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.
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.
That may be a clue that I don't regard the Spartacists as being the products of... the French, or even the Soviets. If you have the evidence, go right ahead and post it.
That is complete nonsense. The Persians were not annihilated, nor were any of the other peoples of Asia. It is very rare that conquest results in annihilation.
The native population was by no means displaced. Only a small percentage of the population of Egypt was Greek. 10% max. They weren't starving the native population, and they certainly weren't committing genocide like the Nazis. Which is why the city of Alexandria today is still called Alexandria.
Stop trying to defend the indefensible using fabricated historical examples of which you evidently know nothing.
This is literally at the level of putting 2 and 2 together.
If the postwar Soviet Union was too powerful, how powerful would a state be if it possessed not just the Eastern Block lands, but the whole of Germany and large other parts of Western Europe? It would have more territory, and it would not have a counterproductive economic system, so it would be... wait for it ... vastly more powerful.
By whom? Again, you and the others on this thread live in a fantasy-land where there's no such thing as 'constraints'. As if it would even be possible to turn on your ally on a dime.
That German culture is identified with Nazism unfairly is correct.
My favourite thing about this community is how fractious it is. It's great watching people disagree and argue--it reminds me of forums 15 years ago when the internet was still mostly free.