Why Did Roosevelt Extend WWII By 2 Years??

[JoeB131]

[

Of course Bush was a fool, a liar, and incompetent. Just like the doofus in the WH now, but you refuse to see Big Ears is very much like W.

The power elite of both parties seek the same goals and those goals are harmful to the American people. Both are liars, cheats, and criminals. You can see this in the R party, but refuse to see it in the D party. That makes you a partisan fool.

No, guy, I just don't worry about it.

I would LOVE to have my life back that I had when Bill Clinton was President.

I wouldn't care how many Branch Davidians he burned alive or how many blow jobs he was getting in the White House. My life was substantially better when he was in the White House. But I used to be one of you wingnuts who got upset about those things.

Bush managed to get us into wars he fought badly. (Seriously, how much of a fuckup do you have to be to screw up wars against two impoverished countries?) He crashed the stock market twice, got us into two recessions, let a major city get flooded, and at the end of it, i was left with an underwater mortgage and a busted 401K and a 20% reduction in salary.

My view on Obama is that he's trying his best, but you have a GOP which would rather bankrupt the country than let this guy win. That's all manner of fucked up.

But go play with your toys in the Libertarian Romper Room and let the grown-ups talk.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

McCarthy had a chance to end the war in 1943. But didn't.

I think our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic is making a reference of sorts to how much better things turned out when we didn't go for an unconditional surrender of North Korea 60 years ago.

 

[Camp]

bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.

And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.

Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....

so says a fool.

But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.

The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times. Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.

You can't fix stupid.

People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.

bullshit!

You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence. You believe it to be revisionist history. So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.

Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC's two sources: one is old and so far out of date that is not acceptable in any professional sense, and the other is a conspiracy work taken apart by the right and left.

 

[gipper]

bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.

And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.

Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....

so says a fool.

But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.

The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times. Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.

You can't fix stupid.

People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.

bullshit!

You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence. You believe it to be revisionist history. So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.

Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.

So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.

Do you come to this forum NEW every day?

 

[Camp]

bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.

And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.

Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....

so says a fool.

But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.

The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times. Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.

You can't fix stupid.

People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.

bullshit!

You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence. You believe it to be revisionist history. So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.

Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.

So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.

Do you come to this forum NEW every day?

I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.

 

[Unkotare]

J routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.

You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.

 

[Camp]

I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.

You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.

Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?

 

[Unkotare]

I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.

You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.

Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?

As I said, you have NEVER done so. You playing internet teenager shouting "Aw man, pwnd! Yeeeeaaaah boooiiiiy...I winses!" does not constitute a "debunking."

 

[Camp]

I routinely debunk PC's anti FDR WWII threads and have shown many links debunking the few sources that she uses on all her threads. Show me one where I haven't and I'll be glad to do that one also.

You have NEVER done so to the satisfaction of anyone but yourself and other (false)idol-worshipers.

Sure I have. Which one do you claim I haven't?

As I said, you have NEVER done so. You playing internet teenager shouting "Aw man, pwnd! Yeeeeaaaah boooiiiiy...I winses!" does not constitute a "debunking."

So, translated from bull crap language, that means, no I can't find an anti FDR WWII thread that you didn't debunk and I am afraid to mention one because I know you will show me exactly how you debunked it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unkotare does not like FDR, Camp, because of the interment camps (Unko likes using the term 'concentration camps') and goes all bonkers if you question him on it.

 

[regent]

bigderp and PC often post material that blows up their OPs.

And at that point someone like Gipper will arrive to hijack and kill the thread by changing the subject and try to turn it into a generic topic that draws attention away from a ridiculous conspiracy theory thread about FDR being a communist dupe of Stalin.

Yeah...you know...I mean really like ah...like ah....there is NO evidence supporting FDR being a dupe for Stalin....

so says a fool.

But you guys that believe that are never able to really back it up. You use old worn out debunked McCarthy era resources over and over. And over and over you end up having to simply change the subject and make a retreat because your allegations and accusations don't hold up. I see no challenges to the post I made that contained an overwhelming amount of resource to prove one of the basic charges made was nothing more than misinformation that is now at the level of disinformation. So where is this actual evidence you speak of. All we ever see are negative comments or as I stated, worn out debunked misinformation. There is plenty of critical work about FDR out there, but you guys are looking for more than just his mistakes or failures. You insist on this ridiculous communist dupe for Stalin, Harry Hopkins spy stuff.
So seriously, where is the evidence that can be viewed in something close to a scholastic or academic way that supports the claim that FDR prolonged the WWII by two years?
The main evidence for FDR being a tool of Stalin has been the nonsense about his top aide being a communist spy. So I provided evidence he wasn't. Prove my evidence faulty or invalid.

The evidence that FDR was Stalin's stooge has been presented to you numerous times. Yet, you still cling to your ignorant beliefs.

You can't fix stupid.

People saying stuff they can't back up with documents and scholarly research is not the same as evidence. Basically you are admitting you don't really have any evidence you can post because you know it will be knocked down and mocked as partisan crap as fast as you put it up.

bullshit!

You refuse to accept the documented scholarly evidence. You believe it to be revisionist history. So no amount of evidence will sway you...and that is ignorance.

Really? The OP uses two sources. One is a book by a ultra conservative political commentator that has been challenged by historians and scholars on the right and left. It is considered a conspiracy theory work that uses long ago debunked sources. The other source is an obsolete work written in 1950 long before declassified files and records were released by the US or the USSR. So the sources used for the OP in this thread are old sources that would never be accepted as legitimate sources at any college or university or by any scholar of note. Now go ahead and show how my evaluation is wrong. Defend West and Sherman as legitimate sources.

So... this thread is the only thread you have ever seen on FDR's betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the other threads, which have documented his betrayal. You are completely unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal.

Do you come to this forum NEW every day?

I keep asking you people to get your data before those historians that rate the presidents. For some reason, they seem to be unaware of all the research and documented evidence written about FDR's betrayal. Those historians and presidential experts since 1948 have been rating FDR as one of the top three best and recently as America's best president. If you have evidence to the contrary it is your job to get your material to them. How can historians know about presidents and history unless posters keep them informed? And for gosh sake let us know how grateful the historians were for the data.

 

[JoeB131]

McCarthy had a chance to end the war in 1943. But didn't.

I think our Korean immigrant poster PoliticalChic is making a reference of sorts to how much better things turned out when we didn't go for an unconditional surrender of North Korea 60 years ago.

Is she Korean? I thought she was Filipina.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She is an African America orphan of an Okinawan woman.

 

[Friends]

FDR was a black period in American history.

His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.

His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.

Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR was a black period in American history.

His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.

His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.

Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.

WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.

FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years! Who did that help? Can't you count?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.

Tis what it is, bro.

Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear

 

[regent]

FDR was a black period in American history.

His economy was a failed experiment in Central planning and gave us an economy worse than the Seven Biblical Lean Years.

His War Planning was an unmitigated disaster. It was so awful that Patton called the end of WWII a huge strategic failure for the USA and Brits, leaving "2 of the 3 greatest European capitals in the hands of the decedents of Genghis Khan" Eastern Europe slaved under the yoke of Soviet Communism for generation and our Stupid American Progressives view the liberation of Eastern Europe as a failure.

Roosevelt ended the Great Depression, and contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. Life for most Americans began to improve almost as soon as he was inaugurated. That is why he was reelected three times, and why reactionaries in the Republican Party have never been able to repeal the reforms of the New Deal.

WWII ended the FDR Depression, you have to be totally brainwashed to believe anything else. FDR's Depression only lifted when Hitler conquered France and we started gearing up for war.

FDR had the worst 2 terms in American history, he averaged 20% unemployment for almost 8 whole years! Who did that help? Can't you count?

How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?

 

[Camp]

The evidence is poor scholarship, badly documented, and not accepted narrative except by stooges of the far right.

Tis what it is, bro.

Got nothing, as usual; so you go to the Alinsky #5: Ridicule with a side of schmear

Really? Which of PC's sources in this thread do you claim would be allowed to be used to write a college thesis or even a article in a historical journal? Which one do you stand behind and why?

 

[Toronado3800]

How did America gearing up for war end the Great Depression?

The GD was pretty scary. Frank is supporting the Ronald Reagan theory of deficit spending to pump your economy. Like myself he probably remembers that era. Charge tomorrow for today's prosperity. Not a crazy idea. Ppl with college loans or credit cards practice it

In the case of WWII it sure did help. Our competition in Europe and Asia was destroyed and boy did we lean how to ship things across the world. Couple that with cheap labor overseas and the Marshall plan and our standard of living sure did rise.

The GD arose out of a similar circumstance. WWI was not WWII but did not help. We experienced a similar era of prosperity but folks got out of control.

FDR went back to America's roots to dig us out. No longer could big government give away alternating parcals of land across the continent to get things done, or just give land away to those who found the cities of the industrial revolution distasteful and dirty. SO he created programs for everything and deficit spent just like Reagan. Well, FDR got power plants and stuff made which powered the sunbelt explosion (with a big nod to a/c).

Oh well. In general I love the New Deal. It was a scary time of socialist revolutions and seemingly failed capitalism, and we avoided one.