Min Wage versus Cost of Living 1970 to 2018

[PoliticalChic]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.


And...



2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher




FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.



Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin 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 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."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.



You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

 

[Silver Blooded]

But that was his problem. If he had just kept his dick focused on our own country, we could have just profited on everyone else's war. We make weapons and ammunition and sell 'em off to everyone else. Everyone else suffers economically from war while the USA benefits off it. Instead FDR fucked with Japan and that knocked us into the war with everyone else.

Modern American History would be an excellent topic for you to take up.

How World War II Began in the Pacific

What was your point by posting this link?

-----
Moving Towards War with the US
The American oil embargo caused a crisis in Japan. Reliant on the US for 80% of its oil, the Japanese were forced to decide between withdrawing from China, negotiating an end to the conflict, or going to war to obtain the needed resources elsewhere.
-----

And which of the three options did they decide to do? GO TO WAR! Instead, we should have just kept supplying the oil and making money until they became self-sufficient. If FDR had just let them do their thing, we would have made a powerful ally up until their empire collapses. They'd have plenty of revolts which would require more trade. We would have been enjoying the prosperity of peace and production. Instead, he set up and embargo on oil and sucked us into WWII.

I posted the reasons and why we could not walk away from the atrocities being committed by Japan. You're simply the Troll stirring the pot.

Oh, I see. You're calling me a troll because I don't think the USA should be the world police. You and the OP must have supported the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and the gulf war, and all the other wars where the USA decided to stick its dick in the middle of other country's conflicts.

 

[Third Party]

Here is what Inflation looks like when the Rich takes advantage of the Averate and below income levels Cost of Living.

milk at the dairy
1970 1.32
2018 2.90
Milk has not kept up with inflation. Even before the unfair Canadian trade Practice, Protectionism, etc. and Tariffs on US Milk, there was the introduction of the Milk Alterntives made from Grains and such. Unlike other Farming, Dairy Farmers can't rotate their products. They either operate at a loss, make money or get out of business. Trump has promised that due to the Tariffs that the Dairy Farmers will receive relief but the Diary Farmers don't want it. They claim that it will mostly go to larger Corporate Dairy Farms that are already Profitable even with all the negatives because they control most of the market. The smaller Diary Farmers will only be buying time until they go out of business. What they want is an even playing field. Nothing else will keep them in business. Next year look for Diary Farm Foreclosure Auctions to happen at an alarming rate even with the relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaf of Bread
1970 25 cents
2018 2.38
The US is the Worlds #1 Wheat and Grain producer in the World. We have Silos with it sitting rotting away. That's over a 952% increase in cost. Well behind the wage increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wage
1970 9,400
2018 44,321
That's over a 400% increase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Lb of Hamburger
1970 70 cents
2018 4.68
Hamburger, like other cuts of meat, is over 660% higher today than in 1970. It has lost ground to wages. Overall, with the exception to milk, food has lost between 200 and 1000% to average wages. And that is considering Average Wage, not minimum wage. Minimum Wage is much, much worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new Home
1970 23,450
2018 325,500
So you want to buy a home? Good luck on the average wage with a family of 4. You really want me to do the percent comparison on this one? There is a reason that the younger people are, for the most part, electing to rent rather than buy. For the most part, the younger people make less than the average wage and after the other costs of living, can't afford the payments, insurance and taxes on a new house or even an older house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some People are getting bloody rich on these deals. And it's not the average or below average consumer. Certainly not the min wage or even the average wage earner.

Over half of the Uber Rich supports the increasing of the Min Wage. They give the reason that it gives the poor (min wage) more portable income. There fore more money to spend on their products and services. But that's not all. It also means that the Rich can and will raise those services and products to take away any and all the gains that min wage gave to the worker while expecing the new min wage worker to do more purchasing of their goods and products. It's a very lucrative, short termed program. But in the end, the workers all lose ground exactly as I showed above. But the Rich just got richer.

I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. At the same time, we need a Consumer Group that has the power to drag these unscrupulous theives into civil courts and get them fined for unfair trade practice.

I made less than that in 1970. The key is not what you make but how you spend it. Tear up your credit cards and you'll have the house and the whole loaf of bread.

 

[Silver Blooded]

Here is what Inflation looks like when the Rich takes advantage of the Averate and below income levels Cost of Living.

milk at the dairy
1970 1.32
2018 2.90
Milk has not kept up with inflation. Even before the unfair Canadian trade Practice, Protectionism, etc. and Tariffs on US Milk, there was the introduction of the Milk Alterntives made from Grains and such. Unlike other Farming, Dairy Farmers can't rotate their products. They either operate at a loss, make money or get out of business. Trump has promised that due to the Tariffs that the Dairy Farmers will receive relief but the Diary Farmers don't want it. They claim that it will mostly go to larger Corporate Dairy Farms that are already Profitable even with all the negatives because they control most of the market. The smaller Diary Farmers will only be buying time until they go out of business. What they want is an even playing field. Nothing else will keep them in business. Next year look for Diary Farm Foreclosure Auctions to happen at an alarming rate even with the relief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loaf of Bread
1970 25 cents
2018 2.38
The US is the Worlds #1 Wheat and Grain producer in the World. We have Silos with it sitting rotting away. That's over a 952% increase in cost. Well behind the wage increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Wage
1970 9,400
2018 44,321
That's over a 400% increase.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost per Lb of Hamburger
1970 70 cents
2018 4.68
Hamburger, like other cuts of meat, is over 660% higher today than in 1970. It has lost ground to wages. Overall, with the exception to milk, food has lost between 200 and 1000% to average wages. And that is considering Average Wage, not minimum wage. Minimum Wage is much, much worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of a new Home
1970 23,450
2018 325,500
So you want to buy a home? Good luck on the average wage with a family of 4. You really want me to do the percent comparison on this one? There is a reason that the younger people are, for the most part, electing to rent rather than buy. For the most part, the younger people make less than the average wage and after the other costs of living, can't afford the payments, insurance and taxes on a new house or even an older house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some People are getting bloody rich on these deals. And it's not the average or below average consumer. Certainly not the min wage or even the average wage earner.

Over half of the Uber Rich supports the increasing of the Min Wage. They give the reason that it gives the poor (min wage) more portable income. There fore more money to spend on their products and services. But that's not all. It also means that the Rich can and will raise those services and products to take away any and all the gains that min wage gave to the worker while expecing the new min wage worker to do more purchasing of their goods and products. It's a very lucrative, short termed program. But in the end, the workers all lose ground exactly as I showed above. But the Rich just got richer.

I am against Min Wage for this reason. We don't need a Min Wage. We need a Living Wage. At the same time, we need a Consumer Group that has the power to drag these unscrupulous theives into civil courts and get them fined for unfair trade practice.

I made less than that in 1970. The key is not what you make but how you spend it. Tear up your credit cards and you'll have the house and the whole loaf of bread.

That is ridiculous! Are you suggesting that it's possible for an American citizen to live and breathe without a television and Netflix subscription? Are you seriously suggesting that people should buy food instead of a gold chain!? That they should SAVE MONEY?! Impossible!

 

[Markle]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

Not going to educate you, that was your 8th grade history teachers job.

.

In other words, you have nothing. Got it!

My 8th-grade history teacher never taught us the FDR was President for 50 years nor was it mentioned that FDR had anything to do with Adolph Hitler marching through Europe.

Go for it, I'm curious to see how that happened. Since you were so quick with it, you must have a legitimate site and working link to share.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

Not going to educate you, that was your 8th grade history teachers job.

.

In other words, you have nothing. My 8th-grade history teacher never taught us the FDR was President for 50 years nor was it mentioned that FDR had anything to do with Adolph Hitler marching through Europe.

Go for it, I'm curious to see how that happened. Since you were so quick with it, you must have a legitimate site and working link to share.

Seriously now you posting retarded..


And it's been like 30 minutes you couldn't at least Google the


YALTA conference



God read a damn history book, Will ya.

.

 

[Markle]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.

And...

2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.

Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'

BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."

a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher

FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

I must have missed the reliable source and link. My bad. would you post it again?

Who knew PM Winston Churchill and General Eisenhower were getting their orders from Joseph Stalin. Who knew?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Joseph Stalin more involved with the Eastern Front?

As you know, Joseph Stalin, (who you claim was running the war for FDR, forget Winston Churchill) was demanding that the US, and the allies, open up a second front in Europe in August of 1942. When did the US enter the war in Europe?

You're embarrassing yourself. You left out the fifty years where FDR was giving away Europe. Where are your reliable sources and working link supporting your allegation?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.

And...

2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.

Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'

BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."

a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher

FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

I must have missed the reliable source and link. My bad. would you post it again?

Who knew PM Winston Churchill and General Eisenhower were getting their orders from Joseph Stalin. Who knew?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Joseph Stalin more involved with the Eastern Front?

As you know, Joseph Stalin, (who you claim was running the war for FDR, forget Winston Churchill) was demanding that the US, and the allies, open up a second front in Europe in August of 1942. When did the US enter the war in Europe?

You're embarrassing yourself. You left out the fifty years where FDR was giving away Europe. Where are your reliable sources and working link supporting your allegation?

Seriously you stupid fuck you still didn't Google



YALTA conference?




.

 

[Markle]

Seriously now you posting retarded..

And it's been like 30 minutes you couldn't at least Google the

YALTA conference

God read a damn history book, Will ya.

That has what to do with your mistaken allegations?

The Yalta Conference, also known as the Crimea Conference and code-named the Argonaut Conference, held from February 4th to the 11th 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union for the purpose of discussing Germany and Europe's postwar reorganization. The three states were represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively. The conference convened near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union, within the Livadia, Yusupov, and Vorontsov Palaces.

When did Germany surrender?

When did FDR die?

 

[Wyatt earp]

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.

And...

2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.

Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'

BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."

a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher

FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

I must have missed the reliable source and link. My bad. would you post it again?

Who knew PM Winston Churchill and General Eisenhower were getting their orders from Joseph Stalin. Who knew?

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Joseph Stalin more involved with the Eastern Front?

As you know, Joseph Stalin, (who you claim was running the war for FDR, forget Winston Churchill) was demanding that the US, and the allies, open up a second front in Europe in August of 1942. When did the US enter the war in Europe?

You're embarrassing yourself. You left out the fifty years where FDR was giving away Europe. Where are your reliable sources and working link supporting your allegation?

Seriously you stupid fuck you still didn't Google



YALTA conference?




.

God damn your really making an ass out of yourself now, Why?

Once again FDR gave away half of Europe to the commies for almost 50 years.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously now you posting retarded..

And it's been like 30 minutes you couldn't at least Google the

YALTA conference

God read a damn history book, Will ya.

That has what to do with your mistaken allegations?

The Yalta Conference, also known as the Crimea Conference and code-named the Argonaut Conference, held from February 4th to the 11th 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union for the purpose of discussing Germany and Europe's postwar reorganization. The three states were represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively. The conference convened near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union, within the Livadia, Yusupov, and Vorontsov Palaces.

When did Germany surrender?

About time you read about it.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Seriously now you posting retarded..

And it's been like 30 minutes you couldn't at least Google the

YALTA conference

God read a damn history book, Will ya.

That has what to do with your mistaken allegations?

The Yalta Conference, also known as the Crimea Conference and code-named the Argonaut Conference, held from February 4th to the 11th 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union for the purpose of discussing Germany and Europe's postwar reorganization. The three states were represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively. The conference convened near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union, within the Livadia, Yusupov, and Vorontsov Palaces.

When did Germany surrender?

Roosevelt’s Failure at Yalta

Roosevelt’s Failure at Yalta
by Arnold Beichman
Saturday, October 30, 2004

Since the end of the Cold War there has been considerable reviewing of President Roosevelt’s policies toward the Soviet Union. Most notable has been the essay of Professor Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who has argued that the 1989 counter-revolution in Central Europe vindicates President Roosevelt’s wartime diplomacy, which, he says, had been criticized for its “naiveté” about Stalin.

However, I argue that, from the time he took office in 1933, FDR ignored informed assessments from within the State Department of the nature of Soviet diplomacy and that, consequently, the peoples of Central Europe for some four decades paid the price. As sources for my rebuttal of Schlesinger, I cite the writings and memoirs of American diplomats Charles Bohlen, Averell Harriman, Loy Henderson, and George Kennan, participant-observers in the development of Soviet-American diplomacy between 1933 and 1945. I begin with a discussion of Professor Schlesinger’s article, as he is the most authoritative of FDR’s defenders.

 

[Markle]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin 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 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."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin 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 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."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin 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 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."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?


.

Don't tell us you're only 30 something and ignorant with history and didn't live through the 1970s and 1980s


.

 

[Markle]

Oh, I see. You're calling me a troll because I don't think the USA should be the world police. You and the OP must have supported the Korean war, and the Vietnam war, and the gulf war, and all the other wars where the USA decided to stick its dick in the middle of other country's conflicts.

The United States was not yet the world power it is today when we were dragged into the War.

We were talking about Japan and nothing about us being the world police, at that time.

Since you do not believe it should be the job of the United States to be the "world police". Specifically, who do you want to fill the vacuum? When failed former President Barack Hussein Obama, against the advice of his generals, pulled all our troops out of Iraq, who filled the void and how did that work out?

 

[Markle]

A great war president? LMFAO he gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years.

FDR gave away half of Europe for almost 50 years? How did that work and when did he do it?

He did exactly that.

Evidence that the Roosevelt administration had every intention of handing over Europe to Stalin 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 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."

BTW....that is the reason that Stalin/Harry Hopkins had no intention of allowing Germany to surrender while they still had industrial/military capacity.

You do know that Harry Hopkins was Stalin's spy living in Roosevelt's White House, don't you?

And you have such fine reliable sources and links. You're fun.

Fun with what, common knowledge?

.

Wow, since it is common knowledge, you must have reliable sources and working links proving your point by the hundreds. And yet...you have nothing.

 

[Markle]

Don't tell us you're only 30 something and ignorant with history and didn't live through the 1970s and 1980s

I was in Vietnam.

After not hearing from my Ol' Man for three months, and having all her letters returned as undeliverable my Mom received the postcard below.

One of many returned.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Obviously you can't find any of the ten or eleven depredations of Roosevelt listed......he was a terrible President for America.....

And this:

Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"

Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 and Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

....so what is your point?????

In my opinion, FDR was a great war president and a terrible domestic/economic president. At the time, I believe being a great war president was far more important.

Actually, M, in another thread, and with more time, I believe I can convince you otherwise.

Go for it PoliticalChic. Keep in mind, I deal only in facts, not feelings. So...HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST SHOT!

I could construct a multi-post, multi-faceted thread on this one topic alone....I have before.....but just a tiny taste today:

Roosevelt turned over the running of the war, and the use of our forces to his BFF, Joseph Stalin.

This can be clearly seen in many ways....but I'll give you just two today

1. Even thought we had conquered Italy, and even Eisenhower said it would be best to head north to Germany, FDR bowed to Stalin's wishes that Eastern Europe be left to his tender mercies and the Red Army, he did what Stalin wanted and made western Europe....Normandy.....the Allied attack point.
Franklin Roosevelt was in thrall of the far more brilliant, Joseph Stalin. The aims of the Roosevelt administration included turning over at least half of the continent of Europe to Stalin's tender mercies at the war's end.

Pivotal to this endeavor was the insistence that the Allied attack on Fortress Europa be via Normandy, the northwestern edge of the continent, and not the more logical southern vantage, Italy.

a. In Kerry-like terms, General Eisenhower 'was for the Italy invasion before he voted against it.' Of course, the received an extra star for changing his view.


And...



2. Rather than accept the attempted contacts of Abwehr Admiral Canaris and others, to overthrow Hitler and gain a surrender, FDR acceded to Stalin's demands for nothing less than unconditional surrender, and the destruction of Germany's ability to stand in Stalin's way after the war.
To get an idea of the cost of the extended war...."....over one hundred thirty-five thousand American GIs died – a startling figure today – between D day[june 6, 1944] and V-E day,[May 8, 1945]...."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence

Get that?

135,000 brave American boys whose lives were offered up as a gift to Stalin....to make certain that communism survived.


Based on the ratio of deaths to wounded, that would suggest almost an additional 200,000 wounded, just between Normandy and Germany's surrender.

Totally attributed to 'unconditional surrender.'



BTW.....the same view comes from the German side. "All to whom I talked dwelt onthe effect of 'unconditional surrender' policy on the prolonging of the war. They told me that, but for this- and their troops, the factor that was more important- would have been to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."
"The German Generals Talk," byBasil H. Liddell Hart, p. 292-293

"....to surrender sooner, separately or collectively."


a. The disastrous consequences of the unconditional surrender policy soon became evident. Captain Harry Butcher, Eisenhower's naval aide, noted in his diary on April 14, 1944: "Any military person knows that there are conditions to every surrender. . . . Goebbels has made great capital with it to strengthen the morale of the German army and people. Our psychological experts believe we would be wiser if we created a mood of acceptance of surrender in the German army which would make possible a collapse of resistance. . . ."
"My Three Years With Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower...," byHarry C. Butcher




FDR did for the war what he did for the Depression......made it years longer than it could have been.

Have you ever been to the Mountains in between France and Italy? BTW, it was AFTER D-Day that that section of Italy was finally taken. Hannibal did it but at a huge cost to man and beast. My Father was in on the southern France invasion. They used much of the Italian Invasion Forces. The problem was, it had to be delayed. There were only so many Higgins Boats to be had and almost all of them went to Normandy. Even with D-Day being successful, the Southern invasion was no cakewalk. I can't imagine, without D-Day, the southern invasion being successful. But the threat of Callay and the Southern Invasion did draw off German Military Power from the Normandy Coastal defense. But Omaha Beach and one or two others were defended but it was the terrain that worked to the Germans advantage. But to not attack there would have given the Germans the chance to send all their forces to the easier landing spots. All that was taken into consideration by people a damned sight smarter than you are.

You want to rewrite history? Write a book. But start it with "Once Up a Time".