Of Romanovs, Bolsheviks, and 'Just Rewards'

[Picaro]

As for the claims the U.S. and allies did nothing in the West, maybe a study of the casualties inflicted on the Germans in Europe from landing at Normandy and Anzio in the few months leading to fall might disabuse that notion, at least for reasonable people. They inflicted around 40% of the total causalities in that period, not counting a far more impressive surrender of some 2 million German military on top of that, and of course providing the Soviets with the means to even be in the war at all, and being the reason the Soviets had air superiority to boot. This a ratio of around 3 to 5 for every American casualty, compared to the Soviets, whose ratio in most battles was the exact opposite. This is why the notion that just because the Soviets lost the most men they won most of the war is ridiculous; they lost the most men because they were worse strategists and tacticians, and opted for human wave style 'offensives'.

Roosevelt didn't have the advantage of hindsight to base decisions on, though, so yes, in hindsight he should have been a much tougher negotiator, but to claim he was a commie and all the rest of the gibberish is just lunacy and lying.

 

[Pete7469]

As for the claims the U.S. and allies did nothing in the West, maybe a study of the casualties inflicted on the Germans in Europe from landing at Normandy and Anzio in the few months leading to fall might disabuse that notion, at least for reasonable people. They inflicted around 40% of the total causalities in that period, not counting a far more impressive surrender of some 2 million German military on top of that, and of course providing the Soviets with the means to even be in the war at all, and being the reason the Soviets had air superiority to boot. This a ratio of around 3 to 5 for every American casualty, compared to the Soviets, whose ratio in most battles was the exact opposite. This is why the notion that just because the Soviets lost the most men they won most of the war is ridiculous; they lost the most men because they were worse strategists and tacticians, and opted for human wave style 'offensives'.

Roosevelt didn't have the advantage of hindsight to base decisions on, though, so yes, in hindsight he should have been a much tougher negotiator, but to claim he was a commie and all the rest of the gibberish is just lunacy and lying.

He wasn't a "commie" but he was a "progressive" (regressive) tool, basically commie light. His "progressive" administration had more soviet agents than his dog had fleas.

Nowhere was the subversive influence more important than at the pivotal Yalta Conference. It was there that Roosevelt made the major concessions that put the Red imprint on post-war Europe and opened the door for them in East Asia. One of the reasons we were so conciliatory to Stalin was supposedly that we needed the Soviet quid pro quo of their entry into the war against Japan 90 days after the defeat of Germany. But, according to Evans and Romerstein, Soviet agents of influence within the Roosevelt government played a key role in keeping intelligence estimates away from FDR that the Japanese were already so badly beaten that the Soviet assistance would not be needed. Perhaps no agent was more important than the notorious Alger Hiss.

Alger Hiss

(November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American lawyer, government official, author, and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.

What is it with "progressives" and perjury?

Also see The Venona Project:

The decrypts show the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White,[13] the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie,[25] a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin,[26] a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.

There were "progressive" (they called themselves "anarchists") communist agents in the US before the USSR even existed, so rest assured that enough of them made it into a "progressive" administration.

 

[gipper]

As for the claims the U.S. and allies did nothing in the West, maybe a study of the casualties inflicted on the Germans in Europe from landing at Normandy and Anzio in the few months leading to fall might disabuse that notion, at least for reasonable people. They inflicted around 40% of the total causalities in that period, not counting a far more impressive surrender of some 2 million German military on top of that, and of course providing the Soviets with the means to even be in the war at all, and being the reason the Soviets had air superiority to boot. This a ratio of around 3 to 5 for every American casualty, compared to the Soviets, whose ratio in most battles was the exact opposite. This is why the notion that just because the Soviets lost the most men they won most of the war is ridiculous; they lost the most men because they were worse strategists and tacticians, and opted for human wave style 'offensives'.

Roosevelt didn't have the advantage of hindsight to base decisions on, though, so yes, in hindsight he should have been a much tougher negotiator, but to claim he was a commie and all the rest of the gibberish is just lunacy and lying.

Your first paragraph is good. The second one is silly. No one is claiming FDR was a commie.

 

[Pete7469]

Your first paragraph is good. The second one is silly. No one is claiming FDR was a commie.

A "commie"?

No.

The biggest regressive disaster before the moonbat messiah (who took Carter's place)?

God Damn right.

 

[Picaro]

As for the claims the U.S. and allies did nothing in the West, maybe a study of the casualties inflicted on the Germans in Europe from landing at Normandy and Anzio in the few months leading to fall might disabuse that notion, at least for reasonable people. They inflicted around 40% of the total causalities in that period, not counting a far more impressive surrender of some 2 million German military on top of that, and of course providing the Soviets with the means to even be in the war at all, and being the reason the Soviets had air superiority to boot. This a ratio of around 3 to 5 for every American casualty, compared to the Soviets, whose ratio in most battles was the exact opposite. This is why the notion that just because the Soviets lost the most men they won most of the war is ridiculous; they lost the most men because they were worse strategists and tacticians, and opted for human wave style 'offensives'.

Roosevelt didn't have the advantage of hindsight to base decisions on, though, so yes, in hindsight he should have been a much tougher negotiator, but to claim he was a commie and all the rest of the gibberish is just lunacy and lying.

He wasn't a "commie" but he was a "progressive" (regressive) tool, basically commie light. His "progressive" administration had more soviet agents than his dog had fleas.

Nowhere was the subversive influence more important than at the pivotal Yalta Conference. It was there that Roosevelt made the major concessions that put the Red imprint on post-war Europe and opened the door for them in East Asia. One of the reasons we were so conciliatory to Stalin was supposedly that we needed the Soviet quid pro quo of their entry into the war against Japan 90 days after the defeat of Germany. But, according to Evans and Romerstein, Soviet agents of influence within the Roosevelt government played a key role in keeping intelligence estimates away from FDR that the Japanese were already so badly beaten that the Soviet assistance would not be needed. Perhaps no agent was more important than the notorious Alger Hiss.

Alger Hiss

(November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American lawyer, government official, author, and lecturer. He was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department and U.N. official. Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.

What is it with "progressives" and perjury?

Also see The Venona Project:

The decrypts show the U.S. and other nations were targeted in major espionage campaigns by the Soviet Union as early as 1942. Among those identified are Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White,[13] the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie,[25] a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin,[26] a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.

There were "progressive" (they called themselves "anarchists") communist agents in the US before the USSR even existed, so rest assured that enough of them made it into a "progressive" administration.

So no evidence at all that Hiss had any influence on Roosevelt's negotiations with Stalin in WW II, or on anything else, other than passing info on to spies. Big deal.

 

[Picaro]

As for the claims the U.S. and allies did nothing in the West, maybe a study of the casualties inflicted on the Germans in Europe from landing at Normandy and Anzio in the few months leading to fall might disabuse that notion, at least for reasonable people. They inflicted around 40% of the total causalities in that period, not counting a far more impressive surrender of some 2 million German military on top of that, and of course providing the Soviets with the means to even be in the war at all, and being the reason the Soviets had air superiority to boot. This a ratio of around 3 to 5 for every American casualty, compared to the Soviets, whose ratio in most battles was the exact opposite. This is why the notion that just because the Soviets lost the most men they won most of the war is ridiculous; they lost the most men because they were worse strategists and tacticians, and opted for human wave style 'offensives'.

Roosevelt didn't have the advantage of hindsight to base decisions on, though, so yes, in hindsight he should have been a much tougher negotiator, but to claim he was a commie and all the rest of the gibberish is just lunacy and lying.

Your first paragraph is good. The second one is silly. No one is claiming FDR was a commie.

Yes, they are; they're just not clever enough in hiding it.

 

[Picaro]

Your first paragraph is good. The second one is silly. No one is claiming FDR was a commie.

A "commie"?

No.

The biggest regressive disaster before the moonbat messiah (who took Carter's place)?

God Damn right.

lol more gibberish. Quit using crank sites like Free Republic or books by Ann Coulter as sources and as solid critiques of anything. you can also try learning what Progressives were; Herbert Hoover was also a Progressive, for instance; it had little to do with Marxism or Commie sympathies.

 

[Pete7469]

lol more gibberish. Quit using crank sites like Free Republic or books by Ann Coulter as sources and as solid critiques of anything.

OK yeah...

I'll be credible when I use democrookunderground to post stories right?

Go fuck yourself bed wetter.

/ignore

 

[Pete7469]

lol more gibberish. Quit using crank sites like Free Republic or books by Ann Coulter as sources and as solid critiques of anything.

BTW Dumbfuck, I used wikipedia and LewRockwell.com

 

[Pete7469]

lol more gibberish. Quit using crank sites like Free Republic or books by Ann Coulter as sources and as solid critiques of anything. you can also try learning what Progressives were; Herbert Hoover was also a Progressive, for instance; it had little to do with Marxism or Commie sympathies.

What utter bullshit, "progressivism" has EVERYTHING to do with marxist dogma. You're just too stupid to understand that. Hoover was a "progressive" douche, that's why his response to the 1929 collapse was as big a failure as the moonbat messiah's continued stagnation. FDR made the recession worse by doubling down on "progressive" stupidity. Again, you're to be ignored unless I choose to look at some stupid bullshit you regurgitate so I can ridicule that too.

Where do all these dumbfucks come from?

No Child Left Behind. In other words No Child Gets Ahead.

They all come out equally retarded.

Of course bed wetting libtards just love to insist they're "educated". It's laughable.

 

[Picaro]

Ah well, for somebody some tard put on ignore, I'm getting a lot of notifications from the idiot.

 

[Picaro]

lol more gibberish. Quit using crank sites like Free Republic or books by Ann Coulter as sources and as solid critiques of anything.

BTW Dumbfuck, I used wikipedia and LewRockwell.com

lol .. now there is some really rigorous scholarship there ...