Question: Why do Americans consider FDR to be "one of the greatest U.S. Presidents"?

[Luckymoose]

I always viewed him as the problem rather than the solution to the great depression. He was also a lightweight dictator.

 

[luiz]

My God. If World War Two was not a just war (on our side), then there is no such thing as justice. If you seriously think keeping 100,000 people prisoner for a few years and then letting them go is anywhere near as evil as murdering sixteen million people, then there is something seriously wrong with you. Yes, the Japanese internment was wrong. But it was believed to be necessary to win the war at the time, and winning that war was possibly the greatest thing America has done in the past century.

Fighting terrorism is also quite just, but imagine if Bush started to send all american mulsims to concentration camps like FDR did to the japanese. "He believed it was necessary" must be the worst excuse ever used in the history of mankind. It was very, very, very far from necessary and yet another display of his dictatorial tendencies.

----

Most studies today point to the fact that most of the New Deal's policies actually made the Depression worst. In fact that the depression was only the Great Depression because of several idiotic policies by Roosevelt; his forced cartelization made unemployement remain much higher than it would with no intervention whatsoever.

Other presidents could have won the war.

There is no doubt on my mind that FDR was a horrible, horrible president and the closest thing the US ever had to a dictator.

Why is he is so popular? Well, why is Stalin popular in Russia? Why is Perón popular in Argentina? People are stupid, and americans are people.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Well I am going to vouch for FDR, cu everybody else during that was far worse than him.
Winston Churchill, Social Darwinist and outspoken Zionist (the Zionists should have taken Uganda); Stalin was a cruel dictator who had just made his military force 'impotent' by purging all the smart officers; Neville Chaimberlain was not too bad, but he failed to see the extent of Hitler's greed; Chiang Kai shek's Nationalist Government was corrupted into a wretched state which Chiang chose to ignore, which led to his demise, and the Arab leaders(even back then) were constantly bickering about Jews(the Arabs got their anti-Semitism from the Germans....well at least part of it)
;the Japanese had a military government bent on this self-proclaimed mission of creatring a Greater Asia Co-prosperity thing and the Italians had Mussolini.
So FDR wasnt too bad as a world leader compared to the others;
Actually for that era, I would choose Field Marshall Mannerheim of Finland as the best world leader.

 

[Dachs]

Well I am going to vouch for FDR, cu everybody else during that was far worse than him.

This is an insufficient argument for claiming that somebody was good. You're not comparing FDR to Adolf Hitler, you're comparing him to Teddy, to Coolidge, to Wilson, to Ike, Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, and the whole shebang of American presidents.

Actually for that era, I would choose Field Marshall Mannerheim of Finland as the best world leader.

His country didn't do so well out of the wars, now did it?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

This is an insufficient argument for claiming that somebody was good. You're not comparing FDR to Adolf Hitler, you're comparing him to Teddy, to Coolidge, to Wilson, to Ike, Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, and the whole shebang of American presidents.

His country didn't do so well out of the wars, now did it?

I didnt say he WAS a good PRESIDENT; I said he was better than other in his era.
And for one thing, Mannerheim was great. He led that country from utter destruction from both the Soviets and the Germans.

 

[Dachs]

I didnt say he WAS a good PRESIDENT; I said he was better than other in his era.

And that's not what the point of this thread is.

And for one thing, Mannerheim was great. He led that country from utter destruction from both the Soviets and the Germans.

The Soviets never wanted to destroy Finland, and the Germans weren't really that much of a threat.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

And that's not what the point of this thread is.

The Soviets never wanted to destroy Finland, and the Germans weren't really that much of a threat.

Thats easy for you to say.......
Try being as Finnish citizen in WW2

 

[Dachs]

Thats easy for you to say.......
Try being as Finnish citizen in WW2

The Winter War was not a conflict for national survival, it was a conflict over fairly reasonable demands made by Stalin, which the Finns (as was their right and prerogative) rejected, and as soon as Stalin achieved his prewar aims the war was ended, bye-bye, see you later. Helsinki, unlike Berlin, Prague, Bucharest, Warsaw, and the rest, was not entered by Soviet tanks. And neither did the Germans pose a serious threat to Finnish independence...the Finns drove them out easily enough in '44-5.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

The Winter War was not a conflict for national survival, it was a conflict over fairly reasonable demands made by Stalin, which the Finns (as was their right and prerogative) rejected, and as soon as Stalin achieved his prewar aims the war was ended, bye-bye, see you later. Helsinki, unlike Berlin, Prague, Bucharest, Warsaw, and the rest, was not entered by Soviet tanks. And neither did the Germans pose a serious threat to Finnish independence...the Finns drove them out easily enough in '44-5.

The Finns were DEMOBILIZING during the Lapland War;
And for the Finns, Karelia was a matter of national survival; their best land and source of wealth taken by the Soviets.

 

[Dachs]

The Finns were DEMOBILIZING during the Lapland War;

And?

And for the Finns, Karelia was a matter of national survival; their best land and source of wealth taken by the Soviets.

They seem to be surviving fine without it.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

And?

They seem to be surviving fine without it.

Imagine if China did not have Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Tianjin, or Harbin; would China be wiped off the map? NO, but it would make things a lot harder for them. And in times like that, a country needs a great leader. ( Im not saying that China has a good government or leader)
Try fighting a war when youre army is shrinking in size and equipment.

 

[Dachs]

So, thread successfully derailed. Might wanna get back on track.

Imagine if China did not have Shanghai, Shenzhen, Beijing, Tianjin, or Harbin; would China be wiped off the map? NO, but it would make things a lot harder for them. And in times like that, a country needs a great leader. ( Im not saying that China has a good government or leader)

This comparison is way invalid. Relative to the remainder of Finland, the Karelian Isthmus' main value was defensive, not economic, and is of nowhere near the same magnitude as that you suggest with your comparison with China.

Besides, you can lay a good part of the blame for the fall of Karelia to the USSR at Mannerheim's feet for overloading himself with too much of the burden of operations, and thus being too tired to effectively supervise the defense. Heinrichs was capable enough, the job should've been at least partly given to him.

Try fighting a war when youre army is shrinking in size and equipment.

It's easier when the Germans are retreating for most of the conflict.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

bvg

So, thread successfully derailed. Might wanna get back on track.

This comparison is way invalid. Relative to the remainder of Finland, the Karelian Isthmus' main value was defensive, not economic, and is of nowhere near the same magnitude as that you suggest with your comparison with China.

Besides, you can lay a good part of the blame for the fall of Karelia to the USSR at Mannerheim's feet for overloading himself with too much of the burden of operations, and thus being too tired to effectively supervise the defense. Heinrichs was capable enough, the job should've been at least partly given to him.

It's easier when the Germans are retreating for most of the conflict.

Back on track;
FDR wasnt great, I admit.
Reasons, read thread.

 

[Leifmk]

T
War between US and Japan=Axis treaty kicks in=War with Germany=(probably) US involvement in Europe. Given that this would happen significantly later, the US would be in a far worse position to fight this war (or more accurately, Germany and Japan would be in a far better position) than the actual date in December 1941.

I contend that this would not matter much. The war between the US and Japan was so very unbalanced in every respect.

As for Germany, they had more or less lost by the end of 1941. The US war entry certainly hastened the end, but the German war aims were basically unachievable.

 

[Boleslav]

I know at least one person who would have starved to death if it hadn't been for FDR's programs.

 

[carmen510]

And for every one person, I can easily find two more that starved because of him.

 

[Princeps]

his forced cartelization made unemployement remain much higher than it would with no intervention whatsoever.

His cartelization policies did make things worse in some ways, but it didn't last for too long and the cartelization was anti-deflationary and therefore, arguably, economically expansionary policy in depression conditions.

Anyway, under FDR the national wealth and employment grew solidly for every year with the exception of one short recession. He improved people's economic security, significantly cut unemployment (which was below 10 % by 1937), devalued the dollar (by stabilizing the banks and devaluing the dollar, Roosevelt’s administration set policy that drew overseas investments into the US.) and more. His fiscal policies were too careful to have the significant effect brought later by the WW2, which was a massive fiscal program after all.

 

[Boleslav]

And for every one person, I can easily find two more that starved because of him.

Explain more please...

 

[Camikaze]

Slightly OT, but the similarity is so ironic.

 

[carmen510]

Explain more please...

In order to raise food prices so that farmers could have more money, he told the Department of Agriculture to deliberately destroy crops to raise food prices. Obviously, not a good idea in a Depression. To this day, this is practiced, destroying perfectly good crops such as:

50 million lemons
100 million pounds of raisins
1 billion oranges
(1980s, no idea how much now)

For now though, the crops are destroyed for a slightly different reason: subsidies. The government will pay farmers a certain price for their produce, and will buy the amount the farmers are willing to sell. So, farmers will not sell on the market if the subsidy price is higher than market price, bringing costs up, and giving the government a huge surplus that's hard to get rid of, and they need to get rid of them without driving prices down. So, they destroy them. And worse, this causes the consumer to feel the pain of artificially high prices induced by subsidies. And, such subsidies were started by FDR's massive government intervention in the agriculture business.

Such is the reason why American sugar was about 500% more expensive than the rest of the world for most of the 1900s.