FDR and World War II Misconceptions

Politics and Social Issues
21
Size of our military doesn't matter. We didn't need a massive one in 1930's America.
Only in your twisted logic, to effectively fight later in the war the US needed a massive military to be successful and it only created one because it was attacked, not because Roosevelt had some dreams of conquering the world as you claim. That was intent of people like Hitler and Stalin who started the war with massive armies and put them to use first.
Japan was never, ever capable of invading the US. They simply didn't have the logistics or manpower. They probably would have tried to invade if they thought it'd be successful, but they knew it wouldn't work.
Japan wasn't fighting the war alone, if it had taken strategic dominance in the Pacific that would have totally changed the way the war progressed. Instead of sending most of its forces to defeat Germany first then the US would have been on a defensive posture on the west coast with a significant impact on the war in Europe. It's called a world war for a reason.
Re: German nukes - that is too much of a "what if" scenario. The brains behind that were mostly jewish and most left Germany. A lot of the non-Jewish scientists involved had to give up their research to serve in the military. Also, there's no evidence that weapons production was the goal of the program - energy production was.
Once again, totally detached from the facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project Some of the most qualified scientists in history were part of the German nuclear weapons program including Werner Heisenberg and Otto Hahn who was a co-discoverer of nuclear fission. http://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/otto-hahn
Otto Hahn (1879 - 1968) was a German chemist and winner of the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of nuclear fission. Hahn was a pioneer in the fields of radioactivity and radiochemistry and is widely regarded as the "father of nuclear chemistry." Hahn's most spectacular discovery came at the end of 1938 when, while working jointly with Fritz Strassmann, Hahn discovered the fission of uranium. This discovery earned Hahn the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944, and led directly to the development of the atomic bomb. As a chemist, Hahn was initially reluctant to propose a revolutionary discovery in physics. Lise Meitner and her nephew, Otto Frisch, in Sweden, came to the same conclusion and were able to work out the basic mathematics of nuclear fission--the term that was coined by Frisch. Over the next few months, Meitner and Frisch published two articles discussing and experimentally confirming this hypothesis.
I think it's likely that the people who were capable of discovering nuclear fission in the first place if given enough time and resources could also weaponize it.
22
Failed treaties don't mean s**t.
The Stalin-Hitler pact meant death for upwards of 80 million people, World War Two wouldn't have even started without it. The German staff even with Hitler in power weren't willing to start a war on two fronts as they did in 1914. It was only the "success" of the German Army in 1939 and 1940 that fooled them into thinking that Hitler knew what he was doing. So in this case that only thing that means shit once again is your opinion. As you've convinced me beyond any doubt that you have zero facts to offer to back up your opinions I won't even bother to read anything you post again. It's about as relevant as a trump tweet.
23

nekulturny

24

Beltane has a little germ of truth that he’s attempting to inflate way beyond reason and facts.
As example, many Americans probably think the Germans were defeated by the invasion of Normandy. There is mythology like this that needs to be debunked. The Russian role in defeating the Nazis is dramatically under reported in Western culture. The English were long time colonizers who hoped to keep their ruthless empire alive. Americans have been guilty of genocide and centuries of slavery. There are all kinds of things like this that are factual and worth reporting.
It appears that Beltane has only been an adult for a few years, and so he’s still working on sorting out what needs to be debunked and what’s real and valid about such events. At least he knows what WWII was and has some information about it, which many his age may not be able to say.
We’re approaching a moment in history when every single person who lived through WWII will be gone. And whaddya know, just as that happens many of the same trends of the 1930s are again raising their ugly heads. Just when we most need the “Greatest Generation” they pull the plug and vanish. So rude! :slight_smile:

25
Beltane has a little germ of truth that he's attempting to inflate way beyond reason and facts.
The same one that applies to any large and powerful nation, it has elements that want to aggressively expand the borders. But America also has mechanisms to control those elements or I wouldn't be sitting in an independent nation to the north.
As example, many Americans probably think the Germans were defeated by the invasion of Normandy. There is mythology like this that needs to be debunked. The Russian role in defeating the Nazis is dramatically under reported in Western culture. The English were long time colonizers who hoped to keep their ruthless empire alive. Americans have been guilty of genocide and centuries of slavery. There are all kinds of things like this that are factual and worth reporting.
That is also partly the result of cultural differences. The Normandy landings were carried out by nations with relatively free press and the public had wide access to information. The USSR on the other hand was a closed society under a brutal dictatorship that severely punished free thought and did not allow a free press. The British did colonize many places, I live in a former British colony. And there were negative aspects of this, but there is still pride on the part of many nations that they were part of this empire or the Commonwealth wouldn't exist. Americans fought brutal wars against different groups, how does this make them different than other nations. The "genocide" of native Americans for instance took place in the context of brutal attacks by natives on the civilian population. And yes America did have slavery so did many other places. Serfs in Russia were basically a slave class and the underclass in some European nations were on the level of slaves. During WW II Japan treated most nations it conquered as slave nations, millions were killed across the region in China and other places to enforce this. Claiming that the US went into WW II just take over the world is not factual. It wasn't even prepared for the war, in 1939 its army was outmatched by Portugal. It was forced into a war against its wishes and the interests of most of its population that wanted nothing to do with the war. It was attacked by one militaristic dictatorship and had war declared on it by another. How the hell does that equate with Roosevelt wanting to take over the world as beltane claims?
It appears that Beltane has only been an adult for a few years, and so he's still working on sorting out what needs to be debunked and what's real and valid about such events. At least he knows what WWII was and has some information about it, which many his age may not be able to say.
Kind of doubt that, his worldview is completely formed - as f..... up as it is - and he doesn't give a crap what anyone else has to present. He's told you exactly that in this thread.
We're approaching a moment in history when every single person who lived through WWII will be gone. And whaddya know, just as that happens many of the same trends of the 1930s are again raising their ugly heads. Just when we most need the "Greatest Generation" they pull the plug and vanish. So rude! :-)
Some of the trends are there, but we have a choice in whether or not to repeat the past. And part of that is knowing what the past was, not making it up for shits and giggles as this liar is. spamblock line... ignore
26
The English were long time colonizers who hoped to keep their ruthless empire alive.
Not sure where you're getting your facts on this, this is reality for many of us living as part of the British Commonwealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations
The Commonwealth of Nations[2] (formerly the British Commonwealth),[3][1] also known as simply the Commonwealth, is an intergovernmental organisation of 52 member states that are mostly former territories of the British Empire.[4] The Commonwealth operates by intergovernmental consensus of the member states, organised through the Commonwealth Secretariat and non-governmental organisations, organised through the Commonwealth Foundation.[5] The Commonwealth dates back to the mid-20th century with the decolonisation of the British Empire through increased self-governance of its territories. It was formally constituted by the London Declaration in 1949, which established the member states as "free and equal".[6] The symbol of this free association is Queen Elizabeth II who is the Head of the Commonwealth. The Queen is also the monarch of 16 members of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth realms. The other Commonwealth members have different heads of state: 31 members are republics and five are monarchies with a different monarch. Member states have no legal obligation to one another. Instead, they are united by language, history, culture and their shared values of democracy, free speech, human rights, and the rule of law.[5] These values are enshrined in the Commonwealth Charter[7] and promoted by the quadrennial Commonwealth Games.
Does that sound ruthless to you?
27

For instance this is what held the Soviet empire under a reign of terror for decades.

The USSR fell apart when people stopped fearing its brutal secret police and army, unlike Britain which carried out extensive programs to return self rule to its colonies after the war. Which is why many of them still want to be attached in some way to Britain.
How many people would like to return to a life waiting for state officials to knock on the door to haul them off to the gulag or in many cases put a bullet in the back of their head after a show trial. All of the Russian empire was a slave state under Stalin and his successors.

28
Size of our military doesn't matter. We didn't need a massive one in 1930's America.
Only in your twisted logic, to effectively fight later in the war the US needed a massive military to be successful and it only created one because it was attacked, not because Roosevelt had some dreams of conquering the world as you claim. That was intent of people like Hitler and Stalin who started the war with massive armies and put them to use first.Yes, we built a massive military to fight the war, but a large military can have more than 1 use. And American foreign policy since 1945 speaks for itself.
Japan was never, ever capable of invading the US. They simply didn't have the logistics or manpower. They probably would have tried to invade if they thought it'd be successful, but they knew it wouldn't work.
Japan wasn't fighting the war alone, if it had taken strategic dominance in the Pacific that would have totally changed the way the war progressed. Instead of sending most of its forces to defeat Germany first then the US would have been on a defensive posture on the west coast with a significant impact on the war in Europe. It's called a world war for a reason.
Once again, Japan was not able to achieve that strategic dominance you're talking about, so it's irrelevant.
Re: German nukes - that is too much of a "what if" scenario. The brains behind that were mostly jewish and most left Germany. A lot of the non-Jewish scientists involved had to give up their research to serve in the military. Also, there's no evidence that weapons production was the goal of the program - energy production was.
Once again, totally detached from the facts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapon_project Some of the most qualified scientists in history were part of the German nuclear weapons program including Werner Heisenberg and Otto Hahn who was a co-discoverer of nuclear fission. http://www.atomicheritage.org/profile/otto-hahn
Otto Hahn (1879 - 1968) was a German chemist and winner of the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery of nuclear fission. Hahn was a pioneer in the fields of radioactivity and radiochemistry and is widely regarded as the "father of nuclear chemistry." Hahn's most spectacular discovery came at the end of 1938 when, while working jointly with Fritz Strassmann, Hahn discovered the fission of uranium. This discovery earned Hahn the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1944, and led directly to the development of the atomic bomb. As a chemist, Hahn was initially reluctant to propose a revolutionary discovery in physics. Lise Meitner and her nephew, Otto Frisch, in Sweden, came to the same conclusion and were able to work out the basic mathematics of nuclear fission--the term that was coined by Frisch. Over the next few months, Meitner and Frisch published two articles discussing and experimentally confirming this hypothesis.
I think it's likely that the people who were capable of discovering nuclear fission in the first place if given enough time and resources could also weaponize it.
Nothing in the links you provided counters anything I've said about Germany's nuke program. Yes, Germany developed nuclear fission - not nuclear weapons - and then they f**ked up by frightening off many of their best physicists with their stupid policies. So their chances to build a nuke were severely handicapped.
29
Failed treaties don't mean s**t.
The Stalin-Hitler pact meant death for upwards of 80 million people, World War Two wouldn't have even started without it. The German staff even with Hitler in power weren't willing to start a war on two fronts as they did in 1914. It was only the "success" of the German Army in 1939 and 1940 that fooled them into thinking that Hitler knew what he was doing. So in this case that only thing that means shit once again is your opinion. As you've convinced me beyond any doubt that you have zero facts to offer to back up your opinions I won't even bother to read anything you post again. It's about as relevant as a trump tweet.The only fact needed here, is that the treaty was broken. Therefore, it's inaccurate to state Germany and the Soviet Union held the west in a death grip.
30
Beltane has a little germ of truth that he's attempting to inflate way beyond reason and facts. As example, many Americans probably think the Germans were defeated by the invasion of Normandy. There is mythology like this that needs to be debunked. The Russian role in defeating the Nazis is dramatically under reported in Western culture. The English were long time colonizers who hoped to keep their ruthless empire alive. Americans have been guilty of genocide and centuries of slavery. There are all kinds of things like this that are factual and worth reporting. It appears that Beltane has only been an adult for a few years, and so he's still working on sorting out what needs to be debunked and what's real and valid about such events. At least he knows what WWII was and has some information about it, which many his age may not be able to say. We're approaching a moment in history when every single person who lived through WWII will be gone. And whaddya know, just as that happens many of the same trends of the 1930s are again raising their ugly heads. Just when we most need the "Greatest Generation" they pull the plug and vanish. So rude! :-)
Lel, nothing is being inflated. Everything I've said is accurate and easily found in history books. If you have other information which proves me wrong I'd like to see it.
31
The standard with which the great FDR treated Japanese Americans was probably a thousand times worse than how the un-presidential Donald Trump has talked about doing or tried to do with current and prospective Muslim-Americans.
You got that right!
32
Claiming that the US went into WW II just take over the world is not factual. It wasn't even prepared for the war, in 1939 its army was outmatched by Portugal. It was forced into a war against its wishes and the interests of most of its population that wanted nothing to do with the war. It was attacked by one militaristic dictatorship and had war declared on it by another. How the hell does that equate with Roosevelt wanting to take over the world as beltane claims?
I didn't claim America intervened in order to "take over the world", here is what I said:
America intervened in WW2 ultimately for economic reasons. Partly because Japan and Germany’s military activities were disruptive to American economic interests overseas, but also to continue the Wilsonian doctrine of America replacing the waning European empires. The goal was to bring the lands which used to be under European control into the American sphere of influence.
And that's exactly what we did. That's why we pursued the policies we did. The proof is in American foreign policy of the post-war era. You're correct that we were forced into war and most Americans were isolationist, but FDR and his administration were not. When the fighting started, policy makers realized they could take advantage of the conflict in order to increase the American empire. Many historians argue] US foreign policy has been about economic expansion (another term for imperialism) at least since Woodrow Wilson's time.
33
America intervened in WW2 ultimately for economic reasons. Partly because Japan and Germany’s military activities were disruptive to American economic interests overseas, but also to continue the Wilsonian doctrine of America replacing the waning European empires. The goal was to bring the lands which used to be under European control into the American sphere of influence. You could argue some good came of it, but it was mostly detrimental to the world. We didn’t fight for self-defence - neither Germany or Japan was a military threat to the USA - they didn’t have the logistics or manpower - though Japan was the more immediate (small) danger. We didn’t fight to rid the world of fascism or racism - even if that was a motive, we clearly failed. And we didn’t play the biggest role in defeating Germany…..that was the Soviet Union.
What do they call Americans who are such staunch defenders of Russia? Russians...
34
And we didn't play the biggest role in defeating Germany.....that was the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union also played the largest role in making WW II happen. There would have been no massive military if the Soviet Union hadn't provided bases and resources from almost the end of WW I till the mid 1930s for the German military and defence industry to train and do R&D. http:// www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Military-Soviet-Union And without the Stalin-Hitler pact in August of 1939 WW II never would have begun. There were two aggressors that began the war, Hitler and Stalin. Stalin being the snake he was waited two weeks to send his troops into Poland so that Hitler could take all the blame. He then went on to invade and annex the Baltic states, Bessarabia and attacked and seized the southern regions of Finland which left that nation totally exposed to further invasion any time Stalin felt like. And right up till the day that the Nazis began pouring into the USSR - across the new border which was in the middle of what used to be Poland - freight trains carrying massive amounts of Soviet oil, grain, rubber, strategic metals and more fed the German war machine that was killing thousands in western Europe. Stalin didn't give a damn about us until his partner in crime turned on him then he demanded we save his ass. And while the Soviet Union most of the ground fighting it never faced more than a fraction of the Luftwaffe, most of which was eventually deployed in the west to face down the powerful Allied air forces. 300,000 Allied airmen lost their lives in part fighting to relieve the pressure on an "ally" that just a short time before was helping the tyrant that was trying to annihilate them. Like I said, the only people so passionate about asserting just how incredible Russia is are Russians. So the same jerks who think they just stole our government are now trying to do the same with our history. spamblock line
35
But America also has mechanisms to control those elements or I wouldn't be sitting in an independent nation to the north.
We haven't conquered Canada yes? Still? Gosh, I'm sorry, our bad. I'll have someone get on that right away. But wait a second, I remember why now. Yea, that's it, we don't want to contaminate America with you darn Canadians, and the reason should be obvious. You guys are sane, you just wouldn't fit in.
The Normandy landings were carried out by nations with relatively free press and the public had wide access to information. The USSR on the other hand was a closed society under a brutal dictatorship that severely punished free thought and did not allow a free press.
I think the problem was that Russia became the enemy shortly after WWII, and we didn't want to give them credit for anything. Thus, our understanding of history has been distorted, and folks like Beltane would be correct in pointing out such things.
The British did colonize many places, I live in a former British colony. And there were negative aspects of this, but there is still pride on the part of many nations that they were part of this empire or the Commonwealth wouldn't exist.
Holy crap, now I remember, you're the people who INVADED US in 1812!!!
Americans fought brutal wars against different groups, how does this make them different than other nations.
It doesn't, so maybe we should spend less time pretending we are so very different, as Beltane might remark.
The "genocide" of native Americans for instance took place in the context of brutal attacks by natives on the civilian population.
Whoa, me and Beltane are gonna have to kick your butt now. That is, scalp you. BTW, there's a great documentary series on either Amazon or Netflix that covers the entire history of American/Indian relations. Very educational. We already know the general story, but digging in to all the details is quite sobering.
Claiming that the US went into WW II just take over the world is not factual.
Agreed. We inherited the world after everybody else bombed themselves in to ruin.
It wasn't even prepared for the war, in 1939 its army was outmatched by Portugal. It was forced into a war against its wishes and the interests of most of its population that wanted nothing to do with the war. It was attacked by one militaristic dictatorship and had war declared on it by another. How the hell does that equate with Roosevelt wanting to take over the world as beltane claims?
Beltane is just being dramatic, attempting to strike the bold rebel pose. Let's cut him some slack perhaps, he's only been an adult a couple of years, and none of us were born knowing everything. But still, yes, his points have to be refuted, agreed.
Kind of doubt that, his worldview is completely formed - as f..... up as it is - and he doesn't give a crap what anyone else has to present. He's told you exactly that in this thread.
Well, if true, his problem.
Some of the trends are there, but we have a choice in whether or not to repeat the past.
Um, maybe we have a choice. If we truly had such choices, war would not be a reliably persistent reality of the human condition.
36
But America also has mechanisms to control those elements or I wouldn't be sitting in an independent nation to the north.
We haven't conquered Canada yes? Still? Gosh, I'm sorry, our bad. I'll have someone get on that right away. But wait a second, I remember why now. Yea, that's it, we don't want to contaminate America with you darn Canadians, and the reason should be obvious. You guys are sane, you just wouldn't fit in.
The Normandy landings were carried out by nations with relatively free press and the public had wide access to information. The USSR on the other hand was a closed society under a brutal dictatorship that severely punished free thought and did not allow a free press.
I think the problem was that Russia became the enemy shortly after WWII, and we didn't want to give them credit for anything. Thus, our understanding of history has been distorted, and folks like Beltane would be correct in pointing out such things.
The British did colonize many places, I live in a former British colony. And there were negative aspects of this, but there is still pride on the part of many nations that they were part of this empire or the Commonwealth wouldn't exist.
Holy crap, now I remember, you're the people who INVADED US in 1812!!!
Americans fought brutal wars against different groups, how does this make them different than other nations.
It doesn't, so maybe we should spend less time pretending we are so very different, as Beltane might remark.
The "genocide" of native Americans for instance took place in the context of brutal attacks by natives on the civilian population.
Whoa, me and Beltane are gonna have to kick your butt now. That is, scalp you. BTW, there's a great documentary series on either Amazon or Netflix that covers the entire history of American/Indian relations. Very educational. We already know the general story, but digging in to all the details is quite sobering.
Claiming that the US went into WW II just take over the world is not factual.
Agreed. We inherited the world after everybody else bombed themselves in to ruin.
It wasn't even prepared for the war, in 1939 its army was outmatched by Portugal. It was forced into a war against its wishes and the interests of most of its population that wanted nothing to do with the war. It was attacked by one militaristic dictatorship and had war declared on it by another. How the hell does that equate with Roosevelt wanting to take over the world as beltane claims?
Beltane is just being dramatic, attempting to strike the bold rebel pose. Let's cut him some slack perhaps, he's only been an adult a couple of years, and none of us were born knowing everything. But still, yes, his points have to be refuted, agreed.
Kind of doubt that, his worldview is completely formed - as f..... up as it is - and he doesn't give a crap what anyone else has to present. He's told you exactly that in this thread.
Well, if true, his problem.
Some of the trends are there, but we have a choice in whether or not to repeat the past.
Um, maybe we have a choice. If we truly had such choices, war would not be a reliably persistent reality of the human condition. Just a different approach to saying F.U. If you're not here to actually discuss things then cancelling you out is as easy as hitting the ignore button. Bye bye
37

these a-holes are about as American as my balalaika… or trump as president.

38
You're correct that we were forced into war and most Americans were isolationist, but FDR and his administration were not. When the fighting started, policy makers realized they could take advantage of the conflict in order to increase the American empire. Many historians argue] US foreign policy has been about economic expansion (another term for imperialism) at least since Woodrow Wilson's time.
Your information is in line with history. I might add, that before Japan went to Hawaii and we went to war in Europe. FDR’s guy that was making money policies was Harry D. White, who worked for Henry Morgenthau Jr. Mr. White has been left out of history for the most part and is just now being rewritten about his actions. Mr. White was in talks with Germany as to how to feed and bankroll the none German countries after the war. Germany wanted the Mark to be the world’s safe-haven currency. And our bankers wanted the dollar to be the safe-haven currency. Remember the Mark was not popular because of the super hyper-inflation it had experienced. As soon as the USA entered the war in Europe the money started moving out of Germany. The stock markets around the world started moving up on German stocks because it was known the end of the war was in the works. What was going on in the banking world and stock markets was the opposite of what was happening in the political world. Germany was winning wars and gaining land. Yet it’s leaders were moving wealth to places like South America.
39

People who go endlessly about how terrible America is and how wonderful Russia is are doing it for a reason that has nothing to do with the facts.
Trump is an obvious expression of this.
There’s a reason these passionate supporters of Russia are also strong supporters of Trump… it’s the same damn thing.

40
Beltane has a little germ of truth that he's attempting to inflate way beyond reason and facts. As example, many Americans probably think the Germans were defeated by the invasion of Normandy. There is mythology like this that needs to be debunked. The Russian role in defeating the Nazis is dramatically under reported in Western culture. The English were long time colonizers who hoped to keep their ruthless empire alive. Americans have been guilty of genocide and centuries of slavery. There are all kinds of things like this that are factual and worth reporting. It appears that Beltane has only been an adult for a few years, and so he's still working on sorting out what needs to be debunked and what's real and valid about such events. At least he knows what WWII was and has some information about it, which many his age may not be able to say. We're approaching a moment in history when every single person who lived through WWII will be gone. And whaddya know, just as that happens many of the same trends of the 1930s are again raising their ugly heads. Just when we most need the "Greatest Generation" they pull the plug and vanish. So rude! :-)
Lel, nothing is being inflated. Everything I've said is accurate and easily found in history books. If you have other information which proves me wrong I'd like to see it. We can thank Russia for the downfall of the Christian loving sweet baby Jesus Nazis