3 ms·
Firstly, it was Truman, not Roosevelt. Secondly, Truman was quite bloodthirsty: "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if tha
by gdy 7y ago
Firstly, it was Truman, not Roosevelt.
Secondly, Truman was quite bloodthirsty: "If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible. . . ." [0].
Thirdly, Churchill was even more bloodthirsty and advocated for nuking Moscow in the years following WW2 [1].
[0] http://movies2.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0508.html http://movies2.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0...
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826980/Winston-Churchill-s-bid-nuke-Russia-win-Cold-War-uncovered-secret-FBI-files.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2826980/Winston-Chu...
- bouncycastle 7y agoOf course, should have included both Truman and Roosevelt. But the point still stands. We were up against leaders who were much more bloodthirsty and had trumendous disrespect for human life. The entire world decended in to madness - the morals basically went out the window. It was kill or be killed.
- gdy 7y agoYou were up against Russians in WW2, really?