http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html {
I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
under the control of the elite.
Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
the war.
2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
upcoming armed conflict.
4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
belligerent countries combined.
7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
until 1944.
8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
Harbor.
9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
protect the troops.
10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
time for development of the bomb.
13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
surrender in any case).
15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
victory.
16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
Europe.
18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
their imprisonment or execution upon return.
Lies, deception, treachery, genocide, and potentially treason. Can
anything associated with such actions be called “good”? Can a
government be called representative if it acts with deception towards
its citizens? Can a democracy (or a republic) be considered acting
based on the will of the people when such actions are taken via lies?
Except for the fact of winning the war, can these actions be
distinguished from many of the crimes on the side of the axis – for
which countless were tried, imprisoned, or executed?
There is nothing “good” about this track record.
Now, as to the purpose and reasons for the U.S. entry into the war,
let me first summarize again the outcomes of the war: first, the
United States replaced Britain as the global presence and power of the
West. Second, the Soviet Union specifically, and communism generally,
gained significant footing as a world power. Finally, the populations
of Germany and Japan both came under the domination of western elite
power.
Now, just because these were outcomes does not necessarily mean that
these were objectives from the beginning, or that these were reasons
for U.S. entry. However, I can find no other reasonable explanation
for many of the actions taken by the U.S. in the period before,
during, and after the war – many of which are identified in my list at
the beginning of this post.
I do not accept that these were just blunders or mistakes of
Roosevelt (and later, Truman) and his advisors – they were far too
experienced to make this many disastrous and “wrong” decisions. I do
not accept that Hitler was prepared to take over the world and had to
be stopped. He had neither the military for it nor the economy.
Mostly, he did not have the intent. Conversely, supporters of
communism were quite transparent in describing their goals for world
conquest – why not fight against the communists, as Germany and Japan
both seemed intent on doing?
When I try to find a rational explanation for these decisions and
actions – and I follow the thread backwards from the outcome – the
decisions make perfect sense only if these outcomes were the
objectives all along.
First, I suggest that the U.S. entered the war in order to replace
the ailing British Empire as the primary tool of the elite looking to
expand global domination. For those who believe politicians serve
their people and the national interest, and are not serving
individuals and entities with even higher power, you may feel free to
skip this section. For the rest of you….
Historically, Britain proved to be a good tool for extending global
control. However, a far better tool was on the western horizon, that
of the United States. The United States had almost unlimited potential
in terms of geography, resources, and people – certainly as compared
to Britain. The United States still had much to exploit; as was
becoming more and more obvious in the first years of the 20th century,
Britain had likely reached its limits.
Britain was losing on all fronts – it could not fight a war in Europe
without U.S. support. It lost much of the Middle East shortly after
the end of the Second War, as it also lost India. These weaknesses,
especially when compared to the obvious superiority of the U.S. as the
primary tool for control, were certainly obvious to the elite well
before the actual events.
I should clarify – this transition did not occur only in the immediate
build-up and aftermath of World War Two. The establishment of central
banking in 1913 was the key to ensuring the United States would be in
position to take over this role – without this, there is little
possibility that enough resources could have been taken from the
private sector to the degree necessary for establishment of a global
military power.
While imperialism was present in the U.S. from the beginning,
overseas expansion began at the end of the 19th century. Even with
this, much of the population had to be dragged into fighting in a
European War in the second decade of the 20th century – the people had
no appetite for fighting overseas, yet Wilson found a way to maneuver
the country into the battle.
This desire to keep out of European troubles was still in the
population in the 1930s. The people wanted to stay out – all the time
their president was secretly working to get in. If the objective was
to avoid war, Roosevelt had countless opportunities to do so. If the
objective was to get into the war despite a people and Congress that
desired to stay out, Roosevelt’s actions make perfect sense.
Roosevelt served with purpose toward this end – clearly against the
will of the people he purportedly served. Why would he do this? I
suggest it was because he was serving a different master – a master
who knew that riding the British horse was now turning into a loser’s
proposition. That horse had been ridden hard, and had nothing left to
give. A new horse needed to be found, and no other horse fit the bill
better than the United States.
The elite needed the United States to take center stage, and they
found political leaders willing to lead the nation toward that end.
The second reason for U.S. entry into the war was to set the stage
for the Cold War. War is the health of the state, and perpetual war
offers perpetual health. Today, the United States continues this
perpetual war by conjuring an enemy out of a tactic – terrorism. One
purpose of U.S. entry into World War Two was to make an enemy out of
an idea – communism. In order for the enemy to seem real, it had to be
(or at least seem to be) powerful.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, Hitler and Stalin likely would
have crippled each other significantly, such that neither would be a
menace to anyone outside of the forsaken ground between them (the poor
residents of Central Europe were doomed once trapped between these two
tyrants, almost regardless of any decisions taken in the West). Japan
hated the communists in China as much as Germany hated the communists
in Russia. Japan and Germany would have at least kept in check any
ideas of communist expansion, minimizing the possibility of healthy,
perpetual war for the west.
Had the U.S. stayed out of the war, communism would never have grown
into the “threat” needed for perpetual war. There would be no long-
term, believable enemy – it certainly would not have
...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJlLBD-EO027 Oct 2009 - 10 min - Uploaded by
MultiMccain
Original Concetration camp video filmed by the near end of the war.
Some of the Sceens may be shocking.
Nazi Concentration Camps Video
►►
video.about.com/.../Nazi-Concentration-Camps.htm9 Apr 2012
Nazi concentration and death camps were the infrastructure that
allowed the widespread killing of Jews and ...
Nazi Concentration Camps (Nuremberg Trial Film ... - Google Video
► 59:16► 59:16
video.google.com/videoplay?docid...16 Aug 2006 - 59 min
The file entitled "Nazi Concentration Camps" was entered as evidence
at the 1945 Nuremberg Trials of ...
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen ...
► 10:11► 10:11
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evnx4oWle2024 May 2008 - 10 min - Uploaded by
damoosebelly
Nazi Concentration Camps Part 6: Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.
damoosebelly ... Alert icon. You need Adobe ...
Alfred Hitchcock Documentary Nazi Death Camp Liberation Part I ...
► 10:50► 10:50
www.youtube.com/watch?v=joWT9RGKYo417 Nov 2010 - 11 min - Uploaded by
realholocausthistory
Alfred Hitchcock narrates this gripping video of the liberation of a
Nazi Death Camp. The citizens of the ...
>Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
into suicide <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/was-ww2-good-war.html > {
> I have commented previously that I believe (at least given my current
> understanding) the main purpose for U.S. entry into the war was two-
> fold: 1) to take the place of an increasingly ailing Britain as the
> primary tool for the elite to expand global control, and 2) to ensure
> a new, long term enemy can be made out of the Soviet Union and
> communism. I will add a third to this list – actually it is a subset
> of the first: to bring the productive populations of Germany and Japan
> under the control of the elite.
> Before I expand on this further, I would like to revisit some of the
> factors regarding the war and why it is not just improper, but
> inconceivable to refer to this was as a good war.
> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> the war.
Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
Roosevelt entered the war.
> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
start aggressive belligerence.
> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> upcoming armed conflict.
Name one and give the cite.
> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
Plenty of teeth to it. Germany was forced to fight on two fronts
instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
> belligerent countries combined.
Lie. Japan had plenty of blood on its hands the Rape Of Nanking and
other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
> until 1944.
He should have acted sooner that is true. So much for the USA being
Jew controlled eh.
> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
> Harbor.
Lie. They knew that Japan was going to attack but not when and where.
> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
> protect the troops.
Tactical errors were made that is true but the USA was a nation at
peace not war.
> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
Why not. The war was prolonged until 1975 by one Japanese soldier in
the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
Sure he didn't want a war with the Soviet Union who had nukes.
> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
> time for development of the bomb.
Japan could have sued for peace instead they launched balloon attacks
against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt’s policy of demanding unconditional
> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
> surrender in any case).
Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
wanted peace they did not.
> 15) Truman afforded many diplomatic victories to Russia in Asia,
> despite the lack of contribution or need of the Russian forces in this
> victory.
Russia took advantage of a weakened Japan and the power vaccum in the
area.
> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
> Communists – this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
> Europe.
Boo hoo they welcomed the German Army as liberators.
> 18) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of
> perhaps several million captured Russian soldiers and other refugees
> fleeing the communists to Russia against their will, resulting in
> their imprisonment or execution upon return.
This is too intelligent for a Nazi like you to have thought up. So I
will Google it. Sure enough http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2012/08/world-war-two-good-war.html you copied it from an another source without citing it naughty naught
unoriginal Nazi. That was a mistake but the Nazis would have done
worse to them.
> Lies, deception, treachery, genocide, and potentially treason. Can
> anything associated with such actions be called “good”? Can a
> government be called representative if it acts with deception towards
> its citizens? Can a democracy (or a republic) be considered acting
> based on the will of the people when such actions are taken via lies?
> Except for the fact of winning the war, can these actions be
> distinguished from many of the crimes on the side of the axis – for
> which countless were tried, imprisoned, or executed?
> There is nothing “good” about this track record.
> Now, as to the purpose and reasons for the U.S. entry into the war,
> let me first summarize again the outcomes of the war: first, the
> United States replaced Britain as the global presence and power of the
> West. Second, the Soviet Union specifically, and communism generally,
> gained significant footing as a world power. Finally, the populations
> of Germany and Japan both came under the domination of western elite
> power.
> Now, just because these were outcomes does not necessarily mean that
> these were objectives from the beginning, or that these were reasons
> for U.S. entry. However, I can find no other reasonable explanation
> for many of the actions taken by the U.S. in the period before,
> during, and after the war – many of which are identified in my list at
> the beginning of this post.
> I do not accept that these were just blunders or mistakes of
> Roosevelt (and later, Truman) and his advisors – they were far too
> experienced to make this many disastrous and “wrong” decisions. I do
> not accept that Hitler was prepared to take over the world and had to
> be stopped. He had neither the military for it nor the economy.
> Mostly, he did not have the intent. Conversely, supporters of
> communism were quite transparent in describing their goals for world
> conquest – why not fight against the communists, as Germany and Japan
> both seemed intent on doing?
> When I try to find a rational explanation for these decisions and
> actions – and I follow the thread backwards from the outcome – the
> decisions make perfect sense only if these outcomes were the
> objectives all along.
> First, I suggest that the U.S. entered the war in order to replace
> the ailing British Empire as the primary tool of the elite looking to
> expand global domination. For those who believe politicians serve
> their people and the national interest, and are not serving
> individuals and entities with even higher power, you may feel free to
> skip this section. For the rest of you….
> Historically, Britain proved to be a good tool for extending global
> control. However, a far better tool was on the western horizon, that
> of the United States. The United States had almost unlimited potential
> in terms of geography, resources, and people – certainly as compared
> to Britain. The United States still had much to exploit; as was
> becoming more and more obvious in the first years of the 20th century,
> Britain had likely reached its limits.
> Britain was losing on all fronts – it could not fight a war in Europe
> without U.S. support. It lost much of the Middle East shortly after
> the end of the Second War, as it also lost India. These weaknesses,
> especially when compared to the obvious superiority of the U.S. as the
> primary tool for control, were certainly obvious to the elite well
> before the actual events.
> I should clarify – this transition did not occur only in the immediate
> build-up and aftermath of World War Two. The establishment of central
> banking in 1913 was the key to ensuring the United States would be in
> position to take over this role – without this, there is little
> possibility that enough resources could have been taken from the
> private sector to the degree necessary for establishment of a global
> military power.
> While imperialism was present in the U.S. from the beginning,
> overseas expansion began at the end of the 19th
>> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
>> the war.
> Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> Roosevelt entered the war.
He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
>> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
>> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow
> Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> start aggressive belligerence.
That is a twist on his old line about how the UK started the war by declaring war on Germany.
>> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
>> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
>> upcoming armed conflict.
> Name one and give the cite.
Good luck with that one. It is a crock and he may or may not know it. He seems to have several conflicts with that little thing called reality.
>> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
>> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
>> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
> Plenty of teeth to it. Germany was forced to fight on two fronts
> instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
There would have been more teeth to it had the US not made it so clear that they were going to stick to their policy of Isolationism. The US had been reluctant to enter WWI and was really only involved in it for about 6 months. They certainly didn't win that one single-handed. They didn't even fight very well, but they did tip help to tip the balance with all those fresh troops and equipment. However.... despite having input into the Treaty of Versailles that was disproportionate to its limited contribution to the fighting, the US never did ratify the treaty. Obviously, the Allies were not going to be able to count on the US to help to enforce it.
>> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
>> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
>> belligerent countries combined.
> Lie. Japan had plenty of blood on its hands the Rape Of Nanking and
> other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
> camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
> that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
Once again the Moose in love with Nazis is unaware of the facts. Just like the many Americans who seem to think that the war started when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had attacked China and Manchuria a few years before the war in Europe started. The Japanese systematically raped and slaughtered more than twice as many Chinese and the number of Japanese killed in the two nuclear bombs combined, and that was just one city.
>> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
>> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
>> until 1944.
> He should have acted sooner that is true. So much for the USA being
> Jew controlled eh.
But who can blame them? Seriously, what country was prepared to accept such large lumbers of political refugees?
>> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
>> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
>> Harbor.
> Lie. They knew that Japan was going to attack but not when and where.
He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the Pacific.
>> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
>> protect the troops.
> Tactical errors were made that is true but the USA was a nation at
> peace not war.
>> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
>> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
> Why not. The war was prolonged until 1975 by one Japanese soldier in
> the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
> kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
> and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
I think that the situation in Europe had demonstrated how important it was to deliver a decisive blow to the belligerent countries so that they realized that they had lost and that there was a price to pay for starting a war.
>> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
> Sure he didn't want a war with the Soviet Union who had nukes.
>> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
>> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
>> time for development of the bomb.
> Japan could have sued for peace instead they launched balloon attacks
> against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
Oh yeah.... another flaw in the his dream logic, that and the liklihood of a coup in the military if they were to shame the country by surrendering to the US.
>> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt�s policy of demanding unconditional
>> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
> The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
Look what happened to Patton when he suggested that they make use of their troops and equipment already there to carry on into Russia.
>> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
>> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
>> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
>> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
>> surrender in any case).
> Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
> wanted peace they did not.
It is revisionist dreaming to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender. It had already lost the war and the people were starving, but the leadership would not surrender unconditionally. It wasn't like they had to worry about the Allies slaughtering or enslaving everyone like the Japanese had done throughout Asia.
>> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
>> Communists � this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
>> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
Not entirely true.The US was reluctant to provide too much support to Chang Kai Shek and his cronies because they were so corrupt. They were concerned that the aid would end up in the pockets of the corrupt warlords and that Chang Kai Shek was going to hoard arms and munitions for a civil war with the communists.
>> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
>> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
>> Europe.
> Boo hoo they welcomed the German Army as liberators.
The Germans certainly didn't have any problems finding people in those countries to do their dirt work for them/
>> I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.}
> The only good Nazi is a dead one.
Apparently our parents let a few too many get away.
On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2:36 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
> > Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
> ?
> Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
> >> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering
> >> the war.
> > Japan attacked the US and Germany declared war on the US that is why
> > Roosevelt entered the war.
> He was doing a pretty good job of keeping the US out of the war, letting
> the old world powers duke it out so that the US could come in and pick
> up the pieces and enhance it's own position in the world. He had the
> Lend Lease program that allowed the US to supply the Allies to act in US
> strategic interests without having to send in its armed forces.
> >> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after
> >> failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow
> > Japan and Germany were warmongers and didn't need any enouragement to
> > start aggressive belligerence.
> That is a twist on his old line about how the UK started the war by
> declaring war on Germany.
> >> 3) Roosevelt ignored and otherwise did not take advantage of the many
> >> proposals by Japan that, if acted upon, could have avoided the
> >> upcoming armed conflict.
> > Name one and give the cite.
> Good luck with that one. It is a crock and he may or may not know it. He
> seems to have several conflicts with that little thing called reality.
> >> 4) Roosevelt entered the war well before any declaration by Congress.
> >> 5) Roosevelt encouraged Britain and France to provide a guarantee to
> >> Poland, a guarantee known to the Western powers to have no teeth.
> > Plenty of teeth to it. Germany was forced to fight on two fronts
> > instead of just one the same problem they had in WW1
> There would have been more teeth to it had the US not made it so clear
> that they were going to stick to their policy of Isolationism. The US
> had been reluctant to enter WWI and was really only involved in it for
> about 6 months. They certainly didn't win that one single-handed. They
> didn't even fight very well, but they did tip help to tip the balance
> with all those fresh troops and equipment. However.... despite having
> input into the Treaty of Versailles that was disproportionate to its
> limited contribution to the fighting, the US never did ratify the
> treaty. Obviously, the Allies were not going to be able to count on the
> US to help to enforce it.
> >> 6) Roosevelt chose to side with Stalin, who at the beginning of the
> >> war had more blood on his hands than all the other leaders of
> >> belligerent countries combined.
> > Lie. Japan had plenty of blood on its hands the Rape Of Nanking and
> > other atrocities being well documented Germany had the concentration
> > camps and the SS and the Gestapo. Stalin was an evil dictator too but
> > that doesn't excuse Tojo or Mussolini or Hitler.
> Once again the Moose in love with Nazis is unaware of the facts. Just
> like the many Americans who seem to think that the war started when
> Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese had attacked China and
> Manchuria a few years before the war in Europe started. The Japanese
> systematically raped and slaughtered more than twice as many Chinese and
> the number of Japanese killed in the two nuclear bombs combined, and
> that was just one city.
> >> 7) Roosevelt did not extend U.S. support for Jews attempting to
> >> emigrate from Central Europe and immigrate into the United States
> >> until 1944.
> > He should have acted sooner that is true. So much for the USA being
> > Jew controlled eh.
> But who can blame them? Seriously, what country was prepared to accept
> such large lumbers of political refugees?
> >> 8) Roosevelt knew of the impending attack by Japan somewhere in the
> >> Pacific, and very likely specifically that it would come at Pearl
> >> Harbor.
> > Lie. They knew that Japan was going to attack but not when and where.
> He is not the only one out there who things himself brilliant for
> dreaming up the conspiracy that involved the US allowing Pearly Harbor
> to be attack so that they would have an excuse to enter the war. I
> confess to harbouring skepticism about the efficiency of the US military
> and the competence of its military and political leadership, but I find
> it had to believe that they US would set up a situation that would see
> it sacrificing its Pacific Fleet, the ships, the crews and the
> logistical facilities in order to have an excuse to go to war when they
> are going to lose the assets they need to conduct a way across the Pacific.
> >> 9) Roosevelt avoided taking action to properly alert and otherwise
> >> protect the troops.
> > Tactical errors were made that is true but the USA was a nation at
> > peace not war.
> >> 10) Roosevelt made unconditional surrender a requirement of the axis
> >> combatants, prolonging the war in both Europe and the Pacific.
> > Why not. The war was prolonged until 1975 by one Japanese soldier in
> > the Pacific the enemy had plenty of fighting spirit as displayed by
> > kamikaze pilots and banzai charges. Germany was to be split into two
> > and not be capable of causing war unlike the past.
> I think that the situation in Europe had demonstrated how important it
> was to deliver a decisive blow to the belligerent countries so that they
> realized that they had lost and that there was a price to pay for
> starting a war.
> >> 11) Roosevelt cut Poland loose to the communists after the war.
> > Sure he didn't want a war with the Soviet Union who had nukes.
> >> 12) Truman had many opportunities to end the war in the Pacific in
> >> the Spring of 1945, instead choosing to delay the end in order to give
> >> time for development of the bomb.
> > Japan could have sued for peace instead they launched balloon attacks
> > against the USA and kamikaze pilots.
> Oh yeah.... another flaw in the his dream logic, that and the liklihood
> of a coup in the military if they were to shame the country by
> surrendering to the US.
> >> 13) Truman continued Roosevelt�s policy of demanding unconditional
> >> surrender, despite protests from many military and other advisors.
> > The military doesn't call the shots in the USA the President does.
> Look what happened to Patton when he suggested that they make use of
> their troops and equipment already there to carry on into Russia.
> >> 14) Truman chose to drop two bombs on Japan after months of Japan
> >> signaling its willingness to meeting all terms of the allies with the
> >> exception of removal of the Emperor (an exception also desired by
> >> allied commanders, and an exception granted immediately after the
> >> surrender in any case).
> > Japan could have pulled out of Burma and Korea and China if they
> > wanted peace they did not.
> It is revisionist dreaming to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender.
> It had already lost the war and the people were starving, but the
> leadership would not surrender unconditionally. It wasn't like they had
> to worry about the Allies slaughtering or enslaving everyone like the
> Japanese had done throughout Asia.
> >> 16) Truman backed away from the Chinese Nationalists in favor of the
> >> Communists � this despite one purported reason for U.S. animosity
> >> toward Japan being U.S. support for the Nationalists.
> Not entirely true.The US was reluctant to provide too much support to
> Chang Kai Shek and his cronies because they were so corrupt. They were
> concerned that the aid would end up in the pockets of the corrupt
> warlords and that Chang Kai Shek was going to hoard arms and munitions
> for a civil war with the communists.
> >> 17) The allies both acquiesced and aided in the forced transfer of up
> >> to 14 million Germans to Germany from various locations in Central
> >> Europe.
> > Boo hoo they welcomed the German Army as liberators.
> The Germans certainly didn't have any problems finding people in those
> countries to do their dirt work for them/
> >> I conclude these were the objectives from the beginning.}
> > The only good Nazi is a dead one.
> Apparently our parents let a few too many get away.
> On Oct 29, 9:51 am, "M.I.Wakefield" <n...@present.com> wrote:
> > Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
> that's right, and the british militarists won, if you call losing
> hundreds of thousands of able bodied young men a victory.
1) What British militarists?
2) Britain lost 450,000 (including civilians) in a war they didn't want and didn't start. Germany lost over 5.5 million military dead in a war they did want and did start ... and that number pales against the total number of people killed by the nazis.
> On Oct 29, 1:49 pm, A Moose in Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2:36 pm, Greg Carr <gregcarrso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 29, 6:33 am, A Moose in Love
> > > Some Nazi who hasn't followed his heroes Goring and Hitler and Himmler
> > ?
> > Mr. Carr. I am an honourary member of the elite chapter of the HA
> > known as the 'Gay Brigade'. Govern yourself accordingly.
> Nonsense. Homosexuals in HAMC like Danny Kane and Yves Apache Trudeau
> have turned out to be police informants or incapable of taking care of
> business like the North Chapter. I occ. take the side of HAMC
> especially when non-members seek to claim membership or when the
> police go overboard in their quest to bring the 1%ers to justice. Your
> post is either an implied threat or humour. You are the son of a Nazi
> who posts anonymously lest his Nazi drivel be seen to have passed on
> to the younger generation. The only good Nazi is a dead one.
you have said before that you think that gay people should be killed.
you keep vilifying people that you say are nazis, but you do believe
in some of their philosophy. And please show me where I have posted
Nazi drivel.
And you are quite welcome to come and try and kill me. I will meet
you anytime at speakers corners here in Kitchener, complete with me
wearing a pink carnation.
No? didn't think so.
btw, you know Tee Tee when it comes to the Waffen SS. I suggest you
educate yourself instead of swallowing the propaganda of the victors
hook, line and sinker.
And since I post facts which are in direct conflict with the PC crap
people out there, I post anonymously in order to avoid stalking. I do
not need my family harassed by the likes of you. Me, I don't worry so
much about, as I can take care of myself.
> >Yes: The nazis and the Japanese militarists lost.
> That was a great outcome, but unfortunately our choice of allies left
> half of Europe in the throes of the Kremlin for half a century. Bit
> of a pyrrhic victory, I'd say.
it wasn't a great outcome. you lost hundreds of thousands of good
brave men who were propagandized into giving their lives for empire.
Germany is now the strongest country in Europe. Britain is weak
economically. She has been since the end of WW2. The US is in
decline. It's time to keep an eye out on the Krauts.
Not really. Germany will never again unfurl it's bloody flag. She is
now a PC country with a taste for the bizarre. I recently joined the
Chinese military as I like to side with winners. I was given an
honourary Colonelship, along with my own regiment of Mao's own
rifles.
