"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

He was not arguing feasibility--he was pointing out that yahoos like you
would indeed have been labeling FDR a "warmonger" and condemning him for
prosecuting a preemptive war had he been able and willing to act in the
manner he described.

Considering FDR's party affiliations, I would suspect that most of the
people who would have condemned him for prosecuting a pre-emptive war
would have been Congressional Republicans. That is, yahoos like...
well, you, I suspect.

Needless to say, seventy years afterwards, both you and the
intellectual heirs of these people would still continue to criticize
the decision to intervene in a "European conflict where the United
States had no direct interest" and cry at the decision to attack
"instead of pursuing a diplomatic resolution".

No doubt there would also be suggestions that Roosevelt's decision to
attack was counterproductive and only led to the escalation of Jewish
persecutions in Germany - which was, mutatis mutandis, an argument
which the opposing party in your country also advanced during the
Kosovo crisis.

So, in this alternate timeline, the ones who would have been most
likely to label FDR a "warmonger" would have actually been people like
you.

(And deep down you know you would, even if you would not admit it.)

By the way, remove the cross-posting from SHWI, please? Some of these
posts may have had little allohistorical content, but not enough to
justify the others on this thread which do not have any.



Cheers,
Jalonen