Trolling and not actually reading the posts you "reply" to, neat: So what? No bearing on the topic. My words: Where did I say anything about manipulating Hitler into starting a war? "So clearly wrong" - stunning rebuttal. No documentation to support it though, I bet? Not as much as you have shown yourself to be, troll.
On May 10, 1940, the Germans invaded France and the Low Countries.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Doesn't look like France and Britain had any choice but to fight Hilter. So, you say FDR finagled Britain and France into war, but then admit that Germany started the war? Doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent even to you?
Don't know much history do you? It started when the UK and France declared war on Germany after Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland. FDR promised (but didn't deliver on time) military equipment in the event of war but only if the UK and France took a hard line with Hitler. To get equipment (just in case Hitler moved moved West) Britain and France had to be more hawk-like than they wished. FDR already had the US factories making military equipment to sell to the UK and France BEFORE Hitler moved.
Offering to sell Britain and France military equipment to fight an obvious madman like Hitler is not the same as finagling Britain and France into a war. It's no secret that FDR wanted the U.S. to enter the War, but claiming that he finagled his allies into the War is absurd. The War was on the doorstep of Britain and France whether they liked it or not.
Someone should have told the Queen that FDR finagled Britain - you think?http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/08/AR2007050800159.html
Uh, this proposition seems to be chasing its own tail. America finagled the Allies into war with Hitler because America wouldn't equip them for war with Hitler unless they went to war with Hitler. Okay... it would greatly clarify your proposed narrative if you'd lay out what you think the various parties would have done if, say, FDR had been more ambivalent towards Germany. Anyway, I don't dispute that FDR had decided at a fairly early date that American involvement was unavoidable, and that this was the basis of his policies, and it's certainly true that American support emboldened France and, particularly, the UK to take a stand. But to suggest that they somehow had their arms twisted into a war they wouldn't have participated in seems pretty far fetched to me. Poland was a treaty ally; were they simply supposed to write them off? Ultimately, I don't see either country as having had much of a choice about going to war. They could have chosen a different time and place, perhaps, but the war pretty much came to them. If anything, it's France and the UK that sucked America into a war she didn't want, not the other way around. After all, the whole reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because America was supporting an embargo against them which the UK, France and Netherlands had imposed in retaliation for Japanese moves against their colonies in Asia.
Which bit did you miss? The equipment was ONLY available if Britain and France didn't soft-pedal. They were both prepared to settle with Hitler and let him move East... Nope. Not according to the documents just released. Since her family was involved with the negotiations at the time she probably knows. You think?
Quadraphonics put it more eloquently than I. How exactly do you think Britain and France could have settled with Hitler?
No -reread it. Britain and France were preparing (and also trying to negotiate). They needed equipment IN CASE Hitler moved West: FDR's clause virtually guaranteed it. And I'm supposed to know what FDR would have done otherwise how? Not according to the documents: no hard line: no equipment. That was the perception at the time, write Poland off. Hitler wanted to move East, even sent negotiators to the UK to discuss being left alone. The US was sucked in: FDR only wanted to supply equipment to boost the US economy.
What do you mean how? Hitler wanted Lebensraum in the East, and peace with the UK and France. He tried, and was turned him down.
What document are you referring to in claiming that FDR required a hard line against Hitler, so that there would be a War so that the U.S. economy would improve?
So, Britain and France were denied their chance to realize peace with the trustworthy Hitler himself?
So you haven't read the thread at all: you just post in reply to odd posts? Read the entire thread, dork. Denied the chance to come to an "arrangement", yup.
I read the entire thread, and though you do refer to documentation and also to a book entitled "Friendly Fire: The Secret War Between the Allies" - you, in fact, do not provide any description of documentary evidence for claiming FDR finagled Britain and France into WWII. And any "arrangement" with Hitler would only be a delay until Hitler decided to attack your country, kill your Jews, and force you to worship him.
Perhaps you could provide us with a reference to some documentation of this agreement and clause? Besides that Friendly Fire book, that is; I won't be buying it, and don't consider works by occult conspiracy nuts to be credible anyway. In the meantime, I'll content myself with pointing out the discontinuity between your two statements: on the one hand, FDR is promising weapons *in the event of war.* The clause "take a hard line with Hitler," in that context, doesn't seem terribly meaningful to me. You claim that the allies, for their part, wanted to buy weapons but not declare war. FDR told them they'd only get the weapons if they went to war. They apparently considered the weapons more important than a settlement with Hitler, and so they made their choice. Note that there are any number of reasons that FDR would have refused to sell the allies weapons in peacetime (besides a scheme to force them into going to war, that is). For one thing, American public opinion might not have looked favorably on it. For all we know, such a move might well have provoked Hitler into moving west anyway. Presumably the same way that you know what the leaderships of Germany, the UK and France would have done absent FDR's "finagling." I.e., suppose that FDR had agreed to sell the allies weapons while they, in turn, layed down their national honor by selling out Poland and generally acquiescing in Nazi dominance of Europe. Do you think this course would have ultimately avoided a war with Germany and, if so, at what cost? Whose perception? At this point it must be mentioned that participating in diplomacy does not necessarily indicate a genuine desire for the ostensible outcome of said process. And that Hitler had a bad habit of breaking agreements anyway (the Munich Agreement being probably the most pertinent one here). Moreover, you seem to know an awful lot about what all these leaders *wanted* (as opposed to what they said or did), which always sends up red flags... I think this is very much off the mark. Historical opinion is nearly unanimous that FDR wanted America in, but faced an isolationist polity that had to be slowly coaxed along.
As Dr. Phil said, "the best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior." Hitler attacked Poland, killed its Jews (and a lot of Poles), and forced them to worship him, "Heil Hitler". Now, not to go out on a limb here, but I think Hitler would have done the same to Britain given the chance. By the way, citing a book that is supposedly supported by documentary evidence isn't nearly as persausive as the documentary evidence itself. You lead me to believe you knew what these documents were, which I asked you to describe - which you apparently can't or won't.
Article says nothing about FDR. Also, article says nothing about the U.S. government funding Hitler. Although, I do appreciate you making the effort to prove your case, unlike Oli.
