It's in the diary of FDR's Sec. of War, Stimpson. There are other sources.
I'm not sure that I agree with your assessment of Hitler's intentions regarding Europe and Russia. It seems very revisionsit to me.
It's become mainstream. BTW, revisionist is not necessarily bad. Revisionism just means challanging accpeted opinion about a historical event.
Moreover, I agree with you regarding the fate of eastern europeans. But, blaming that on WWII is based on yet another false premise. It was not the war which gave Russia eastern europe, but the West's failure to stop the USSR from taking the east.
I'm not blaming WW2. I'm just saying that all WW2 did was trade one form of enslavement for another. There is no way we could have stopped the Soviets from taking Central and Eastern Europe in 1945. It would have meant another war, and they had a lot more men, guns, and armor on the ground than we did.
Since you believe that he purposefully goaded Japan into attacking us, you probably also believe that he had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but did nothing so as to get us into the war?
The evidence for this is pretty sketchy, so no.
Overall, according to your post, the total elimination of all jews in Europe and Russia and Nazi Germany controlling Russia would have been an acceptable outcome.
It is not an acceptable outcome, but it is no less an acceptable outcome than Stalin controling half of Europe and murdering tens of millions of people after the war, many of them Jews.
And you say that you believe that Hitler would not have gone after France, Italy, Poland, etc. had we done nothing? Interesting take on history.
Hitler was not interested in France and Western Europe. He certainly was going after Central Europe, i.e. Poland and Czechoslovakia, as well as Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. Nearly all those parts of Europe he wanted fell under Communist control later, and there was nothing we could do to prevent that.
Based on the reasoning in these posts, I'm guessing that you would support us abandoning Isreal as a way to stop terrorism?
We should not give them $3 billion a year in aid. I would phase it out. They could afford to pay for their own weapons if it were not for their bloated welfare state, so in a sense, even though most of our aid is military, it goes to subsidize their welfare state. I have no objections to selling them weapons, however, and cooperating with them in the war on terror. We have a common enemy who threatens us both.
What about Korea and Vietnam? Should we have been involved? What about the Cold war? Should we have fought it?
Yes. Global Communism was a global threat that had to be contained.