If Romney pulls out, what happens ?

[Cutlass]

I think making the promise of no americans being sent to die in a foreign war a very powerful campaign promise. Especially when the entire world was being inflamed by it.

Plus, if you really look into FDRs early policies to fight the great depression, one of the first things he did was create the FDIC, and help out the banking industry in order to promote investiment capital and create industrial growth. If he were around today he'd probably get labeled a conservative by todays liberals.

Your really reaching here. Why don't you just admit that FDR would have had a crushing victory over Wilkie no matter what the war issues were?

 

[caketastydelish]

I think making the promise of no americans being sent to die in a foreign war a very powerful campaign promise. Especially when the entire world was being inflamed by it.

Plus, if you really look into FDRs early policies to fight the great depression, one of the first things he did was create the FDIC, and help out the banking industry in order to promote investiment capital and create industrial growth. If he were around today he'd probably get labeled a conservative by todays liberals.

First of all, it's already been established that the war itself was not a primary campaign issue.

Second, creating the FDIC is far more left wing than right wing. How could you say the Republicans who favored less government and such, would support things like the FDIC? It's government regulation, is it not?

FDR had far more government programs going than Obama did. Obama is a conservative in comparison.

 

[MobBoss]

Your really reaching here. Why don't you just admit that FDR would have had a crushing victory over Wilkie no matter what the war issues were?

All we are disagreeing over is the amount that the war in Europe affected the election of 1940. I dont agree with you that it had only a minimal effect on the election.

In fact, from the wiki at least, it alleges that the war in Europe was precisely the reason FDR decided to even run for a third term.

However, as Nazi Germany swept through Western Europe and menaced the United Kingdom in the spring and summer of 1940, Roosevelt decided that only he had the necessary experience and skills to see the nation safely through the Nazi threat. He was aided by the party's political bosses, who feared that no Democrat except Roosevelt could defeat the popular Willkie.

No war, FDR doesnt break with tradition and run for a 3rd term. Seems pretty significant to me. I cant speak to why it doesnt to you.

How can you say it wasnt a primary campaign issue?

 

[Dachs]

When someone with the first name Woodrow can become president he at least had a shot.

Coincidentally, Wilson was an awful president.

I already know about the lend-lease. Germany attacking us without the US officially going to war is just more proof that Roosevelt did a good job of keeping us out of it. Can you imagine what would happen if any country attacked an American vessel today?

The Germans attacked an American destroyer that was escorting a convoy to the UK. What, exactly, were they supposed to do? Just let us keep supplying them with impunity?

And we were definitely shooting back. An American destroyer had already tried to sink a U-boat back in April 1941 (at that point the wolfpacks had only recently started attacking American-flagged merchantmen and tankers). FDR instituted a shoot-on-sight RoE in the fall. We were in that war, regardless of a declaration. The lend-lease was the first step; the undeclared naval war just made it embarrassingly obvious.

Then what were his policies exactly? And why did people get fed up with the Republican Party after him, and continue to vote Democrat for a really long time?

Pretty much the same as Roosevelt's New Deal, except without the fanfare and, to a lesser extent, without quite the investment of resources. For a time, during the campaign, FDR criticized Hoover's spending habits and was seen by some bankers as a return to supposedly sound fiscal policy. Neither Hoover's nor Roosevelt's programs were large enough for Keynesian purposes to work all that well, and appropriately enough, neither one did a particularly good job of improving the economy. Monetary policy manipulation, while it also could have helped, ended up not being a large enough boost either; ultimately, if there was any single silver bullet it was European rearmament spending, which caused an influx of hard currency, especially gold, and eased our tight money problems.

 

[Cutlass]

All we are disagreeing over is the amount that the war in Europe affected the election of 1940. I dont agree with you that it had only a minimal effect on the election.

In fact, from the wiki at least, it alleges that the war in Europe was precisely the reason FDR decided to even run for a third term.



No war, FDR doesnt break with tradition and run for a 3rd term. Seems pretty significant to me. I cant speak to why it doesnt to you.

How can you say it wasnt a primary campaign issue?

You're moving the goalposts again. Given that FDR was running, no war issue made the difference between him winning and losing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Mobby, have you considered getting a job as a sports equipment manager after leaving the military?

 

[caketastydelish]

The Germans attacked an American destroyer that was escorting a convoy to the UK. What, exactly, were they supposed to do? Just let us keep supplying them with impunity?

And we were definitely shooting back. An American destroyer had already tried to sink a U-boat back in April 1941 (at that point the wolfpacks had only recently started attacking American-flagged merchantmen and tankers). FDR instituted a shoot-on-sight RoE in the fall. We were in that war, regardless of a declaration. The lend-lease was the first step; the undeclared naval war just made it embarrassingly obvious.

I can see that taking sides with the UK would provoke Germany, but not justification for war. In any case the amount of shooting that went on during the "unofficial" war between Germany and the United states was nothing compared to when the two were actually at war. To put things in comparison, more Americans and Germans died at D-day (many times over) than all the germans and americans combined from the pre-war shipping convoys.

Pretty much the same as Roosevelt's New Deal, except without the fanfare and, to a lesser extent, without quite the investment of resources. For a time, during the campaign, FDR criticized Hoover's spending habits and was seen by some bankers as a return to supposedly sound fiscal policy. Neither Hoover's nor Roosevelt's programs were large enough for Keynesian purposes to work all that well, and appropriately enough, neither one did a particularly good job of improving the economy. Monetary policy manipulation, while it also could have helped, ended up not being a large enough boost either; ultimately, if there was any single silver bullet it was European rearmament spending, which caused an influx of hard currency, especially gold, and eased our tight money problems.

Yep. The difference is one of them created programs that looked good, the other one actually poured money and effort into the programs.

 

[Lord Gay]

@ OldSchooler and Quintillus

I thought I'd share the joke I was making that you guys didn't get (I was counting how many).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism

My posts may make more sense to you now.

 

[Dachs]

I can see that taking sides with the UK would provoke Germany, but not justification for war. In any case the amount of shooting that went on during the "unofficial" war between Germany and the United states was nothing compared to when the two were actually at war. To put things in comparison, more Americans and Germans died at D-day (many times over) than all the germans and americans combined from the pre-war shipping convoys.

This is such an irrelevant comment I'm not totally sure where to go with it. Duh, the undeclared naval war hadn't intensified to the degree it later would. So freaking what? We were still at war. And it happened on FDR's orders. Therefore his violation of the campaign promise of keeping the boys out of foreign wars was absolutely in his hands; he wasn't merely forced into it by the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Does that mean I think that he was a bad president, a bad person for breaking a campaign promise, or that fighting an undeclared naval war with the Nazis was a bad thing? Of course not. I already freaking said that it was one of the best things he ever did. You don't have to paint me as some nut-job Pat Buchanan-style isolationist loon, because I'm not. I don't have any political agenda here, I'm not a Republican and I don't particularly like Romney or dislike Obama. It's just in the interests of historical accuracy.

Yep. The difference is one of them created programs that looked good, the other one actually poured money and effort into the programs.

No, the difference is that one of them created programs that didn't really do much and caused reactionaries to sidle away and the other created programs that didn't really do much but looked flashy and caused reactionaries to sprint as fast as possible in the other direction.

 

[caketastydelish]

@dachs:

1. When did I ever call you a republican? When did I ever call you a Romney supporter? When did I ever call you an Obama hater? In fact, when did I say it would even matter whether you are any of those things or not?

2. I can see how the lend-lease, as well as getting shot and and shooting back at Germany would have us go to war with Germany, but not Japan. Yes the two were allies, but they still weren't the same. Japan was the one that attacked us, not Germany. And I highly doubt Japan's motivation was the lend-lease program United States had with Britain. I doubt they particularly liked our lend-lease with the enemy of their ally, but they wouldn't have cared enough to go to war with us over that.

3. As to Hoover, the stock market crash of 1929 happened on his watch, not Roosevelt. His deregulation (as well as the deregulation of the 1920's) is what lead the crash in the first place. FDR's regulation is what built the country up for a strong economy.

 

[otago]

If it comes out that Romney paid no/sod all tax in 2009 and had a Swiss bank account so he could bet against the US dollar would that make any difference to any conservative supporters here ?

 

[Dachs]

@dachs:

1. When did I ever call you a republican? When did I ever call you a Romney supporter? When did I ever call you an Obama hater? In fact, when did I say it would even matter whether you are any of those things or not?

You were arguing - and are again in this very post - points I've never made or even come close to making, so I assume you think that I'm some kind of wingnut with easily categorizable positions that you can fire off a boilerplate response to stuff I've never even said but only, supposedly, implied.

I'm now realizing that that's not the case and you just have no idea what you're talking about.

2. I can see how the lend-lease, as well as getting shot and and shooting back at Germany would have us go to war with Germany, but not Japan. Yes the two were allies, but they still weren't the same. Japan was the one that attacked us, not Germany. And I highly doubt Japan's motivation was the lend-lease program United States had with Britain. I doubt they particularly liked our lend-lease with the enemy of their ally, but they wouldn't have cared enough to go to war with us over that.

Japan is irrelevant. Ignore it. FDR's campaign promise was not "I will not get your boys into foreign wars with Japan, but Germany is fair game". It was a rejection of foreign wars in toto. He then embarked on a policy that he knew would lead to a collision between Nazi Germany and the United States, and capped that policy by making the choice to order American soldiers to engage in combat with the Germans. Regardless of whether Japan decided to attack or not, the United States was at war in late 1941. It was at war because of FDR's policy. And that means that FDR broke his campaign promise to avoid foreign wars. It's really not hard.

3. As to Hoover, the stock market crash of 1929 happened on his watch, not Roosevelt. His deregulation (as well as the deregulation of the 1920's) is what lead the crash in the first place. FDR's regulation is what built the country up for a strong economy.

Nonsense. The crash happened chiefly because of tight money, something that was arguably not even under his control anyway. And it was resolved because money stopped being tight, something that was not under FDR's control when it happened. Deregulation was sort of an issue, but not enough of one to make or break the Depression on its own, and Hoover certainly wasn't the guy who was responsible for the minimally regulated state of the American economy. ("The entirety of American politicians before 1929" were.) Both of them tried similar methods to try to combat the depression, but neither did enough of them to make a difference and the only real difference was that FDR did them longer and with more fanfare.

 

[caketastydelish]

Japan is irrelevant. Ignore it. FDR's campaign promise was not "I will not get your boys into foreign wars with Japan, but Germany is fair game". It was a rejection of foreign wars in toto. He then embarked on a policy that he knew would lead to a collision between Nazi Germany and the United States, and capped that policy by making the choice to order American soldiers to engage in combat with the Germans. Regardless of whether Japan decided to attack or not, the United States was at war in late 1941. It was at war because of FDR's policy. And that means that FDR broke his campaign promise to avoid foreign wars. It's really not hard.

This is what I get from that: "You can't blame FDR for the war with Japan, but you can blame him for the war with Germany." Fair enough. I don't think people voted for FDR because of campaign promise to end the war in the first place, so much as their trust in him with the economy. I'd say the argument you use below could be applied here. That is, involvement of the war with Germany was not just FDR, but the congress, the house, etc. They supported him in his decision to go to war, and they technically didn't have to. The lend-lease, from what I understand, is just another issue where they didn't have to support him. But they did.

Still, the technicality remains the Germany declared war on the US first. Yes we were already giving them hell before that, but the severity of that was drastically increased once we were officially at war. But then again, they also made the stupid mistake of declaring war on Russia. As they say, "hitler bit off more than he could chew"

Nonsense. The crash happened chiefly because of tight money, something that was arguably not even under his control anyway. And it was resolved because money stopped being tight, something that was not under FDR's control when it happened. Deregulation was sort of an issue, but not enough of one to make or break the Depression on its own, and Hoover certainly wasn't the guy who was responsible for the minimally regulated state of the American economy. ("The entirety of American politicians before 1929" were.) Both of them tried similar methods to try to combat the depression, but neither did enough of them to make a difference and the only real difference was that FDR did them longer and with more fanfare.

I was thinking the stock market crash of 1929 had similarities to the recession/bailouts of today, only that one was much worse.

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is what I get from that: "You can't blame FDR for the war with Japan, but you can blame him for the war with Germany."

But you can totally blame him for the war with Japan. Not in an ethical sense, but in terms of a total failure of his East Asian diplomacy.

 

[Dachs]

But you can totally blame him for the war with Japan. Not in an ethical sense, but in terms of a total failure of his East Asian diplomacy.

Doesn't that assume that his East Asian diplomacy could, theoretically, have succeeded? Because I feel like that wasn't really in the cards.

 

[MobBoss]

Doesn't that assume that his East Asian diplomacy could, theoretically, have succeeded? Because I feel like that wasn't really in the cards.

Depends on what the goal actually was. If it was to piss them off to the point of them going to war with us - then it was a success.

 

[Dachs]

Depends on what the goal actually was. If it was to piss them off to the point of them going to war with us - then it was a success.

Japan attacked the United States for several reasons, but "being pissed off" is not one of them.

 

[MobBoss]

Japan attacked the United States for several reasons, but "being pissed off" is not one of them.

Your're right, i'm sure they were perfectly happy with the stuff FDR did to them in his foreign policy in the East. But my actual point was less about Japan, and more about the foreign policy goals (overt or covert) of the administration of that time.

 

[Dachs]

Your're right, i'm sure they were perfectly happy with the stuff FDR did to them in his foreign policy in the East. But my actual point was less about Japan, and more about the foreign policy goals (overt or covert) of the administration of that time.

The administration was painfully soft on Japan for the longest time. Japan invades one of our biggest trading partners? Let em off with a warning! Japan commits some of the most horrific atrocities in modern times, while destroying American property and assaulting an American diplomat? Fortunes of war, guys! Japan bombs a US Navy gunboat and kills American servicemen? Tsk tsk!

Only when the Japanese made it inescapably clear that they wanted to conquer probably all of East Asia with the seizure of French Indochina did the Roosevelt administration do something semi-meaningful, the oil embargo. Sure, if you view the whole parade of East Asian history between 1931 and 1940 as irrelevant, if you ignore the ongoing aggressive Japanese war in China, then maybe the oil embargo could look like the irresponsible act of a lunatic brinksman dead set on war at any cost. If you seriously think that the demand that Japan abandon its China war was irresponsible and that Japan had the right to massacre millions of Chinese and conquer vast tracts of land to fuel its war machine, then yeah, you might say that the Japanese were rightly bound to reject our demands and that Roosevelt was a madman.

I mean, if you're okay with approving of one of the few states in world history that be reasonably seen as uncompromisingly evil, you can reasonably claim that Roosevelt's oil embargo "pushed" the Japanese into a war of our making, not theirs.

 

[Leoreth]

But then again, they also made the stupid mistake of declaring war on Russia. As they say, "hitler bit off more than he could chew"

That's a very Western front centric take on the situation. If anything, attacking Russia was the whole point of the war, and certainly couldn't be avoided in any case. You might remember that it was France and Britain who declared on Germany - they certainly weren't Hitler's prime targets.