Nuclear take incoming: Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a communist sympathizer, could probably a Leninist himself.

posted 3 years ago by ramzaruglia 3 years ago by ramzaruglia +79 / -4

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.

103 comments

103 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (103)

sorted by:

▲ -1 ▼

– AntonioOfVenice -1 points 3 years ago +1 / -2

But you bring up the spartacist uprising which was an international group of communists trying to take over Germany. Okay then. The fact that the left is often incapable of long-term cohesion is not an argument that they cannot be legitimately opposed.

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.

Whenever a more aggressive population takes over a weaker one the weaker one is inevitably replaced and genetically destroyed, sooner or later.

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.

Alexander undoubtedly placed greek lineages in Africa that would not have been there without war and conquest, and they absolutely did displace the local populations leading to Ptolemy Egypt.

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.

And yet FDR's actions led to the creation of a power greater than the world had ever known and created massive security problems for the US.

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.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if you claimed FDR would have pushed for the full occupation of the USSR

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.

Not quite, you can't really bring up Germany in a historical context without people mentioning the nazis and holocaust, even The Simpsons jokes about it. Germans are still seen as vaguely sinister and malicious, often used randomly as bad guys in movies (Die Hard, Sum of All Fears). It's just not the same with Japan.

That German culture is identified with Nazism unfairly is correct.

permalink parent save report block reply