Shocking: No WMD! / Schockierend: Keine Massenvernichtungswaffen!

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

Roosevelt and Einstein LIED:

Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt warning of a Nazi nuclear weapon, ... which eventually helped spur the establishment of the Manhattan Project.

Hitler, too, believed he was building an Atomic Bomb, but was apparently misled by his scientific advisers, many of who understood too well what such a weapon would mean in the hands of a maniac, and quietly slackened their efforts. At the end of the war, for a variety of reasons, including the Allied aerial destruction of Nazi industrial resources, American searchers who had believed they were racing neck-and-neck with Hitler for the development of nuclear weapons found no operational weapons of mass destruction. The Nazis had been far from making an A-Bomb. There had been an intelligence failure.

Get the journalists in! Load your computers! Hit them hard! There's no excuse for intelligence failures!

Even though...

But it is not the Liberal expectation of war with perfect knowledge, no casualties and no collateral damage that is insidious. Any general would wish as much. It is the requirement not to act until we have achieved it which actually guarantees its reverse: no knowledge, a steady dribble of casualties and the quiet acceptance of genocide; when business as usual with monsters masquerades as peace. Einstein was mistaken; but he was not wrong.

Schockierend: Keine Massenvernichtungswaffen!

Roosevelt und Einstein logen:

Einstein schrieb einen Brief an Roosevelt, in dem er vor einer Atomwaffe der Nazis warnte, ... was dann schließlich zur Einrichtung des Manhattan Projektes (des Baus einer eigenen Atomwaffe der Amerikaner) führte.

Hitler glaubte selbst daran, daß er eine Atomwaffe baute, aber er wurde in Wirklichkeit von seinen wissenschaftlichen Beratern getäuscht, die nur zu genau wußten, was eine solche Waffe in den Händen eines Verrückten bedeutete, und die im Stillen die Entwicklung behinderten. Am Ende des Krieges fanden amerikanische Experten - aus einer Reihe von Gründen, darunter den von den alliierten Luftstreitkräften verursachten Schäden an der nationalsozialistischen Industriebasis - heraus, daß sie nicht (wie sie glaubten) in einem harten Wettlauf mit Hitler um die Entwicklung von Atomwaffen waren. Sie fanden keine Massenvernichtungswaffen. Die Nazis waren weit davon entfernt, eine Atombombe herzustellen. Es lag ein Geheimdienstfehler vor.

Holt die Journalisten rein! Ladet die Computer! Schlagt hart zu! Es gibt keine Entschuldigung für Geheimdienstfehler!

Obwohl...

Es ist nicht die Erwartung der Linken auf einen Krieg mit perfektem Wissen, keinen Opfern und keinem Zusatzschaden, der heimtückisch ist. Jeder General würde sich das wünschen. Es ist die Forderung, nicht zu handeln, bis wir das alles erreicht haben, die praktisch das Gegenteil garantiert: kein Wissen, eine ständige Zahl von Opfern und die schweigende Hinnahme des Bevölkerungsmordes; wenn sich die Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber Monstern als Friede maskiert. Einstein machte einen Fehler; aber er lag nicht falsch.

Comments

[Nick Lauber]

But this wasn't the only major "intelligence failure" on the part of the allies. In August of 1941 Roosevelt was stunned to learn of Nazi plans to take over South America.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box31/a296r04.html

In response to this, many historians believe, Roosevelt, fearing hostile Nazi puppet states in the Americas, authorized the systematization of American aid to Russia at the Moscow conference in October of 1941, and began plans for the eventual entry into the war in Europe. These fears were manifested most notably at the Arcadia conference in December of 1941 where even after the direct attack on Pearl Harbor Roosevelt signed on to Churchhill's the "Europe First" strategy.

It turns out the story was bogus and the map was a fraud many believe perpetrated by the British to lure the US into the war in Europe.

Thanks to this 'intelligence failure' the US increased aid to Moscow and London in the months before the US' official involvement in the war and signed on to the Europe First strategy. Had the US delayed mobilization for war in Europe for just 6 months England would have faced thousands of V2 ballistic missiles and Germany would have owned the skies of Europe with advanced jet fighters. In short, those very bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have had to be dropped on Berlin and Hamburg.

How many Germans are alive today because of an "intelligence failure".

[CJ Courtney]

Gee, Der Spiegel has not yet found the time to post this story on their web site despite the fact that it broke two days ago. Hmmm.

[jupp schmitz]

Well -war was ok because now everybody is free and happy in Iraq (left aside the 47 guy that have been killed by a car bomb this mornig and the few civilians that have been killed by the use of cluster Bombs in urban area "wo gehobelt wird da fallen Späne")

Well -we KNOW that China has a Nuclear bomb. And we KNOW whats happening with human rights in China. So c´mon! If this is all about freeing people, lets start war with China!

This comparison is so weak it really hurts.

Nobody said back then that the main reason for going to war with Germany was the existence of a German programme for WMD.

If Roosevelt had told the American public said that such a programme was a great threat to the US, and if he had claimed that it was the main reason for attacking Germany, and later, after many Amercian soldiers had died, it had become apparent that there weren't ANY weapons of mass destruction, you surely wouldn't have faced such a generous and forgiving attitude as Bush is obiously facing here.
But Roosevelt did never claim that he based his decision on this intelligence failure, unlike Bush, and thus "his" failure was completely irrelevant to the post-war analysis of his decisions.

[Thomas]

I will never understand how people sitting in their comfortable sofas living in
a free country, having everything most Iraqis couldn't even dream of because of
Saddam's oppression, can call those who supported the liberation of an oppressed
country immoral while believing that keeping this dictatorial regime in place
and letting it kill thousands every year, letting hundreds of thousands starve,
threatening its neighbors and possibly the world at large etc. is the perfect
example of morality.
Nor would I claim for any second that seeing a war as the less horrible
alternative is a morally indisputable standpoint. But the sad truth is: In this
question, there is nobody who can claim the moral high ground. War or 'peace'
(what kind of peace is this except for the absence of inter-state warfare?
certainly it would have been none at all for the Iraqi population) BOTH meant
accepting the death of thousands of innocent civilians (although the media have
shown a lot of that in this case and wouldn't have done so in the other, so
'peace' WOULD have given the opportunity to lay back once again and close one's
eyes, pretending there either were no suffering at all in Iraq or the UN -
meaning the US - were to blame for it because of the sanctions that only Saddam
himself was responsible for).
By all we know, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Saddam's regime would not
have needed too long to kill as many people as have died during this war. The
major difference is, though: There are no more political prisoners, secret
police activities etc. NOW. There is no prospect of another decade or two of
terror under Saddam and probably even more of the same under his sons. There is
an opportunity to end starvation, which has to some part already been achieved.
There is no more danger for Iraq's neighbors, and there is no need to fear that
Saddam may possess and use dangerous weapons any more, which almost every
politican around the world believed he would, before the war (read, e. g. the
documents of the Bundesnachrichtendienst or the government's annual
Abrüstungsbericht, which are all available online!). And what's more, there is a
once in a lifetime opportunity to help a region make progress towards democracy
and freedom that nobody believed to be able to make these steps for decades (if
ever, as some claim Arabs were culturally unfit for democracy).
Look: Before this war (and in some cases, until recently), the discussion was
how many millions of refugees there would be and how many hundreds of thousands
of deaths, how the 'Arab street' would spark a regional catastrophe, whether
Saddam could employ WMD against Israel or others (claimed by the same people who
now suggest they always knew Saddam didn't possess any WMD), why Baghdad could
never be taken, which dictator would follow Saddam, how soon civil war would
break out, why Iraq would be worse (!) than Vietnam and why democracy would
never work in Iraq.
Now, we've got peaceful demonstrations and we're discussing the date for free
elections (not those '100% participation, 100% votes for Saddam' ones) which
many believed would never happen at all. And the same people who didn't believe
this to be possible at all now want those elections to take place even earlier
as planned. And inspite of all that, these people claim the whole reconstruction
and democratization efforts were a complete failure!? This is ridiculous!
True, there is still an enormous security problem. But these horrible attacks
perpetrated by international terrorists and supporters of the old dictatorial
regime are in no way a legitimate or supported 'resistance' as they are called
by German media (imagine this unbelievable analogy: the same expression is being
used for Stauffenberg and the Scholls!!!). I believe the Angloamerican
'insurgents' is already a better way of describing those people, although simply
calling them by their names, 'terrorists' and 'Saddam loyalists', is probably
nearest to the truth. And this minority will certainly not prevent Iraq from
having a positive future. The biggest danger to this future are all those who
reject to support the Iraqis (and, yes, the Coalition for as long as it has to
stay), because they rejected the war and now, once again, close their eyes, say
everything is a mess and do what they're really good at - bashing others and
applauding themselves. What makes me optimistic, though, is that even the French
and Russian governments have obviously got past this point and seem now to be
willing to participate in one way or the other.

[Gabi]

Thomas,
And what about Iraq with a democratic president in the USA?

[Pato]

So we all have the same understanding here it seems- That the muslim populations of this world are in a great crises, and they are bringing that "crisis" to the civilized Western Countries once it seeps from the region.
I think it is very important for ALL PEOPLE to look at the differences of approaches by the US and that of the EU- and then, among yourselves, determine WHAT would be MORE effective. I find it ABOSLUTELY insane that the approaches taken by the EU and the US are thus-
** To address the huge crisis's facing the western world as it is threatened with total extinction, brought about by identity crisis's in the Muslim world, and the crisis and the problems that have been brought with them into the EU- The EU begins to ban various types of clothing as a response to sadi crisis.
Now all forward-thinking people- What the hell is that??!!! Will THAT really help at all???
** To address the huge Muslim crisis and the problems with them- the US position was to go in and knock a bloody insane dictator from power freeing all 25 million of it's people, and now all the remaining dictators AND the whole EU population hates the US.
Seems something is wrong here. Have the bastard children of Europe, who built the US and make up the substantial portion of US citizens, now witnessing a senility and various other mind diseases and thought impairments of an aged and frantically pathetic, and out of it's mind "parental" Europe?
We need to all lay her down, dose her with prune juice, and send Ole Europe to the great convalescent home of history. It's performance, ideals, and policies within the modern era are a disgrace and are condemed to failure.