Eviscerating 'The Roosevelt Alibi'

[PoliticalChic]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.

It does no such thing.

There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.

While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.

Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.

There was no plan to exterminate the Jews except the ones left needed to be locked up and put in labor camps due to most were soviet communist. and would pose a danger to Germany. Of course many were involved in Partisan groups and did much damage as can be. No gas camps , and no preplanned extermination plan.

Many died do to typhus, starvation, fighting and of course at the hands of some brutal Germans and Soviets, but only a fool would think the German has a plan for mass extermination of the Jews. Are you aware many jews were also criminals and needed to be locked up as well. Jew Communism was alive and well in Poland.

You have a sickness that, I'm afraid, no amount of education will cure.

1. The little town of Amstetten, halfway between Vienna and Linz, on the Ybbs River, which flows into the Danube. In May, 1938, the Amstettner Anzeiger was proud to report that “the town swimming pool and sunbath declares that Jews are banned from entering. Now we only have to get rid of the mosquitoes from our pool for it to become really ideal.” The town had become a Fuhrerstadt! By summer, all 28 of Amstetten’s Jews had been expelled.
2. Amstetten’s location as the main railway hub supplying both Germany and Italy made it a target of Allied bombers. The first bombs fell on November 19, 1944
3. About 25 miles West of Amstetten, on the Danube, was the town of Mauthausen. Prisoners from the concentration camp at Dachau had been sent to build a much larger facility where political prisoners could be held. The state owned Mauthausen expanded, and by 1944, it was grouped with nearby Gusen, as a commercial enterprise.
4. The German mining company DEST, used the prisoners as slave labor, to work in the quarries, or to be hired out to local manufacturers and farmers. The Amstetten railway network came in handy to transport the slaves.
   1. The labor supply was inexhaustible…and when a prisoner’s productivity dropped, they would simply be transported to Mauthausen-Gusen and killed.
5. It was a hugely profitable death camp and the only camp designated Grade III (“incorrigible enemies of the Reich ). The motto was ‘Vernichtung durch Arbeit (“Extermination through Work”)
   1. Far beyond Jews, the camp included communists, socialists, Polish boy scouts, homosexuals, Romanies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, anarchists, Spanish Republicans who had fled Franco.
   2. In 1943, life expectancy in the camps was 6 months; by war’s end it was 3 months.
6. Slave labor was responsible for construction of Austria’s largest steelworks and Steyr munitons, Puch automobiles, and most businesses in Amstetten.
7. It was a place of inconceivable barbarism whose secrecy liberated its masters into horrific inventiveness. In the camp’s gas chambers, quarries, hospitals, isolation units, and crematoria, in its underground brothel, and on its dissecting tables, a creative degeneracy blossomed.
8. The camp was liberated on May 5, 1945 by the 41st Reconnaissance Squad of the US Eleventh Armored Division. They found 85,000 inmates, and estimated the death toll at 320,000. Among the liberated was Simon Wiesenthal.
   Stefanie Marsh and Bohan Pancevski, “I’m No Monster.”

I might suggest you start reading some history books on WWII beside those written by the Jews. NO holocaust, it was a giant money making myth.

To understand you better, perhaps I should thumb through a copy of the DSM-IV manual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, stay on OP and leave off the personal attacks.

You are making a claim about not giving unconditional surrender, similar to an earlier claim of yours about ending the war in 1944. Neither then nor now are you saying how it could be done.

Do a real contextual analysis for once, please.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, stay on OP and leave off the personal attacks.

You are making a claim about not giving unconditional surrender, similar to an earlier claim of yours about ending the war in 1944. Neither then nor now are you saying how it could be done.

Do a real contextual analysis for once, please.

Well.....let's examine that post....

As the OP defined the premise, that Stalin was not at any time, about to surrender to Hitler, thereby obviating the claim that all the things that Roosevelt did for Stalin were due to the necessity of keeping Stalin in the war.....

....your attempt to change the subject must mean that you recognize your abject defeat.

Suddenly you've given up the attempt to hide the thread?

Excellent.
I did so enjoy destroying both the Liberal trope, ....and you.



Now...for your edification.....never attempt to tell me how or what to post.
That would be akin to telling Da Vinci to add a mustache to the Mona Lisa.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This, "As the OP defined the premise, that Stalin was not at any time, about to surrender to Hitler, thereby obviating the claim that all the things that Roosevelt did for Stalin were due to the necessity of keeping Stalin in the war.....", the arguments about unconditional surrender or surrender in 1944 are simply PC silliness.

 

[Camp]

The pattern is one you should be used to. Your crap thesis gets mocked and debunked as political hackery posing as history. Your nonsense gets taken apart piece by piece. Notice you are not challenging your exposed fraudulence but rather reverting to that name calling and disparaging nonsense as deflections. In your last post you claimed Stalin got unlimited supplies. He didn't. He was denied many things. Important things like the best weapons on the battlefield made by and in America.

You moron.....the other imbecile....post #22 is exactly who I quoted as claiming the Roosevelt Alibi!

You and your honey should get your stories straight.

Now you are going into straight out idiot mode. How did you quote post #22 BEFORE IT WAS POSTED???
Your threads always lead away from answering challenges to your conspiracy theories and becoming about you and your personal attacks on those who disagree with you or challenge your concepts. That is because you have weak concepts that only delusional nut jobs believe in.

The pattern is one you should be used to. Your crap thesis gets mocked and debunked as political hackery posing as history. Your nonsense gets taken apart piece by piece. Notice you are not challenging your exposed fraudulence but rather reverting to that name calling and disparaging nonsense as deflections. In your last post you claimed Stalin got unlimited supplies. He didn't. He was denied many things. Important things like the best weapons on the battlefield made by and in America.

"In your last post you claimed Stalin got unlimited supplies. He didn't. He was denied many things. Important things like the best weapons on the battlefield made by and in America."

You lie.



a. "The President has directed that 'airplanes be delivered in accordance with protocol schedules by the most expeditious means.' To implement these directives, the modification, equipment and movement of Russian planes have been given first priority, even over planes for US Army Air Forces."
From the diaries of Maj. George Racey Jordan, supervisory 'expediter' of Soviet Lend-Lease aid, p. 20.

Not a lie, just a better understanding. FDR refused to give Stalin the tier one weapons he requested. Instead he got weapons not being produced for US forces anymore. Stalin got the obsolete or second tier stuff.
What kind of American aircraft was Stalin receiving?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Prove those diaries were the case in general for supplies to the USSR. Major Jordan was recording his understanding of a particular not general incident.

 

[Statistikhengst]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"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."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.

You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Too bad you can't read.

The thread disproved everything you posted, you fool.


And this...

3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit 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!"

No, it did not. Not even slightly.

It doesn't speak to even one of the many points I made.

You are clinically insane.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.

It does no such thing.

There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.

While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.

Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.

There was no plan to exterminate the Jews except the ones left needed to be locked up and put in labor camps due to most were soviet communist. and would pose a danger to Germany. Of course many were involved in Partisan groups and did much damage as can be. No gas camps , and no preplanned extermination plan.

Many died do to typhus, starvation, fighting and of course at the hands of some brutal Germans and Soviets, but only a fool would think the German has a plan for mass extermination of the Jews. Are you aware many jews were also criminals and needed to be locked up as well. Jew Communism was alive and well in Poland.

And you are even more clinically insane than PC, you jew-hating piece of shit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I regularly complain that I don't have stiffer competition....and today is no exception. So...I have to do their job!

Here's an argument they could have made, based on history:


10. The apologists may claim that WWII was WWI redux..." TheTreaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Russia (the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the Central Powers (Germany,Austria-Hungary,Bulgaria, and Turkey), that ended Russia's participation in World War I."
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




But their argument would be based on either ignorance or dishonesty.

Unlike the prior world war, Stalin and the Russians were ready and able....The Germans, less so.


"The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German Blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to have learned useful lessons. They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to encircle them in a major Kesselschlacht. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement, but managed to escape via Dunkirk.)

The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these troops predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa. But – contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy[16] – the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment. It was this “defence in depth” that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety.

As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.


.. when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels



By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.


So.....why did Roosevelt support every desire of Stalin's?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. "Europe suffers, with respect to its American cousin, from the debtor’s complex. It is clearly understood, at least in Western Europe, that without American help in 1917, and especially in 1944, it would have been purely and simply wiped off the map or permanently colonized by Soviet troops."
Pascal Bruckner in his bookThe Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism.



Did you get that?


"...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."


Sound like Russia was about to surrender to Hitler, or be defeated by same?



And "...permanently colonized by Soviet troops..."
was exactly the plan that Stalin's ally, Roosevelt, had in mind:

Evidence can be seen in a document which Roosevelt's live-in Soviet spy, Harry Hopkins took with him to the Quebec conference in August, 1943, entitled "Russia's Position," quoted as follows in Robert Sherwood's book, "Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History,":

"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."


Again: "...no power in Europe to oppose her tremendous military forces."
More proof that no one believed that Stalin would be defeated by Hitler: so much for 'Roosevelt's Alibi.'


Actually....what that means is that, with Germany crushed, communism could not be resisted.

Are you really that stupid? With our help, SU was able to regain it's footing in the war. Had the USA not entered the war in December 1941, Britain would have surely fallen and then Hitler would have only had a 1-front war to fight instead of 2. Even with our entrance into the war, the Axis had dominance well into 1943. Without our entrance into the war, Stalingrad would likely have not been recaptured in 1943, the Germans would have captured all of the ploesti oilfields and way beyond and that would have been that. Defeat for Russia.

You live in a complete fantasy world, full of colorful unicorns.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Too bad you can't read.

The thread disproved everything you posted, you fool.


And this...

3. Hanson Baldwin, military critic of the New York Times, declares in his book, "Great Mistakes of the War:" 'There is no doubt whatsoever thatit 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!"

No, it did not. Not even slightly.

It doesn't speak to even one of the many points I made.

You are clinically insane.

"...clinically insane."

So....being an inmate of the asylum makes you believe (I almost said 'think') that you understand the terminology?

Seriously, weren't you surprised that, after the doctors made the intermastoid incision, and removed your brain- you were still able to post on the board?

 

[Camp]

I regularly complain that I don't have stiffer competition....and today is no exception. So...I have to do their job!

Here's an argument they could have made, based on history:


10. The apologists may claim that WWII was WWI redux..." TheTreaty of Brest-Litovsk was a peace treaty signed on March 3, 1918, between the new Bolshevik government of Russia (the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the Central Powers (Germany,Austria-Hungary,Bulgaria, and Turkey), that ended Russia's participation in World War I."
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




But their argument would be based on either ignorance or dishonesty.

Unlike the prior world war, Stalin and the Russians were ready and able....The Germans, less so.


"The Soviets appeared to have carefully observed and analyzed the German Blitzkrieg successes of 1939 and 1940 and to have learned useful lessons. They must have noticed that in May 1940 the French had massed their forces right at the border as well as in Belgium, thus making it possible for the German war machine to encircle them in a major Kesselschlacht. (British troops were also caught in this encirclement, but managed to escape via Dunkirk.)

The Soviets did leave some troops at the border, of course, and these troops predictably suffered the Soviet Union’s major losses during the opening stages of Barbarossa. But – contrary to what is claimed by historians such as Richard Overy[16] – the bulk of the Red Army was held back in the rear, avoiding entrapment. It was this “defence in depth” that frustrated the German ambition to destroy the Red Army in its entirety.

As Marshal Zhukov was to write in his memoirs, “the Soviet Union would have been smashed if we had organized all our forces at the border.


.. when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....

The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels



By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
He didn't.


So.....why did Roosevelt support every desire of Stalin's?

He didn't FDR denied Stalin first tier weapons from heavy bombers to individual infantry weapons.

 

[rightwinger]

The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"

The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.

PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.

You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.

The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.


Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:

1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .

Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'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 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


2. 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

Three years of American soldiers dying!

3. 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.



Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.

What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?

1. Hitler would not be in power, nor involved in the surrender.
He would be dead, or turned over to the Allies for trial.

2. Germans would be used by the Allies exactly as they were used after the war.
a. They developed our CIA
and
b. our rocket program.

3. You, being pretty much an uneducated dolt, are clueless as to the anti-Nazi resistance.
'Colonel General Ludwig - BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,German Resistance, p. 153).'



Pick up a book once in a while.

1. Hitler was in power. Those who conspired to kill him ended up dead. Even those who slightly disagreed with him ended up dead

2. Predisposed on knocking off Hitler. Your problem remains an entrenched dictator who would allow his country to be burned to the ground rather than surrender

3 Hitler faced "resistance" since the mid twenties. He faced over 30 assassination attempts. He survived to the end. Nothing you propose would change that

Same question.......what in your imaginary situation leaves us in a better situation than FDR led us to......FDR is hard to beat

 

[PoliticalChic]

The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"

The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.

PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.

You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.

The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.


Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:

1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .

Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'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 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


2. 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

Three years of American soldiers dying!

3. 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.



Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.

What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?

1. Hitler would not be in power, nor involved in the surrender.
He would be dead, or turned over to the Allies for trial.

2. Germans would be used by the Allies exactly as they were used after the war.
a. They developed our CIA
and
b. our rocket program.

3. You, being pretty much an uneducated dolt, are clueless as to the anti-Nazi resistance.
'Colonel General Ludwig - BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,German Resistance, p. 153).'



Pick up a book once in a while.

1. Hitler was in power. Those who conspired to kill him ended up dead. Even those who slightly disagreed with him ended up dead

2. Predisposed on knocking off Hitler. Your problem remains an entrenched dictator who would allow his country to be burned to the ground rather than surrender

3 Hitler faced "resistance" since the mid twenties. He faced over 30 assassination attempts. He survived to the end. Nothing you propose would change that

Same question.......what in your imaginary situation leaves us in a better situation than FDR led us to......FDR is hard to beat

I just showed that you are an educated dunce with now knowledge of the anti-Nazi resistance....

Therefore, your post is simply another 'is not, is not' chant of a moron.

 

[Penelope]

Although many of Great Purge victims were ethnic or religious Jews, they were not specifically targeted as an ethnic group during this campaign according to Mikhail Baitalsky

Stalin and antisemitism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

of course Stalin didn't do that because they were jews, but Hitler did. Unreal.

 

[Camp]

The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"

The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.

PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.

You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.

The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.


Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:

1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .

Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'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 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


2. 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

Three years of American soldiers dying!

3. 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.



Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.

What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?

1. Hitler would not be in power, nor involved in the surrender.
He would be dead, or turned over to the Allies for trial.

2. Germans would be used by the Allies exactly as they were used after the war.
a. They developed our CIA
and
b. our rocket program.

3. You, being pretty much an uneducated dolt, are clueless as to the anti-Nazi resistance.
'Colonel General Ludwig - BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,German Resistance, p. 153).'



Pick up a book once in a while.

1. Hitler was in power. Those who conspired to kill him ended up dead. Even those who slightly disagreed with him ended up dead

2. Predisposed on knocking off Hitler. Your problem remains an entrenched dictator who would allow his country to be burned to the ground rather than surrender

3 Hitler faced "resistance" since the mid twenties. He faced over 30 assassination attempts. He survived to the end. Nothing you propose would change that

Same question.......what in your imaginary situation leaves us in a better situation than FDR led us to......FDR is hard to beat

I just showed that you are an educated dunce with now knowledge of the anti-Nazi resistance....

Therefore, your post is simply another 'is not, is not' chant of a moron.

You never answer challenges, but just for the heck of it, what anti resistance in Germany are you aware of that was not communist and supported by the Soviets?

 

[rightwinger]

The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"

The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.

PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.

You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.

The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.


Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:

1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .

Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'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 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


2. 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

Three years of American soldiers dying!

3. 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.



Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.

What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?

1. Hitler would not be in power, nor involved in the surrender.
He would be dead, or turned over to the Allies for trial.

2. Germans would be used by the Allies exactly as they were used after the war.
a. They developed our CIA
and
b. our rocket program.

3. You, being pretty much an uneducated dolt, are clueless as to the anti-Nazi resistance.
'Colonel General Ludwig - BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,German Resistance, p. 153).'



Pick up a book once in a while.

1. Hitler was in power. Those who conspired to kill him ended up dead. Even those who slightly disagreed with him ended up dead

2. Predisposed on knocking off Hitler. Your problem remains an entrenched dictator who would allow his country to be burned to the ground rather than surrender

3 Hitler faced "resistance" since the mid twenties. He faced over 30 assassination attempts. He survived to the end. Nothing you propose would change that

Same question.......what in your imaginary situation leaves us in a better situation than FDR led us to......FDR is hard to beat

I just showed that you are an educated dunce with now knowledge of the anti-Nazi resistance....

Therefore, your post is simply another 'is not, is not' chant of a moron.

You just showed you are running away..

So where are we?

1. You need to define your terms of surrender
2. You need a progression of what happens when Germany attacks USSR and we stay out
3. You need to explain what happens to Western Europe after your Germany-USSR war
4. You need to define an ending situation better than FDR led us to

 

[Penelope]

Once again, reported: please put this in the Conspiracy Forum.

It does not belong in the conspiracy forum. Too bad for everyone this offends, and it blows the Jew holocaust fable right where it belongs, in the garbage.

It does no such thing.

There is no mention, even peripherally, of the Holocaust.

While Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people....Hitler was not far behind.

Only a psychotic would doubt the Holocaust.

There was no plan to exterminate the Jews except the ones left needed to be locked up and put in labor camps due to most were soviet communist. and would pose a danger to Germany. Of course many were involved in Partisan groups and did much damage as can be. No gas camps , and no preplanned extermination plan.

Many died do to typhus, starvation, fighting and of course at the hands of some brutal Germans and Soviets, but only a fool would think the German has a plan for mass extermination of the Jews. Are you aware many jews were also criminals and needed to be locked up as well. Jew Communism was alive and well in Poland.

And you are even more clinically insane than PC, you jew-hating piece of shit.

I can see this thread is very irritating to you, I know how dare us question the events of WWII. Some people have spent time in prison for it, but today we have freedom of speech, in the USA anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The silliest comment of the days is "If Germany's defeat was Roosevelt's ultimate goal, the Allies could have accepted surrender, rather than bowing to Stalin's demand of 'unconditional surrender.'"

The major reason for unconditional surrender is that no German was going to be allowed the "stab in the back" theory after WWI used by the Germans to start WWII. The Allies were determined to grind Germany into the ground, and by the turn of the century Germany had reunified and firmly supports the West against Russia.

PC is off her game today. She is simply being slapped back and forth.

You're a fool....and, and as usual, don't have a clue about what you are posting.

The only reason for "unconditional surrender" policy was that FDR's boss, Joseph Stalin demanded it.


Now watch how...unlike you....I can prove very thing I post:

1. One of the highest anti-Nazi Germans was the chief of Nazi Germany's intelligence division, the Abwehr, Admiral Wm. Canaris.Try as he might, the Allies would not open communications channels with Canaris .

Britain's intelligence chief said this about Canaris:
'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 on the removal of Hitler as a means of shortening the war."
“Gen. Menzies, Ex-British Intelligence Chief, Dies,” New York Times, May 31, 1968.


2. 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

Three years of American soldiers dying!

3. 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.



Time for you to recognize that, just as your name is a metonym for lying and deceit, my is for honesty and knowledge.

What terms of surrender did you want to give Hitler?

1. Hitler would not be in power, nor involved in the surrender.
He would be dead, or turned over to the Allies for trial.

2. Germans would be used by the Allies exactly as they were used after the war.
a. They developed our CIA
and
b. our rocket program.

3. You, being pretty much an uneducated dolt, are clueless as to the anti-Nazi resistance.
'Colonel General Ludwig - BeckBeginning in early 1937,"the first 'cell' of the Resistance Movement" was formed by Ludwig Beck, Army Chief of staff, and Carl Goerdeler, who had just resigned as Mayor of Leipzig as a gesture in defiance of Nazi anti-Semitism (Ritter,Goerdeler's Struggle, pp. 35-3G, 75-79).

As financial adviser to the Robert Bosch firm of Stuttgart, Goerdeler was sent abroad by his employer "on business" between early 1937 and late 1939 to the U.S., Britain, Switzerland, Palestine and a dozen other countries, making contact with persons interested in the overthrow of Hitler's regime (Ibid, pp. 47, 81, 83, 305, 484; and Hoffmann,German Resistance, p. 153).'



Pick up a book once in a while.

1. Hitler was in power. Those who conspired to kill him ended up dead. Even those who slightly disagreed with him ended up dead

2. Predisposed on knocking off Hitler. Your problem remains an entrenched dictator who would allow his country to be burned to the ground rather than surrender

3 Hitler faced "resistance" since the mid twenties. He faced over 30 assassination attempts. He survived to the end. Nothing you propose would change that

Same question.......what in your imaginary situation leaves us in a better situation than FDR led us to......FDR is hard to beat

I just showed that you are an educated dunce with now knowledge of the anti-Nazi resistance....Therefore, your post is simply another 'is not, is not' chant of a moron.

You did nothing of the sort. The resistance failed several times with great losses. You think your "wish" is somehow "fact".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Penelope, you are the anti-semite to the PC extreme reactionary right.

Please. . . both of you . . . actually use sources objectively and critically.

 

[Camp]

Penelope, you are the anti-semite to the PC extreme reactionary right.

Please. . . both of you . . . actually use sources objectively and critically.

Never going to happen. There are no objective and critical sources of support for their conspiracy theories.