English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Serious Question. If the Democrats ands Libs that are in office now, held their positions during WWII, would America had kept on fighting? Somehow I doubt it. After Pearl Harbor, they would have been all rallied up and then after a battle like D-day, where thousands of people died in a day, they would have decided to pull the troops and Europe would be controlled by Hitler. It sure does make you wonder.

2007-04-23 10:57:01 · 24 answers · asked by Chris H 2 in Politics & Government Politics

To all you idiots that think you're so smart, how about reading a little more. I said the Democrats that are in office now. Democrats during WWII were very capable leaders.

2007-04-23 11:12:55 · update #1

24 answers

You have to keep in mind that FDR shocked Churchill by abandonning Eastern Europe to Stalin with the comment that hopefully, those nations asorbed into the USSR, would "civilize it" over time. A lot of people in Eastern Europe today don't think much of FDR.
Also, the country had as many neo-nazi (German American Bund) supporters back then as "islamofacist" supporters, and they collaborated with American Communists like Leo Penn (Sean Penns' father) in insisting the USA stay out of the war and not aid Great Britain in it's fight for survival, UNTIL Hitler attacked Stalin, THEN the communists wanted the USA in the war. As a result after the war, nazi collaborators were able to trade their knowledge of the communists to avoid prosecution/penalties.
My guess is the current surrender monkeys would have surrendered after the disasterous "Operation Jubilee" or Dieppe raids that Eisenhower buried during the war for morale, and after the war for his political career. Just like the myth of the Morroco landing without a shot fired. theyw ould never had supported the war till D-Day. And there is a proven link between the antisemites of that world war, and the one brewing in Europe now.
PS Last REPUBLICAN President to win a war, was Reagan. Clinton's war in Bosinia? Still there, and now the muslims we saved attack us. Mogadishu? maybe not. Haiti? Well the Marines picked the dead AIDs victims up off the street every morning, is that a victory?

2007-04-23 11:13:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

It was a very different situation then, Nazism was a much bigger threat to the world than anything we have now. I'm not sure what would happen if American troops were pulled out of Iraq now, but it would certainly not mean anything close to what would have happened if Nazi Germany had won WW2.

Oh and by the way I speak German, it's my native language. It was not the German language that was so dangerous. I like my mother tongue but believe me I am really happy that the Nazis were defeated in WW2. It's also fine for me to speak English as my second language.

I am very sure that if nowadays any European country would turn into a dictatorship or would even attack a neighbor country, America and the rest of NATO and UN would interfere very very fast no matter what parties were in power there. America intervened quite late in WW2, actually I'd really have much more trust in every current Western government that they would stop such an aggressor like Hitler much faster than it happened in WW2.

2007-04-24 08:10:26 · answer #2 · answered by Elly 5 · 0 0

lol. The Democrats were in control during WWII. They were even more "socialistic" than today's Democrats. Consider Roosevelt's programs and agencies: the Social Security Administration, the WPA, the CCC and the NRA.

The whole country was isolationist after WWI, and it took a direct attack by the Japanese for the US to enter the war.

The US had great leadership, and it was Democratic leadership. Roosevelt had gotten the nation off its knees during the Great Depression, and he mobilized the entire country for the war effort. There was a huge draft and peacetime industries were converted to armament manufacturing. There were war plans and objectives. The war was won in less time than the US has been in Iraq.

We don't have Democrats in control of the executive branch now so there is no way to answer your question. There's a very slim majority in the Senate, and not enough Democrats in the House to override a veto. It is clear though that the Republicans in charge have flubbed it. It was Mr. Bush's choice to go to war against Iraq, Saddam was under control and Iraq never attacked us. There were no WMDs. Bush did not send enough troops to keep the peace and counter the insurgency. There's more chaos and death in Iraq than ever.

2007-04-23 11:03:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

FDR was a Democrat, so was Harry Truman,,
if not for these two American patriots,, you would have suffered under greater tyranny than that of George W. Bush and his fascist administration.

If the Democrats don't stop the Bush regime, and right wing radical people like you don't get out of your brainwashed induced coma,,
you will be living your live as Americans did during WW ll,, the Americans living in France, Germany and Belgium, Italy and Japan.

2007-04-23 11:21:45 · answer #4 · answered by neddie 2 · 1 0

about rollo tomas and his answer, notice this person said in TODAY's left wing, not back in WW2. FDR had something the present left wing doesnt have- consciousness. isnt saying bush is a devil enough? u hear it in all the talk shows and it gets boring. at least the devil was smart enough to lead the nation not like all the people complaining. though i dont support him, isnt him stumbling over his words the smartest strategy ever? liberalism is now a trend in modern US. it used to make thing humorous and it killing us all. back then FDR new what he was doing. now the republicans and democrats are all like. they act like they are in high school and all they want is popularity. just because they are popular doesnt mean they will help everyone. they will only help themselves. also, germany is pretty close to the middle east. al qaeda is a super power. the negative effect of a super power is terrorism, and that power is used by consuming fear. just because the terrorist's tactic is the informal guerilla tactic doesnt mean a uniformed nazi tactic isnt. terrorism is a super power. hitler was a super power. the difference is tactic. for beanie babamama, of course a leader has to care for their ego, or they cant rule. how long does it take to fly from US to the Mddle east? 20 hrs and less, isnt that long enough for an attack to come? especially silently? we have terrorism in our own airports and metros. THEY ARE ALREADY HERE

2016-05-17 07:13:50 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Democrats were in control when world war 2 stared.

It was actually the republicans at the time who were most vocal about NOT entering the war.

The only thing that makes me wonder is why you haven't read more history books.

2007-04-23 11:03:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Yes, and Japanese.
These America-Hating Democrats of today, would have surrendered to Japan, the day after Pearl Harbor.

2007-04-23 11:01:36 · answer #7 · answered by wolf 6 · 3 4

Last time i checked it was the republicans telling Roosevelt to not fight in Europe. So are you calling them cowards too.

2007-04-23 11:23:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

To a large degree the Democratic party was a different breed of people back then than is in control of it now.

2007-04-23 11:04:47 · answer #9 · answered by sociald 7 · 1 3

At least the Democrats now are brighter than the people in the administration who continue to destroy lives over lies.

2007-04-23 11:14:16 · answer #10 · answered by michiedem 5 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers