(OT) Bush worships Satan!

[KurtGodel77]

Let me get this straight: you won't believe my "wild accusations" until I back them up, when my "wild accusations" are that you can't back up your posts?  Ergo, I'm supposed to somehow prove you can't back up your posts...and presumably, in doing so, do your own work for you? 

 

Nice logic, that... 

215809[/snapback]

I'm saying that if you have a specific objection to something I've written you should come out and say it. You're hiding behind vague generalities.

[DC Tom]

Can you give a link?

215808[/snapback]

 

Sorry, the accepted Roman alphabet spelling is Krasnaya Zvezda.

 

And no, I won't give a link...it's the damned Soviet Army newsletter that you referred to!!!! The very one that was issued by the Soviet Communist Party with Ilya Ehrenberg credited not as the Propaganda Minister but as a contributor. The same newsletter, by the way, that denounced him in April of '45 (April 14th, in an article by Gregori Aleksandrov - who, incidentally, held the title of of Chief of Soviet Propaganda. I could expound even more on the subject (e.g. Ehrenberg's article entitled Khvatit, two days before and ultimately his last, which prompted his denunciation)...but I've wasted enough time on you.

 

Ergo, I return to my original thesis: the depth of your knowledge is astoundingly shallow and immature, and thus your opinions are puerile and without merit...and blisteringly stupid. Now go do your homework on the topic of the Stalinist Soviet regime and US-Soviet relations in the war and immediate pre-war era, and come back when you're actually capable of discussing it with people who know something about it.

[DC Tom]

You're hiding behind vague generalities.

215836[/snapback]

 

Physician, again heal thyself. Provide specifics for your own laughable vague generalities first...

[KurtGodel77]

Sorry, the accepted Roman alphabet spelling is Krasnaya Zvezda.

 

And no, I won't give a link...it's the damned Soviet Army newsletter that you referred to!!!!  The very one that was issued by the Soviet Communist Party with Ilya Ehrenberg credited not as the Propaganda Minister but as a contributor.  The same newsletter, by the way, that denounced him in April of '45 (April 14th, in an article by Gregori Aleksandrov - who, incidentally, held the title of of Chief of Soviet Propaganda.  I could expound even more on the subject (e.g. Ehrenberg's article entitled Khvatit, two days before and ultimately his last, which prompted his denunciation)...but I've wasted enough time on you.

 

Ergo, I return to my original thesis: the depth of your knowledge is astoundingly shallow and immature, and thus your opinions are puerile and without merit...and blisteringly stupid.  Now go do your homework on the topic of the Stalinist Soviet regime and US-Soviet relations in the war and immediate pre-war era, and come back when you're actually capable of discussing it with people who know something about it. 

215839[/snapback]

This is getting ridiculous. I doubt that most of those reading this thread care about whether Ehrenburg had or didn't have the official title "Soviet propaganda minister." If you've actually read the Soviet newsletters--which is what you seem to be implying--then you already know the Soviet propaganda machine helped engineer genocide against the German people. It would be nice if you actually, just once, showed the slightest ounce of compassion for those the Soviet army brutally murdered.

 

On the other hand, are you prepared to argue that FDR's foreign policy wasn't pro-Soviet? If so, you'll have to show a single example of FDR doing something other than appeasing the Soviet Union and acting in Soviet interest. Good luck in finding an example like that.

[DC Tom]

This is getting ridiculous. I doubt that most of those reading this thread care about whether Ehrenburg had or didn't have the official title "Soviet propaganda minister." If you've actually read the Soviet newsletters--which is what you seem to be implying--then you already know the Soviet propaganda machine helped engineer genocide against the German people. It would be nice if you actually, just once, showed the slightest ounce of compassion for those the Soviet army brutally murdered.

 

On the other hand, are you prepared to argue that FDR's foreign policy wasn't pro-Soviet? If so, you'll have to show a single example of FDR doing something other than appeasing the Soviet Union and acting in Soviet interest. Good luck in finding an example like that.

215874[/snapback]

 

I'm sorry...were we arguing about compassion? I thought we were arguing about the complete lack of facts supporting your views. Lest you forget...you were the one that brought up "Propaganda Minister Ilya Ehrenberg" to support your "facts"...

 

Funny thing is, my post spoke directly to that: it demonstrated that even the Soviet leadership, when pushed to it, didn't support Ehrenberg's extremist views. The rape and pillaging of Eastern Germany was contrary to the established wishes and orders of STAVKA...of which, the denunciation of Ehrenberg's extremist views is but one demonstration. So FDR supported the Soviet brutality in Eastern Europe...even though it was explicitly against Soviet policy to begin with?

 

But...okay. "Everybody knows" the Americans could have gotten to Berlin...why don't you try backing THAT up instead?

[KurtGodel77]

I'm sorry...were we arguing about compassion?  I thought we were arguing about the complete lack of facts supporting your views.  Lest you forget...you were the one that brought up "Propaganda Minister Ilya Ehrenberg" to support your "facts"... 

 

But...okay.  "Everybody knows" the Americans could have gotten to Berlin...why don't you try backing THAT up instead? 

215942[/snapback]

Finally you've managed to write a complete sentence that doesn't involve the name Ilya Ehrenburg. I'm impressed.

 

As for whether the Americans could have gone to Berlin first, John Toland wrote they could have in his book Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was praised by the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and other major media organizations. Adolf Hitler the book that is; not the human being.

[Chilly]

Most college towns are,dummy.

214478[/snapback]

 

No !@#$ing sh--?

 

I had no idea that college towns are usually liberal.

 

Get the !@#$ out of these forums if you are going to call me dummy, you !@#$er. If you aren't smart enough to realize I was giving a funny fact from the governor's head legislative place, not that I was saying it was unusual, you need to get the !@#$ out of these forums.

 

Oh, and by the way:

 

You are the !@#$ing dumbass here, not me.

 

Remember cat in portland: Down the road not across the street.

[DC Tom]

Finally you've managed to write a complete sentence that doesn't involve the name Ilya Ehrenburg. I'm impressed.

 

As for whether the Americans could have gone to Berlin first, John Toland wrote they could have in his book Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler was praised by the NY Times, the Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, and other major media outlets. Adolf Hitler the book that is; not the human being.

215946[/snapback]

 

Figures you'd be a Toland fan...he was one of the people that perpetrated the FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory. Frankly...I think he was a hack. Equally frankly - and objectively - Toland's not even that great a secondary source, let alone a primary one. Lots of holes in his work from the military point of view. Try an actual historian like Beevor or Hastings.

[Chilly]

Don't worry, you still have the professors to hang with.

 

One of my sociology professors at Brockport was actually from Austin. Let the indoctrination begin! What a douche he was.

214540[/snapback]

 

Thankfully most of our profs AREN'T from Austin originally. If they were from Texas I woulda never left Florida to come here.

[KurtGodel77]

Figures you'd be a Toland fan...he was one of the people that perpetrated the FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory.  Frankly...I think he was a hack.  Equally frankly - and objectively - Toland's not even that great a secondary source, let alone a primary one.  Lots of holes in his work from the military point of view.  Try an actual historian like Beevor or Hastings.

215969[/snapback]

You have a point that other historians focus more on the military aspect than Toland did in his work about Hitler. That doesn't make him a lousy historian, it just means he focused a greater percentage of his time on the political and diplomatic situation.

 

But if you don't like Toland, perhaps you'd care for William Shirer, the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, a 1400 page tome about Nazi Germany. Shirer went into more detail about the Alpine situation in 1945 than Toland did. Assuming you're as well-read as you claim, you already know that in 1945, the Nazis claimed to have impregnable mountain fortresses in which they planned to hold out indefinitely. The American army was diverted to pursuing these pipe-dream fortresses instead of securing control over the population of central Europe. A president interested either in the humanitarian goal of preserving Germans from mass murder, or the patriotic goal of securing strength for America in the coming Cold War, would have grabbed what he could in central Europe, while letting the Soviets deal with whatever "impregnable" fortresses the Nazis had been able to build.

[KurtGodel77]

Figures you'd be a Toland fan...he was one of the people that perpetrated the FDR Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory.  Frankly...I think he was a hack.  Equally frankly - and objectively - Toland's not even that great a secondary source, let alone a primary one.  Lots of holes in his work from the military point of view.  Try an actual historian like Beevor or Hastings.

215969[/snapback]

I guess anyone who holds an historical opinion you disagree with must be a hack. However, there are others who do not share your opinion of Toland: Newsweek, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Library Journal, the San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle, and the Pulitzer Prize committee. I guess they all must be hacks too, eh? [sarcasm] We all know that the NY Times is very tolerant of right-wing nutcases. [/sarcasm]

 

But a small minority of people on these boards may fail to appreciate your full brilliance, and may actually find credibility in an historian endorsed by Newsweek, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Library Journal, the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, and the Pulizer Prize committee.

[KurtGodel77]

"[before Pearl Harbor] the President . . . signed the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration of British and American war aims. Its terms not only left no doubt that Roosevelt was Hitler's implacable enemy but, ironically, disillusioned the Fuhrer's enemies inside Germany, for no difference was made between a Nazi and an anti-Nazi. Those in the Resistance regarded the charter as Roosevelt's unofficial declaration of war against all Germans. They particularly resented Point 8, which stipulated that Germans must be disarmed after the war; a demand which, Hassell wrote in his journal, 'destroys every reasonable chance for peace.'" -John Toland, Adolf Hitler 691 - 692

 

The following quote is in reference to events that took place some time after Pearl Harbor: "In hopes of convincing Roosevelt that not all Germans were Nazis, Lochner was prepared to give him the radio code of two separate groups opposed to Hitler so that Roosevelt could inform them directly what political administration in Germany would be acceptable to the Allies. After failing to reach the President through his appointments secretary, Lochner wrote a personal note revealing the existence of these codes and emphasizing that they could be handed over to Roosevelt alone. There was no reply but several days later Lochner was informed that his insistence was viewed by official sources as 'most embarrassing.' Would he please desist? What Lochner did not know was that the President's refusal to see him was official American policy in line with unconditional surrender, designed not only to withhold encouragement to German resisters but to avoid any important contact." John Toland, Adolf Hitler 736 - 737

 

The official American policy of unconditional surrender did not benefit America whatsoever. On the contrary, had the German generals succeeded in overthrowing Hitler, peace with Germany would have ended a painful European war several years early, while reducing the danger the Soviet Union posed in the postwar period. In addition, getting rid of Hitler in 1942 or 1943 would have prevented further human rights violations by Hitler, and would have prevented the Soviet genocide against the German people. Allied extermination bombings directed against the people of Germany could also have been avoided. Roosevelt's decision to discourage the German resistance--and therefore strengthen Hitler's hold on power--demonstrates that Hitler's human rights record was not a major factor in Roosevelt's decision to wage war. This attitude comes as no surprise to anyone familiar with FDR's reaction to the various Soviet genocides. Unfortunately, saving the lives of brave and idealistic American soldiers was not a priority for FDR either. Had the German generals overthrown Hitler, the European war would clearly no longer have been necessary, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brave young men could have been avoided. Had FDR offered an honorable peace to a de-Nazified Germany, more generals would almost certainly have joined in the plot to overthrow Hitler.