Merged Roosevelt's Rotten Record:Communism, Treachery, Betrayal

[Gawdzilla Sama]

More chance of finding bigfoot than a decent proofreader....

I'll take "acceptable". All I need is people willing to read a few pages a day and catch any mistakes and fix them. I can process 500 pages a day, but I can't proof that many.

 

[Mondial]

In 1941 Roosevelt declared the Atlantic Charter. He mentioned the rights of small countries to have their national sovereignty unhindered and not face armed invasion. A mere few days later Iran was invaded by the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_Invasion_of_Iran The Shah appealed to the US president for help and was refused. Further proof that Roosevelt was Stalin's stooge! FDR also had no problem with the USSR invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1939-40.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In 1941 Roosevelt declared the Atlantic Charter. He mentioned the rights of small countries to have their national sovereignty unhindered and not face armed invasion. A mere few days later Iran was invaded by the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_Invasion_of_Iran The Shah appealed to the US president for help and was refused. Further proof that Roosevelt was Stalin's stooge! FDR also had no problem with the USSR invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1939-40.

Actually, the only thing this proves is that Roosevelt was a politician—making appealing statements and not following through. You'll forgive my lack of astonishment at this "revelation" of yours.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

In 1941 Roosevelt declared the Atlantic Charter. He mentioned the rights of small countries to have their national sovereignty unhindered and not face armed invasion. A mere few days later Iran was invaded by the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_Invasion_of_Iran The Shah appealed to the US president for help and was refused. Further proof that Roosevelt was Stalin's stooge! FDR also had no problem with the USSR invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1939-40.

Didn't we also have concentration camps under the Roosevelt regime? Didn't we imprison around 100,000+ U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in these camps? And for what? Because they were Japanese and might pose a security risk.

So not only was Roosevelt a gold-stealing, war-mongering, communist-sympathizing scumbag, but he was also a racist, concentration camp-operating, wanna-be warden.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Didn't we also have concentration camps under the Roosevelt regime? Didn't we imprison around 100,000+ U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in these camps? And for what? Because they were Japanese and might pose a security risk.

I love it when they're called "concentration camps". It's rather like calling Muncie, Indiana, "Paris".

So not only was Roosevelt a gold-stealing, war-mongering, communist-sympathizing scumbag, but he was also a racist, concentration camp-operating, wanna-be warden.

Ah, you're a Republican.

 

[SpitfireIX]

In 1941 Roosevelt declared the Atlantic Charter. He mentioned the rights of small countries to have their national sovereignty unhindered and not face armed invasion. A mere few days later Iran was invaded by the Soviet Union. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_Invasion_of_Iran The Shah appealed to the US president for help and was refused. Further proof that Roosevelt was Stalin's stooge!

Although Reza Shah had carefully couched his appeal in the terminology of the Atlantic Charter and the "Four Freedoms", FDR's reply was brusquely preemptory.

Viewing the question in its entirety involves not only the vital questions to which Your Imperial Majesty refers, but other basic considerations arising from Hitler's ambition of world conquest. It is certain that movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force. It is equally certain that those countries which desire to maintain their independence must engage in a great common effort if they are not to be engulfed one by one as has already happened to a large number of countries in Europe. In recognition of these truths, the Government and people of the United States of America, as is well known, are not only building up the defenses of this country with all possible speed, but they have also entered upon a very extensive program of material assistance to those countries which are actively engaged in resisting German ambition for world domination.​

Thus, FDR argued, the fight against an unmitigated evil--which had repeatedly invaded "quiet and neutral" countries and reduced them to "a state of serfdom or semi-slavery"--necessitated the temporary sublimation of the promises of the Atlantic Charter in order that its provisions might ultimately be instituted upon the destruction of the Nazi threat. What was necessary, Roosevelt reiterated, was that the "peace-loving" nations of the world unite in a common effort to overcome the threat to international security which fascism posed. After noting "the statements to the Iranian Government by the British and Soviet Governments that they have no designs on the independence or territorial integrity of Iran," FDR reassured the Shah that the US had already "suggested to them the advisability of a public statement to all free peoples of the world reiterating the assurances already given to Your Majesty's Government." [notes omitted]

(source)

And, in fact, the USSR and Britain did withdraw from Iran after the war ended. Fail.

FDR also had no problem with the USSR invading Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania in 1939-40.

Statement issued by the Roosevelt Administration on the Soviet annexation of the Baltic States:

During these past few days the devious processes whereunder the political independence and territorial integrity of the three small Baltic Republics – Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania – were to be deliberately annihilated by one of their more powerful neighbors, have been rapidly drawing to their conclusion. . . .

The people of the United States are opposed to predatory activities no matter whether they are carried on by the use of force or by the threat of force. They are likewise opposed to any form of intervention on the part of one state, however powerful, in the domestic concerns of any other sovereign state, however weak. . . .

(source)

As for Finland, the US sold the Finns 44 advanced (for the time) fighter planes, which ended up destroying nearly 500 Soviet aircraft. (See here.)

You aren't very good at this history thing, are you?

 

[Border Reiver]

Why should historical facts be allowed to get in the way of a good story?

Well Ok, a story with a weak premise, weaker plotline, plotholes big enough to drive a regiment of Ram tanks through (sue me, I'm Canadian) and inconsistent characterization, but a story.

 

[BravesFan]

I love it when they're called "concentration camps". It's rather like calling Muncie, Indiana, "Paris".

Ah, you're a Republican.

Whoaaaa now, I'm a republican and you don't hear me spouting malarky like that!

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whoaaaa now, I'm a republican and you don't hear me spouting malarky like that!

Yep, not many Republicans do. But you show me an FDR-hater, a rabid one, and I'll show you someone with politics from the far right of the Republican party, or some party out that direction.

 

[Craig4]

Didn't we also have concentration camps under the Roosevelt regime? Didn't we imprison around 100,000+ U.S. citizens of Japanese descent in these camps? And for what? Because they were Japanese and might pose a security risk.

So not only was Roosevelt a gold-stealing, war-mongering, communist-sympathizing scumbag, but he was also a racist, concentration camp-operating, wanna-be warden.

Would you consider a Nazi victory in Europe a positive or negative outcome?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

I love it when they're called "concentration camps". It's rather like calling Muncie, Indiana, "Paris".

Of course they were concentration camps. American citizens were unlawfully hunted down, forcefully removed from their property, detained without due process, stripped of their possessions including homes and family businesses, and 'concentrated' into 'camps', supposedly so they couldn't render wartime assistance to the Japanese Empire. They were beyond "guilty until proven innocent", as none of them were ever given the opportunity to prove their loyalty to the United States.

A concentration camp is a concentration camp. It's immaterial if one is a little nicer than another, or if the food is of a higher quality. The essential point is the function they serve, and on this point, U.S. concentration camps served the same purpose as Nazi Germany concentration camps - cruel detainment of innocent men, women, and children.

That's Roosevelt for you. A concentration camp-loving fascist.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Would you consider a Nazi victory in Europe a positive or negative outcome?

As opposed to what? A fascist United States/communist Russia victory?

What's the difference? All three are/were nothing more than large terrorist governments.

Six to one, a half-dozen to the other, as far as I am concerned.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course they were concentration camps. American citizens were unlawfully hunted down, forcefully removed from their property, detained without due process, stripped of their possessions including homes and family businesses, and 'concentrated' into 'camps', supposedly so they couldn't render wartime assistance to the Japanese Empire. They were beyond "guilty until proven innocent", as none of them were ever given the opportunity to prove their loyalty to the United States.

A concentration camp is a concentration camp. It's immaterial if one is a little nicer than another, or if the food is of a higher quality. The essential point is the function they serve, and on this point, U.S. concentration camps served the same purpose as Nazi Germany concentration camps - cruel detainment of innocent men, women, and children.

That's Roosevelt for you. A concentration camp-loving fascist.

Okay, I go to the dentist. He gives me novacaine and fixes a tooth. Then I get mugged and some idiot bashes my teeth out with an automatic pistol. Both cases are exactly the same, "Something happened to my teeth."

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As opposed to what? A fascist United States/communist Russia victory?

What's the difference? All three are/were nothing more than large terrorist governments.

Six to one, a half-dozen to the other, as far as I am concerned.

Rational adults are able to do discern gradations in events, allowing for crucial differences between two when they exist. Just sayin'.

 

[Garrison]

As opposed to what? A fascist United States/communist Russia victory?

What's the difference? All three are/were nothing more than large terrorist governments.

Six to one, a half-dozen to the other, as far as I am concerned.

Which tells us a great deal about you and nothing about Roosevelt.

 

[Piscivore]

Okay, I go to the dentist. He gives me novacaine and fixes a tooth. Then I get mugged and some idiot bashes my teeth out with an automatic pistol. Both cases are exactly the same, "Something happened to my teeth."

Not to agree with Spring at all, but in those terms the detaining of the Japanese by the US is hardly a positive action like getting a tooth fixed professionally. If the German camps are a mugger bashing your teeth out with a pistol, the US camps were someone pushing you to the ground and knocking a few teeth out because they got panicky and thought you were going to mug them simply because you looked different.

Ask George Takei about it if you think the Japanese internment was a good thing.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Okay, I go to the dentist. He gives me novacaine and fixes a tooth. Then I get mugged and some idiot bashes my teeth out with an automatic pistol. Both cases are exactly the same, "Something happened to my teeth."

Wait a minute. Are you really comparing the barbaric internment of innocent people with going to the dentist? And you want to talk about what's rational or not?

Ha, ha, ha... you government truthers are a laugh riot!

 

[Garrison]

Not to agree with Spring at all, but in those terms the detaining of the Japanese by the US is hardly a positive action like getting a tooth fixed professionally. If the German camps are a mugger bashing your teeth out with a pistol, the US camps were someone pushing you to the ground and knocking a few teeth out because they got panicky and thought you were going to mug them simply because you looked different.

Ask George Takei about it if you think the Japanese internment was a good thing.

Well I don;t think anyone is going to claim that, mind you nor is anyone trying to deny it happened.

 

[Kid Eager]

As opposed to what? A fascist United States/communist Russia victory?

What's the difference? All three are/were nothing more than large terrorist governments.

Six to one, a half-dozen to the other, as far as I am concerned.

Why stop at those three?

Please, for the edification of all us sheeple, list the non-terrorist governments so that we may bleetingly go there once the wool clears our eyes.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Any body who thinks there was no difference between the Western Allies and Nazi Germany is either a crackpot or incredibly ignorant of history, or both.

Why, what's the difference?

Nazi Germany:

Fascist
Militaristic
Aggressive warfare
Empire
Domination
Domestic oppression
Concentration camps
Total warfare
Bomb women and children
Terrorist government based on fear and manufactured bogeymen
Incessant propaganda
Lies

United States:

Fascist
Militaristic
Aggressive warfare
Empire
Domination
Domestic oppression
Concentration camps
Total Warfare
Bomb women and children
Terrorist government based on fear and manufactured bogeymen
Incessant propaganda
Lies

Like I said, six to one, a half-dozen to the other.