My opinion of FDR has been declining in the past several years. This just pushes it into the gutter. :thumbdown:
Quote
WARSAW, Poland – The American POWs sent secret coded messages to Washington with news of a Soviet atrocity: In 1943 they saw rows of corpses in an advanced state of decay in the Katyn forest, on the western edge of Russia, proof that the killers could not have been the Nazis who had only recently occupied the area.
The testimony about the infamous massacre of Polish officers might have lessened the tragic fate that befell Poland under the Soviets, some scholars believe. Instead, it mysteriously vanished into the heart of American power. The long-held suspicion is that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn't want to anger Josef Stalin, an ally whom the Americans were counting on to defeat Germany and Japan during World War II.
Documents released Monday and seen in advance by The Associated Press lend weight to the belief that suppression within the highest levels of the U.S. government helped cover up Soviet guilt in the killing of some 22,000 Polish officers and other prisoners in the Katyn forest and other locations in 1940.
The evidence is among about 1,000 pages of newly declassified documents that the United States National Archives is releasing Monday and putting online. Historians who saw the material days before the official release describe it as important and shared some highlights with the AP. The most dramatic revelation so far is the evidence of the secret codes sent by the two American POWs — something historians were unaware of and which adds to evidence that the Roosevelt administration knew of the Soviet atrocity relatively early on.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/memos-suggest-us-hid-evidence-soviet-massacre-during-wwii/?test=latestnews#ixzz26ACtPRRc (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/memos-suggest-us-hid-evidence-soviet-massacre-during-wwii/?test=latestnews#ixzz26ACtPRRc)
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 11, 2012, 05:29:44 AM
My opinion of FDR has been declining in the past several years. This just pushes it into the gutter. :thumbdown:
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/memos-suggest-us-hid-evidence-soviet-massacre-during-wwii/?test=latestnews#ixzz26ACtPRRc (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/10/memos-suggest-us-hid-evidence-soviet-massacre-during-wwii/?test=latestnews#ixzz26ACtPRRc)
For most of us my age FDR has been in the gutter for a good long time.
But honestly, is anyone really surprised?
There's a reason this stuff is locked away for an entire generation, those that can substantiate is validity are generally dead, usually within the last ten years, how convenient.
No one left to blame....
Quote from: Solar on September 11, 2012, 06:42:41 AM
But honestly, is anyone really surprised?
There's a reason this stuff is locked away for an entire generation, those that can substantiate is validity are generally dead, usually within the last ten years, how convenient.
No one left to blame....
Imagine, if this had been reported back then, we would have likely limited support for the Soviets. We didn't need the Soviets to beat Germany. A war-exhausted and weakened USSR would have been easier to deal with.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 11, 2012, 07:08:41 AM
Imagine, if this had been reported back then, we would have likely limited support for the Soviets. We didn't need the Soviets to beat Germany. A war-exhausted and weakened USSR would have been easier to deal with.
Yep, sixty years of hindsight says we should have never stopped, there should never have been an Eastern Germany, and Stalin should have been signing a surrender treaty.
All we managed to do was contain a cancer while it festered, when the wall came down, our real problems with the commies began, now they hold the WH.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 11, 2012, 07:08:41 AM
Imagine, if this had been reported back then, we would have likely limited support for the Soviets. We didn't need the Soviets to beat Germany. A war-exhausted and weakened USSR would have been easier to deal with.
I dunno. It was Hitler's screw up in attacking the USSR that created the second front that did him in. FDR knew Stalin was a bastard, but he was "our" bastard after that. While the Russkis were busy fighting krauts using our stuff (which was a lot better than us fighting them with our stuff), we were gearing up.
USSR ended WWII war exhausted and weakened as it was. We'd have been no better than the Krauts and Japs we just beat if we continued on to Moscow, though. War mongerers, nothing else.
Quote from: elmerfudd on September 11, 2012, 09:46:26 AM
I dunno. It was Hitler's screw up in attacking the USSR that created the second front that did him in. FDR knew Stalin was a bastard, but he was "our" bastard after that. While the Russkis were busy fighting krauts using our stuff (which was a lot better than us fighting them with our stuff), we were gearing up.
USSR ended WWII war exhausted and weakened as it was. We'd have been no better than the Krauts and Japs we just beat if we continued on to Moscow, though. War mongerers, nothing else.
I would have let Germany and the USSR duke it out. The free world wouldn't have lost anything.
But Graet Britain was also sucking wind.
Nobody has a crystal ball, of course, but politics make for strange bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, at least for a while.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 11, 2012, 07:08:41 AM
Imagine, if this had been reported back then, we would have likely limited support for the Soviets. We didn't need the Soviets to beat Germany. A war-exhausted and weakened USSR would have been easier to deal with.
The first I ever heard fo this massacre by the Soviets was by reading WEB Griffin's "Brotherhood of War".
http://www.slideshare.net/frontfel/the-katyn-forest-massacre-12781940 (http://www.slideshare.net/frontfel/the-katyn-forest-massacre-12781940)
Quote from: walkstall on September 11, 2012, 06:39:38 AM
For most of us my age FDR has been in the gutter for a good long time.
Yup. He's the guy who set the U.S. dollar completely adrift, totally uncoupled from any standard other than the "good faith and credit of the United States." Thanks to that astoundingly idiotic idea -- and the intended constant inflation of the money supply -- the dollar has grown smaller every single year since that act, and the economy has been hobbled and held back.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 14, 2012, 02:24:59 PM
Yup. He's the guy who set the U.S. dollar completely adrift, totally uncoupled from any standard other than the "good faith and credit of the United States."
Actually Tricky Dick Nixon was the Criminal in Chief that did that nefarious deed.
QuoteThanks to that astoundingly idiotic idea -- and the intended constant inflation of the money supply -- the dollar has grown smaller every single year since that act, and the economy has been hobbled and held back.
Very little doubt the dollar has been more than debased, losing about 98% of its value since 1913.
Quote from: CubaLibre on September 11, 2012, 10:49:19 AM
I would have let Germany and the USSR duke it out. The free world wouldn't have lost anything.
Indeed the US was afraid of Stalin making a separate peace with Germany. But we now know Stalin was afraid of Hitler making a separate peace with the West. Hitler considered the West a bunch of misguided Aryans, but he absolute despised the "sub-human', Jewish and Slav, Bolsheviks. Strange. Had Great Britain made a separate peace with Germany - let's say right after Dunkirk - the Nazis would have probably stayed with their original plan to deport all the Jews to Madagascar. So by Churchill refusing to make peace with Hitler, we ended up with an Iron curtain across Central Europe and the Final Solution.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 14, 2012, 04:10:54 PM
Actually Tricky Dick Nixon was the Criminal in Chief that did that nefarious deed.
Very little doubt the dollar has been more than debased, losing about 98% of its value since 1913.
I stand corrected. It was Roosevelt who called in all the gold in circulation, making it unavailable to mere citizens, who were 'hoarding' it, he said. But it took a weasel like Tricky Dick to totally remove us from even the skimpy 40% equity standard.
Say, isn't he the nice fellow who bequeathed us the Environmental Protection Agency?
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 14, 2012, 08:20:50 PM
I stand corrected. It was Roosevelt who called in all the gold in circulation, making it unavailable to mere citizens, who were 'hoarding' it, he said. But it took a weasel like Tricky Dick to totally remove us from even the skimpy 40% equity standard.
Say, isn't he the nice fellow who bequeathed us the Environmental Protection Agency?
Maybe! He could also be called the father of Wal-Mart, as well :biggrin:
Quote from: mdgiles on September 14, 2012, 05:18:50 PM
Indeed the US was afraid of Stalin making a separate peace with Germany. But we now know Stalin was afraid of Hitler making a separate peace with the West. Hitler considered the West a bunch of misguided Aryans, but he absolute despised the "sub-human', Jewish and Slav, Bolsheviks. Strange. Had Great Britain made a separate peace with Germany - let's say right after Dunkirk - the Nazis would have probably stayed with their original plan to deport all the Jews to Madagascar. So by Churchill refusing to make peace with Hitler, we ended up with an Iron curtain across Central Europe and the Final Solution.
You can't be serious.
Churchill hated Stalin as much as he hated Hitler. It is beyond imagination that he would ever make voluntary peace with either. England making a separate peace with Germany (actually the Axis) is unimaginable.
In any case the Nazi "plan" to ship all the pesky Joos to Madagascar was never a realistic scenario. Shipping six million broke refugee people to an island with a population under 20 million is an exercise in fantasy. Even today, 90 percent of the folks on Madagascar live on less than $2 per day; it was even worse 70 years ago. At the time, the whole plan depended on the complete defeat of Great Britain, and the confiscation of its naval fleet. Germany literally could not transport that many people overseas in any reasonable time frame.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 20, 2012, 10:47:01 AM
You can't be serious.
Churchill hated Stalin as much as he hated Hitler. It is beyond imagination that he would ever make voluntary peace with either. England making a separate peace with Germany (actually the Axis) is unimaginable.
In any case the Nazi "plan" to ship all the pesky Joos to Madagascar was never a realistic scenario. Shipping six million broke refugee people to an island with a population under 20 million is an exercise in fantasy. Even today, 90 percent of the folks on Madagascar live on less than $2 per day; it was even worse 70 years ago. At the time, the whole plan depended on the complete defeat of Great Britain, and the confiscation of its naval fleet. Germany literally could not transport that many people overseas in any reasonable time frame.
He might have despised both but he had a significant portion of his own government that wanted peace with Germany. And remember, after Dunkirk making peace with Germany would have been the smart move. As far as Great Britain would have seen that would have ended the war in Europe. It would have meant that all those governments in exile could have also signed treaties and gone home.
And part of those treaties would have been an agreement on the part of the Dutch, French, Norwegian, Danish and British fleets to transport the Jews. These countries were almost as anti-Semetic as the Germans. As for conditions on Madagascar, why do you think the Europeans would have cared. And do you think Madagascar is any better than Israel? If they Jews could make he desert bloom, I'm sure they could do that where ever they were dropped.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 20, 2012, 11:21:55 AM
He might have despised both but he had a significant portion of his own government that wanted peace with Germany. And remember, after Dunkirk making peace with Germany would have been the smart move. As far as Great Britain would have seen that would have ended the war in Europe. It would have meant that all those governments in exile could have also signed treaties and gone home.
And part of those treaties would have been an agreement on the part of the Dutch, French, Norwegian, Danish and British fleets to transport the Jews. These countries were almost as anti-Semetic as the Germans. As for conditions on Madagascar, why do you think the Europeans would have cared. And do you think Madagascar is any better than Israel? If they Jews could make he desert bloom, I'm sure they could do that where ever they were dropped.
Giles, you weasel!
Yes, making peace after the fall of France would have been the smart move -- from the viewpoint of you and me talking about it in 2012. But any way you cut it, making peace with Nazi Germany was the kiss of death. Czechoslovakia -- kiss me, baby! Austria -- kiss me, baby! Norway -- kiss me, baby! Finally the Soviet Union -- kiss me, baby!
Hitler believed -- and he was correct -- that unless he came into control of England, his western flank would always be in danger. His attacks, which came to be known as the Battle of Britain, were designed to pave the way for Operation Sealion, a literal boots-on-the-ground invasion of the island.
What would those governments-in-exile have gone home to? We know about Vichy France, but what would a tamed Poland look like? Or Czechoslovakia? Norway? Holland? You're claiming that at some point, say late 1940, Hitler could have just said, "Enough." And that would have been that.
Nah.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 20, 2012, 06:43:26 PM
Giles, you weasel!
Yes, making peace after the fall of France would have been the smart move -- from the viewpoint of you and me talking about it in 2012. But any way you cut it, making peace with Nazi Germany was the kiss of death. Czechoslovakia -- kiss me, baby! Austria -- kiss me, baby! Norway -- kiss me, baby! Finally the Soviet Union -- kiss me, baby!
Hitler believed -- and he was correct -- that unless he came into control of England, his western flank would always be in danger. His attacks, which came to be known as the Battle of Britain, were designed to pave the way for Operation Sealion, a literal boots-on-the-ground invasion of the island.
What would those governments-in-exile have gone home to? We know about Vichy France, but what would a tamed Poland look like? Or Czechoslovakia? Norway? Holland? You're claiming that at some point, say late 1940, Hitler could have just said, "Enough." And that would have been that.
Nah.
We both look back from 2012, and have decided how evil the Nazis were, nothing like a little 20/20 hindsight. In reality much of Europe didn't see that. And was the Royal Navy simple supposed to disappear if the Nazi's succeeded in shooting down much of the RAF - which by the way was out of range of the Luftwaffe. Sealion? The Nazis were planning to transport their troops across the English Channel in barges and ferries. Look at the fleet the allies used on D-Day - how many barges and ferries did you see. I'm claiming that once Hitler became involved with a war in the East, western Europe became far more valuable as neutrals than they did as conquered territories. Seeing that would have required a different Hitler, than the one who actually existed, but that doesn't make it less true. A neutralized western Europe not only means whole armies available for use on the Eastern Front, but working industries available - and willing - to produce for the Germans. European workers looking for a paycheck are superior to slave labor. And as I noted, it would have allowed Hitler to solve his "Jewish problem" at little cost to himself and without the bad publicity. Heck, he might even have paid the neutrals doing the transporting out of the wealth confiscated from the Jews.
Quote from: mdgiles on September 23, 2012, 10:04:07 AM
We both look back from 2012, and have decided how evil the Nazis were, nothing like a little 20/20 hindsight. In reality much of Europe didn't see that. And was the Royal Navy simple supposed to disappear if the Nazi's succeeded in shooting down much of the RAF - which by the way was out of range of the Luftwaffe. Sealion? The Nazis were planning to transport their troops across the English Channel in barges and ferries. Look at the fleet the allies used on D-Day - how many barges and ferries did you see. I'm claiming that once Hitler became involved with a war in the East, western Europe became far more valuable as neutrals than they did as conquered territories. Seeing that would have required a different Hitler, than the one who actually existed, but that doesn't make it less true. A neutralized western Europe not only means whole armies available for use on the Eastern Front, but working industries available - and willing - to produce for the Germans. European workers looking for a paycheck are superior to slave labor. And as I noted, it would have allowed Hitler to solve his "Jewish problem" at little cost to himself and without the bad publicity. Heck, he might even have paid the neutrals doing the transporting out of the wealth confiscated from the Jews.
I don't see Nazis or Nazism as inherently
evil, any more than I do liberalism or progressivism. A thing can be wrong or impractical or unworkable without being
evil.
For the record, on D-Day, most of the American troops didn't spill onto shore from the decks of frigates and destroyers and cruisers. They were ferried in glorified barges, not significantly different from the landing craft Hitler had assembled along the coast of France for Sealion.
As for the RAF being "out of the range" of the Luftwaffe, well partly true, partly, painfully, not. RAF Bomber Command was, at that time, safely out of range of the Luftwaffe. But RAF Fighter Command was concentrated in the south and east of England, purposely in harm's way to defend the island and London. Far from being "out of range of the Luftwaffe," the fighters were doggedly kept IN range of the Luftwaffe, scattered all over southern and eastern England, where they could achieve maximum effect.
As for your theory about "taming" western Europe, turning those nations into "neutrals," given the times and the circumstances, even Herr Hitler couldn't have pulled that one off, and he was pretty damn good. Merely consolidating what Der Fuhrer considered natural German territory involved capturing sovereign territory from France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and most especially Austria.
I don't think so.
Quote from: tbone0106 on September 28, 2012, 08:09:20 PM
I don't see Nazis or Nazism as inherently evil, any more than I do liberalism or progressivism. A thing can be wrong or impractical or unworkable without being evil.
For the record, on D-Day, most of the American troops didn't spill onto shore from the decks of frigates and destroyers and cruisers. They were ferried in glorified barges, not significantly different from the landing craft Hitler had assembled along the coast of France for Sealion.
As for the RAF being "out of the range" of the Luftwaffe, well partly true, partly, painfully, not. RAF Bomber Command was, at that time, safely out of range of the Luftwaffe. But RAF Fighter Command was concentrated in the south and east of England, purposely in harm's way to defend the island and London. Far from being "out of range of the Luftwaffe," the fighters were doggedly kept IN range of the Luftwaffe, scattered all over southern and eastern England, where they could achieve maximum effect.
As for your theory about "taming" western Europe, turning those nations into "neutrals," given the times and the circumstances, even Herr Hitler couldn't have pulled that one off, and he was pretty damn good. Merely consolidating what Der Fuhrer considered natural German territory involved capturing sovereign territory from France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and most especially Austria.
I don't think so.
It's the smart move, but it required a confluence of events that wasn't likely to happen. First and foremost Hitler would have been required to show more intelligence, and less of a thirst for revenge. Hitler would have needed to make a soft peace - and that he was inherently incapable of.
On the issue of RAF fighter fields, one of the factors that allowed them to win the Battle of Britain was their ability to rotate exhausted pilots in and out of the of the Southeast British airfields. But with peace there's really no need to do that.
The acquisition of "sovereign" German territory in Austria and Czechoslovakia had taken place before the war even began. An easy peace, whereby the French lost Alsace-Lorraine, but retained the rest of France and all their over seas territory would have placated France, especially if some sort of phony plebiscite had been held showing the people in those provinces "wanted" to be part of Germany. I guess the only sticking point would have been Poland - and the powers had acquiesced to the disappearance of Poland before.
I'm intrigued. What effect would that quick peace have had on the Far East. Would an unoccupied France have agreed to a Japanese occupation of Indo-China? Would a neutralized Netherlands have joined the US oil embargo against Japan? Would Japan have attacked a Malaya when Britain was no longer occupied in Europe and the Middle East? Would Japan have turned north against a Soviet Union fighting for it's life against Nazi Germany, while easily able to acquire technology from it's German ally?