"Historian's" Roosevelt Hagiography

[PoliticalChic]

"Historian."
A most desired honorific.
A distinguished individual....no doubt with "Doctor" before his name.



There are a number of members of this board who defend their views by pointing to some 'historians' for support...but, in truth, most called by that title are simply scribes who know which way the political winds are blowing.
Translation? Often, no more than flunkies for the party in power.

1. Case in point....Michael Beschloss.
"Michael Richard Beschloss[1](born November 30, 1955) is an American historian. A specialist in the United States presidency, he is the author of nine books. In November 2013, he was appointed as a contributing columnist on history forThe New York Times.[2]His regular "HistorySource" column appears in the "Upshot" section of the newspaper.[3]It is also published in the print SundayNew York Times." Michael Beschloss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


2. This running dog, lackey of the Left, hopped on the Barack Obama bandwagon early on.....when the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats elites were slobbering over this no-accomplishment amateur ideologue, and...no joke....referring to Obama as the messiah, as God himself.


3. Beschloss....the 'historian'...and ' specialist in the United States presidency,' was being interviewed on the Don Imus Radio Show....and, in a sterling example of his expertise as an historian.....claimed that Obama was the smartest man ever to apply for the office of President.

Unfortunately for him....and unexpectedly....Imus questioned him....


"November 11, 2008
Historian Michael Beschloss was interviewed Monday on Don Imus’ radio show and he made the claim that President-elect Obama’s IQ is off the charts and that he is the smartest president we have ever had. Here is the meat of the conversation:

Quote:

Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

You can find the full audio on the show here. WTKK - Imus In The Morning, 96.9 WTKK, Boston*-*Imus in the Morning guest: Michael Beschloss 11/10/08
You have to fast forward to about 13 minutes in to get the good stuff. So I’m thinking that I would like to know the historian’s IQ. I’m thinking that it’s somewhere around catatonic or idiot. Too much Kool-Aid.


How can someone claim that an IQ is off the charts when they don’t even know what that person’s IQ is and for that matter, where the hell are Obama’s school records period? Did he even have good grades? Did he have good grades when he was snorting cocaine? He’s hiding all his transcripts in his bid to be transparent, so we’ll never know.


And what is even more laughable - does this Beschloss guy even know the IQs of any of the presidents. You know that Reagan sure was an idiot. And how about that Jefferson guy, all he could do was write a Declaration of Independence. Washington sure was stupid, he was just a military genius. And Madison, don’t even get me started. Obama hasn’t done a damn thing yet and he is already a genius and I heard some poll today that has a 60%+ approval rating for him. Never mind that he only got 52% of the vote."
Obama Is Our Smartest President?


And we have all seen what an abject failure Obama is....judge 'historians' in that light.





Listen to the interview here:

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Off the charts, but which direction?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Off the charts, but which direction?

We can tell with an IQ test that begins: "Do you agree that it is a peachy-keen idea to bring thousands of un-vetted members of a sect known for slaughter of innocent into our nation?
Yes or no?"

 

[Sunni Man]

Part 1

 

[Sunni Man]

Part 2

 

[PoliticalChic]

Part 2

Steyn mentions the Beschloss gaffe.

Sunni....my problem is less with Obama's lack of intelligence than with the lack of same exhibited by those who voted for him.

They were warned and advised....

 

[PoliticalChic]

4. One of our pals on the board regularly defends another Liberal/Progressive/Democrat by whining how "America's most noted historians have rated FDR as one of the best three presidents, since they began rating presidents some seventy years ago. In the last survey rated they rated FDR as America's greatest president."
Why Conservative Is Simply Better.... | Page 74 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


I bet Michael Besschloss rates FDR right up there!




In the face of numerous revelations about Roosevelt's mistakes, gaffes, bias against minorities, fiscal misadventures such as Social Security, extending both the Depression and WWII, and love affair with the homicidal killer, Joseph Stalin....


...we still hear that 'historians' "rated FDR as America's greatest president."


How much faith should one put into the scribblings of an amanuensis, one who simply takes dictation from a superior, who is neither objective, nor factual, in that said 'historian' can choose what to put in and what to leave out?




If historians depend on the folks in charge for both income and status, how much faith should be put in the truth of their conclusions?




And, btw....who owns academia and almost every avenue of the dissemination of information? Yup....Liberals/Progressives/Democrats.

No wonder so many undeserving individuals, read 'FDR' and Obama, get praises heaped upon them.






The answer as to how much to accept the view of said 'historians' is, or course, "trust, but verify."

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is about the danger in relying on the word of 'experts'....especially when they fly the banner of the political party in power.


Recently, I came across a passage in the novel "The Journeyer," Gary Jennings tome about Marco Polo, in which he has Kublai Khan's royal historian explain what the job of 'historian' entails.



5. "The Minister of History, for example, was a Han gentleman who looked ever so scholarly, and was fluent in many languages, and seemed to have memorized all of Western history as well as the Eastern. ... When I asked what he was engaged upon at the moment, he got up from his big writing desk, opened a door of his chamber and showed me a much bigger chamber beyond. It was full of small writing desks very close together, and bent over each one was a scribe hard at work, almost hidden behind the books and rolled scrolls and sheaves of documents piled at his place.

Speaking perfect Farsi, the Minister of History said, "The Khakhan Kubilai decreed four years ago that his reign will commence a Yuan Dynasty comprising all subsequent reigns of his successors. The title he chose, Yuan, means ‘the greatest' or ‘the principal.' Which is to say, it must eclipse the lately extinguished Chin Dynasty, and the Xia before that, and every other dynasty dating back to the beginning of civilization in these lands.

So I am compiling, and my assistants are writing, a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy of the Yuan Dynasty." Jennings, "The Journeyer"




And just so, historians continue in this vein: their job is to write "a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy"...in this case, of Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. "A deal of writing is being done, certainly," [Marco Polo] said, looking at all the bowed heads and twitching ink brushes. "But how much can there be to write, if the Yuan Dynasty is only four years old?"

"Oh, the recording of current events is nothing," he said dismissively. "The difficult part is rewriting all the history that has gone before."

"What? But how? History is history, Minister. History is what has happened."

"Not so, Marco Polo. History is what is remembered of what has happened."

"I see no difference," I said. "If, say, a devastating flood of the Yellow River occurred in such and such a year, whether or not anyone made written record of the event, it is likely that the flood will be remembered and so will the date."

"Ah, but not all the attendant circumstances. Suppose the then-emperor came promptly to the aid of the flood victims, and rescued them and fetched them to safe ground, and gave them new land and helped them again to prosperity. If those beneficent circumstances were to stay in the archives as part of the history of that reign, then this Yuan Dynasty might, by comparison, appear deficient in benevolence. So we change the history just slightly, to record that earlier emperor as having been callous to his people's suffering." Ibid.





"The difficult part is rewriting all the history that has gone before."

".... So we change the history just slightly...."

And, just so, Roosevelt's historian conspire to blame Republican Presidents, those who produced a golden age, 'the Roaring Twenties,' for the extended depression over which Roosevelt ruled.....caused.

 

[Steven_R]

Except when historians eat their own you mean.

This thread is about the danger in relying on the word of 'experts'....especially when they fly the banner of the political party in power.


Recently, I came across a passage in the novel "The Journeyer," Gary Jennings tome about Marco Polo, in which he has Kublai Khan's royal historian explain what the job of 'historian' entails.



5. "The Minister of History, for example, was a Han gentleman who looked ever so scholarly, and was fluent in many languages, and seemed to have memorized all of Western history as well as the Eastern. ... When I asked what he was engaged upon at the moment, he got up from his big writing desk, opened a door of his chamber and showed me a much bigger chamber beyond. It was full of small writing desks very close together, and bent over each one was a scribe hard at work, almost hidden behind the books and rolled scrolls and sheaves of documents piled at his place.

Speaking perfect Farsi, the Minister of History said, "The Khakhan Kubilai decreed four years ago that his reign will commence a Yuan Dynasty comprising all subsequent reigns of his successors. The title he chose, Yuan, means ‘the greatest' or ‘the principal.' Which is to say, it must eclipse the lately extinguished Chin Dynasty, and the Xia before that, and every other dynasty dating back to the beginning of civilization in these lands.

So I am compiling, and my assistants are writing, a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy of the Yuan Dynasty." Jennings, "The Journeyer"




And just so, historians continue in this vein: their job is to write "a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy"...in this case, of Franklin Roosevelt.

You've obviously never spent time in a history department, taken history methodology, or history capstone courses. Historians might be screaming leftists, but they also fight tooth and nail to keep their profession for just being one party's or ideology's mouthpiece. Professional integrity is really important to modern historians. Note, we're not talking about court historians, but modern historians who use rigorous methodologies and won't fail to eat their own when they don't adhere to those standards.

Remember Michael Bellesiles and his tome Arming America? Said gun culture really didn't exist until recently and was praised by the entire left. Even won the Bancroft Award. And when it came out he fabricated the whole thing, the historical community destroyed him and his reputation even though they wanted it to be true.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, what do "historians' who are vassals of the powers that be, owe to their masters?


7. "And the Yuan [dynasty] seems kind by comparison? But suppose Kubilai and his successors prove to be truly callous in such calamities?"

"Then we must rewrite again, and make the earlier rulers more hardhearted. I trust you perceive now the importance of my work, and the diligence and creativeness required. It is no job for a lazy man, or a stupid one. History is not just a daily setting down of events, like keeping a ship's log. History is a fluid process, and the work of a historian is never done."

I said, "Historical events may be variously rendered, but current ones? For instance, in the Year of Our Lord one thousand two hundred seventy-five, Marco Polo arrived in Khanbalik. What more could be said of such a trifle?"

"If it is indeed a trifle," said the Minister, smiling, "then it need not be mentioned in history at all. But it could prove later to be significant. So I make a note of even such a trifle, and wait to see if it should be inscribed in the archives as an occasion to be treasured or regretted." Ibid.




"Then we must rewrite again, and make the earlier rulers more hardhearted."



So....historians are not restricted to objectivity....but a variation of something Shakespeare wrote:

"...for there is nothing either good or bad, but what I write makes it so. "

 

[regent]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except when historians eat their own you mean.

This thread is about the danger in relying on the word of 'experts'....especially when they fly the banner of the political party in power.


Recently, I came across a passage in the novel "The Journeyer," Gary Jennings tome about Marco Polo, in which he has Kublai Khan's royal historian explain what the job of 'historian' entails.



5. "The Minister of History, for example, was a Han gentleman who looked ever so scholarly, and was fluent in many languages, and seemed to have memorized all of Western history as well as the Eastern. ... When I asked what he was engaged upon at the moment, he got up from his big writing desk, opened a door of his chamber and showed me a much bigger chamber beyond. It was full of small writing desks very close together, and bent over each one was a scribe hard at work, almost hidden behind the books and rolled scrolls and sheaves of documents piled at his place.

Speaking perfect Farsi, the Minister of History said, "The Khakhan Kubilai decreed four years ago that his reign will commence a Yuan Dynasty comprising all subsequent reigns of his successors. The title he chose, Yuan, means ‘the greatest' or ‘the principal.' Which is to say, it must eclipse the lately extinguished Chin Dynasty, and the Xia before that, and every other dynasty dating back to the beginning of civilization in these lands.

So I am compiling, and my assistants are writing, a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy of the Yuan Dynasty." Jennings, "The Journeyer"




And just so, historians continue in this vein: their job is to write "a glowing history to assure that future generations will recognize the supremacy"...in this case, of Franklin Roosevelt.

You've obviously never spent time in a history department, taken history methodology, or history capstone courses. Historians might be screaming leftists, but they also fight tooth and nail to keep their profession for just being one party's or ideology's mouthpiece. Professional integrity is really important to modern historians. Note, we're not talking about court historians, but modern historians who use rigorous methodologies and won't fail to eat their own when they don't adhere to those standards.

Remember Michael Bellesiles and his tome Arming America? Said gun culture really didn't exist until recently and was praised by the entire left. Even won the Bancroft Award. And when it came out he fabricated the whole thing, the historical community destroyed him and his reputation even though they wanted it to be true.

"...when it came out he fabricated the whole thing, the historical community destroyed him and his reputation even though they wanted it to be true."

That was eminently easy to do, as Bellesiles was no more than a blister on academia's butt....

....the question is when academics will develop the nerve to confront the Roosevelt mythology.

Garraty refers to same:

Not all historians pimp their reputations...but all know the danger of revealing the truth.



8. To write the unvarnished truth is often career suicide. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; state control of economic and social affairs; and the quality and quantity of government propaganda.
Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.



Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.

If, either, the Liberals/Progressives/Democrats lose their grip on career avenues for academics, or if enough time passes for Roosevelt to become less idolized, the real truth may begin to become publishable.


I won't hold my breath.





More insight here:

9. "... the mentality- actually, the psychosis- of historians, journalists, and other opinion makers that makes them impervious, and even hostile, to facts. Even more so to the ineluctable implications of these facts, which are devastating to the conventional wisdom and venerated mythology.

And this is the ultimate impact of Communist influence, the Communist conspiracy that Roosevelt and Truman laughed off: it is the complete subversion of logic itself. It is so simple, so irrational, yet it has happened: the complete separation of fact from implication.

There is a name for the gaps between fact and implication, between implication and judgment....it is called "political correctness."
Diana West, "American Betrayal," p. 81.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

10. Don't mistake the slanting of history by these 'historians' as insignificant.

The embrace of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt is difficult to explain.

1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of b) Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union. 1933.



Well, would you say that Roosevelt was a Sovietophile rather than a communism-sympathizer? Fine. Now explain the difference.



The penetration of our government by Soviet spies was about far more than it is generally understood to be: eavesdropping and stealing scientific data and battle plans.
Rather it is about weakening the nation, diluting its character. And that is why so very much effort is put into controlling journalism, academia, and the dissemination of information.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.

a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.

No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

 

[Vigilante]

Speaking of Roosevelt, and presidential historians, I hear VERY LITTLE about THIS from our FIRST president Roosevelt, and the FOUNDER of today's PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF AMERICA.... how PROGRESSIVES have changed from PATRIOTIC libertarians, to COMMUNIST would be another whole thread indeed!

 

[regent]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

10. Don't mistake the slanting of history by these 'historians' as insignificant.

The embrace of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt is difficult to explain.

1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of b) Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union. 1933.



Well, would you say that Roosevelt was a Sovietophile rather than a communism-sympathizer? Fine. Now explain the difference.



The penetration of our government by Soviet spies was about far more than it is generally understood to be: eavesdropping and stealing scientific data and battle plans.
Rather it is about weakening the nation, diluting its character. And that is why so very much effort is put into controlling journalism, academia, and the dissemination of information.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.

a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.

No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

Might want to read Republican Senator Borah's plea to FDR to recognize the USSR.

 

[Picaro]

Speaking of Roosevelt, and presidential historians, I hear VERY LITTLE about THIS from our FIRST president Roosevelt, and the FOUNDER of today's PROGRESSIVE PARTY OF AMERICA.... how PROGRESSIVES have changed from PATRIOTIC libertarians, to COMMUNIST would be another whole thread indeed!

the Progressives of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were huge proponents of assimilation. Hull House is a prime example, as were many of the Jewish community centers in the lower east side of Manhattan and in Brooklyn and other places in the major cities. Those in the modern era that call themselves 'Progressives' aren't real progressives, they just think calling themselves that gives them some sort of cache or something, as if they are for rationalism and progress, when in fact they are regressive and divisive Burb Brat muppets. Progressivism wasn't a right or left wing thing; Herbert Hoover was a Progressive as well, after all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

10. Don't mistake the slanting of history by these 'historians' as insignificant.

The embrace of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt is difficult to explain.

1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of b) Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union. 1933.



Well, would you say that Roosevelt was a Sovietophile rather than a communism-sympathizer? Fine. Now explain the difference.



The penetration of our government by Soviet spies was about far more than it is generally understood to be: eavesdropping and stealing scientific data and battle plans.
Rather it is about weakening the nation, diluting its character. And that is why so very much effort is put into controlling journalism, academia, and the dissemination of information.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.

a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.

No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

Might want to read Republican Senator Borah's plea to FDR to recognize the USSR.

Nov 8, 1932
Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover to become the 32nd President of the United States, receiving 57.4% of the popular vote

On November 16, 1933
President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union


Took a lot of coaxing, huh?

 

[regent]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

10. Don't mistake the slanting of history by these 'historians' as insignificant.

The embrace of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt is difficult to explain.

1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of b) Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union. 1933.



Well, would you say that Roosevelt was a Sovietophile rather than a communism-sympathizer? Fine. Now explain the difference.



The penetration of our government by Soviet spies was about far more than it is generally understood to be: eavesdropping and stealing scientific data and battle plans.
Rather it is about weakening the nation, diluting its character. And that is why so very much effort is put into controlling journalism, academia, and the dissemination of information.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.

a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.

No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

Might want to read Republican Senator Borah's plea to FDR to recognize the USSR.

Nov 8, 1932
Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover to become the 32nd President of the United States, receiving 57.4% of the popular vote

On November 16, 1933
President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union


Took a lot of coaxing, huh?

President Washington and his Secretary of State, Jefferson, both agreed on our new nation's policy to recognize foreign governments. That policy was based on the question is the government, in fact, in charge. As I remember, it was Wilson that broke that tradition because of debts.
Business was pretty happy with the recognition of the USSR for trading purposes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Most history is a revision. Perhaps the thing that keeps professional historians honest is not emperors, but other historians. Might check and see how conservative historians rated FDR.

10. Don't mistake the slanting of history by these 'historians' as insignificant.

The embrace of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt is difficult to explain.

1933 was the onset of both a) Soviet espionage's "golden age," and of b) Roosevelt's conferring of diplomatic recognition on the Soviet Union. 1933.



Well, would you say that Roosevelt was a Sovietophile rather than a communism-sympathizer? Fine. Now explain the difference.



The penetration of our government by Soviet spies was about far more than it is generally understood to be: eavesdropping and stealing scientific data and battle plans.
Rather it is about weakening the nation, diluting its character. And that is why so very much effort is put into controlling journalism, academia, and the dissemination of information.

Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.

a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia.

No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

Might want to read Republican Senator Borah's plea to FDR to recognize the USSR.

Nov 8, 1932
Franklin Roosevelt defeats Herbert Hoover to become the 32nd President of the United States, receiving 57.4% of the popular vote

On November 16, 1933
President Franklin Roosevelt ended almost 16 years of American non-recognition of the Soviet Union


Took a lot of coaxing, huh?

President Washington and his Secretary of State, Jefferson, both agreed on our new nation's policy to recognize foreign governments. That policy was based on the question is the government, in fact, in charge. As I remember, it was Wilson that broke that tradition because of debts.
Business was pretty happy with the recognition of the USSR for trading purposes.

FDR came into office March 4th of 1933.
On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR.

If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath"by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.


As you clearly are in dire need of education....if I have time today, I'll construct an OP about the magnitude of ignorance Roosevelt must have needed to recognize the homicidal, duplicitous Soviet Bolshevik regime.