I think a few here is fond of the old Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but looking into the actions that he did during the years into the prelude of World War 2 was really interesting. At his behest, he supplied Joseph Stalin and the whole Soviet Union of military equipment and intelligence to prepare for the Nazis. I really don't think that Americans during at the time was on board with supplying another enemy, the communists, with their own handmade products just to hold off the Reich.
Let's not get started with the internment camps he did against Americans of Japanese lineage after the Pearl Harbor attacks, how the Democrats were tight-lipped about it to this day, and the communist project that the former First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt did in Arthurdale, Virginia, that was still left untold on how many people died due to starvation on that god forsaken experiment of hers.
FDR would have never went to war against Germany or Italy where it not for Japan and Pearl Harbor.
FDR admired fascism and the fascists admired him.
I agree that Mises does have a slant on certain issues but here that is not the case.
Wasn't that office set up after Pearl Harbor?
I agree that FDR did have many commies in his inner circle and the man himself had far leftist leanings.
At the same time FDR openly admired Mussolini but he never spoke positively about Hitler.
Isn't it possible that all of these following statements can be true at the same time?
FDR admired the efficiency of Mussolini's fascist regime. FDR praised Mussolini openly. Mussolini praised FDR openly.
FDR used Pearl Harbor as the reason for the U.S. to go to war.
FDR was influenced by a certain wealthy group of influential elites to attack Germany as well as FDR having many communists in his inner circle and FDR being a communist sympathizer himself.
All of these things can be true at the same time.
"Hitler's goal was not 'world domination' but to save Europe from communism" Why did he invade countries like The Netherlands who weren't a threat to them?
He brought it on himself! By invading West Europe he had to deal with Britain and France, he should have just armed his country against the inevitable Soviet invasion instead of attacking Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Since he did, Britain had to get involved and they would do anything to get the US on their side.
"Bolsheviks were actively infiltrating and subverting all of these countries" Evidence?
I think you may be the single biggest moron posting here. So what did your beloved Fuehrer accomplish by starting a war on two fronts, except to bring communism to Europe? His aim, by the way, was to create 'living space' for his race.
Wow, he held a position also held by 80% of the German population, including the Marxist Social Democrats who crushed the Spartacist Uprising.
It was nothing of the sort, you're just repeating what you heard at some point. Compare the Treaty of Versailles to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and you will find it far milder. And it was also far milder than what the Germans wanted to impose on the Western allies.
They definitely had no legitimate beef over something that you just made up.
Wow, you managed to get something right. The Greer incident is an example. And FDR was right, by the way.
It makes sense if he had more than two brain-cells, which cannot be said of most people on this thread. Like I said elsewhere on this thread, just as it was political malpractice for the British and the French to not back the Confederacy, as it fatally undermined their position in the world, it would have been similar malpractice for FDR to allow the USSR to be conquered by the Nazis. That would have created a greater power than the world had ever known, which would inevitably create security problems for the US.
Alexander wasn't trying to depopulate Asia in order to replace them with Macedonians. He just wanted to rule them. Now do Generalplan Ost.
And this is also correct, and remarked on by Hitler himself. "Who remembers the Armenians today?" As he was discussing doing a similar thing to the Polish population.
There is a tiny difference between the wholesale atrocities committed by the Germans and those committed by the Allies, and even the Soviets.
Are you serious? Only some of the top brass was hunted down, and of them, some of them were not even punished. Mengele is a great example. (Though I do not know if he was a Nazi ideologue or just a psycho.)
And most people are fine with Germany, incorrectly with my opinion (but not because of the Nazis). So this is a bad comparison.
Note that I didn't claim that "he wanted to take over the world". I did point out that your whitewash was just that.
Meanwhile some US companies such as IBM were working with Nazi Germany.
Pearl Harbor being allowed is plausible.
So we have OP claiming that FDR's great crime was that he helped the USSR beat off the Germans, and here we have a claim that FDR did not care at all about defeating Germany. Which is it? Also, have you heard of something called 'constraints'? A president is not a dictator, and it has often been remarked that Germany did FDR a favor by declaring war, because that would have been quite difficult.