Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tr-m] Fw: Re: American Republicans overwhelmingly against warin1940

Expand Messages
  • Kuniegelr1@UofS.edu
    ... admirer, and ... the history ... overstretch ... ************8 H. J. Hendrix Thanks for the reply. I only take issue with one word, overstretch .
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      >List members,
      > I must say that, although I am a huge Theodore Roosevelt
      admirer, and
      >although I subscriber to the "individuals make history" vice
      the "history
      >makes individuals" school of thought, I believe it is a massive
      overstretch
      >to believe that TR could have personally averted WWI.

      ************8

      H. J. Hendrix

      Thanks for the reply. I only take issue with one word,
      "overstretch". Overstretch implies that the suggestion that TR
      may have stopped WWI was impossible (beyond reach). I would
      prefer a term like "highly unlikely" or "darn near impossible"
      when faced with seeming insurmountable odds. We will never know
      the answer but we know the odds would have been great against
      success. We also know that TR had a few key traits that could
      have shuffled the deck of cards. He knew the history of many
      nations, he knew their literature. He knew how to use these
      pieces of information to get people to listen to him.

      When TR could get peoples attention he had a chance to make them
      consider alternatives. The key to stopping war is to get people
      talking. Could TR have talked and pressured the right people to
      act in a manner to stop a war? Saying that someone knows the
      answer to that is a stretch, because it is impossible to know
      for sure. But I think TR had chance and that was a far better
      chance than Wilson or Taft.

      It is said that we reap what we sow. I think there is shame to
      be viewed in the election process of 1912 and we as a nation
      received a man less suited for the job that was at hand. I take
      that as fact & as an indication that TR had a greater good that
      was our's to reap if the election was not stolen.

      We are still paying a high price if we reap what we sow. We
      participate in a political process today where lack of honesty
      in spoken words is expected from the winner. I for one would
      love to vote for a person that backed up his spoken words and
      convictions with a lie detector test :-) TR may have taken that
      challenge but that is just wishfull dreaming to think people
      should be placed in office based on what they really think. That
      type of election would require a educated electorate. Now that
      may be a strech.

      It may seem like I am angry stating my observation. My daughter
      considers me a philosopher seeking truth. Since you can not see
      or hear me and my writing is not always as revealing of my true
      attitude as something well written should be, please accept my
      dental student daughters observation.

      Bob Kuniegel
      *******

      ************
      > A careful review of the documentation surrounding the events
      leading up
      >to World War I demonstrate not only an institutional intent by
      numerous
      >actors (German General Staff, British Admiralty,
      Austro-Hungarian Empire) to
      >bring about the conflict. That they underestimated the
      conflict's size and
      >its brutality is true, but the intent was very clearly there to
      maximize
      >their influence.
      > TR was widely respected in European circles. His work in
      the
      >Russo-Japanese war conference, and numerous other crises had
      earned him a
      >special place in negotiations. However, his influence was over
      individuals,
      >and WWI was very much a creation of institutions. Momentum is
      and was a
      >powerful thing to overcome, even for a bullmoose.
      > I must agree that TR would have had us participate in the
      war at a much
      >earlier stage, and I believe we would have had a much more
      profound
      >influence in the world over the next twenty years.
      > Let me close by saying that I too enjoy this line of
      discussion very
      >much. TR has so much to teach us yet today, if we only will
      ask his ghost
      >the right questions.
      >Very Respectfully,
      >H. J. Hendrix
      >LCDR, USN
      >
      >
      >>From: Robert Kuniegel <Kuniegelr1@...>
      >>Reply-To: tr-m@egroups.com
      >>To: tr-m@egroups.com, teddy <troosevelt@egroups.com>
      >>Subject: Re: [tr-m] Fw: Re: American Republicans
      'overwhelmingly' against
      >>warin 1940
      >>TR list members,
      >>
      >>It is always nice to see activity on these list servers. I
      tend to agree
      >>with
      >>the broader statement of Mary Beth than the more restrictive
      two scenario
      >>outcome of Joseph. After reading Bishop's documentation of
      the secret
      >>negotiation that TR conducted with Germany and Spain I got the
      feeling he
      >>overted WWI when he was president. Combine this with the way
      he was
      >>received by
      >>all the countries after he left the presidency and it seems to
      me that on a
      >>personal level with the European Leaders he could have had
      unlimited ways
      >>to
      >>overt war. Plus if WWI was overted WWII may never have
      happened. The theft
      >>of
      >>the 1912 Republican nomination by Taft was very costly. "Thou
      shall not
      >>Steal
      >>elections" or there is a price to pay. I wonder what price we
      are paying
      >>today
      >>by having elections stolen by people elected to office using
      power verses
      >>honesty?
      >>
      >> >
      >> >
      >>
      >
      >________________________________________________________________________
      >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
      http://www.hotmail.com
      >
      >
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >Never lose a file again. Protect yourself from accidental
      deletes,
      >overwrites, and viruses with @Backup.
      >Try @Backup it's easy, it's safe, and it's FREE!
      >Click here to receive 300 MyPoints just for trying @Backup.
      >http://click.egroups.com/1/5669/5/_/107883/_/962377934/
      >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >
      >To Post a message, send it to: tr-m@...
      >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      tr-m-unsubscribe@...
      >
      >
    • Mary Beth Smith
      Bob K. I think your daughter s right. This is from a letter by a Russian diplomat: The delegates from both countries developed a warm respect for the
      Message 2 of 2 , Jul 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Bob K.

        I think your daughter's right.

        This is from a letter by a Russian diplomat:

        The delegates from both countries developed a warm respect for the
        President, whom they had judged
        before the peace talks as “impetuous to the point of rudeness.” An advisor
        to the Russian envoys and an
        expert on international law said of T.R.:

        His conduct during the whole time that the peace negotiations lasted has
        been a marvel of tact. Without appearing to inject himself into the course
        of the conversations and discussions which took place
        between the delegates, he contrived to keep himself exactly informed as to
        all that was going on, and more than once intervened in the most discreet
        manner by conveying a hint or a message to the plenipotentiaries which
        cleared the skies and brought things back to their true level.
        I have often wondered where Roosevelt could have acquired the immense amount
        of information which he suddenly displayed, and I have come to the
        conclusion that a great deal of it was due to his extraordinary powers of
        intuition which made him draw deductions and conclusions where others saw
        only the bare facts. And, moreover, that Portsmouth Conference, which will
        surely mark in the history of the
        world the first effort made by the United States to stand as an equal at the
        side of the great nations of other continents, was essentially Roosevelt’s
        work, and as such he showed us immediately that he
        intended, and that indeed he would, bring it to a good and safe conclusion.
        That he contrived to do so without showing openly his hand, and while
        abstaining from everything that could have been interpreted as an attempt to
        interfere in matters which were not supposed to concern
        him, was a work which perhaps no one in the whole world outside of himself
        would have been able to perform. The hints which he conveyed to the
        plenipotentiaries, and which invariably threw a new light
        upon the points that they had not been able to see or to bring to a
        solution, were something quite wonderful. All through our conferences the
        personality of Roosevelt made itself felt, but this was done
        so artistically, if such a word may be used, that nobody could have been
        offended at the advice which he tendered with such consummate discretion. We
        Russians had come to Portsmouth without taking anything
        that he had said seriously and yet when we left the United States it was
        with the knowledge that all through our stay there we had been brought in
        close proximity with one of the most powerful
        personalities now alive in the whole of the world.....The man who had been
        represented to us as impetuous to the point of rudeness displayed a
        gentleness, a kindness, and a tactfulness mixed with
        self-control that only a truly great man can command.

        According to writer William Harbaugh:

        Roosevelt had gotten the Czar to agree to the peace talks. He had broken the
        deadlock in the conference by convincing the Japanese to moderate their
        terms. He had saved the lives of thousands of men.
        A treaty was signed on September 5, 1905. As a result he was given the Nobel
        Peace Prize.

        The Pope said, “This is the happiest news of my life. Thank God for
        President Roosevelt’s courage.”

        Roosevelt was uncomfortable with so much praise. “Now I am over-praised,” he
        said. “Don’t be misled by the fact that just at the moment men are speaking
        well of me. They will speak ill soon enough.” He was
        credited with being extremely farsighted. But he did it because, he said, “I
        would have felt as if I was flinching from a plain duty if I had acted other
        wise.”

        Check out William Harbaugh's book, Power and Responsibility the Life and
        Times of Theodore Roosevlet (1997 edition by American Political Biography
        Press, Newtown, Conn)

        Mary Beth
        >
        > H. J. Hendrix
        >
        > Thanks for the reply. I only take issue with one word,
        > "overstretch". Overstretch implies that the suggestion that TR
        > may have stopped WWI was impossible (beyond reach). I would
        > prefer a term like "highly unlikely" or "darn near impossible"
        > when faced with seeming insurmountable odds. We will never know
        > the answer but we know the odds would have been great against
        > success. We also know that TR had a few key traits that could
        > have shuffled the deck of cards. He knew the history of many
        > nations, he knew their literature. He knew how to use these
        > pieces of information to get people to listen to him.
        >
        > When TR could get peoples attention he had a chance to make them
        > consider alternatives. The key to stopping war is to get people
        > talking. Could TR have talked and pressured the right people to
        > act in a manner to stop a war? Saying that someone knows the
        > answer to that is a stretch, because it is impossible to know
        > for sure. But I think TR had chance and that was a far better
        > chance than Wilson or Taft.
        >
        > It is said that we reap what we sow. I think there is shame to
        > be viewed in the election process of 1912 and we as a nation
        > received a man less suited for the job that was at hand. I take
        > that as fact & as an indication that TR had a greater good that
        > was our's to reap if the election was not stolen.
        >
        > We are still paying a high price if we reap what we sow. We
        > participate in a political process today where lack of honesty
        > in spoken words is expected from the winner. I for one would
        > love to vote for a person that backed up his spoken words and
        > convictions with a lie detector test :-) TR may have taken that
        > challenge but that is just wishfull dreaming to think people
        > should be placed in office based on what they really think. That
        > type of election would require a educated electorate. Now that
        > may be a strech.
        >
        > It may seem like I am angry stating my observation. My daughter
        > considers me a philosopher seeking truth. Since you can not see
        > or hear me and my writing is not always as revealing of my true
        > attitude as something well written should be, please accept my
        > dental student daughters observation.
        >
        > Bob Kuniegel
        > *******
        >
        > ************





        _______________________________________________________
        Say Bye to Slow Internet!
        http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.