Franklin Roosevelt's Infatuation

[regent]

One concern of the depression was that people would eventually revolt as a few other nations had revolted against a bad economy and any other reason that appealed to them.
There are always cadres about making revolt noises, as even today there are those anxious to try their guns out, and other anxious for whatever. In a crisis those cadres grow.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


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

And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.

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

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.

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.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?

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.

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.

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.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
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.

You responded with 'nukes'

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.

FDR had no nukes- ever. You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.

 

[Syriusly]

One concern of the depression was that people would eventually revolt as a few other nations had revolted against a bad economy and any other reason that appealed to them.
There are always cadres about making revolt noises, as even today there are those anxious to try their guns out, and other anxious for whatever. In a crisis those cadres grow.

There was a very serious concern about that in 1932 and 1933- newspapers were predicting revolution, farmers had taken over highways- 1933 was a powder keg. And we survived.

We can't predict for certain how things would have turned out if FDR was not elected, or if he had different policies- but we can see how we emerged at the end of his presidency- and we came out of it far better than Hoover left the United States.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.

Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.

He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.

 

[Camp]

I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.

Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.

He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.

Mindless drivel.

 

[regent]

Great name calling with naught behind it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

 

[Dot Com]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?

 

[Camp]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.

You think Stalin gave a single fuck about casualties???? in 1933 he STARVED 6 million of his own fucking people to death!

Stalin defeated the Nazis and the USA. Who the fuck held back Patton from entering Berlin a month ahead of Stalin?

Stalin wanted Normandy to fail. That's the only reason he ordered FDR's bone-headed invasion of a continent we were already on. I'm sure he did everything in his power to get Hitler to reinforce Normandy and not fall for the Calais diversion, but Hitler would not listen.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


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

And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.

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

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.

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.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?

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.

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.

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.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
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.

You responded with 'nukes'

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.

FDR had no nukes- ever. You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

I agree- at least in part. However, as I point out we do know how history turned out. Any alternative policies are necessarily speculation- and very well could have turned out worse. The United States at the end of WW2 was the most powerful country in the world, our citizens, the most prosperous- that is a pretty good result- compare that to the end of WW1


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

And if FDR had done that- and just presumed that Germany could not defeat the USSR- but it ended up winning? Then what? You presume that FDR made the wrong decision, and that is based upon your presumption that Germany could not defeat the Soviets- and in 1942 that was anything but a sure thing.

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

Again- how? Stalin ignored the agreements that were made.

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.

Vietnam was the end of the combat part of the Cold War- which ended just over 20 years after the end of WW2. The rest of the 'Cold War' was not costly in terms of lives- sure we spent money on it- but again- what was the alternative? Do you think we should have gone to war with the USSR in 1945 to prevent the Cold War?

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.

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.

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.

And you complain about me moving goal posts?

Here is my post- in response to your claim that FDR gave the USSR half of Europe:
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.

You responded with 'nukes'

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.

FDR had no nukes- ever. You brought up nukes in response to my post about FDR not giving Stalin half of Europe- now you don't want to talk about FDR?

In 1945 we had 3 nuclear bombs- 1 we tested in New Mexico- 2 we dropped on Japan. We had no nukes to use against the Soviets in 1945- unless we decided suddenly that forcing the Soviets out of Poland was more important to us than defeating Imperial Japan. And of course FDR had nothing to do with those decisions.

Speaking of starving people- in 1945- the 'starving people' included most of Western Europe- which the United States was trying to keep fed. Going to war with the Soviet Union would not have helped them.

If you want to speak complain about FDR giving up too much to Stalin- limit that discussion to the time he was actually alive.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.


2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.



3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.



4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.



5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".



6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45.

1.When you make an historical judgement on an historical events, you invite speculation on alternative possibilities.

Agreed- but speculation is what it remains- and has to be.

2. With the roll the Nazis were on, it was completely reasonable for the layperson to fear that the Nazis were unstoppable Supermen. Of course, FDR had put himself forward to be LEader of a large nation, and really should have been able to look deeper and further than Panic.

And how did FDR 'panic'? He capably led the United States to victory over both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Lend Lease worked- the Soviets did the majority of the hard work defeating Nazi Germany, likely saving tens if not hundreds of thousands of U.S. lives- and yes that is speculation.

3. Not sure why you keep saying 20 years. Vietnam ended in 75. Afghanistan was part of the COld War too, and it didn't end until 89.

You are correct- for some reason I kept thinking Vietnam ended in '68. We didn't have soldiers in Afghanistan- but yes- I will concede that was part of the Cold War also. However- in my opinion- the United States still ended 'winning' the Cold War- and at far less cost than going to war with the Soviets in 1945.

4. THe US economy was not Third Rate before FDR. That is not factual. The US economy became the world's largest economy in 1880, two years before FDR was born.

I haven't been able to find the details- but looking at some charts- you appear to be correct- I stand corrected.

But you are cherry picking my post to nit pick- what I said still stands- other than 'third rate economy'

Maybe- maybe not- yet my point is factual- yours is speculation. During FDR's presidency- and under his leadership- the United States went from a third rate economy and military power to the most powerful and most prosperous country in the world. And those are the facts.


5. He signed agreements that recognized Soviet control over Eastern Europe on the promise of free elections. He gave them vast amounts of military and economic aid so that they could advance faster and further. He made no efforts to enforce those promises, which were obvious lies. It is not unreasonable to use the word "gave".

Oh yes it is unreasonable to use the word gave- it would be frankly dishonest. FDR did sign agreements with Stalin on how to administer Europe after the war ended. This of course happens about 2 years after we started Lend Lease with the Soviets. FDR made not effort to enforce those promises because FDR was dead by the time the Soviets were clearly breaking them.

Your alternative? That FDR let the USSR take on Germany on its own doesn't guarantee that the Soviets would have not taken Eastern Europe- instead what is more likely is one of two scenarios- either Germany defeats the Soviets- which means Nazi Germany remains in control of all of Europe- or that the Soviets beat Germany on its own- and takes all of Europe except for Italy, which would be the only European country the Western Allies would control.

6. YOu brought up the idea of a us/ussr war in 45

You are the one who said that FDR should have threatened Stalin with nukes.

The idea that any 'agreement' would have resulted in Stalin peacefully withdrawing from Eastern Europe in 1945 is pretty ridiculous- because yes Stalin was a liar- and a dictator. He didn't care whether or not his people suffered hardships- he had more troops in Eastern Europe than the Western Allies had in all of Europe. Stalin was not leaving Eastern Europe in 1945 without a fight- a fight which America didn't want.

 

[Syriusly]

I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.

Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.

He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.

There is a reason I basically ignore Frank's threads- they are all much of the same.

He is PC light.

 

[Syriusly]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

You have let Stalin direct your posting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?

Education coming your way!
Better duck!

1. World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.

When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.

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

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.




2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin



3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Georgy Zhukov hero file



Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
"Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.

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


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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.

Stalin killed them, you fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I too grew up being taught that FDR was "the greatest President" who "rescued capitalism" and "won WWII" , etc.

Once you look behind the curtain, you learn FDR was the biggest lying scumbag who the Founding fathers are still beating daily in the afterlife.

He was Stalin's sock puppet and fuck toy.

There is a reason I basically ignore Frank's threads- they are all much of the same.

He is PC light.

Good reason you ignore them: he destroys you.

 

[Camp]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

What a stupid concept. Stalin orchestrated FDR to allow over 10 million Russians military killed and another 14 million civilian casualties compared to several hundred thousand US KIA casualties? And we are to believe it was not FDR, but rather Stalin that led that war that defeat the Nazi's according to Frank's post.

Stalin killed them, you fool.

Millions of German soldiers were killed by Russian soldiers, who in turned killed Russian soldiers by the millions, you dunce.

 

[Dot Com]

No matter the spin PoliSpice puts on it, Many more Russians perished fighting the Nazis

 

[Dot Com]

FDR let Stalin direct our WWII military strategy.

how many Russians died fighting the Nazis Frank57?

Education coming your way!
Better duck!

1. World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis.

When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat.

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

The Soviet Union killed more than twenty million men, women and children.




2. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin



3. "In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Georgy Zhukov hero file



Russians would do anything not to return to Roosevelt's pal's 'paradise.'
4. The 850,000 strong army of Gen. Andrei Andreyevich Vlasov, having gone to the other side, Germany, "to save their country from Stalin" and having later surrendered to US forces, "formed the core of those forcebly repatritated between 1944 and 1947."
"Operation Keelhaul; The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present.by Julius Epstein p.27, 53.

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


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

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

The same "Tolstoy" that was found guilty of libel? Come on PoliSpice.