Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Express)   How an insane British duke nearly persuaded (not Teddy) Roosevelt to back the Nazis in WWII   (dailyexpress.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

17061 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:58 PM (7 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-07-11 11:25:34 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Ask the current right-wing echo chamber what they think of Teddy Roosevelt, and their mangling of history won't be far off.


He was damned near a fascist himself. A man of action yes but a man the founding fathers would have had hung like a common criminal
 
2009-07-11 11:33:01 PM  
TheHopeDiamond: Cagey B: It was a tenuous reign for the Bull Moose Coalition in the 1940's. They almost backed the Nazis since doing so would have ensured the support of the Vikings and their strategically placed fleets off the coast of Australia.

Fortunately, our Mongolian allies and their nuclear weapons carried the day.

Silly you. You forgot to mention how Mexico helped us fight off the Lutheran terrorists in the 1930s.


Well yes, but I thought the Argentinian takeover of the world's Egyptian cotton supply had seriously depleted their ability to swab, allowing the Mexican forces the upper hand. This of course, just enraged the Thailanders, with their import quotas on ladyboys at the time, which of course led to the "Bancock incident" which some* historians point to as the trigger for Hitler invading Austria. So you see, it all really ties back to the great Arctic expedition of 1909, with it's "banners and bows" and hearty talk. Sigh. The French really will eat anything, eh?

*not reputable ones.
 
2009-07-11 11:33:28 PM  

harbingerofdoom: the 1930's Lutheran Terrorist scare

*shudders*

now THOSE were some scary times to be alive!


Pales in comparison to the Rape of Pittsburgh by the Quakers in the 1820's.
 
2009-07-11 11:36:00 PM  
It's a shame TR wasn't around for WWII. He would have sorted things out in 3 weeks flat, although the history books would be lamenting the devastation as worse than any atomic weapon.
 
2009-07-11 11:36:43 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: doglover: Well, it wouldn't be too hard to think of someone like Teddy Roosevelt in a Nazi uniform. He had that over the top kind of strength over brains personality that German seem to appreciate. Not him exactly, but the same kind of gung-ho macho attitude.

Teddy would have been a terrible Nazi with that whole supporting equal rights for minorities thing. And the women voting thing. And the well reasoned, generally nice guy thing. Also the man was a a genius, a well known author, nationally known ornithologist, and spoke several languages.


Plus, Teddy hated Spaniards. He would never support someone in league with Franco.
 
2009-07-11 11:43:28 PM  
I have a really hard time believing that submitter actually RTFA'd before writing the headline for it.
 
2009-07-11 11:45:04 PM  
Fano [TotalFark] Quote 2009-07-11 10:52:23 PM
[Remains of the Day pic]
He remembers.


If there was ever a movie designed to make an introvert run out and lose their virginity before its too late ... it was Remains of the Day.

And yeah, as soon as I saw the headline, I wondered if the duke in question was the duke in the movie.
 
2009-07-11 11:46:39 PM  

Cheops: It's a shame TR wasn't around for WWII. He would have sorted things out in 3 weeks flat, although the history books would be lamenting the devastation as worse than any atomic weapon.


I doubt it... there was no shortage of badasses during WWII
 
2009-07-11 11:46:42 PM  
Fratricidal wars are always a stupid idea.

Africa, Asia and the Middle East are diseased with no such moral pretense as afflicts the West.
 
2009-07-11 11:47:18 PM  
Smeggy Smurf Quote 2009-07-11 11:25:34 PM
UNC_Samurai: Ask the current right-wing echo chamber what they think of Teddy Roosevelt, and their mangling of history won't be far off.

He was damned near a fascist himself. A man of action yes but a man the founding fathers would have had hung like a common criminal.


Except for the closet monarchist known as Alexander Hamilton, of course. Those two would have gotten along famously.
 
2009-07-11 11:48:05 PM  
They were all fascists. Britain had empire. Germany wanted a European empire. Soviets were a Russian empire and totalitarian.
Italy was a failed state. Sure I'm missing someone.
 
2009-07-11 11:51:28 PM  
Jackpot777 Quote 2009-07-11 10:28:32 PM
hissatsu: You're all giving subby too much grief for a minor error. Few realize that when FDR was stricken with Polio, it gave Teddy's vengeful spirit the perfect opportunity to possess him. You see, after Teddy's failed campaign bid under the Bull Moose party, he became embittered and felt betrayed by the US populace. Nursing the grudge past the grave, he became even further annoyed to see his gimpy cousin Franklin's political success. His enraged spirit fully intended to turn us over to the Nazis. In fact, were it not for the intervention of the justified ancient of Mu Mu, we'd all be speaking German today.

/KLF

Are gonna rock ya.

/justified AND ancient.
//you know what we drive.


We're all bound for Mu Mu land ... (new window)
 
2009-07-11 11:52:13 PM  

space_cadet_28: They were all fascists. Britain had empire. Germany wanted a European empire. Soviets were a Russian empire and totalitarian.
Italy was a failed state. Sure I'm missing someone.


Were they all equally fascist?
 
2009-07-12 12:27:19 AM  
"Nearly"?


/// Subby sucks
 
2009-07-12 12:32:09 AM  
PapermonkeyExpress: Dude, I was just trying to point out more T.R. related fail. I'm sorry I gave you a case of Acute Labial Granular Infestation.
 
2009-07-12 12:42:34 AM  
And in long run, it mattered not for the English. Instead of being enslaved by a foreign power, they enslaved themselves. As time passed, even the French stopped taunting them.
 
2009-07-12 12:48:40 AM  
All Fascist governments look good at first.

There's nothing really wrong with traditionalism, nationalism, populism, rule of the majority, a focus on a strong leader and a tradition of heroism, subjection of the minority, suppression of dissent for the good of the...uh...

Maybe not.
 
2009-07-12 12:56:40 AM  

space_cadet_28: They were all fascists. Britain had empire. Germany wanted a European empire. Soviets were a Russian empire and totalitarian.
Italy was a failed state. Sure I'm missing someone.


Fail. Having an empire != being fascist. Go back to school.
 
2009-07-12 12:59:14 AM  
OK, subby wrote "(not Teddy)" in the headlines. So he never indicated that it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Now, since everyone else seems to have gotten the opposite impression, am I somehow missing something? Or is everyone here sorely lacking in the reading comprehension department?
 
2009-07-12 01:03:59 AM  

outlanderreader: OK, subby wrote "(not Teddy)" in the headlines. So he never indicated that it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Now, since everyone else seems to have gotten the opposite impression, am I somehow missing something? Or is everyone here sorely lacking in the reading comprehension department?


Headline originally read Teddy. Mods apparently altered it.

/pray they do not alter it further...
 
2009-07-12 01:06:43 AM  

outlanderreader: OK, subby wrote "(not Teddy)" in the headlines. So he never indicated that it was Teddy Roosevelt.

Now, since everyone else seems to have gotten the opposite impression, am I somehow missing something? Or is everyone here sorely lacking in the reading comprehension department?


Man, I HATE it when the mods fix a faulty headline. They make the whole thread look stupid and irrelevant. Dummy mods.....
 
2009-07-12 01:08:28 AM  
Duke sucks.
 
2009-07-12 01:13:04 AM  
Even with the fixed headline, Edward wasn't a "crazy Duke".

HE USED TO BE KING! He abdicated because he wanted to marry an American divorcee, but kings had done far worse in the past (look at George IV, for example). Rumor has it that the real reason was his support of fascism.

Edward VIII, Duke of Windsor after his abdication, was not a strong personality, but he was by no means crazy. And he didn't "nearly persuade" FDR to back the Nazis.
 
2009-07-12 01:20:55 AM  
FTA: "In the end sending him to govern the Bahamas - a humiliating posting which both the Duke and Duchess detested - proved the most viable option."


Man, I wish I could have had the chance to piss off Winston Churchill. I wonder if the president will punish me that way if I make enough obnoxious photoshops of him.
 
2009-07-12 01:27:00 AM  
Hitler, that piece of shiat, was only out to unite the German people/German-speaking peoples of Europe. France should have given up Alsace-Lorraine. Britain should not have intervened regardless (she was completely incapable of defending France in the first place). It would have been a smaller, Europe-only war. America would have recovered from the Depression sooner. Germany and Russia could have fought and weakened each other.

But no... everyone had to jump into the fight. GB and America allied with the Russians, who exterminated more people than did the Nazis, and when things started to look grim, Hitler decided to off the Jews.

"Waaahhh... we'd all be speaking German... wahhh..."
That's a bunch of assfarking nonsense. Hitler didn't want global domination. Now America does what everyone says the Nazis would have done... that is kill people, without provocation, all over the world.
 
2009-07-12 01:28:25 AM  

Jeff73: FTA: "In the end sending him to govern the Bahamas - a humiliating posting which both the Duke and Duchess detested - proved the most viable option."


Man, I wish I could have had the chance to piss off Winston Churchill. I wonder if the president will punish me that way if I make enough obnoxious photoshops of him.


Well there is another little island getaway spot he might send you to...
 
2009-07-12 01:30:47 AM  
You know, I went to school with Brian Hitler and I fail to understand what all the fuss is about. Nice chap. Bit quiet, maybe.
 
2009-07-12 01:41:58 AM  
Edward VIII was the ultimate upper class twit.
 
2009-07-12 01:43:08 AM  
... but I thought Hitler fought at the Alamo?
 
2009-07-12 01:54:11 AM  
Hey, why did someone cover for idiot subby by fixing the headline???
 
2009-07-12 01:59:17 AM  

Paris1127: Unfortunately for Subby, not only was Teddy Roosevelt no longer president at that time, but he was also long dead. Also, that wasn't just any duke, it was the former King Edward VIII of England, who abdicated so that he could marry a previously-married woman, just like Prince Charles will. And people have known for a while that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer.


Yeah, none of this is news; is subby holder of the Ric Romero chair of World History at his local community college? "Nearly persuaded?" There was never even the slightest hint of a remote possibility of a minute chance of FDR supporting Hitler.
 
2009-07-12 02:18:01 AM  

dennysgod: Sometimes I think the admins greenlight these trainwreck headlines just so we can have a bash subby thread.

So let me add mine: Thanks subby for the clarification, because I always thought it was Teddy's Rough Riders that took Omaha Beach.


That's not too far off, in an odd way. The Rough Rider's son, Teddy Roosevelt Jr., was the only general to land with the first wave of troops on D-Day, but at Utah Beach, not Omaha. The word "hero" is overused these days, but it absolutely applies to him:
Teddy Junior

Unable to walk without a cane because of arthritis, and also suffering from heart problems, Young TR was only allowed to accompany his division after he made several requests of the division commander. He died of a heart attack a month after D-Day and was award the Medal of Honor posthumously. In the movie "The Longest Day," he was portrayed by Henry Fonda.
 
2009-07-12 02:19:40 AM  

geniusiknowit: Hitler, that piece of shiat, was only out to unite the German people/German-speaking peoples of Europe. France should have given up Alsace-Lorraine. Britain should not have intervened regardless (she was completely incapable of defending France in the first place). It would have been a smaller, Europe-only war. America would have recovered from the Depression sooner. Germany and Russia could have fought and weakened each other.

But no... everyone had to jump into the fight. GB and America allied with the Russians, who exterminated more people than did the Nazis, and when things started to look grim, Hitler decided to off the Jews.

"Waaahhh... we'd all be speaking German... wahhh..."
That's a bunch of assfarking nonsense. Hitler didn't want global domination. Now America does what everyone says the Nazis would have done... that is kill people, without provocation, all over the world.


Nice try, but no. Above all, the US got out of the Depression because of World War II, not in spite of it. And France should not have given up Alsace-Lorraine, which was as much French as it was German (though it would have made some sense for them to cede Alsace and keep Lorraine, but what country cedes territory without a mandate from the inhabitants, which was NOT THERE?).

According to you, Europe should have let Hitler take Czechoslovkia and Poland because they wanted them, and played along because - because of what? Nothing. Hitler's Germany threw off the balance of power in Europe, so Europe responded, and the only countries able to hold out were England and Russia.

He didn't want to rule the globe, it's true, but since when was letting a dictator take over Europe okay otherwise?
 
2009-07-12 02:24:19 AM  

Burn_Atlanta: Paris1127: Unfortunately for Subby, not only was Teddy Roosevelt no longer president at that time, but he was also long dead. Also, that wasn't just any duke, it was the former King Edward VIII of England, who abdicated so that he could marry a previously-married woman, just like Prince Charles will. And people have known for a while that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer.

Yeah, none of this is news; is subby holder of the Ric Romero chair of World History at his local community college? "Nearly persuaded?" There was never even the slightest hint of a remote possibility of a minute chance of FDR Teddy Roosevelt supporting Hitler.


Fixed for Subby
 
2009-07-12 02:25:14 AM  
Hmm. A quick stroll through IMDB shows that in addition to TR Jr., Fonda also played Gen. MacArthur, Adm. Nimitz (twice) and three presidents: Abe Lincoln and fictional presidents in Fail Safe and Meteor.
 
2009-07-12 02:25:44 AM  
Besides the duke, there was also this bootlegger:

www.iamthewitness.com
 
2009-07-12 02:56:08 AM  

Arguably, the zenith of the Bund's history occurred on President's Day, February 19, 1939 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. Some 20,000 people attended and heard Kuhn criticize President Franklin D. Roosevelt by repeatedly referring to him as "Frank D. Rosenfeld", calling his New Deal the "Jew Deal", and stating his belief of Bolshevik-Jewish American leadership.


Roosevelt wasn't exactly liked by the Nazis. And remember the "German American Federation" and who they were and what they wanted the next time you see the likes of Jonah Goldberg attempting yet again their disgusting "the Nazis were leftists and American leftists supported them" revisionist history.
 
2009-07-12 02:57:00 AM  

Burn_Atlanta: Paris1127: Unfortunately for Subby, not only was Teddy Roosevelt no longer president at that time, but he was also long dead. Also, that wasn't just any duke, it was the former King Edward VIII of England, who abdicated so that he could marry a previously-married woman, just like Prince Charles will. And people have known for a while that Edward VIII was a Nazi sympathizer.

Yeah, none of this is news; is subby holder of the Ric Romero chair of World History at his local community college? "Nearly persuaded?" There was never even the slightest hint of a remote possibility of a minute chance of FDR supporting Hitler.



No, he's not. The Ric Romero chair of World History is for professors who have have made careers out of pointing out things that are obvious, but true. Such as, "Birkenau was really unpleasant."
 
2009-07-12 02:58:41 AM  
Also, the Duke of Windsor had a ghey affair with Douglas Fairbanks. Truly, Duke sucks
 
2009-07-12 07:38:59 AM  

geniusiknowit: Hitler, that piece of shiat, was only out to unite the German people/German-speaking peoples of Europe. France should have given up Alsace-Lorraine. Britain should not have intervened regardless (she was completely incapable of defending France in the first place). It would have been a smaller, Europe-only war. America would have recovered from the Depression sooner. Germany and Russia could have fought and weakened each other.


Uh no. The war on the eastern front was a meat grinder and the Soviets had more meat. The Germans attacked in the Summer of 1941. By the summer of the next year the Soviets had ground them to a halt. After Feb 2nd 1943 the Soviets had the momentum and Hitlers fate was sealed.
 
2009-07-12 11:24:51 AM  
I don't believe any research was done by the author of that article, sooooo many factual errors.
 
2009-07-12 12:23:51 PM  
Typical Rothchild and cabal propaganda garbage and hatemongering,sounds just like the present MSM and Fox.
 
2009-07-12 12:47:11 PM  
geniusiknowit:

Hm.

Hitler, that piece of shiat, was only out to unite the German people/German-speaking peoples of Europe. So, his Afrika Korps was uniting the German speaking peoples of Tunisia? He was trying to unite the German speaking peoples of Egypt when defeated at el Alamein? When he invaded Norway and Denmark, were those German speaking people clamoring for German hegemony? How about when he attacked France? Hitler posing in front of the Eiffel Tower must have been an immense relief to all the German speaking people in Paris.

Or not.

France should have given up Alsace-Lorraine. Why? Hitler never demanded it. He attacked Poland who had alliances with England and France. Germany going to war with France was over treaty obligations...not because the French refused to grant territorial demands.

Britain should not have intervened regardless (she was completely incapable of defending France in the first place). She wasn't supposed to be defending France. France was supposed to defend France. England was there to help but not to carry the burden alone.

It would have been a smaller, Europe-only war. Yeah...except for Africa. And the unrestricted submarine war in every ocean of the world. Oh, and except for Russia. Yeah, except for every-farking-where else where German armies attacked, it woulda been a "Europe-only" war.

America would have recovered from the Depression sooner. Really? What new industries (aside from ship building and armaments production) would have magically come along to lift America out of the Depression? Pretty much every chart of the Great Depression you see turns around in late 1933...right about the time the rest of the civilized world realizes that Hitler is rebuilding Germany's military and starts to increase their own military spending to match. Voila! Depression eases.

Germany and Russia could have fought and weakened each other. Yes, they did just that. When Hitler attacked Russia in summer 1941 he did so with 4.5 million troops (all Axis...not just German) so it's not like North Africa, Greece and garrisoning France and Norway was drawing off too much of his manpower. In fact, before the US entered the war, Germans were within sight of Moscow. It was only the nature of Russian geography (the front lines got longer as you advance further east), the severity of the Russian winter and the fact that Russia's manpower reserves dwarfed those of Germany meant Germany could and did bleed Russian and vice versa but the outcome was never really in doubt.

Fun fact: the Russians actually inquired in late 1940 as to joining the Axis. The Germans never responded and a second Russian inquiry in mid-January came back with "we need to speak to Italy and Japan" which was really a put off. Imagine how the war might have gone had Russia allied with Germany, Japan and Italy.

But no... everyone had to jump into the fight. GB and America allied with the Russians, who exterminated more people than did the Nazis, and when things started to look grim, Hitler decided to off the Jews. Bullshiat. Hitler didn't wait until things looked bad to start exterminating the Jews. The Final Solution was explicitly formed in January 1942...hardly before things got bad...and at that point, Hitler's men had already killed over a million Jews.

GB was not allied to the Russians. The Russians sought to ally themselves with the Germans and only became coincident allies with GB when Germany attacked them. Germany declared war on the United States in December 1941, not the other way around.

The rest of your post is typical, insensate bullcrap from someone who likely refers to the 8th grade as "their senior year". Seriously, you obviously ought not to try and stretch the brain matter you have left. Blinking and breathing are likely topping you out already. We're all kinda hoping that breeding is too much as well.
 
2009-07-12 02:13:53 PM  

gwenners: Godwined in the boobies!



Pics or it didn't happen
 
2009-07-12 08:28:00 PM  

Robert1966: Nice try, but no. Above all, the US got out of the Depression because of World War II, not in spite of it.


I was a little drunk and really whargrbled last night.

One thing I didn't get wrong was this, though.

The US didn't get out of the depression until after the end of the war, when New Deal programs began getting repealed.

The war was funded with inflation. If printing money made a country wealthy, poverty would have been eradicated worldwide centuries ago. Because of the war, unemployment went down (that's what happens when you enslave a significant portion of the population and send them overseas to die). GDP went up, but that was all inflation. Per capita consumption at the end of the was the same as it was during the middle of the depression. Saying a war is good for the economy is like saying a hurricane is good for the economy. It's the fallacy of the broken window. War destroys wealth.
 
2009-07-12 11:17:18 PM  

geniusiknowit: War destroys wealth.


Apparently you are unaware of defense contractors.
 
2009-07-13 08:57:04 PM  

Robert1966: geniusiknowit: War destroys wealth.

Apparently you are unaware of defense contractors.


Well then shiat... let's just go to war as a bailout!

We'll employ all the contractors for building the artillery, the houses and office buildings.. we'll employ all the workers, all the planners, the people who make patriotic flags and bumper stickers... Since war is good for an economy, let's call up our pals over in England, and see if they want to go to war with us. Their economy could use a boost, too. We'll bomb them. They'll bomb us. And we'll all prosper!
 
Displayed 47 of 147 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report