Posted on 08/02/2011 5:04:34 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Ya think?
Lol. That concludes my Captain Obvious post for the day.
Initially, Hitler wanted to resettle European Jews in Palestine. See, for example, the Haavara Agreement. It was the British who acted to block Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine (which was under Brit control) in order to avoid antagonizing the Arabs.
“Maria Elena still at #2.”
I’m oblivious to war, my summer baseball is over, my time with my aunt is ending. Next month school starts and I’m heading for an orphanage with a younger brother and sister [our last parent died last April]. I’ll be our recreation room two month’s later listening to the radio inform about Pearl. Wake up time is approaching. Grow up in a hurry.
So that his Muzzie pals could do his dirty work for him.
Reds Capture ‘Loudspeaker’ Gun
MOSCOW, Aug. 1 — Germany has brought a new secret weapon into play on the Eastern Front, dispatches from the combat zone said today. = radio loud speakers which make one machine gun sound like hundreds. Russian scouts found and destroyed one such loud speaker next, it was asserted with the result that the whole sector became quiet at once.
Has anyone noticed the name of Harold Ickes in regard to all the oil mgt in WWII?
Quoted word-for-word, but I didn't even quote the half of it!!
If I had quoted the the rest, to give you full context, it's absolutely, with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, clear what McCollum was talking about.
This is why the "debate" we see on the Internet and elsewhere about McCollum's memo is so infuriating.
The memo says what it says!
Anyone can read it's entirety, page 271 - 275 of Stinnett's book, or on the Internet: here.
This is one key page, #4. Read especially item 9:
No, no, FRiend, you misunderstand FDR, if you think his hatred of Germans went back only to the First World War.
It went back to Roosevelt's boyhood, in the 1890s!
Remember, the Roosevelt's were first, of Dutch extraction, so sympathetic to the Netherlands, and second, wealthy from money earned in China, so young Franklin traveled in Europe, stayed for long periods and became conversant in German and French.
Young Franklin knew the Germans well, and he hated them -- for their arrogance and boorishness among other reasons.
So the First World War simply confirmed opinions that FDR had first formed 20 years earlier!
PzLdr: "Remember, this is the clown who promised in the 1940 campaign that he would nevder send U.S troops overseas..."
Pal, you don't understand Roosevelt's basic nature, if you didn't catch the exact wording of FDR's promise during the campaign of 1940.
I think I can quote it from memory:
"I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."
Of course, the trick to it is (and with FDR, there was always a trick to it), as he explained to his close associates: if the US is attacked, then it is no longer a foreign war.
My money is on propaganda BS. The Germans had enough problems with transport and supply without lugging around amplifiers and speakers as MG accessories.
posts are seeming to say FDR wanting war with Hitler was a bad thing. FDR saw Hitler clearly for what he was, and had done so since 1933 when the ambassador FDR personally selected to Berlin began writing (new book just out: “In the Garden of Beasts).
FDR couldnt bring the American people along. Couple weeks before Pearl Harbor a gallup poll showed 80% of Americans wouldnt get involved in the war even if it meant the total loss of Europe to the Nazi’s. Obviously had that happened, US would have been next for the combined Axis
Thanks for posting that. Looking at the original I’m more satisfied with my assessment of the 8 points. Now what is the debate on the internet you are talking about or more particularly, where? I’d like to see some of this debate that you mention.
He also wanted to send them to Madagascar, but his inability to control shipping lanes made that impossible. In the end, most places he pushed them to (and some escaped to) became occupied by the Nazis later. Eventually, they just started to kill them off instead. Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt are some really good authors and have written some good collaborative works on the Holocaust. One in particular which covers the many of those who tried to escape from the Reich; some succeeded, some did not, and some did just to become caught in the Reich again. This book is called “Flight from the Reich: Refugee Jews, 1933, 1946”. It’s well worth the read.
Then you haven't followed my posts.
On numerous occasions I've said I think FDR did exactly the right things, and for the right reasons -- and, for that matter, he did it the only practical way it could have been done, given Americans' overwhelming opposition to another "foreign war."
That's why I don't buy the idea that Roosevelt and his inner circle were in any way surprised by Pearl Harbor.
But they gave vague & inadequate warnings to their commanders, and did specifically tell them to allow Japan to commit the first overt act of war.
Kimmel & Short in Hawaii simply followed orders, and the results could not have been better politically for FDR.
In this matter, I criticize Roosevelt for failure to adequately warn the commanders in Hawaii, but not for any of his other actions.
There's not that much of a "debate", because most sources you google-up simply slam with lies, distortions and misstatements, Stinnett's interpretation of McCollum's Eight Action Memo .
Indeed, there is a standard response out there, which is more-or-less repeated verbatim by different sites discussing the issue.
To find all these, simply google "Arthur McCollum Memorandum" and start with the Wikipedia entry. Other sites take much the same tone:
"The characterization of the McCollum memorandum as a recipe for war was not accepted by U. S. Army Military Historian[14] Conrad Crane, who wrote:The fact is, McCollum's memo says what it says, and "offhand" is in the eyes of the beholder -- in this case, someone obviously determined to protect President Roosevelt at all costs, imho.'A close reading shows that its recommendations were supposed to deter and contain Japan, while better preparing the United States for a future conflict in the Pacific.
There is an offhand remark that an overt Japanese act of war would make it easier to garner public support for actions against Japan, but the document's intent was not to ensure that event happened.' "
Thanks, you know, there may be an easier way to post these.
Let's see how well this works.
From Iasi, Romania, in July, 1941:
"A pile of corpses dumped from an Iasi death train in Romania is evidence of the Iron Cross's murderous campaigns against the Jews.
From June 29 through July 7, 260 Jews were murdered in their homes and thousands of others were beaten and robbed as they were marched through Iasi's streets.
The pogrom ended when 2500 Jews were sealed inside railcars and sent south.
Deprived of food and water, fewer than half of the Jews survived the eight-day journey."
"The surviving prisoners of the Iasi death train plunge into the mud near the train tracks.
Deprived of food, water, sanitary facilities, and fresh air, the occupants were allowed to disembark for a few minutes when the train stopped.
Burning and dehydrated, they immediately sought refuge in the cool mud before returning to the torture chamber of sealed railcars."
Question: is one result enough clearer to justify the extra work required?
And, while we're discussing these -- many photos are not only gruesome, but also highly explicit, beyond "R" rated.
So, question is, when it comes to historical photos about the Holocaust, where do we draw the line on what is, or is not, acceptable to Free Republic?
Ok, so it’s not really debate. I thought you were talking about a forum where McCollum was being openly debated. As you well know, you can edit Wikipedia. You should go add your take on the memo to the entry. The wiki entry definitely isn’t very flattering to Stinnett.
I'll leave that to the real experts.
CougarGA7: "The wiki entry definitely isn’t very flattering to Stinnett."
Wikipedia's policy is to be as "fair and balanced" as possible, presenting both sides of a debate -- which they did in this case.
However, the article does not give a full response to the criticisms of Stinnett's interpretation of McCollum's Eight Action Memo.
Of course, Wikipedia is only one site, and many other sites also discuss the issue.
But the important point I'm trying to make here is that virtually all of those others take their cue from Wikipedia, so no matter which one you turn to, you read the same basic criticisms.
So, I do call that a "debate," but certainly not a fair debate, and that's why I referred to it as "infuriating."
Can I give you an analogy?
It's like trying to watch a "debate" on MSNBC -- after about a minute of it, I want to.... ahem... well... turn off the TV.
On Wikipedia? You aren't going to any real experts there. You should put in your two cents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.