Grand Cadfael
Freedom fighter
I'm surpised everyone fogot that he helped Wilson run against his own cousin
why do people think FDR was bad
- Thread starter bigmeat
- Start date
DexterJ said:
Did you read the article I posted? It actually contains proof, evidence, facts and an economic analysis of them.
As for your other posts, I know very well that the US eventually recovered from 1929, the question is did FDR's politics made the recovery faster or slower? Read the article.
Arminius
Jeff Vader
Because the ends do not justify the means. It's that simple.
North King said:
That Japan needed badly to continue a war agaisnt Japan. So America is fighting japanese imperialism with American imperialism by your logic, and thats okay by me. Better the embargo then Japan conquering China.
Arminius - what is this a reply to?
Are you implying that he should have helped his cousin? why? if he preffered wilsons politics.
If people have voluntered or been consripted into putting their own lives at serious risk for their government I think they have the right to expect the government help them in their transition back to civilian life, especially if this helps them find gainfull employment.
The Great Depression was finally ended in all countries affected by it with enourmass government spending on re-armament, this is the case for the USA, UK, France and Germany. Government spending stimulated the economey, created jobs and this created knock on jobs. People with jobs spent money - all of this stimulated the ecomey further.
I do not understand peoples arguement criticising the New Deal by saying 'the New Deal was bad because it involved the government spending money to end the depression, this didn't work, the depression was ended by WW2 (ie by government spending)'. The reason the New Deal didnt completley end the Great Depression because it did not go far enough and did not spend enough money.
But I would like to think I am not completley close minded and will read the article now, what else would I be doing at work except arguing New Deal Economics on a Civilization forum!
Neonanocyborgasm
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,695
FDR is widely considered to be the best US president of the 20th century, and possibly of all time, by most historians. This is for the simple reason that he took the US from economic disaster to prosperity and a global superpower all by himself. Those who criticize FDR as being bad are usually extremists of either leftist or rightist best. Rightists think that all the social and economic programs introduced did more harm than good. They should be reminded of the misery of the American economy before he did any of this. The Depression was over before the war began. The war simply invigorated the economy to such a degree that it went from bust to boom with nothing in between. Meanwhile, the leftists decry his foreign policy, without having any perspective that totalitarianism was conquering the world and that the liberal democracies of the world were playing into their hands.
Totally agree. I was always a fan of FDR, since we covered him in GCSE history, and again briefly at university, but after reading FDR champion of freedom by Conrad Black recently I have an even greater appreciation for him and his policies.
You would have to be a pretty weird leftist to oppose his foriegn politics though.
You would have to be a pretty weird leftist to oppose his foriegn politics though.
blackheart
unenlightened
YNCS said:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics and History/fdr_planned_pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/06-04-2001/vo17no12_facts.htm
You cannot discount the fact that there are disparities and the fact that there are eyewitness accounts. FDR wasn't a stupid man. Who was a likely target after Germany had conquered Europe? The US had also already cracked the Japanese code at this time. If I were FDR at this time, I would have done the same thing (except perhaps actually prepare the fleet for an attack). It was the only way to turn public opinion.
As for the New Deal policies. They almost worked. FDR made a good attempt, but the reason they didn't work was that the entire world was in shoddy condition. Global market is a hard one.
Ok I spoke too soon.
Sigh, the first web-site on your list is by an author who claims that the New Deal was a communist conspiracy. You are therefore not looking at evidence compiled by someone capable of rational thought. I skimmed through the 'evidence' he provides and even I (not being an expert on American history) can see mistakes in it. One small example:
As I have previously stated 188 planes were destroyed at pearl habour. Now this mistake cannot prove that this arguement is wrong but is a very obvious error - if the guy cannot get basic facts right I cant see him finding the evidence for some over-arching conspiracy theory.
The second website is a very uncricital interview with an another revisionist historian, who is a 'research fellow' of the very instituion which is interviewing him, so I bet they gave him a real grilling. Though it would appear he is a journalist not an actual historian, I havent been able to find any more information about the guy.
The third website is the same as the first.
The fourth web site is a review of another of these alleged history books by cranky journalists. The New American is not a site or magazine I look to for objective discourse, it seems to be a mouthpeice for the radical right in the USA, which, considering middle ground politics in America is pretty right wing anyway, is pretty radical. The articles seems to focus on pro-life arguements, pro-gun arguements, communist resurrgence in South America and the fact the UN is trying to control America. This is not were you are going to find objective history. One of the first articles I saw was an anti-Roosevelt piece on social security.
As I have previously posted on this thread the base at Pearl Harbour was unprepared for an attack, though it was due to the negligence of the commanders rather than the nefarious plottings of FDR, that well known Marxist (according to the first website link). USA could have declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbour even if they had lost 0 men. If Roosevelt had known in advance, why did he not prepare the base?
There was no way in the American political climate of the time that the USA could have declared war on Japan or Germany first. As war was inevitable in it was only ever going to start with an attack by the Axis on the US. It happened at Pearl Harbour, but it could have been anywhere else. This does not mean Roosevelt let it happen.
There is no need for conspiracy 'theories' or to be more accurate lies. Historians love to argue and debate ideas and theories, and even respectable historians cover a wide political spectrum, rather than just representing the politcal establishment. If any of this was true it would be widely documented.
I don't understand why some people deciede to discredit all respected historical writing and theory and then latch on to the ideas of crazy people who have cranky, very obvious and more than a little suspect political agendas. The trouble with the internet is that anyone can post things on it without a list of sources, for instance, and the worry of being taken to court for libel. Published history will be put under the spotlight by other historians who would be more than pleased to pick holes it int. It is properly footnoted and referenced so that others can go back and check the sources. The internet is not a trustworthy source.
I will end my rant with a quote from FDR: champion of freedom by Conrad Black.
Would I be right in considering myself included in the 'you people' category.
The arguement about internment camps has been posted a few times so far without any adequate defense. There is a reason for this: its indefensible.
This was by far the worst and darkest episode in FDR presidency. However, being the pro-Roosevelt guy that I am I will now try to defend it.
It was initiated by a large scale campaign by Californian politicians and journalists who claimed they had evidence of wide scale Japanese-American espionage fed by fears of invasion. This was supported by Californian governor and attonery general and General Mashal.
There was only one opposing voice in the whole of congress- in the senate by Robert Taft.
There can be no comparison between the conditions and treatment of the Japanese-Americans and the treament of people by the Nazis, Communists and Japanese. There was no mistreatment or brutalisation or undernorishment.
Due to the efforts of Eiesenhower (spelling?) and the American rights bete noir Elanor Roosevelt their conditions were vastly improved from April 1942.
The best argeument possible is that this is all hindsight, and at the time Roosevelt was recieving conflicting advice. And possibly you could argue that given the circumstances, and at times western civilisation seemed to hang in the balance you could maybe say 'better safe than sorry'. Britain interned a lot of people too.
But the people who criticise are right. I would like to think that I would have opposed the internment then, just as I would oppose the internment of Arab-Americans now, which I dont think those that complain about Roosevelt would necessarily.
Arminius
Jeff Vader
The original question.DexterJ said:
Most of all, I dislike his character. He would rather have a million Americans die of starvation and be popular, than end the depression earlier and fall from grace. Truthfully, I think that's what the internment camps were about. He was just trying to stay the most popular politician out there. If that meant doing something wrong, who cares? He said, himself, he would rather be liked than good. With all this in mind, how can we be certain he did not know of the attack on Pearl Harbor? We can't. I'm not saying we should condemn the man over it, but I cannot say I think it outside his character.
Anyway, I think his spending habits are at the center of our problems today.
budweiser
King of the Beers
I think you guys are missing the point of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was 'prepared for an attack'. It just so happens it was prepared for the wrong type of attack. The planes were all lined up to protect against sabotage. There was a large asian population on the island and the local commnaders were worried about spies and saboteurs. The US knew from intelligence that an attack was coming and would hit somewhere. They didnt know where, they assumed Japan would strike the Phillipines. They were worried that saboteurs would coordinate a strike in the Hawaiian islands with the main strike elsewhere.
As for the naval air attack, they never envisioned a carrier strike on Pearl harbor because the water was too shallow, they thought, for a torpedo attack. In fact is was too shallow, but Japan spend months and months designing a special torpedo and developing a shallow water release technique.
So sure, I think the US manipulated Japan into a strike through economic embargo, but they never suspected a hit on the fleet at Pearl Harbor.
As for the naval air attack, they never envisioned a carrier strike on Pearl harbor because the water was too shallow, they thought, for a torpedo attack. In fact is was too shallow, but Japan spend months and months designing a special torpedo and developing a shallow water release technique.
So sure, I think the US manipulated Japan into a strike through economic embargo, but they never suspected a hit on the fleet at Pearl Harbor.
While I don't agree the FDR was the best President the US has ever had I also don't agree with the other extreme that is being presented here. I don't think he was a bad president. He is one of the best the US has ever had and his policies are still alive and well today. I may not like them all but they have made life in the US better in a lot of ways. The rural eletrification act is one great example. Without it most or Rural America would still be behind the rest of the country in services.
I am curious as to why people seem to believe that he lengthened the Depression. What exactly could he have done to shorten it given the time and what was known. It is easy to view things from our perspective and realize the outcomes today, but given the facts at the time I am not sure he could have shortened it by much if at all. It took us going to war to erase the depression, and the fact that the US had the only real industry left after the war to allow us to truly expand the economy from there.
Yes there were mistakes made, but he was not alone in them. If he could have ended the Depressions earlier then he would have. Just as Hoover was not responsible for the Depresions starting, Roosevelt could not have ended it sooner.
I am curious as to why people seem to believe that he lengthened the Depression. What exactly could he have done to shorten it given the time and what was known. It is easy to view things from our perspective and realize the outcomes today, but given the facts at the time I am not sure he could have shortened it by much if at all. It took us going to war to erase the depression, and the fact that the US had the only real industry left after the war to allow us to truly expand the economy from there.
Yes there were mistakes made, but he was not alone in them. If he could have ended the Depressions earlier then he would have. Just as Hoover was not responsible for the Depresions starting, Roosevelt could not have ended it sooner.
Sargon of Agade
Lvl 40 Troll Shaman
Mistreatment? Do you not call holding US citizens in internment camps against their will mistreatment? Is seizing property and money with no justification other then the color of their skin not mistreatment? Noone was brutalized in the Camps as they were in Nazi Germany, but that does not excuse the fact that this really did happen, and FDR let it happen and supported it. If a president has a crime against humanityas one of his accomplishments that takes him out of the running for being the greatest president of United States in my mind.
Lathesca
Chieftain
luiz said:
While some of the points about treatment of the Japanese in America under Roosevelt may have some validity, the 'FDR's economic policies worsened the depression' arguments don't really stand up.
I have skimmed your article, Luiz, and it has some points, but it concentrates on anti-cartelisation, in a context of high wages and increasing labour rights. This is troubolesome in a historical context because how do you define the conditions improving or worsening? Some people may argue, rather radically [!] that receiving higher wages or being placed in a public works scheme and therefore earning is an improvement in conditions, and so the depression.
Anyone who has studied FDR's presidency knows that the economic arguments are very contrary and depend a great deal on which economic theory one subscribes to. I personally believe the economics support the economic improvement argument, and also enabled FDR to quash a number of other social and economic ills, which have already been mentioned. This article alone won't change my ming - where is the rest of the evidence?
The US improvement from depression was actually was impressive in context anyway.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
He wanted more Supreme Court judges so as to bolster his own power. That is a major no-no.
