nvm

[Karalysia]

I grow bored of this. You've failed to address any of my points. You keep harping on things I've already refuted and rebutted. You cling to a ridiculous idealism of how things should work rather than how they actually work and how they always have worked.

And yes if I have to explain to you why workers protection, labor unionization and organization, minimum wage, child labor laws, economic regulation, and social welfare programs are a good thing then you are a reactionary who would be better off living in 19th century England.

 

[North King]

Tell me, LightSpectra, who exactly in your book were good presidents?

 

[Lord Baal]

In FDR's defence, he was at least willing to try new things to end the GD, unlike some others. Unfortunately, he didn't actually know what he was doing. He sabotaged efforts to combat the GD as much as he fought them.

While I'm unwilling to blame him for his ineffectiveness in combatting the GD - after all, it was a pretty novel situation that the US wasn't even close to prepared for - I am more than willing to blame him for his sheer incompetence during the war. He despised Charles De Gaulle to the point where he had the Secret Service outside the room armed with automatic weapons at their first meeting, and openly supported the collaborationist Vichy regime. He ordered the cooperation with the traitor Admiral Darlan that damn near pushed De Gaulle's Free French into open hostilities against the Americans, over Churchill's objections (not to mention his own generals).

He undermined Churchill's efforts to secure the post-war world through secret meetings with Stalin, supported the stupid and dangerous Morgenthau Plan, made deals with the local quislings in Europe - Darlan was the worst, but far from the only one - and his stupid policies were responsible for the disasters in the Pacific. The man was a terrible war-time president, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and a terrible diplomat as well. What makes it even worse is that the arrogant git actually thought he was good!

 

[.Shane.]

He helps end a global war in less than 4 years and you call him a "terrible" war time president? I'd never argue he was perfect and would certainly admit the US has it's share of terrible actions, but on the whole he was an excellent wartime president. That said, your comment is so ridiculous I'm not sure I want to waste any time refuting it.

 

[Lord Baal]

He helps end a global war in less than 4 years and you call him a "terrible" war time president? I'd never argue he was perfect and would certainly admit the US has it's share of terrible actions, but on the whole he was an excellent wartime president. That said, your comment is so ridiculous I'm not sure I want to waste any time refuting it.

He could have helped end that war years ealier if he'd listened to his generals. For that matter, the disaster in the Pacific owes everything to two men: FDR and Douglas MacArthur. FDR for being stupid enough to put the US forces in the Pacific in an entirely indefensible position, and MacArthur for not counterattacking and leaving his planes on the ground for Japan to destroy at will, almost a full day after the war began.

FDR pushed for Operation: Torch and Overlord, neither one of which were the best choices - or even very good choices - at the time, he alienated the entire Free French regime through his ridiculous behaviour towards De Gaulle - the results of which were felt strongly during De Gaulle's Presidency - and did many other stupid things besides.

Can you refute ANY of that, or are you just going to tell me I'm ridiculous?

 

[Karalysia]

Hawaii was perfectly defensible. No one expected an attack on Hawaii. Not FDR, not any of the Admirals. Not intelligence. No one. Some even suggested that the forces be deployed in the Phillipenes which were compeltly indefensible as we know. Hawaii was a useful port and forward base. You're forcing me to dig out my notes from last semester but as I recall the main failures were unpreparedness of US military forces in both the navy and air force, intelligence failure on their part in failing to foresee such an attack, negligence by military officials involved. It the military and intel that dropped the ball here. Not FDR.

This is the first thing I'm hearing about De Gaulle but as I understand he was a brash and arrogant man, easy to dislike and hard to work with with a overinflated ego, delusions of grandeur, who fancied himself a new Napoleon. I don't find it hard to believe that FDR wasn't too fond of him.

 

[Lord Baal]

Hawaii was perfectly defensible. No one expected an attack on Hawaii. Not FDR, not any of the Admirals. Not intelligence. No one. Some even suggested that the forces be deployed in the Phillipenes which were compeltly indefensible as we know. Hawaii was a useful port and forward base. You're forcing me to dig out my notes from last semester but as I recall the main failures were unpreparedness of US military forces in both the navy and air force, intelligence failure on their part in failing to foresee such an attack, negligence by military officials involved. It the military and intel that dropped the ball here. Not FDR.

Hawaii was perfectly defensible, yes. The Philippines was not, and shifting the amounts of forces there that they did - which included robbing the Hawaiian command of much needed air defences - was negligent in the extreme. This decision was not reached by FDR, but he signed off on it, even though he personally expressed concerns. It's more Hull's fault - and even more the poopstorm over control of intelligence between the army and navy - than FDR's, true, and I put too much blame on him in my previous post. He was reliant for strategic advice on his staff, but he was still silly enough to ignore those members of the military who counselled him that Japan was an immediate threat in favour of the unabashed wishful thinking that Japan would just stand by and allow the US to destroy them with an economic embargo while re-inforcing their military in the Far East. Any idiot could see that this was practically inviting a pre-emptive strike. Shifting the front-line to the Philippines was ungodly stupid.

Incidentally, it was this shifting of the front-line to the Philippines that made Hawaii vulnerable to attack. Most of the long-range bombers which it could have used to counter-attack were sent to MacArthur instead, and they were denied intelligence about Japanese movements on the basis that they were no longer the front-line. I believe they actually had their "Purple" code-breaking machine removed and sent to Singapore for the British, while MacArthur was given two.

This is the first thing I'm hearing about De Gaulle but as I understand he was a brash and arrogant man, easy to dislike and hard to work with with a overinflated ego, delusions of grandeur, who fancied himself a new Napoleon. I don't find it hard to believe that FDR wasn't too fond of him.

All true. Unfortunately for that argument, FDR hated De Gaulle before he'd even met him, and continually attempted to marginalise him despite Churchill's support of the man, and the obvious political advantages of favouring De Gaulle. As late as the invasion of Sicily, FDR was supporting Petain as the leader of post-war France. That right there would be a nice way to cause a civil war. And he did this repeatedly throughout the war.

As I said, the first time the two men met, the Secret Service were so concerned over De Gaulle that they were armed with automatic weapons ready to shoot him. This was due to the constant character-assassination De Gaulle suffered at the hands of the pro-Vichyites in FDR's inner-circle, including FDR himself. You should read some of the mocking messages he sent to Churchill about De Gaulle. It got so bad that De Gaulle turned to Stalin for support. Stalin, already having come to an arrangement with FDR, essentially ignored De Gaulle.

De Gaulle was brash and arrogant, and had a nasty habit of being difficult because of his undying belief in the superiority of the French to the British, but he was actually a big admirer of American culture until his treatment by the Americans during the war. It's no wonder he hated you guys when he became President.

Besides, it wasn't Napoleon De Gaulle believed himself to be. I think it was Foch.

 

[Camikaze]

Hawaii was perfectly defensible, yes. The Philippines was not, and shifting the amounts of forces there that they did - which included robbing the Hawaiian command of much needed air defences - was negligent in the extreme.

So because the Philippines was lacking in defence, propping its defences up was a negligent move?

This decision was not reached by FDR, but he signed off on it, even though he personally expressed concerns. It's more Hull's fault - and even more the poopstorm over control of intelligence between the army and navy - than FDR's, true, and I put too much blame on him in my previous post. He was reliant for strategic advice on his staff, but he was still silly enough to ignore those members of the military who counselled him that Japan was an immediate threat in favour of the unabashed wishful thinking that Japan would just stand by and allow the US to destroy them with an economic embargo while re-inforcing their military in the Far East. Any idiot could see that this was practically inviting a pre-emptive strike. Shifting the front-line to the Philippines was ungodly stupid.

I would've thought that saying that he was moving the front-line to the Philippines (a focal point for any Japanese expansion necessitated by the embargo), due to the threat of a Japanese attack, and saying that he wasn't guarding against such an attack, are contradictory statements. If FDR didn't think that Japan would declare, then what was the justification for seriously ramping up defences in the Philippines, an inevitable target of Japanese expansion?

Also, I was under the impression that the military opinion of the time was that Pearl Harbour was safe from attack, due to supposed logistical impossibilities in carrying out an effective attack, and due to the depth of the Harbor itself. FDR can hardly be blamed for the incorrect assessment of the military.

Incidentally, it was this shifting of the front-line to the Philippines that made Hawaii vulnerable to attack. Most of the long-range bombers which it could have used to counter-attack were sent to MacArthur instead, and they were denied intelligence about Japanese movements on the basis that they were no longer the front-line. I believe they actually had their "Purple" code-breaking machine removed and sent to Singapore for the British, while MacArthur was given two.

Well without claiming that FDR had advanced knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and accepted it as an opportunity to enter the war, I don't see how this would've made any difference, given that these code breaking machines would be much more useful in the centre of the action (Indochina and the Philippines) following any Japanese declaration of war, than they would in Hawaii. So unless you are arguing that FDR did have advanced warnings of the attacks (the Purple code-breaking was only for diplomatic, not naval codes, remember), moving these machines can't be held against him.

 

[Lord Baal]

So because the Philippines was lacking in defence, propping its defences up was a negligent move?

Yep. The Philippines was inherently indefensible from a naval attack. It's coastline is greater than that of the entire US. Sending more troops and planes there was just asking for Japan to eat them. Especially sending them piecemeal, while antagonising Japan politically.

I would've thought that saying that he was moving the front-line to the Philippines (a focal point for any Japanese expansion necessitated by the embargo), due to the threat of a Japanese attack, and saying that he wasn't guarding against such an attack, are contradictory statements. If FDR didn't think that Japan would declare, then what was the justification for seriously ramping up defences in the Philippines, an inevitable target of Japanese expansion?

To deter a Japanese attack on Singapore and Malaya, not to mention Indonesia. In theory, Japan was supposed to be too frightened of US military might to attack them, or to risk having them on their flank. And it was believed (very stupidly) that the reinforced Philippines' Command could fight off the Japanese.

Also, I was under the impression that the military opinion of the time was that Pearl Harbour was safe from attack, due to supposed logistical impossibilities in carrying out an effective attack, and due to the depth of the Harbor itself. FDR can hardly be blamed for the incorrect assessment of the military.

Actually, it was well-known that Pearl Harbour was vulnerable to both submarine and aerial attacks. What surprised them was that it came from the North, the single worst direction to launch an attack from. Which, of course, proves the old adage about feinting right and striking left. It's a little-known fact that Kimmel and Short beat the snot out of an attempted Japanese sub attack that day, which could have done more damage than the aerial attack did, since it would probably have mined the harbour.

Well without claiming that FDR had advanced knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and accepted it as an opportunity to enter the war, I don't see how this would've made any difference, given that these code breaking machines would be much more useful in the centre of the action (Indochina and the Philippines) following any Japanese declaration of war, than they would in Hawaii. So unless you are arguing that FDR did have advanced warnings of the attacks (the Purple code-breaking was only for diplomatic, not naval codes, remember), moving these machines can't be held against him.

I'm not arguing that FDR had advanced warning, and I think people who do have a screw loose. he might have wanted to provoke a Japanese attack, but never one so devastating.

Pearl Harbour was the Headquarters of the Pacific Fleet. You don't think that makes it a very important location for code-breaking facilities? Admittedly, Singapore needed them badly, but Manila certainly didn't need two of the damn things. And it was the promotion of the Philippines to the front-line that resulted in such a re-shuffling of intelligence assets. As I said, that wasn't wholly FDR's fault, but he is to blame for signing off on such stupid policy.

 

[Camikaze]

To deter a Japanese attack on Singapore and Malaya, not to mention Indonesia. In theory, Japan was supposed to be too frightened of US military might to attack them, or to risk having them on their flank. And it was believed (very stupidly) that the reinforced Philippines' Command could fight off the Japanese.

Well, arguably if Macarthur had got the planes off the ground in time, a defence could've been successful. It's not as if an invasion would be a walk in the park. I would've thought that it would be a reasonable assumption to have a reasonable air force in the Philippines, to help slow an invasion, at which time reinforcements could arrive. Pearl Harbor made this impossible (the Navy was destroyed; no reinforcements could be provided), but that was unforeseeable. And again, this military failing is hardly FDR's fault.

I'm not arguing that FDR had advanced warning, and I think people who do have a screw loose. he might have wanted to provoke a Japanese attack, but never one so devastating.

Pearl Harbour was the Headquarters of the Pacific Fleet. You don't think that makes it a very important location for code-breaking facilities? Admittedly, Singapore needed them badly, but Manila certainly didn't need two of the damn things. And it was the promotion of the Philippines to the front-line that resulted in such a re-shuffling of intelligence assets. As I said, that wasn't wholly FDR's fault, but he is to blame for signing off on such stupid policy.

Why have a diplomatic code-breaker where there is no diplomacy? Diplomatic messages were still able to be intercepted, regardless of this lack of machines in Hawaii itself, so there wasn't really any lost intelligence due to moving the machines.

 

[Lord Baal]

How come then, the 1921. recession, which was far worse, didnt have any depression following it, especially when there was no regulation and attempts to stimulate the market afterwards?

Because the 1921 recession wasn't handled incredibly piss-poorly by the government, and didn't effect nearly as many investors.

Well, arguably if Macarthur had got the planes off the ground in time, a defence could've been successful. It's not as if an invasion would be a walk in the park. I would've thought that it would be a reasonable assumption to have a reasonable air force in the Philippines, to help slow an invasion, at which time reinforcements could arrive. Pearl Harbor made this impossible (the Navy was destroyed; no reinforcements could be provided), but that was unforeseeable. And again, this military failing is hardly FDR's fault.

MacArthur getting the planes off the ground to attack Formosa would have delayed the invasion, not stopped it. And it was only sheer luck he even had the opportunity. The attack on the Philippines was scheduled to be virtually concurrent with the assault on Pearl Harbour, but inclement weather ruined it.

An air-force in the Philippines was a good idea, but not the one they had. They needed a force to cover a retreat, not launch strategic bombing raids. MacArthur effed up royally by placing the planes in easy striking range for Japan, but he was given too many in the first place.

As for it being FDR's fault, who do you think signed off on the deal to reinforce the Philippines to protect Singapore?

Why have a diplomatic code-breaker where there is no diplomacy? Diplomatic messages were still able to be intercepted, regardless of this lack of machines in Hawaii itself, so there wasn't really any lost intelligence due to moving the machines.

It's possible I'm confusing Purple with another code-breaker. The more we talk, the more I think I am. But regardless, there was a Japanese consulate in Honolulu, and the Americans knew it had a great deal of correspondence with Tokyo. Far more than Manila, in fact. You'd think they'd want to crack that quickly.

 

[Cutlass]

FDR was quite an imperfect man. But he was still one of the great American presidents (of course the competition is weak as a whole). From the end of the American Revolution to the present, only 2 presidents faces crisis that could have broken the US. If FDR didn't handle it perfectly, he did handle it. And most of the presidents we've had would not have done as well. The book for how to handle that had not been written yet. There were no instructions available.

 

[Lord Baal]

FDR was quite an imperfect man. But he was still one of the great American presidents (of course the competition is weak as a whole). From the end of the American Revolution to the present, only 2 presidents faces crisis that could have broken the US. If FDR didn't handle it perfectly, he did handle it. And most of the presidents we've had would not have done as well. The book for how to handle that had not been written yet. There were no instructions available.

Which is why I cut him slack on the GD. Not WWII though.

 

[LightSpectra]

I grow bored of this. You've failed to address any of my points. You keep harping on things I've already refuted and rebutted. You cling to a ridiculous idealism of how things should work rather than how they actually work and how they always have worked.

Your "rebuttal" went along the lines of repeating your argument and then wondering why I haven't given up yet. Let's observe one part of the argument. You said the Japanese-American Internment was not FDR's fault, and I pointed out the exact order he signed on his own prerogative (EO 9066) which initiated the interment camps. Now in what way did I not respond to your argument, in the sense that my own was refuted before I said anything?

And yes if I have to explain to you why workers protection, labor unionization and organization, minimum wage, child labor laws, economic regulation, and social welfare programs are a good thing then you are a reactionary who would be better off living in 19th century England.

Labor unions are a wonderful thing, though FDR's attempt to protect them went too far. He's part of the reason why union abuses against workers are prevalent these days. (I don't blame him entirely for this, obviously, nor do I think anybody would've had the foresight, but that doesn't make it a good thing.)

Minimum wage laws have been repeatedly demonstrated to not affect poverty whatsoever, but to only raise unemployment. Most arguments in favor of artificial minimum wages seem to imply that natural minimum wages don't exist, which is fallacious.

I admitted that child labour laws were good.

Economic regulation in itself is a good thing if done properly, though many of FDR's were poor and only deepened the Depression.

Social welfare laws are also possibly a good thing, but initiating them during a depression is often a bad idea. Social welfare in general (there are plenty of counter-intuitive programs in this sphere, so do not take this as a principle but a trend) increases prosperity at the cost of economic growth. Hence, I do not think the correct course of action during the '30s was to increase aid. Hoover's entire administration raised economic interventionism to a level unheard of in U.S. history at that point, and it only made the Depression worse. One could say that FDR was rather moderate in comparison.

Tell me, LightSpectra, who exactly in your book were good presidents?

John Quincy Adams for opening trade treaties with Central Europe, being humane to Native Americans and opposing slavery. He's often underrated because all he's remembered for is the alleged corrupt bargain. Ulysses S. Grant is also only remembered for the corruption of his administration, despite the fact that he ardently fought for civil rights for blacks and had a highly successful economic policy; which is not to say that this makes him a great president, but I sympathize for him. Abraham Lincoln for abolishing slavery and preserving the Union. George Washington and Grover Cleveland for their strict interpretation and protection of the Constitution.

Eisenhower would be an essentially perfect president if it weren't for his poor Supreme Court nominations and Operation Ajax, which I can't bring myself to excuse him for. Kennedy was for the most part a successful president in various areas. Ronald Reagan would be one of the top three, for initiating policies that ended the Cold War.

He helps end a global war in less than 4 years and you call him a "terrible" war time president? I'd never argue he was perfect and would certainly admit the US has it's share of terrible actions, but on the whole he was an excellent wartime president. That said, your comment is so ridiculous I'm not sure I want to waste any time refuting it.

You're giving him far more credit as a wartime president than he deserves. Our success against Japan was largely a result of several highly successful battles like Midway, which FDR himself had next to nothing to do with. Given the GDP and population of the U.S., it's almost impossible for us to have not been as successful as we were.

But I digress. For the most part I have no problem with his influence over World War II. The real issues that I cannot look past are the Japanese-American internments, the return of Soviet refugees and other diplomatic failures against Stalin, the Morgenthau Plan and the burning of crops during the Great Depression. The Morgenthau Plan is one I think is especially heinous, which is why it's curious to me that Roosevelt has such a wonderful memory to Americans and Europeans.

 

[Lord Baal]

It also bears mentioning that most of his social welfare policies were designed largely to combat Huey Long and others, and retain him in political office, rather than out of genuine concern for the American people.

 

[Bill3000]

I look forward to your threads denying the Holocaust and how the federal govt. has no right to tax income. Should be equally stimulating to this one.

He made a post saying that the constitution itself is illegitimate, so I don't think anything is going to top that.

 

[Kal'thzar]

FDR pushed for Operation: Torch and Overlord, neither one of which were the best choices - or even very good choices - at the time, ....

Can you refute ANY of that, or are you just going to tell me I'm ridiculous?

What choices would you have preferred?

 

[Camikaze]

It's possible I'm confusing Purple with another code-breaker. The more we talk, the more I think I am. But regardless, there was a Japanese consulate in Honolulu, and the Americans knew it had a great deal of correspondence with Tokyo. Far more than Manila, in fact. You'd think they'd want to crack that quickly.

I could be mistaken (and probably am), but I think Purple was the diplomatic code-breaker, so it wasn't useful for cracking Navy and Army codes. My point is that given that they were intercepting diplomatic correspondences anyway, moving this code-breaking machine had no real effect.

 

[Lord Baal]

What choices would you have preferred?

Torch itself was not an inherently bad idea, but Roosevelt - and he did this personally, for political reasons, against Eisenhower's recommendation - refused to commit the necessary troops. This guaranteed that unless De Gaulle's people were able to take Algiers quickly - and they were not given the support to do so - and Giraud was able to rally the Vichy army on behalf of the Free French to defect - which didn't happen - they would be completely unable to stop the Germans from flooding Tunisia, leading to a protracted campaign.

There should have been at least two much larger landings, with the largest at Bizerte in Tunisia and another in Morocco, and greater backing for the Free French coup in Algiers. At least one of these landings should have brought Giraud and/or De Gaulle into the area. Preferably, there would have been a third landing near Algiers itself, to facilitate the coup. this would keep the Germans from moving into Tunisia in large numbers and potentially won De Gaulle the loyalty of a large amount of the French military in North Africa, many of whom were not loyal to Petain, but were more than happy to fight Americans whom they saw as invading French territory.

As for Overlord, Churchill had the right idea when he suggested an invasion through Greece and the Balkans. Southern France as well was a potential target, as it was less well-defended than the North, even though it didn't suit a landing as much, and the Allies were already in Italy.

I could be mistaken (and probably am), but I think Purple was the diplomatic code-breaker, so it wasn't useful for cracking Navy and Army codes. My point is that given that they were intercepting diplomatic correspondences anyway, moving this code-breaking machine had no real effect.

No, Purple was the diplomatic code-breaker. But intercepting diplomatic correspondence doesn't do nearly as much good when you have to wait 4 days or so for Washington to get it back to you, when there's info you need right now.

 

[Karalysia]

As for Overlord, Churchill had the right idea when he suggested an invasion through Greece and the Balkans. Southern France as well was a potential target, as it was less well-defended than the North, even though it didn't suit a landing as much, and the Allies were already in Italy.

You would be a terrible military strategists. The Balkans and Greece were wholly unsuited to such a large scale landing consisting of rough terrain and difficult supply lines. How quickly the Salonika campaign and Gallipoli are forgotten. Also landing in the Balkans and Greece would leave the rest of Europe free to fall to the USSR. So we would have the Balkans and the Soviet tanks would be parked in Amsterdam and Paris instead. Brilliant.