Was Harry Hopkins, FDR's war advisor, a communist spy...

Was Harry Hopkins, FDR's war advisor, a communist spy? This is what KGB revealed but all mainstream sources are silent about the subject.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_Earle_III
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_AB-Aktion_in_Poland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenberg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Almost certainly. Churchill wrote to him explicitly complaining how the Soviets were getting so much in Lend-Lease that it was cutting into what commonwealth soldiers could receive. (Source: Martin Gilbert "Churchill and America, page 237)

Harriman, the last American ambassador to the USSR during WWII, thought that Hopkins was covering for the Soviets in regards to Katyn and other genocides. (Source: Meyers, David, FDR’s Ambassadors and the Diplomacy of Crisis (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pages 236 and 237)

Naw senpai he was just a naive proto-hippie.

>Architect of the New Deal
>Really believed in liberal shit
>Tried to help Soviets because fighting Nazis

The British recieved nearly twice as much lend lease as the Soviets, and unlike the British, the Soviets were actually fighting.

It's probable that the KGB agent who said that Hopkins was working with them just meant that he was helping them as allies in war.
When I read Last Hundred Days Hopkins seemed as more rational compared to FDR who was just as shocked as Churchill when FDR was basically actively helping Stalin take as much as he could.

The Soviets were literally allies Hitler for the first 1/3 of the war, the fact they were given anything is astounding.

>that Hopkins was covering for the Soviets in regards to Katyn
I think everybody knew that's the thing. There was one politician close to Roosevelt who wanted to expose the Soviets so he was sent to Samoa to do some useless work there.
I can't remember his name if anyone does please help me with this.

>The fate of the entire world and your country in particular should depend on you having a grudge
Seriously?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Howard_Earle_III
George Howard Earl.

>trusting an ally of Hitler
Seriously?

>falling for the "Soviets would have lost without lend lease meme
kill yourself

Bumping an actual history thread.

They wouldn't have, no. But part of our knowledge of that is based on things unknown to American Actors in 1941, and even if it you did know that, lend lease to the Soviets translated into more dead Germans, which translates into less dead Americans when


>International relations is about trusting your 'friends' and holding grudges
Wow, stop posting any time. Also, maybe America should have withheld aid to Churchill based on his open admiration for fascist and nazi ideology. Oh shit, and we really shouldn't have gotten involved in the war at all, considering Chiang Kai Shek's alliance with the Germans.

Good lad. I didn't even notice I had this bookmarked.

less dead Americans when they do land in Europe*

Only the countries west of Germany. For everybody else it was invasion by the other WWII aggressor.

Cruel, pragmatic, something that made sense from British and American point of view. Yes. But not gonna pretend it was ok.

>America should have withheld aid to Churchill based on his open admiration for fascist and nazi ideology

Stop posting already. Summer is over already, go away.

You're not going to pretend it was OK to work to prevent the physical annihilation of every country East of Germany.

Learn 2 Reductio ad Absurdum.

Both regimes cooperated in their programs. Soviets weren't better. It's true that when Germans were getting pushed back they accelerated it and wanted to basically burn it all but it doesn't make the Soviets lesser evil or have any sort of moral high ground especially since they made it all possible in the first place.

>Soviets weren't better.
If this was true, there wouldn't be any Eastern European nations today. The Germans were very serious about the physical annihilation of these people, with only a fraction of the population existing as literal chattel slaves.

Jesus fucking Christ I'm really sick of the same old Soviet apologist shit.
WWII was possible because Hitler had an ally in the east. It could've been Poland but in the end it was USSR. Both regimes attacked, traded, shared intelligence, weapons, knowledge, prisoners, did the same bad shit that we now associate with totalitarian occupation.

Hitler's plans were changing all the time. Which is why in the first period of the war when Germans and Soviets worked together and instead of killing everyone at once without discrimination they were killing the elite, politicians, officers, athletes etc.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_AB-Aktion_in_Poland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenberg

This is why some historians today believe that Poland should've had some collabortor like France to protect the people from the worst oppression.

In 1942 when Germans started slowing down in Soviet territory they sealed their fate by starting a campaign of extermination directed against Ukrainians who would most likely help them defeat the Soviet government that stayed in Moscow. This was the end. Unless some literal deus ex machina happened that would wipe out the Red Army it couldn't be stopped. The worst German crimes in Poland and all the plans like turning Warsaw into a lake that was mostly 1944.

Barbarossa made Stalin realize that he had bigger problems than potential enemies among "fascist" Poles and Jews so many people who were already sentenced to death were released. I don't see them as "good guys" or even convenient allies for three main reasons:

1.They contributed to the start of WWII in the first place
2. They engaged in the same programs in occupied countries as Germans
3. In late 30s Stalin started an extermination campaign against Polish people
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
which means that when he wasn't forced to cooperate he was ready to murder just like Hitler based on nationality

So in summary either:

1. Germans were more dangerous because when they were pushed to the limit they wanted to kill most of the population

or

2. Soviets were more dangerous because the West was less willing to do anything against them (because they were geographically further away from them) which ensured that occupation could last as long as it should (50 years) with additional danger of Stalin starting another campaign of extermination (he had a list of people to exterminate mostly politicians and soldiers).

>Jesus fucking Christ I'm really sick of the same old Soviet apologist shit.
Well, I'm sick of this Nazi apologist shit.

>The worst German crimes in Poland and all the plans like turning Warsaw into a lake that was mostly 1944.

No, the plan from the beginning was, and always was the physical destruction of the polish people, with the entire territory made for German Settlement, and the only remaining Poles not physically eliminated being however many forced laborers the Germans needed.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
which means that when he wasn't forced to cooperate he was ready to murder just like Hitler based on nationality
Then what, all of Poland today is LARPers?

Acknowledging Soviets for being shits that they were is "nazi" now? Only literal commies ever told me that. And Russians who identify with the regime that wanted to do away with nations starting with their own and spread their murderous campaign to the whole world.
When I argue with Nazis and their bullshit at least they don't call me a communist,
They just call me a Jew.