If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pooh Bear wrote: Errrr...... No. It would have stopped WW2. Most Germans would have been glad to have seen Nazi tryanny overurned. Many Germans simply feared the Nazis and went along meekly - too afraid to say even Booh ! That is why these afraid German people cheered the Fuehrer, while he was winning. The German people (adults) were overwhelming complicit in the evil of the Nazis. Bob Kolker |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Stickney wrote: Well, there was also the Berlin Crisis of 1961, which saw a long-term nuclear showdown with the Soviets, including having the the National Guard activated to, among other things, stand Victor Alert (That's He allowed the Berlin wall to built. When American tanks faced Soviet tanks in August of 1961, it was the U.S. that blinked. I witnessed that and I was ashamed. We spent most of the Kennedy era with the Guard and Reserve activated, with everybody primed for Nuclear Conflict, toe-to-toe with the Russkies. One crisis after another. Now, mind you, a lot of that was due to Kruschev's hopeless misreading of Kennedy's intellect and willpower, but I can recall some rather scary times. Yes it was scary. If Kennedy had followd through on the Bay of Pigs Invasion the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have occurred. Kennedy was mostly sizzle and very little meat. Bob Kolker |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
in article BZq1d.38838$MQ5.14039@attbi_s52, robert j. kolker at
wrote on 9/13/04 6:31 PM: Rex F. May wrote: Nazis. Imagine what kind of suicide bombers Germans would make. Not very good ones. Their culture did not glorify martyrdom unto death. Japs and Moslems are good at it. Germans not good. Maybe, but you're talking about the likelihood of their becoming suicide bombers. I'm talking about how good they'd be at it, given proverbial German efficiency, once they'd made the decision. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
stop spam wrote in message ...
If, in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt would have invaded Germany, captured Hitler, neutralized the Nazi party, and dismantled the standing military, thus saving europe from the ravages of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity, then the United States would have been condemned in shame by the world as an imperialist nation of pre-emptive aggressors, and FDR would have been cast out of office in the subsequent election. And rightfully so, just as someone who killed Hitler during the 1920's would rightfully be condemned as a murderer, even though he was preventing the same things. In 1937 Hitler hadn't done anything worse than many other local tinpot dictators throughout history, ones who who didn't become threats to the world. You don't go around invading countries and causing the deaths of huge numbers of people just because one of those dictators MIGHT one day become such a threat, any more than you go around murdering every disgruntled anti-Semitic housepainter because one of them might become another Hitler. If FDR had specific information from the future as to what Hitler would eventually do, he'd need to show that info to defend his actions; I don't recall George W. Bush showing any history books from the year 2050. If FDR didn't have such specific info and he attacked and conquered Germany in 1937, he WOULD be an imperialist aggressor, just one who happened to guess right. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Nothing Learned From History
There is nothing to learn from history. It is all merely endless, purposeless, random destruction, having no value whatsoever. The moment you try to learn from it, it does something else. It can be mildly entertaining, but that's about it. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message news:LDA1d.434849$%_6.212951@attbi_s01... Peter Stickney wrote: Well, there was also the Berlin Crisis of 1961, which saw a long-term nuclear showdown with the Soviets, including having the the National Guard activated to, among other things, stand Victor Alert (That's He allowed the Berlin wall to built. When American tanks faced Soviet tanks in August of 1961, it was the U.S. that blinked. I witnessed that and I was ashamed. before I jump in here, i have to say that I have never understood the mystique that surrounds JFK...he was an average President, at best. However, what would you have had us do in regards to the Berlin Wall? Was it worth a war, especially a nuclear war? ESPECIALLY, when the wall was a great public relations failure for the USSR (admitting they couldn't keep their own people inside without a fortified barrier)? We spent most of the Kennedy era with the Guard and Reserve activated, with everybody primed for Nuclear Conflict, toe-to-toe with the Russkies. One crisis after another. Now, mind you, a lot of that was due to Kruschev's hopeless misreading of Kennedy's intellect and willpower, but I can recall some rather scary times. Yes it was scary. If Kennedy had followd through on the Bay of Pigs Invasion the Cuban Missile Crisis would never have occurred. Again, was it worth a war? Im no dove, I firmly believe that there are things worth fightring and dying for...Cuba isn't one of them, not in the 1960s. Kennedy was mostly sizzle and very little meat. Agreed. Bob Kolker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | bspgallery | Military Aviation | 0 | July 14th 04 12:12 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
FS: 1969-70 "The Pictorial History Of The RAF " 3-Volume Hardcover Book Set | J.R. Sinclair | Military Aviation | 0 | December 3rd 03 04:17 AM |
MILITARY HISTORY BOOKS | Robert Hansen | Military Aviation | 0 | September 6th 03 12:10 PM |
FS: Aviation History Books | Neil Cournoyer | Military Aviation | 0 | August 26th 03 08:32 PM |