[ RadSafe ] RE: Terror in the US & world at large

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Mon Mar 5 19:52:23 CST 2007

March 5

John --

         With respect to the love affair, I believe historians would say 
that FDR had a rather high view of Stalin.  "Love affair" might be a bit 
hyperbolic.  One of my favorite expressions is "words only mean what they 
are defined to mean."  How does one define "isolationism"?  I believe this 
word is a pejorative, and I prefer to use the phrase "minding our own 
business."  I'm certain there was plenty of trade and travel between the US 
and the European countries after WWI, and I would not call that 
isolationism.  Someone once made the trenchant observation that there would 
be peace on earth when the governments of the world had as little to do 
with each other as possible, and the people of the world had as much to do 
with each other as they freely chose to have.

         One of the chief difference between Communism and Fascism/Nazism 
is that the former has always been an explicitly international movement and 
the latter have always been national movements.  We can easily dispense 
with Mussolini by pointing out that all he wanted was to be in charge in 
Italy and have one or two African colonies as a way of impressing someone 
-- perhaps merely himself.  According to the historiography I have read 
about Hitler, he had some grandiose schemes about conquering the USSR, 
however his plans for what to do with it were vague at best.  Even his 
alliance with Japan is suspect, for it seems that AH viewed the Japanese as 
being something less than human.  They certainly were not Aryans.

         In general terms I am familiar with Lend-Lease, and before the US 
declared war on the Axis Powers L-L was a means of fighting the Reich by 
proxy.  Stalin wanted a second front to relieve the pressure from the 
West.  Nazi Germany never attacked the US despite Roosevelt's provocations, 
and I cannot justify our waging war against it.  Of course the link, or 
justification, was the Japanese treaty with Germany, but I think that is a 
rather weak rationale for going to war with a nation that posed no threat 
to us.  Historians tell us that AH knew he could never beat the US, and 
that is why he never took FDR up on his provocations.


At 09:48 AM 3/5/07 -0800, John Jacobus wrote:
>I don't think there was any "love affair" between FDR
>and Stalin.  After WWI there was a powerful
>isolationist movement in this country.  Our entry into
>WWII was delayed by the "America First" movement, a
>member of which was the American hero Charles
>Also, there was fear of the rise Communism.  And who
>better to fight the Communist that the Facists?
>Even before the US entered the European front, we had
>arrangements with Britain, e.g., Lend-Lease policy.
>At the outset of our involvement, Stalin pushed for a
>second front.  Instead the US and Britain push through
>North Africa, into the Mediterranian.  Basically, the
>Soviet Union breed the Nazis with their own soldiers
>and citizens until we finally invaded Normandy.
>--- Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
> > March 4
> >
> >          Are we proud we exercised restraint and
> > allowed tens of millions
> > to be killed by Communism in the USSR and Red China?
> >  No.  Instead
> > Roosevelt fawned and simpered over Stalin and FDR
> > shoved through diplomatic
> > relations with "Uncle Joe."  Stalin's mass homicides
> > and his show trials in
> > the 1930s didn't interfere with FDR's love affair
> > with Stalin, nor did they
> > interfere with the same love affair of domestic
> > left-wing extremists (who
> > were so violently anti-fascist).
> >
> >          In order of death toll, Mao Tse-tung was
> > worst, followed by
> > Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and (probably) Pol Pot.
> >
> >          Funny isn't it, how we continue to maintain
> > diplomatic relations
> > withour "ungrateful European friends."
> >
> > Steven Dapra


More information about the RadSafe mailing list