What If....Roosevelt Was Pro-America?

[PoliticalChic]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   
   
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

 

[Camp]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

 

[Camp]

The OP has still not refuted or even acknowledged the difference between subjective data and objective data and still insist that opinions and commentary have the same weight as provable facts, objective data. This allows a debate to run in circles. Subjective, FDR could have ended the war early IF he had listened to ideas from specific advisors. Objective, Germany surrendered unconditionally and the allies won WWII.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

So you can't 'refute' anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

 

[Camp]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

So you can't 'refute' anything.

Read the above post. It refute your claim that America elected a communist VP. You have yet to show he was a communist. Just because you opine he was does not make it true.

 

[Camp]

A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation.

FDR and the War Department knew the catastrophe that would follow with an alliance between Germany and the USSR. That catastrophe was realized with the Ribbonthrorp-Stalin agreement and the mutual invasion of Poland.
FDR's task was to form relationships with the USSR and Stalin that would put the US in a position to manipulate Stalin into following the US strategy for defeating the USSR. That is exactly what occurred. Stalin was convinced he could manipulate FDR and the US, but the exact opposite occurred. FDR and the US directed the strategy, not Stalin and the USSR. The result was the economic success of western Europe and the US becoming the richest most powerful nation in world history and the USSR with its east European spoils of war become struggling wastelands for years following.

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "A coup against Hitler was wishful thinking. Canaris nor anyone else was in a position to overthrow Hitler and any idea he or anyone else could have is based on faulty speculation."

You lie, both due to your character, and to your ignorance.

But....I will provide a thread proving the very opposite.


2. I challenged you to prove that you aren't a lying windbag.....and you failed miserably.
"Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 onthe removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


Did you see the date: 1942. When did the war with Germany finally end?

"May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims"Germany surrenders unconditionally to the Allies at Reims ? History.com This Day in History ? 5/7/1945




What prevented an earlier conclusion to the war?
"... fear of offending Russia..."

Fear of offending, it seems to me, suggests a relationship with one's superiors....
i.e.,Roosevelt considered Stalin his superior.



Notice: above are the words of Major-General Sir Stewart Menzies, theChief of the Secret Intelligence Service,1939–1952, serves as the head of theSecret Intelligence Service(SIS, also commonly known as MI6), which is part of theUnited Kingdom intelligence community.

Here's your big chance, you windbag....let's see you 'refute the above."




BTW....here is the definition you so sorely require:

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

In your face, windbag.

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

 

[regent]

You are using a speculative assessment by Gen. Menzies that contains two huge if's and attempting to use the assessment as an objective fact. The if's are huge. First, it contemplates that a contact and working relationship could be obtained with Canaris. Second, it contemplates that Canaris could conduct a coup against Hitler. The cost of failure of those contemplations would be the destruction of the allied relationship with one of its key alliances, the USSR. The choice was a risky attempt to a mission almost sure to fail vs causing a serious and irreparable damage to a key element in the strategy to defeat Hitler.
Note that when the plan to enlist Canaris and was instigated toward the end of the war, Canaris failed and was executed.

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

1. prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
   "these claims have not been convincingly refuted"
   synonyms: disprove, prove wrong, prove false, debunk, discredit, invalidate; More
   • prove that (someone) is wrong.

So.....you couldn't refute the post, windbag???


And....you agree that Bill Donovan also said the same thing to Roosevelt???


I destroyed you again, huh?

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

"....you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist."


I almost feel sorry for you....almost.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


1. "Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC):

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later,as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations,a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



2. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.

'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing that they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." Dies, "Martin Dies Story," p. 62-63.


3. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals.
This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


The upshot?

When you look at what they were working for....there is no difference between card-carrying communists, and dupes and communist sympathizers.


None whatsoever.



Henry Agard Wallace....communist, communist dupe, and communist supporter........and demanded by Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president of the United States.



How ya' like that, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeee????

 

[Camp]

Leader and decision makers like Presidents and Generals receive a constant flow of assessments and suggestions from their staffs and underlings. History record whether they chose the right assessments and suggestions or not. You are suggesting that FDR should have accepted particular assessments from specific personal. You are promoting the subjective idea that in your opinion FDR accepted the wrong advice. History proves FDR was right in the decision he made. That is an objective fact, not an opinion. The alliance held together and the USSR was not disrupted from destroying most of the German Army over a risky scheme.

As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist. You took data that indicated sympathy and beliefs of the VP and turned it into the claim he was a communist. Hence, your claim was refuted. To claim he was a communist you would have to prove he was a member of the communist party. You can not because he was never a communist.

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

"....you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist."


I almost feel sorry for you....almost.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


1. "Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC):

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later,as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations,a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



2. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.

'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing that they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." Dies, "Martin Dies Story," p. 62-63.


3. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals.
This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


The upshot?

When you look at what they were working for....there is no difference between card-carrying communists, and dupes and communist sympathizers.


None whatsoever.



Henry Agard Wallace....communist, communist dupe, and communist supporter........and demanded by Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president of the United States.



How ya' like that, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeee????

Still haven't shown that Wallace was a communist. Not even close. You accused the American people of being duped into electing a communist VP, a man one breath away from being the President, and that is a lie. America did not elect a communist for a VP and your claiming they did is a malicious lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"As far as refuting, one stand out is your all day repeated claims that America had elected a communist VP. That was refuted. It never happened. The VP was never a communist."

This is where I bury you again.

Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

"....you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist."


I almost feel sorry for you....almost.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


1. "Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC):

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later,as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations,a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



2. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.

'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing that they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." Dies, "Martin Dies Story," p. 62-63.


3. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals.
This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


The upshot?

When you look at what they were working for....there is no difference between card-carrying communists, and dupes and communist sympathizers.


None whatsoever.



Henry Agard Wallace....communist, communist dupe, and communist supporter........and demanded by Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president of the United States.



How ya' like that, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeee????

Still haven't shown that Wallace was a communist. Not even close. You accused the American people of being duped into electing a communist VP, a man one breath away from being the President, and that is a lie. America did not elect a communist for a VP and your claiming they did is a malicious lie.

Ho,hum.....

You again.

Let's see....I challenged you to deny that the head of OSS agreed with my statements about German resistance overthrowing Hitler....
....you ran and hid.

I challenged you here:
Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words admitting it.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.'

...and you ran and hide under your rock, half-head.




Now you're back trying to ignore how I beat you from pillar to post.

Consider your self dissed and dismissed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's see....
1. The anti-Nazi Germans were ready to capitulate, and turn Hitler over to the Allies....but Roosevelt ordered that there be no contacts with them
2. The OSS (CIA) agents verified this, and Donovan told FDR....he couldn't have cared less,....
...because those Germans were anti-communists as well.
3. FDR demanded the communist Henry Wallace be his vp or he wouldn't run for a third term.

Hmmm.......this has been a pretty good exposition, this thread.

 

[Camp]

Being a communist dupe or sympathizer is not what you claimed. You claim repeatedly that he was a communist. You are now backpedaling and attempting to change your original claim.

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

"....you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist."


I almost feel sorry for you....almost.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


1. "Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC):

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later,as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations,a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



2. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.

'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing that they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." Dies, "Martin Dies Story," p. 62-63.


3. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals.
This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


The upshot?

When you look at what they were working for....there is no difference between card-carrying communists, and dupes and communist sympathizers.


None whatsoever.



Henry Agard Wallace....communist, communist dupe, and communist supporter........and demanded by Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president of the United States.



How ya' like that, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeee????

Still haven't shown that Wallace was a communist. Not even close. You accused the American people of being duped into electing a communist VP, a man one breath away from being the President, and that is a lie. America did not elect a communist for a VP and your claiming they did is a malicious lie.

Ho,hum.....

You again.

Let's see....I challenged you to deny that the head of OSS agreed with my statements about German resistance overthrowing Hitler....
....you ran and hid.

I challenged you here:
Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words admitting it.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.'

...and you ran and hide under your rock, half-head.




Now you're back trying to ignore how I beat you from pillar to post.

Consider your self dissed and dismissed.

I responded to your post about Donovon. You just didn't like it because it was an objective response that could not be disputed.

Any self serving declaration of some kind of victory in reqards to some kind of debate can not be credible when dependent of opinions unless someone is polling the audience. You have failed to defend your post that have been refuted and challenged You haven't even addressed them other than this one about the VP being a communist, and you have lost in that discussion. No matter how much you pat yourself on the back, it is done so fraudulently. Your response is OK, he wasn't a card carrying communist, but he was a dupe. You changed you comments of him being communist, with no caveats, and now claiming something different. The challenge made to you was about you original claim, the one you made up after you realized you were wrong about your claim. You lost debate the debate about Wallace being a communist and are now trying to change it to one about whether he was friendly to them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So.....you're ready to admit that he was a communist dupe and supporter???

And that Franklin Roosevelt demanded......demanded!!!.....that he be vice president of the United States.



Speak up!!!

I thought you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist. If Camp kept pressing you would soon accuse Wallace of being another George Washington. Another fun time.

"....you had labeled Wallace a communist, now the label has become communist dupe, not a communist."


I almost feel sorry for you....almost.

The only difference between Custer’s Last Stand and what I’m about to do to you is that Custer didn’t have to read the post afterwards.


1. "Robert Stripling served ten years (1938-1948) as Chief Investigator of the bipartisan House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC):

" Congress had created the Committee in the 1930s to publicly gather information on, primarily, American Nazis, Klansmen, and other homegrown fascists. Only later,as Communism's wide scope and insidious nature became apparent, did HUAC set out to expose the vast leftwing conspiracy of its American operations,a conspiracy propagated by both card-carrying members and fellow-traveling sympathizers... the committee itself was predominately made up of democrats.."
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Plot-Agai...d=1428764868&sr=8-1&keywords=robert+stripling



2. Although the reference 'card-carrying Communist' was once accurate, the CPUSA stopped issuing cards once the Dies Committee began hearings. The highest membership serial number that his committee came across was 195,762.

'Given that Communists strive for quality, it was amazing that they had been able to grow from 10,000 aliens in 1919 to nearly 200,000 members in 1938, mostly naive born or naturalized citizens." Dies, "Martin Dies Story," p. 62-63.


3. "The progressive left, and the liberal left, while not themselves communists, share many of the same sympathies, such of redistribution of wealth, and worker’s rights, nationalizations of industry, etc, but are not quite as far left as the communists, and would not go to the same lengths as the communists to achieve their goals.
This does not mean, though, that the help of these dupes is not necessary in order for the communists to achieve victory. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”
Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century


The upshot?

When you look at what they were working for....there is no difference between card-carrying communists, and dupes and communist sympathizers.


None whatsoever.



Henry Agard Wallace....communist, communist dupe, and communist supporter........and demanded by Franklin Roosevelt as vice-president of the United States.



How ya' like that, booooyyyyyyeeeeeeee????

Still haven't shown that Wallace was a communist. Not even close. You accused the American people of being duped into electing a communist VP, a man one breath away from being the President, and that is a lie. America did not elect a communist for a VP and your claiming they did is a malicious lie.

Ho,hum.....

You again.

Let's see....I challenged you to deny that the head of OSS agreed with my statements about German resistance overthrowing Hitler....
....you ran and hid.

I challenged you here:
Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words admitting it.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.'

...and you ran and hide under your rock, half-head.




Now you're back trying to ignore how I beat you from pillar to post.

Consider your self dissed and dismissed.

I responded to your post about Donovon. You just didn't like it because it was an objective response that could not be disputed.

Any self serving declaration of some kind of victory in reqards to some kind of debate can not be credible when dependent of opinions unless someone is polling the audience. You have failed to defend your post that have been refuted and challenged You haven't even addressed them other than this one about the VP being a communist, and you have lost in that discussion. No matter how much you pat yourself on the back, it is done so fraudulently. Your response is OK, he wasn't a card carrying communist, but he was a dupe. You changed you comments of him being communist, with no caveats, and now claiming something different. The challenge made to you was about you original claim, the one you made up after you realized you were wrong about your claim. You lost debate the debate about Wallace being a communist and are now trying to change it to one about whether he was friendly to them.

1. "I responded to your post about Donovon (sic). You just didn't like it because it was an objective response that could not be disputed."
You claimed that it was the British who agreed with Canaris....and they were wrong.
I smashed you by providing the fact that the American intelligence community agreed with the British.....and not Stalin's puppet, Roosevelt.



2. I challenged you here:
Not only was he a communist and/or a communist dupe and sympathizer....but he actually admitted it!!!!


That's right....I can produce his own words admitting it.


Dare you to challenge me, you windbag.'

...and you ran and hide under your rock, half-head.




Now you're back trying to ignore how I beat you from pillar to post.


Let's see....
1. The anti-Nazi Germans were ready to capitulate, and turn Hitler over to the Allies....but Roosevelt ordered that there be no contacts with them
2. The OSS (CIA) agents verified this, and Donovan told FDR....he couldn't have cared less,....
...because those Germans were anti-communists as well.
3. FDR demanded the communist Henry Wallace be his vp or he wouldn't run for a third term.

So....I'm a princess, you're a loser.
Any questions?

 

[rightwinger]

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two choices:
a. That of the Founders, individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, via the Constitution.


b. Leftwingers.....communists, Liberals,Progressives, whatever, offer the following:
collectivization, unquestioning lock-step adherence to government policies, over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.....'



You've made your selection, huh.

 

[rightwinger]

There are two choices:
a. That of the Founders, individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government, via the Constitution.


b. Leftwingers.....communists, Liberals,Progressives, whatever, offer the following:
collectivization, unquestioning lock-step adherence to government policies, over-regulation, and unlimited central command and control governance.....'



You've made your selection, huh.

No question that FDR was a badass

Brought Hitler, Stalin and Tojo to their knees

 

[whitehall]

You almost have to admire the democrat's ability to consistently fool the American public but then again it must have been relatively easy when the only sources of information available to the public at the time were dedicated to the democrat party agenda. FDR was clearly a dying man in the fall of 1943 when he was forced by his friend and ally Josef Stalin to fly 18,000 miles in a converted B-24 to a Red Army base in an isolated little shit hole in Iraq named Tehran. Churchill would have gladly come to Washington but Stalin, still a robust man in 1943-44, was calling the shots when he claimed to be too busy to travel to Washington to talk about WW2 strategy with the "Big Three". FDR was prone to blackouts even at that time and would stop in he middle of a speech and be hustled out of the room by aids until he recovered. Churchill was the odd man out and FDR and "Uncle Joe" Stalin often made jokes at his expense. Churchill wasn't enthusiastic about an Allied amphibious invasion of Normandy but Stalin convinced FDR that it was necessary in order to take the pressure off Russia and Churchill was out voted. Later the media pretended that D-Day was a surprise to the Nazis who expected a landing at Calis but they forgot to add the part where it didn't take the German's long to pin down the Allies at Normandy and the Allies took 300,000 casualties in the three month "breakout". Clearly FDR wasn't of sound enough mind to negotiate strategy for the end of WW2 and yet the democrat party was still able to fool Americans into believing he was mentally astute enough to run for a 4th term.

 

[regent]

You failed to mention another FDR fault, he was paralyzed. So if we didn't invade Normandy, where should we have invaded? Has Ike ever apologized for getting pinned down on the Normandy beach, and worse, for taking casualties? As for the fourth term, FDR ran and won. But Republicans got an amendment passed so now FDR holds even that record and probably for all time. How many accolades can a president get? Rated number one by America's best historians, four time winner, and number one in the people's heart in that period of our history.