Everyone Owes Us
It appears to me, that at one time or another, every advanced nation on earth borrowed from us (USA) at one time or another. Let us take, for example some statistics that I came across while reading about World War 2 recovery act, the lend-lease program, which, by the way has never been paid back: The following to (Guess who?) Russia, alone: For four years we were allies against a common enemy and as a result we shipped 100 million tons of woolen and cotton goods, plus fifteen million pairs of leather boots, four million rubber tires, two thousand railroad locomotives, eleven thousand freight cars, fifteen thousand airplanes, seven thousand tanks, all free. Remember, we have never been at war with Russia even when it was the Soviet Union. There was some humor in all this, when Russia requested condoms, all 18 inches long, America sent over several thousand marked "medium." Trump is right when he asks for others to pay their fair share. We are not only the most generous, but the most taken advantage of. nation in history.
One Nation seems to be appreciative though or at least most of it's conscious people. Australia...many Australians have championed or have come here to help us recover the America we know and love because they realize that the world would be a very different place without us.
They do this in repayment for our saving their butts in WW2.
Unfortunately, "liberalism" and "liberal no longer communicate the semantic intent of the writer, since these words have been misappropriated and their meaning usurped: nowadays the word "liberal" no longer means the same as "classical liberal" and similar words are more often understood to refer to various shades of statist kleptocracy (e.g. socialism, progressivism, fascism, Democratic Republics, power to the people, etc.) -- rather than conveying their original meaning (i.e. individual liberty, and its various shades such as libertarianism, objectivism, etc.)
That is one reason why people Dean Russell and John Hospers suggested using a new word, such as "libertarian", to describe what was once intended by the word "liberal". [See http://www.libertarian.li/liberty/ref... or https://www.meetup.com/it-IT/rlc-83/m... ].
Here is a definition that popped up:
1. The quality of being liberal.
2. Any political movement founded on the autonomy and personal freedom of the individual, progress and reform, and government by law with the consent of the governed.
3. An economic theory in favour of laissez faire and the free market.
Definitions by Grammarly
And here is another from Wikipedia:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.
Anyhow.....the only people that ever seem to have appreciated the help of the USA are the Koreans. Everyone else seems prone to bite our hand.
US lost about 400 thousand killed and 600 thousand wounded in the entire war against the Axis both Europe and Pacific theatres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_W...
It could be argued that Russia saved Europe from the Nazis although US support certainly helped them do it. That's what allies do. If the scum in Washington got out of the way, an alliance between Americans and Russians would result in substantial colonies in space in a few decades.
Russia conspired WITH Germany to take over Finland.
Russia conspired WITH Germany as the Nazis annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria.
Russia ignored the pleas and warnings of Churchill while Great Britain was under siege during the Battle of Britain.
Russia refused to come to the aid of the United States in combating Japan, yet insisted on being present at the signing of the surrender.
Russia actively aided in the establishment of communism in post-war Yugoslavia which led to countless atrocities in the decades afterward.
When Russian troops were within two days of liberating Warsaw, Polish patriots rebelled against their Nazi occupiers in pitched battles throughout the capital. Instead of rushing to aid the Polish, Staling actually ordered the advance to stop while the Nazis butchered and starved over 1/2 the population of the capital. When the resistance leaders gave themselves up on condition that the Nazis allow food to the rest of the population, they were never seen again. And instead of allowing open and free elections as requested by Great Britain and the US, they installed a puppet government in Warsaw.
Russia actively tried to install a communist government in Greece. Only British intervention stopped them.
Russia stole millions in pricely art and artwork that they have never given back.
During the Bolshevik Revolution (led by Stalin), communists executed an estimated 20 million of their own people.
Russia never paid a penny to Britain for the aid they were receiving even at great loss - and from their own war material stores - from Great Britain.
And Stalin was the most ungrateful whiner during the entire war - as documented by his entitled attitude in communications between the Big Three.
Sorry, but you'll not get one ounce of pity for the Russians during WW II. They could have put tremendous pressure on Hitler and stopped him before he ever got started. Instead, they were complicit. It was only when the tide of war nearly broke them that they finally sided with the Allies, but it wasn't because of shared goals - it was out of survival.
We America NEED to look out for ourselves and to Hell with any who do not support our agenda. The Liberal Left has a Globalist agenda that is counter to this thinking. Sadly the Republicans are only moderately Left of center on the political spectrum, when they should be moderately Right. To make matters worse they consistently compromise on everything. Now I understand that politics is all about compromise but (and I am quoting someone here but cannot remember who) if you want to kill me I can not compromise with you and let you just kill me a little bit.
Until FDR orchestrated and allowed the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, America was doing the same thing.
I have no sympathy for Stalin's actions, but Churchill had his own agenda.
This happened, but when?
If they left as a response to a perceived attack, they would have been placed in
(or repositioned to) positions to intercept the attack.
In that case the attack would have succeeded, or failed, or been withdrawn.
Now if the attack plan was known, the presence of the attack fleet could have been verified.
The attack being successful or not or halted, the head-in-the-sand isolationism would still
have been squelched. This was Roosevelt's objective.
On top of that, there is no reliable evidence of "intercepted communications ..".
My analysis that what happened is consistent with no plans of an attack being known,
and inconsistent with what would have happened if attack plans were known.
I still think the rumors that he knew are are just made up.
Anyway, a little off topic- games played for pleasure are ok.
A game of tennis or golf or so on can be played without an intention to win. But to enter a war without intention to win is asking for defeat.
so when I read your statement ' .. in it to win it'
I thought- Yes!. Why then and not now?
Or greater good goes against everything I believe USA should be about. Roosevelt basically was saying I am more important than anyone else's life.
If the value and protection of the individual and equal creation was our governments purpose
The sky wouldn't even be the limit.
I prefer the refutation by Admiral Young in-
http://www.artbarninc.org/REY/Stinnet...
Young says that Stinnett gives copious references but when read they demolish the case for prior knowledge and conspiracy.
There is also-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pearl_H...
Easy to read but not well referenced.
An assertion that-
" . .incredibly clever and competent conspiratorial leadership would sacrifice a large portion of the Pacific Ocean fleet, at enormous military and economic cost, in order to begin a naval war with an already-aggressive Pacific power. "
Now, I was wrong in an assumption about the removal of the three carriers-
I now know that then carriers were given much less importance than
battleships.
That view reversed after Pearl Harbor. (Of course)
So if they had knowledge of an attack, top command would then have moved the battleships rather than the carriers.
Therefore, the advance knowledge case makes no sense.
My contemporary source (now deceased) validated Stinnett's evidence to me. The Admiral has a vested interest in supporting the state. He quotes other officers who have/had the same vested interest. This was a scandal of the period. Then, as now, the administration was careful to write its own history to protect the guilty. I can't prove it to you if you choose to believe the sanitized version of history provided by FDR's fanboys.
Between WW I and WW II, there were largely two countries which determined the fate of Europe: France and Great Britain. Russia was too busy exterminating its own people to pay attention until Finland and then it sided with the Germans. France built the Maginot Line thinking that static defenses would protect it even while Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia fell to the Fascists, then they found that when Holland and Belgium fell so too did their left flank. Great Britain and France engaged in appeasement year after year and even after Central and Eastern Europe were conquered by Hitler's Germany. It was only after France was invaded and capitulated and England threatened with invasion that new leadership (Churchill) came to power and by that time it was all England could to do simply survive the Blitz.
As to your claims about FDR, while I'm no fan of the man, that's a pretty tall accusation and I would call for some significant research to support your statements.
You have to go back to WW1 to have insight into Russia's actions regarding Germany prior to the German invasion of Russia in 1941. Russia had no part in the Versailles treaty and had lost 1.3 million sq miles of its territory, and 50% of its industrial capacity, in its treaty with Germany ending its part in WW1. Russia was ill prepared and unwilling to take on and lose to Germany again until they were invaded by Germany. After that they fought and millions died. England and America are indebted to the Russians as a result.
Uh, that was because Russia signed a treaty giving that all away. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_... and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_.... Because of the infighting resulting from the Bolshevik Revolution, the Russians couldn't defend their borders nor could they pay the German/Austrian alliance their debts. So they ceded territory in exchange. That's not the fault of the British, French, or Americans nor is anything "due" the Russians for these actions.
Prior to WW II, Russia had been warned by Churchill directly for years even preceding Churchill's crown appointment as Prime Minister. Churchill warned Stalin that Hitler wouldn't be satisfied because even his own nation (Great Britain) had failed to stand up to Hitler before hostilities broke out. Churchill also warned Stalin that the Fascists had no love for the Communists - a fact even Stalin's own ambassador reported back to him on more than one occasion prior to the 1941 invasion.
Did the Russian Red Army tie up a majority of Hitler's associated forces on the Eastern Front for much of 1942-1944? Yes. And that was Hitler's decision as much as anything else. Hitler hated communism even more than he hated the British. And if Hitler had left the military to prosecute the war, they very likely would have taken Stalingrad, driven through to Moscow, and ended Russia's participation in the war right there. His decision to attack Stalingrad in winter with supply problems and a force consisting of second-rate troops was a huge military blunder and it cost him the war. It was the very disaster that would have happened to the British if not for the miraculous evacuation at Dunkirk of more than 400,000 of Britain's front-line forces.
I would also point out the extreme efforts both the US and British went through - with zero compensation - to keep Russia in the war at all. Without the arms and supplies sent by the British at great loss of life and from their own war stockpiles to Archangel, Russian didn't have the equipment or raw materials to prosecute the war. There was also the supply line running through Iran and the Black Sea - again courtesy of the British (with American supplies) - pushing materials through for that portion of the front. British Spitfires and Hurricanes and American Sherman tanks were fighting on Russia's front lines.
I think the facts very much dispute the notion that Russia is "owed' by either the US or Britain for its efforts in WW II - especially in light of their early behavior in the war to side with the Nazis.
I'm looking at the entire balance sheet - not cherry-picking individual accounts. I invite you to do the same.
Churchill's "agenda" was the survival of England against the Nazis, trying to get us into the war to help.
space?! What a horror!!
However, in my view, it was the USSR that kept the DC gang contained. When the USSR failed the gang was free to oppress the people of the US. A space controlled by the DC gang would be just as bad as one controlled by any other dictator. The only relief is that space is big enough for liberty to continue somewhere, but we have to get started colonizing. Continuing to have petty disagreements with Russia (and others) on Earth wastes the resources that can advance exploration of space and a re-ignition of individual liberty and free markets.
However differences between the form of government was not what I referred to as petty, and I agree that the US constitution bears no resemblance to government in Russia.
Maybe those condoms were going to be used to make sausage!...to be re-sold to US!!!
Consciously, no. Subconsciously? Kinda looks that way.
They owe us big time. Maybe, Putin should be reminded about that part of history of WW2.
always) put the words "liberals" and "conservatives"
in quotes.