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

[Syriusly]

Today's lesson in 'what if' history is how the absence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have changed world history.....for the better..'

Another of your obsessive attacks on FDR.

You really despise FDR for leading America to victory in World War 2 and for bringing Social Security, band depositers insurarnce and the GI Bill to Americans.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR made us a modern democracy and an economic and military superpower

Greatest modern president

Worst scumbag to ever soil the office.

 

[Picaro]

I thought the commies were leftists

Now you have both sides of the political spectrum being left?

Not that PC knows anything, but the wingnuts on either wing start to look and sound alike when it comes to certain policies, just as a function of their cognitive dissonance and why they become for most people distinctions without a difference in real life actions. Both Goebbels and Himmler were 'left wingers' in the Nazi Party 'rainbow', for instance.

National Bolshevism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influences and origins
"National Bolshevism" as a term was first used to describe a current in the German Communist Party and then the German Communist Workers Party (KAPD) which wanted to ally the insurgent communist movement with dissident nationalist groups in the german army who rejected the Treaty of versailles.[4] They were led by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim, based in Hamburg. Their expuslion from the KAPD was one of the conditions that Karl Radek explained was necessary if the KAPD was to be welcomed to the Third Congress of the Third International. However the demand that they withdraw from the KAPD would probably have happened anyway. Karl Radek subsequently courted some of the right-wing nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in a revival of National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[1] Some nationalist writers such as Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Jünger were prepared to tolerate the spread of communism as long as it took on the clothes of nationalism and abandoned its internationalist mission.[5] This tendency, although minor, continued into the 1930s when it became associated with the National Socialist Combat Movement, a dissident breakaway movement from the Nazi Party which espoused left-wing economics and which was led by Hermann Ehrhardt, Otto Strasser and Walther Stennes.[6]

Even today both left wingnuts and right wingnuts are virulently antisemitic, among other 'policies' they agree on; they just use different rhetoric while cheering for the same results.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Today's lesson in 'what if' history is how the absence of Franklin Delano Roosevelt would have changed world history.....for the better..'

Another of your obsessive attacks on FDR.

You really despise FDR for leading America to victory in World War 2 and for bringing Social Security, band depositers insurarnce and the GI Bill to Americans.

I only tell the truth.....
...as you prove by being unable to find a single flaw in the posts.



...why does the truth enrage you so 'obsessively'?

The answer, of course, is that those of you who have lapped up every iota of propaganda.......never questioning any of it.......are ashamed that you have been so mislead.

That's more of the truth, isn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I thought the commies were leftists

Now you have both sides of the political spectrum being left?

Not that PC knows anything, but the wingnuts on either wing start to look and sound alike when it comes to certain policies, just as a function of their cognitive dissonance and why they become for most people distinctions without a difference in real life actions. Both Goebbels and Himmler were 'left wingers' in the Nazi Party 'rainbow', for instance.

National Bolshevism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Influences and origins
"National Bolshevism" as a term was first used to describe a current in the German Communist Party and then the German Communist Workers Party (KAPD) which wanted to ally the insurgent communist movement with dissident nationalist groups in the german army who rejected the Treaty of versailles.[4] They were led by Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim, based in Hamburg. Their expuslion from the KAPD was one of the conditions that Karl Radek explained was necessary if the KAPD was to be welcomed to the Third Congress of the Third International. However the demand that they withdraw from the KAPD would probably have happened anyway. Karl Radek subsequently courted some of the right-wing nationalists he had met in prison to unite with the Bolsheviks in the name of National Bolshevism. He saw in a revival of National Bolshevism a way to "remove the capitalist isolation" of the Soviet Union.[1] Some nationalist writers such as Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Jünger were prepared to tolerate the spread of communism as long as it took on the clothes of nationalism and abandoned its internationalist mission.[5] This tendency, although minor, continued into the 1930s when it became associated with the National Socialist Combat Movement, a dissident breakaway movement from the Nazi Party which espoused left-wing economics and which was led by Hermann Ehrhardt, Otto Strasser and Walther Stennes.[6]

Even today both left wingnuts and right wingnuts are virulently antisemitic, among other 'policies' they agree on; they just use different rhetoric while cheering for the same results.

"Even today both left wingnuts and right wingnuts are virulently antisemitic,..."

Really?

1. "Samantha Power is the “mind” behind President Obama’s policy of Responsibility to Protect which drove him to the “kinetic military action” [war] in Libya. As her influence continues to grow, the Obama administration which has already backed off from the US/Israel friendship, might very well accelerate its move away from the only democracy in the Middle East. I shudder to think what she may convince the president to do should he win a second term and will no longer need to worry about what Ms. Power calls alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import [the Jews].
As Power’s influence grows, the Obama administration, already not a great “friend of Israel” is bound to move even further toward an anti-Israel stance because Power is Anti-Israel and believes that it is the “Jewish lobby” who controls American foreign policy.
SAMANTHA POWER OBAMA’S RISING ANTI-ISRAEL STAR | RUTHFULLY YOURS


2."Poll: Anti-Semitic Attitudes Higher Among Democrats"
Poll: Anti-Semitic Attitudes Higher Among Democrats |

 

[PoliticalChic]

Germany recognized the USSR before the US as did a number of other countries before 1925. Finally the US in 1933 recognized the USSR.

Hitler and Stalin were allies.
Stalin, FDR's BFF, supplied the resources for the German military.

1. There can be no argument aboutFDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities.He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.

a. "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.



2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.

 

[regent]

Germany recognized the USSR before the US as did a number of other countries before 1925. Finally the US in 1933 recognized the USSR.

Hitler and Stalin were allies.
Stalin, FDR's BFF, supplied the resources for the German military.

1. There can be no argument aboutFDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities.He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.

a. "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.



2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.

I suspect many Republican presidents, after FDR, put forth programs to withdraw the USA's recognition of the USSR. Which Republican president came closest to withdrawing FDR's recognition of the USSR?

 

[Picaro]

"Even today both left wingnuts and right wingnuts are virulently antisemitic,..."

Really?

Yes, really, and your cite following merely confirms what I said, but I'm certain you're not even aware it does, right? Right

 

[PoliticalChic]

Germany recognized the USSR before the US as did a number of other countries before 1925. Finally the US in 1933 recognized the USSR.

Hitler and Stalin were allies.
Stalin, FDR's BFF, supplied the resources for the German military.

1. There can be no argument aboutFDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities.He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.

a. "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.



2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.

I suspect many Republican presidents, after FDR, put forth programs to withdraw the USA's recognition of the USSR. Which Republican president came closest to withdrawing FDR's recognition of the USSR?

"...many Republican presidents, after FDR, put forth programs to withdraw the USA's recognition of the USSR. Which Republican president came closest to withdrawing FDR's recognition of the USSR?"

Only one was needed.
Ronaldus Maximus.

And he did it without firing a shot.

'On December 25, 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle flag lowered for the last time over the Kremlin, thereafter replaced by the Russian tricolor. Earlier in the day, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his post as president of the Soviet Union, leaving Boris Yeltsin as president of the newly independent Russian state.'
The Collapse of the Soviet Union - Milestones in the History of U.S. ...
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989.../collapse-soviet-union
Office of the Historian




I can see that you require further re-education, and as soon as I have the time I will provide further evidence of the huge......HUGE!!!....mistake that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was for this nation and for the world.


And, as is the case with all of my posts....you will find it undeniable,irrefutable, error free and educational.

In the mean time....you'd best strengthen your shields against truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Even today both left wingnuts and right wingnuts are virulently antisemitic,..."

Really?

Yes, really, and your cite following merely confirms what I said, but I'm certain you're not even aware it does, right? Right

I see that your strong suit is ignoring the truth.

 

[Camp]

And, as is the case with all of my posts....you will find it undeniable,irrefutable, error free and educational.

Your posts have been refuted and shown to be full of errors and not educational at all unless you consider misinformations educational, which apparently you do.
This thread is peppered with refutes and errors that have been pointed out. You have been challenged repeatedly to respond to the refutes and errors by multiple posters and refused to answer. That makes your last post a lie. Your method of evasion by claiming you are always right is a lie unless you answer your refutes and errors.
You claim to be college educated. It that were true you would know the fundamental fact that subjective data can not be interpreted as fact. What you write in these threads are subjective opinions and speculations. To declare them as objective facts is dishonest and equal to a lie when you demand they are facts. They are your subjective opinions, not historically accepted facts.

 

[Camp]

Germany recognized the USSR before the US as did a number of other countries before 1925. Finally the US in 1933 recognized the USSR.

Hitler and Stalin were allies.
Stalin, FDR's BFF, supplied the resources for the German military.

1. There can be no argument aboutFDR's pro-dictatorship proclivities.He raced to embrace Stalin's Bolsheviks when no previous President nor Sec'y of State would deign to do so.

a. "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

Seems to be the sort of thing Liberal/Progressive/Democrats do....e.g., Barack Obama's actions vis-a-vis the Castro brothers.



2. Let's end any excuse that America needed Communist Russia, possibly as an ally against Hitler: Roosevelt was pals with Hitler....and, he embraced the USSR in 1933, with no WWII on the horizon.

I suspect many Republican presidents, after FDR, put forth programs to withdraw the USA's recognition of the USSR. Which Republican president came closest to withdrawing FDR's recognition of the USSR?

"...many Republican presidents, after FDR, put forth programs to withdraw the USA's recognition of the USSR. Which Republican president came closest to withdrawing FDR's recognition of the USSR?"

Only one was needed.
Ronaldus Maximus.

And he did it without firing a shot.

'On December 25, 1991, the Soviet hammer and sickle flag lowered for the last time over the Kremlin, thereafter replaced by the Russian tricolor. Earlier in the day, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned his post as president of the Soviet Union, leaving Boris Yeltsin as president of the newly independent Russian state.'
The Collapse of the Soviet Union - Milestones in the History of U.S. ...
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1989.../collapse-soviet-union
Office of the Historian




I can see that you require further re-education, and as soon as I have the time I will provide further evidence of the huge......HUGE!!!....mistake that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was for this nation and for the world.


And, as is the case with all of my posts....you will find it undeniable,irrefutable, error free and educational.

In the mean time....you'd best strengthen your shields against truth.

This is a refute and displays your method of evasion. The poster was pointing out via a question that no Republican had ever overturned FDR's recognition. You use the dissolving of they USSR and transition into the Russian Federation as a response. In addition, you give all the credit to Reagan for dissolving the USSR. That in itself is a subjective opinion and fails to give credit to other factors.
Reagan recognized the USSR, negotiated with them and made agreements with the USSR.

 

[Camp]

FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin. They were the allied leaders of the great powers that defeated the Nazi's in WWII. Their relationship was professional and any implication that they were friends were purely cosmetic and meant to promote a propaganda message of unity between the two nations and leaders.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, as is the case with all of my posts....you will find it undeniable,irrefutable, error free and educational.

Your posts have been refuted and shown to be full of errors and not educational at all unless you consider misinformations educational, which apparently you do.
This thread is peppered with refutes and errors that have been pointed out. You have been challenged repeatedly to respond to the refutes and errors by multiple posters and refused to answer. That makes your last post a lie. Your method of evasion by claiming you are always right is a lie unless you answer your refutes and errors.
You claim to be college educated. It that were true you would know the fundamental fact that subjective data can not be interpreted as fact. What you write in these threads are subjective opinions and speculations. To declare them as objective facts is dishonest and equal to a lie when you demand they are facts. They are your subjective opinions, not historically accepted facts.

"Your posts have been refuted and shown to be full of errors..."

Never....unless you consider your whining 'is not, is noooottttttt!' a refutation.

Actually....you're just a lying Roosevelt groupie.

True.?

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin. They were the allied leaders of the great powers that defeated the Nazi's in WWII. Their relationship was professional and any implication that they were friends were purely cosmetic and meant to promote a propaganda message of unity between the two nations and leaders.

"FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin."

Perhaps more accurate is 'vassal' or 'servant' or 'subordinate.'


Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 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.


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

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




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

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



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

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

 

[Camp]

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

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

 

[Camp]

FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin. They were the allied leaders of the great powers that defeated the Nazi's in WWII. Their relationship was professional and any implication that they were friends were purely cosmetic and meant to promote a propaganda message of unity between the two nations and leaders.

"FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin."

Perhaps more accurate is 'vassal' or 'servant' or 'subordinate.'


Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 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.


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

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




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

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



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

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

Your concept in this post is that a coup could have occurred and is based mostly on the opinion and incomplete assessment of the British intelligence official who frankly, was wrong about a lot of things. US strategy was not based on opinions of random British officials.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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




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

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



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

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




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

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

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

In your face, windbag.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin. They were the allied leaders of the great powers that defeated the Nazi's in WWII. Their relationship was professional and any implication that they were friends were purely cosmetic and meant to promote a propaganda message of unity between the two nations and leaders.

"FDR was never "Pals" or best friends with Stalin."

Perhaps more accurate is 'vassal' or 'servant' or 'subordinate.'


Britain's intelligence chief said this about Wilhelm Canaris, a leader of Germany anti-Nazi resistance:'It is said that had it not been for the Foreign Office's fear of offending Russia that he might have established direct contact with the admiral [Canaris] in 1942 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.


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

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




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

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



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

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

Your concept in this post is that a coup could have occurred and is based mostly on the opinion and incomplete assessment of the British intelligence official who frankly, was wrong about a lot of things. US strategy was not based on opinions of random British officials.

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


2. The head of OSS, what is today the CIA.....said the same thing.

Wanna bet?

 

[Camp]

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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




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

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



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

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




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

re·fute
rəˈfyo͞ot/
verb

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

In your face, windbag.

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