our discussion.

1. If you claim that FDR's leadership was good, you are assuming that alternative leadership might have been worse. This is a form of speculation also. I do not attack you for doing that , I respected it as a form of reasoned judgement and addressed your viewpoint seriously and honestly.

That is really the essence of my point- we do know that the United States at the time of FDR's death was vastly improved from when he became President, and that the United States had become the most powerful country in the world- certainly FDR was not responsible for all of that- but we really don't know how any alternative leader would have performed- and certainly there was a lot of room in the alternative for things to have gone worse.

2. THe Nazis and the Soviets were already at war before the US was involved. FDR didn't cause that. He didn't have to convince Stalin to fight the Nazi. THe Nazi were hundreds of milies inside of his country intent of the destruction of his nation and more importantly to Stalin, himself. Stalin should have been negotiating with the US on what we wanted.

I think you are circling back around- my response is what I had said previously- why would FDR have taken the chance on a Nazi victory over the Soviets? In 1941, the world had seen the Nazi armies destroy the Soviet forces and were only stopped outside of Moscow at the time of Pearl Harbor- from the British and U.S. perspective at the time- there were many predictions that the Germans would defeat the Soviets

"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.


3. THe relatively bloodless ending of the COld War under Reagan was IMO, a near miracle. And your assumption that any change is US policy would have led to either WWIII in 45 or a Nazi victory dismisses the concepts of diplomacy and leverage. FDR didn't even try. At all. Not even a little.

FDR didn't try what? FDR negotiated with Stalin and had agreements that all of the area under Soviet control would have free elections

The Big Three further agreed that democracies would be established, all liberated European and former Axis satellite countries would hold free elections and that order would be restored.[10] In that regard, they promised to rebuild occupied countries by processes that will allow them "to create democratic institutions of their own choice. This is a principle of the Atlantic Charter – the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live".[10] The resulting report stated that the three would assist occupied countries to form interim government that "pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of the Governments responsive to the will of the people" and to "facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections."

Stalin didn't renege on those commitments until after FDR's death- so exactly what is it that you wanted FDR to 'negotiate'?



4. Thank you for honestly admitting the historical reality of the US economy. Note that a massive change in facts does not change your position at all. Ask yourself why that is.

The US military third rateness was a function of our historical and geographical isolationism.

The historical isolationism that changed while FDR was President- along with going from a military smaller than Portugal's to the most power military in the world.

5. THe promises were obvious lies the moment Stalin made them. Even before the promises it was obvious that Stalin would take and oppress any lands he took and use that territory to threaten more lands. Why? Because that is what he had been doing for years, prior. Hell, it was what he did when he allied with Hitler to invade Poland.

So why do you think that more 'diplomacy' by FDR would have made a difference- since you acknowledge that Stalin was a liar?

6. If Stalin hadn't been so far into Central Europe due to less Lend Lease, it would have been less of an issue. Cold War would have been a lot less scary if the Iron Curtain ran along Poland's Western Border. Or even Eastern Border.

It would have been a lot scarier if the Iron Curtain ran from France to all of the former German occupied Europe. Or if instead of a Cold War- we faced a Nazi Germany that had conquered the Soviets and could focus all of the Third Reich's resources on the Western Allies.

 

[Syriusly]

No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis

It was probably a mistake on Stalin's part to ally with Hitler and invade a nation between them, thus removing the buffer state between Nazi Germany and COmmunist USSR, and then trust Hitler to NOT invade him.

That's bad policy on Stalin's part, not bravery or sacrifice.

I think it was greed on Stalin's part. And arrogance.

 

[Syriusly]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating Japan.

Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.

Riiiiiight. And after Pearl, we started shipping oil to Japan, right?

I know it is a waste of time- but really - are you this ignorant?

When Japan launched its attacks, it attacked not only the United States, but also the Dutch East Indies- where the oil was.

 

[Syriusly]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating Japan.

Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.

Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan. Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers. Then arming the Philippines. All in an effort to position Japan into attacking. It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge. FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.

Why? To protect Soviet Communism.

You must be so proud.

'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.

Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.

Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.

FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.

Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?

 

[gipper]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating Japan.

Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.

Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan. Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers. Then arming the Philippines. All in an effort to position Japan into attacking. It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge. FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.

Why? To protect Soviet Communism.

You must be so proud.

'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.

Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.

Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.

FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.

Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?

When will you ever learn? Politicians are scum. They are not like you and me. I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality. It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.

This from historian George Victor...do you think Reggie will find him acceptable?

Twelve days before the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt surprised his advisors by saying that war with Japan was about to begin. Secretary of War Stimson noted in his diary:
The question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.
Mr. Victor admits he is an admirer of Roosevelt. While he is clear that Roosevelt manipulated the country into war, he does not condemn him for it:
History has recorded many, many rulers’ manipulations of their people into war without their subordinates blowing the whistle. Presidents James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Woodrow Wilson did it before [Roosevelt], and others have done it after him.
This is difficult for many to accept, especially the idea that honorable and upright military leaders would allow such a thing to occur. General George Marshall, in testimony to various tribunals after Pearl Harbor was clear, however:

He testified to a congressional committee that withholding vital information from commanders was routine practice.

Roosevelt had warnings of the coming attack. It was fortunate for Roosevelt that his political enemies did not know…that [intelligence officers] had been reading the most confidential Japanese ciphers even before the attack, and that the Japanese war plans were no secret to American intelligence.
snip
Something happened at this time to get Roosevelt to change so abruptly and go against his military advisors. Victor cites historian Waldo Heinrichs with a “unique idea.”

Roosevelt changed his attitude about pressuring Japan in order to save the Soviet Union. Germany had just invaded Russia, and Japan was contemplating when and how to support its German ally. Roosevelt was aware of these Japanese deliberations and preparations – Japan would make war plans for both the Soviet Union and the United States, but would only fight one of them. Victor believes it is quite credible that Roosevelt abruptly changed his approach and became more provocative with Japan for the purpose of reducing the risk that Japan attacks the Soviets.

Even in the last days of November and early December, Japan is still seen as making overtures for peace. These were rejected by Washington, in fact Japan notes Washington’s provocative tone (from an intercepted message from Tokyo to Berlin):


The conversations…between Tokyo and Washington now stand broken…lately England and the United States have taken a provocative attitude…war may suddenly break out.


In late November, Roosevelt had knowledge that the Japanese fleet was sailing east toward Hawaii, as supported by William Casey of U.S. intelligence. “The British had sent word that a Japanese fleet was steaming east toward Hawaii.” That this information was sent to Washington is confirmed by various British intelligence officers as well.

More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

 

[Syriusly]

If Stalin had conducted our strategy DDay would have been on December 8th. 1941. FDR kept telling Stalin that the Dday check was in the mail year after year. I imagine Stalin knew FDR was jerking him around but what could he do? And to Insult Stalin even more, Truman wouldn't let Stalin into Japan after FDR had made Stalin promise to aid the US in defeating Japan.

Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.

Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan. Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers. Then arming the Philippines. All in an effort to position Japan into attacking. It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge. FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.

Why? To protect Soviet Communism.

You must be so proud.

'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.

Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.

Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.

FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.

Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?

When will you ever learn? Politicians are scum. They are not like you and me. I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality. It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.

Clearly you don't live in 'reality'

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?

 

[Syriusly]

[
More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....

 

[regent]

How many times has Congress investigated Pearl Harbor?

 

[gipper]

Stalin got FDR to go to war with Japan. Japan should have attacked the USSR and ignored FDR provocation

Japan's goal was oil, and you have her attacking the US for FDR's provocation, it was oil and the US navy stood in the way of that oil.

Yes...FDR did all he could to provoke Japan. Like embargo oil, freeze Japanese assets, terminate negotiations... All against the advice of his military and civilian advisers. Then arming the Philippines. All in an effort to position Japan into attacking. It worked perfectly...well not for the sailors sacrificed at Pearl, but for Stalin's Stooge. FDR even knew Japan's attack plans well beforehand and warned no one.

Why? To protect Soviet Communism.

You must be so proud.

'provoke Japan'- which is appeaser speak for "Japan was just an innocent in World War 2- Japan wasn't responsible for attacking the United States- it was all FDR's fault.

Japan had been at war in China since the 1930's- and had actually attacked and sank an American navy ship in China. Japan had a choice when it came to the U.S. embargoes- withdraw from its war in China, negotiate a settlement in China- or go to war to obtain oil.

Japan made the choice. You blame the United States for Japan's actions- I blame Japan.

FDR did not know of the planned attack on Pearl until shortly before the attack occurred- when the code for the attack was broken- and the warning to Pearl came to late.

Why exactly do you wish Japan and Germany were the victors in World War 2?

When will you ever learn? Politicians are scum. They are not like you and me. I know it is hard to think FDR or any POTUS would be so deceptive and traitorous, but you must face reality. It is time to put your big boy pants on, and accept reality.

Clearly you don't live in 'reality'

What? You don't believe historians???

Reggie is not going like this.

 

[gipper]

How many times has Congress investigated Pearl Harbor?

Reggie...do you believe everything Congress says, just like you believe what every statist government paid historian says?

 

[gipper]

[
More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....

If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?

 

[gipper]

In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?

Makes one wonder what Stalin's Stooge would have done had that happened.

 

[Syriusly]

[
More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....

If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?

One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.

 

[Syriusly]

In Dec 1941 the Germans had the spires of the Kremlin in their field glasses. Can you imagine had the Japanese attacked the USSR instead of the USA?

Makes one wonder what Stalin's Stooge would have done had that happened.

Oh certainly PoliticalChic would cheer.

 

[gipper]

[
More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....

If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?

One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.

The book actually cites several historians who also prove FDR's treachery.

Get the book, read it, and then we can talk. Okay?

 

[Syriusly]

[
More at the link, if you are man enough to face reality...
bionic mosquito: The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable

I went to the link- which is a book review of the Pearl Harbor Myth.

Unfortunately, Amazon doesn't allow us to read Chapter 13- which is the meat of the author's proposal that FDR knew that the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming, and the book report lists only some unattributed claims.

To you- 'reality' is one man's book- which may- or may not represent the historical facts.

Oh- but it is interesting that the author of the book is quite an FDR fan.....

If one man writes a book and it is documented with historical facts and quotes from those involved, is it true?

One man writes a book- which I haven't read- and haven't evaluated- then the 'truth' of the book is something I haven't evaluated.

The book actually cites several historians who also prove FDR's treachery.

Get the book, read it, and then we can talk. Okay?

Okay.