why do people think FDR was bad

[Lathesca]

He wanted more Supreme Court judges so as to bolster his own power. That is a major no-no.

The supreme Court packing episode is a whole other matter. I'm not sure anyone really knows what the hell was going on there. I think he made bad choices, and some historians argue his usual astuteness and subtlety inexplicably disappeared for a few months. I think there was more to it than merely increasing his own power. The defeat certainly screwed him up for a while though!

 

[ravensfire]

One of FDR's best traits was the restoration of hope to the American people. He came into a bad situation and put effort into making it better. They didn't all work, but the American people saw him trying to make things better.

The Depression was more than a financial hit to America, it was a shock to the pride of American's. After WWI, the American economy was roaring ahead, with no end in site. The rapid crash did more than bankrupt finances, it bankrupted the will of America. FDR helped restore that with his words and his actions. American's saw him as someone who cared about them, and was trying to help him.

The right person, with the right words, can make a lasting impression on history.

-- Ravensfire

 

[bombshoo]

I think the only 2 things FDR did wrong was the interment camps, and giving Stalin too much power at Yalta.

 

[YNCS]

...giving Stalin too much power at Yalta.

I hear this complaint every so often. I usually ask "what was Roosevelt supposed to do?"

Please don't try to tell me that the Western Allies could have walked all over the Soviet Army. The Wehrmacht would have to disagree with that.

Both FDR and Truman (I include Truman because of Potsdam) were in what everyone knew was a marriage of convenience with Stalin. FDR, a remarkably charming man, believed that he could charm Stalin into doing what he wanted. He was, of course, completely wrong in this belief. But both he and Truman were partnered with Stalin on the basis of the old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

How were FDR and Truman going to sell this new war to the American people? They were sick and tired of the war. Can you imagine the reaction if the President would have said, "Remember the Russians who were our allies for the last several years? Well, we want to go to war against them." The general attitude would have been "Who gives a damn who rules Poland? I just want my husband home."

The US would have gotten no help from the Brits, because the British economy had been ruined by the war and the British were at the end of their manpower. There is no way that Atlee would have aided a war against Stalin -- he was far too busy with problems at home.

 

[bombshoo]

Well we didn't have to go to war, but its generally excepted, Roosevelt was very generous at Yalta.

At Potsdam however, Truman and Atlee were alot less flexable. Stalin did always seem to get what he wanted, but when he asked for a Russian base in the near east, or Anatolia, they simply told him no way, and he backed off.

Stalin also made a suggestion that Franco could be hiding Hitler, and that they should help set up a coup against him..Again Truman and Atlee, told him they would have no part.

There was numerous other things like this that happened at Potsdam..The big diffrence was Truman usally said no, while Roosevelt would tend to agree and compromise more.

All I think Roosevelt had to say was no sometimes. Stalin was ready for another war, but sure as hell did not want WWIII coming half a year after WWII. Actually had it been, the US might have won..Since it would have been awhile before the Russians got the A-bomb...

I still think Roosevelt was one of our best presidents, and both his biggest mistakes, he was put under extreme pressure to make.

 

[YNCS]

One other thing about FDR at Yalta was that his health was so bad that his performance was impaired. His mind wandered and he found it hard to concentrate on matters at hand. Harry Hopkins said, in his memoirs, that he doubted Roosevelt heard half of what was said to him. FDR died less than two months after Yalta.

 

[bombshoo]

I didn't even think about that, but your probaly right..Roosevelt was in poor health, probaly better then him sending someone else though..Imagine what Stalin would have thought if he sent Truman or someone else to the meeting in his place.

 

[Sargon of Agade]

The discussion of Russia annexing territory and occuping what it had taken during the war was hardly if not at all discussed at Yalta to the disgust of many British and French politions, especially Churchil who saw that Stalin had only one or two more opprotunities to be reined in or he would get away with "murder." That was a huge mistake, it lead to the killing of millions of more people, the oppression of millions of more, and the cold war. Roosevelt was too sick for it and should not have been there, I can't blame him for running for another term, and I admit he was a great president, but we are talking about the fate of countless people, and the mistakes that he made seem to take him out of the running for me... I hope everyone he likes him so much opposes Curious George's efforts to butcher Social Security which is a "crisis" made up by the administration trying to create an issue over something that will not happen. The 2018 numbers are based on an estimate that the GDP growth of the US up to 2013 will be less then his estimates of cutting the bugdet deficit in half by that time. A crisis can be fabricated if you fudge the numbers, but from the 2000 debates we know how good George is with numbers.

 

[Hamlet]

That was a huge mistake, it lead to the killing of millions of more people, the oppression of millions of more, and the cold war.

But again, as has already have been said, what the devil was the alternative? Would you like to propose one?

Are you seriously suggesting that Stalin would have abandoned the whole of Eastern Europe as a result of a few stiffly-worded protests from the Allies?

Perhaps if Roosevelt had been in a better state, some concessions could have been gained from Stalin, and the ultimate plan for the peace clarified. But to believe that the Cold War resulted from the 'failures' of the Yalta conference is naive lunacy.

 

[Creepster]

Perhaps if Roosevelt had been in a better state, some concessions could have been gained from Stalin, and the ultimate plan for the peace clarified. But to believe that the Cold War resulted from the 'failures' of the Yalta conference is naive lunacy.

I agree the only choice was to continue with the war, except this time it would be against Russia or to accept some concessions and end the war. The American people would not have let him continue the war. We had had four years of it and wanted it over. Evryone wanted it over by them.

 

[DexterJ]

to argue that the British opposed Russia whereas the USA and more specifically FDR appeased them is garbage.
Churchill had already agreed to Soviet control of Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and to some degree Poland in Moscow in October 1944. Britain had voted with the Russian at the European Advisory Committee to divide Germany into different equal zones of control, giving the east to the USSR, and also in moving the Soviet and Polish borders westwards therefore moving soviet influence west.
Accounts from Yalta which are critical of FDR's involvement tend to be from British arch-americanophobes (if thats a word) and lurid allegations from McCathyite republicans in the 1950's.
Yalta was in Feb 1945, the detonation of the first atomic bomb was on July 16, 1945, prior to this the allies didnt have the military strength to force the USSR to surrender its aquisitions in Eastern Europe even if they wanted to. They still believed they needeed the USSR to assist in the invasion of Japan, due to the very high losses this would involve.

No accounts of Yalta at the time described FDR as having diminishing mental powers. Harriman describes his as 'worn, wasted but alert'. James Brynes 'marvelled' at his mastery and presentation of material at the conference. Stettinius described his performance as 'a definitive answer to the sensational storied without foundation that circulate about his health'. The theory that FDR was unfit physically and intellectually stem from primarily an allged statement from Hopkins to Halifax after FDRs death that FDR did not follow half of what occured there. Neither Halifax nor Hopkins accounts can be trusted. Hopkins son Robert was present as a military photographer and declared that FDR was alert at all times and that his father had made no such statement. Halifax only began to put forward this claim about Hopkins after FDR and Hopkins death.
The British had from start of the USA invovlement in WW2 been pushing for invasion of parts of Europe, such as Italy and Norway, which would have resulted in the Russians seizing more of Europe than they did anyway. Churchill opposed the Normandy landings and after they took placed pushed for allied involvement in minor theatres.
FDR did not gamble the national interests of the USA, the cause of democracy, or the sacrificies of the US armed forces at Yalta. He believed that the USSR could be contained and would one day be overwelmed by democratic forces. and it was. At the time no one could prevent Stalin consolidating his hold on Eastern Europe without the cost of another war which would be unthinkable. FDR limited the power of the USSR by refusing to share atomic secrets, basing US troops in Germany, aquired naval bases in the pacific and atlantic, prevented Italy, Greece and Yugolsavia from falling into the Soviet sphere, and encouraging China as a great power to counter balance the USSR.
What the Soviets 'won' at Yalta their armies already possesed, if it was such a success why did the USSR violate so many of its clauses?
I havent finished this post but I want to go to the pub. I will add some more tomorrow.

 

[Stapel]

Overall, he was good!

His best thing was realising the threat of Hitler. His poorest thing was trusting Stalin.

About his policies on economy: Luiz' article has something to it. But that is easy to say now, from our 2005 pov. I think he was really thinkingthe New Deal was a good thing. Today, we know Keynes was wrong....

 

[bombshoo]

to argue that the British opposed Russia whereas the USA and more specifically FDR appeased them is garbage.
Churchill had already agreed to Soviet control of Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and to some degree Poland in Moscow in October 1944. Britain had voted with the Russian at the European Advisory Committee to divide Germany into different equal zones of control, giving the east to the USSR, and also in moving the Soviet and Polish borders westwards therefore moving soviet influence west.
Accounts from Yalta which are critical of FDR's involvement tend to be from British arch-americanophobes (if thats a word) and lurid allegations from McCathyite republicans in the 1950's.
Yalta was in Feb 1945, the detonation of the first atomic bomb was on July 16, 1945, prior to this the allies didnt have the military strength to force the USSR to surrender its aquisitions in Eastern Europe even if they wanted to. They still believed they needeed the USSR to assist in the invasion of Japan, due to the very high losses this would involve.

No accounts of Yalta at the time described FDR as having diminishing mental powers. Harriman describes his as 'worn, wasted but alert'. James Brynes 'marvelled' at his mastery and presentation of material at the conference. Stettinius described his performance as 'a definitive answer to the sensational storied without foundation that circulate about his health'. The theory that FDR was unfit physically and intellectually stem from primarily an allged statement from Hopkins to Halifax after FDRs death that FDR did not follow half of what occured there. Neither Halifax nor Hopkins accounts can be trusted. Hopkins son Robert was present as a military photographer and declared that FDR was alert at all times and that his father had made no such statement. Halifax only began to put forward this claim about Hopkins after FDR and Hopkins death.
The British had from start of the USA invovlement in WW2 been pushing for invasion of parts of Europe, such as Italy and Norway, which would have resulted in the Russians seizing more of Europe than they did anyway. Churchill opposed the Normandy landings and after they took placed pushed for allied involvement in minor theatres.
FDR did not gamble the national interests of the USA, the cause of democracy, or the sacrificies of the US armed forces at Yalta. He believed that the USSR could be contained and would one day be overwelmed by democratic forces. and it was. At the time no one could prevent Stalin consolidating his hold on Eastern Europe without the cost of another war which would be unthinkable. FDR limited the power of the USSR by refusing to share atomic secrets, basing US troops in Germany, aquired naval bases in the pacific and atlantic, prevented Italy, Greece and Yugolsavia from falling into the Soviet sphere, and encouraging China as a great power to counter balance the USSR.
What the Soviets 'won' at Yalta their armies already possesed, if it was such a success why did the USSR violate so many of its clauses?
I havent finished this post but I want to go to the pub. I will add some more tomorrow.

I am not only talking about limiting them in the land area they got, but in influence all over the world. The Soviets would have gone nuts had we told Greece or Turkey to invade the Balkans, but they do the same in N. Korea and Vietnam later..FDR failed to define some kind of barrier to prevent them from making jerk moves like Korea. Not to say niether side would have not violated them, but it would have taken longer...FDR was not manipulated or anything by Stalin, but he did make some mistakes that Truman fixed at Yalta..I still like FDR alot, probaly are best president, but Stalin respected him, and FDR could have been abit firmer sometimes. In foreign relations Stalin was used to not getting what he wanted, he would of course argue his position to the very end, but he wouldn't fight for it..Stalin even said It would take the USSR 10 years to recover from the war, and had he not died..Maybe Korea would have dragged out 2 more years, and Russia would have entered.


Actually, sharing our atomic secrets with Russia would have not done much anyways...We weren't even sure what we had was right at all, and Stalin and no interest in Atomic energy, thinking "a bomb is just a bomb"

We did need them to invade Japan though your right...Thats another reason I justify the A-bomb..it limited the USSR's influence in Asia to North Korea.

 

[Case]

Today, we know Keynes was wrong....

That's something of an overstatement - while some elements of Keynes' 'General Theory' have been proven wrong, the Keynesian framework still dominates the way all national Government's manage the macro-economy. This is clearly demonstrated by government's willingly spending more than their revenue during economic downturns and less than their revenue during good periods.

It's also worth noting that FDR's policies weren't Keynesian, for the simple reason that they pre-dated Keynes' 'General Theory', which was first published in 1936.

 

[DexterJ]

Originally Posted by Stapel
Today, we know Keynes was wrong....

on the contrary the only country which followed a 100% Keynsian approach to solving the Great Depression was Sweden which recovered much quicker than any other nation.

In 1931 in Sweden, wages had been falling and unemployment had been rising. Communist agitation had also been rising, and that year labor unrest and the use of strikebreakers resulted in bloodshed. Sweden's moderately conservative government was, however, pursuing a policy of maintaining the nation's money supply -- at least at higher levels than was the United States.

Sweden's industrial production fell no more than ten percent from its peak in 1929. And its unemployment rose no higher than twelve percent. Nevertheless, the relatively hard times in Sweden resulted in a loss of power for the incumbent conservatives. In September 1932 the Social Democrats were elected to power. During the following winter the crisis in agriculture deepened, and unemployment rose. The Social Democrats entered an alliance with Sweden's Farmer's Party, giving the government as broad a representation as possible. Then Sweden's economy hit bottom -- a few months later than it did in the United States.

But Sweden would recover faster. This was the result of both a liberal monetary policy and public spending. A reduction in taxes for the average wage earner gave him more money to spend. A raised minimum wage increased the ability of low-income people to spend money. The government increased investments in public works. Federal money was pumped into unemployment insurance, medical care and old age pensions. The government willingly created a deficit, believing that it was emergency spending that would be paid back after the recovery. And with recovery being rapid and revenues increasing as a result of the rising economy, the deficits were quickly overcome.

Government participation in the economic life of Sweden had increased. The government supported farm prices and protective tariffs for farm products, and giving aid to the unemployed in farming areas helped to slow migration from the countryside into the cities. The Social Democrats gave labor the right to strike, but Sweden had a board that settled worker-management grievances, a board in which labor and management had confidence. And peace between labor and management benefited the economy.

Sweden's industrialists were disgruntled over higher taxes on their personal incomes, but they did not feel threatened to the extent that they withdrew from participating in the economic recovery. Manufacturing was to remain over ninety percent in the hands of capitalists, and business profits were left untaxed in order to stimulate rapid reinvestment. By 1936, industrial production in Sweden was 50 percent above what it had been in 1929 and unemployment had returned to five percent.

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch15wd.html - quite an interesting website comparing the depression in various countries.

 

[Titan2018]

Hahaha. Try going about modern life without using any oil. ANY.

Well as was stated there would have been plenty of oil to go around if it weren't for the war effort.

 

[Oivind]

I am pro Illuminati, how could I be anti FDR. The best US policies ever conducted was conducted 1932-1948. Yes I attribute Truman to FDRs leadership. Also, I am extreme right wing, non-religious that is, but not a neo-classicist either. Traditional right wingers can barely cook up a two year plan. In fact there are brilliant right wingers and incompetent right wingers. I prefer Jiang Zemin any day to Calvin Coolidge.
Some people can whimper, but it is the illuminati types giving the grand results.

Jiang Zemin!?

Thats just stupid, shame on you f... facist!!!