Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Warfare Warfare Military Forum - For topics and discussions related to combat and peace efforts


Thanks Tree4Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:41 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
One Plus For Hitler

Once the public begins to talk about the enemy within as many Americans are now doing, they are talking about the parasites class even if it is not said in those terms. Steve McCann offers a valid interpretation of this country’s possible demise, but he fails to name the parasite class as the root cause of this county’s problem:

The citizenry of a nation that has experienced unprecedented peace, prosperity and global or regional hegemony over four or more generations are often lulled to sleep believing there will never be an end to their good fortune. Inevitably these countries and empires have floundered and decayed as they gradually and unwittingly descended into societal, political and economic chaos invariably precipitated by their respective ruling classes. Over the past fifty years, the United States has been adrift on this same calamitous course. However, it appears that America may have been granted a reprieve through an event that could have been a long-term disaster potentially turning out to be its salvation. That event was the presidency of Barack Obama and the ensuing hubris of his fellow-travelers in the American Left.

Over the past 55 years, regardless of any Republican in the White House or in charge of Congress, no one has been able to halt the incessant spread of left-wing radicalism in the nation’s institutions and culture as well as the exponential growth of government with its tentacles increasingly intertwined in the day-to-day lives of all Americans. As long as the people remained largely disengaged the potential damage to society as a whole and to the financial health of the country was ignored by the vast majority of the population.
July 9, 2018
Did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Save America?
By Steve McCann

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...e_america.html
Bear with me on this one. There is a lot to cover.

Dictators very often start a nation on the road to empire. Empires, like the Roman Empire, were usually enlarged and maintained by a succession of dictators.

Colonial empires like the British Empire in recent centuries were extensive without actually requiring a traditional dictator at the helm. They lost the Colonies in the new world, but hung on in Africa and the Raj in India.

A government of any kind benefitting from its colonies act as a dictator —— some pretended benevolence for political reasons.

The U.S. must oppose expansionist type dictators because they are, or very soon will be, a serious threat to the American people. Americans should ignore the stay-at-homes until Socialists single them out as easy pickings for a Communist takeover. Once that happens it is to this country’s advantage to support the local dictator. This is as it should be.

The U.S. has not been an expansionist nation for more than a hundred years. That one fact was the foundation for the trust the American people used to get from most foreign governments and peoples. Everyone knew that Americans had no desire to invade and occupy a foreign country. American Socialists/Communists are the only expansionists in the U.S. As Socialists increase their political power here at home through lies and propaganda trust in this country diminishes everywhere.

Throughout the Cold War Soviet Union Communists relied on American Socialists/Communists to do the right thing by Communism if they could —— they often could as in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. Soviet trust has not been misplaced to this day even though the Soviet Union went belly up 18 years ago.

Democrats in Congress always voice their heartfelt concerns for the people living under stay-at-home dictators. Revolutions fought against a stay-at-home dictator offering no threat to the United States is like mother’s milk to American Socialists/Communists. Elected Democrats always support touchy-feely revolutions while opposing wars fought against Communist expansion that are clearly being fought to protect the United States as in Korea and Vietnam.

Beginning with the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the intelligentsia (those are authors and public trough intellectuals who think political thoughts for a living) always portray the people fighting for Socialism/Communism as freedom fighters. I am not joking.

Now, lets take a look the Holy Roman Empire (H.R.E.) in relation to today’s geopolitics.

The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire; lasting from 962 until 1806.

The Second Reich lasted from 1871 until 1918. Not as good as the First Reich, but time enough to bury Communism had the U.S. remained a neutral country.

The Third Reich did not work out too well for Germany; lasting from 1933 until 1945. The reasons for its short life span are numerous.

The H.R.E.’s life span lasted from 962 to 1945. In my chronology the three Reichs constitute the Holy Roman Empire even though Hitler’s insane Reich can in no way be compared to the H.R.E. throughout the centuries it was the light of the world. If anyone except global village Socialists become presidents after Trump leaves office, Americans should have no trouble beating the First Reich’s record if you start the clock in 1776.

One of my earliest conclusions told me that organized religion and government will always plague mankind. The H.R.E.’s starting point convinced me that the affairs of men move very slowly. In that sense Shakespeare’s Brutus could have been speaking to Islam in Julius Caesar Act 4, Scene 3:


There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
Irrespective of the contributions Muslims made to civilization in Islam’s early years the end of the First Reich saw Islam far behind Christianity in science, in government, in technology, in the arts and, most importantly, in the standard of living for the most Muslims. Islam was bound in shallows and the miseries so to speak.

A few astute observers saw petroleum wealth in the hands of Muslims a rebirth of violent Islam when Muslims invaded Europe, but it took decades to turn their insights into a movement. When a major shift in the structure of world power takes place it often requires centuries to carry the shift from start to finish. I believe that Islam’s thinkers in the late 19th century saw the death of the First Reich as a flood tide in the affairs of men.

By the time WWI and WWII finished off the H.R.E. the living standards throughout the Muslim world could not compare with the living standards in Christian countries. So it is fair to say that Communists dug the Holy Roman Empire’s grave in the twentieth century, while it was Islam’s planners who toke the current.

Also, the new religion, Socialism, prior to WW I must be viewed in relation to the final days of the Holy Roman Empire. The German States were the Holy Roman Empire (the First Reich) for nearly a thousand years. So it was inevitable that Germany was destined to produce the strongest reaction to Communism. Rather than being a new political philosophy, Nazism was attempting to regain some sense of Germany’s lost morality in the face of worldwide Communism. Conquest, extermination camps, and racial purity were the methods Hitler’s Nazis adopted in a world that was already turned upside down in German eyes.

The war to end all wars

There are many factors that contributed to WWI when looked at from a British perspective. Factors like England's determination to prevent Germany from becoming a world power that would challenge the British Empire in commerce, but it is Woodrow Wilson's true motives that American historians should examine in more detail.

One question: Why was England considered the better ally prior to WWI? In my opinion Wilson's decision was prompted by his own Presbyterian beliefs. In short: President Wilson abandoned this country’s strict neutrality and sided with Great Britain for no reason other than his personal beliefs. At that point in time the United States had never fought against Germany, while Americans had twice fought the British? Soviet Communism, Hitler and WWII were the unintended consequences. Depending upon your point of view, Germany was burned twice by the British/American alliance.

I am being very brief here because volumes can be written on this subject. I posted huge quantities on the topic and barely scratched the surface. One thing did stand out. I concluded that it was nothing more than a shared language that allowed Wilson to get away with marrying Americans to the British in the minds of average Americans.

The wisdom of this country's founders is never more evident than in their commitment to neutrality. The Founding Fathers would never have allowed their young country to be sucked into a European war, and a war with religious undertones to boot. Wilson must have known that. The American people knew it and wanted no part of foreign wars; so I had to ask myself why Wilson abandoned neutrality in order to involve the United States in that American tragedy. Oddly enough, the world has been at war continually since the end of the War to End All Wars?

Wilson’s ivory tower mentality led him to believe that a world without war would take root in if he helped one side to victory. Since there were more Americans of German descent in the United States back then, and still today, selecting Great Britain as an ally over Germany tells me that he was helping the Church of England and opposing the H.R.E.

In 1900 Socialism as a political force was in its infancy here in the U.S., but England, not Russia was the center of Socialist thought and planning in the years before the Russian Revolutions. I believe that Wilson’s myopia was the most telling aspect in Wilson's thinking. As blind as he was, no American president since Wilson has been able to break his grip on foreign policy. Indeed, I doubt if any wanted to with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan. Most presidents probably never saw Wilson's hand controlling foreign policy. The State Department is still dominated by Wilson's faithful priesthood who have no reason to work with a president that might challenge Wilson's worldview.

Socialism is a religion, but it is not a Supreme Deity religion, nor is it founded upon Christian principles; so Wilson had to believe that his religion would benefit the most if England defeated Germany saw the world would see the last of the H.R.E. Every American except hardcore Socialists paid a terrible price for Wilson's misguided religious beliefs; not the least of the price paid was neutrality.

Now, because of Wilson's unintentional support for Socialism, followed by all of the evils that sprang from WWI, future religious wars involving the American people are a dead certainty. Wilson set the precedent and Democrat busybodies have been running with it since 1917. Concerned Muslims and Christians alike had better take a good look at which religion will benefit the most in a religious war? It is neither, but rather it is the Socialist religion —— ditto a race war.

Wilson abandoning neutrality to influence the outcome of a foreign war becomes clearer when you look at Clinton and the former Yugoslavia. Clinton simply continued Wilson's foreign policy objectives because the precedent for interference had been established by Wilson. Undeniably, Clinton interfered in a religious conflict between European Christians and Muslims. He was not interested in creating several sovereign nations out of one to save lives as he would have everyone believe. He was determined to destroy Christian Yugoslavia. That is why he used NATO to sneak the U.N. in thru the backdoor. The U.N. is now entrenched in the Balkans.

Socialists/Communists the world over took advantage of WWI to validate their religion. The Soviet Union became their version of shining city upon a hill.

WWI also gave Socialism a bit of credibility throughout the remainder of the 20th century, or at least until the Soviet Union imploded. American Socialists/Communists running the Democratic party are still reeling over that one.

NOTE: President McKinley can be called the first busybody after he sent American troops into China during the Boxer Rebellion. His excuse was that Chinese Christians and foreign missionaries were being killed. Socialism never entered McKinley’s thinking. Now compare Clinton to McKinley. Clinton killed Christians, while not lifting a hand against Muslim terrorists operating in the Balkans. Notice how far the busybodies traveled since McKinley, and all in the name of global government.

Bill Clinton’s Balkan Adventure was such a humane war the Luftwaffe was called out of retirement to take part in NATO bombings. You can be sure Herman Goring took pride in that one.

So why did Clinton not see the Balkans as a Muslim problem? Christians were not a threat to the American people —— Muslim terrorists were and still are.

Finally, keep in mind that the German States provided the muscle for the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. Those ties were centuries old. It was Hitler’s Germany that fought Communism because of those ancient ties, or so I believe. Basically, Hitler has a plus in his column. Communism has none.

Last edited by Flanders111; July 10th, 2018 at 06:50 AM.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:44 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
noonereal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: NYC
Posts: 320
God Bless.
Thanks from imaginethat
noonereal is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:05 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 162
Oh dear - so much wrong with this. I am sure it will take weeks to reply

Just for starters:

Socialism isn't a religion, it is an ideology

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing

Socialists/Communists (which as explained above are not the same thing) neither singly or collectively run the Democratic party

Wilson didn't support GB in World War I because of religion; he supported them because Germany was involved in a war of aggression that involved sinking US ships and possibly bringing Mexico into the war on their side (if the Zimmerman telegram is to be believed...)

What I think is particularly sad is that you regard our leaders and that of our allies of being motivated by some grand conspiracy. I know given the present incumbent, it’s hard to believe, but some leaders are actually motivated by what they believe is the right thing to do!
Thanks from imaginethat and GluteusMaximus
deGanis is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 08:55 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Oh dear - so much wrong with this. I am sure it will take weeks to reply

Just for starters:

Socialism isn't a religion, it is an ideology

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing

Socialists/Communists (which as explained above are not the same thing) neither singly or collectively run the Democratic party
To deGanis: See this thread:

One Government One God?

If that goes over your head try this definition:

religion (noun)
Abbr. rel., relig.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Wilson didn't support GB in World War I because of religion; he supported them because Germany was involved in a war of aggression that involved sinking US ships and possibly bringing Mexico into the war on their side (if the Zimmerman telegram is to be believed...)

What I think is particularly sad is that you regard our leaders and that of our allies of being motivated by some grand conspiracy. I know given the present incumbent, it’s hard to believe, but some leaders are actually motivated by what they believe is the right thing to do!
To deGanis: Winston Churchill’s hand can be seen in the RMS Lusitania, a British luxury liner owned by Cunard Line flying the British flag. It was the same Winston Churchill who later manipulated FDR with so much success leading up to Pearl Harbor.


Years after WWI ended it came out that the Lusitania’s cargo holds contained war materials. In retrospect, Germany had every right to sink her.

Churchill was first lord of the admiralty from 1914 to 1918. The Lusitania Conspiracy Theory implies that Churchill had a hand in the certainty that the German Navy would sink the Lusitania. The U.S. entered the war on England’s side in 1917. In short: Churchill was a professional conspirator when it suited England’s purpose compared to FDR.

The following excerpt was taken from an encyclopedia:


“Lusitania (vessel), British steamship, torpedoed in 1915 without warning during World War I by a German submarine off the coast of Ireland. The ship sank quickly, and 1,198 people died, including 128 Americans. The Germans asserted that the ship was carrying arms for the Allies (which later research proved to be true). Anti-German sentiments increased in the United States after the disaster. Germany refused to accept responsibility for the tragedy but agreed not to sink passenger liners without warning.”
Germany was fighting a war against England and was justified in sinking the Lusitania once they learned that the ship was carrying arms in its cargo holds. Germany’s military at the time was controlled by Junkers, an honorable class of military men. There was a not a chance they would have ordered the Lusitania torpedoed without knowing what she was carrying. You can bet that Churchill, and probably President Wilson, made sure that the German High Command found out in time for the Lusitania to be intercepted.

The Lusitania was torpedoed on May 7, 1915. Congress declared war on April 6, 1917; a full two years after the Lusitania. In those two years merchant ships supplying Great Britain with materials of war were torpedoed. It was sinking those merchant ships that gave Wilson his declaration of war. That tells me that it took a full two years for the Lusitania Conspiracy to come to fruition.

Had the public known the truth in 1915, anti-German, pro-British, sentiments would have been impossible to sustain long enough for Wilson to involve the American people in England’s war against Germany. No television and damn few radios to administer booster shots back then.

Parenthetically, look at how the Left concocted excuses for the 3,000 murders done to Americans on 9-11-2001. The murders that occurred on 9-11 cannot be justified by any sane person, yet the Blame America First crowd went out of its way to see that no anti-Muslim sentiments got started in the same way that anti-German sentiment was encouraged after the Lusitania.

Can you imagine hundreds of thousands of Germans flooding into the U.S. after the Lusitania was torpedoed? An event that claimed relatively few Americans lives in the course of a European war.

The Lusitania cries “Conspiracy” from her watery grave; whereas, the only conspiracy connected to the events of 9-11-2001 is the one that was hatched by Islamist extremists. However, there is one important similarity between 9-11 and the Lusitania.

The Germans were not supposed to protect themselves during a war by stopping weapons from reaching their enemy without first presenting proof of British skullduggery to the world. The similarity to 9-11-2001 being that Americans are not supposed to defend themselves against Islam without enough proof to satisfy the International Community if the Socialists running the Democrat Party are to be obeyed. Proof is waived if the U.S. acts multilaterally with the U.N.’s blessings.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 09:48 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 162
We can have a great debate about what is religion in another thread if you like. Whilst the definition you quote is incontrovertible, this does not imply that Communism is in fact a religion; it means it is like a religion; quite different. I may claim that my religion is The Jets (it isn’t by the way), but even if I passionately believe this, I don’t have a faith in a supernatural being or beings (certainly not at The Jets) and I do not pray to or worship them. I think we can apply some rationale here as well as quoting a dictionary. I think most would say Communism is not a religion, it is a political ideology. If you look up ‘Communism’ in the same dictionary you quoted from, I imagine you would find that (??)


Here is what Webster’s says:

a : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b : a theory advocating elimination of private property
2capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R.
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively

(note there is no ‘e’: A religion)


Notice by the way it doesn’t say ‘f’: The same as Socialism…..I guess you didn’t want to deal with that inconsistency in your argument.

I think there is no doubt that the Lusitania sinking was used by the British government. However, I also don’t ‘buy’ the idea that it was deliberately manipulated by them. Read, for example ‘Dead Calm’ by Erik Larson.

However, let’s just say it’s true and that the Lusitania was deliberately used by the British to bring American into the war. Why would it take two years for the Brits to get their Conspiracy right? They didn’t need to get anything right. They could have just told people the truth that the Germans had sunk a neutral ship! However, the fact that this didn’t bring the US into the war shows that it was continued German sinking of US ships after the Lusitania provoked the response.

And again, contextually, the Germans had started an aggressive war. There was no need for Britain to be at war, it was their guarantee of Belgian neutrality that caused them to be at war. Wilson saw that Britain was standing up to aggression which threatened the stability of Europe; that’s why he got involved.

As to 9-11, the reason why there wasn’t – thank goodness – an extensive anti-Muslim backlash, is that most of us have got the sense to realise that it wasn’t a religion making war on the US; it was a small group of misguided idiots.
deGanis is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 10:00 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 11,019
Here are three things we can always count on from Flanders:

1) It will be long.

2) It will be questionable.

3) It will be long.
Thanks from deGanis
Clara007 is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 11:39 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Wilson saw that Britain was standing up to aggression which threatened the stability of Europe; that’s why he got involved.
To deGanis: Europe’s stability was none of his goddamned business. I will stick with T.J.

Speaking for myself, I am one archconservative who does not give a flying F about the rest of the planet. Let the rest of the world go straight to hell as far as I am concerned. This is my Pax Americana:
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson

I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty. Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:77
The minute you move away from T. J.’s caution you open the door to every priest and wannabe priest. Every freak that ever lived wanted to save the world. In truth, they save everything except individual liberties.
Miss Bow-Wow 2.0

Note that individual liberties have been disappearing ever since Wilson told every wannabe priest freak to go out and save the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
As to 9-11, the reason why there wasn’t – thank goodness – an extensive anti-Muslim backlash, is that most of us have got the sense to realise that it wasn’t a religion making war on the US; it was a small group of misguided idiots.

To deGanis:
Believe what you will.

Socialism/Communism is a religion in every sense except that government is its one true God and the tax collector’s morality is its doctrine. They dare not admit it on Public Television for fear the First Amendment will drive them away from the public trough.

Both Islam and Socialism/Communism are theocracies that must destroy freedom if they are to survive. Both fly in the face of mankind’s march towards freedom from totalitarian government. Islam must be legally defined as a political movement, while Socialism must be legally defined as a religion. That is the only way to deny both their First Amendment protection.

Socialism has been the most destructive of the two to date because Socialists fund their religion with tax dollars, while petroleum money is responsible for Islam’s resurgence in the 20th century. Ask yourself: Where would Socialism be today without tax dollars? Where would Islam be today without petro-dollars?

I am not naive enough to believe the SCOTUS will define Socialism as a religion as long as there are four confirmed Socialists and one probable on the Court. I do harbor a hope that Congress will finally realize that funding morality of any kind in any way is funding a religion. That simple truth should be enough to invoke the First Amendment; consequently, stop funding one group’s morality over all others. START WITH DEFUNDING PUBLIC TELEVISION.

The worst of it is that it is probably too late to legally define Socialism as a religion. Not one federal judge in a century ever defined Socialism as a religion. Not one judge on the Appellate Courts, or on the SCOTUS, ever said it in a minority opinion.
Public Trough Politics
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 12:04 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 162
Well I thank God that our leaders in two World Wars didn't support your view. The sacrifice made by American service men in both saved people from tyranny and oppression. Somehow I think that TJ may have approved!

As to not caring about the rest of the world; cool - live in your bubble, see how that goes!

Please get this straight - Communism and Socialism are NOT the same. No matter how many times you keep saying this, it won't make it true.

Once you understand this, you will appreciate the rest of what you have said is garbage. Communism was and is a completely unsustainable system. Socialism seems to be doing well in other places - yeah, I know you don't care about other places in the world. But if you ever look up and look around you will find its true

As for your conflation of Islam and Communism (- or is it Socialism?), just too ridiculous to even consider.
deGanis is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 01:24 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: East Coast Of U.S.A.
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Well I thank God that our leaders in two World Wars didn't support your view.
To deGanis: Did you forget Pearl Harbor?

The American public wanted no part of the war in Europe. FDR, spurred on by Churchill, was determined to get the U.S. into that war which began in 1939. Churchill’s agenda was to keep Germany from becoming a world power; thereby, threatening what was left of the British Empire and its interests. The Empire was already in serious trouble at the time; especially in India where the Raj was under attack by independence-minded Indians like Gandhi (1869 - 1948 ). There was also a strong faction inside India that wanted to enter the war on Germany’s side.

Japan was Germany’s ally. The biggest single miscalculation Hitler made was in declaring war on the United States days after Pearl Harbor. Both Germany and Japan were operating under the delusion that the U.S. could not fight a two ocean war.

Japan attacked the United States, yet 90% of this country’s war effort was directed towards the European War and saving Communism in the Soviet Union. Suspicious at the very least. One would think that FDR would have wanted to squash Japan out of existence as quickly as possible by putting all available resources into the Pacific War. Instead, he chose to concentrate on Europe. The Pacific War dragged on for four years when it could have been brought to successful conclusion in one year.

Had Hitler not declared war FDR would have been forced to concentrate the war effort on Japan. Hitler’s miscalculation was compounded. After Japan had been beaten, the American public would still have been against helping Communism survive in the Soviet Union.

Americans could see no good reason for entering the war in Europe. Polls taken in the pre-WWII era showed that 80 percent of the American people wanted no part of a European war. As late as June 23, 1941, then-Senator Truman remarked:


If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible. Harry Truman
Senator Harry S. Truman was a vehement opponent of America getting involved in a second European War. The man who would later become president understood the American people because he was one of them. To hear today’s liberals talk about WWII, young Americans have been conned into believing that Americans could not wait to go to war in Europe.

NOTE: Fascism and Communism are equally abhorrent political systems to most Americans. Before the world learned of the Holocaust, it would not have mattered one iota which side won in Europe. Had the Holocaust never happened it would be easier today to show Fascism and Communism as both sides of the same coin. Because the Holocaust did happen, Fascism is the more evil of the two, but not by much. American Socialists/Communists claim sainthood under false pretenses to this day because of the Holocaust.

The Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory must be examined with the politics and events that led to America’s entry into the war in Europe.

The British broke the Japanese Naval Code before Dec. 1941. FDR’s defenders claim that he was not told that the Japanese code had been broken prior to Dec. 7, 1941. For anyone to believe that FDR did not know the attack was imminent ignores the kind of president FDR was. Nothing went on in his Administrations that he did not know about. That man was the most manipulative, devious, president who ever lived in the White House. Can anyone realistically believe that breaking the Japanese Naval Code was kept from him? Defending such a position boggles the mind considering the political environment of the time.

There were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. The warships that were there were obsolete for the most part. FDR did not want to give the Japanese Navy that big of an edge by putting this country’s aircraft carriers in harm’s way.

The Japanese ambassador to Washington was kept waiting until after the attack began. Hence, Dec. 7 became a day of infamy rather than a declaration of war before the attack started.

The one component of the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory that is never, or seldom, speculated about is James V. Forrestal’s suicide.

Forrestal’s brief biography, taken from an encyclopedia, is interesting in relation to the attack on Pearl Harbor:


“Forrestal, James Vincent (1892-1949), American banker and government official, born in Beacon, New York, and educated at Dartmouth College and Princeton University. In 1916 he joined the New York City investment firm of Dillon, Reed, and Company. He became president of the firm in 1938. Two years later Forrestal was appointed undersecretary of the navy and served in that post until 1944, when he became secretary of the navy. He was one of the chief planners of the unification of the three armed services in a single executive department of the federal government. In 1947, when unification was effected by congressional enactment, Forrestal became the first secretary of defense of the U.S. He resigned the post because of ill health early in 1949.”
The next quote was taken from a chronology of events in 1949 and is not connected to Forrestal’s biography.

“The U.S. Defense Department is created August 10 by a retitling of the War Department under terms of the National Security Act of 1947. The first secretary of defense James V. Forrestal resigned in March with symptoms of nervous exhaustion and depression, entered Bethesda Naval Hospital, and jumped from a window there May 22, dying at age 57.”
Note that Forrestal’s promotion to secretary of the navy in 1944 shows that he was one of FDR’s fair-haired boys. FDR never moved anyone up the ladder he did not trust completely. If there is any truth to the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory, Forrestal, as under secretary of the navy at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, must have known about it even if he disagreed with FDR’s ultimate decision. If he did not know about it in 1941, he may have acquired top secret information after he became secretary of the navy in ‘44, or after he became the first Secretary of Defense in 1947, that allowed him to put it all together.

Here are two purely speculative psycho-babble questions that if ever answered would either prove that FDR knew, or would clear up the Forrestal suicide in relation to Pearl Harbor.

1. In light of his loyalty to FDR, and subsequently FDR’s Pearl Harbor decision, was Forrestal’s depression brought on when he finally came to understand where FDR’s Socialists/Communists intended to take the country? (The U.N. was a fact of life in 1949.)

2. Was Forrestal a man of such conscience he had to commit suicide because he could no longer live with the secret of Pearl Harbor?

Nor could Forrestal blow the whistle and harm the country. An internal conflict of that magnitude would break the strongest man of conscience.

One other possibility is that New Deal Socialists/Communists murdered Forrestal because he was on the verge of telling all. Anything that would destroy FDR’s ongoing deification process would also tarnish Eleanor Roosevelt; i.e., question the then-infant United Nations. Socialists would not let that happen then or now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
The sacrifice made by American service men in both saved people from tyranny and oppression. Somehow I think that TJ may have approved!
To deGanis: Jefferson would never approve of Americans dying in foreign lands fighting for strangers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Please get this straight - Communism and Socialism are NOT the same. No matter how many times you keep saying this, it won't make it true.
To deGanis: Get this Straight asshole. The only difference between Communism and a Socialism is in the public’s mind. The misconception was planted in the late 19th century when early Socialist planners set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution. They both end in the same place.

The incrementalism that Democrats got away with gave them time to acquire political power in order to dictate behavior.

Convincing the public that Socialism is good while Communism is evil originated during WWII —— “Stalin is good while Hitler is bad.” The next step convinced Americans that democracy is good while liberty is bad.
Flanders111 is offline  
Old July 11th, 2018, 03:52 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flanders111 View Post
To deGanis: Did you forget Pearl Harbor?

The American public wanted no part of the war in Europe. FDR, spurred on by Churchill, was determined to get the U.S. into that war which began in 1939. Churchill’s agenda was to keep Germany from becoming a world power; thereby, threatening what was left of the British Empire and its interests. The Empire was already in serious trouble at the time; especially in India where the Raj was under attack by independence-minded Indians like Gandhi (1869 - 1948 ). There was also a strong faction inside India that wanted to enter the war on Germany’s side.

Japan was Germany’s ally. The biggest single miscalculation Hitler made was in declaring war on the United States days after Pearl Harbor. Both Germany and Japan were operating under the delusion that the U.S. could not fight a two ocean war.

Japan attacked the United States, yet 90% of this country’s war effort was directed towards the European War and saving Communism in the Soviet Union. Suspicious at the very least. One would think that FDR would have wanted to squash Japan out of existence as quickly as possible by putting all available resources into the Pacific War. Instead, he chose to concentrate on Europe. The Pacific War dragged on for four years when it could have been brought to successful conclusion in one year.

Had Hitler not declared war FDR would have been forced to concentrate the war effort on Japan. Hitler’s miscalculation was compounded. After Japan had been beaten, the American public would still have been against helping Communism survive in the Soviet Union.

Americans could see no good reason for entering the war in Europe. Polls taken in the pre-WWII era showed that 80 percent of the American people wanted no part of a European war. As late as June 23, 1941, then-Senator Truman remarked:


If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible. Harry Truman
Senator Harry S. Truman was a vehement opponent of America getting involved in a second European War. The man who would later become president understood the American people because he was one of them. To hear today’s liberals talk about WWII, young Americans have been conned into believing that Americans could not wait to go to war in Europe.

NOTE: Fascism and Communism are equally abhorrent political systems to most Americans. Before the world learned of the Holocaust, it would not have mattered one iota which side won in Europe. Had the Holocaust never happened it would be easier today to show Fascism and Communism as both sides of the same coin. Because the Holocaust did happen, Fascism is the more evil of the two, but not by much. American Socialists/Communists claim sainthood under false pretenses to this day because of the Holocaust.

The Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory must be examined with the politics and events that led to America’s entry into the war in Europe.

The British broke the Japanese Naval Code before Dec. 1941. FDR’s defenders claim that he was not told that the Japanese code had been broken prior to Dec. 7, 1941. For anyone to believe that FDR did not know the attack was imminent ignores the kind of president FDR was. Nothing went on in his Administrations that he did not know about. That man was the most manipulative, devious, president who ever lived in the White House. Can anyone realistically believe that breaking the Japanese Naval Code was kept from him? Defending such a position boggles the mind considering the political environment of the time.

There were no aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. The warships that were there were obsolete for the most part. FDR did not want to give the Japanese Navy that big of an edge by putting this country’s aircraft carriers in harm’s way.

The Japanese ambassador to Washington was kept waiting until after the attack began. Hence, Dec. 7 became a day of infamy rather than a declaration of war before the attack started.

The one component of the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory that is never, or seldom, speculated about is James V. Forrestal’s suicide.

Forrestal’s brief biography, taken from an encyclopedia, is interesting in relation to the attack on Pearl Harbor:


“Forrestal, James Vincent (1892-1949), American banker and government official, born in Beacon, New York, and educated at Dartmouth College and Princeton University. In 1916 he joined the New York City investment firm of Dillon, Reed, and Company. He became president of the firm in 1938. Two years later Forrestal was appointed undersecretary of the navy and served in that post until 1944, when he became secretary of the navy. He was one of the chief planners of the unification of the three armed services in a single executive department of the federal government. In 1947, when unification was effected by congressional enactment, Forrestal became the first secretary of defense of the U.S. He resigned the post because of ill health early in 1949.”
The next quote was taken from a chronology of events in 1949 and is not connected to Forrestal’s biography.

“The U.S. Defense Department is created August 10 by a retitling of the War Department under terms of the National Security Act of 1947. The first secretary of defense James V. Forrestal resigned in March with symptoms of nervous exhaustion and depression, entered Bethesda Naval Hospital, and jumped from a window there May 22, dying at age 57.”
Note that Forrestal’s promotion to secretary of the navy in 1944 shows that he was one of FDR’s fair-haired boys. FDR never moved anyone up the ladder he did not trust completely. If there is any truth to the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theory, Forrestal, as under secretary of the navy at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, must have known about it even if he disagreed with FDR’s ultimate decision. If he did not know about it in 1941, he may have acquired top secret information after he became secretary of the navy in ‘44, or after he became the first Secretary of Defense in 1947, that allowed him to put it all together.

Here are two purely speculative psycho-babble questions that if ever answered would either prove that FDR knew, or would clear up the Forrestal suicide in relation to Pearl Harbor.

1. In light of his loyalty to FDR, and subsequently FDR’s Pearl Harbor decision, was Forrestal’s depression brought on when he finally came to understand where FDR’s Socialists/Communists intended to take the country? (The U.N. was a fact of life in 1949.)

2. Was Forrestal a man of such conscience he had to commit suicide because he could no longer live with the secret of Pearl Harbor?

Nor could Forrestal blow the whistle and harm the country. An internal conflict of that magnitude would break the strongest man of conscience.

One other possibility is that New Deal Socialists/Communists murdered Forrestal because he was on the verge of telling all. Anything that would destroy FDR’s ongoing deification process would also tarnish Eleanor Roosevelt; i.e., question the then-infant United Nations. Socialists would not let that happen then or now.




To deGanis: Jefferson would never approve of Americans dying in foreign lands fighting for strangers.



To deGanis: Get this Straight asshole. The only difference between Communism and a Socialism is in the public’s mind. The misconception was planted in the late 19th century when early Socialist planners set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution. They both end in the same place.

The incrementalism that Democrats got away with gave them time to acquire political power in order to dictate behavior.

Convincing the public that Socialism is good while Communism is evil originated during WWII —— “Stalin is good while Hitler is bad.” The next step convinced Americans that democracy is good while liberty is bad.
No I didn’t forget Pearl Harbor -see below, I also can’t ignore your statement that ‘the American public wanted no part in war in Europe’. Of course many Americans didn’t want to take part in a war; what idiot would choose to go to war? However this does not mean that American’s did not recognise that the Second World War was a war that may need to be fought.

Not quite sure where you get your data; if you wouldn’t mind quoting your source, that would be helpful. I can provide evidence for the opposite. See for example this:

http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/3040.pdf

Page 519 should help – notice the graph is entirely before Pearl Harbor.

Your peregrination through the story of what happened in December 41, is fascinating and the centre of much historical debate. Although I could refer you to a number of books which – to my mind – quite satisfactorily debunk the claim, this article from a British newspaper is a good summary:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...k-1173728.html


However, none of that is relevant, because as the first article shows, US public opinion had swung towards engagement long before the events of December 41.

Notice too, that this graph is showing support for England – not an abstract belief in fighting a war; but supporting England, presumably because the American people accepted as you apparently do not, that the UK was the last bastion of democracy in Europe.

Again you are trying to conflate Socialism and Communism. No, they are not the same. I am beginning to sense you don’t really want to keep an open mind, but in case you do, maybe have a look at this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a6708086.html


I think you are right though, most Americans do see Communists/Socialism as the same and equally abhorrent because sadly, most of us don’t understand the difference. However, let’s go with it for now, because again you are right, many people in the 30s would really struggle to know which was the worst – fascism or communism. And actually most people would probably have seen the latter as worse. I do not dispute this. However, then Hitler started his war and the decision swung the other way.

I am really disappointed how you have to debase yourself going into personal insults. If that makes you feel empowered, then good for you. However, if this is what you are reduced to, you merely prove you have lost the argument.

If you would like to be sensible, then carry on the debate
deGanis is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Warfare

Tags
hitler



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trump the next Hitler? GhostRider Americas 85 January 29th, 2017 03:05 PM
hunt for hitler neoconkitty World History 0 November 7th, 2016 01:42 PM
It's Hitler all over again. Engineer Current Events 109 November 10th, 2013 05:15 AM
The Hitler Project intangible child Political Talk 15 February 27th, 2006 11:27 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.