此帐号已被封,内容无法查看 此帐号的内容被自由微信解封
文章于 2021年3月4日 被检测为删除。

Who is to blame? | 冬川豆

2016-08-14 硕帝 冬川豆种子不死

Democrat administrations have perished more innocent and productive lives world wide, historical records show. Not the opposite.

译:Yuriko; 校对:冬川豆

ho is to blame?


It depends on who's in the White House.


The thing is, that FDR and his WWII changed the whole world so dramatically that everything ensuing was either its ripple or an attempt to fix the damage it caused.


In a parallel universe where FDR had not succeeded, America would have still been on the track of Monroeism, rather than down the road to policing the world.


I think both Herbert Hoover the isolationist and the Dulles brothers the interventionists were coherent Republican statesmen guided by the same set of noble principles. Of course they had to adopt different distinct strategies accordingly before and after FDR opened the Pandora's box. FDR already annihilated three great world powers,  having created  power and order vacuums in various corners of the world, and what should Republicans like the Dulles brothers do given the situation? Seeing the world burn? They had to contain the damage by intervening, otherwise America would have been placed in the middle of a communist Atlantic and a communist Pacific.


FDR was exactly a bull in a china shop. He messed things up, and the republicans had to clean up such a mess.


The world is not flat, nations and races are not equal, just as people are not equal either.


Germany and Japan were not failed states like Iran, Guatemala or Cuba, instead, they were order providers and regional stablizers. WWII also crippled the British Empire, who maintained a largely peaceful and prosperous world order so meticulously and for such a long time with relatively very little effort and cost. 


No need to topple Mosaddegh at all were it not for FDR. Britain would have been taking care of Iran. And Vietnam would have been taken care of by France. And Syria also. FDR's carefully staged world destruction made room for soviet expansion and terrorism.



America was not and is not very good at policing the world. This job is being done very costly and inefficiently. The problem is those who were good at it were knocked out by FDR.


Democrat administrations have perished more innocent and productive lives world wide, historical records show. Not the opposite.


150,000 people died in Hiroshima alone. 80,000 in Nagasaki. Those victims were very hard working and productive people, not lunatics blowing passers by up while chanting "Allah Huakbar". More were killed during the firebombing raids in Tokyo. And what about Berlin? Who was responsible for the total destruction of Dresden, the gem of Central Europe and so many other European cities? And hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and pilots were annihilated in a war that the American people never wanted, a war that promoted nothing but FDR's personal ambition and private agenda, a war that rendered half the world to communism.




What unforgivable crimes did the citizens of Prague and Budapest commit that they should live for decades as slaves of communist Russia? How would Immnuel Kant feel if he ever knew that his lifelong hometown Königsberg one day would be wiped out from the map?





And don't forget the Shah of a secular Iran, and so many women and Jews living free under his rule. Who let the Mullahs take over Iran? Not the republicans. 



Talking about foreign policy, it is indeed something we can not let the democrats touch. Because some good people have to pay for it with life.


I was about to mention Wilson.



He suffered from a stroke(strokes?) at that time. Even unable to read.


His intervention policies were not coherent at all; He did not have a clear road map. He sent troops to Russia only to aide the Czech legion so they could evacuate from Russia. He did not intend to strangle the Soviet Union in its infancy, and had purposely prevented other imperial powers from doing so.


Japan once occupied Vladivostok and had 80,000 troops stationed there. The Japanese were about to take on the Bolshevik Russia, securing their interests in Manchuria(even taking Siberia). But Wilson ultimately pressured the Japanese into backing off. Because he thought that "Bolshvism is the chioce made by the Russian people"



Another Democrat disastrous foreign policy failure.


FDR was not just soft on the Soviet Union. He was fund of and supportive to it.




1、在丘吉尔的多卷本战争回忆录里提到过的另一段往事:1934年底,三巨头在德黑兰第一次会面时,会议第二天三人共进午餐,斯达林提出祝酒,预祝铲除“至少5万名,也许10万名德国军官团成员”。丘吉尔清楚地知道,战争初期苏联曾在卡廷(Katyn)集体枪决波兰军官、知识分子、政界人士和公职人员等2.2万人。丘吉尔对斯达林的祝酒词感到恶心,因此直言不讳地提出英国人从不容忍集体处决。当斯达林再三坚持“必须枪毙”5万人时,丘吉尔终于忍无可忍,他说:“我宁愿自己被拖出花园枪决,也不愿意我自己以及我的国家为此蒙羞。” 罗斯福插话道,或许可以少枪决一些人,例如只枪决4.9万。

He granted the Soviet Union diplomatic recognition in 1933 even if at the very moment the great famine in Ukraine was being widely reported.



And don't forget that FDR helped the soviets  cover up the Katyn massacre. How evil was that? He absolutely sided with Stalin and aided him so much at the price of American interests and innocent Polish, German, Japanese, Czech, Romanian, Estonian, Manchurian etc. lives.



JFK was assassinated even before he could accomplish a thing or two. His courage to take on the soviets should be appreciated.


The Cold War was in a sense the reaction against the outcome of WWII. Thanks to senator McCarthy. But far from successful. Long way to go.



My conclusion was positive, yes, Democrat administrations CAUSED the Soviet expansion. The pacific war was just a step toward the soviet expansion.


Japan was the only imperial power in the Far East able to stop even finish off the soviets. What do you get from destroying Japan and its tributary states like Manchuria? Isn't that obvious? 



Like. What do you get from destroying Israel in the Middle East? 


· 全文完 ·