FDR's Lend-Lease....or Stalin's?

[PoliticalChic]

One stray logic thought I am having is that if FDR was in bed with the left wing Communists and was fighting with them against something it was probably the right wing Hitler.

There is another post or two on here about the leftist Hitler I am going to link this thread to so PC can shut down that line if thinking lol.

Really I believe the step across the ends of the horse shoe is pretty small but hey, its interesting.

Nazi...national socialism....based on nationalism and/or race...
Communism....international socialism.
Both Leftist.


You should take notes.

Got it. You believe FDR fought a war against socialist germany because FDR was a socialist.

No, you don't 'got it.'

Clearly the world is far too complex for you.

No doubt when on the 'seventeen items or less' express line, you start counting the
number of frozen peas in the package.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are, of course, a dim-wit.

Do you understand the full implication of "dim"?
Good.

Sadly, you have a great deal of company.


If Roosevelt's plan was to use Russia in the battle against Nazi Germany, which, of course, is absolutely true....

...how do you explain the following:

The inordinate endorsement of the Soviet Union by Roosevelt.
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.

WWII began in 1939.


And after the war, with Germany defeated, Roosevelt made certain to turn Eastern Europe over to Stalin.
So....still using the USSR against Nazi Germany?


Really?


So....the Marshall Plan was....what? A ploy?



Wise up.

FDR died before the war was over.

What would you of liked Truman to have done? This is the May 1945, the Red Army is in front of you on the game board. The army which has been pushing the Germans back since '42.

I find it amazing the politicians were able to talk our public into a war in Korea a few years after.

PC's sort of off the deep end here, but FDR really did fail to see the moral depravity of communism. I've never seen what seemed an adequate reason why. He certainly understood the danger of fascism, and Huey Long. A govt that guarantees a volkswagen for every family and a chicken in every pot during a recession, in exchange for civil rights, while also protecting corporate ownership ... if capital swears feality to the Reich, is still a dangerous notion.

FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s. In the US, capital was so antagonistic towards the New Deal, and the notion that govt could enforce a living wage and let the unions loose, there was at least thought to a coup. Practical realities, rather than the sanctity of private investment, may have kept FDR from unleashing those like William O. Douglas who thought the New Deal and SEC acts didn't go far enough in regulating corporate behavior, and they had no faith at all in shareholders to constrain predatory behavior. FDR may have at least in part chosen to not see Stalin for what he was. But, there's no doubt that FDR (and Churchill) saw the Soviets as having more lives to expend, and less political oppostition to spending them, than did the other two allies.

FDR repeatedly, with Lend Lease, and outright gifts, and then the second front, avoided any chance that Stalin would make a seperate peace, and require the US and Britian to achieve uncondidtional surrender by the fascists. That was always FDR's FIRST PRIORITY WITH RUSSIA. Without Russia, the Battle of the Bulge and Hurtgen Forest would have yielded casualties that poisoned our society like Britan was poisoned by the Somme.

As for Truman and Korea, I think we simply had belief in our leaders who'd gotten us through the depression and then WWII to be the most powerful and stable country ever, that when Truman (and Mao) basically stumbled into a war, they thought they had to back him up, because that's what we did.

A rout!

A veritable chaotic retreat!

And such a simple tactic: pretend that that you can't see the significance of the dates that I've provided in my post.




And then you double down by producing this absurdity:
"FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge took the tour in the early 30’s, and wrote about how gullible these Potemkin Progressives were. “They are, unquestionably, one of the wonders of the age, that I shall treasure ‘til I die, as a blessed memory! The spectacle of them traveling, with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid overcrowded Soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice--all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize." Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes (Author of Something Beautiful for God)




" Nevertheless, the new president [FDR] was extremely well-informed about the Hitler regime and its anti-Jewish policies, and early on perceived Nazi Germany as a threat to vital US interests. As persecution of Jews in Germany intensified during the 1930s, however, Roosevelt did not include among his priorities an effort to respond to the growing refugee problem that Nazi policies created."

"... Louis Brandeis wrote to Felix Frankfurter, at that time a professor at Harvard Law School, on April 29, 1933: “F.D. [Franklin Delano] has shown amply that he has no anti-Semitism…But this action, or rather determination that there shall be none [i.e., no change in the Hoover immigration policy] is a disgrace to America and to F.D.s administration.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt



".... FDR held
82 press conferences in 1933, and the subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not
because Roosevelt raised it. It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences
before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again (then, too, it was at a reporter’s
initiative, not Roosevelt’s)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/WhitewashingFDR.pdf




"The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald's early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933, that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler's Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action.

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, "a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt,..."
David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies: Welcome




A sartorial suggestion:
.....you are ruining your pants by dropping to your knees at the mention of FDR's name.....

 

[Cassandro]

I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time. By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.

 

[Toronado3800]

FDR died before the war was over.

What would you of liked Truman to have done? This is the May 1945, the Red Army is in front of you on the game board. The army which has been pushing the Germans back since '42.

I find it amazing the politicians were able to talk our public into a war in Korea a few years after.

PC's sort of off the deep end here, but FDR really did fail to see the moral depravity of communism. I've never seen what seemed an adequate reason why. He certainly understood the danger of fascism, and Huey Long. A govt that guarantees a volkswagen for every family and a chicken in every pot during a recession, in exchange for civil rights, while also protecting corporate ownership ... if capital swears feality to the Reich, is still a dangerous notion.

FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s. In the US, capital was so antagonistic towards the New Deal, and the notion that govt could enforce a living wage and let the unions loose, there was at least thought to a coup. Practical realities, rather than the sanctity of private investment, may have kept FDR from unleashing those like William O. Douglas who thought the New Deal and SEC acts didn't go far enough in regulating corporate behavior, and they had no faith at all in shareholders to constrain predatory behavior. FDR may have at least in part chosen to not see Stalin for what he was. But, there's no doubt that FDR (and Churchill) saw the Soviets as having more lives to expend, and less political oppostition to spending them, than did the other two allies.

FDR repeatedly, with Lend Lease, and outright gifts, and then the second front, avoided any chance that Stalin would make a seperate peace, and require the US and Britian to achieve uncondidtional surrender by the fascists. That was always FDR's FIRST PRIORITY WITH RUSSIA. Without Russia, the Battle of the Bulge and Hurtgen Forest would have yielded casualties that poisoned our society like Britan was poisoned by the Somme.

As for Truman and Korea, I think we simply had belief in our leaders who'd gotten us through the depression and then WWII to be the most powerful and stable country ever, that when Truman (and Mao) basically stumbled into a war, they thought they had to back him up, because that's what we did.

A rout!

A veritable chaotic retreat!

And such a simple tactic: pretend that that you can't see the significance of the dates that I've provided in my post.




And then you double down by producing this absurdity:
"FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge took the tour in the early 30’s, and wrote about how gullible these Potemkin Progressives were. “They are, unquestionably, one of the wonders of the age, that I shall treasure ‘til I die, as a blessed memory! The spectacle of them traveling, with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid overcrowded Soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice--all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize." Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes (Author of Something Beautiful for God)




" Nevertheless, the new president [FDR] was extremely well-informed about the Hitler regime and its anti-Jewish policies, and early on perceived Nazi Germany as a threat to vital US interests. As persecution of Jews in Germany intensified during the 1930s, however, Roosevelt did not include among his priorities an effort to respond to the growing refugee problem that Nazi policies created."

"... Louis Brandeis wrote to Felix Frankfurter, at that time a professor at Harvard Law School, on April 29, 1933: “F.D. [Franklin Delano] has shown amply that he has no anti-Semitism…But this action, or rather determination that there shall be none [i.e., no change in the Hoover immigration policy] is a disgrace to America and to F.D.s administration.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt



".... FDR held
82 press conferences in 1933, and the subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not
because Roosevelt raised it. It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences
before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again (then, too, it was at a reporter’s
initiative, not Roosevelt’s)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/WhitewashingFDR.pdf




"The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald's early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933, that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler's Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action.

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, "a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt,..."
David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies: Welcome




A sartorial suggestion:
.....you are ruining your pants by dropping to your knees at the mention of FDR's name.....

The years are REALLY important here. I will also agree FDR was not as progressive with civil rights as one woukd want. But 1933 is what that said, right? When did FDR take power? That Great Depression was pretty bad. We were in no position to go rescue Jews and even in May of '40 after the fall of France the peace movement was still strong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC's sort of off the deep end here, but FDR really did fail to see the moral depravity of communism. I've never seen what seemed an adequate reason why. He certainly understood the danger of fascism, and Huey Long. A govt that guarantees a volkswagen for every family and a chicken in every pot during a recession, in exchange for civil rights, while also protecting corporate ownership ... if capital swears feality to the Reich, is still a dangerous notion.

FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s. In the US, capital was so antagonistic towards the New Deal, and the notion that govt could enforce a living wage and let the unions loose, there was at least thought to a coup. Practical realities, rather than the sanctity of private investment, may have kept FDR from unleashing those like William O. Douglas who thought the New Deal and SEC acts didn't go far enough in regulating corporate behavior, and they had no faith at all in shareholders to constrain predatory behavior. FDR may have at least in part chosen to not see Stalin for what he was. But, there's no doubt that FDR (and Churchill) saw the Soviets as having more lives to expend, and less political oppostition to spending them, than did the other two allies.

FDR repeatedly, with Lend Lease, and outright gifts, and then the second front, avoided any chance that Stalin would make a seperate peace, and require the US and Britian to achieve uncondidtional surrender by the fascists. That was always FDR's FIRST PRIORITY WITH RUSSIA. Without Russia, the Battle of the Bulge and Hurtgen Forest would have yielded casualties that poisoned our society like Britan was poisoned by the Somme.

As for Truman and Korea, I think we simply had belief in our leaders who'd gotten us through the depression and then WWII to be the most powerful and stable country ever, that when Truman (and Mao) basically stumbled into a war, they thought they had to back him up, because that's what we did.

A rout!

A veritable chaotic retreat!

And such a simple tactic: pretend that that you can't see the significance of the dates that I've provided in my post.




And then you double down by producing this absurdity:
"FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge took the tour in the early 30’s, and wrote about how gullible these Potemkin Progressives were. “They are, unquestionably, one of the wonders of the age, that I shall treasure ‘til I die, as a blessed memory! The spectacle of them traveling, with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid overcrowded Soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice--all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize." Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes (Author of Something Beautiful for God)




" Nevertheless, the new president [FDR] was extremely well-informed about the Hitler regime and its anti-Jewish policies, and early on perceived Nazi Germany as a threat to vital US interests. As persecution of Jews in Germany intensified during the 1930s, however, Roosevelt did not include among his priorities an effort to respond to the growing refugee problem that Nazi policies created."

"... Louis Brandeis wrote to Felix Frankfurter, at that time a professor at Harvard Law School, on April 29, 1933: “F.D. [Franklin Delano] has shown amply that he has no anti-Semitism…But this action, or rather determination that there shall be none [i.e., no change in the Hoover immigration policy] is a disgrace to America and to F.D.s administration.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt



".... FDR held
82 press conferences in 1933, and the subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not
because Roosevelt raised it. It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences
before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again (then, too, it was at a reporter’s
initiative, not Roosevelt’s)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/WhitewashingFDR.pdf




"The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald's early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933, that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler's Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action.

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, "a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt,..."
David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies: Welcome




A sartorial suggestion:
.....you are ruining your pants by dropping to your knees at the mention of FDR's name.....

The years are REALLY important here. I will also agree FDR was not as progressive with civil rights as one woukd want. But 1933 is what that said, right? When did FDR take power? That Great Depression was pretty bad. We were in no position to go rescue Jews and even in May of '40 after the fall of France the peace movement was still strong.

You are dangerously close to becoming a simple apologist....
....not certain which word gets the emphasis.


My post responded to:
"FDR had no knowlege (sic) of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

I was addressing "no knowledge."
I believe I put that notion to rest.



To your point about the depression being "pretty bad."
This was due, largely, to the failure of FDR's policies.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


Just thought you should know.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I tend to give Soviet sympathizers of the 1930's a pass, based on their idealistic ignorance at the time. By the 1950's, however, this amounted to treason.

"... idealistic ignorance..."

Not so.

The folks in question were lap-dogs of Soviet policy, taking orders from Moscow.

1. Even at their peak, in the ‘30’s, the Communist Party of the United States never had more than 100 thousand members: so deception of the ‘dupes’ was critical.

a. The archives tell a tale of plans and schemes between the CPUSA and the Communist International in Moscow, to dupe progressives and liberals: “go to rallies,” “don’t let them know you are a communist!,” “If anyone reveals that you are a communist, claim it is red-baiting,” “yell ‘McCarthyism!”


2. The Commintern, the Communist International, was founded in Moscow in March, 1919. Not far behind it, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) was founded in Chicago in September, 1919.
While the archives are rich with their literature, they are rarely studied, as most academic historians are on the left and have little interest in revealing or discussing the revelations or machinations therein. Further, Yeltsin had declassified many documents in the 1990’s which proved that everything the anti-communists said, was true!

a. In 1919, Executive Sec’y of CPUSA, Charles Ruthenberg, wrote the following to Moscow: “Hail to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Long live the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic. Long live the Communist International.” A loyal Soviet patriot, his ashes are buried in the wall of the Kremlin.
So, is this ‘just another political party’? idealistic ignorance?

b. From the November 24, 1919 application of the CPUSA to the Commintern: “The final struggle of the communist proletariat will be waged in the United States. Our conquest of power alone assuring the world Soviet Republic! Realizing all of this, the Communist Party prepares for the struggle. Long live the Communist International, long live the world revolution!’
Just like any other political party? idealistic ignorance?

The above based on Dr. Paul Kengor, Hoover Institution, Stanford, book “DUPES: How America's Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century”

 

[Toronado3800]

A rout!

A veritable chaotic retreat!

And such a simple tactic: pretend that that you can't see the significance of the dates that I've provided in my post.




And then you double down by producing this absurdity:
"FDR had no knowlege of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge took the tour in the early 30’s, and wrote about how gullible these Potemkin Progressives were. “They are, unquestionably, one of the wonders of the age, that I shall treasure ‘til I die, as a blessed memory! The spectacle of them traveling, with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid overcrowded Soviet towns, listening with unshakable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice--all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize." Malcolm Muggeridge Quotes (Author of Something Beautiful for God)




" Nevertheless, the new president [FDR] was extremely well-informed about the Hitler regime and its anti-Jewish policies, and early on perceived Nazi Germany as a threat to vital US interests. As persecution of Jews in Germany intensified during the 1930s, however, Roosevelt did not include among his priorities an effort to respond to the growing refugee problem that Nazi policies created."

"... Louis Brandeis wrote to Felix Frankfurter, at that time a professor at Harvard Law School, on April 29, 1933: “F.D. [Franklin Delano] has shown amply that he has no anti-Semitism…But this action, or rather determination that there shall be none [i.e., no change in the Hoover immigration policy] is a disgrace to America and to F.D.s administration.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt



".... FDR held
82 press conferences in 1933, and the subject of the persecution of the Jews arose only once, and not
because Roosevelt raised it. It would be five years and another 348 presidential press conferences
before anything about Jewish refugees would be mentioned again (then, too, it was at a reporter’s
initiative, not Roosevelt’s)."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/WhitewashingFDR.pdf




"The release of previously unknown diaries written by U.S. diplomat James McDonald has attracted national media attention, in part because they refer to McDonald's early warning, soon after Hitler rose to power in 1933, that the Fuhrer might be planning the mass murder of German Jews. But equally significant is that the diaries reinforce the fact that when it came to aiding Hitler's Jewish victims, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was all talk and no action.

The New York Times reported last week that McDonald returned from a 1933 visit to Germany feeling extremely pessimistic about the fate of German Jewry, "a view he apparently shared with President Roosevelt,..."
David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies: Welcome




A sartorial suggestion:
.....you are ruining your pants by dropping to your knees at the mention of FDR's name.....

The years are REALLY important here. I will also agree FDR was not as progressive with civil rights as one woukd want. But 1933 is what that said, right? When did FDR take power? That Great Depression was pretty bad. We were in no position to go rescue Jews and even in May of '40 after the fall of France the peace movement was still strong.

You are dangerously close to becoming a simple apologist....
....not certain which word gets the emphasis.


My post responded to:
"FDR had no knowlege (sic) of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

I was addressing "no knowledge."
I believe I put that notion to rest.



To your point about the depression being "pretty bad."
This was due, largely, to the failure of FDR's policies.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


Just thought you should know.....

Lets see how to build bridges....

We as a nation should have seen the dangers of Hitler earlier. I suppose the segregationists probably did not care however . It sounds as if you are in the camp which woukd have favored early armorment and I like to think 1936 or '37 me would have been as well.

The merits of the New Deal is a topic to itself. We need to have a talk about money loops some time & the loss of value during circulation under different inflationary / interest pressures!

Back to the topicish, what was our covert operations system like in the 30's? After the war it seems all nets were pulled. We were getting spy planes shot at over Russia and there seemed to be enough spies that they shoukd have a group retirement plan. Any mention of the ratio of spies we did not have in the 30's vs the spies the Soviets did would further your point.

 

[regent]

To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions, nor did they have one then. FDR tried different tactics some worked some failed but he kept trying. In 1937 economists worried that the nation was recovering too fast so they cut some programs and bingo it was too quick. It was all trial and error stuff, but the American people believed FDR was trying and they had confidence.
In any case Republicans have been looking for something, anything, to downsize FDR; he has been a major thorn to Republicans since 1933.
Now, the latest, FDR sent butter to the USSR or someplace via Lend Lease is just another attempt. But for all the Republican's investigations expose's and almost got-hims,, FDR was upgraded by historians from third best American president to America's best president, bar none. Yes sir, FDR's still a major thorn.

 

[ThirdTerm]

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.

 

[Beria]

The Soviet Army supplied the blood , the US supplied the goods of a sort!

 

[PoliticalChic]

To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions, nor did they have one then. FDR tried different tactics some worked some failed but he kept trying. In 1937 economists worried that the nation was recovering too fast so they cut some programs and bingo it was too quick. It was all trial and error stuff, but the American people believed FDR was trying and they had confidence.
In any case Republicans have been looking for something, anything, to downsize FDR; he has been a major thorn to Republicans since 1933.
Now, the latest, FDR sent butter to the USSR or someplace via Lend Lease is just another attempt. But for all the Republican's investigations expose's and almost got-hims,, FDR was upgraded by historians from third best American president to America's best president, bar none. Yes sir, FDR's still a major thorn.

"To this day we do not have a manual on how to cure depressions,..."

Amazingly ignorant....even for you.

Here's a novel approach:
Use methodology that has worked.



"America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt.

Harding inherited Wilson's mess— in particular, a post–World War I depression that was almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933 that FDR would later inherit. The estimated gross national product plunged 24 percent from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million to 4.9 million.



One of Harding's campaign slogans was "less government in business," and it served him well. Harding embraced the advice of Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon and called for tax cuts in his first message to Congress on April 12, 1921. The highest taxes, on corporate revenues and "excess" profits, were to be cut. Personal income taxes were to be left as is, with a top rate of 8 percent of incomes above $4,000. Harding recognized the crucial importance of encouraging the investment that is essential for growth and jobs, something that FDR never did.

Powerful senators, however, favored giving bonuses to veterans, as 38 states had done. But such spending increases would have put upward pressure on taxes. On July 12, 1921, Harding went to the Senate and urged tax and spending cuts. He noted that a half-billion dollars in compensation and insurance claims were already being paid to 813,442 veterans, and 107,824 veterans were enrolled in government-sponsored vocational training programs.

President-Elect Obama ought to consider the model of Warren G. Harding, whose policies raised Americans’ standard of living, and lifted the nation itself out of a depression…

In 1922, the House passed a veterans' bonus bill 333-70, without saying how the bonuses would be funded. The senate passed it 35-17. Despite intense lobbying from the American Legion, Harding vetoed the bill on September 19— just six weeks before congressional elections, when presidents generally throw goodies at voters. Harding said it was unfair to add to the burdens of 110 million taxpayers.
Harding's Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover wanted government intervention in the economy— which as president he was to pursue when he faced the Great Depression a decade later— but Harding would have none of it. He insisted that relief measures were a local responsibility."
Not-So-Great Depression | National Review Online




Turning a blind eye to facts, history, and experience.....that's what defines a Liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Soviet Army supplied the blood , the US supplied the goods of a sort!

In a way, it reminds of modern medicine's use of maggots to eat away at gangrene....

The Soviet army, the maggots.....the Nazis, the gangrene.


And, of course, the US is 'modern medicine.'



How ya' like that analogy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.

If Uncle Joe asked Roosevelt to do the following, he would'a done it.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBqlfKtqTgc]Male Russian Dancers Doing a Traditional Dance - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

The years are REALLY important here. I will also agree FDR was not as progressive with civil rights as one woukd want. But 1933 is what that said, right? When did FDR take power? That Great Depression was pretty bad. We were in no position to go rescue Jews and even in May of '40 after the fall of France the peace movement was still strong.

You are dangerously close to becoming a simple apologist....
....not certain which word gets the emphasis.


My post responded to:
"FDR had no knowlege (sic) of either the Holocaust or really the severity of Stalin's depopulation campaigns of the 30s."

I was addressing "no knowledge."
I believe I put that notion to rest.



To your point about the depression being "pretty bad."
This was due, largely, to the failure of FDR's policies.

1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

2. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


Just thought you should know.....

Lets see how to build bridges....

We as a nation should have seen the dangers of Hitler earlier. I suppose the segregationists probably did not care however . It sounds as if you are in the camp which woukd have favored early armorment and I like to think 1936 or '37 me would have been as well.

The merits of the New Deal is a topic to itself. We need to have a talk about money loops some time & the loss of value during circulation under different inflationary / interest pressures!

Back to the topicish, what was our covert operations system like in the 30's? After the war it seems all nets were pulled. We were getting spy planes shot at over Russia and there seemed to be enough spies that they shoukd have a group retirement plan. Any mention of the ratio of spies we did not have in the 30's vs the spies the Soviets did would further your point.

Wha'????



Is this post some kind of word-salad?

 

[Beria]

Political Chic, Medicine you mean the shite the US supplied to the Soviet Army - Petrol engined tanks not much use in sub zero temps !

 

[bendog]

PC, you do realize the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence until 1943, and FDR opposed expanding taking in Jews prior to the war, don't you?

Henry Morgenthau

You are not a bad person, but you have an agenda that is at odds with history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you do realize the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence until 1943, and FDR opposed expanding taking in Jews prior to the war, don't you?

Henry Morgenthau

You are not a bad person, but you have an agenda that is at odds with history.

".....the US didn't own up to the holocaust's existence....."
The US wasn't responsible for the holocaust.




"You are not a bad person,...."

Oh, yeah????



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbjfQOLm3Aw]Michael Jackson - Bad [HD] - YouTube[/ame]




"....you have an agenda...."

Guilty as charged.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.

Let me suggest that there was more to Lend-Lease than you seem to be aware of. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition??)

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


"His reports back to Roosevelt helped justify the U.S. Lend-Lease program which he briefly directed."
WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies . Harry Hopkins | PBS

BTW, Lend-Lease to Russia amounted to $300 billion in today's dollars.
Albert L. Weeks, "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II" p.25


Get this:
"...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."
Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

 

[regent]

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.

Let me suggest that there was more to Lend-Lease than you seem to be aware of. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition??)

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


"His reports back to Roosevelt helped justify the U.S. Lend-Lease program which he briefly directed."
WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies . Harry Hopkins | PBS

BTW, Lend-Lease to Russia amounted to $300 billion in today's dollars.
Albert L. Weeks, "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II" p.25


Get this:
"...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."
Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

Could the allies have won the war in Europe without the Russians, and if it was possible to win, how long would it have taken and what would the final cost have been to America?
Butter indeed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Lend-Lease programme was originally meant to aid Great Britain in its war effort against the Germans and the military aid to the Soviets was part of the Allied strategies to fight a proxy war against Nazi Germany without opening a second front prematurely. Stalin was unhappy with the considerable delay in the opening of a second front by the Western Allies to invade German-dominated Continental Europe and he repeatedly urged Roosevelt to open a second front to relieve pressure on the Soviets. Roosevelt constantly worried about the collapse of the Eastern Front, where Russia faced the entire military might of Nazi Germany, because it meant an Allied defeat in the war. Roosevelt intended to win the war at the expense of the Soviet Union and the Lend-Lease aid to the USSR was necessary to keep Russia in the war and discourage Stalin from seeking a separate peace with Nazi Germany before the planned D-Day invasion in 1944.

Let me suggest that there was more to Lend-Lease than you seem to be aware of. (Did I just end a sentence with a preposition??)

Harry Hopkins,- FDR's alter ego, co-president, or Rasputin, "...the closest and most influential adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II, was a Soviet agent." and “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”
The Treachery Of Harry Hopkins


"His reports back to Roosevelt helped justify the U.S. Lend-Lease program which he briefly directed."
WWII Behind Closed Doors: Stalin, the Nazis and the West . Biographies . Harry Hopkins | PBS

BTW, Lend-Lease to Russia amounted to $300 billion in today's dollars.
Albert L. Weeks, "Russia's Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II" p.25


Get this:
"...nothing will stop us from sharing with you [the Soviet Union] all that we have and all that we are."
Quoted in "From Major's Jordan's Diaries," by George Racey Jordan and Richard L. Stokes

Could the allies have won the war in Europe without the Russians, and if it was possible to win, how long would it have taken and what would the final cost have been to America?
Butter indeed.

OK, let's continue our game of 'I provide facts, you bloviate.'


1. It was not Lend-Lease that opened the Eastern Front, it was Operation Barbarossa.
Hitler attacked Russia.

2. At the behest of the Commintern, as the archives reveals, the American Peace Mobilization committee was formed in April of ’41. It’s function was to support the Soviet line, bring progressives aboard, protest against the lend-lease program to aid Britain…they paraded in front of the White House, chanting “FDR is a fascist, …he’s starting a war!’ They managed to dupe the easiest group to dupe: progressive pastors. The NYTimes article at the time said “Clergyman Group Opposes War Aid!’

a. In mid-protest, on June 22, 1941, they became pro-war! The Germans had broken their agreement with the Soviets, and invaded Russia! Suddenly the group was for lend-lease, and FDR wasn’t a fascist…and they changed their name to American People’s Mobilization.

b. The HUAC had exposed this group as “…one of the most seditious and subversive front groups.”


Again?
You've succumbed to the propaganda, i.e., that we bribed Stalin into fighting Hitler.
Stalin needed America, and had made a peace treaty with Hitler already: The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact