Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[JoeB131]

Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???




1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is the truth:

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.


2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire. Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
West, "American Betrayal," p.277
?

Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help.

the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.

We weren't going to give them that luxury.

Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.

And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb.

But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???




1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is the truth:

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.


2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire. Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
West, "American Betrayal," p.277
?

Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help.

the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.

We weren't going to give them that luxury.

Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.

And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb.

But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.

"Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help."

You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!


1. 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!

2. "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 byMartin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.


3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares 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!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Japan and USSR had remained neutral, the USA and UK and its empire would not have been able to win and would certainly not lose a war with the Greater German Reich and its European possessions. The Allies would have not been able to successfully create a beach head in northwestern Europe, and the southeastern European route was bound to fail.

So, yes, the USSR was the key to allied victory.

If the war was solely between Hitler and Stalin, the West would have happily sat it out.

However, Hitler had western Europe under his paw, and the USA and the UK had no choice but to fight.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's begin with this question: what possible reason would the President have to allow WWII to go on an extra year or two???




1. There is no way to argue that one of these two possibilities is the truth:

a. either Franklin Roosevelt was entirely aligned with Stalin and the communist agenda...or
b. Joseph Stalin was brilliant and overwhelming in his manipulations of Roosevelt.


2. "But the USSR was our ally against Hitler! No. The USSR was not our ally. It was our secret master-manipulator. We were secretly master-manipulated, not into defeating the Nazis, who, but for the de facto Soviet occupation of Washington, I am now persuaded could have been eliminated in 1943, but rather into decimating,obliterating, Germany, Soviet Russia's natural barrier against expansion into its European empire. Japan, very much too, for that matter, in the East."
West, "American Betrayal," p.277
?

Your whole premise is based on the concept that we could have won the war without the USSR's help.

the reason why we insisted on the unconditional surrender of Germany was because after World War I, Hitler and others promoted the "Stabbed in the Back Myth" that Germany was winning the war, until Jewish politicians stabbed the Kaiser and the Army in the back.

We weren't going to give them that luxury.

Also, the reality is, most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war.

And it was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War that had more to do with Japan's Surrender than the Atom Bomb.

But we westerners like our myths about how we won the war.

".... most of the heavy lifting in WWII was done by the USSR in Europe. They engaged and pushed back 3/4 of the Axis forces fighting the war."

What nonsense.

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!


1. Roosevelt actually intended for the Red Army to occupy central and eastern Europe....he said this even before the Red Army left Russia!

a. We know for a documented fact that Roosevelt regarded Soviet conquest in Europe as a fait accompli.



2. On September 3, 1943, Cardinal Spellman spent 90 minutes with Roosevelt, and wrote up a memorandum in which he quoted Roosevelt as saying exactly that!
Spellman quoted FDR: "The European people will simply have to endure the Russian domination in the hope that in ten or twenty years they will be able to live well with the Russians."
"The Cardinal Spellman Story," by Robert I. Gannon, p.224





3. Harry Hopkins and George Marshall were fully behind handing all of Eastern Europe over to Stalin's tender mercies. Remember...they knew of the Terror Famine, the Katyn Forest Massacre, and other blood purges. by Stalin. Evidence can be seen in a document which Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Sherwood's book, the authorized Hopkins biography: "Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!

No truth to that.

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

Reality.

 

[JoeB131]

[

You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!

I've got a degree in history.

You've got a bag full of crazy.

[
1. 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!

Meh, not so much. frankly, I've talked to British and Russians who think that the US really took advantage of them with Lend LEase. They did most of the fighting, the Americans made a shitload of money.

[
2. "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 byMartin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.

It was unlikely the Soviet Regime would have fallen with 11 Time Zones to fall back into. But if it had, it would have been one set up by the Nazis as a colonial regime.

[
3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares 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!"

But they pretty much did, anyway. and the end result was that the USSR came out stronger for it. A huge army with experienced battle commanders.

They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's. They chose not not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

You've come to the right place for an education, ErroneousJoe!

I've got a degree in history.

You've got a bag full of crazy.

[
1. 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!

Meh, not so much. frankly, They did most of the fighting, the Americans made a shitload of money.

[
2. "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 byMartin Weil in "A pretty good club: The founding fathers of the U.S. Foreign Service," p. 106.

It was unlikely the Soviet Regime would have fallen with 11 Time Zones to fall back into. But if it had, it would have been one set up by the Nazis as a colonial regime.

[
3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares 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!"

But they pretty much did, anyway. and the end result was that the USSR came out stronger for it. A huge army with experienced battle commanders.

They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's. They chose not not.

1. "I've got a degree in history."

Seems not at all consistent with knowledge of history.





2. "I've talked to British and Russians who think that the US really took advantage of them with Lend LEase."

Wow...did they pull the wool over your eyes!!!

They must have known a sucker when they saw you, huh?

a. Supplies didn't just "flow" to the Soviet Union, they flooded it, including non-military supplies: a tire plant, an oil refinery, pipe-fabricating works, over a million miles of copper wire, switchboard-panels, lathes and power tools, textile machinery, woodworking, typesetting, cranes hoists, derricks, air compressors, $152 million in women's 'dress goods,' 18.4 million pounds of writing paper, cigarette cases, jeweled watches, lipstick, liquor, bathtubs, and pianos.

b. " I challenge FDR apologists to explain government largesse to Soviet Russia, even superseding Allied, or even American military needs. Or American civilian needs: 217,660,666 pounds of butter shipped to the USSR during a time of strict state-side rationing."
John R. Deane, "The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Cooperation With Russia," p.94-95.

c. . "The millionaire industrialist, Armand Hammer played a key role in laying the foundations of Lend-Lease. As a dyed-in-the-wool collaborator of Lenin´s and Stalin’s in procuring Western, especially American, assistance in the industrialization of the USSR..... in November 1940 Armand Hammer met with FDR in the White House. He and the president discussed the idea of developing American military assistance to Britain, the Neutrality Act and Roosevelt’s campaign promises not to embroil the United States in the European war to the contrary. Roosevelt thereupon suggested to Hammer that he discuss this plan with Harry Hopkins. Hopkins twice traveled to New York City, Hammer´s base of operations, to discuss this idea with officials and businessmen there.” Roosevelt?s Lend-Lease Act: The Arm and Hammer / Hammer and Sickle Connection | Justice for Germans




3. "They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's. They chose not not."

No clearer statement could be made to document that you not only know none of the history of the time...
...but that you have been thoroughly inebriated with communist propaganda.


BTW....which was the only nation with the atomic bomb, you dolt?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!

No truth to that.

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

Reality.

I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated, and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'

 

[JoeB131]

3. "They pretty much could have done whatever they wanted to the west in the 1940's. They chose not not."

No clearer statement could be made to document that you not only know none of the history of the time...
...but that you have been thoroughly inebriated with communist propaganda.


BTW....which was the only nation with the atomic bomb, you dolt?

Without rehashing the rest of your tired stuff about Lend lease (which really was a fraction of Soviet War materials. They produced most of their own.) They didn't beat the Germans because we gave them butter.

The Atom Bomb was not that big of a deal in the 1940's.

True, we agonize about it a lot today, because unlike the Hiroshima bomb, we have the capabilities to wipe out the entire planet today.

But two or three atom bombs really wouldn't have made that much of a difference had the Soviets decided that they weren't going to stop at the Elbe.

The reality was the Soviets had a battle-hardened Army in Europe.

Thankfully, they had also had their fill of war.

 

[regent]

From Pearl Harbor to the end of the war the Republican party must have been telling the American people they had the ideas to end the war two years early. What happened to those ideas and where would we find them today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!

No truth to that.

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

Reality.

I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated, and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'

Your quotes are either inaccurate or out of context.

It's obvious you have very little idea of what happened then and why.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC ignore the truth and relevance of the below which undermines her OP, yet again.

If Japan and USSR had remained neutral, the USA and UK and its empire would not have been able to win and would certainly not lose a war with the Greater German Reich and its European possessions. The Allies would have not been able to successfully create a beach head in northwestern Europe, and the southeastern European route was bound to fail.

So, yes, the USSR was the key to allied victory.

If the war was solely between Hitler and Stalin, the West would have happily sat it out.

However, Hitler had western Europe under his paw, and the USA and the UK had no choice but to fight.
__________________

 

[regent]

It seemed, at that time, that FDR chose a policy of low American casualties and in exchange, letting the USSR gain more dominance over European land areas?
Was that FDR's only choice and was that the best choice at the time?

 

[Camp]

As I thought. You guys can't get passed your government school brainwashing. I was one of you once, but then I took the time to do the research. Luckily for you two, you can benefit from all the hard work I did to find the truth.

My sons, it is not Un-American to disbelieve the government. However, it is Un-American to believe the lies of a corrupt government. So please, find the courage to accept the truth.

You have heard the statement. "the truth will set you free." Do you want to be free or a slave? We shall find out...

I will not give up trying to educate you....just Google the following statements to prove their veracity.

One of MacArthur’s first acts after taking over as Viceroy of Japan was to confiscate and/or destroy all the photographic evidence documenting the horrors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He imposed total censorship over journalists on the ground about what really happened at Ground Zero in those doomed cities, again proving the old adage that “the first casualty of war is truth”.

Even Secretary of War Henry Stimson, said: “the true question was not whether surrender could have been achieved without the use of the bomb but whether a different diplomatic and military course would have led to an earlier surrender. A large segment of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring of 1945 to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on.” In other words, Stimson knew that the US had unnecessarily prolonged the war.

Less than one year after the end of the war, the US Strategic Bombing Survey’s official report on the Pacific War appeared. The authors concluded that…
“the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan….certainly prior to December 31, 1945 and in all probability prior to November 1, 1945 Japan would have surrendered, even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

A major alternative discussed in detail by historian Gar Alperovitz in his indispensable book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb was the possibility of a negotiated peace with Japan involving a relaxation of the American demand for "unconditional surrender." In his monumental work, Alperovitz documents that from April to August 1945 the Japanese made a number of official attempts to secure a negotiated peace settlement and an end to the war. The major sticking point was the fate of Emperor Hirohito — would the man many Japanese considered to be divine be tried and hanged as a war criminal? In light of this concern, Truman was urged by many of his aides to alter the surrender formula to provide for the preservation of the Emperor as a constitutional monarch. Presented with opportunity after opportunity to craft a compromise, Truman refused to bend. Indeed, the most significant statement of Allied surrender terms prior to the bombings — the Potsdam Declaration issued July 26, 1945 — maintained the rhetoric of "unconditional surrender" while not even mentioning the fate of the Emperor. President Truman then most certainly acted without exhausting all other options — a gross violation of the jus in bello principles enunciated by the Christian Church for centuries.

The list of Truman's military aides that believed the bombings were not a military necessity reads like a who's who list of top US brass: Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower along with Under Secretaries of State and the Navy Grew and Bard respectively all dissented from the necessity logic. In 1963, an aging Eisenhower forcefully reiterated his position to Newsweek, saying, "The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

The facts are not what gets disputed. It is how the facts are put together to create a thesis and used to make conclusions. Fact can be hacked together, or what we in the computer age call cut and pasted, to say just about anything you want, or, they can be assembled in a scholarly and academic fashion designed to be open and presented in such a way as to allow other scholars and academia to examine and review conclusions reached by an author. Quotes taken out of context and or distorted can be revealed and challenged. These of course are the hacks key tools, taking quotes and claiming they mean something that they don't mean. It is the method by which conspiracy theories are built.

In 2014 there are two basic schools of thought regarding the use of nuclear weapons to end the war in Japan. Both accept the same general facts relating to Russian involvement scheduled to began with battle planned for the third week of August 1945, the impact of the Potsdam Conference held in the last part of July and the very beginning of August '45, and the implications of a peace agreement or surrender being obtained before, or after Russia's official entrance via battle. There was a race to obtain a surrender from Japan before Russia committed forces and began actual battle with Japanese forces in Manchuria that would than become unavailable for defense against an Allied invasion of Japan proper or it's home islands. This is the theory that substantiates the thesis that the use of nukes was purely political.

The different schools of thought and competing concepts come from two Japanese scholars. I have mentioned Tsuyoshi Hasegawa. The other scholar is Sadao Asada the author of "The Shock of the Atomic Bomb".

http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501

 

[PoliticalChic]

Roosevelt gifted Europe to Stalin!

No truth to that.

"Russia's post-war position in Europe will be a dominant one. With Germany crushed, there is no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."

Reality.

I've just provided quotes that proved what I stated, and a wind-bag like you posts 'is not, is not.'

Your quotes are either inaccurate or out of context.

It's obvious you have very little idea of what happened then and why.

I accurately quoted FDR, Cardinal Spellman, and Harry Hopkins.
I've even given you the sources....Gannon's book, and the Hopkins authorized biography, by Sherwood.

You, you ignorant dunce, responded with 'is not, is not.'





Roosevelt followed Stalin's every instruction, and ceded Europe to him before his troops even moved into same.
That is critical: Anglo-American Common Law might be invoked if the Red Army had occupied Eastern Europe at the time.
They did not.

Bottom line: sans FDR's support....communism would have remained the material of soap-box orators.
And you'd be right there....applauding.





I appreciate each and every one of your appearances, you simpleton, because of the stain they leave on those trying to oppose my revelatory posts.


That's you, TweedleDumb and TweedleDumber.....the three of you live with the eternal fear that the truth will be revealed....and the worldview that forms the center of all you've ever been taught to believe will be shattered.




And I'm here with a sledge hammer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly do not understand what and why of the event, PC.

Your disjointed, out of context quotations mean nothing. Even sane human knows better than to accept anything from a Mises done.

Your OPs are gutted, ripped open, and all you can do is ad hom.

That is fine because that is always a symbol of your defeat.

Your sledge hammer in your mind is a small little sand spoon.

I imagine you also subscribe to Peachey's analysis of psychiatry and radical feminism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You clearly do not understand what and why of the event, PC.

Your disjointed, out of context quotations mean nothing. Even sane human knows better than to accept anything from a Mises done.

Your OPs are gutted, ripped open, and all you can do is ad hom.

That is fine because that is always a symbol of your defeat.

Your sledge hammer in your mind is a small little sand spoon.

I imagine you also subscribe to Peachey's analysis of psychiatry and radical feminism.

I accurately quoted FDR, Cardinal Spellman, and Harry Hopkins.
I've even given you the sources....Gannon's book, and the Hopkins authorized biography, by Sherwood.

You, you ignorant dunce, responded with 'is not, is not.'

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't mean a thing. You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.

There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.

The logistics and units could not have forced it.

Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.

The OP fails. All you can say "is could have, could have." No, PC, in context, no, it could not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Doesn't mean a thing. You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.

There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.

The logistics and units could not have forced it.

Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.

The OP fails. All you can say "is could have, could have." No, PC, in context, no, it could not.

So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....

Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well.



Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression.

He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud.

You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't mean a thing. You have not linked them quotes together as a credible defense of the OP.

There is no way, in the conditions of the time, that the European war could have ended in 1943.

The logistics and units could not have forced it.

Hitler would not have surrendered and would not have given back conquered territories in a truce.

The OP fails. All you can say "is could have, could have." No, PC, in context, no, it could not.

So....essentially, you are trying to deny the truth because of it would prove that everything I've said is correct.....Instead, your feeble efforts identify you as not simply stupid, but a lying sad sack as well. Franklin Roosevelt extended the war, just as he had extended the depression. He was a failure....you, a failure and a fraud. You are as burned as Edgar Winter on an Ecuadorian beach!

You have always fitted your assertions to your philosophy without the evidence to joint them together well.

You keep whining you are right even when you are shown the facts contradict you.

One, the lack of logistic assets and combat units prevented an invasion of the West in 1943.

Two, Hitler had no desire to end the war if he had to give up his conquests.

Those are facts that you can't confront with your silly statements.