The Soviet Union & Iran: Then and Now

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,860
60,193
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.
 
Get that???

Eh, not really

You mean FDR should have declared war on Russia before the nazis had surrendered and Obama should bomb, bomb, bomb Iran because Stalin comes back to life again if he doesn't?

:banana:


You require sooooo much in the way of education...and there is so little time.

Begin here:
1. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declared in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'

Baldwin writes that the United States put itself "in the role-at times a disgraceful role-of fearful suppliant and propitiating ally, anxious at nearly any cost to keep Russia fighting. In retrospect, how stupid!"


2. . What could, should have happened?
When the (anticipated) event that Hitler would attack Stalin's Russia, as they did June 21st, 1941, America should have done nothing...no more than relaxing restrictions on exports to the Russians...but at the same time securing a quid pro quo for further assistance! Lend-Lease should not have been the automatic and unlimited buffet that it turned into! "Finally, should the Soviet regime fall,...we should refuse to recognize a Communist government-in-exile, leaving the path clear for establishment for a non-Communist government in Russia after the war." These were the words of Loy Henderson, Soviet and Eastern European affairs expert and Foreign Service officer, as quoted by Martin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.



What is amusing is that I quoted experts who were alive and informed....
...and all you will post is "is not....is noottttttt."

Let's see.
 
No, she means that Reagan was super human and put out all the fires in the world...not....


Please try to read more carefully, and not bring up your fantasies and bête noire, Ronaldus Maximus.....

upload_2015-8-30_9-1-26.jpeg


This OP is specifically about the catastrophes caused by Franklin Roosevelt, and the soon-to-be catastrophes about to be caused by this Democrat President.


More to come....stay tuned.
 
No, she means that Reagan was super human and put out all the fires in the world...not....


Please try to read more carefully, and not bring up your fantasies and bête noire, Ronaldus Maximus.....

View attachment 48760

This OP is specifically about the catastrophes caused by Franklin Roosevelt, and the soon-to-be catastrophes about to be caused by this Democrat President.


More to come....stay tuned.
Just because you can over exert yourself by cut-n-paste, does not mean you have a brain...
 
What is amusing is that I quoted experts who were alive and informed....
...and all you will post is "is not....is noottttttt."

Let's see.

Well, in case you didn't know, Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so doing nothing wasn't an option.

Sure, the US could still not support Stalin and then maybe Russia would have been defeated, Germany would have millions of troops available for the war in the west and plenty of time to develop ballistic missiles, jet fighters and nukes.

Does that strike you as a brilliant strategy?

Sorry, but I really don't get your point.

:smoke:
 
No, she means that Reagan was super human and put out all the fires in the world...not....


Please try to read more carefully, and not bring up your fantasies and bête noire, Ronaldus Maximus.....

View attachment 48760

This OP is specifically about the catastrophes caused by Franklin Roosevelt, and the soon-to-be catastrophes about to be caused by this Democrat President.


More to come....stay tuned.
Just because you can over exert yourself by cut-n-paste, does not mean you have a brain...


Are you able to explain your suggestion that 'cut and paste' is a pejorative....or is it simply a Liberal dodge to avoid dealing with the facts provided?


It's the latter, isn't it.
 
What is amusing is that I quoted experts who were alive and informed....
...and all you will post is "is not....is noottttttt."

Let's see.

Well, in case you didn't know, Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor so doing nothing wasn't an option.

Sure, the US could still not support Stalin and then maybe Russia would have been defeated, Germany would have millions of troops available for the war in the west and plenty of time to develop ballistic missiles, jet fighters and nukes.

Does that strike you as a brilliant strategy?

Sorry, but I really don't get your point.

:smoke:


"...then maybe Russia would have been defeated..."

Absurd.

1. "Between June 22, 1941, and January 31, 1942, the Germans had lost 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles; and no less than 918,000 men had been killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to 28.7 percent of the average strength of the army, namely, 3,2 million men.[33]

(In the Soviet Union, Germany would lose no less than 10 million of its total 13.5 million men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner during the entire war; and the Red Army would end up claiming credit for 90 per cent of all Germans killed in the Second World War.)
Clive Ponting, 'Armageddon: The Second World War,' p. 130; Stephen E. Ambrose 'Americans at War,' p. 72. ”



And this, the only logical conclusion:

2. "....realistically middle sizedGermany could not defeat the much larger Ussrin the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence(comment)


Perhaps you might consider actually posting about a subject you have more knowledge than simply imbibing Liberal bumper-stickers.

Perhaps?
 
1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.


Churchill wanted an alliance with Stalin in the 30's.
 
1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.


Churchill wanted an alliance with Stalin in the 30's.


What does that have to do with anything in the OP?

BTW....Churchill was gleeful December 8, 1941, stating that US entry meant the war was won.
 
Here we go again. Another FDR/Stalin rant.



Here we go again: another Liberal lap-dog with no knowledge and no perspective other than 'defend FDR at all costs!'

Your nonsense about FDR has been comprehensively refuted, debunked, and demolished in half dozen or more other threads you've started.

Exactly as I have predicted, you repeatedly run away from those threads, wait a bit, and then restart them so all of the refutations are gone.
 
Here we go again. Another FDR/Stalin rant.



Here we go again: another Liberal lap-dog with no knowledge and no perspective other than 'defend FDR at all costs!'

Your nonsense about FDR has been comprehensively refuted, debunked, and demolished in half dozen or more other threads you've started.

Exactly as I have predicted, you repeatedly run away from those threads, wait a bit, and then restart them so all of the refutations are gone.


"Your nonsense blah blah blah..."

I never post nonsense...I post truth, facts, and accurate statement.

You prove that with every evasive post.

Note: you have yet to find anything in the OP not totally true.
 
1. The foreign policy blunders and miscalculations of Franklin Roosevelt's with respect to the Soviet Union are mirrored in Barack Obama's, with respect to Iran.
And the amazing similarity of the two bear witness to Mark Twain's famous quip about history:
'Historydoesn't repeat itself, but it doesrhyme.'


A more ominous warning, from the American philosopher Santayana, also applies:
'Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'


a. The consequence of Roosevelt's failures include Red China, the Korean War, and the Cold War.
The handwriting is already on the wall from Obama's Iran treaty.

Mistakes based on a lack of understanding human nature, and of the existence of evil itself.
The Founder's used checks and balances to resist both...Roosevelt had none. cowed the Supreme Court, and disregarded the Constitution.
As a result, he changed the course of history....and not for he better.




2. The communist Soviet Union began based on Karl Marx's idea that international communism/socialism and domination of the world was the nonnegotiable goal.
Although the Russians signed agreements with Roosevelt agreeing to give up this dream, it was well known that this was simply a lie so that Roosevlet could offer this pap to the public.


3."Moreover, Roosevelt’s indulgence of Stalin has been noted and judged by too many close observers to be questioned as fact. Averell Harriman-close friend, wartime adviser, and envoy-writes: “He was determined, by establishing a close relationship with Stalin in wartime, to build confidence among the Kremlin leaders that Russia, now an acknowledged power, could trust the West.. . . Churchill had a more pragmatic attitude. . He turned pessimistic about the future earlier than Roosevelt and he foresaw greater difficulties at the end of the war.”’

So, it must be added,’ did Harriman himself.

George Kennan’s view of Roosevelt’s performance during the war is considerably harsher than Harriman’s. After commenting bitterly on the “inexcusable body of ignorance about the Russian Communist movement, about the history of its diplomacy, about what had happened in the purges, and about what had been going on in Poland and the Baltic States,” Kennan turns more directly to FDR alone:

I also have in mind FDRs evident conviction that Stalin, while perhaps a somewhat difficult customer, was only, after all, a person like any other person; that the reason we hadn’t been able to get along with him in the past was that we had never really had anyone with the proper personality and the proper qualities of sympathy and imagination to deal with him, that he had been snubbed all along by the arrogant conservatives of the Western capitals; and that if only he could be exposed to the persuasive charms of someone like FDR himself, ideological preconceptions would melt and Russia’s cooperation with the West could be easily arranged.

For these assumptions there were no grounds whatsover; and they were of a puerility that was unworthy of a statesman of FDRs stature."
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/30_02/nisbet.pdf


Get that???

Kennan was calling Roosevelt a fool!!!


The very same analysis applies to Obama.
Obama should read Santayana.


Churchill wanted an alliance with Stalin in the 30's.


What does that have to do with anything in the OP?

BTW....Churchill was gleeful December 8, 1941, stating that US entry meant the war was won.

Maybe if you'd read your own OP you'd know.

You rant about FDR being too cozy with Stalin but repeatedly fail to mention that Churchill fought to get an ALLIANCE with Stalin in the 30's,

one that may very well have prevented Hitler from invading Poland, and subsequently the western nations of Europe.

Your understanding of history between the great wars is laughable.
 
Here we go again. Another FDR/Stalin rant.



Here we go again: another Liberal lap-dog with no knowledge and no perspective other than 'defend FDR at all costs!'

Your nonsense about FDR has been comprehensively refuted, debunked, and demolished in half dozen or more other threads you've started.

Exactly as I have predicted, you repeatedly run away from those threads, wait a bit, and then restart them so all of the refutations are gone.


"Your nonsense blah blah blah..."

I never post nonsense...I post truth, facts, and accurate statement.

You prove that with every evasive post.

Note: you have yet to find anything in the OP not totally true.

Like I said, it's all been refuted in past threads you've posted..
 
Perhaps you might consider actually posting about a subject you have more knowledge than simply imbibing Liberal bumper-stickers.

Perhaps?

Eh, I thought we were assuming that FDR didn't do anything against the evil Germans.

Do you know how close Hitler came to defeating Russia? Probably not or else you wouldn't be posting this revisionist nonsense of armchair generals.

I still don't see what this has to do with Obama and Iran though

:alcoholic:
 
In an informative report, the CIA gave their researched view of Roosevelt's actions in embracing Stalin, and the Soviet Union.

The report has relevance today.


4. "In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that evena psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because he was “gripped by clinical depression."
How “Uncle Joe” Bugged FDR — Central Intelligence Agency



Roosevelt's actions explained as due to mental imbalance.



Mitigating the conclusion that Roosevelt was mentally unbalanced, the CIA report goes on to suggest these as anodynes...

"Rather, the operant factors were: the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion,
his profound ignorance of the Bolshevik dictatorship,
his projection of humane motives onto his Soviet counterpart,
his determined resistance to contradictory evidence and advice,
and his wishful thinking based on geopolitical designs—mindsets supported and reinforced by his appointed advisors [read 'Soviet spies in his administration.]."
Ibid.



So....maybe not nuts....just poor of judgment and willing acceptance of lies and fairy tales.
 
Here we go again. Another FDR/Stalin rant.



Here we go again: another Liberal lap-dog with no knowledge and no perspective other than 'defend FDR at all costs!'

Your nonsense about FDR has been comprehensively refuted, debunked, and demolished in half dozen or more other threads you've started.

Exactly as I have predicted, you repeatedly run away from those threads, wait a bit, and then restart them so all of the refutations are gone.


"Your nonsense blah blah blah..."

I never post nonsense...I post truth, facts, and accurate statement.

You prove that with every evasive post.

Note: you have yet to find anything in the OP not totally true.

Like I said, it's all been refuted in past threads you've posted..


Screaming 'is not, is not' is hardly refuting facts.

...except for a Liberal....
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top