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

[Andy_Ross]

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" 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 Sama]

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 Sama]

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 Sama]

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 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

 

[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

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?i...q=american+japanese+concentration+camps&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...q=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.