Roosevelt's Greatest Blunder

[PoliticalChic]

12. Well, if the Kremlin clique were the first to "know" about this radical new policy, unconditional surrender, a plan designed to prostrate Stalin's singular enemy before him,....who didn't know?


a. "[America's longest serving] Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull, ...had absolutely no clue as to when or how unconditional surrender became U.S. policy, Hull offers a sad little tag line to the disconnections....'Originally, this principle had to formed part of the State Department's thinking. We were as much surprised as Mr. Churchill...In our postwar planning discussion in the State Department, which had begun more that three years prior to the Casablanca Conference, we had not embraced the idea of unconditional surrender.'
"The Memoirs of Cordell Hull," Hull, p. 1570-1571


b. "[Harry] Hopkins biographer George McJimsey argues that Roosevelt was determined to make the announcement about unconditional surrender at Casablanca because he saw the 'doctrine as an approach to Stalin...a device- along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front- for convincing Stalin of his good will.'
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," McJimsey, p. 278-279.




One more time?

What was Roosevelt's motive for 'unconditional surrender'???

Franklin Roosevelt's actions were not aimed at speeding the end of the war, or reducing the loss of American lives.......they were aimed at endearing himself to Uncle Joe.....the slaughterer of 60 million of his own citizens. (see How Many People Did Joseph Stalin Kill



Of course.....functioning as a servant of Joseph Stalin might be Roosevelt's biggest mistake.

 

[regent]

[QUOTE Old "Unconditional Surrender" Grant would have been proud he caused such a ruckus with his surrender terms at Fort Donelson, but later Grant will be better known as Butcher Grant.
A number of historians have claimed that the terms ending the first World War were responsible for WWII. The allies would try to make the end of WWII the end, and not the seeds planted for WWIII. For the past seventy years it seems to be working.

 

[Unkotare]

... how FDR gave hope to a nation and helped win the war against the fascists

Oh? Did he give hope to the Americans he threw into concentration camps?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[QUOTE Old "Unconditional Surrender" Grant would have been proud he caused such a ruckus with his surrender terms at Fort Donelson, but later Grant will be better known as Butcher Grant.
A number of historians have claimed that the terms ending the first World War were responsible for WWII. The allies would try to make the end of WWII the end, and not the seeds planted for WWIII. For the past seventy years it seems to be working.

"For the past seventy years it seems to be working."

Well...yeah....if you don't count Mao's communist China, the Korean and VietNam wars....

Roosevelt's efforts are directly responsible for each of the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

6. No 'Cold War.'

7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'

 

[rightwinger]

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

Everyone knew that
2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

After they fought, which one would have ended up with France, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Greece and Finland?
3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

Nazi resistance was not capable of winning
4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner....PC once again claims the war could have ended in 1940
5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

Eventually, they did
6. No 'Cold War.'

We wouldn't need one. Either Germany or USSR would control all of Europe
7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'

Always has been

 

[Moonglow]

If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

6. No 'Cold War.'

7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'

Why don't you time travel and show us how it's done? Hind sight is 20/20, but you don't know what will happen next week.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

If only Roosevelt had a mind of his own, and had, as his priority, what was good for America and Americans.

1. He would have recognized how evil Stalin and communism is/was.

2. He would have done what the experts advised, and made certain that Hitler and Stalin destroyed each other.

3. He would have given the anti-Nazi Germans the same support he gave the resistance in every other nation.

4. The war would have ended some 3-5 years earlier, with a half million fewer American casualties.

5.Both Nazi and Marxist butchers would have received their due justice.

6. No 'Cold War.'

7. The Constitution would be our 'law of the land.'

Why don't you time travel and show us how it's done? Hind sight is 20/20, but you don't know what will happen next week.....

I did.

Post #105

 

[Camp]

Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.

1. "Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender."
Who said anything about Hitler surrendering?

Why would you pretend that was the only possibility?


2. "The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender."
Clearly, you are a liar.
Unless....you can find any post of mine where I claimed that.


3. "It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage."
Well...it's my scholarship vs. your Rooseveltian ideology.

And I win.


This is your chance: show where I claimed "some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender."

Either that or get down on your knees and apologize.

 

[regent]

If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?

Oooh...oooh!

Call on me!

Call on meeee!

 

[regent]

If most people, even Chic, knew that Russia would not quit the war, as Russia did in WWI, why didn't FDR know that simple fact?

Oooh...oooh!

Call on me!

Call on meeee!

OK, OK that little girl in the back seat, with the paste bottles all about her.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are a limited number of possibilities.

1..Roosevelt was among the most stupid, naive individuals ever to infest the Oval Office
"In a letter to FDR, dated January 29, 1943, Ambassador William Bullitt warned Roosevelt about what would happen if he continued pursuing the policies of appeasement toward Stalin that formed the foundation of the American war strategy. He pleaded with FDR not to 'permit our war to prevent Nazi domination of Europe to be turned into a war to establish Soviet domination of Europe.' He predicted the Soviet annexation of half of Europe; George Kennan identified that letter as the earliest warning of what would be the result of FDR's policies.
"For the President Personal & Secret: Correspondence Between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt," Orville H. Bullitt, p. 575-590


FDR replied: "Bill, I don't dispute your facts, they are accurate, I don't dispute the logic of your reasoning. I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. Harry says he's not and that he doesn't want anything in the world but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace." William C. Bullitt, "How We Won The War and Lost The Peace," Life Magazine, August 30, 1948, p. 94


Get that?

"I have just had a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man."


Everyone else in the world knew exactly what kind of man Stalin was.




More coming.....btw....you have breakfast stains on your tie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. He was totally enthralled with Stalin...and wanted to be just as ruthless.
He needed Stalin's approval above all else.

"[Harry] Hopkins biographer George McJimsey argues that Roosevelt was determined to make the announcement about unconditional surrender at Casablanca because he saw the 'doctrine asan approach to Stalin...a device- along with Lend Lease aid and the promise of a second front- for convincing Stalin of his good will.'
"Harry Hopkins: Ally of the Poor and Defender of Democracy," McJimsey, p. 278-279.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. . The following analysis of Dennis J. Dunn's"Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow."

"Adopting the "pseudoprofound theory of convergence,"Rooseveltians claimed that the Soviet Union "was moving ineluctably toward democracy"(pp. 3-4). The author alleges that "moral relativism" prompted Roosevelt to mislead the American publicand ignore his foreign policy advisors in order to prove that Stalin was an evolving democrat, not "a genocidal megalomaniac guided by the higher power of revolutionary inevitability ..." (Dunn, p. 4, 6).


In contrast, "Traditionalists" rejected the theory of convergence. ... they viewed Stalin as "a murderer, a liar, and a vicious opponent of the United States and of pluralism generally." Imbued with "absolute morality," Traditionalists wanted Roosevelt to compel the Soviets to adopt democracy and "the minimumstandards of moral behavior that were outlined in the world's principal religions and moral codes."

These pleas, however, went unheeded as Roosevelt remained intent on pursuing "his policy of uncritical friendship toward Stalin"(Dunn, pp. 8-9)."
H-Net Reviews

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. And most persuasive of all....he recognized that there would always be a coterie of total imbeciles who would never question anything he did....no matter how established the ignominy.

Raise your pay, reggie.

 

[Andylusion]

FDR offered up 150,000 and Stalin offered up 10 million casualties

Who won?

Over 20 million Soviet citizens were killed and if not for them totally destroying hitler on the eastern front , they fascists might have won. The US homeland was lucky unlike Europe . The Nazis feared the red army and were giving themselves up to the Americans and British as they knew the Red army was going to take revenge

That's true... however... Part of the reason why the Soviets had such horrific losses, was specifically because of their absolute brutality towards the Germans.

Stalin openly support rape, murder, and pillaging by Soviet troops, and the troops carried out that order to the fullest.

It's not surprising that America losses were much lower, when we treated the Germans humanly, and the Russians did not.

The Americans had supply trains, that kept our troops supplied as they advanced. Russian troops 'lived off the land'. When they entered a city, they ate all the food they could find, raped all the women, killed the men, and everything they could pack up and move, they stole.

How is this shocking that the Germans fought to the bitter death the Russians, while entire towns surrendered to the allies?

Remember, Stalin motivated his troops, by placing blocking units behind the front line, and if anyone ran the wrong way, they were shot. Stalin cared little to nothing for the lives of his people, which only became more evident after the war was over, and the real horrors started.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.

Silence????


Can't find any such post of mine????


Another custard pie smashed in the dope's kisser.

 

[Camp]

Hitler would not allow his armies on the eastern front to surrender. Even when they were surrounded and had no hope of survival. At the end when Germany was being invaded from the east and the west, he ordered boys of 12 years old and old men of 75 be given uniforms and handed panzerfausts (anti tank weapons) and ordered to attack the enemy. Dedicated brainwashed SS stood behind the last of the German forces and hung or shot any who refused to fight to the death.
The OP claims to know of some secret plan that would have convinced the fanatical Adolf and his henchmen to surrender. Destruction of the entire nation with the certainty of rape and murder of many of the survivors couldn't bring about a surrender, but the OP's secret plan would. It was so secret we still don't know it today.
It's either that, or the OP is just a bunch of fantasy conspiracy theory garbage.

Silence????


Can't find any such post of mine????


Another custard pie smashed in the dope's kisser.

No, it isn't necessary to go on one of your wild goose chases. The OP and very basis of it supports my contentions and comment that you challenge. It is obvious that in order to reject an unconditional surrender as a viable policy, a conditional one would have to be sought. You are proposing a conspiracy theory that requires other conspiracy theories to support your primary conspiracy theory. I pointed out Hitler's rejection of conditional surrenders or any other kind of surrender. That leaves the only type of surrender to be the one where everyone is destroyed until only the people willing to surrender unconditionally remain. You kill them until they are coming out of the basements with white flags or totally rejecting the wartime leadership and everything it stood for. That is what happened. It is history. You are in the history forum. It is not the conjecture and guessing forum or the conspiracy theory forum.
FDR did the right thing. He made sure the NAZI's were beat into the basements and pleading for mercy. He assisted and allowed Stalin to smash them like bugs. He set a precedent that war criminals like the NAZI's would not be allowed to escape justice. Your ideas about conditional surrender would not have done that.