Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation

[regent]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

What are you talking about, the Panay, Pearl Harbor or what? If it was Pearl Harbor that was a naval base and both the navy and army should have been defending their base. If it was the PI MacArthur should have been defending those islands also. But Orange was involved with the PI.

 

[Syriusly]

Wait, here we go.

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939

German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)

Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.

German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.


Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...

And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.

What should we have changed?

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

 

[Syriusly]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

 

[gipper]

It was an oopser by the Germans but great for the allies, as they now had their justification to bomb German civilians, and they did so bomb.

Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.

You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons? Which is it?

You are so terribly confused.

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

You referred to us a commies several times in this thread. Now you post this...WTF?

Do you have dementia?

Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

My apologizes. I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.

Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long. He was bound to get some things right.

The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.

 

[Correll]

Wait, here we go.

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939

German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)

Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.

German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.


Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...

And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.

What should we have changed?

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them?

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".

 

[Correll]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

 

[Camp]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

 

[Correll]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

You are syriusly are welcome to argue whether FDR did enough to build up the military for the war he saw coming.

I was just referencing that he should have had his military thinking seriously about defense.

 

[gipper]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes. Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.

Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.

 

[Camp]

FDR's New Deal's WPA also gave us 1000 miles of airport runways, 651,000 miles of highways 124,000 new bridges, 8,000 parks, TVA, 18,000 playgrounds, 41,300 schools and instead of a handout-- jobs. Then there was also the PWA, CCC and other agencies rebuilding America. One other little thing FDR inspired was the "March of Dimes" that led to the end of polio.

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes. Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.

Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.

I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.

 

[gipper]

If you think that your economic sanctions are going to economically crush your enemy, should you not give consideration to possible escalation from them?

The FDR was so aggressive against the Japanese but did nothing to adopt a defensive stance militarily was somewhat of a fuckup that resulted in a serious military defeat.

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes. Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.

Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.

I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.

Yes the Germans were on to FDR's covert effort to assist the dumdass Brits...an act of war. Why was he trying to instigate war with Germany? Why was he always lying to the people?

It was not until FDR tricked Japan into war, that the isolationist movement ended...too bad.

 

[Syriusly]

FDR had been on a military building program for several years- almost every aircraft carrier that served in the Pacific was the result of a Roosevelt budget.

There was a concern for a Japanese attack- but we underestimated the Japanese- consistently. The expectation was that the attack would likely happen against the Phillippines and that the U.S. would have more warning. While there was at least one navy officer who had predicted a Pearl Harbor attack- that was one scenario out of many.

Certainly Pearl should have been better prepared- read up on the attack on Pearl Harbor and there are a series of strategic and tactical errors- luckily the Japanese made them too. They didn't get our carriers- and they didn't come back for another attack to really finish off Pearl. Pearl was a costly setback for the U.S.- it delayed our victory in the Pacific at the most by 1 year.

Japan though screwed up by attacking Pearl- if they had attacked Malaysia and Indonesia, the United States would not have intervened. Hard to believe but by attacking Pearl- Japan probably condemned themselves to defeat.

Almost any US President during the 30s would have increased defense spending.

I do give him credit for giving the Manhattan Project a go ahead. Good call that. Easy to imagine the to an old guy like him it could have sounded outlandish.

Congress refused or was slow to increase defense spending until after his Jan. 6, 1941 State of the Union "Four Freedoms " speech made 11 months before Pearl Harbor.
All through the '30's FDR and the US were stymied in defense spending by the isolationist and the Neutrality Act. The best he could do without Congressional funding was to push industry and use relief funds to develop modern weapons and retool the MIC factories so that when the funds became available there would be a headstart and afford industry to rush into production.

Insight into the difficulties in Defense Funding. This is a book review but gives useful data;
nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/those-angry-days-and-1940.html?_r=0

The FOUR FREEDOMS SPEECH;
history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

fdrlibrary.marist.edu/pdfs/fftext.pdf

Yes...it is terribly unfortunate the isolationists did not defeat Stalin's Stooge, before he committed his heinous crimes. Think of all the lives saved and the horrendous suffering prevented.

Yes...if only FDR the Psychopath, had never been POTUS.

I think when the Japanese began confiscating private businesses and interest in Asia and the Germans began making demands about where and with whom America could trade, even to the point of torpedoing American Navel ships escorting American merchant ships, the isolationist fell out of good grace. Even American flagged cruise ships in the Carribean were stopped on the high seas by Germans and inspected for what the Germans insisted was "forbidden trade" being smuggled onto South American flagged vessels. By the time US sailors were being killed in the Atlantic before the war was declared, America had stopped listening to the isolationist and the Neutrality Act was abandoned.

Yes the Germans were on to FDR's covert effort to assist the dumdass Brits...an act of war. Why was he trying to instigate war with Germany? Why was he always lying to the people?

It was not until FDR tricked Japan into war, that the isolationist movement ended...too bad.

Yeah- some people still to this day regret that the United States defeated Imperial Japan and helped defeat Nazi Germany.

 

[Syriusly]

Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that.

You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons? Which is it?

You are so terribly confused.

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

You referred to us a commies several times in this thread. Now you post this...WTF?

Do you have dementia?

Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

My apologizes. I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.

Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long. He was bound to get some things right.

The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.

The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.

But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.

You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.

 

[Correll]

You need to make up your mind...are we commies or cons? Which is it?

You are so terribly confused.

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

You referred to us a commies several times in this thread. Now you post this...WTF?

Do you have dementia?

Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

My apologizes. I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.

Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long. He was bound to get some things right.

The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.

The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.

But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.

You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.

And I have already addressed these.

1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent. And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.

2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war.

3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.

4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.

5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.

 

[Syriusly]

Wait, here we go.

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939

German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)

Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.

German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.


Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...

And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.

What should we have changed?

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.

Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.

The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".

No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.


I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR

 

[kiwiman127]

What is this? PC's 927th thread about FDR.
The title of this thread should be "PoliticalChic's extreme obsession with FDR." Her obsession with FDR has crossed the line between sane into insane.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

You referred to us a commies several times in this thread. Now you post this...WTF?

Do you have dementia?

Do you have dementia? Or just poor reading comprehension? I have never called you a commie but it amuses me that you seem confused by my plain words

Why would I think you are commies?
Personally, I think that policy of bombing civilians in WW2 was reprehensible.

And it was a policy that predates any American or British involvement in the war- the Japanese were bombing cities in China long before that and Germany started the trend in Europe when it bombed Warsaw- but it doesn't excuse American bombing of civilian areas either.

So Americans, Brits, Soviets, Japanese and Germans bombed civilians during WW2- easy enough to condemn them all.

And?

Does this make FDR exactly the same as Adolf Hitler? To hear the anti-FDR band post- yes it does.

Does this make America just like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? To read the posts of PC and others they apparently think so.

But for those of us who believe in America- FDR was an extraordinary president.

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

Of course Conservatives hate FDR for all of that

My apologizes. I confused you with another FDR lover in this thread, who called me a commie.

Yes, FDR did many things which I will agree were good for the nation, but the dickhead was in office for way too long. He was bound to get some things right.

The problem for you apologists is he got so many things wrong, resulting in terrible suffering and death, that the bad far outweighs the good.

The problem for you FDR haters is that while FDR got many things wrong, he got the important things right. You think that bad far outweighs the good.

But the good- as I keep pointing out- was really important 'good'

He led the United States from 25% unemployment to virtually zero. He led the United States to victory over Japan and Germany and to being greatest military power in the world, along with the greatest industrial power in the world.

He introduced the GI Bill, social security, unemployment insurance and bank depositors insurance- giving Americans protection that they had never had before.

And it bears repeating- at the time of FDR's death- the United States was just starting a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity of the American people.

You consider that to be 'bad'- I consider that all to be good.

And I have already addressed these.

1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent. And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.

2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war.

3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.

4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.

5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.

1. The Great Depression was never going to be permanent.

And yet- FDR was the President who was the President that led the United States out of the Great Depression. Do you have any idea how bad the Depression was by 1933? There was real concern that there would be a revolt in the United States- farmers had already taken over cities in the Midwest in protest over what was happening to them- in 1933 the United States was on a precipice- and FDR took actions which reassured Americans. There is a whole lot of Monday morning quarter backing of what FDR could have done better- but we know what was accomplished while he was President- and what wasn't accomplished under Hoover- his predecessor.

1a And WWII would have ended unemployment if a potted plant was sitting in the Oval Office.

And why is that? Ever thought about why WW2 ended unemployment?

Massive government spending. The United States hired about 12,000,000 men for our armed forces- and spent massive amounts of money building ships and airplanes and tanks- built by American workers who earned more money than they had ever seen before.
Essentially FDR's pre-war strategy to fight the Depression on steroids

2. FDR did not make this nation into the economic giant that won the war. The potted plant? With the resources and the power of the United States behind it, could have won that war.

FDR did however lead this nation into being the economic giant that won the war. You want to blame FDR for mistakes made during his Presidency- then acknowledge that he was the President that left the United States at the brink of our greatest prosperity.

3. His social polices were a lot more mixed than you are giving credit for.

There were several policies that were either unsuccessful, or mixed. But because of FDR we do have Social Security, unemployment insurance, bank depositors insurance and the GI Bill.

If you disagree with those programs- well- any politician running to abolish any of them? Anyone who doesn't consider the GI Bill to be a brilliant social policy?

4. And with the rest of the Industrial world in rubble, of course we had an economic boom.

And FDR led the United States so that we were able to take advantage of that.

5. On the other hand, he gave half of Europe over to the man that started WWII as an ally of Adolf Hitler.

Except of course that is actually false. FDR never 'gave' the USSR anything- other than materials to help it fight the Germans. The Soviets defeated the Nazi's in Poland and Hungary and Eastern Germany- yes with our material assistance- but they beat the Germans and took possession of Eastern Europe. FDR never 'gave' Eastern Europe to Stalin- Stalin took it.

 

[Correll]

Wait, here we go.

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939

German and Soviet officers present at the parade: Generalleutnant Mauritz von Wiktorin (left), General der Panzertruppe Heinz Guderian(centre) and KombrigSemyon Krivoshein (right)

Rolling Soviet tanks and German motorcyclists.

German and Soviet personnel amid parade display material.


Yep. NO reason for FDR to be suspicious of Good Old Uncle Joe...

And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.

What should we have changed?

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.

Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.

The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".

No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.


I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

 

[Syriusly]

And suspicious yes.

Would you have preferred FDR not assist the Soviets- not ally with the Soviets while the United States took on Japan and Germany?

Because I look at the outcome- and the United States still exists, Germany and Japan are our allies, and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The United States emerged from World War 2 the most powerful nation in the world- and Americans began a period of our greatest prosperity.

What should we have changed?

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.

Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.

The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".

No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.


I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942- was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in.

How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.

And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?

 

[Correll]

Thinking of the post war situation would a have been a reasonable expectation.


Negotiating somewhat tougher with Stalin would have been good too.

After all, the Soviet were the ones with millions of Nazi Troops roaming around inside their country.

In a normal negotiating that is the type of situation that is normally considered to give you a WEAK position, not one where you issue demands, such as Half of Europe.

Just saying.

And lets say FDR negotiated agreements by Stalin to- what leave Germany after conquering it? leave Poland?

Since Stalin actually did ignore all of the agreements that he did make with Western governments regarding free elections in Poland and everything else- what good would have more agreements that we were unwilling to enforce?

I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR.

1. Who said we would be unwilling to enforce them? History does. In 1945, the American people looked at the Soviet Union as our ally- who had been fighting the evil Nazi's. After VJ day, the United States could not demobilize fast enough- the American people were clamoring for their boys to come home. There was absolutely no appetite to go to war in 1945 with the USSR over the rights of the Polish people or any of the other Eastern Europeans that would end up on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

2. It's not like he had a weak hand.
Like I said- why do you think more 'promises' would have accomplished anything more than the promises that Stalin did make- and ignored? FDR was primarily concerned with a) helping the Soviets defeat Nazi Germany(who FDR considered the largest threat) and b) getting the USSR to come into the war against Imperial Japan.

3. Communism was more than just a "danger for twenty years". Tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea and Vietnam, and the threat of Nuclear War was a generations long shadow.
Communism was primarily a 'danger' for 20 years. Yes- tens of thousands of Americans died in Korea- a country which arguably we had an obligation to protect- and of which the USSR was directly involved with- and Vietnam- a country we had no obligation to defend against their own civil war- Vietnam was a war of choice by the United States- a choice that in hindsight was a terrible choice for the United States.

Been to Vietnam? I have. Nominally Communist, while actually incredibly capitalist. Communism- real Soviet style communism- collapsed under its own weight, as it did in China.

The alternative? Going to war with the Soviet Union in 1945 would not have been tens of thousands of American lives- it would have been hundreds of thousands.

4. Nice moving of the goalposts there. A few posts ago it was "no better outcome", now it's "no better uniting of America".

No moving of goal posts- just a different aspect of why FDR was successful.


I will go back to my main point- FDR's strategy worked.

Germany and Japan were defeated- and have become two of our strongest allies. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe- for 40 years before collapsing- without the United States going to war with the Soviet Union.

The United States emerged from WW2 the strongest nation in the world- Communism was a danger for 20 years- and then essentially collapsed- while the United States still went on strong.

Americans emerged from WW2 with unprecedented protections (social security, unemployment insurance, bank depositers insurance) and an amazing benefit program for returning veterans- the GI Bill.

FDR made plenty of mistakes. But I have yet to see a suggestion for an American who could have better united Americans during that period rather than FDR

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

1. That perception was a creation of ill thought out GOvernment Propaganda. A more honest telling of the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent would have prepared the American people for the possibility of having to enforce such promises.

Another great example of Monday morning quarterbacking. I don't know about you- but I wasn't alive in 1942- was the propaganda short sighted? Perhaps- on the other hand- the United States already had 3 declared enemies- and had no reason or intention in 1942 to expect that we would be going to war with the USSR.

2. Alternatively, don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets, and open the Second Front when you are good and ready, not when Stalin demanded it. Moscow probably wouldn't have fallen, but the Soviets wouldn't have been in the middle of Germany either. A lot easy to get the SOviets to go home, if they are already there.

"don't do Lend Lease for the Soviets"........because the United States wanted Germany to beat the USSR? Looking back now- it is easy for you to say that the United States should have just let Germany and the USSR slug it out- but in 1942, it looked like the USSR could fall to Nazi Germany- and that is something that FDR would have justly been condemned for. We know that Lend Lease helped the Soviets defeat the bulk of the Germany military- the Western Allies faced roughly only 1/3 of the Germany military. Your 'proposal' had the very real prospect of a German victory over the Soviets....and that would have been worse than the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe.

The 'second front'- FDR certainly didn't open up the second front when Stalin was demanding it- the United States instead first attacked in North Africa, and then through Italy- all the time while Stalin was pressing the Western Allies for what became D-Day.

3. You implying the Soviets were NOT involved in Vietnam? Vietnam was part of our strategy for the Cold War. Your approval/disapproval of that strategy does not change the fact it was part of the Cold War. And that thus, the problem FDR left for US in that was fucking huge.

The Soviets were johnny come latelys to Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was part of the indigenous Vietnamese guerrilla's fighting the Japanese, and had expected that the French would give Vietnam independence after the war- which didn't happen. The United States got sucked into a war in Vietnam that we should never have gotten involved in.

How do I know this? Because Vietnam did eventually fall- but there were no more dominoes falling as our 'strategy' said would happen. And as I pointed out- Vietnam is now a thriving capitalist economy with a shell of a government that calls itself Communist.

4. Sure. After I pointed out that your previous post was incorrect, instead of defending it or admitting that you were wrong, you present another opinion on why you think FDR was great. That is moving the goal posts.

What about my previous post was 'incorrect'? My position about FDR has been pretty consistent- if you want I can present it again.

5. Possibly. Or possibly Stalin would not have wanted to go to war when his people are starving and we have nukes and he doesn't.

The United States didn't have nukes while FDR was alive. Why do you think FDR should have been playing chicken with Stalin with weapons that at the time were still theoretical? In 1942, FDR was more concerned that the United States develop a nuclear bomb before Nazi Germany than where the Soviets would be in 1945.

And what about Stalin's history makes you think that he gave a damn if his people were starving- or dying?

1. You cite history as though it was the only way things could possibly have gone. I point out that other polices could have been chosen, and you accuse me of Monday Morning Quarterbacking. That is not reasonable.

2. Unless FDR had access to military experts who could read a map and count numbers of troops. Germany was already holding down territory and population greater than Germany itself and now they were at war with the largest nation in the world with a population far, far larger than Germany's.

Stalin needed US, far more than we needed him. That should have been reflected in the post war situation. But it wasn't.

3. NOne of that addresses the fact that Vietnam was part of the Cold War and that the Cold War was thus far longer than 20 years and was very costly in terms of lives and money.

4. Potted plant could "lead" to economic boom and military dominance of America after WWII, what with rest of industrialized world in ruins. That's what was wrong with previous post before you moved goal post.

5. You brought up war in 45. I pointed out that we would have had nukes against soviet that did not. That FDR was dead is not a dispute of that fact. I don't think Stalin would care about his people. I think he would care about whether he could win. Starving people have less military capability.