FDR, Democrats saved Poland

FDR, Democrats saved Poland

There are 38 comments on the Connecticut Post story from Sep 12, 2008, titled FDR, Democrats saved Poland. In it, Connecticut Post reports that:

In reply to Stanley F. Muzyk's letter of Aug. 27, I would remind him that the Democratic Party under Franklin Delano Roosevelt's leadership passed the Draft Act before World War II.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Connecticut Post.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
John C

AOL

#1 Sep 12, 2008
From Raymond R. Gallagher:

"With the passage of the Draft Act and, later, the Lend Lease aid to England, Roosevelt and the Democratic Party saved Poland and Europe from the oppression of Germany and Adolf Hitler."

More accurately, those FDR actions transformed America from that of a nation wanting peace and avoidance of war in Europe. to that of an aggressive world power, responding to it once colonial ruler's pleas for help, in a war that they started with little thought to their lack of ability to win (a war against Germany).

Had England (and France) not been so stupid (and FDR such an anti-German war monger), Poland, part of Russia, and part of Austria and Czechoslovakia would now be part of Germany (and happy), Hitler would be long gone, there would have been no Holocaust, no destruction of Europe and Russia, and 50 million people would not have died. And their would be no Palestine problem and no "war on terror" or Afghanistan or Iraq.
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#2 Sep 12, 2008
John C wrote:
From Raymond R. Gallagher:
"With the passage of the Draft Act and, later, the Lend Lease aid to England, Roosevelt and the Democratic Party saved Poland and Europe from the oppression of Germany and Adolf Hitler."
More accurately, those FDR actions transformed America from that of a nation wanting peace and avoidance of war in Europe. to that of an aggressive world power, responding to it once colonial ruler's pleas for help, in a war that they started with little thought to their lack of ability to win (a war against Germany).
Had England (and France) not been so stupid (and FDR such an anti-German war monger), Poland, part of Russia, and part of Austria and Czechoslovakia would now be part of Germany (and happy), Hitler would be long gone, there would have been no Holocaust, no destruction of Europe and Russia, and 50 million people would not have died. And their would be no Palestine problem and no "war on terror" or Afghanistan or Iraq.
What complete historical nonsense.

FDR and Churchill gave away Poland at the Yalta conference. Of course, the Red Army "liberated" Poland and there was no way,short of resuming the war, to get them out.
John C

AOL

#3 Sep 12, 2008
paul wrote:
<quoted text>
What complete historical nonsense.
FDR and Churchill gave away Poland at the Yalta conference. Of course, the Red Army "liberated" Poland and there was no way,short of resuming the war, to get them out.
If you think your "instant message" addresses all of my comments, you are mistaken - but that's OK, there are no "requirements" to be thoughtful before posting on this forum
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#4 Sep 12, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
If you think your "instant message" addresses all of my comments, you are mistaken - but that's OK, there are no "requirements" to be thoughtful before posting on this forum
pfft..if this or that scenarios are just science fiction. Completely unprovable. It's nonsense. But if it amuses you...
EX-BPT Bob

Virginia Beach, VA

#5 Sep 12, 2008
If the Dems and the isolationists had not ignored the Broken Versailles Treaty after WW1, The spread of Hitler's machine could have been Isolated thereby saving lives, and avoiding the holocaust. It could of gotten us out of the Depression sooner, also.

FDR would not have gotten alarmed to the point of sending arms to Britain if Churchill did not warn him that we may be fighting Britain's arsenal under German control if Britain fell.

Also, if FDR wouldnt have made backdoor promises to Stalin (without telling congress before he croaked)about postwar Europe and China, the world would have been on better terms.

God Bless the greatest Generation- they truly saved our world!
EX-BPT Bob

Virginia Beach, VA

#6 Sep 12, 2008
Another words the "Hitler problem" was ignored until the last minute and they HAD to do something.

Sort of like the actions Clinton failed to take following the first WTC bombing and Cole incidents.
In this case Bush was forced to act after 8 years of Democratic negligence!
Bob

East Berlin, CT

#7 Sep 12, 2008
EX-BPT Bob wrote:
Another words the "Hitler problem" was ignored until the last minute and they HAD to do something.
Sort of like the actions Clinton failed to take following the first WTC bombing and Cole incidents.
In this case Bush was forced to act after 8 years of Democratic negligence!
How right you are. The similarities between Obama and Neville Chamberlin and his policy of appeasement send chills down my spine. Chamberlin viewed Hitler's early actions as a conflict which did not concern the British people and that being passive towards those actions would somehow assure peace for the British people. Well, a couple of years later, Hitler had overrun most of Europe and bombs were pouring down on London. You can be assured that if we follow Obama's retreat from the war on terror that we will be fighting the terrorists on our own streets again here in the USA.

I love hearing the libs talk about how Clinton "balanced the budget." He did this by decimating our military, hamstringing our intelligence capabilities to the point that we were left wide open to the 9/11 attacks and instituting a tax hike that remains to this day the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And by the way, how about some credit to the Republican Congress which forced Clinton to accept welfare reform which required able bodied people to get up off their backsides and get a job instead of collecting the government dole for the rest of their lives?

Do people really want to follow Obama down the road of passivism and handouts to freeloaders??
John C

AOL

#8 Sep 13, 2008
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
How right you are. The similarities between Obama and Neville Chamberlin and his policy of appeasement send chills down my spine. Chamberlin viewed You can be assured that if we follow Obama's retreat from the war on terror that we will be fighting the terrorists on our own streets again here in the USA.
I love hearing the libs talk about how Clinton "balanced the budget." He did this by decimating our military, hamstringing our intelligence capabilities to the point that we were left wide open to the 9/11 attacks and instituting a tax hike that remains to this day the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And by the way, how about some credit to the Republican Congress which forced Clinton to accept welfare reform which required able bodied people to get up off their backsides and get a job instead of collecting the government dole for the rest of their lives?
Do people really want to follow Obama down the road of passivism and handouts to freeloaders??
"Well, a couple of years later, Hitler had overrun most of Europe and bombs were pouring down on London."

<<Yeah - that was after England stupidly declared war on Germany, and it didn't have what it took to just hold Germany at bay.>>

"Hitler's early actions as a conflict which did not concern the British people and that being passive towards those actions would somehow assure peace for the British people."

<<Hitler's actions certainly did not concern England to the extent of starting a war it could not carry out. They should have held off until they built up their forces to the point where Hitler would not attack. Hitler was no threat to England or France until they declared war - and even then, Hitler gave them six months to change their mind.
John C

AOL

#9 Sep 13, 2008
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
How right you are. The similarities between Obama and Neville Chamberlin and his policy of appeasement send chills down my spine. Chamberlin viewed Hitler's early actions as a conflict which did not concern the British people and that being passive towards those actions would somehow assure peace for the British people. Well, a couple of years later, Hitler had overrun most of Europe and bombs were pouring down on London. I love hearing the libs talk about how Clinton "balanced the budget." He did this by decimating our military, hamstringing our intelligence capabilities to the point that we were left wide open to the 9/11 attacks and instituting a tax hike that remains to this day the largest tax increase in the history of the world. And by the way, how about some credit to the Republican Congress which forced Clinton to accept welfare reform which required able bodied people to get up off their backsides and get a job instead of collecting the government dole for the rest of their lives?
Do people really want to follow Obama down the road of passivism and handouts to freeloaders??
"You can be assured that if we follow Obama's retreat from the war on terror that we will be fighting the terrorists on our own streets again here in the USA."

<<Don't be silly. There will never be any terrorists in our streets to fight. That is not the way they will make war on us. First, they will force us to constantly spend billions on security to intercept and prevent 95% of their terror attacks - bleeding us slowly. And when each of those 5% attacks occur, the ante will increase and our whole economy will go into a tailspin (like 9/11), because this country (despite all its bravado) has yet to learn what national toughness really is. When you have entered a vipers den, and you can't possibly kill all the vipers, you don't keep poking at them, if you have any brains. You get out. All we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is "poking" at them. And besides that, the mother den of vipers is in Pakistan, being fed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - who we think are our allies. And don't think that China, Russia, and many other nations are not watching with great interest as we stupidly allow those vipers to bleed us to death.>>
EX-BPT Bob

Virginia Beach, VA

#10 Sep 13, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
"
<<Don't be silly. There will never be any terrorists in our streets to fight. That is not the way they will make war on us. First, they will force us to constantly spend billions on security to intercept and prevent 95% of their terror attacks - bleeding us slowly. And when each of those 5% attacks occur, the ante will increase and our whole economy will go into a tailspin (like 9/11), because this country (despite all its bravado) has yet to learn what national toughness really is. When you have entered a vipers den, and you can't possibly kill all the vipers, you don't keep poking at them, if you have any brains. You get out. All we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is "poking" at them. And besides that, the mother den of vipers is in Pakistan, being fed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - who we think are our allies. And don't think that China, Russia, and many other nations are not watching with great interest as we stupidly allow those vipers to bleed us to death.>>
So what you are saying is that if the United States Stops pursuing the masterminds of Jihad activities, the problem will go away on its own?

Or are you saying the citizens should abandon the country and run "out of the cave?"

If this approach was taken during WW2, we would of all been speaking German and Japanese by now.

However, I do agree that we are destined to fall like the Romans because of the effects from treaties such as NAFTA, coupled with the complacent underachievers riding the social rolls.
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#11 Sep 13, 2008
EX-BPT Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
So what you are saying is that if the United States Stops pursuing the masterminds of Jihad activities, the problem will go away on its own?
John never has any solutions. Just a lot of ineffective blather that one can expect from a left winger. I actually think he would like to see terrorists kill American's here so he can bitch about Pres Bush. Too bad, Pres Bush has prevented all attacks during the last 7 years.

Pres Bush policy of staying on the offensive against terror has been effective. Right now we are attacking terrorist bases in Pakistan, al Qaeda's last stronghold.
John C

AOL

#12 Sep 13, 2008
EX-BPT Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Or are you saying the citizens should abandon the country and run "out of the cave?"
If this approach was taken during WW2, we would of all been speaking German and Japanese by now.
However, I do agree that we are destined to fall like the Romans because of the effects from treaties such as NAFTA, coupled with the complacent underachievers riding the social rolls.
"So what you are saying is that if the United States Stops pursuing the masterminds of Jihad activities, the problem will go away on its own?"

<<I have no problem with "killing the masterminds of Jihad - but don't kill thousands of people for every one mastermind>>.
<<Also, if we left them (the Taliban) alone they would busy themselves with fighting the warlords in Afghanistan to impose Sharia law on the country. Let the people of Afghanistan decide between the warlords (who they don't like) and the Taliban (who they don't like).
But it's all none of our business>>
<<As for al Qaeda, that's a world wide problem that can't be solved with a military force.>>
John C

AOL

#13 Sep 13, 2008
paul wrote:
<quoted text>
John never has any solutions. Just a lot of ineffective blather that one can expect from a left winger. I actually think he would like to see terrorists kill American's here so he can bitch about Pres Bush. Too bad, Pres Bush has prevented all attacks during the last 7 years.
Pres Bush policy of staying on the offensive against terror has been effective.
"Right now we are attacking terrorist bases in Pakistan, al Qaeda's last stronghold."

<< I approve of attacking al Qaeda in Packistan. We will now find out what it means to enter their stronghold and fight head to head with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and about 30 million fanatical supporters in that tribal regions of Pakistan - and a Pakistan government that will obstruct our every move. Maybe we will begin to realize that our vaunted military is no better than they, on their turf. Russia sure found that out.
But I do wish them success.>>
<< And BTW, Pakistan is only their current main center of command - it is a world organization, and there are other places for a command center than Pakistan. You do need to think ahead my friend.>>
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#14 Sep 13, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
You do need to think ahead my friend.>>
Without a secure base, al Qeada cannot mount 9/11 scale attacks. Pres Bush strategy of staying on the offensive has seriously undermined al Qaeda's ability to operate. Keeping them on the run is a forward thinking strategy.
The Islamic world is rejecting terrorism as a religious method further isolating al Qaeda. The Anbar Awakening reverberates through the mid east. That is forward thinking.
Iraq is on the road to becoming a shining example of the fruits of freedom. Pres Bush has set in motion political forces rejecting Islamic fascism. That is forward thinking.
Surrender to terrorism resets the clock to 9/10/01. Backward thinking my friend.
EX-Bpt Bob

Virginia Beach, VA

#15 Sep 13, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
"
<<As for al Qaeda, that's a world wide problem that can't be solved with a military force.>>
Thats strange, ever since we've been liberating Iraq, Al-Queda has been flocking to the country, allowing us to knock out their top leaders and planners! In Iraq!
We may have gone into Iraq because of some bum intelligence (or intelligence of some bum,) but progress on the terror war has been made.
After all, you have been sleeping soundly for the past few years, haven't you?
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#16 Sep 14, 2008
EX-Bpt Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
We may have gone into Iraq because of some bum intelligence (or intelligence of some bum,) but progress on the terror war has been made.
After all, you have been sleeping soundly for the past few years, haven't you?
Well said. Captured al Qaeda recruits said that fighting Americans was suicide. There are estimates of 1000 terrorists killed per month during the surge.

There is not an endless supply of al Qaeda recruits. Support for al Qaeda is declining. If we lean into the wind and persist, we can wrap up the war on terror during the McCain administration.

Retreat, and a return to the Clinton policy of duck and cover, will allow al Qaeda off the mat to strike us once more.

John C

AOL

#17 Sep 14, 2008
paul wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said. Captured al Qaeda recruits said that fighting Americans was suicide. There are estimates of 1000 terrorists killed per month during the surge.
There is not an endless supply of al Qaeda recruits. Support for al Qaeda is declining. If we lean into the wind and persist, we can wrap up the war on terror during the McCain administration.
Retreat, and a return to the Clinton policy of duck and cover, will allow al Qaeda off the mat to strike us once more.
"There are estimates of 1000 terrorists killed per month during the surge."

<<Try using your head instead of your mouth. Just how do you think Americans know who they are killing. Americans don't look like Iraqis and don't speak the language. They are not our sources of intelligence. The ones we recruit to infiltrate and interpret in Iraq are, for sure, untrustworthy. They only do it for money, and it is so easy for them to deceive us, as double agents. The Iraqis we hire know that we are untrustworthy too. We don't even grant them or their families refugee status. So don't try to tell us how many insurgents we kill.
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#18 Sep 14, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
"There are estimates of 1000 terrorists killed per month during the surge."
<<Try using your head instead of your mouth. Just how do you think Americans know who they are killing. Americans don't look like Iraqis and don't speak the language. They are not our sources of intelligence. The ones we recruit to infiltrate and interpret in Iraq are, for sure, untrustworthy. They only do it for money, and it is so easy for them to deceive us, as double agents. The Iraqis we hire know that we are untrustworthy too. We don't even grant them or their families refugee status. So don't try to tell us how many insurgents we kill.
No one appointed you commissar of propaganda here. Believe your left wing propaganda, but don't ask us to swallow it.

The surge was a military success. Part of that success was killing a large number of al Qaeda fighters.

Miltary sources estimate that Al Qaeda, one a force of 12,000 in Iraq has been reduced to 1000. Do the math.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/al_...
John C

AOL

#19 Sep 14, 2008
paul wrote:
<quoted text>
The surge was a military success. Part of that success was killing a large number of al Qaeda fighters.
Miltary sources estimate that Al Qaeda, one a force of 12,000 in Iraq has been reduced to 1000. Do the math.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/al_...
"No one appointed you commissar of propaganda here. Believe your left wing propaganda, but don't ask us to swallow it."

<<What "propaganda" have I spread. Using common sense, I posed an explicet scenario to you that I think is the accurate scenario, and certainly most plausiblw. And you have responded with "blah, blah, blah". Unless you can explain how your "information" can be even plausible (other than what our government says), I think you should shut up. In fact, your "blah, blah, blah" is pure propaganda.>>
paul

Riverdale, NJ

#20 Sep 14, 2008
John C wrote:
<quoted text>
"No one appointed you commissar of propaganda here. Believe your left wing propaganda, but don't ask us to swallow it."
<<What "propaganda" have I spread. Using common sense, I posed an explicet scenario to you that I think is the accurate scenario, and certainly most plausiblw. And you have responded with "blah, blah, blah". Unless you can explain how your "information" can be even plausible (other than what our government says), I think you should shut up. In fact, your "blah, blah, blah" is pure propaganda.>>
We've discussed this common sense thing before. Just because you think it, doesn't make it so.

It wouldn't be so bad if you weren't so arrogant asserting your delusions.

Try reading up on a topic before getting on your soap box.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News On This Day: McCollum Memo Delivered Feb '15 indict john boehner 2
News Like Lincoln and FDR, Obama faces nation in cri... (Nov '08) Oct '14 yon 52
News Veteran projectionist still threading film at m... (Mar '13) Mar '13 Films 1
News Memos show U.S. hushed up Soviet crime (Sep '12) Sep '12 Pesky army 6
News Hmm. The 2012 Election Reminds Me Of Something (May '12) Jun '12 Le Jimbo 71
News Paul Broun on FDR (Sep '11) Sep '11 Brotha of the Unb... 1
News The Constitution and compassion, too (May '11) May '11 JERRY DEMING 6
More from around the web