Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[Jack by the hedge]

Evidence?

What's your evidence that the bombers targets simply consisted of <insert name of city>?

[Tomtomkent]

You're simply lying. All those nighttime raids over darkened German cities were not precision bombing raids. They were terror raids. 500 bombers or more would fly over a portion of a German city and simply unload their ordinance over a wide area, without any regard for what they were hitting.

Yes, but the portions of the cities that were attempted to be targeted were industrial centres. Unless you have documentary evidence of orders that contradict this. It has been some time since i researched the subject and would be interested what evidence you actually have.

[Mudcat]

Place your bets. :D

I'll take Axis war crimes for $500, Alex.

[dafydd]

Yes, but the portions of the cities that were attempted to be targeted were industrial centres. Unless you have documentary evidence of orders that contradict this. It has been some time since i researched the subject and would be interested what evidence you actually have.

The smart money is on none.

[Tomtomkent]

The smart money is on none.

But orders for saturation bombing of nonindustrial targets signed by Bomber Harris would do nicely...

[Mudcat]

Yes, but the portions of the cities that were attempted to be targeted were industrial centres.

The problem with this, as has been explained to SHC several times, was that even under perfect world conditions the accuracy of such attacks were lacking severely. I find it miraculous that more civilian deaths weren't encountered.

But, that's probably due to the fact that they (like the USA did) had plans in place to protect their civilian assets (bomb drills, shelters, first aid, etc).

[dafydd]

But orders for saturation bombing of nonindustrial targets signed by Bomber Harris would do nicely...

The NWO has vanished them.

[Tomtomkent]

The problem with this, as has been explained to SHC several times, was that even under perfect world conditions the accuracy of such attacks were lacking severely. I find it miraculous that more civilian deaths weren't encountered.

But, that's probably due to the fact that they (like the USA did) had plans in place to protect their civilian assets (bomb drills, shelters, first aid, etc).

Indeed. It is no secret that the rate of bombing missions were increased, to demoralise the enemy, nor that swathes of bombs fell off target. But to substantiate the claims you would have to prove the orders were NOT to TRY and target specific industiral or military holds. By the same token London and other cities suffered in the blitz, but how much of that was because of the same accuracy issues? How much was an intentional attack on residential targets? I haven't done the base research, I don't claim to know.

I do know I live in one of the few Kent towns to have been completely missed by the blitz. I am just of the Thames Estuary, next to the touted location of Boris Island. Yet not a single building was damaged by any German bombs in my town. An absolute miracle.

[Jack by the hedge]

...I live in one of the few Kent towns to have been completely missed by the blitz. I am just of the Thames Estuary, next to the touted location of Boris Island. Yet not a single building was damaged by any German bombs in my town. An absolute miracle.

Whereas I just got back from visiting my father in law in rural East Yorkshire, where he lives in a house substantially rebuilt after being bombed, even though it was far away from any military or industrial target of the time. (Probably just a single lost aircraft jettisoning its bombs and turning for home.)

[tsig]

No, not really. England and France declared war on Germany. I say they are partially responsible, especially considering the fact that Hitler and the rise of the Nazis was a direct result of the unfair terms of the Treaty of Versailles. They reaped what they sowed.



I wouldn't have chosen a side, as I don't support tyrannical governments.



How, by bombing innocent women and children who have no control over their oppressive government?



I would have fled the country, went to jail, or eaten a bullet before I would have donned the uniform of a country led by a scumbag tyrant like Roosevelt.

Right!! Interweb warriorz rock!


:dl:

[Major Major]

No, I get that. What I found interesting is the implication from his line of thought, which I read as follows:

The U.S. didn't need to worry if Germany took all of Europe and most or all of Russia because even then it still would have been a practical impossibility for it to have invaded the United States. But such a view means he has no qualms at all about the vile Nazi regime conquering Europe and Russia and imposing its harsh and brutal rule on those conquered peoples. (Millions of which in western Russia would have been starved to death to make way for German settlers.)

Quite apart from any direct concerns over the potential of an invasion of the U.S. by any greater German Reich was the fact that the Nazi regime in itself was cruel and reprehensible and worth fighting on that reason alone.

Yeah, and the isolationists had to deal with the same issues. They never got a platform together that would deal with that problem. :D

One problem is that (said again) your opponents believe what they believe, not what you find it convenient for them to believe.

To help understand where SHC is coming from, you may want to examine the not insubstantial literature of isolationism and neo-isolationism. One can understand the Ron Paul campaign this way, for example, though why anyone would want to think like a Ronulan is another matter.

But, for example, one may find summarized in one slight volume (about as much as it really deserves) such points:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aFr6GtIPCXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=No+Clear+and+Present+Danger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tk-DT9_kKpGu8ATd89jLBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=No%20Clear%20and%20Present%20Danger&f=false

No Clear and Present Danger by Bruce M. Russett, for those who don't want to follow the link. A Lone Nut, doing a self-published book that sold in in the high two figures or low threes? Apparently not quite:

http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=399

The Dean Acheson Professor of International and Area Studies at Yale, no less. Perhaps a good reason not to be an Eli.

:blackcat:

[dudalb]

SpringHallConvert has been quite coy about his citizenship since joining the JREFF. I wouldn't expect much truthful elaboration on this issue.

It's not the only thing SpringHallConvert has been coy about. He is really elusive when you try to pin him down on whether he beleives the Holocaust happened or not.

[Jack by the hedge]

It's not the only thing SpringHallConvert has been coy about. He is really elusive when you try to pin him down on whether he beleives the Holocaust happened or not.

He's awfully shy about revealing who really controls the US government too, although he makes free to mock anyone who thinks it's the people who were elected to the job.

[Redtail]

SHC said...

...being occupied by the British Empire would probably have sucked just as much as being occupied by the Nazi Empire.

How so?

[Gawdzilla]

One problem is that (said again) your opponents believe what they believe, not what you find it convenient for them to believe.

To help understand where SHC is coming from, you may want to examine the not insubstantial literature of isolationism and neo-isolationism. One can understand the Ron Paul campaign this way, for example, though why anyone would want to think like a Ronulan is another matter.

But, for example, one may find summarized in one slight volume (about as much as it really deserves) such points:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aFr6GtIPCXEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=No+Clear+and+Present+Danger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tk-DT9_kKpGu8ATd89jLBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=No%20Clear%20and%20Present%20Danger&f=false

No Clear and Present Danger by Bruce M. Russett, for those who don't want to follow the link. A Lone Nut, doing a self-published book that sold in in the high two figures or low threes? Apparently not quite:

http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=399

The Dean Acheson Professor of International and Area Studies at Yale, no less. Perhaps a good reason not to be an Eli.

:blackcat:
I have over forty books on isolationism in my library. Two of them signed by Wayne Cole. I've done my reading.

[Corsair 115]

You are wasting your time. That is far too complicated for SHC's simplistic view of WWII.


I'm not posting for his benefit. I'm posting for the benefit of any lurkers who may read this thread. It is to those silent observers to whom I really direct my posts, so that they may have the factually and contextually accurate information on the topics we are discussing here.

[dafydd]

I'm not posting for his benefit. I'm posting for the benefit of any lurkers who may read this thread. It is to those silent observers to whom I really direct my posts, so that they may have the factually and contextually accurate information on the topics we are discussing here.

Yes, that is what threads like this are good for. The lurkers will learn nothing from the likes of SHC. The paucity of his and his ilk's ideas is breathtaking.

[Gawdzilla]

I'm not posting for his benefit. I'm posting for the benefit of any lurkers who may read this thread. It is to those silent observers to whom I really direct my posts, so that they may have the factually and contextually accurate information on the topics we are discussing here.

Yep, correct the lies and misconceptions. That's the only use for a CTer's comments, to pave the way for the real information.

[Corsair 115]

Well-defended? Is that some sort of joke or something? If those bombing raids were so well defended, why were thousands upon thousands of German civilians being killed in single raids over one city?


The extent to how well German airspace was defended can be seen in two ways.

First, a specific number: in September of 1944 there were 10,225 heavy artillery pieces used for aerial defence of the Reich. Indeed, the need for ever more guns pointing skywards to protect against bombers meant the German army was starved of anti-tank artillery. Albert Speer himself stated that of the 19,713 dual purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft 88mm and 128mm guns produced between 1942-44, almost 84%—16,541 guns—were assigned to aerial defence. That left only 16% to go to the army for the anti-tank role—this no doubt greatly helped the Allied ground campaigns in both the east and west since they faced far fewer anti-tank guns than they would have otherwise.

Second, general data: look at the number of Allied bombers and crews lost during the bombing campaign. As a proportion of the fighting force, the losses were huge. You don't have those types of losses against undefended airspace.


If bombing war material production facilities was the only goal, why were we also bombing civilian housing? Why were we dropping mixtures of high-explosive and incendiaries, which we knew could create uncontrolled firestorms?


The reasons should be obvious: a worker whose home has been burned down has to be found new accommodation—that requires time and effort on the part of the government. Streets and roads are blocked with debris, thus hindering general economic activity. All that damage has to be cleaned up and repaired. This siphons off economic effort that would otherwise have gone directly into war production. Granted, this is not as direct an effect as knocking out a tank factory, but the indirect effects do matter.

There is also a very practical reason for aiming at the built-up areas of a city: because that's about all that can be found and hit successfully at night. And that was the case for well into the war.

The mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs was determined by trial and error to maximize the spread of fire since fire was a very effective way to destroy buildings. And destroying buildings was the point of the exercise. Because the more that is destroyed the more that has to be repaired. And any effort spent rebuilding workers' homes, repairing broken water mains, restoring rail and tram lines, clearing the streets of rubble, etc., means effort that is not spent on war production. That matters in the long run.


Nobody is saying civilian populations could have been completely spared from the effects of war, but they certainly could have been spared from having their houses bomb.


Considering that bombing accuracy at night was measured in miles, even the best effort was going to clobber plenty of the surrounding area. A blunt tool, as I said before, but the only tool with the means to hamper German war production. Things were better in the daytime since accuracy was better—but only when the weather was good. When it was not, things were little better in terms of accuracy than they were at night. Such was the technology of the time.


None of this is an excuse for deliberately bombing women and children. Soldiers should never be directed to fight civilians. They should only be directed to fight other soldiers.


No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. Feel free to cite the error in this statement as it pertains to war between industrialized nation-states. It seems you simply do not appreciate the way in which the entire national economy was directed to the war effort.

[dafydd]

The extent to how well German airspace was defended can be seen in two ways.

First, a specific number: in September of 1944 there were 10,225 heavy artillery pieces used for aerial defence of the Reich. Indeed, the need for ever more guns pointing skywards to protect against bombers meant the German army was starved of anti-tank artillery. Albert Speer himself stated that of the 19,713 dual purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft 88mm and 128mm guns produced between 1942-44, almost 84%—16,541 guns—were assigned to aerial defence. That left only 16% to go to the army for the anti-tank role—this no doubt greatly helped the Allied ground campaigns in both the east and west since they faced far fewer anti-tank guns than they would have otherwise.

Second, general data: look at the number of Allied bombers and crews lost during the bombing campaign. As a proportion of the fighting force, the losses were huge. You don't have those types of losses against undefended airspace.





The reasons should be obvious: a worker whose home has been burned down has to be found new accommodation—that requires time and effort on the part of the government. Streets and roads are blocked with debris, thus hindering general economic activity. All that damage has to be cleaned up and repaired. This siphons off economic effort that would otherwise have gone directly into war production. Granted, this is not as direct an effect as knocking out a tank factory, but the indirect effects do matter.

There is also a very practical reason for aiming at the built-up areas of a city: because that's about all that can be found and hit successfully at night. And that was the case for well into the war.

The mix of incendiary and high explosive bombs was determined by trial and error to maximize the spread of fire since fire was a very effective way to destroy buildings. And destroying buildings was the point of the exercise. Because the more that is destroyed the more that has to be repaired. And any effort spent rebuilding workers' homes, repairing broken water mains, restoring rail and tram lines, clearing the streets of rubble, etc., means effort that is not spent on war production. That matters in the long run.





Considering that bombing accuracy at night was measured in miles, even the best effort was going to clobber plenty of the surrounding area. A blunt tool, as I said before, but the only tool with the means to hamper German war production. Things were better in the daytime since accuracy was better—but only when the weather was good. When it was not, things were little better in terms of accuracy than they were at night. Such was the technology of the time.





No civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. Feel free to cite the error in this statement as it pertains to war between industrialized nation-states. It seems you simply do not appreciate the way in which the entire national economy was directed to the war effort.

Perhaps SHC does not have any relatives who actually fought in the war.

[Corsair 115]

We dropped high-explosive and incendiary bombs indiscriminately on civilian populations during WW2.


On bombing accuracy:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey estimated that bombing in daytime in clear weather, the 8th AF was able to get half the bombs dropped within one-third of a mile of the aiming point. That's not the amount actually on the aiming point, but within one-third of a mile of it. One-third of a mile—that's 587 yards, or 536 metres—over half a kilometre. The other half of bombs dropped are, of course, landing farther away than that. That's the level of accuracy when bombing visually by day in clear weather.

Bombing in daytime through heavy cloud saw accuracy plunge to half the bombs dropped landing within 3.9 miles—6.3 kilometres—of the aiming point.

The RAF measured accuracy in terms of the numbers of bombs dropped landing within 3 miles—4.8 kilometres—of the aiming point.


There was a deliberate intent to terrorize, if not outright murder...


Have you not got the memo? War is nothing but outright murder.


...defenseless women and children.


Only if by "defenseless" you meant defended by tens of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, hundreds of day and night fighters, over one hundred first-class radar stations devoted to early warning and fighter control, all the personnel needed to operate the foregoing, etc.

To give an example of the number of military personnel involved, in April of 1945 the flak arm of the Luftwaffe still totalled 656,000.

[Captain_Swoop]

As far as Britain was concerned it was a fight for national survival. Until 1941 an invasion was expected and British Forces were in action against the Axis in Africa the Far East and the Atlantic Ocean. There were bombing raids every night against both military and industrial targets. Bombing germany was the only way of striking back directly at the enemy. That later in the war the Allies could put hugely more aircraft over a target then the Germans ever could shows the folly of the Germans for starting the war in the first place.

Someone mentioned Gas. Germany never used gas in battle or in a bomb. They were told in no uncertain terms that if a gas bomb landed on British soil then Britain would retailate against Geerman Cities. Gas bobmbs were expected and all civilians as well as military were issued with Gas Masks and gas attacks were trained for. There were even masks for horses and special all encompassing shroud masks for babies. It was an offence not to carry your mask at all times.

My Uncle Martin was in the RN and was at the Battle of River Plate and also on the Malta Convoys. My Uncle Harold was in an RAF Forward Observation Unit, they called down airstrikes from Typhoons. He went over in the first wave onto Gold Beach on D-Day.

[kookbreaker]

So I missed out on the 'action' of a couple of pages. I see SHC tried to invoked the Treaty of Versaille pity party.

No. Just....No.

[AJM8125]

Well-defended? Is that some sort of joke or something? If those bombing raids were so well defended, why were thousands upon thousands of German civilians being killed in single raids over one city? Why were millions of other civilians made homeless by the raids? Berlin was bombed to ashes.


Congratulations. You're now a two-ocean failure.

[BazBear]

Congratulations. You're now a two-ocean failure.That would mean if SHC makes some uninformed and incorrect statements about the CBI theater, he'll win the triple crown.

[dafydd]

Dear,dear. Certain people really have let standards slip over there in the colonies. :D

[Gawdzilla]

Dear,dear. Certain people really have let standards slip over there in the colonies. :D

I know a guy on the Isle of Skye who thinks that there is a bunch of foreigners on the mainland. :D

[dafydd]

I know a guy on the Isle of Skye who thinks that there is a bunch of foreigners on the mainland. :D

Have you ever heard of the 1930's headline from the London Times? ''Thick fog in the English Channel. Continent isolated.''

[Tomtomkent]

I know a guy on the Isle of Skye who thinks that there is a bunch of foreigners on the mainland. :D
Ahem...
No dear. I'm English. Everybody else in the world is a Johnny Foreign.

[Gawdzilla]

I rest my case.

[BravesFan]

The best thing about the English is how they haven't allowed themselves to be convinced that the Victorian era ended. it's still business as usual "Oh yes we own half the globe darling!" "SPLENDID!!"

:-)


ETA the italics to show where I was shamed into self correction

[Gawdzilla]

The best thing about the British is how they haven't allowed themselves to be convinced that the Victorian era ended. it's still business as usual "Oh yes we own half the globe darling!" "SPLENDID!!"

:-)

http://rationalia.com/forum/images/smilies/indubitablysmile.gif

[dafydd]

The best thing about the British English is how they haven't allowed themselves to be convinced that the Victorian era ended. it's still business as usual "Oh yes we own half the globe darling!" "SPLENDID!!"

:-)
ftfy
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."-Cecil Rhodes.

Sob, I'm only half Welsh and half Scottish.

[SpitfireIX]

ftfy
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."-Cecil Rhodes.

Sob, I'm only half Welsh and half Scottish.


"The British people comprise four races: the English, who consider themselves a race of self-made men, thereby relieving the Almighty of a dreadful responsibility; the Welsh, who pray on their knees, and on their neighbors; the Scots, who keep the Sabbath, and anything else they can lay their hands on; and the Irish, who don't know what they want, but they'll fight to the death for it."

:D

[Border Reiver]

"The British people comprise four races: the English, who consider themselves a race of self-made men, thereby relieving the Almighty of a dreadful responsibility; the Welsh, who pray on their knees, and on their neighbors; the Scots, who keep the Sabbath, and anything else they can lay their hands on; and the Irish, who don't know what they want, but they'll fight to the death for it."

:D


And my family ancestry is English/Scottish coming to Canada by way of Ireland - I can have the most wonderful arguments with myself.

[CORed]

I'm not posting for his benefit. I'm posting for the benefit of any lurkers who may read this thread. It is to those silent observers to whom I really direct my posts, so that they may have the factually and contextually accurate information on the topics we are discussing here.

I understand, but any lurkers who can't figure out after one or two posts that SHC is FOS are probably beyond help.

[Gawdzilla]

I understand, but any lurkers who can't figure out after one or two posts that SHC is FOS are probably beyond help.

That's not the point, the point is take inane babblings and turn them into something interesting and informative.

[BazBear]

That's not the point, the point is take inane babblings and turn them into something interesting and informative.
I agree. Over the years, I've learned a great deal about many subjects from watching CTs debated on internet forums. Obviously most of the information is about subjects and events related to the CT under discussion, but many times it's learning about things not even directly related.

[Spindrift]

That's not the point, the point is take inane babblings and turn them into something interesting and informative.

That is what keeps threads like this entertaining. I know I learn things and as a bonus it's fun to watch someone try to dance their way through the minefield of misstatements they've laid. The whole "You guys are just stupid with your facts and all. I just have to say your facts are wrong and I win." mentality can be tedious but lots of information from people who really know what they are talking about can be found in even the most-trollish of threads.

[Gawdzilla]

It's most fun when one or more people know a huge amount more about the event than the CTer. :D

(This isn't hard in the current case, the proponent only has a line or two on the Google page to work with as he doesn't follow links.)

[dudalb]

So I missed out on the 'action' of a couple of pages. I see SHC tried to invoked the Treaty of Versaille pity party.

No. Just....No.

Any claim that the Nazis were only interested in correcting the more unjust clauses of the Treaty of Versailles (and Germany did have some legitimate grivences there) went out the window when they took over Czechslovakia in the spring of 1939. After that the Nazi goals were clear;German Domination and Rule over Europe. The only thing left unclear was to what extremes the Nazis would go to bring into reality their Racial fantasies of a "Aryan Europe".

[Garrison]

Here's my two cents worth. If the Allies make it clear they won't under any circumstances bomb civilians what does the Third Reich do? They move civilians as human shields around every military target. Its one of the dilemmas of war, you may have to compromise the ideals you are fighting for to prevent the enemy destroying them altogether.

[Craig4]

So I missed out on the 'action' of a couple of pages. I see SHC tried to invoked the Treaty of Versaille pity party.

No. Just....No.

I'm always darkly amused when this comes up. Why is it they no one looks at the German behavior after the Franco/Prussian War where the Germans forced the French to pay for the war and took Alsace Lorraine. The annexation of French territory in 1871 had a direct tie into the start of the WWI. Germany had very little right to complain over Versaille when they set the precedent in 1871.

[Craig4]

Here's my two cents worth. If the Allies make it clear they won't under any circumstances bomb civilians what does the Third Reich do? They move civilians as human shields around every military target. Its one of the dilemmas of war, you may have to compromise the ideals you are fighting for to prevent the enemy destroying them altogether.

Or better question, why were so many civilians and other noncombatants living in such close proximity to industrial centers?

[Hans]

I'm always darkly amused when this comes up. Why is it they no one looks at the German behavior after the Franco/Prussian War where the Germans forced the French to pay for the war and took Alsace Lorraine. The annexation of French territory in 1871 had a direct tie into the start of the WWI. Germany had very little right to complain over Versaille when they set the precedent in 1871.





War reparations were a 'normal' part of war - it was once called tribute.

[Corsair 115]

Or better question, why were so many civilians and other noncombatants living in such close proximity to industrial centers?


Well, cities back then weren't like what they are today. Suburbs didn't really exist back then, or at least not at all like they do today. Plus at the heart of almost every European city was a railway station, and that particular bit of transportation infrastructure was always a prime target.

[ddt]

The USAF didn't drop carpets.
And there I always thought that "carpet bombing" meant the bombs were delivered from flying carpets. Thanks for correcting me. :D

Well, cities back then weren't like what they are today. Suburbs didn't really exist back then, or at least not at all like they do today. Plus at the heart of almost every European city was a railway station, and that particular bit of transportation infrastructure was always a prime target.
Yes and Dresden was also a major railway hub.

[Tomtomkent]

How do you hang ashes? I just saw the post where SHC wants to shoot FDR, burn him THEN hang him?

I think the attention to detail is a microcosm of this conversation.

[kookbreaker]

War reparations were a 'normal' part of war - it was once called tribute.

Indeed.

That being said look at the terms that ended WW1 on the Eastern front in the Brest-Litovsk treaty and most sympathy for the conditions of the Versaille treaty fall by the wayside.

[erwinl]

Indeed.

That being said look at the terms that ended WW1 on the Eastern front in the Brest-Litovsk treaty and most sympathy for the conditions of the Versaille treaty fall by the wayside.

True, but that doesn't take away the faults in the Versaille Treaty.

Of course nobody can look into the future and none of the people then present could have predicted a person like Hitler and his NSDAP rising in Germany (including Hitler himself) and the horror they would inflict on Europe.

If the peace treaty clearly harbours the seeds for a future conflict/war in the forseeable future, I think a new look has to be taken at the wisdom of the terms of this peace treaty.
What would a better Versailles Treaty, supposing the wish/need for punishing Germany foor needlessly invading Belgium and France, while not making Germany want to have revanche, have looked like?
I don't know. That is something worthy of discussion.

[Captain_Swoop]

War reparations were a 'normal' part of war - it was once called tribute.

Skinningrove Iron and Steel Company near where I live got a German Rolling Mill as part of the War Reparations after WW1. It is still in use today as part of the British Steel Special Sections plant. It makes Rolled sections for fabrication of Track Shoes for Caterpillar and also any 'small' and 'special' runs of steel. It came from a Crupps Steelworks.

[Border Reiver]

Such a treaty would probably be a first (ie one where the loser both paid reparations/tribute AND did not have the seeds of a potential conflict in it). And given human nature to date, extremely unlikely - one only needs to look at much of the acrimony that goes on in the Balkans over events that took place in the 15th century, or the hard feelings that exist between various regions of the UK to see that it is really hard sometimes for people to "let it go", particularly if they see themselves as having been hard done by another group.

[Craig4]

Well, cities back then weren't like what they are today. Suburbs didn't really exist back then, or at least not at all like they do today. Plus at the heart of almost every European city was a railway station, and that particular bit of transportation infrastructure was always a prime target.

Yes but there were vast areas of Germany away from industrial areas where the Germans could have moved their noncombatants. The English had a program to move children away from targets. Under the Laws of Armed Conflict, it's the responsibility of being the party being attacked to keep civilians away from targets. Industrial centers were targets.

[Craig4]

War reparations were a 'normal' part of war - it was once called tribute.

Sure but it's a question of scale. The Franco Prussian War was the first time we saw the application of Clausewitz's ideas about forcing the enemy to pay for for being conquered. The loss of Alsace Lorraine (lovely area, you should visit) to the Germans set the conditions for a second war with Germany.

[erwinl]

Such a treaty would probably be a first (ie one where the loser both paid reparations/tribute AND did not have the seeds of a potential conflict in it). And given human nature to date, extremely unlikely - one only needs to look at much of the acrimony that goes on in the Balkans over events that took place in the 15th century, or the hard feelings that exist between various regions of the UK to see that it is really hard sometimes for people to "let it go", particularly if they see themselves as having been hard done by another group.

You are right that it would be very unique for there to be no feelings of 'getting back' for the provisions in the peace treaty. If those feelings can be kept low key enough for them not to become a problem later, it would be good enough.

I don't have the wisdom to suggest a better Versailles Treaty. Maybe letting go of the War Guilt Clause. That was one which seeded bad blood in Germany which Hitler and co could capitalize on. There was guilt enough at the beginning for almost all nations to share in. On the other hand Germany DID invade Belgium and France unprovoked.
As some at the time said that the Versailles Treaty was only a twenty year armistice till the next war, it was recognised that it could have been better.

Maybe it would have been better to just continue the war and truely crush the German armies and invade Germay proper. Akin to what happened in WWII. But one can't really blame people then for getting sick of the daily slaughter at the western front and wanting to stop that.

Maybe there just wasn't a good answer.

[ddt]

You are right that it would be very unique for there to be no feelings of 'getting back' for the provisions in the peace treaty. If those feelings can be kept low key enough for them not to become a problem later, it would be good enough.

I don't have the wisdom to suggest a better Versailles Treaty. Maybe letting go of the War Guilt Clause. That was one which seeded bad blood in Germany which Hitler and co could capitalize on. There was guilt enough at the beginning for almost all nations to share in. On the other hand Germany DID invade Belgium and France unprovoked.
As some at the time said that the Versailles Treaty was only a twenty year armistice till the next war, it was recognised that it could have been better.

Maybe it would have been better to just continue the war and truely crush the German armies and invade Germay proper. Akin to what happened in WWII. But one can't really blame people then for getting sick of the daily slaughter at the western front and wanting to stop that.

Maybe there just wasn't a good answer.
The latter might indeed have been the better option. One of the pervasive myths in interwar Germany was that the army had not been defeated in the field. Whereas we all know that Ludendorff urged to sign the armistice in a hopeless situation when the German army was on the brink of collapse. Or at the very least, the Entente powers should have insisted that the military leadership sign the armistice and not some opposition politicians.

The prime blame qua person for the revanchist feelings in Germany must be placed on Ludendorff. He spread the myth of the "not defeated army". He spread the myth of the Dolchstoss legend. And he did various other things to undermine the fledgling Weimar republic, e.g., by participating in the Beer Hall putsch.

Second comes Ebert. With the Ebert-Groener pact, he essentially put the new Weimar republic at the mercy of the army. And subsequently he armed the proto-fascist Freikorps to murder his own party members. And he failed to see how pervasive reactionary elements in German society were: you only have to look at Hitler's sentencing to see what I mean. In effect, all German politicians share the blame for not standing up enough for their new republic.

The "War Guilt Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Guilt_Clause)" is a red herring. The clause does not assign guilt but responsibility. That's a fine but relevant distinction. The hangup in Germany about the clause is also unique: neither the Austrians nor the Hungarians had that same problem.

[Gawdzilla]

The latter might indeed have been the better option. One of the pervasive myths in interwar Germany was that the army had not been defeated in the field.
The President of the Wiemar Republic greeted the returning troops by telling them they were undefeated in the field of battle.

[dudalb]

One reason why the Allies were so insistent on an occupation of Japan being part of the Surrender terms was the memory of what the failure to bring home to the Germans in 1918 the fact that they were defeated resulted in. The wanted no "We were not defeated but stabbed in the back" myth to get started in Japan.

[Gawdzilla]

One reason why the Allies were so insistent on an occupation of Japan being part of the Surrender terms was the memory of what the failure to bring home to the Germans in 1918 the fact that they were defeated resulted in. The wanted no "We were not defeated but stabbed in the back" myth to get started in Japan.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not being argumentative. I would like to see a source for that, please. The concept interests me.

[carlitos]

Let me preface this by saying I'm not being argumentative. I would like to see a source for that, please. The concept interests me.

Me too. I read a few books about the treaty of Versailles and would be interested in how that motivation played a factor in administrating post-war Japan.

[Gawdzilla]

Me too. I read a few books about the treaty of Versailles and would be interested in how that motivation played a factor in administrating post-war Japan.

My crystal balls say this came from the MacArthur Shogunate.

[Laton]

One reason why the Allies were so insistent on an occupation of Japan being part of the Surrender terms was the memory of what the failure to bring home to the Germans in 1918 the fact that they were defeated resulted in. The wanted no "We were not defeated but stabbed in the back" myth to get started in Japan.

A few years ago I heard an NPR piece on (I think) the bombing of Dreseden and the bomber offensive as a whole.

The historian on the show said that one of the reasons that the Brits went at the Germans so hard was the feeling that they had either been at war with, or worried about war with Germany for the preceeding 50 years or so and when the opportunity arose were content to remove the threat once and for all.

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
Further evidence of Roosevelt's communism. The OSS (forerunner of the CIA) bought a captured soviet code book from Finnish intelligence. FDR ordered them to hand it back. The Venona papers clearly demonstrate that the US government was riddled with soviet spies and fifth columnists thanks to the treachery of Roosevelt. The rot started at the top with him. www.conservapedia.com/Venona_project (http://www.conservapedia.com/Venona_project)

[SpringHallConvert]

Further evidence of Roosevelt's communism. The OSS (forerunner of the CIA) bought a captured soviet code book from Finnish intelligence. FDR ordered them to hand it back. The Venona papers clearly demonstrate that the US government was riddled with soviet spies and fifth columnists thanks to the treachery of Roosevelt. The rot started at the top with him. www.conservapedia.com/Venona_project (http://www.conservapedia.com/Venona_project)

And all along, the government truthers of the world thought Senator McCarthy was wrong about high-level communist infiltration of the U.S. government.

Nowadays, it looks like McCarthy discovered/detected the edge of a conspiracy too massive to even conceive of.

[MaGZ]

Your post was inaccurate and severely biased. I fixed it for you.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RhEqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=l2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4166,3845228&dq=american+japanese+concentration+camps&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=AAJgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QyANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1114,148029&dq=american+japanese+concentration+camps&hl=en

[Tomtomkent]

And all along, the government truthers of the world thought Senator McCarthy was wrong about high-level communist infiltration of the U.S. government.

Nowadays, it looks like McCarthy discovered/detected the edge of a conspiracy too massive to even conceive of.

No, it looks as though Macarthy appologists are willing to believe other conspiracy theories.

Or that those who already believe in the conspiracy theory are willing to be MaCarthy appologists.


To those who take an objective view of all the evidence, instead of indulging in confirmation bias, it looks like no such thing at all.

[SpringHallConvert]

No, it looks as though Macarthy appologists are willing to believe other conspiracy theories.

Or that those who already believe in the conspiracy theory are willing to be MaCarthy appologists.


To those who take an objective view of all the evidence, instead of indulging in confirmation bias, it looks like no such thing at all.

Does this response come with a decoder ring?

Can somebody decode this babble for me?

[Tomtomkent]

Does this response come with a decoder ring?

Can somebody decode this babble for me?

Which sentence has you flumuxed? Which phrase has left you confounded?

Never mind. No deary, it does not look like MaCarther uncovered the big nasty conspiracy. It just looks like you have not learned from history and are thus doomed to repeat it.

[SpringHallConvert]

Which sentence has you flumuxed? Which phrase has left you confounded?

All of it. Are you drunk or something?

Never mind. No deary, it does not look like MaCarther uncovered the big nasty conspiracy.

Horse manure. The VENONA decrypts suggest otherwise. In fact, they suggest McCarthy was right on the money.

It just looks like you have not learned from history and are thus doomed to repeat it.

Which history is that? The history that's nothing more than a tapestry of conspiracies?

[Tomtomkent]

Really? The Veona manuscripts suggest that hollywood was a hotbed of Soviet spies, and that numerous harmless socialist (not communist) groups posed an immediate threat to the American way of life?

I think it is blatantly obvious that are indulging in the same kind of paranoia and confirmation bias that the MaCarthy witch trials indulged in. Taking known examples of espionage and infiltration to validateimagined cases with far wider scope. You are also ignoring the specific areas that maCarthy et al believed bred unamerican activites to claim that the conspiracy he described was the conspiracy you describe.

And of course you ignore any and all data that conflicts with your views.

You may need a decoder ring, but to me it clearly seems as though you are already a MaCarthy apollogist latching onto a conspiracy theory to justify the witch trials, or you are validating your CT with Macarthy.

Of course, if you wanted to prove Macarthy was right it's simple: if the spies listed in the Veona text constitute a significant proportion of those blacklisted or imprisoned by the Unamerican Activity board Macarthy was on the money. If they constitute a small percentage he was exagerating. If they were not even identified or investigated we know MaCarthy was looking in the wrong place for the wrong kind of conspiracy.

This is before we even look at the fine details of indipendant validation of the names, the extent and remit of their activities and so forth. If the names were only those of sources gathering information then the limits of influence your CT assumes them to have is called into question. How and when they were recruited needs to be examined. If they were spies because of, inspite of, or irregardless of FDR is essential knowledge before the accuracy of your assertion is stated.

But you have made no objective case for this. You assume the information is suggestive of your favoured narrative because you wish it to be so. For those of us who remain objective it does not suggest what you claim.

[SpringHallConvert]

Really? The Veona manuscripts suggest that hollywood was a hotbed of Soviet spies, and that numerous harmless socialist (not communist) groups posed an immediate threat to the American way of life?

I think it is blatantly obvious that are indulging in the same kind of paranoia and confirmation bias that the MaCarthy witch trials indulged in. Taking known examples of espionage and infiltration to validateimagined cases with far wider scope. You are also ignoring the specific areas that maCarthy et al believed bred unamerican activites to claim that the conspiracy he described was the conspiracy you describe.

And of course you ignore any and all data that conflicts with your views.

You may need a decoder ring, but to me it clearly seems as though you are already a MaCarthy apollogist latching onto a conspiracy theory to justify the witch trials, or you are validating your CT with Macarthy.

Of course, if you wanted to prove Macarthy was right it's simple: if the spies listed in the Veona text constitute a significant proportion of those blacklisted or imprisoned by the Unamerican Activity board Macarthy was on the money. If they constitute a small percentage he was exagerating. If they were not even identified or investigated we know MaCarthy was looking in the wrong place for the wrong kind of conspiracy.

This is before we even look at the fine details of indipendant validation of the names, the extent and remit of their activities and so forth. If the names were only those of sources gathering information then the limits of influence your CT assumes them to have is called into question. How and when they were recruited needs to be examined. If they were spies because of, inspite of, or irregardless of FDR is essential knowledge before the accuracy of your assertion is stated.

But you have made no objective case for this. You assume the information is suggestive of your favoured narrative because you wish it to be so. For those of us who remain objective it does not suggest what you claim.

What in the world are you babbling about? McCarthy had NOTHING to do with the investigations of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Good grief.

[Gawdzilla]

Really? The Veona manuscripts suggest that hollywood was a hotbed of Soviet spies, and that numerous harmless socialist (not communist) groups posed an immediate threat to the American way of life?
Amusingly, some isolationists in Congress got all hot and bothered about Hollywood before we entered WWII. Their target? Nazis? No. Commies? No. They were convinced that the British were running Hollywood and using the movies to sway public opinion. The hearing transcripts are available if anybody wants a chuckle. :)

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, so let's give SHC the benefit of the doubt. By McCarthy being "on the money" I thought you meant the wider accusations and suggestions made by McCarthy, not a specific.

This however means my suggested methodology needs to be corrected, it does not mean we can ignore the holes in the data. We still need to establish if the infiltration was to the extent and purpose McCarthy suggested, and if that validates your claims it was "because" of FDR. We need to know if the list of people McCarthy had was the same as those in the document, if their roles were as he described, active soviet agents, and if they exuded influence on behalf of the soviets or simply reported information back. Then we need to establish if this was inspite of, because of, or irregardless of FDR.

Had the wider suggestion of infiltration been part of McCarthys view being discussed we could stilluse the huac as a good benchmark. Compare who was on the list to who was arrested. But now we look at the specific claim SHC just has to show those who are in the decodes were on the "McCarthy list" of statedepartment employees. Or maybe in his army board investigations.

Proving this was because of FDR will remain more abstraxt...

[aggle-rithm]

Amusingly, some isolationists in Congress got all hot and bothered about Hollywood before we entered WWII. Their target? Nazis? No. Commies? No. They were convinced that the British were running Hollywood and using the movies to sway public opinion. The hearing transcripts are available if anybody wants a chuckle. :)

British...Jews...Communists...Popular Mechanics...all part of the same cabal.

[HawksFan]

"American parts, Russian parts. All made in Taiwan!"

[The Dark Lord]

"American parts, Russian parts. All made in Taiwan!"

Is it bad that I know where that is from?

[Tomtomkent]

Amusingly, some isolationists in Congress got all hot and bothered about Hollywood before we entered WWII. Their target? Nazis? No. Commies? No. They were convinced that the British were running Hollywood and using the movies to sway public opinion. The hearing transcripts are available if anybody wants a chuckle. :)

As a side note here, there was an American movement to join the war that had little to do with FDR. The big propaganda hit they produced, the song White Cliffs of Dover, which is derived largley from "over the rainbow" became an even bigger hit when exported to the UK. So much so that few brits know it was written by an American, for Americans to idylise the brit war effort. The first lyric, "there will be blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover" is utterly wrong. Bluebirds are not native to Kent, or the UK.

[Gawdzilla]

As a side note here, there was an American movement to join the war that had little to do with FDR. The big propaganda hit they produced, the song White Cliffs of Dover, which is derived largley from "over the rainbow" became an even bigger hit when exported to the UK. So much so that few brits know it was written by an American, for Americans to idylise the brit war effort. The first lyric, "there will be blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover" is utterly wrong. Bluebirds are not native to Kent, or the UK.

Try "A Yank in the RAF" for a less than subtle movie. :D

[Tomtomkent]

Try "A Yank in the RAF" for a less than subtle movie. :D

Unfortunately my countrymen were less favourable to returning the propoganda favour, and took deep personal offence to "Operation Burma" which made all American heroes responsible for battles that took place before Pearl Harbour (see also U571) and the film (Operation Burma, not U571) was banned for decades (though the latter film was bad enough to deserve it).


Damn it. This is all because FDR fought for the Polio vaccine and saved America from the Fresh Water Curse isn't it? How dare the cad and bounder increase the standard of living for the majority of working class Americans. The fiend!

[Gawdzilla]

Unfortunately my countrymen were less favourable to returning the propoganda favour, and took deep personal offence to "Operation Burma" which made all American heroes responsible for battles that took place before Pearl Harbour (see also U571) and the film (Operation Burma, not U571) was banned for decades (though the latter film was bad enough to deserve it).
John Wayne tried to make up for some of that in "The Longest Day".
Damn it. This is all because FDR fought for the Polio vaccine and saved America from the Fresh Water Curse isn't it? How dare the cad and bounder increase the standard of living for the majority of working class Americans. The fiend!

As well as letting the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor.

[Tomtomkent]

John Wayne tried to make up for some of that in "The Longest Day".


As well as letting the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor.

Yes. Those pesky Japanese Germns, starved of supplies and fuel in key areas by an effective blockade.

Still, there is ONE documentary film that manages to accurately recreate the true story of what REALLY happened...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

http://www.videodetective.com/movies/final-countdown/841407

[Gawdzilla]

Yes. Those pesky Japanese Germns, starved of supplies and fuel in key areas by an effective blockade.

Still, there is ONE documentary film that manages to accurately recreate the true story of what REALLY happened...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080736/

http://www.videodetective.com/movies/final-countdown/841407

Insert gnashing of teeth here.

[Tomtomkent]

Insert gnashing of teeth here.

What? It was by Gerry Davis! He created the Cybermen! And had president Bartlet in his pre-politics Naval career.... :rolleyes:

And is as realistic as the idea FDR "let" Pearl Harbour happen.

[Border Reiver]

Look, most war movies, especially those actually produced during the war years have about as much realistic portrayal of the causes, etc of conflict as "Captain America" has with respect to WWII Spec Ops in NW Europe.

[Gawdzilla]

Look, most war movies, especially those actually produced during the war years have about as much realistic portrayal of the causes, etc of conflict as "Captain America" has with respect to WWII Spec Ops in NW Europe.

You mean "Gung Ho!" wasn't a documentary? :eek:

(A bit embarrassing during the Cold War as Randolph Scott expresses admiration for the Chinese Communists, IIRC.)

[Dancing David]

Someone once stated that John Wayne was the most hated man in WWII by US troops, because of his movies, they enlisted.

[Gawdzilla]

Someone once stated that John Wayne was the most hated man in WWII by US troops, because of his movies, they enlisted.

Not true. They mobbed him wherever he went. See Randy Robert's John Wayne, American, probably the best bio of the Duke written. He constantly asked to be allowed to join up.

[Tomtomkent]

Not true. They mobbed him wherever he went. See Randy Robert's John Wayne, American, probably the best bio of the Duke written. He constantly asked to be allowed to join up.

He perhaps played on the image a little too much. The great advocate of the armed forces who avoided active service to furhter his career. Though he seemed to be popular with many servicemen I can see why the dislike was not an entirely unheard of point of view amongst the more disenfranchised service men. It is not an either/or point of view, bith were popular, but one was considerably more popular.

Or such is my understanding.

[catsmate1]

Amusingly, some isolationists in Congress got all hot and bothered about Hollywood before we entered WWII. Their target? Nazis? No. Commies? No. They were convinced that the British were running Hollywood and using the movies to sway public opinion. The hearing transcripts are available if anybody wants a chuckle. :)

What? It was by Gerry Davis! He created the Cybermen! And had president Bartlet in his pre-politics Naval career.... :rolleyes:

And is as realistic as the idea FDR "let" Pearl Harbour happen.

Well I've learned two new things today. Thanks.

[aggle-rithm]

Yes. Those pesky Japanese Germns, starved of supplies and fuel in key areas by an effective blockade.


Reminds me of how kids in elementary school called me a "Jap" because they found out I had German ancestry.

[Tomtomkent]

Reminds me of how kids in elementary school called me a "Jap" because they found out I had German ancestry.

Not as embarrassing as the kid in my class who said Japan had lost ww2, but won Vietnam.

[Gawdzilla]

He perhaps played on the image a little too much. The great advocate of the armed forces who avoided active service to furhter his career. Though he seemed to be popular with many servicemen I can see why the dislike was not an entirely unheard of point of view amongst the more disenfranchised service men. It is not an either/or point of view, bith were popular, but one was considerably more popular.

Or such is my understanding.

There will always be somebody that doesn't like somebody else. But if you've heard that the Duke was greatly disliked by active duty personnel I would love to see your sources if you have them handy. Prof. Roberts likes to see items that challenge his work. (He was my lead prof at Purdue.)

[Hans]

There will always be somebody that doesn't like somebody else. But if you've heard that the Duke was greatly disliked by active duty personnel I would love to see your sources if you have them handy. Prof. Roberts likes to see items that challenge his work. (He was my lead prof at Purdue.)

In the late 1970's he was well liked in the active duty military. I was at an OP in Grafenwoehr when Pathfinder 6 came up on the Divarty net and put out the message he had died, we fired a TOT in his honor. My father and his six brothers who fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam held him in high esteem

[kookbreaker]

I think Errol Flynn had the problem since he was complete 4F. This was more of an image problem, as he was an action hero who was seen as a draft dodger.

[Gawdzilla]

In the late 1970's he was well liked in the active duty military. I was at an OP in Grafenwoehr when Pathfinder 6 came up on the Divarty net and put out the message he had died, we fired a TOT in his honor. My father and his six brothers who fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam held him in high esteem

The Marines nearly mutinied when it was rumored that he wouldn't be in "Sands of Iwo Jima".

[Matthew Ellard]

Unfortunately my countrymen were less favourable to returning the propoganda favour, and took deep personal offence to "Operation Burma" which made all American heroes responsible for battles that took place before Pearl Harbour (see also U571) and the film (Operation Burma, not U571) was banned for decades (though the latter film was bad enough to deserve it).

My father, Group Captain Ellard of the RAAF, was not a fan of the film "Operation Burma". During the Malay insurgency he claimed to spend as much time keeping out American intelligence officers as communist Chinese insurgents cells. Our turf dear boy...our turf....

(I do realise,now, that Malaya is the property of people who live there and not the property of a bunch of senior officers from the Commonwealth services.)

[Hans]

My father, Group Captain Ellard of the RAAF, was not a fan of the film "Operation Burma". During the Malay insurgency he claimed to spend as much time keeping out American intelligence officers as communist Chinese insurgents cells. Our turf dear boy...our turf....

(I do realise,now, that Malaya is the property of people who live there and not the property of a bunch of senior officers from the Commonwealth services.)

That's interesting my father was one of the American Intelligence officers doing just that. He was there in 1954, dealing with tactical intelligence and translation of Chinese language maps/documents

[Tomtomkent]

There will always be somebody that doesn't like somebody else. But if you've heard that the Duke was greatly disliked by active duty personnel I would love to see your sources if you have them handy. Prof. Roberts likes to see items that challenge his work. (He was my lead prof at Purdue.)

Easy tiger I didn't say he was "greatly disliked", just not universally liked. I unfortunately wont have any statistics, because gossip is rarely accompanied by fact. I just pointed out, that like any group, there was a spectrum of opinions I. Even agreed that Wayne being popular was almost certainly the predominant feeling. You just quoted me agreeing with you. But suppose for a second you were an outsider who happened upon one serviceman who had the not unheard of (i am not saying greatly, as that suggests a majority or sizable minority) opinion that Marion was a shameful draft dodger who put his career ahead of his country and Jimmy Stewart was the real cowboy. Then you heard from a guy that his brother had said much the same. That could easily be mistaken for the "most hated man" statement after a few rounds of gossiping.

[Matthew Ellard]

That's interesting my father was one of the American Intelligence officers doing just that. He was there in 1954, dealing with tactical intelligence and translation of Chinese language maps/documents

Australian Intelligence officer in Sth East Asia (1950s)
Plain shorts, long socks, sensible walking shoes and an occasional uniform for visiting the mess at Butterworth.

USA intelligence officer in Sth East Asia (1950s)
Check or patterned long trousers, sensible walking shoes and an occasional suit, with thin tie, for visiting the embassy.

Russian GRU Intelligence officer in Sth East Asia (1950s)Double breasted suit, wide silk tie and a handkerchief to continuously wipe his brow and the occasional civvy outfit to buy jewelry for his girlfriend back in Moscow Central.

But seriously.....when the Chinese were all getting slaughtered by the Malays, my father decided to bring some of them home to live with my family for a year or so. I know this is unusual. However it was good, as a kid, to eat breakfast with mum, dad, my siblings and a couple of Chinese university professors waiting for things to settle down. In the mid 70s Dad came home and said "Guess what....we are moving to India" For this reason I am one of the few "Anglos" you will meet who worked in an Indian tyre retreading factory as a 16 year old. My manservant found the job as my parents wanted me to learn about work. (Yep I got picked up in an old Humber by my manservant after a hard day pressing old tyres...which isn't really learning about work)

[Gawdzilla]

Easy tiger I didn't say he was "greatly disliked", just not universally liked. I unfortunately wont have any statistics, because gossip is rarely accompanied by fact. I just pointed out, that like any group, there was a spectrum of opinions I. Even agreed that Wayne being popular was almost certainly the predominant feeling. You just quoted me agreeing with you. But suppose for a second you were an outsider who happened upon one serviceman who had the not unheard of (i am not saying greatly, as that suggests a majority or sizable minority) opinion that Marion was a shameful draft dodger who put his career ahead of his country and Jimmy Stewart was the real cowboy. Then you heard from a guy that his brother had said much the same. That could easily be mistaken for the "most hated man" statement after a few rounds of gossiping.

You need to read the green text in my sign, matey.

[Jack by the hedge]

But seriously.....when the Chinese were all getting slaughtered by the Malays, my father decided to bring some of them home to live with my family for a year or so. I know this is unusual. However it was good, as a kid, to eat breakfast with mum, dad, my siblings and a couple of Chinese university professors waiting for things to settle down. In the mid 70s Dad came home and said "Guess what....we are moving to India" For this reason I am one of the few "Anglos" you will meet who worked in an Indian tyre retreading factory as a 16 year old. My manservant found the job as my parents wanted me to learn about work. (Yep I got picked up in an old Humber by my manservant after a hard day pressing old tyres...which isn't really learning about work)[/COLOR]

I know very well that I had a dull, uneventful upbringing, but it gets even flatter and greyer when you put it into perspective like that. :D

[Tomtomkent]

You need to read the green text in my sign, matey.

What, and miss the oppertunity to remain on my stilted pony?

[Gawdzilla]

What, and miss the oppertunity to remain on my stilted pony?

Far be it from me to make you miss an oppertunity.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg160/crescent_dawn/Gifs%20Jpgs%20Smilies/anicheshirecat.gif

[aggle-rithm]

Not as embarrassing as the kid in my class who said Japan had lost ww2, but won Vietnam.

Still not as bad as the textbook that said the US won the Korean War by dropping the atomic bomb.

[Captain_Swoop]

Well, they got that dangerous Commie Spy Charlie Chaplin out of the country. Just think what damage he could have done if they had let him back in!

[Tomtomkent]

Well, they got that dangerous Commie Spy Charlie Chaplin out of the country. Just think what damage he could have done if they had let him back in!

I'm not sure... But I think it would have involved playing volleyball with a huge plastic globe to classical music...

[dudalb]

John Wayne has been dead for over Thirty Years, but his name still evokes a over the top hatred from some people,genrally on the Left.

[Spindrift]

John Wayne has been dead for over Thirty Years, but his name still evokes a over the top hatred from some people,genrally on the Left.

My home is the reverse of the general case. I'm a die-hard liberal, my wife is right of center. She can't stand John Wayne, thinks he can't act. I love John Wayne and while he wasn't Olivier, he was a good actor.

[Captain_Swoop]

I like JW as well but my fave Cowboys are Clint and Audie Murphy

[Redtail]

I like JW as well but my fave Cowboys are Clint and Audie Murphy

I like Sam Elliot.

[dafydd]

Hopalong Cassidy.

[TSR]

No love for my boy Cllint?

[BazBear]

Yeah, I'll go with Clint, though I do like Wayne.

Way back in '81 at GenCon East (a gaming convention) I was in a Boot Hill game(role playing game). When picking our characters four of us wanted Clint, and we had a roll off, and I rolled high and got him. My team was the "bad guys" defending a town against the "good guys". I was in the second floor of a building on the edge of town, and took a long range shot with my revolver at the Lone Ranger. IIRC I rolled a 98 or 99 (2 ten sided dice) killing the LR with a head shot. A little later I wounded John Wayne in the leg. But then Tonto snuck up on me and blew my *** up by throwing a stick of dynamite into the room.

[Tomtomkent]

Yeah, I'll go with Clint, though I do like Wayne.

Way back in '81 at GenCon East (a gaming convention) I was in a Boot Hill game(role playing game). When picking our characters four of us wanted Clint, and we had a roll off, and I rolled high and got him. My team was the "bad guys" defending a town against the "good guys". I was in the second floor of a building on the edge of town, and took a long range shot with my revolver at the Lone Ranger. IIRC I rolled a 98 or 99 (2 ten sided dice) killing the LR with a head shot. A little later I wounded John Wayne in the leg. But then Tonto snuck up on me and blew my *** up by throwing a stick of dynamite into the room.

This year, stop by the Kenzerco stand and ask to try a game of Aces and Eights rpg.

[dc1971]

No, shot, burned at the stake, and then hung.


YEAH! Just like they did in the Dark Ages!

Go Witch Trials!

:rolleyes:

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
How the traitor Roosevelt sacrificed the lives of US servicemen at Bataan. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/bataan.html

[Dancing David]

Um, tolerating Stalin for the duration while defeating Hitler is hardly support of Stalin.

[Garrison]

How the traitor Roosevelt sacrificed the lives of US servicemen at Bataan. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/bataan.html

Yeah, when it started talking about 'a strong defensive position' I pretty much gave up. It had been assumed for years in war planning that the bulk of the Philippines couldn't be held. The plans I believe called for a fighting retreat to Bataan to hold out until the USN could relieve them. Two things went wrong with that plan; the attack on Pearl Harbor and a massive display of incompetence in the handling of the defence of the Philippines. The latter is indeed mind boggling but no more so than that of Malaya or Singapore by the British. It was simply part of the pattern of inadequate preparation and underestimating the Japanese that cost the Allies so heavily at the beginning of the war in the Pacific.

[Gawdzilla]

Yeah, when it started talking about 'a strong defensive position' I pretty much gave up. It had been assumed for years in war planning that the bulk of the Philippines couldn't be held. The plans I believe called for a fighting retreat to Bataan to hold out until the USN could relieve them. Two things went wrong with that plan; the attack on Pearl Harbor and a massive display of incompetence in the handling of the defence of the Philippines. The latter is indeed mind boggling but no more so than that of Malaya or Singapore by the British. It was simply part of the pattern of inadequate preparation and underestimating the Japanese that cost the Allies so heavily at the beginning of the war in the Pacific.

The only way the Philippines could have been relieved is if they'd held out until after the Battle of Midway. We started building up the Filipino Army too late, and put MacArthur in charge of it. Both bad errors.

But, of course, some loon will always charge FDR with the loss. And for sinking the Titanic too.

[Craig4]

John Wayne has been dead for over Thirty Years, but his name still evokes a over the top hatred from some people,genrally on the Left.

So unfair. Rooster Cogburn makes up for so many bad movies.

[kookbreaker]

I like how the conclusion is that Bataan was sacrificed to daw Hitler into the war.....Hitler declared war on the 11th of December and Bataan held out until March of the next year.

How's that work again?

Mondial's FDR haters aren't very bright, are they?

[Gawdzilla]

I like how the conclusion is that Bataan was sacrificed to daw Hitler into the war.....Hitler declared war on the 11th of December and Bataan held out until March of the next year.

How's that work again?

Mondial's FDR haters aren't very bright, are they?

Their thinking is very visceral. Or maybe it's right at the end of the viscera?

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
Another good article on the criminal nature of Roosevelt and how he fanned the flames of war. www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html)

[uke2se]

Another good article on the criminal nature of Roosevelt and how he fanned the flames of war. www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html)

Nope. That's not a good article.

[Dcdrac]

Roosevelt a communist how laughable, what fantasy history is this?

[timhau]

Oh noes, one dose of IHR garbage is potent enough to resurrect 4-month old zombie threads!

Roosevelt a communist how laughable, what fantasy history is this?

It's kind of like a gay romp with Adolf and Eva in Berchtesgaden, except in this one The Joos faked the Holocaust to rule the planet.

[kookbreaker]

Another good article on the criminal nature of Roosevelt and how he fanned the flames of war. www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html)

* kookbreaker points and laughs at the stupid, stupid article.

[SpitfireIX]

Ah. This is obviously some strange usage of the word "good" that I hadn't previously been aware of. :rolleyes:

Not enough laughing dogs to do it justice. Epic fail.

Why don't you tell us in your own words instead of linking to an article by a pseudohistorian of the David Irving school (i.e., one who relies only on facts and quotations that can be twisted or taken out of context to attempt to show that Hitler was a good guy, and ignores the mountain of evidence that he wasn't).

[CORed]

Not as embarrassing as the kid in my class who said Japan had lost ww2, but won Vietnam.

You don't really expect him to keep all those slanty-eyed yellow people straight do you? :D

[Mondial]

Another good article on the criminal nature of Roosevelt and how he fanned the flames of war. www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html)
The above article is taken from the revisionist book THE FORCED WAR WHEN PEACEFUL REVISION FAILED. The entire book is available free online at www.gnosticliberationfront.com/The%20Forced%20War1.htm (http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/The%20Forced%20War1.htm)

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
Further evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering. His secret plan to bomb Japan which was on the cards long before Pearl Harbor.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2351

[Matthew Ellard]

Further evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering. His secret plan to bomb Japan which was on the cards long before Pearl Harbor.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2351

You didn't actually look at the letter did you? The "secret" letter was sent to Roosevelt for his approval. As the action never took place it can be implied that Roosevelt didn't give the approval.

This is the problem quoting "papers" by holocaust deniers. As a holocaust denier yourself I thought you already knew that.

[Hans]

Here's the actual paper for those interested in reading it

http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/tigers/PHhearingdoc.pdf

I wonder how this stacks up to the German deployment of the Hitler's Condor legion and the Mussolini's Corpo Truppe Volontarie?

[tsig]

Further evidence of Roosevelt's warmongering. His secret plan to bomb Japan which was on the cards long before Pearl Harbor.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2351

Well that does it, I'm never voting for him again.

[dafydd]

Well that does it, I'm never voting for him again.

And if I ever bump into him I will give him the cold shoulder.

[Gawdzilla]

Here's the actual paper for those interested in reading it

http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/tigers/PHhearingdoc.pdf

I wonder how this stacks up to the German deployment of the Hitler's Condor legion and the Mussolini's Corpo Truppe Volontarie?

Part 20 of the PHA can be found here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/
"pp. 4539-4544" indicates there is additional documents related to this one in the Exhibits.

[Mondial]

Franklin Roosevelt was a closet communist. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdr.html
Everything he condemned in Hitler - one party state, dictatorship, secret police, concentration camps, press censorship - he supported in Stalin. Apologists for FDR state that this was because of the wartime alliance with the USSR. This is a lie. One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration in the field of foreign affairs was to give diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union. This was at the same time - 1933 - that Stalin was starving 10 million Ukrainians to death www.holodomor.org (http://www.holodomor.org) which the US government knew all about. Also during the Spanish civil war instead of being neutral and supporting neither side Roosevelt openly sided with the Repubicans who had many communists in their ranks and who had received arms and ammunition from Stalin. Roosevelt spoke of "democracy" when in reality he helped extend soviet communist dictatorship over half of Europe. It was FDR who came up with the idea of unconditional surrender instead of a negotiated peace which prolonged the war leading to millions of casualties on both sides. Roosevelt was a criminal who should have been impeached.
Roosevelt supported the fraud called the Atlantic Charter. It was another blatant act of hypocrisy and warmongering. It only applied to countries that were in Axis occupation but did nothing about nations that had been overrun by Britain, India for instance.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095

[Craig4]

He wrought the ruin of both the Nazis and the Japanese Empires, reducing both, with allies to a state where they would never threaten world civilizations again. I'm not a fan of everything he did but the destruction of the Nazis can hardly be considered a bad thing.

[Gawdzilla]

Roosevelt supported the fraud called the Atlantic Charter. It was another blatant act of hypocrisy and warmongering. It only applied to countries that were in Axis occupation but did nothing about nations that had been overrun by Britain, India for instance.
http://codoh.com/library/document/2095

Roosevelt and Churchill frequently constantly over the status of India. He wasn't ignorant of the situation there.

But a question. How many wars was he supposed to fight?

[Gawdzilla]

He wrought the ruin of both the Nazis and the Japanese Empires, reducing both, with allies to a state where they would never threaten world civilizations again. I'm not a fan of everything he did but the destruction of the Nazis can hardly be considered a bad thing.

I had a teacher at Purdue who had fled Germany with his family in the 1930s, escaping to Palestine. There he joined the Jewish Brigade of the British Army and fought in North Africa and Italy for six years. After the war he went on to teach at Sandhurst (British "West Point" for you Yanks).

I asked him about the war once and he said, "Killing Nazis was a good idea! And it still is."

[catsmate1]

I had a teacher at Purdue who had fled Germany with his family in the 1930s, escaping to Palestine. There he joined the Jewish Brigade of the British Army and fought in North Africa and Italy for six years. After the war he went on to teach at Sandhurst (British "West Point" for you Yanks).

I asked him about the war once and he said, "Killing Nazis was a good idea! And it still is."
A simple philosophy, but one to live by.

[Gawdzilla]

A simple philosophy, but one to live by.

I've followed it faithfully.

[MaGZ]

Another good article on the criminal nature of Roosevelt and how he fanned the flames of war. www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p205_Hoggan.html)

Hoggan was was the "anonymous" author of The Myth of the Six Million a groundbreaking work.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/David_L._Hoggan

[MaGZ]

Roosevelt a communist how laughable, what fantasy history is this?

Would you settle for "fellow traveler"?

[Border Reiver]

Would you settle for "fellow traveler"?

Given the lack of communist goals carried out by FDR, I'd say no.

[ANTPogo]

Hoggan was was the "anonymous" author of The Myth of the Six Million a groundbreaking work.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/David_L._Hoggan

How shocking.

[Tomtomkent]

Given the lack of communist goals carried out by FDR, I'd say no.

Yeah but that just shows how deep his cover was....

[Pacal]

How shocking.

I remember Hoggan. He wrote a piece of drivel that was published in the mid 1960's called The Forced War. I read it decades ago. It was crap from beginning to end. Filled with tenditious interpretations willful and perverse conspiracy thinking. I especially "loved" the way he made Germany and Hitler a victim of the "aggression" of the wicked Poles and how peace loving Germany and Hitler was forced into war. His treatment of the German Black Flag operations to justify the attack on Poland is risible to the nth degree.

The book is worthless and the author made himself a bad joke. I haven't read his tripe about the Holocaust I will assume it is of similarly no quality.

[dudalb]

I remember Hoggan. He wrote a piece of drivel that was published in the mid 1960's called The Forced War. I read it decades ago. It was crap from beginning to end. Filled with tenditious interpretations willful and perverse conspiracy thinking. I especially "loved" the way he made Germany and Hitler a victim of the "aggression" of the wicked Poles and how peace loving Germany and Hitler was forced into war. His treatment of the German Black Flag operations to justify the attack on Poland is risible to the nth degree.

The book is worthless and the author made himself a bad joke. I haven't read his tripe about the Holocaust I will assume it is of similarly no quality.

Hoggan was one of the first big time Nazi Apologists. Totally worthless as a Historian,and I suspect disgusting as a human being,like most Holocaust Deniers.

[Craig4]

It's worth noting that the US did not become Communist state. Truman did nothing to aid the spread of Communism. We fought a war under Truman against Communists in Korea. The US built a bastion of defense against Communist expansion in Europe. If FDR was such a communist it seems odd he would appoint as his VP such a strident anti Communist.

[Gawdzilla]

It's worth noting that the US did not become Communist state. Truman did nothing to aid the spread of Communism. We fought a war under Truman against Communists in Korea. The US built a bastion of defense against Communist expansion in Europe. If FDR was such a communist it seems odd he would appoint as his VP such a strident anti Communist.
If "evil" equals "Democrat" as some of my relatives claim, then FDR was the most evil man on the planet, a four-term Democratic president. This simplistic thinking drives most of the hate for him. One they decide they hate him they go looking for reasons to justify that hate. Rationality is left behind in this process.

[BazBear]

Hoggan was was the "anonymous" author of The Myth of the Six Million a groundbreaking work.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/David_L._Hoggan
If by "groundbreaking", you mean he should have dug a hole and buried the manu(re)script, then sure. Of course that would have been cruel to the worms that had to eat it.
Would you settle for "fellow traveler"?Fellow traveller? Are you saying he rode with Lenin on the train he took back to Russia?:rolleyes:;)

[Gawdzilla]

Fellow traveller? Are you saying he rode with Lenin on the train he took back to Russia?:rolleyes:;)

"Fellow traveler" is McCarthy-speak for "close enough, hang 'em."

[MaGZ]

I remember Hoggan. He wrote a piece of drivel that was published in the mid 1960's called The Forced War. I read it decades ago. It was crap from beginning to end. Filled with tenditious interpretations willful and perverse conspiracy thinking. I especially "loved" the way he made Germany and Hitler a victim of the "aggression" of the wicked Poles and how peace loving Germany and Hitler was forced into war. His treatment of the German Black Flag operations to justify the attack on Poland is risible to the nth degree.

The book is worthless and the author made himself a bad joke. I haven't read his tripe about the Holocaust I will assume it is of similarly no quality.

You can read the book here:
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres7/HOGGANForcedWar.pdf

[MaGZ]

It's worth noting that the US did not become Communist state. Truman did nothing to aid the spread of Communism. We fought a war under Truman against Communists in Korea. The US built a bastion of defense against Communist expansion in Europe. If FDR was such a communist it seems odd he would appoint as his VP such a strident anti Communist.

Before Truman, Roosevelt appointed Henry Wallace as his Vice President who was essentially a communist. I suspect Roosevelt saw Wallace as too much of a liability for his reelection in 1944 and picked Truman.

[MaGZ]

"Fellow traveler" is McCarthy-speak for "close enough, hang 'em."

The first fellow traveler was J.B. Mathews according to William F. Buckley.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveler

[Garrison]

Before Truman, Roosevelt appointed Henry Wallace as his Vice President who was essentially a communist. I suspect Roosevelt saw Wallace as too much of a liability for his reelection in 1944 and picked Truman.

Wallace was somewhat left leaning but much of that seems to come from a certain Christian viewpoint. he was certainly rather gullible about the Soviets but then during the war a lot of people sought to paint a rosy picture of Stalin. He was removed from the ticket mainly because there were doubts about his temperament rather than his political leanings. In short the accusations of him being a Communist seem to come from the same sort of people who think President Obama is a socialist.

[Garrison]

The first fellow traveler was J.B. Mathews according to William F. Buckley.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Fellow_traveler

And you still think metapedia links are going to convince anyone here?

[Gawdzilla]

Before Truman, Roosevelt appointed Henry Wallace as his Vice President who was essentially a communist. I suspect Roosevelt saw Wallace as too much of a liability for his reelection in 1944 and picked Truman.

"essentially", as is "on the same planet with Communists".

Wallace was raised as a Presbyterian and remained a devout Christian all his life. In college, however, he became increasingly dissatisfied with organized religion after reading William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902). Around 1919 he stopped attending the Presbyterian church[10] and spent the next ten years exploring other religious faiths and traditions, including spiritualism and esoteric religion. He later said, "I know I am often called a mystic, and in the years following my leaving the United Presbyterian Church I was probably a practical mystic ... I'd say I was a mystic in the sense that George Washington Carver was – who believed God was in everything and therefore, if you went to God, you could find the answers."[11] Wallace was not a Theosophist, but like many "advanced" people in his era, was influenced by theosophical ideas. In 1925 he helped organize a Des Moines parish of the Liberal Catholic Church, an inclusive Christian denomination with ties to theosophy. In 1939, however, he formally joined the Episcopal Church.