Topic awaiting preservation: If Republicans had behaved like Democrats in WWII (Page 1 of 1)

This was too good to not post.

quote:

---

August 1st, 1944

After one of the bloodiest months of fighting in Europe, House Republican leaders called for all United States forces to be withdrawn from Europe. "This is a quagmire," said one house member. "There is no evidence whatsoever that Nazi Germany had any connection to the attacks of 12/07 and fighting with Germany is a distraction from our war on Japan. We need to finish the job in the Pacific before getting involved in Europe?s problem and besides, it?s not as if Nazi Germany is an imminent threat to America. They haven?t even been able to conquer Britain. Besides, isn?t this a matter for the League of Nations?"

Asked about reports that there were some concentration camps in Europe, another House member replied, "He [FDR] has never said that this was about liberating the concentration camps in his 12/08 speech. In fact, how could he [FDR] say a word about this when we ally ourselves with dictators such as Josef Stalin and Chang-Kai-Shek?"

One Republican Senator opined that, "FDR has squandered all the good will we built up from WW1 in a few short years and for what? So we can conquer Japan and Germany to acquire cheap radios and German automobiles. It?s about enriching FDR?s Wall-Street buddies".

On the other hand, some Republican leaders say that this was an attempt by President Roosevelt to distract Americans from the depression. "He [FDR] has had no success with his domestic agenda, his New Deal isn?t working, and he is trying to deflect attention away from his failure to stack the Supreme Court. So rather than deal with the issues people are really care about right now like the environment and subsidies for the dying buggy whip industry, Roosevelt took what should have been a law enforcement matter to be settled between the State Department and Japan and turned it into another War of 1812!"

Among some of the criticism of FDR?s European policy is the way the Administration is allying itself with resistance leaders. "I don?t trust either one of them [Charles De Gaulle and Tito]."They have been feeding the so-called allies phony information. If we had a Republican President, we?d have better allies who could shoulder more of the burden instead of this fraudulent coalition that FDR has put together."

There were reports that Nazi Germany had chemical weapons, but house members scoff at those. "If Nazi Germany had poison gas, do you think they would have already used it? Roosevelt lied and people died!"

Others criticized the President for the way the operation to Europe came about. Former WW1 military commanders criticized the Invasion of Normandy as "Reckless". "It?s obvious that we barely had enough troops to prepare ourselves for the German counter offensive" one critic said. "Our jeeps were inadequately designed to handle the new German?s panzerfaust anti-tank weapon and we are stretching our troops too thin in both Germany and Japan. I don?t even know what we?re trying to do and I doubt Roosevelt does either. If only we had a plan, we wouldn?t be taking so many casualties."

A GOP congressman summed it all up by saying "It was arrogant and reckless for Roosevelt to use Pearl Harbor as an excuse to drag us into a world war and I only hope we can get him out of office so we won?t have to waste anymore of our young men?s lives on this mess he got us into."

---

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/troopww2.php

Ramasax

I'm stunned that anyone would dare compare Hussein to Hitler. Absolutely floored. Hitler was a malicious dictator, appointed by the people to lead Germany out of history's greatest punative damage against a state ever weighed. I would not dare defend Hitler in what he did, but he was supported by the people--people who turned a blind eye to the extermination of an entire race of people. If anyone deserves a comparison to Hitler, it's the plantation owners in America, systematically wiping the world of black people to pick their cotton. Nor am I supporting Hussein, whose idea it was to remove the threats on three sides from possibly removing him from power through systematic and very accurate means.

Of course, America never gave Hitler any guns. Or money. Or international support at all. Completely unlike what W's papa (and Reagan) did with Hussein.

I'm equally stunned that anyone would compare what America is doing in Iraq to WWII. In Iraq, America had, essentially, on enemy: Hussein. We went in without an exit strategy. We got rid of our one target, and kept firing. Now we're stunned that the people we "liberated" are firing back. The comparison between Gulf War II: The W Strikes Back and WWII would be more accurate if, after the Jews were liberated from concentration camps across Germany's empire, they started killing Americans, Brits, and other allies because we kept killing them.

Let's keep it all in perspective. Hussein was, at no point in his career, even at his highest point, a threat in the whole world-domination-scheme-thing. He wanted his own power, and he would trample over his countrymen to get it if he had to. Hitler wanted Lebensraum, and that required expanding the borders of the German empire beyond Germany...beyond Europe.

It's a shame that extremists on both ends of the political spectrum refuse to deal with the CURRENT situation, rather than using history books (written by either side's winning team) to allude to the past. Like we've ever learned from the past.

It's an insult to the millions of people who died in WWII to compare this skirmish that is costing a huge burden financially and morally, to a war that threatened to obliterate the world as we knew it.

Oh, and before I'm lambasted for it, I can take a joke as well as the next chap. Unfortunately, there's nothing funny about mass-extermination. Keep your patriotism to yourself, I'm too busy to sit on the can digesting more.


...the minutiae returns.

It's not so much a shame that people want comparisons to the past. It is a damn shame though, as you illustrated relatively well, that the comparions being made by both sides of our current political cluster-fuck are so damn shallow, so damn weak, so blatantly wrong, and so full of bullshit propaganda as they are.

quote:

---

Of course, America never gave Hitler any guns. Or money.

---

Google for Prescott Bush sometimes... it seems to run in the family.

Yes, I wondered about that too, MW. I was pretty sure we were doing business with Germany before the war. There was even a decent amount of support for Hitler himself in the early days of his rise to power.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Everyone who knows me knows I would never do anything to back up anyone whose last name is Bush...but that being said, rich people give money to other rich people in other places. That's how it happens in the real world. My point was not that America did not (technically, state-sponsored activity) give money to German in her rise to world-domination power. My point was that comparisons of Iraq to either WWII (as seen in first post here) or Vietnam (as touted by the left, myself included at times, at any opportunity) are insults to the men and women that died in those three wars.

Yes, the difference between personal business activities and governmental business activities becomes important here.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I beleive the governmental involvement in (and support of the atrocities in) pre-gulf war Iraq is far more substantial than that of Hitler era Germany.

The old, the enemy of my enemy is my friend conundrum.

All I can say is "Dont worry, Be happy", Lifes to short to worry about this crap it's not going to end anytime soon at least not in my life time.

J. Stuart J.