Political History

[Decepticonus]

Hoover is a lot like Dubya IMO in regards to getting blamed for economic problems.

Heh, 50/50. He did raise the deficit pretty badly, his tax cuts didn't help, wars usually hurt economies in the long run. But yeah, Clinton's previous stuff finally started to take effect under Bush.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Overall though the economy went down due to the banking and housing reforms of the 90's. While Bush's policies didn't help, it's not like they were the cause of the problems like Clinton's policies were.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Honestly, most of his policies became the New Deal. Public works existed BEFORE FDR it's just that FDR put public works on over-time.
FDR expanded and spent more on Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation to basically bail out banks. This was passed under the Emergency Relief and Construction Act which too was expanded under FDR.
Then Hoover's Federal Farm Board was just replaced with Farm Credit Administration under FDR. There are some differences but they're basically the same thing for farm relief.
FDR was just a better politician.

When you think about it, it's pretty much an example of "nice guys finish last". Hoover was a great humanitarian, but went down in history as "causing the Great Depression". FDR had a ton of perosnal flaws, made some terrible executive decisions, but used the same policies as Hoover to become the "savior of America".

 

[Decepticonus]

When you think about it, it's pretty much an example of "nice guys finish last". Hoover was a great humanitarian, but went down in history as "causing the Great Depression". FDR had a ton of perosnal flaws, made some terrible executive decisions, but used the same policies as Hoover to become the "savior of America".

Voters are usually stupid people. It's a complete myth that FDR saved the economy and ended the Great Depression. But it doesn't matter, the myth was efficient in making people think he made a difference, therefore it is still a good myth. FDR was quite the egotistical, self-centered and vindictive individual. He cheated on his wife, was rarely there for his children, believed we could trust Stalin???? Yeah. If you didn't vote his way in the party he made sure your state got no funds and you were outted in the next election. He was a C average student in college who could have benefited from taking an economics course or two. It was FDR who helped breed FDR, though indirectly. A man who fans cannot even lay down one single thing he did domestically for the country. "Civils rights?" No, sorry that was thanks to his better half.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Overall though the economy went down due to the banking and housing reforms of the 90's. While Bush's policies didn't help, it's not like they were the cause of the problems like Clinton's policies were.

Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in '99 had a lot to do with it. It was under Clinton, but pushed by a GOP congress so both can carry some blame for that one (just like DOMA). That allowed Wall Street to take unethical and greedy risks with their depositor's money, such as gambling with funds they had in affiliated banks and engaging in cut-throat competitive practices with other banks and gouging their wealthier clients damaging the whole economic institution in the process.

Here's an argument made for it: http://www.wallstreetwatch.org/reports/sold_out.pdf

Of course, there's tons of other causes, and it can be traced to both parties, and the actions taken by both the private and public sector. But I think the repeal of that act was at least a huge factor.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Voters are usually stupid people. It's a complete myth that FDR saved the economy and ended the Great Depression. But it doesn't matter, the myth was efficient in making people think he made a difference, therefore it is still a good myth. FDR was quite the egotistical, self-centered and vindictive individual. He cheated on his wife, was rarely there for his children, believed we could trust Stalin???? Yeah. If you didn't vote his way in the party he made sure your state got no funds and you were outted in the next election. He was a C average student in college who could have benefited from taking an economics course or two. It was FDR who helped breed FDR, though indirectly. A man who fans cannot even lay down one single thing he did domestically for the country. "Civils rights?" No, sorry that was thanks to his better half.

I don't want to get into a heated political debate, but all I'll say is I like to seperate the personal from the political when discussing Presidents. You may be right that he was an awful human being (I'd have to read more about those claims), but I don't care about that as long as the actions taken in the service of the country he was elected to lead are sound and right. As for Stalin… c'mon, man, it was an "enemy of my enemy" situation. If we didn't make an alliance with Stalin, World War II would have been lost and we would be pledging allegiance to the swastika today. That doesn't mean he liked Stalin or thought he was a good guy, just that the Third Reich was the much more immediate threat and we needed to cordinate our forces with the Soviets in order to divide Germany's attention and squeeze them through the Western and Eastern fronts.

 

[Decepticonus]

I don't want to get into a heated political debate, but all I'll say is I like to seperate the personal from the political when discussing Presidents. You may be right that he was an awful human being (I'd have to read more about those claims), but I don't care about that as long as the actions taken in the service of the country he was elected to lead are sound and right. As for Stalin… c'mon, man, it was an "enemy of my enemy" situation. If we didn't make an alliance with Stalin, World War II would have been lost and we would be pledging allegiance to the swastika today. That doesn't mean he liked Stalin or thought he was a good guy, just that the Third Reich was the much more immediate threat and we needed to cordinate our forces with the Soviets in order to divide Germany's attention and squeeze them through the Western and Eastern fronts.

Fair point.
It is true he trusted Stalin.
"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

In fact, from the beginning of the Soviet Union until FDR's administration (so well over a decade), the U.S. didn't even recognize the state of the Soviet Union. Understandably, yes an enemy of my enemy, but that doesn't make it better. And there's no evidence that we would be saluting the swastika. It was mainly the Russians who beat Germany, not us or Britain, sorry.
as Hoover stated...

"If we go further and join the war and we win, then we have won for Stalin the grip of communism on Russia... Again I say, if we join the war and Stalin wins, we have aided him to impose more communism on Europe and the world. At least we could not with such a bedfellow say to our sons that by making the supreme sacrifice, they are restoring freedom to the world. War alongside Stalin to impose freedom is more than a travesty. It is a tragedy."

And lately I have been pondering Hoover's idea, which was to not intervene but instead let the two satans as he called it (Russia & Germany) duke it out and then go take care of the survivor before they catch their breath.
Now poor FDR didn't realize until sometime before his death that Stalin wasn't "that kind of a man." But too late. FDR is almost indirectly responsible for the Cold War.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Fair point.
It is true he trusted Stalin.
"I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of a man. ... I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

Okay. Well fair's fair, so fair point to you too. I didn't know that, so yes that's a bit disturbing. Do you have a source?

In fact, from the beginning of the Soviet Union until FDR's administration (so well over a decade), the U.S. didn't even recognize the state of the Soviet Union. Understandably, yes an enemy of my enemy, but that doesn't make it better. And there's no evidence that we would be saluting the swastika. It was mainly the Russians who beat Germany, not us or Britain, sorry.

as Hoover stated...

"If we go further and join the war and we win, then we have won for Stalin the grip of communism on Russia... Again I say, if we join the war and Stalin wins, we have aided him to impose more communism on Europe and the world. At least we could not with such a bedfellow say to our sons that by making the supreme sacrifice, they are restoring freedom to the world. War alongside Stalin to impose freedom is more than a travesty. It is a tragedy."

And lately I have been pondering Hoover's idea, which was to not intervene but instead let the two satans as he called it (Russia & Germany) duke it out and then go take care of the survivor before they catch their breath.

It's true, Russia spilled a lot (and I mean a LOT) more blood in WWII, but for such an ideological opponent of the USSR and Stalin, you must know how bad it would have been for Europe if we allowed Russia to "liberate" all the Axis countries by their lonesome (and not just from a political stand-point; I'm sure you're familiar with all the raping and executions that the Red Army perpetrated as they swept into Berlin). And if they could defeat the Axis, then what makes you think we could defeat them when they were done? Stalin had no hesitance in pouring millions of lives into his military campaigns, something we did even back in World War II. The Iron Curtain could have descended fully and utterly over the entirety of Europe if we just left his advances unchecked like that and hoped for the best.

And that's IF the Soviet Union was successful at all. If we didn't win WWII we at least shortened it. How many more years would have passed, and ethnic minorities would have been sent to their deaths even if the USSR ultimately prevailed? How messy would such a victory have been? And how irresponsible a gamble is it to just hope things pan out for the best? As someone whose extended Jewish lineage was wiped out in the holocaust I can't accept such an isolationist stand-point. Now what is true and what I really hate about FDR (and what is a hugely valid criticism that I haven't seen you bring up), is that he knew about the concentration camps through spy networks and did virtually nothing. He should have been bombing them in '43.

Now poor FDR didn't realize until sometime before his death that Stalin wasn't "that kind of a man." But too late. FDR is almost indirectly responsible for the Cold War.

Then you also must take Churchill to task a bit. He was in that Yalta conference too. And whatever horrors resulted from the Cold War, I still wouldn't rewrite our role in World War II. The risk of the Third Reich prevailing or us sacrificing our superpower status by sitting out what many consider the only truly "just" war and submitting to the Soviets taking the lead in WW II, would have left a far more disastrous legacy for this country and the world.

 

[Decepticonus]

Okay. Well fair's fair, so fair point to you too. I didn't know that, so yes that's a bit disturbing. Do you have a source?



It's true, Russia spilled a lot (and I mean a LOT) more blood in WWII, but for such an ideological opponent of the USSR and Stalin, you must know how bad it would have been for Europe if we allowed Russia to "liberate" all the Axis countries by their lonesome (and not just from a political stand-point; I'm sure you're familiar with all the raping and executions that the Red Army perpetrated as they swept into Berlin). And if they could defeat the Axis, then what makes you think we could defeat them when they were done? Stalin had no hesitance in pouring millions of lives into his military campaigns, something we did even back in World War II. The Iron Curtain could have descended fully and utterly over the entirety of Europe if we just left his advances unchecked like that and hoped for the best.

And that's IF the Soviet Union was successful at all. If we didn't win WWII we at least shortened it. How many more years would have passed, and ethnic minorities would have been sent to their deaths even if the USSR ultimately prevailed? How messy would such a victory have been? And how irresponsible a gamble is it to just hope things pan out for the best? As someone whose extended Jewish lineage was wiped out in the holocaust I can't accept such an isolationist stand-point. Now what is true and what I really hate about FDR (and what is a hugely valid criticism that I haven't seen you bring up), is that he knew about the concentration camps through spy networks and did virtually nothing. He should have been bombing them in '43.



Then you also must take Churchill to task a bit. He was in that Yalta conference too. And whatever horrors resulted from the Cold War, I still wouldn't rewrite our role in World War II. The risk of the Third Reich prevailing or us sacrificing our superpower status by sitting out what many consider the only truly "just" war and submitting to the Soviets taking the lead in WW II, would have left a far more disastrous legacy for this country and the world.

Understand, we more or less let them "liberate" those countries and well keep them. Now would Stalin have pushed further say into France? It's hard to say, it's possible but we do not know.

This notion of FDR knowing of the camps is news to me and I still have to read into it. But did all of America, like normal citizens know this at the time? Nope! This needs to be understood of WWII. FDR always wanted war in Europe, basically for glory and to ride the coat tails of his mentor - Wilson. He was only able to go to war with Germany, because they declared war on us for declaring war on Japan due to Pearl Harbor. It was not some great righteousness we went there. It was known Jews were getting bad treatment over there of course, but systematic murder? No one knew or could have imagined. And I'm not saying what he did was not just and we didn't have a role in WWII, of course not. But understand, most of the credit goes to the Soviets. When it appears in our country America gets all the credit, when it shouldn't.

And yes, Churchill is accountable as well. I won't argue that, it's just that we're discussing FDR here not Churchill.

My source as you asked for
Miscamble, Wilson D. (2007). From Roosevelt to Truman: Potsdam, Hiroshima, and the Cold War. Cambridge University Press p. 51-52

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'm not convinced FDR ever really trusted Stalin. I think he may have believed that he understood him, and could keep him in check. Stalin had a history of making people underestimate him, and then outplaying them. Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and of course Trotsky come to mind.

But to be fair to Roosevelt, he may simply not have cared much about what happened in East Europe. Unlike say Churchill, for whom the independence of Poland was a matter of honor, and thought the UK's betrayal of Czechoslovakia was an old shame.

 

[Mightmitenot]

Thomas Jefferson, who advocated abolition for others but kept his slaves, denied the metric system and slandered yankee professors.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Understand, we more or less let them "liberate" those countries and well keep them. Now would Stalin have pushed further say into France? It's hard to say, it's possible but we do not know.

This notion of FDR knowing of the camps is news to me and I still have to read into it. But did all of America, like normal citizens know this at the time? Nope! This needs to be understood of WWII. FDR always wanted war in Europe, basically for glory and to ride the coat tails of his mentor - Wilson. He was only able to go to war with Germany, because they declared war on us for declaring war on Japan due to Pearl Harbor. It was not some great righteousness we went there. It was known Jews were getting bad treatment over there of course, but systematic murder? No one knew or could have imagined. And I'm not saying what he did was not just and we didn't have a role in WWII, of course not. But understand, most of the credit goes to the Soviets. When it appears in our country America gets all the credit, when it shouldn't.

And yes, Churchill is accountable as well. I won't argue that, it's just that we're discussing FDR here not Churchill.

My source as you asked for
Miscamble, Wilson D. (2007). From Roosevelt to Truman: Potsdam, Hiroshima, and the Cold War. Cambridge University Press p. 51-52

FDR undoubtably knew that mass murder was going on in Poland circa 1944 in the "concentration camps". Between German reports intercepted by the British and American intelligence, and the escapees, that much was clear. Doubtful that he knew the full scope of the killings, which was unprecedented, but it was clearly not business as usual.

FDR had little interest in the matter. I recall that Spaatz at least was open to idea of bombing Auschwitz, and the railway lines. It was a topic of debate in the upper echelons of the US military.

I would say that the average American did not know the true nature of the Holocaust, but it was clear that Germany had engaged in what we would today call ethnic cleansing. Reports of industrial centers designed for the sole purpose of extermination would most likely be dismissed as propaganda though.

The average German was almost certainly aware that a genocide was going on, but again, the exact details and scope would be unclear.

 

[Decepticonus]

Well screw that crippled bastard. He obviously wouldn't "stand" for the people in the camps.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Understand, we more or less let them "liberate" those countries and well keep them. Now would Stalin have pushed further say into France? It's hard to say, it's possible but we do not know.

My point was, if we let the Soviets take the Western Front too (and I suspect they would have, since they had designs on Korea by the end of WWII) then the entirety of Europe would have ended up under communist rule (not just the Eastern bloc).

That, or if they were unsuccessful, National Socialist (aka Nazism) rule. So it's kind of choose your poison. You're against us allying with Stalin at the time, but I think you have to consider the consequences of a global war between the Soviets and Nazis with no interference from us and the UK, with both those pretty barbaric powers using every other country as a battlefield or a political pawn. It's all speculation on our part since we have no way of knowing for sure, but I'm not confident the USA as we know it today would still be in existence. We became a global superpower through our involvement in World War II; one that ultimately prevailed over the Soviet Union. Do you think the USSR would have just dissolved on its own if we hadn't participated in WWII? If anything it would have become far stronger than it eventually became, probably holding countries like Japan, Korea, all of South East Asia and, worst case scenario, a good chunk of Western Europe and Latin America. They would know we were too isolationist (or cowardly) to confront or try to stop their domination. That's my own theory of how things would have played out, but we can never know for sure.

This notion of FDR knowing of the camps is news to me and I still have to read into it.

If you don't like FDR (and it seems you definitely don't) then it will be catnip for you. It's one of my major problems with him.

But did all of America, like normal citizens know this at the time? Nope! This needs to be understood of WWII. FDR always wanted war in Europe, basically for glory and to ride the coat tails of his mentor - Wilson. He was only able to go to war with Germany, because they declared war on us for declaring war on Japan due to Pearl Harbor. It was not some great righteousness we went there.

Perhaps, but I'd rather focus on the end result. I mean, strictly stopping slavery was probably not Lincoln's primary cause for waging the American civil war either.

It was known Jews were getting bad treatment over there of course, but systematic murder? No one knew or could have imagined. And I'm not saying what he did was not just and we didn't have a role in WWII, of course not. But understand, most of the credit goes to the Soviets. When it appears in our country America gets all the credit, when it shouldn't.

Well, you say it was an awful thing to ally with Stalin's Russia, but you also concede they were the driving force behind defeating the Nazis, which no one can deny was necessary for the survival of the civilized world (at least from my perspective). So while we can take FDR to task for many things, if we are trying to defeat Nazi Germany then I'm still not seeing why this was a bad thing. Not to get off topic, but look at Iraq now; we're giving tacit support and cooperation to the Iranians as we try to tackle a greater evil in ISIS. Does that mean we like Iran? Hardly. But a common threat is one that demands we put off our own animosity towards one another and unite to combat a far more urgent danger. Again that's how I saw the US-USSR alliance during WWII.

And yes, Churchill is accountable as well. I won't argue that, it's just that we're discussing FDR here not Churchill.

Fair enough.

My source as you asked for
Miscamble, Wilson D. (2007). From Roosevelt to Truman: Potsdam, Hiroshima, and the Cold War. Cambridge University Press p. 51-52

Thanks! I didn't doubt you, but I always like to fill gaps in my knowledge when I find out this kind of stuff.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The thing no one mentions is that the USSR would likely have collapsed without American and British aid. If you ever see footage of the Fall of Berlin, look closely at the Red Army. You'll see Willys jeeps, Studebaker and Chevrolet trucks, and Harley Davidson motorcycles.

The Katyusha rockets that bombarded the Reich Chancellery on Hitler's last birthday in 1945 were mounted on the back of Studebaker trucks from Michigan. The Red Army soldiers that stormed the Reichstag wore boots made in America.

All in all, the US provided the Red Army with some 500,000 wheeled vehicles, 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 15,000 pieces of artillery, and ... God only knows how many small arms. They're probably still being used in North Korea.

But that's not even mentioning the little things like food. Or petrol.

 

[Decepticonus]

We've held up plenty of horrible dictatorships and foreign policies only for it to bite us back. I W\would of preferred no entangling alliances much like the founders said. They lead to nothing but trouble. Fighting Nazism was right and just, I just WISH we could have done it without the Soviets. Hell, I still find it odd Churchill was able to compromise and aid with Russia, he was vehemently anti-communist. He said righter after WWI "Kiss the hun, kill the bolshe" whereas FDR came off as "meh" to the communists by comparison.

 

[Decepticonus]

The thing no one mentions is that the USSR would likely have collapsed without American and British aid. If you ever see footage of the Fall of Berlin, look closely at the Red Army. You'll see Willys jeeps, Studebaker and Chevrolet trucks, and Harley Davidson motorcycles.

The Katyusha rockets that bombarded the Reich Chancellery on Hitler's last birthday in 1945 were mounted on the back of Studebaker trucks from Michigan. The Red Army soldiers that stormed the Reichstag wore boots made in America.

All in all, the US provided the Red Army with some 500,000 wheeled vehicles, 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 15,000 pieces of artillery, and ... God only knows how many small arms. They're probably still being used in North Korea.

But that's not even mentioning the little things like food. Or petrol.

True, when Hitler first invaded Russia, they (Russia) indeed were mounting up for war but were not ready. Much like how Mussolini said Italy wouldn't fully be ready for war until 1943 roughly I believe.
Plus, this is the Soviets. Like Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear with their cars. It's as if they looked at the worst cars in the world and asked themselves "how can we make it worse?" Now just apply to everything.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The US was fighting Nazism through the Soviets.

Essentially, World War II in Europe was a battle between Fascism and Communism, with America picking up the check for the Communists.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

True, when Hitler first invaded Russia, they (Russia) indeed were mounting up for war but were not ready. Much like how Mussolini said Italy wouldn't fully be ready for war until 1943 roughly I believe.
Plus, this is the Soviets. Like Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear with their cars. It's as if they looked at the worst cars in the world and asked themselves "how can we make it worse?" Now just apply to everything.

But does that point change your view at all on the US/UK sitting out the war and hoping for the best?

 

[Thundercrack85]

True, when Hitler first invaded Russia, they (Russia) indeed were mounting up for war but were not ready. Much like how Mussolini said Italy wouldn't fully be ready for war until 1943 roughly I believe.
Plus, this is the Soviets. Like Jeremy Clarkson said on Top Gear with their cars. It's as if they looked at the worst cars in the world and asked themselves "how can we make it worse?" Now just apply to everything.

Oh, Mussolini. You probably cost Germany the war.

Worst axis ever.

 

[Decepticonus]

But does that point change your view at all on the US/UK sitting out the war and hoping for the best?

I'm not sure I am following in what you are asking here.

 

[Decepticonus]

Oh, Mussolini. You probably cost Germany the war.

Yes, you mean that "source of embarrassment to us everywhere." Sorry, but I got to agree with the bohemian corporal on that.
But I'd argue it was also using all that manpower and resources to systematically kill off people and fund the holocaust. Even his generals were like - why not take a break from killing the jews, fight the war, win, then come back and finish the job?

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

I'm not sure I am following in what you are asking here.

Well, you imply that the Soviets didn't need our help in order to defeat the Nazis, but you also conceded they relied heavily on our financial assistance in order to do so.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think Hitler's fanaticism cost him most in East. The Germans could have been viewed as liberators in the Baltic States, and even the Ukraine. He could have easily turned them against the Soviet Union. Instead, he wanted to starve everyone to death, and destroy every city.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The thing no one mentions is that the USSR would likely have collapsed without American and British aid. If you ever see footage of the Fall of Berlin, look closely at the Red Army. You'll see Willys jeeps, Studebaker and Chevrolet trucks, and Harley Davidson motorcycles.

The Katyusha rockets that bombarded the Reich Chancellery on Hitler's last birthday in 1945 were mounted on the back of Studebaker trucks from Michigan. The Red Army soldiers that stormed the Reichstag wore boots made in America.

All in all, the US provided the Red Army with some 500,000 wheeled vehicles, 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 15,000 pieces of artillery, and ... God only knows how many small arms. They're probably still being used in North Korea.

But that's not even mentioning the little things like food. Or petrol.

I've seen personal letters from Stalin to FDR at the FDR Presidential Library from as late as May 1944 that are basically Stalin begging FDR to hurry up and open a third front in France.