Originally posted by flexmoreI think the point was not that the US government assisted the Nazis, but that the Bush family did so.
certainly there seems to be evidence of small scale assistance to the nazis from america, there are always criminals around in every country.
but there is also evidence of assistance to those fighting the nazis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_lease
Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, which permi ...[text shortened]... 1945).
the real questions is:
1/ which contributions were of the largest magnitude?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo surprise there - just one family of dictators supporting another!
I think the point was not that the US government assisted the Nazis, but that the Bush family did so.
Now Dubya makes money with the relatives of the very same family who caused 911 (The Saudi family of Bin Laden).
Nothing changes.
Originally posted by shavixmirI'm not blaming the Russians for anything. I'm glad they decided to help the US with the Japanese since the Japanese needed to pushed out of Manchuria. I am also well aware that the Russians got the raw end of the deal in WWII.
Errrr.... hello....?
That sounds like you're trying to place a blame of sorts on the Russians...
Don't you think they had enough troubles fighting Hitler (who got as far as 30km's from Moscow) as it was (also considering the Russians had the highest death toll during the whole war)?
So the point of bringing this up was because (INSERT REASON).
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungExactely. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
I think the point was not that the US government assisted the Nazis, but that the Bush family did so.
Which means as well that the actual fortune of the Bushs is based on that. So yeah their credibility when talking about dictators is quiet funny.
The same way scientists working for the nazis were used to develop the US space program after WWII.
2 edits
Originally posted by chancremechanicuh no. Buddy was betchin the US didn't get enough help fighting the Japanese. Simply reminded him it took the US over 2 years to finally decide to actually send the troops because it was "Europes war" and not the US's.
You need to shut-up and read some History. Canada only entered ther war because they were a protectorate "satellite" of GB and still considerd Her their "Mother' country. The US sent millions of tons of materiel and the American people didn't want to enter a war that they saw as a result of British and French pacifism/appeasement to Hitler. Rememb have twisted the History books to reflect a minimal role of US involvement....right?
It is hippocritical to then criticize the British/allies for not joining what was basically a US/Japan war.
You can't argue both sides of the coin.
And no where did I say the US played a minimal role. If anything, if the US had entered the war it likely would have been over much sooner.
And by the way, since you brought it up, Canada entered the war because it was THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Canadian history books make it clear the Americans wanted nothing more than to send supplies and let someone else do the fighting...(Eisenhower notwithstanding)
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterinteresting theory ... i am a little dumbfounded - where does it go and why etc?
I think the United States supported the wrong side in World War I. Too bad we didn't support the Germans then -- the world would have been a much better place now.
please tell more.