Roosevelt's Greatest Blunder

[PoliticalChic]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

You remain a low-life liar.

 

[Marxist]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

You remain a low-life liar.

Keep loving hitler.

 

[Camp]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

You remain a low-life liar.

I did not call you a low-life liar. I believe you believe what you write. You are like the detective that decides who the guilty party is and creates and designs the case to confirm your suspects guilt. The good detective will forestall judgement until after the investigation is concluded and all the evidence is reviewed. The good detective gets the guilty party convicted. The bad detective that prejudges the suspect puts an innocent person in jail and allows the criminal to go free and commit more crimes. See the difference.

 

[Correll]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

 

[Correll]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

You remain a low-life liar.

Keep loving hitler.

Hey, Camp, what do you think about this "well thought out and documented argument"?

Good stuff, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

You remain a low-life liar.

I did not call you a low-life liar. I believe you believe what you write. You are like the detective that decides who the guilty party is and creates and designs the case to confirm your suspects guilt. The good detective will forestall judgement until after the investigation is concluded and all the evidence is reviewed. The good detective gets the guilty party convicted. The bad detective that prejudges the suspect puts an innocent person in jail and allows the criminal to go free and commit more crimes. See the difference.

You wrote:
"Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. "

Every thesis I construct is carefully documented, linked, sourced.

QED you are a low-life liar.

You've earned the appellation.

 

[Camp]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she presents and foundations of her theses and ideas that she promotes.

 

[Correll]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.

You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.

This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.


PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.

BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.

And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.

In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

 

[Camp]

If the PoliticalChics and CruesaderFranks had legitimate arguments and points to make they wouldn't have to always rely on name calling, insults and self aggrandizing. They are unable to make their opinions stand on their own. The constant use of these methods indicates that not even they have confidence or really believe the nonsense they spew and blather. In the end it mostly adds up to creative hate speech complimented with lies and misinformation.

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.

You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.

This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.


PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.

BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.

And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.

In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

IMO two things had great influence on FDR's post war thoughts about the balance of power in Europe. First, he had little regard or concern for the eastern European slavic countries that sided with Germany. My thoughts are that he had little respect for the slavic people and was probably affected by racism. It seemed easy for him to sacrifice eastern Europe to the Soviets. Many of those nations had fought to defeat the Soviets, contributing large amounts of manpower, resources and entire armies to the cause. Eastern Europe were the spoils of war for the Soviets to his way of thinking is what I suspect. A fair tradeoff for the hoped for cooperative relations after the war. Something he may have been able to pull off, but not those that replaced him after his death. Was he overconfident? We will never know. Of course there is another scenario. The one where eastern Europe was a trap for the Soviets. A trap that would caused the Soviets to spend vast resources on occupation forces and rebellions.
All speculation since he passed before the post war arrived.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.

 

[Camp]

The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.

That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.

That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.

Topic: Stalin

You: Not on topic

See the problem?

 

[Camp]

The lefts ongoing love affair with uncle joe seems to only grow stronger.

That is only in your imagination Frank. FDR rebranded America over 75 years ago and the aristocrats still hate him for it. They have spent vast fortunes convincing people like you to support the acceptance of a aristocratic class that is allowed to rule in America. They are still trying. Rubio was a candidate with single digit support for a Presidential nomination. Tens of millions of dollars have been collected from the aristocrats to promote him. Watch how he gains popularity as the suckers line up behind the aristocrat brand.

Topic: Stalin

You: Not on topic

See the problem?

Maybe you should try reading the title to the thread.

 

[Correll]

PC has made a very well thought out and documented argument, and many of the posts aimed at her have been nothing but name calling.

Funny that doesn't make you think their arguments are weak...


Guess libs can dish it out, but can't take it.

Neither you nor she is able to show her work is a well thought out and documented argument. Just because you say it doesn't make it a fact or true. If you are fooled by her antiquated methods of hackery and dissemination of misinformation through the presentation of conspiracy theories, that is fine. You have just as much right to an opinion as anyone. When you can defend her distortions and out of context representations with academically accepted methods of refuting the challenging of those misrepresentations your criticism may be respected as something more than misguided whining.

I don't pretend to be an professional academic, and this is not a professional academic site. If you wish to limit your historical discourse to professional academics, then you might be in the wrong place.

If you are so well versed in the subject, in your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

I do not pretend to be an academic or scholar. PC is the one presenting these many theses that promote her agenda and are critical of the opinions of others. I simply offer refutations for some of the claims she claims and basises the foundations of her theses and ideas she promotes.

You are ignoring the beating she is taking from the other posters and claiming that her responding in kind is a sign of weakness on the part of her position.

This IMO, reveals a bias on your part.


PC's scenario, IMO, is at best, a best case scenario.

BUT, many of her points about FDR's relationship with Stalin, and the lack of any evidence of concern about either the Post War situation, or the communists in his administration are obviously valid.

And I asked a serious and opened ended question about the topic which you ignored.

In your opinion, did FDR give any thought to the Post War Balance of Power, and/or what could he have done to reduce the scale of the problem that Yalta gave to future generations?

IMO two things had great influence on FDR's post war thoughts about the balance of power in Europe. First, he had little regard or concern for the eastern European slavic countries that sided with Germany. My thoughts are that he had little respect for the slavic people and was probably affected by racism. It seemed easy for him to sacrifice eastern Europe to the Soviets. Many of those nations had fought to defeat the Soviets, contributing large amounts of manpower, resources and entire armies to the cause. Eastern Europe were the spoils of war for the Soviets to his way of thinking is what I suspect. A fair tradeoff for the hoped for cooperative relations after the war. Something he may have been able to pull off, but not those that replaced him after his death. Was he overconfident? We will never know. Of course there is another scenario. The one where eastern Europe was a trap for the Soviets. A trap that would caused the Soviets to spend vast resources on occupation forces and rebellions.
All speculation since he passed before the post war arrived.

The idea of giving an empire more territory in order to weaken it would be very unlikely for a man who grew up and lived his entire life in a world dominated by the large European Empires.

Remember born 1882!


IMO, FDR, based on the Nazi early successes, overestimated their chances of victory, and thus mostly ignored long term problems for the short term.

This tendency may have been greatly worsened by his poor health.


IMO, FDR expected the British and French Empires to survive and flourish once WWII was over.

As they had his entire life.

In this he was badly mistaken.

IMO, he expected that the British Empire would be the Power that had to contend with the much more powerful Soviet Union being created with the addition of a large European Empire.


In this he was badly mistaken.


IMO, he viewed Imperialism as a greater evil than Communism, and this explains his tolerance for known communists in his administration.

IN this, in 1945, he was badly mistaken. Imperialism was a dying force and Communism was a grave and increasing danger.


THese errors did indeed lead him to take steps that greatly benefited Stalin and the SU, to the detriment of the interests of the US, and indeed the world.

And set up the Cold War.