From: John Rennie on
Hatunen wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:27:41 +0100, John Rennie
> <john-rennie(a)talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:06:25 +0200, Donna Evleth
>>> <devleth(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From: John Rennie <john-rennie(a)talktalk.net>
>>>>> Didn't deserve it on the domestic front but oh dear when it came
>>>>> to dealing with Stalin he was just very weak. Why I think he was
>>>>> more anti the British Empire (and Churchill) than the Soviet Union.
>>>>> Of course the man was very ill and that does make a difference.
>>>> You also have to remember how isolationist America was before WWII. It was
>>>> a general atmosphere, and Roosevelt, in spite of his broader education, was
>>>> bound to get caught up in it.
>>> My impression from reading the histories of the era was that FDR
>>> wasn't so caught up in isolationism as that he was politically
>>> obligated to pay due respect to it until he could find a reason
>>> for the country to want to lose its isolationist sentiments.
>>> Needless to say, the Axis obliged him, Japan giving a real jolt
>>> to isolationism with respect to the Pacific, and Hitler's
>>> gratuitous declaration of war on the USA giving a reason to join
>>> in the fight in Europe.
>>>
>>> A lot of FDR's pussyfooting was to avoid upsetting an
>>> isolationist Congress, and even lend-lease had to be carefully
>>> defended with that hose-borrowing metaphor.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, FDR did have a rather large ego and thought he and
>>> Uncle Joe were buddies and Uncle Joe was just a peace-loving
>>> dictator who really respected the independence of adjoining
>>> neighbors. FDR also though Churchill was a drunk and
>>> untrustworthy and trying to save the British Empire, which FDR
>>> disdained. Not to mention that the torch of North Atlantic and
>>> world leadership was passing from Britain to America.
>>>
>> It had already passed but isolationist America had
>> refused to acknowledge it. Yes Churchill was a drunk
>> not that that fault did him much harm and he was
>> still in the 19th century as regards the British
>> Empire. However Roosevelt's tactics in endeavouring
>> to exclude him from the cosy chats he had with Stalin
>> were stupid.
>
> Since Winston persisted in caliming Uncle Joe was not to be
> trusted, he was placed in the role of a Cassandra. Among the
> occasional "what-ifs" of history I wonder what if FDR had lived a
> few years longer would he have finally recognized Stalin for what
> he was?
>
> Perhaps it was fortuitous that Truman became president before the
> war ended.
>

The vital decisions had already been taken in Tehran.
From: abelard on
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:27:41 +0100, John Rennie
<john-rennie(a)talktalk.net> wrote:


>It had already passed but isolationist America had
>refused to acknowledge it. Yes Churchill was a drunk
>not that that fault did him much harm and he was
>still in the 19th century as regards the British
>Empire. However Roosevelt's tactics in endeavouring
>to exclude him from the cosy chats he had with Stalin
>were stupid.

why not? churchill wasn't a lefty...



--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hls on

"O'Donovan, PJ, Himself" <pjdnvn505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb19f6e4-6d5a-47ab-a5c2-a4a6a62ad409(a)m1g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Americans are angry

We are too stupid to be angry....or too lazy. If we had a microgram of
testosterone, we wouldnt have let ourselves be drawn into the situation
that we now suffer.


From: hls on

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> Yes, America is angry about the BP oil spill.
> And even angrier that it doesn't seem to have done a lot of damage nor
> been a global catastrophe.
>
Blame the media for some of this. These slugs lie around waiting for
something that they can misquote or misconstrue, hoping to get some
attention from the mind dead public.



From: Hatunen on
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:18:46 +0100, John Rennie
<john-rennie(a)talktalk.net> wrote:

>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:27:41 +0100, John Rennie
>> <john-rennie(a)talktalk.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:06:25 +0200, Donna Evleth
>>>> <devleth(a)wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> From: John Rennie <john-rennie(a)talktalk.net>
>>>>>> Didn't deserve it on the domestic front but oh dear when it came
>>>>>> to dealing with Stalin he was just very weak. Why I think he was
>>>>>> more anti the British Empire (and Churchill) than the Soviet Union.
>>>>>> Of course the man was very ill and that does make a difference.
>>>>> You also have to remember how isolationist America was before WWII. It was
>>>>> a general atmosphere, and Roosevelt, in spite of his broader education, was
>>>>> bound to get caught up in it.
>>>> My impression from reading the histories of the era was that FDR
>>>> wasn't so caught up in isolationism as that he was politically
>>>> obligated to pay due respect to it until he could find a reason
>>>> for the country to want to lose its isolationist sentiments.
>>>> Needless to say, the Axis obliged him, Japan giving a real jolt
>>>> to isolationism with respect to the Pacific, and Hitler's
>>>> gratuitous declaration of war on the USA giving a reason to join
>>>> in the fight in Europe.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of FDR's pussyfooting was to avoid upsetting an
>>>> isolationist Congress, and even lend-lease had to be carefully
>>>> defended with that hose-borrowing metaphor.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, FDR did have a rather large ego and thought he and
>>>> Uncle Joe were buddies and Uncle Joe was just a peace-loving
>>>> dictator who really respected the independence of adjoining
>>>> neighbors. FDR also though Churchill was a drunk and
>>>> untrustworthy and trying to save the British Empire, which FDR
>>>> disdained. Not to mention that the torch of North Atlantic and
>>>> world leadership was passing from Britain to America.
>>>>
>>> It had already passed but isolationist America had
>>> refused to acknowledge it. Yes Churchill was a drunk
>>> not that that fault did him much harm and he was
>>> still in the 19th century as regards the British
>>> Empire. However Roosevelt's tactics in endeavouring
>>> to exclude him from the cosy chats he had with Stalin
>>> were stupid.
>>
>> Since Winston persisted in caliming Uncle Joe was not to be
>> trusted, he was placed in the role of a Cassandra. Among the
>> occasional "what-ifs" of history I wonder what if FDR had lived a
>> few years longer would he have finally recognized Stalin for what
>> he was?
>>
>> Perhaps it was fortuitous that Truman became president before the
>> war ended.
>>
>
>The vital decisions had already been taken in Tehran.

But Truman was willing to try and hold Stalin to his so-called
word. Hence the Truman Doctrine. I suppose my "what-if" is about
whether there would hae been a "Roosevelt Doctrine".

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *