The Lies of Franklin Roosevelt

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis is the larger historical picture, is often omitted. Add to that from the Monday morning quarter-back position we can not only look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one. Posters on these boards are limited in giving the whole historical picture but not in labeling historical mistakes or their version of the proper solution.
Professional historians often do the same but other historians point out their errors. For example, Beard wrote a history saying that the framers in writing the Constitution intended it to be for the benefit of the wealthy and for themselves. Other historians called Beard on his interpretation and Beard accepted the criticisms. Eventually historians get history correct.
As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other? And a good historian would ask what was the significant or importance of the statement.

1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."

I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.


2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."

As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.


No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.



3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
I did so....here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html




4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.

And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.

"...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.

FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation." That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.

1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments..."

FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?





2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."

This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.

"Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls



You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.

 

[regent]

1. "The problem with selecting isolated faults on a piecemeal basis...."

I haven't done that. I've provided numerous examples, documented and linked, designed to lead to the overwhelming conclusion about FDR and the Soviets.


2. ".... is the larger historical picture, is often omitted."

As you haven't denied what I have provided....I would be more than appreciative if you would give some explanation of FDR's propensities in said regard......giving the larger picture.


No one has been able to do so. I await your insight.



3. "...look at the mistake but present a different action as the correct one."
I did so....here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/329174-fdr-and-what-could-have-been.html




4. "As to your tid-bit of history that FDR said we were like the Soviets, if true, what was the larger picture at the time, what was FDR's intent. Did FDR mean we were like the Soviets in that we were communists, or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

William Bullitt was FDR's first ambassador to Moscow.....and began as a supporter of the communists.
He became a strong anti-communist and his warnings to Roosevelt were ignored.

And the officers of the Foreign Service who opposed communism were purged....as per the demands of Stalin.

"...or that we were like the Soviets in that we were both fighting Germany, or other?"

We weren't fighting Germany in 1933, when FDR first recognized the USSR, even though he knew that Stalin had killed more of his own people than Hitler, later, would.

FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation." That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.

1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments..."

FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?





2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."

This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.

"Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls



You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.

Reality.

As to the will of the how does one define that? Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments: the "US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation." That has been America's policy on recognition, not always followed by every administration but our policy, in short, we recognize the government in power. That policy probably reflected on America's need to be recognized after our revolution.

1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments..."

FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?





2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."

This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.

"Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls



You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.

Reality.

As to the will of the how does one define that? Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.

So....the "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," not to immerse their hands in the blood.....they were out of touch with reality?


You can do better, reggie.



And please....don't conflate the American Revolution, and the people involved, with the homicidal maniacs of Soviet Russia, and the abattoir they designed.

 

[regent]

1. "FDR was following America's first Secretary of State's, Jefferson, policy on recognizing foreign governments..."

FDR came into office March 4th of 1933. On November 16, 1933, President Roosevelt rushed to embrace....recognize...the USSR. If this act, based on FDR's additional pro-Soviet endeavors, was rational....then these folks must have been irrational: "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," i.e., refusal to recognize the Soviet government. That was written by Herbert Hoover, one of those four Presidents. He wrote it in his "Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath" by George H. Nash, published posthumously, obviously, in 2011, pg 24-29.

So....who suffered from cognitive dissonance?





2. ""US should acknowledge any government to be rightful which is formed by the will of the nation."

This argument is insane...even from an FDR-sycophant like you, reggie.

"Russian Civil War (1917-22): 9,000,000"
Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls



You have yet to explain FDR's infatuation with Stalin, and communism.

Reality.

As to the will of the how does one define that? Not the will of the people, certainly that is questionable for the US Revolution when only one third of the people in the colonies wanted the revolt.

So....the "Four Presidents and their six Secretaries of State for over a decade and a half held to this resolve," not to immerse their hands in the blood.....they were out of touch with reality?


You can do better, reggie.



And please....don't conflate the American Revolution, and the people involved, with the homicidal maniacs of Soviet Russia, and the abattoir they designed.

This is like grade school. The four president's followed Wilson's lead in demanding the debts that Tsarist Russia owed America be paid. FDR negotiated a debt payment plan and recognized the USSR. The debt negotiations were carried on until Hitler became a threat.
The American Revolutionists were probably considered traitors not communists.

 

[bripat9643]

FDR is responsible for the Communist genocide of almost 100 million humans. The world would have been a better place if he didn't so openly support Mao and Stalin.

You must get this information to the historians of America, every historical group in this country should know this new information. As soon as the historians know what you know they will stop rating FDR as America's greatest president and rate him, at least sixth worst, just below Bush. Don't waste a minute.

Why would a bunch of commie historians change their view of FDR?

 

[bripat9643]

When you send all those historians the facts on FDR you might include a little reminder about critical thinking. Those historians have been rating presidents since 1948 and by this time they may be getting a little senile, so the more help they can get from posters on facts, on history, and critical thinking, the better.

"When you send all those historians..."



That requires this explanation of another of our differences.



I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.


I can read, analyze, and do research.

You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."



Get this:
Historian is a term for those who study history.
I study history....albeit not from 1948...
I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.

Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

 

[regent]

"When you send all those historians..."



That requires this explanation of another of our differences.



I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.


I can read, analyze, and do research.

You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."



Get this:
Historian is a term for those who study history.
I study history....albeit not from 1948...
I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.

Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

Or anything else.

 

[Unkotare]

FU to all those who would knock FR.

FUCK YOU to all the scumbags like YOU who would play the apologist for FDR, the worst villain to ever soil the office of President of the United States.

 

[gipper]

FU to all those who would knock FR.

Are you a statist? Do you love big unlimited government? If so, you have learned nothing from history other than lies and misinformation, promoted by Statists.

Why would you admire an elitist fool like FDR?

 

[bripat9643]

Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"When you send all those historians..."



That requires this explanation of another of our differences.



I never assume anyone else....anyone.....has a greater ability than I at having expertise. I read sources from both left and right.


I can read, analyze, and do research.

You, it seems, allow others to tell you what to think....e.g., "historians."



Get this:
Historian is a term for those who study history.
I study history....albeit not from 1948...
I must be one of those historians you claim to rely on.

Nope I don't rely on someone who claims that the only qualification to be an historian is to say, "I study history."

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

reggie ads "must be a qualified Liberal/Progressive/DeathPanelDemocrat," too.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.

[In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
“The Death of Feminism,” by Phyllis Chesler



2. Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia. No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
b. These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
c. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

 

[regent]

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.

[In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
“The Death of Feminism,” by Phyllis Chesler



2. Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia. No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
b. These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
c. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.

[In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
“The Death of Feminism,” by Phyllis Chesler



2. Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia. No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
b. These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
c. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

 

[regent]

This applies to the academics on whom reggie relies:

1. Academic feminists who received tenure, promotion, and funding, tended to be pro-abortion, pro-pornography (anti-censorship), pro-prostitution (pro-sex workers), pro-surrogacy, and anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-American…proponents of simplistic gender-neutrality (women and men are exactly the same) or essentialist: men and women are completely different, and women are better. They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth.

[In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear.
“The Death of Feminism,” by Phyllis Chesler



2. Liberals stamp out dissent by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. This is the modern version of methods used by medieval Christianity: a secular Inquisition.
a. Intelligentsia as grand inquisitors: in the media, universities, the law, political and professional groups. The dominating ideologies include anti-capitalism, feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism. They form the unchallengeable orthodoxy in academia. No challenges or deviations are permitted, and anyone who does not share these values is defined as extreme.
b. These ideologies have as their common theme the overturning of the established order of the West.
c. How ironic that intellectual liberty is assaulted within the institutions of reason.
Melanie Philips, “The World Turned Upside Down,” ch 6

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

Actually I have a 'candidate' in mind who did better....economically, and by reversing FDR's love affair with Stalin and his regime.


But that is hardly the issue...
Far too many are like you and refuse open their eyes to the glaring disservices and calumnies of Franklin Roosevelt.


You have neither addressed nor challenged the charges that he lied to the American public.


Could Americans make a mistake and elect a man to the presidency who shouldn't have been?

Well...they elected a rapist, and the current incompetent.....

 

[regent]

That pretty much is the only qualification to be an historian.

Or anything else.

Wrong. To be a physicist, you actually have to be able to do math, like calculus and differential equations. The same goes for being a chemist, an engineer or an computer programmer.

And if someone calls himself all of those titles and can't do long division what happens?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't think historians or even FDR are much bothered by these evaluations.

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.

 

[regent]

This isn't about 'bothered'......it's about rectitude, right and wrong, justice.


But you know that, don't you....

....you've run out of excuses for FDR, and have admitted that you are simply his lap-dog.


Stop slobbering all over his shoes.

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think FDR has a need for excuses, rated our number one president by historians, elected four times by the people, that pretty much says it all. Can your candidate beat that?

You STILL have nothing but fallacy. You can't even pretend to defend the scumbag FDR.

No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln. At times some lies and historical untruths need to be corrected but even the 238 noted historians and authorities on presidents agree with me that FDR's number one, the top of the heap, king of the road. So what about the people that lived during his terms in office, four times they elected him. Hard to beat that record. Sure it's gotta hurt but....

1. "No one needs to defend FDR any more than they need to defend Lincoln."

The fact that I've posted several OPs with dozens of FDR's shortcomings casts the lie to your post.


2. "... 238 noted historians and authorities..."

Will you ever stand on your own two feet, and stop hiding behind Liberal academics?

Wanna go to your Mommy? She has your bottle heated up.