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

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bollocks. He fought for freedom. Should he have sat on his backside and let Hitler invade Britain? I am very glad that that his generation fought. You haven't got a clue, I feel sorry for you. Do you get all your replies from the Anarchist's Cookbook? They are so stereotyped and predictable.

And completely insincere. This is what makes this so tedious. Honest debate is lacking.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

What would you have done in retaliation? Invited Hitler over for tea and a chat? We were involved in a life or death struggle with a maniacal dictator. You seem to think that it was all a game.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't bomb defenseless women and children if you think it's wrong that your enemy bombed your defenseless women and children. You don't really beat your enemy by becoming your enemy.

I would have retaliated by taking the battle to the enemy's armed forces in the field.

 

[dafydd]

Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't bomb defenseless women and children if you think it's wrong that your enemy bombed your defenseless women and children. You don't really beat your enemy by becoming your enemy.

I would have retaliated by taking the battle to the enemy's armed forces in the field.

Er...... they did that too. Just as the Nazis did. Any more fatuous points to make?

 

[dafydd]

And completely insincere. This is what makes this so tedious. Honest debate is lacking.

True. I'm out. Talking to brick walls is very tedious.

 

[Corsair 115]

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

Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.

So, what you're saying is, murder of civilians is OK/justified/acceptable as long as it provides economic advantages during wartime?

I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Bollocks. He fought for freedom.

Right. Freedom. Of course.

And these famous words come to mind, "none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Should he have sat on his backside and let Hitler invade Britain?

I don't know, it might have been an improvement. Then again, he was probably royally f'ed either way, as being occupied by the British Empire would probably have sucked just as much as being occupied by the Nazi Empire.

I am very glad that that his generation fought.

Why? Do you believe you are now "free"?

You haven't got a clue, I feel sorry for you. Do you get all your replies from the Anarchist's Cookbook? They are so stereotyped and predictable.

Why, is that a good book? Should I read it?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can you read? So far that's not been evident.


Hello, AAH.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Well this is sort of down the path of "What is the CSA had dinosaurs to fight on its side", the Germans themselves certainly thought it was feasible, now they has not planend on attacking Poland quite as soon a Hitler ordered, although they were okay with that.

They had planned to have a much larger, much more mechanical army and a very large air force. They were glad to have the Skoda works in Checkosloavakia and as I recall they though if they held back until 1945 they could roll over France and then turn around and roll over the CCCP.

 

[dafydd]

Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.





I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

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

 

[DGM]

Why? Do you believe you are now "free"?

One things for sure. I'm more free than you.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Er...... they did that too. Just as the Nazis did. Any more fatuous points to make?

They did what? Bomb women and children over and over again? How many civilians did the British/Americans kill with bombing raids compared to the Germans? How much tonnage did the British/Americans drop on Germany compared to the German tonnage on England? What were both ratios? Probably 20:1 or more?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

True. I'm out. Talking to brick walls is very tedious.

Especially when that brick wall is flogging you senseless.

 

[332nd]

I don't know, it might have been an improvement. Then again, he was probably royally f'ed either way, as being occupied by the British Empire would probably have sucked just as much as being occupied by the Nazi Empire.

How so?

 

[Mudcat]

They did what?

[reading comprehension]They took the fights to the field as well.[/reading comprehension]

Bomb women and children over and over again? How many civilians did the British/Americans kill with bombing raids compared to the Germans? How much tonnage did the British/Americans drop on Germany compared to the German tonnage on England? What were both ratios? Probably 20:1 or more?

Does this honestly matter? It's this (indefensible) fact that there was so much collateral damage that more advanced weapons (like the sort used by today's military) were developed since then that allow them to minimize civilian casualties. I would also like to point out the bad guys aren't so concerned about such things.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Do you believe you are now "free"?

Is this the bit where SHC reveals to us the awful truth about the Illuminati/NWO/Lizard Overlords/International Jewish Conspiracy who are really running the planet?

Place your bets.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Conveniently ignoring that they were well-defended with radar networks, anti-aircraft artillery, day and night fighters, and bomb shelters.

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.

As I have stated before, strategic bombing was a blunt tool. But it was the only tool available for striking at an enemy's means of producing war materiel.

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?

Why are you being dishonest in your arguments?

I've emphasized the word with which you seem to be having trouble. If you can name a way in which WWII could have been fought without it having any impact on civilians I'll listen.

Straw man fallacy.

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.

And in any case you have not obviated my central point: in an industrialized nation-state the economy is the foundation upon which the military rests. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had civilians building it new tanks, rifles, artillery pieces, fighters, bombs, bullets, shells, land mines, uniforms, boots, barbed wire, submarines, destroyers, torpedoes, etc. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have lasted had it not had the civilians digging out the coal which was needed to (a) fuel the electrical plants which in turn powered the factories which in turn built armaments, and (b) fuel the railway locomotives which in turn moved the raw resources to the factories and the finished war materiel to the front. Feel free to cite how long the German military could have continued on had it not had civilians working in the oil refineries which provided the vitally necessary gasoline, or civilians working in the chemical factories producing the nitrates and other chemicals without which explosives and bullets could not function, or in the foundries which produced the steel without which there could be no more tanks or warships or guns or bullets.

And so on and so on.

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.

 

[Mudcat]

Is this the bit where SHC reveals to us the awful truth about the Illuminati/NWO/Lizard Overlords/International Jewish Conspiracy who are really running the planet?

Place your bets.

Think you'll get any takers?

 

[Mudcat]

None of this is an excuse for deliberately bombing women and children.

They were never deliberately targeted, at least not by the Allied powers. That's why it's called 'collateral damage' and why most military forces from more civilized nations work so damned hard to minimize it.

Soldiers should never be directed to fight civilians. They should only be directed to fight other soldiers.

No ****, Sherlock! That's why it's expressly forbidden by the Laws of War, which is an international law that's been around since the 1850's!

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Does this honestly matter?

Of course it matters, because if it's simply a matter of retaliation, then it's an eye for an eye, not 20 eyes for an eye.

It's this (indefensible) fact that there was so much collateral damage that more advanced weapons (like the sort used by today's military) were developed since then that allow them to minimize civilian casualties. I would also like to point out the bad guys aren't so concerned about such things.

We're not talking about the state of weaponry in 2012, we're talking about the state of weaponry in 1944. We dropped high-explosive and incendiary bombs indiscriminately on civilian populations during WW2. There was a deliberate intent to terrorize, if not outright murder, defenseless women and children.

 

[carlitos]

Sure, when they wear the uniform of a country other than your own.

Our internment camps were

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