Why Did FDR Censor Criticism of Stalin?

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,904
60,285
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
The question is hardly why FDR remains so popular....he was President during a successful war.....and provided so many things for average Americans...

..but why was FDR so in love with Stalin and Soviet communism?





1. 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.





2. Bear in mind, eight months earlier, journalist Gareth Jones had exposed Stalin's Terror Famine: "In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Jones_(journalist)

a. Malcolm Muggeridge " was the first writer to reveal the true nature of Stalin s regime when in 1933 he exposed the terror famine in the Ukraine. " [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity-Uncollected-Writings-Muggeridge/dp/1570759057]Time and Eternity: The Uncollected Writings of Malcolm Muggeridge: Malcolm Muggeridge, Nicholas Flynn: 9781570759055: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

Over five million men, women and children starved to death by their government.....

a. So FDR knew of the Terror Famine...yet he enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..." Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.





3. Check the timeline. FDR didn't embrace the USSR out of a need in a fight against Hitler....in fact, at that time, FDR had a rosy relationship with Nazi Germany. So....why overlook the genocide?

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer)): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.” and January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

4. By early 1945, Germany's military situation was on the verge of total collapse. The Allies had met at Yalta between 4–11 February to discuss the conclusion of the war in Europe. Bellamy, "Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War," p. 648.






5. George Earle was a special emissary of FDR's to Europe...and returned in 1944 with proof that implicated the Soviets in the Katyn Forest massacre (In April of 1943, the mass graves of thousands of shot, bayoneted, and asphyxiated Polish officers were uncovered in the Katyn pine forest near Smolensk, Russia.)

Earle testified later at the Katyn Forest hearings that Joe Levy of the NYTimes, warned him that bringing an anti-Soviet report to FDR would be a career ender : "George, you don't know what you are going to over there. Harry Hopkins has completed domination over the President and the whole atmosphere over there is 'pink.'"
West, "American Betrayal," p.211.

6. On March 22, 1945, FDR wrote to Earle: "I have noted with concern your plan to publicize your unfavorable opinion of one of our allies. I do not wish you to do so. Not only do I not wish it, I specifically forbid you to do so."
He then ordered Earle to Samoa for the duration.






7. On March 26, 1945, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall issued the following order: "Censor all stories, delete criticism Russian treatment." This was aimed at those Americans who had been POWs of the Red Army. Note that some 20,000 US soldiers were never returned.

a. FDR died April 12th..but, based on Marshall's order, the White House clearly knew of the following prior to that:

" By May 15, 1945, the Pentagon believed 25,000 American POWs "liberated" by the Red Army were still being held hostage to Soviet demands that all "Soviet citizens" be returned to Soviet control, "without exception" and by force if necessary, as agreed to at the Yalta Conference in February 1945.

When the U.S. refused to return some military formations composed of Soviet citizens, such as the First Ukrainian SS Division, Stalin retaliated by returning only 4,116 of the hostage American POWs. On June 1, 1945, the United States Government issued documents, signed by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, explaining away the loss of approximately 20,000 POWs remaining under Stalin's control." WWII Home Page, National Alliance of Families






Who can explain FDR's actions with respect to his backing of Stalin's communists?
He covered for Stalin....no doubt about it.
No genocide, no massacres, no duplicity of any sort dimmed FDR's ardor for 'Uncle Joe."

Explain it?

Anyone?
 
Last edited:
I have sent this on to several of my history professor friends.

They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda.
 
I have sent this on to several of my history professor friends.

They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda.







"They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda."




Not correct to refer to the OP as "classic reactionary propaganda" if neither you nor your imaginary 'friends' are able to find any errors in the post....





The correct appellation, therefore, would be to refer to same as "the truth."



Glad I could set you straight.
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.



Let's pretend...for the moment.....that you have a mind of your own, reggie.


First.....can you find any errors in the OP?

No?

Well, then.....have you a conclusion other than the one suggested by the facts that I've provided?

I promise not to tell FDR's descendants if you feel the need to actually criticize the man......



Now....put your big boy pants on and....if you can.....challenge the OP.
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.



Let's pretend...for the moment.....that you have a mind of your own, reggie.


First.....can you find any errors in the OP?

No?

Well, then.....have you a conclusion other than the one suggested by the facts that I've provided?

I promise not to tell FDR's descendants if you feel the need to actually criticize the man......



Now....put your big boy pants on and....if you can.....challenge the OP.

Some very able historians have criticized FDR's conduct as president, Burns being the last one I've read, but so far nothing new of note. The number of history books written about FDR and his administration while not near Lincoln's number, but enough to believe his life and administration have been explored in some detail by professionals. And even recently historians have reviewed his time in office again, and changed their ratings of FDR from being one of the top three presidents to the best American president, and I'm content with their historical rating.
In the post, someone simply used an old trick of mixing facts with unproven statements and presenting the whole batch as proven. It is similar to saying FDR had polio and loved
Stalin.
 
This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.



Let's pretend...for the moment.....that you have a mind of your own, reggie.


First.....can you find any errors in the OP?

No?

Well, then.....have you a conclusion other than the one suggested by the facts that I've provided?

I promise not to tell FDR's descendants if you feel the need to actually criticize the man......



Now....put your big boy pants on and....if you can.....challenge the OP.

Some very able historians have criticized FDR's conduct as president, Burns being the last one I've read, but so far nothing new of note. The number of history books written about FDR and his administration while not near Lincoln's number, but enough to believe his life and administration have been explored in some detail by professionals. And even recently historians have reviewed his time in office again, and changed their ratings of FDR from being one of the top three presidents to the best American president, and I'm content with their historical rating.

In the post, someone simply used an old trick of mixing facts with unproven statements and presenting the whole batch as proven. It is similar to saying FDR had polio and loved
Stalin.



I'm ready to see the ones that you claim false.....

....how come you didn't list 'em?
 
I have sent this on to several of my history professor friends.

They love to use your expository comments as classic reactionary propaganda.






Jakal ran off to the cubicle to commune with his 'friends'....so he couldn't list all the 'mistakes' in the OP....

....but I always wait for some good arguments from the FDR supporters.

Somehow.....they never get here.
Reggie is waiting for some historians to tell him what to think.....




I was all ready to say 'please.....don't give me the 'lesser of two evils' nonsense.'
Hitler vs. Stalin.....

I was prepared to point out how FDR's dance partner was worse!!!






Stalin was responsible for more innocents slaughtered than Hitler.

And....mull this over: who knows more about the evil than those living under same.

1. When the Allies succumbed to Stalin's demands at Yalta, that all those refugees, from generals of armies to intellectuals, Cossacks, kulaks, teachers, peasants, and workers, be repatriated to Stalin!

2. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
"Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present. by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.


a. Gen. Deniken, former commanding general of the White Russian armies which were supported by the USA in 1917-1920, explained that none of these men served in the Nazi army out of love for Germany..."they hated the Germans" he wrote....rather, they knew what awaited them in the 'Soviet paradise.'






3. How badly did these individuals not want to go to Stalin's USSR?
From the NYTimes, January 20, 1946:
"Ten renegade Russian soldiers, in a frenzy of terror over their impending repatriation to the homeland, committed suicide today during a riot in the Dachau prison camp...."

a. And, in the Times, March 5, 1946: "Rome- Many thousands of persons hostile to the present regime in the Soviet Union are being forcibly sent there....the Catholic Church constantly received appeals from 'displaced persons' terrified of being sent back to territory now controlled by Russia."





4. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army.
"The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.



FDR censored this information.
He forcibly 'repatriated' these human being.
He made certain that there was no issue over 20,000 American soldiers kept by Stalin.


What possible explanation can there be for this inhuman, insane behavior????
 
History repeats:
Ukraine protesters fight the government moving away from the EU and closer to Russia...

"(Reuters) - Ukrainian protesters blockaded the main government building on Monday, seeking to force President Viktor Yanukovich from office with a general strike after hundreds of thousands demonstrated against his decision to abandon an EU integration pact."
Ukraine protesters urge general strike as markets hit currency | Reuters



Putin looking for FDR???
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.



There you go again. All you've ever got when scumbag FDR's opprobrious behavior is discussed is the same tired old logical fallacy. You can't really defend the scumbag and you know it.
 
Because he willfully surrounded himself with Stalinist spies...American traitors who should be forever condemned for their treachery, but won't. FDR chose to listen to and follow the advice of those spies.

Why he did this, over the objections of many, is puzzling. The answer may be that FDR was just a dope...easily duped by those he thought highly of.

How one very simple foolish man can garner so much power in a constitutional republic, is frightening. And to think the office of POTUS now has even more power than did FDR.

This information should be communicated to historians at first chance, knowing this information they will quickly change their rating of FDR from America's greatest to America's worst.



There you go again. All you've ever got when scumbag FDR's opprobrious behavior is discussed is the same tired old logical fallacy. You can't really defend the scumbag and you know it.

FDR is well defended by noted by American historians, and needs no help from me, but can you defend the fallacy charge or even name it? If so can you cite a source that defends your fallacy charge, or is in fact even a fallacy?
 
FDR was a master of propaganda. With the full cooperation of the media (or without their cooperation) the federal government was able to withhold information, re-direct focus, create fake heroes and convince the American people that "ignorance is bliss". Dumbocrats have been trying to recapture the age of ignorance ever since, with only moderate success.
 
FDR beat the Nazis, and Republicans have clearly never forgiven him for that.

Yeah...only to enslave half of Europe to a tyrannical regime and ideology. Leading to decades of Cold War and terrible suffering for millions of people.

Good job.
 
PC, we're all sympathetic to the fact that you wish Hitler has won, but sadly for you and your NAZI chums, he didn't.

What can we say except that WARS (much like elections) HAVE CONSEQUENCES?
 
FDR beat the Nazis, and Republicans have clearly never forgiven him for that.




FDR was a favorite of the Nazis, as he mirrored their economic policies.

1. Scholars have discovered that totalitarian philosophies have a social-egalitarian component that adds to the mass popularity of such regimes. Thus, not only National Socialism, with its belief that its racial doctrine entailed the promise of equality for all members of the German people, or ‘Volk,’ but if one can look beyond the repression and terror, the New Deal can be seen as a series of economic misadventures achieved through the force of mass propaganda, and owing its success solely to America’s victory in WWII.
Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals”



2. 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.
 

Forum List

Back
Top