# Why didnt FDR tell VP Truman about the ABomb



## ginscpy (Oct 19, 2012)

Stalin knew more about the Manhattan Project than VP Truman did.

Was totally blindsided.


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 19, 2012)

It was the Abomb with aplomb.


----------



## ginscpy (Oct 20, 2012)

FDR was practically a dictator  for 12 years.

Hid his polio from the public.

Tried to cook the Supreme Court.

Was asleep at theswtich re Pearl Harbor.
put  inoncent US citizens in concentration camps.

Did not make any effort to bomb Nazi death camps.

Didnt tell VP Truman about the ABomb  project.

Other than that put him on Mt Rushmore.

A lucky president who got to deal with big issues.

WHAT CLINTON HOPED FOR.


----------



## ThirdTerm (Oct 20, 2012)

World War II was in full swing in 1943 and Truman was chairing a Senate committee on possible war profiteering committed by American defense plants. In the process of investigating war-production expenditures, Truman stumbled upon a suspicious plant in the state of Washington and asked the plant managers to testify in front of the committee. When Stimson, one of a handful of people who knew about the highly classified Manhattan Project, heard about Truman's line of questioning, he immediately acted to prevent the Missouri senator from blowing the biggest military secret in world history. On June 17, Truman received a phone call from Stimson, who told him that the Pasco plant was "part of a very important secret development." Before Stimson could continue, Truman assured the secretary "you won t have to say another word to me. Whenever you say that [something is highly secret] to me that's all I want to hear. If [the plant] is for a specific purpose and you think it's all right, that's all I need to know."  America's secret development of the atomic bomb began in 1939, with then-President Franklin Roosevelt's support. Even after Truman became Roosevelt's fourth-term vice president in 1944, the project remained such a tightly controlled secret that Roosevelt did not even inform Truman that it existed. 

FDR's secretary of war stifles Truman's inquiry into suspicious defense plant; History.com This Day in History; 6/17/1943


----------



## gipper (Oct 20, 2012)

FDR was arguably our WORST president and we have endured many bad ones.

He did not tell the war criminal Truman about the a-bomb because he was a fool, egotist, in ill health, and considered Truman a dunce....even though he was also a dunce.  

I believe from about 1943 until his death, Stalin's Stooge was incapable to performing the duties of the presidency due to his health.  His doctor had him working only 4 hours a day. He took numerous VACATIONS in the hope of improving his health, all while America was dealing with WWII....though being incapable might have been a good thing, since had he managed the war, he likely would have screwed it up just as he did the Great Depression. Yet, the arrogant asshole ran for a FOURTH TERM in '44 barely able to stand or speak.  

And remember, all this was concealed from the American public.  

The political class duped the American people just as they are doing today.  Amazingly it continues to work.


----------



## ginscpy (Oct 20, 2012)

FDR got away with murder  - none of his shanigans would pass muster today.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 20, 2012)

gipper said:


> FDR was arguably our WORST president .





It is difficult to argue otherwise.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 20, 2012)

gipper said:


> FDR was arguably our WORST president and we have endured many bad ones.
> 
> He did not tell the war criminal Truman about the a-bomb because he was a fool, egotist, in ill health, and considered Truman a dunce....even though he was also a dunce.
> 
> ...



FDR turned the US into a Superpower and made us a modern Democracy

By far the greatest modern President....bar none


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 20, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> By far the greatest modern President....bar none






An historic VILLIAN.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 20, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > By far the greatest modern President....bar none
> ...



Far from it

He turned us into a great nation


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 20, 2012)

If it wasn't for him Republicans wouldn't have *cough* "defense" contractors & Pentagon big wigs to suck-up to.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> FDR got away with murder  - none of his shanigans would pass muster today.



If only that were true.....have you noticed the 'Executive Order' Kid.....


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 20, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




NO, we were a great nation already and we have made ourselves greater since. He threatened our very republic, exacerbated a depression, saddled future generations with unsustainable obligations, got into bed with murderous tyrants, and trampled on the rights and freedoms of over one hundred thousand innocent, loyal Americans, including some of the very best and bravest we've ever had. He was absolutely despicable.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 20, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Republicans had turned our nation into a libertarians dream. Every man for himself, rampant speculation, greed, indifference to the suffering of others. They had also turned us isolationist and stripped our military

FDR made us an economic and military superpower


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 20, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was arguably our WORST president and we have endured many bad ones.
> ...





Theodore Lowi, a political science eminence at Cornell University, years ago drew a bead on what was wrong with the American polity. In his The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States,  he claimed that *the Founder's constitution of 1787 had been surreptitiously replaced with a new one by the FDR administration,* and no one had actually noticed it for seventy-plus years.  

In current argot, we have been operating under *US Constitution, 2.0 since the Roosevelt era. * The contours of the constitution of this "Second Republic" as he deemed it, bears some scrutiny, as the Obama Administration and the 112th Congress go to work bringing even more change--possibly US Constitution 3.0.  The preamble and first article of the actual constitution we have been living under, which Lowi acutely discerned, suffice to show where an Obama constitution will be taking off from. Archived-Articles: America's Third Republic?

PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.

Article I. It is the primary purpose of this national government to provide domestic tranquility by reducing risk. This risk may be physical or it may be fiscal. In order to fulfill this sacred obligation, the national government shall be deemed to have sufficient power to eliminate threats from the environment through regulation, and to eliminate threats from economic uncertainty through insurance.


----------



## hjmick (Oct 20, 2012)

Because two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead...


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 20, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





We all know your political leanings. You have addressed none of the points in my post.


----------



## Jackson (Oct 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I would only add "and to eliminate threats from economic uncertainty through *socialism and *insurance." to Mr. Lowi's statement.


----------



## regent (Oct 20, 2012)

Republicans have been running against FDR since 1932, and in all those years Republicans still haven't found a Republican candidate or even an argument that can beat FDR. All the name calling, all the lies,  all the posts, and FDR is still rated America's greatest president. Someday a better president may emerge and if one does he or she may even be a Republican or a conservative but until then, FDR is considered the first modern president and the greatest. 
As for the argument that FDR hid his paralysis from the public that's not true. Americans knew FDR had polio and was paralyzed, in fact the March of Dimes was started in 1938 by Eddie Cantor with FDR's leadership to help polio victims and hopeully to develop a prevention. How many of those dimes helped find the Salk vaccine and why was the dime selected?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 20, 2012)

FDR was nothing but a zombie when he ran for his 4th term. Democrats knew he would not live so they dumped the Vice President who was a little too independent and ran a timid little bean counter senator from Missouri who didn't have a clue. FDR was probably over medicated if he was even in his own mind in his last three months of life. His medical records were stolen out of a locked safe and disappeared after his death. The military was running the show after April 1945 and Truman was only along for the ride.


----------



## gipper (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Is it any wonder dictators and presidents can do as they wish, when some people think like this?  Your posts are delusional and factually incorrect throughout.  

Are you one of those Ds good Rs bad believers?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Yes I have....we were not a great nation prior to FDR
We were in the depths of a depression, people were starving, we were a dog eat dog society without a social safety net. 
Militarily we were maybe the fourth largest military without a significant standing army and an obsolete air force

FDR turned us into a GREAT nation


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2012)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Proceed


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2012)

whitehall said:


> FDR was nothing but a zombie when he ran for his 4th term. Democrats knew he would not live so they dumped the Vice President who was a little too independent and ran a timid little bean counter senator from Missouri who didn't have a clue. FDR was probably over medicated if he was even in his own mind in his last three months of life. His medical records were stolen out of a locked safe and disappeared after his death. The military was running the show after April 1945 and Truman was only along for the ride.



Nice theory but not supported by ample evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind, we were in the middle of WWII, there are substantial archives showing FDR played a significant role


----------



## williepete (Oct 21, 2012)

Truman didn't have a need to know. (Until he became POTUS). 

Basic security doctrine. Nothing more to it. No conspiracy theories. 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled FDR love fest. Must not stay on topic too long.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Of course we were. Does any thought ever cross your mind that is not complete partisan hackery? It must be very boring for you to be such a simplistic drone.


----------



## tjvh (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If FDR was the greatest President, why did blacks still have to sit at the back of the Bus and were segregated on the front lines? That's right, the Democrats didn't need them yet.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

regent said:


> Republicans have been running against FDR since 1932, and in all those years Republicans still haven't found a Republican candidate or even an argument that can beat FDR. All the name calling, all the lies,  all the posts, and FDR is still rated America's greatest president. Someday a better president may emerge and if one does he or she may even be a Republican or a conservative but until then, FDR is considered the first modern president and the greatest.
> As for the argument that FDR hid his paralysis from the public that's not true. Americans knew FDR had polio and was paralyzed, in fact the March of Dimes was started in 1938 by Eddie Cantor with FDR's leadership to help polio victims and hopeully to develop a prevention. How many of those dimes helped find the Salk vaccine and why was the dime selected?



He changed America.

Consider the following praise for FDR( from The Hundred Days of FDR, by Schlesinger)

	'Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?'


But he altered the view that the Founders had in ways that make us more like the very government we revolted against in the Revolution.

He was a King, not a President. 
Scholarly research is just beginning to level due criticism.
Stop genuflecting; stand up where you can see the truth.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Where?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

Truman is the only president who's education was limited to the 12th grade. He was not well educated to say the least. Democrats knew he was a man they could manipulate so they dumped the independent sitting V.P. off the ticket while he was on vacation and ran the little haberdasher from Missouri. As expected FDR died about three months after he was inaugurated and Truman woke up one morning to find himself president. It's doubtful if FDR even remembered what the Atom Bomb was not to mention the little senator from Missouri.


----------



## williepete (Oct 21, 2012)

David McCullough's excellent book "Truman" answers the question of informing Truman about the bomb, Ultra and most all policy decisions of the FDR administration. The VP position back then was not the same as it is today. Today's VPs take a far more active role in the Executive Office. Applying today's active VPs to the FDR era is as useless as not bothering to learn history in the first place.


----------



## regent (Oct 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans have been running against FDR since 1932, and in all those years Republicans still haven't found a Republican candidate or even an argument that can beat FDR. All the name calling, all the lies,  all the posts, and FDR is still rated America's greatest president. Someday a better president may emerge and if one does he or she may even be a Republican or a conservative but until then, FDR is considered the first modern president and the greatest.
> ...



If FDR were a king, Elliot or another Roosevelt would have become king when FDR died. Scholarly research has been going on since FDR took office, and he has been called every name in the Republican book of _ Bad Names to Call Democratic Presidents_. Yet for all that scholarly research Siena just polled 238 noted historians and presidential experts and they named FDR America's greatest president, bar none. The usual response to those historian polls is that historians are communists. 
Is that your best criticism of FDR, that America changed during his presidency? Did America change after Lincoln's presidency, Hoover's? It is difficult to keep some nations from changing over the years, maybe Haiti but not America?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2012)

regent said:


> Is that your best criticism of FDR, that America changed during his presidency?






No, that's the best praise that nuthugger Notarightwinger could come up with.

How about this?


 He threatened our very republic, exacerbated a depression, saddled future generations with unsustainable obligations, got into bed with murderous tyrants - all the way down under the sheets, and trampled in the most fundamental way on the rights and freedoms of over one hundred thousand innocent, loyal Americans, including some of the very best and bravest we've ever had. He was absolutely despicable.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Is that your best criticism of FDR, that America changed during his presidency?
> ...



Got us out of a Depression, revitalized America during WWII.

Nobody has come close to what FDR accomplished since. Greatest modern President by far.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



FDR destroyed the Constitution.

If you find that to be efficacious, continue to remain on your knees.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...





Turned a recession into the Great Depression.


1.	Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the second New Deal and Roosevelts second term. The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


2.	In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that  on the whole it retarded recovery.  
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Is that your best criticism of FDR, that America changed during his presidency?
> ...



His economic policies not only mirrored those of Mussolini and Hitler, but engendered their pride.



From Schivelbusch, Three New Deals, ...


1.	The *National Socialists hailed these relief measures i*n ways you will recognize: 

a.	May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (Peoples Observer): *Roosevelts Dictatorial Recovery Measures.*

b.	And on January 17, 1934, We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America and *Roosevelts adoption of National Socialist strains of thought *in his economic and social policies comparable to Hitlers own dictatorial Fuhrerprinzip.

c.	And [Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book Looking Forward could have been written by a National Socialist.one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.

d.	The paper also refers to the fictional appearance of democracy.



2.	In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States. *I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany  cited in Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, vol.2, p. 27.



3.	*English and French commentators routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini.* A more specific reason why, in 1933, the *New Deal was often compared with Fascism *was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolinis corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property.

a.	*Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelts Looking Forward, *in which he said [as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people. Popolo dItalia, July 7, 1933.

b.	In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of New Frontiers, by FDRs Secy of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: Wallaces answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. *Where is America headed?* This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century. Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



It was already a Depression when FDR took office

In evaluating a Depression, you have to look at more than just numbers. FDR realized that a Depression was not about economic numbers......it was about people

FDR knew that the Depression was not about the bankers.....it was about those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. FDR realized it was people suffering...not banks
He stepped in and instituted programs to make sure Americans were taken care of, that food was available, that jobs were created

Great President


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





"He stepped in and instituted programs to make sure Americans were taken care of,..."

Are you agreeing that in doing so, he frequently eviscerated the Constitution?

To be clear...my question is not based on whether or not this was essential at the time.

...but it does reflect on your characterization of his being a "Great President."


----------



## gipper (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



That is most delusional.  It is hard to believe any American would think as you do.  

This is a history forum.  Your foolish beliefs will get you nowhere here.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

The Truman we think we know is a fictional character invented by the liberal media. The feisty "give'em hell" political persona is an invention. In reality Truman was a timid clothing store owner who's education was limited to the management of a small town business and he was lucky enough to be elected to the senate when nobody cared. Truman authorized the nuclear attack on Japan with two A-bombs while Japan was frantically trying to negotiate surrender terms through our ally at the time, Joe Stalin. Truman was instructed by the remnants of the FDR administration not to negotiate with the Japanese and he followed orders just like he did in WW1. Truman didn't ask for authorization to send Troops to Korea. They were sent by executive order so Korea is Truman's responsibility from beginning to end. The liberal media wasn't interested in the conflict at the time and give 'em hell Harry got away with a truce at the cost of 50,000 Americans lost in three years. The media still supported him but the grass roots American public hated him so much that he could not withstand a primary fight for his 2nd full term so he retired from politics under a cloud and jumped in his Buick and drove back to Missouri.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Got us out of a Depression, revitalized America during WWII.






He extended a depression. Explain what you think you mean by "revitalized America during WWII."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

whitehall said:


> The Truman we think we know is a fictional character invented by the liberal media. The feisty "give'em hell" political persona is an invention. In reality Truman was a timid clothing store owner who's education was limited to the management of a small town business and he was lucky enough to be elected to the senate when nobody cared. Truman authorized the nuclear attack on Japan with two A-bombs while Japan was frantically trying to negotiate surrender terms through our ally at the time, Joe Stalin. Truman was instructed by the remnants of the FDR administration not to negotiate with the Japanese and he followed orders just like he did in WW1. Truman didn't ask for authorization to send Troops to Korea. They were sent by executive order so Korea is Truman's responsibility from beginning to end. The liberal media wasn't interested in the conflict at the time and give 'em hell Harry got away with a truce at the cost of 50,000 Americans lost in three years. The media still supported him but the grass roots American public hated him so much that he could not withstand a primary fight for his 2nd full term so he retired from politics under a cloud and jumped in his Buick and drove back to Missouri.




A moment, whitey....

Let's be thankful for the intercession of Providence....

As you know, Roosevelt had three vice-presidents....the second being directly under the sway of Joe Stalin.

Imagine if Wallace had not been replaced by Truman!


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 21, 2012)

Notice that the FDR nuthugger can't manage anything beyond vague generalities and the insistence that his hero was "great" despite his failures and atrocities.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The Truman we think we know is a fictional character invented by the liberal media. The feisty "give'em hell" political persona is an invention. In reality Truman was a timid clothing store owner who's education was limited to the management of a small town business and he was lucky enough to be elected to the senate when nobody cared. Truman authorized the nuclear attack on Japan with two A-bombs while Japan was frantically trying to negotiate surrender terms through our ally at the time, Joe Stalin. Truman was instructed by the remnants of the FDR administration not to negotiate with the Japanese and he followed orders just like he did in WW1. Truman didn't ask for authorization to send Troops to Korea. They were sent by executive order so Korea is Truman's responsibility from beginning to end. The liberal media wasn't interested in the conflict at the time and give 'em hell Harry got away with a truce at the cost of 50,000 Americans lost in three years. The media still supported him but the grass roots American public hated him so much that he could not withstand a primary fight for his 2nd full term so he retired from politics under a cloud and jumped in his Buick and drove back to Missouri.
> ...



Key figures in the FDR administration were revealed to be communists. It seemed in his latter years FDR was under Stalin's sway and that seems to be the way the democrats preferred it but there is no evidence that Wallace was a communist. How would Wallace have treated the Stalin regime any differently than Truman?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

whitehall said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



1. Henry Wallace, 1940-1944. Americas main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire. He insisted that peace would be assured if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe. (Ronad Radosh, Progressively Worse, The New Republic, June 12, 2000)  When Stalin seized Czechoslovakia, Wallace sided with Stalin. When Stalin blockaded Berlin, Wallace opposed the Berlin Airlift. After visiting a Soviet slave camp, Wallace enthusiastically  described it a s a combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company. Ibid, 


2. In 1948, at the apex of Moscow-directed subversion of US politics, FDRs VP Henry Wallace, former Secy of Agriculture, to form the Communist-dominated and Soviet-backed Progressive Party. Of course, Wallaces Progressives allowed not even the most peripheral criticism of Soviet aggression.(John Patrick Diggins, Good Intentions, The National Interest, Fall, 2000)

 a.The progressives received one million votes. The Communist Party USA did not field a presidential candidate, and instead endorsed Wallace for President. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1948)



3.  Wallace met personally with KGB agents. (Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, Haunted Woods, p. 119)
several prominent journalists, including H.L. Mencken and Dorothy Thompson, publicly charged that Wallace and the Progressives were under the covert control of Communists. Wallace was endorsed by the Communist Party (USA), and his subsequent refusal to publicly disavow any Communist support cost him the backing of many anti-Communist liberals and socialists (Henry A. Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

4. In his diary, Wallace, whose view of the future of America required Soviet-style Communism, wrote that FDR had assured him that he was a few years ahead of his time, but that his vision for American would inevitably come. (John Patrick Diggins, Good Intentions, The National Interest, Fall, 2000)




5. Henry Wallace, vice-president during Roosevelts third term in office (1941-1945), said  later that if the ailing Roosevelt had died during that period and he had become President, it had been his intention to make Duggan his Secretary of State and White his Secretary of TresuryThe fact that Roosevelt survived intoa fourth termdeprived Soviet intelligence of what would have been its most spectacular success in penetrating a major Western government.  
The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archives, the History of the  KGB, by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin.p. 107-108

6. Ted Hall (code name MLAD), who with Klaus Fuchs, were agents of the Soviet union who gave the secrets of the atomic bomb to the Soviets when they worked on the Manhattan project at Los Alamos, while working for his PhD at Chicago University, joined the Communist Party, (intending) to work for the Progressive candidate, the naively pro-Soviet Henry Wallace, in the presidential election. 
Albright and Kunstel, Bombshell, pp.176-8




7. He [[Wallace] didnt actually do anything important as Secretary of Commerce related to the jobs responsibilities, but he did *clash with Harry Truman over policy toward the Soviet Union, arguing for a softer line. *Truman eventually sacked him, at which point he became editor of The New Republic. At the time TNRs foreign policy involved being too far left rather than too far right, so Wallace denounced the Truman Doctrine and lay the groundwork for his 1948 Presidential Campaign on the Progressive Party ticket. The Wallace agenda was in many ways admirablehe stood foresquare for civil rights, voting rights for African-Americans, and universal health care. The campaign was also shot-through with Communists being controlled by Moscow, and theres some indication in the Mitrokhin Archive that Wallace himself was considered a KGB asset at the time.
Commerce Cabinet Crisis X: Henry Wallace | ThinkProgress


8. In my opinion, the quicker we share our scientific knowledge the greater will be the chance that we can achieve genuine and durable world cooperation. Such action would be interpreted as a generous gesture on our part and lay the foundation for sound international agreements that would assure the control and development of atomic energy for peaceful use rather than destruction.
Henry Wallace, letter to Harry S. Truman (24th September, 1945).

If Wallace was President, Stalin wouldn't have needed the Rosenbergs.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that FDR was dying and the democrat party knew it. Running a dead man with an unknown VP who would become president was the ultimate in dirty tricks. A lot of crazy theories were promoted at that time including the one promoted by FDR's treasury secretary called the Morgenthau Plan which would have turned Germany into an agrarian country after the war and authorize the kidnapping every adult male German and sending them to Africa. Stalin was our ally and FDR used to call him "uncle Joe" and joke with him at Churchill's expense. You attribute a concern about the USSR that did not exist at the time at least officially. Truman appointed the overrated former Chief of Staff George Marshall as secretary of state and Marshall disarmed the Nationalist Chinese paving the way for Mao's communist revolution. Stalin continued his atrocities during Truman's administration and Truman agreed to the post war "iron curtain" that enslaved much of Europe.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

whitehall said:


> The first thing we need to acknowledge is that FDR was dying and the democrat party knew it. Running a dead man with an unknown VP who would become president was the ultimate in dirty tricks. A lot of crazy theories were promoted at that time including the one promoted by FDR's treasury secretary called the Morgenthau Plan which would have turned Germany into an agrarian country after the war and authorize the kidnapping every adult male German and sending them to Africa. Stalin was our ally and FDR used to call him "uncle Joe" and joke with him at Churchill's expense. You attribute a concern about the USSR that did not exist at the time at least officially. Truman appointed the overrated former Chief of Staff George Marshall as secretary of state and Marshall disarmed the Nationalist Chinese paving the way for Mao's communist revolution. Stalin continued his atrocities during Truman's administration and Truman agreed to the post war "iron curtain" that enslaved much of Europe.





You said "there is no evidence that Wallace was a communist."

I believe that I've documented a very different reality.


Roosevelt was soft on communism, there were many communist agents in his administration, and Wallace was the only one he fired.

If you read the provided notes, you will see that Truman disagreed with Wallace...and fired him as well.


In 1944 the Institute of Pacific Relations, according to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, "disseminated and sought to popularize false information including information originating from Soviet and Communist sources," published a fifty-six-page pamphlet, Our Job in Asia, which was allegedly written by Vice-President Wallace. "The Russians," the author of the pamphlet claimed, "have demonstrated their friendly attitude toward China by their willingness to refrain from intervening in China's internal affairs." Some years later -- after the collapse of the American allied Kuomintang government to the Comintern sponsored Maoist regime and in the midst of the Korean War which cost 53,000 American lives, on October 17, 1951, Wallace testified before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. Wallace admitted: "It begins to look, for the time being at any rate, that my size-up as made in 1944 was incorrect." Wallace further admitted under oath that most of a book entitled Soviet Asia Mission written under his name detailing his official trip to Soviet Siberia and China in 1944 had actually been written by Andrew J. Steiger, a person identified under oath as a member of the Communist party. The Communist party at that time advocated the violent overthrow of the United StatesConstitution. 
US Senate, 82nd Congress, 1st Session, Committee on the Judiciary, Institute of Pacific Relations, Part V, pp. 1302, 1206.


And, no, I don't believe that Truman was just the same as Henry Wallace.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

The left defends FDR for his socialist policies and friendship with Stalin but the revisionist fools criticize FDR's V.P. for being too progressive? Since when did the democrat party ever kick out someone for being too liberal? I doubt if FDR was even in his right mind when they took Wallace off the ballot while he was on vacation. There was no such movement in the democrat party to rid itself of socialists or communists when Wallace was taken off the ballot. That's a revisionist theory. Democrats deceived the American public when they ran a dying (perhaps incoherent) incumbent with a long list of medical problems including blood pressure that was off the charts and maybe a few strokes. They picked an uneducated rube like Truman so they could control him when he became president. How bad could it have been under Wallace when Truman got us into an undeclared shooting war that cost 50,000 Troops in three years while the Russians were gobbling up countries in Europe? Truman couldn't even get support from his own party to run for a 2nd full term and yet the liberal media loved him.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 21, 2012)

whitehall said:


> The left defends FDR for his socialist policies and friendship with Stalin but the revisionist fools criticize FDR's V.P. for being too progressive? Since when did the democrat party ever kick out someone for being too liberal? I doubt if FDR was even in his right mind when they took Wallace off the ballot while he was on vacation. There was no such movement in the democrat party to rid itself of socialists or communists when Wallace was taken off the ballot. That's a revisionist theory. Democrats deceived the American public when they ran a dying (perhaps incoherent) incumbent with a long list of medical problems including blood pressure that was off the charts and maybe a few strokes. They picked an uneducated rube like Truman so they could control him when he became president. How bad could it have been under Wallace when Truman got us into an undeclared shooting war that cost 50,000 Troops in three years while the Russians were gobbling up countries in Europe? Truman couldn't even get support from his own party to run for a 2nd full term and yet the liberal media loved him.




Half-dozen of so sources not good enough?
I believe I'll stick with the scholarship on this one.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The left defends FDR for his socialist policies and friendship with Stalin but the revisionist fools criticize FDR's V.P. for being too progressive? Since when did the democrat party ever kick out someone for being too liberal? I doubt if FDR was even in his right mind when they took Wallace off the ballot while he was on vacation. There was no such movement in the democrat party to rid itself of socialists or communists when Wallace was taken off the ballot. That's a revisionist theory. Democrats deceived the American public when they ran a dying (perhaps incoherent) incumbent with a long list of medical problems including blood pressure that was off the charts and maybe a few strokes. They picked an uneducated rube like Truman so they could control him when he became president. How bad could it have been under Wallace when Truman got us into an undeclared shooting war that cost 50,000 Troops in three years while the Russians were gobbling up countries in Europe? Truman couldn't even get support from his own party to run for a 2nd full term and yet the liberal media loved him.
> ...



Most of what we accept as news these days is really opinion. Most of what we accept as history is ...opinion. It's easy for a historian with a political agenda to leave out details that might not agree with his theory. Facts, absolute facts show that Harry Truman issued an executive order rather than going through congress to put boots on the ground in Korea. Facts show that about 50,000 Americans died during the conflict. Bill Clinton's DOD revised the numbers down to 35,000 to include only American Troops actually killed in combat on the Korean peninsula but every other conflict in history includes every American who died during the conflict regardless whether it is an accident or sickness so this new DOD figure is strange and rather offensive. People accept it because "sources" tend to be kind to the Truman legacy. Facts indicate that the mission in Korea was completed in less than a year. Not only did (UN) American forces beat back the NK invaders but the NK capital was captured. That should have ended it but here's where speculation enters the picture. Either Truman wasn't paying attention or he was afraid in a political sense or even in a literal sense of the aging WW1 General he appointed. The media noticed that MacArthur insulted the president on a few occasions but Truman didn't seem to notice. Truman backed off when MacArthur proposed an insane plan to "liberate" the entire peninsula with exhausted and ill supplied Troops and America walked into the biggest ambush in history. Red China told Truman that they would enter the conflict if the US approached the Yalu river but MacArthur scoffed at the warning. The media "sources" loved Truman so much that they called the conflict in Korea the "forgotten war" rather than spend time criticizing a fellow democrat.


----------



## regent (Oct 22, 2012)

What was the mission of the American troops in Korea? Did they accomplish that mission?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 22, 2012)

regent said:


> What was the mission of the American troops in Korea? Did they accomplish that mission?



Yes and no. The mission was justified even though Truman did not ask for congressional authorization but without authorization the mission was on Truman's shoulders. At first the US /UN forces were up against a substantial enemy force in a well planned attack. MacArthur's Inchon Landing plan was a brilliant strategy that turned the tide and US/UN forces disrupted the NK supply lines and isolated and captured their forces and re-captured the South Korea capital and went on to capture the NK capital of Pong Yang. The mission was accomplished with probably a couple of thousand American losses. On the diplomatic front the Chinese Communists warned the US that any approach to the NK/China border -Yalu river would be met with Chinese forces. The US had no interest in approaching the far north NK Yalu river border so the war was over and the mission was accomplished. .....Chapter 2?


----------



## ginscpy (Oct 25, 2012)

FDR hid his polio from the public BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gipper (Oct 26, 2012)

ginscpy said:


> FDR hid his polio from the public BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The reason Stalin's Stooge was able to hide his illness from the American people, is he had a compliant press and congress.  

Much like we have today.


----------



## regent (Oct 26, 2012)

FDR didn't hide his paralysis from the public, most  knew FDR was paralyzed. Newsreels showed FDR in therapy in Warm Springs Georgia, even as he was president. In 1938 the March of Dimes was started using FDR's paralysis as a springboard to combat polio. 
What FDR didn't do, was use his paralysis to gain votes or sympathy, nor did Republicans use FDR's paralysis against him. Republicans of those years were different than today's Republicans. In any case Americans knew, and it didn't matter, they still voted for him four times and Historians still rate FDR as America's greatest president.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 26, 2012)

One of the worst villians in our country's history.


----------



## regent (Oct 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> One of the worst villians in our country's history.



Well, you have presented overwhelming evidence, so who can respond?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 26, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > One of the worst villians in our country's history.
> ...






As a matter of fact, I have. Time and time again on thread after thread where mindless leftists like you suckle the cock of a dead villian just because it fits your politics. That says a lot about you and your ilk.


----------



## regent (Oct 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



So what's my ilk, historians? I accept that, especially if I were one of the ilks asked to participate in a poll on rating the presidents. But I think the polls only ask the well-known ilka, the top university types and that's not my ilk, but if you insist. 
Remember, elected four times and rated America's greatest.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 26, 2012)

regent said:


> So what's my ilk?





Mindless, hyper-partisan, leftist hacks who worship a villian like FDR because you're 'supposed to.'


----------



## whitehall (Oct 26, 2012)

regent said:


> FDR didn't hide his paralysis from the public, most  knew FDR was paralyzed. Newsreels showed FDR in therapy in Warm Springs Georgia, even as he was president. In 1938 the March of Dimes was started using FDR's paralysis as a springboard to combat polio.
> What FDR didn't do, was use his paralysis to gain votes or sympathy, nor did Republicans use FDR's paralysis against him. Republicans of those years were different than today's Republicans. In any case Americans knew, and it didn't matter, they still voted for him four times and Historians still rate FDR as America's greatest president.



Republicans never made an issue out of FDR's handicap but FDR's handlers were extremely careful to keep FDR's health issues a secret such as off the charts blood pressure. His medical records went missing after he died and it seems that the media was relieved that they didn't have to speculate about a possible series of strokes and FDR's mental health in his 3rd and the few months of his 4th term.


----------



## regent (Oct 26, 2012)

Perhaps Wilson, Reagan, FDR and others should have had exams and the results made public before the election. Imagine the ruckus in the political arena made of a physical abnormality. Would Congress pass such a law, or a president issue an executive order, perhaps a constitutional amendment?  Would Congress pass the same law regarding congressmen, generals admirals? 
I don't think FDR's physician even told FDR of his health, perhaps because FDR didn't want to hear it. In any case a touchy subject but it should give us cause to think.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 26, 2012)

regent said:


> Perhaps Wilson, Reagan, FDR and others should have had exams and the results made public before the election. Imagine the ruckus in the political arena made of a physical abnormality. Would Congress pass such a law, or a president issue an executive order, perhaps a constitutional amendment?  Would Congress pass the same law regarding congressmen, generals admirals?
> I don't think FDR's physician even told FDR of his health, perhaps because FDR didn't want to hear it. In any case a touchy subject but it should give us cause to think.



Yeah but they only served two terms. Democrats ran a zombie for his 4th term and lied to Americans that he was healthy.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 26, 2012)

regent said:


> I don't think FDR's physician even told FDR of his health.






Link? Proof?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think FDR's physician even told FDR of his health.
> ...



What? Do you think FDR didn't know he was dying? Everybody else did. That's why they dumped Wallace and put a harmless little clothing store owner with a high school education on the ticket. FDR was sure to be re-elected if they could prop him up long enough and Truman was a controllable fool and that's what the the democrats wanted..


----------



## regent (Oct 27, 2012)

Well the people elected FDR for the fourth time, dying or not and it should tell us something about FDR, the people, and the times. Truman didn't seem too controllable by either party, and he is usually rated in the top ten presidents. But Truman did fire MacArthur and that put him on my high on my A list. It was one of the failings of FDR keeping big Mac.


----------



## gipper (Oct 29, 2012)

regent said:


> Well the people elected FDR for the fourth time, dying or not and it should tell us something about FDR, the people, and the times. Truman didn't seem too controllable by either party, and he is usually rated in the top ten presidents. But Truman did fire MacArthur and that put him on my high on my A list. It was one of the failings of FDR keeping big Mac.



FDR was one of the WORST....if not THE WORST.  

He actually has much in common with BO.  Both men are not statesmen, both know nothing of economics, both are not students of government or history.  But, both are wholly able in politics and in the art of getting votes.  

Below is a factual summary that depicts the true FDR....he was a major league scumbag and should be renounced by all Americans.  But Americans do not learn from history and continually fall for the lies of the slick politician.  



> 1) Roosevelt lied to the country regarding his intentions of entering the war.
> 
> 2) Roosevelt took great strides to get first Germany, and after failing this, Japan, to strike the first blow.
> 
> ...


----------



## regent (Oct 29, 2012)

All the charges you've made are well known by historians, they know the circumstances of each charge and the truth of each charge yet they still rate FDR number one. These are historians, not posters, not a few authors taking some opportunity to make a few bucks by coming up with some half baked charges that have little evidence to back them. 
As to the charges I read a few and dismissed them as the usual bunk. For example, if the Japanese wanted to surrender why didn't they lay down their arms and allow the Americans to enter Japan rather than be invaded with force. The Japanese had been offered terms, better than those given Germany before the bombs were dropped. 
Think of it this way suppose Germany had demanded no harm come to Hitler if they surrendered, Americans did not think of Hirohito as a God nor of Hitler as a God. Both had made war on the United States.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 29, 2012)

regent said:


> All the charges you've made are well known by historians, they know the circumstances of each charge and the truth of each charge yet they still rate FDR number one. .





reject is still clinging to a fallacy.


----------



## regent (Oct 29, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think FDR's physician even told FDR of his health.
> ...



No,no,no one does not ask for proof when one has qualified his remarks with "I think". My proof would be me, see how that works?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 29, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...






So your empty comments were based on absolutely nothing? Just baseless speculation? Yeah, that sounds about right.


Btw, "I think" does NOT cover such rank speculation.


----------



## gipper (Oct 30, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



No...he/she/it concludes that since many liberal historians rate the FOOL FDR highly, that must be correct.  So, the conclusion is not based on facts or the truth.  

Sadly many Americans have been brainwashed by the p-school indoctrination centers and they aren't capable of overcoming it.

No doubt liberal historians will rate BO highly some day and Regent will dutifully believe.


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

gipper said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Yep, if 238 noted historians and presidential experts are asked to rate Obama's presidency I will consider their evaluation more valid than mine or yours. 
If you disagree with the historians, I would suggest you send them your historical evidence pointing our their errors. In any case until they get your evidence, FDR is still rated by as number one, the greatest. But take heart, each time a new president is added to the ratings there is a slight shuffling, might want to check out where Bush ended up on his entry.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

Clinging to that fallacy sure is easier than thinking for yourself, huh bobblehead?


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Clinging to that fallacy sure is easier than thinking for yourself, huh bobblehead?



So now we enter into the insult phase, almost predictable, but I'll pass.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Clinging to that fallacy sure is easier than thinking for yourself, huh bobblehead?
> ...




We are still in the 'tell it like it is' phase. You don't want to think because you can't defend your position.


----------



## gipper (Oct 30, 2012)

Regent believing in something just because some believe it, is not smart.  You must think for yourself.  

Regarding FDR, the evidence is overwhelming that he was a fool and a traitor.  He did so many things that qualify for condemnation, but the interning American Japanese should qualify all by itself.  To say nothing of his economic policies that impoverish millions and prolonged the Great Depression, his efforts to pack the SC, his numerous deceptive activities, his persistent lies regarding keeping us out of WWII while doing all he could instigate war, seeking reelection while dying during America's greatest war, consistently doing Stalin's bidding, etc...............................................................


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

gipper said:


> Regent believing in something just because some believe it, is not smart.  You must think for yourself.
> 
> Regarding FDR, the evidence is overwhelming that he was a fool and a traitor.  He did so many things that qualify for condemnation, but the interning American Japanese should qualify all by itself.  To say nothing of his economic policies that impoverish millions and prolonged the Great Depression, his efforts to pack the SC, his numerous deceptive activities, his persistent lies regarding keeping us out of WWII while doing all he could instigate war, seeking reelection while dying during America's greatest war, consistently doing Stalin's bidding, etc...............................................................



I would suspect that FDR has been studied, analyzed, dissected and investigated as much any US president including Lincoln. There is little not known about him, or those about him, and it is all in the record, I even know what high school Harold Ickes attended. Yet with all that his known of his successes and his failures, historians and the people from his era still believe he was the greatest. I would suspect that any historian could make a good case, picking and choosing, that Lincoln was our worst president and people would accept it, I wouldn't. I think the historians are right on, FDR, Lincoln, Washington. 
Interring the Japanese was a small factor in the scale of WWII and the Depression. The Court ruled it legal and America apologized and paid a few bucks. Would we do the same today under similar circumstances, I think we might. Look how we treated the Japanese before Pearl, or how some see Muslims at this time, or even the McCarthy period. Fear is a great motivator.  
As for the prolonging of the Great Depression, do you have any idea of why FDR stopped the New Deal? There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today. FDR experimented and at times he was right and at times he was wrong, but he was trying.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> I would suspect that FDR has been studied, analyzed, dissected and investigated as much any US president including Lincoln. There is little not known about him, or those about him, and it is all in the record, I even know what high school Harold Ickes attended. Yet with all that his known of his successes and his failures, historians and the people from his era still believe he was the greatest. .




Can you defend the villian without resorting to logical fallacy? It doesn't seem you can.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> Interring the Japanese was a small factor in the scale of WWII and the Depression.




Throwing over 100,000 innocent, loyal Americans (including some of the best and bravest we've ever had) into concentration camps is a "small factor" to you? That's how far you're willing to go to play the apologist, you shameless fucking shill? You're a disgrace, and certainly NOT a real American.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> Would we do the same today under similar circumstances, I think we might.





No we wouldn't. Don't be stupid. Oops, too late.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today.




Thanks to the scumbag FDR we sure as hell know how to extend one.


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > There were no manuals, no textbooks on how to stop depressions, and there are still none today.
> ...



I'll give you the same question I posted earlier: why did FDR stop the New Deal? Here is your chance to exhibit some history.


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I would suspect that FDR has been studied, analyzed, dissected and investigated as much any US president including Lincoln. There is little not known about him, or those about him, and it is all in the record, I even know what high school Harold Ickes attended. Yet with all that his known of his successes and his failures, historians and the people from his era still believe he was the greatest. .
> ...



Usually one names the logicial fallacy, then location. So what is the fallacy and where located?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.


----------



## regent (Oct 30, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.



But is it a fallacy if the historians and presidential experts are in fact authorities? 

I would suspect that using posters on these boards as authorities would be closer to a fallacy. Some of the presidential ratings could certainly be subject to question, i.e. a Gallup or Rasmussen poll of the general public. The general republic has trouble naming more than ten or twelve presidents much less rating all 43. Many history teachers of the lower grades cannot name all 43 presidents much less rate them. The most valid is questioning noted historians or presidential experts.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 30, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > What a surprise that you don't know. Appeal to authority.
> ...





Not if you can't identify these nameless "experts" nor specify how their expertise applies specifically to the matter at hand. Appeal to an unnamed authority is itself a fallacy. Any bias on the part of a supposed expert undermines any authority. Most importantly, if you do not use an authority to bolster an argument but _instead_ of your own reasoning, such an appeal is not legitimate.


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



There were 238 presidential experts in the Siena College poll and you want me to name them so you can save face?  And what of the 2006 Siena poll with 744 professors, want those names too? 
Might want to check out the definition of authority again and at the same time check out the Ad Hominem fallacy. 
The Siena College poll of 238 noted historians and presidential experts I submit as  authorities.   
I still think the best defense against historical scholarship so far, is the usual  "historians are communists," it seems to get the best response.


----------



## gipper (Oct 31, 2012)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Regent believing in something just because some believe it, is not smart.  You must think for yourself.
> ...



Yes FDR has been studied extensively and when you look at the study OBJECTIVELY, you must conclude he was a fool, tyrant, and egotistical to a fault.

If he had been an R, liberals and Ds everywhere would still be condemning his name for imprisoning Japanese Americans.  But since he is a D, he gets a pass.  Don't you find this unusual?  It also points to the bias by historians who rate Stalin's Stooge highly.  Get it yet?  

There is a MYTH built up around FDR.  I went to the p-schools and was indoctrinated like everyone else.  I was told FDR was great...that he got us out of the Depression and saved America in WWII.  It was all bunk, yet this crap is still taught today.  

You have been duped like many Americans.

And you are NOT correct about the not knowing what to do in a Depression.  Do you think no nation had ever experienced a depression before the Great Depression?  There was much information available on how to deal with a depression all of which, the Fool FDR ignored much like BO has done.   FDR stopped the New Deal because it was a complete failure, just as BO's stimulus plan was a complete failure.  However he continued massive interventions in the private sector and spent like a drunken fool....though he did enrich his followers so they could give him campaign cash....just like BO.  

You have failed to learn from history, but you are far from being alone.


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

The method of handling a depression before Hoover was wait it out. But that raised the question, would the American people wait it out? America was getting restless, plans for new type of governments and economic systems were gaining supporters and even vets were making funny noises. Hoover acted: supress the veterans and help business, trickle-down. It did not help. FDR was elected with no plans, but to try to find a solution. Some things he did helped, some did not, some were found unconstitutional. Do we have a plan today that is guaranteed to cure a depression? Absolutely not. 
A couple of questions: Are all depressions the same?
Do all depressions have the same causes?
If there is a common cure for depressions what are they?
Have the cures been used a number of times and  over a period of time and proven to work?
Why did FDR end the New Deal? And what would be the significance of that move?
Are most economists agreed on causes and cures of depressions? 
If there is a tried and true method to cure depressions why didn't Bush use them at first inkling, or Hoover, or FDR or any of the world nations that have economic problems?
Is the solution that Romney suggests, the real tried and true solution? If so what is that solution?


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 31, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




If they remain unnamed, then you are committing the fallacy in question, particularly since you haven't even tried to defend your position beyond, "they said so!" Do you expect anyone to take the opinion of a radical leftist who happens to be an expert in Hittite pottery as the last word on the matter of FDR? Even you can't be that stupid.


----------



## whitehall (Oct 31, 2012)

Like it or not the media writes the history books. You can find the truth in the greatest Country in the world but you have to look for it. The liberal media created the FDR myth. His policies were so shockingly bad that it defies explanation but the media created the myth and that's what was taught to generations of kids. Elitist, well educated and rich, FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise to end the emerging recession and under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into a soup line depression known as the "great depression". FDR's foreign policy was a shambles. Hitler rose in power around the same time FDR was elected and the US virtually ignored the Nazi saber rattling. The incredible racism at the time led FDR to grossly (criminally?) underestimate the Japanese threat until they managed to sail across the Pacific undetected and attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. The liberal media kept the mess of the FDR administration afloat and he was elected to a 3rd and even a 4th term. FDR was so sick that the DNC hand picked a stupid little twerp senator that they could push around when they knew FDR would be elected and die within the first year of his 4th term.


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The authority is Siena College, it is their poll. Does Rasmussen put the names of the people that respond to its presidential polls on their results? If a poll of medical experts, the FDA, indicate a particular medicine is approved for use by the general public, is that deemed acceptable by rational people or do people need the names of the medical experts?
Siena College say their poll is valid and I and most people accept that as a valid poll. If you accept it or not that's your choice, but some of your life is based on the the concensus of experts and you don't even know their names. Might check out the definition of authority again.


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Like it or not the media writes the history books. You can find the truth in the greatest Country in the world but you have to look for it. The liberal media created the FDR myth. His policies were so shockingly bad that it defies explanation but the media created the myth and that's what was taught to generations of kids. Elitist, well educated and rich, FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise to end the emerging recession and under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into a soup line depression known as the "great depression". FDR's foreign policy was a shambles. Hitler rose in power around the same time FDR was elected and the US virtually ignored the Nazi saber rattling. The incredible racism at the time led FDR to grossly (criminally?) underestimate the Japanese threat until they managed to sail across the Pacific undetected and attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. The liberal media kept the mess of the FDR administration afloat and he was elected to a 3rd and even a 4th term. FDR was so sick that the DNC hand picked a stupid little twerp senator that they could push around when they knew FDR would be elected and die within the first year of his 4th term.



First the emerging depression you speak of, had been on the land for three plus years before FDR took office. That's not emerging. The soup lines were here long before FDR as were the apple sellers. In fact, Hoover lauded the apple sellers as new businessmen 
The history taught to students is written by historians not the general media. 
Hitler was not ignored but the depression took precedence, and as important, was the foreign nations changing their political and their economic systems. FDR was determined to keep our American political system and economic system intact. 
We have been surprised a number of times by our enemies, recently 9/11, and 1983 with the attack in Lebannon killing 241 American military and at Pearl Harbor. Even after the Pearl Harbor attack MacArthur knowing of Pearl Harbor lost his air force on the ground to the Japanese. And as MacArthur discovered Truman was not a twerp as he was sent home, fired.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 31, 2012)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Polls are not 'proof' of anything. They are the compilation and statistical analysis of opinions. If they are to be held up as anything more than that you must be qualified. The FDA does not present opinions as proof of anything. Medical 'facts' are based on scientific studies and the results of research.

Again we see that you cannot even try to defend your position without resorting to logical fallacy. Maybe that should tell you something about your position.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 31, 2012)

regent said:


> FDR was determined to keep our American political system and economic system intact.





Oh really? Is that why he devoted himself fully to changing them into something they had never been?


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Of course polls are not proof, only evidence. 
Medical facts are based on science, and it is that scientific approach that has been the best decider of what we think of as truths today. History is a social science and the goal of history is the truth. The truth may not be the goal of all historians but is of history-as a social science. 
In any case, I'll take a consensus of of 238 noted historians on a historical topic, as better evidence than 238 posters, just as I'd take a poll of 238 medical experts on a medical topic as better evidence than 238 poster's opinions.


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 31, 2012)

Again, you've got nothing but logical fallacy to defend your position.


----------



## regent (Oct 31, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Again, you've got nothing but logical fallacy to defend your position.



Well, if you want to narrow the topic of FDR down to a definition of argument by authority so be it. It might be in your best interests at that.  
One of my books, _Introduction to Logic_, by Irving M. Copi and Carl cohen defines the fallacy thus: "The fallacy Appeal to Inappropiate Authority arises when the appeal is made to parties that have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand." 
It seems that 238 historians of note and presidential experts just might have some legitimate claim to authority on an historical topic like past presidents. If you want the names of the 238 historians you might check on the Siena college poll of 2010 but it might take some red tape to get the names. Were I to obtain the names for you your next request would be for addresses, and then names of children and so on.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 1, 2012)

regent said:


> One of my books, _Introduction to Logic_, by Irving M. Copi and Carl cohen defines the fallacy thus: "The fallacy Appeal to Inappropiate Authority arises when the appeal is made to parties that have no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand."




If you had finished reading that chapter you would probably have come to 'Appeal to Unnamed Authority.' If you had gotten past the introductory course you might have come to understand that the fallacy ultimately rests upon substituting a referent for an argument.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 1, 2012)

regent said:


> If you want the names of the 238 historians you might check on the Siena college poll of 2010 but it might take some red tape to get the names. Were I to obtain the names for you your next request would be for addresses, and then names of children and so on.





This nonsense demonstrates why you can't even understand where you're going wrong here.


----------



## gipper (Nov 1, 2012)

regent said:


> The method of handling a depression before Hoover was wait it out. But that raised the question, would the American people wait it out? America was getting restless, plans for new type of governments and economic systems were gaining supporters and even vets were making funny noises. Hoover acted: supress the veterans and help business, trickle-down. It did not help. FDR was elected with no plans, but to try to find a solution. Some things he did helped, some did not, some were found unconstitutional. Do we have a plan today that is guaranteed to cure a depression? Absolutely not.
> A couple of questions: Are all depressions the same?
> Do all depressions have the same causes?
> If there is a common cure for depressions what are they?
> ...



Your knowledge of depressions is terribly lacking...just like FDR's and BO's.  You believe in things that are not so.

Ever heard of the Depression of 1920?  Of course you have not.  Here read this:


> The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery &#8212; at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920&#8211;1921, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.
> 
> The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover &#8212; falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics &#8212; urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.
> 
> ...



FDR was alive and kicking in 1920, but he also knew nothing about it.  FDR was a complete economic IDIOT, just like BO.  He knew nothing about the economy and surrounded himself with like minded fools.  His continued interventions in the economy only prolonged the depression.  Anyone knowledgeable knows government interventions ALWAYS prolong economic downturns.  

Citing Bush and Romney only proves your inability to comprehend what is going on.  Both men are not free market capitalists.  Both men are progressives who have and will use government FORCE to intervene in the economy just as FDR and BO have done.  

The solution is simple.  Free market capitalism, rule of law, and limited government....just as the actions of Harding and Coolidge PROVED.


----------



## gipper (Nov 1, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Like it or not the media writes the history books. You can find the truth in the greatest Country in the world but you have to look for it. The liberal media created the FDR myth. His policies were so shockingly bad that it defies explanation but the media created the myth and that's what was taught to generations of kids. Elitist, well educated and rich, FDR was elected in 1932 on a promise to end the emerging recession and under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into a soup line depression known as the "great depression". FDR's foreign policy was a shambles. Hitler rose in power around the same time FDR was elected and the US virtually ignored the Nazi saber rattling. The incredible racism at the time led FDR to grossly (criminally?) underestimate the Japanese threat until they managed to sail across the Pacific undetected and attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. The liberal media kept the mess of the FDR administration afloat and he was elected to a 3rd and even a 4th term. FDR was so sick that the DNC hand picked a stupid little twerp senator that they could push around when they knew FDR would be elected and die within the first year of his 4th term.



I agree with most of that, but regarding ignoring Hitler and the Japanese, I dispute your findings.  FDR desperately wanted war with Hitler and did all he could to instigate it with his naval actions in the N. Atlantic in 1940/1941 and his supplying the Brits with war material.  He pushed the Poles into confronting Hitler ultimately leading to Germany invading, which FDR knew about before it occurred and failed to warn anyone. He also instigated war with the Japanese by refusing to negotiate trade deals in the hopes the Japanese would attack.  

Much has been written about whether FDR knew the Japanese were going to hit Pearl Harbor before it occurred.  I believe he did and he purposely failed to warn our commanders.  He did this to force the American people to war and save his worthless political career.  

He was one demented disgusting pompous A-hole....much like most of our presidents including the current one.


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

Well Republicans should investigate the Pearl Harbor attack.


----------



## gipper (Nov 1, 2012)

regent said:


> Well Republicans should investigate the Pearl Harbor attack.



It is too bad when people develop their opinions based solely along party lines.  

The reality is BOTH parties suck and both will continue to do great damage, but many Americans are not capable of understanding this or the reasons why.


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Well Republicans should investigate the Pearl Harbor attack.
> ...



Pearl Harbor has been investigated at least ten times, perhaps more. One investigation was headed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and certainly investigations involved Republicans. What are the conclusions of these investigations?


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was determined to keep our American political system and economic system intact.
> ...



Of course, FDR made some changes to our economic and political system, it is the nature of presidents to make changes: Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft, Hoover and many other presidents if not all made changes to both our economic and political systems. But when FDR died we still had capitalism as our basic economic system.


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > The method of handling a depression before Hoover was wait it out. But that raised the question, would the American people wait it out? America was getting restless, plans for new type of governments and economic systems were gaining supporters and even vets were making funny noises. Hoover acted: supress the veterans and help business, trickle-down. It did not help. FDR was elected with no plans, but to try to find a solution. Some things he did helped, some did not, some were found unconstitutional. Do we have a plan today that is guaranteed to cure a depression? Absolutely not.
> ...



What is free market capitalism, when was it practiced in the United States?  
What nations in the world practice free market capitalism today?


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 1, 2012)

regent said:


> when FDR died we still had capitalism as our basic economic system.




Because he died before he could do more damage.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Nov 1, 2012)

FDR's former VP, Henry Wallace was FDR's compliment. He was a flaming liberal who called Russia's communism "the march to freedom" and he hoped to take America in that direction. And he touted that even after touring the slave camps of east Russia.

Truman was picked as the VP b/c he saved the country $15 billion in cutting war waste while he led the Truman Committee.

He brought credibility to a ticket and saved it from a loss. FDR did not like Truman at all though.


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> FDR's former VP, Henry Wallace was FDR's compliment. He was a flaming liberal who called Russia's communism "the march to freedom" and he hoped to take America in that direction. And he touted that even after touring the slave camps of east Russia.
> 
> Truman was picked as the VP b/c he saved the country $15 billion in cutting war waste while he led the Truman Committee.
> 
> He brought credibility to a ticket and saved it from a loss. FDR did not like Truman at all though.



Vice presidents are not picked because they are liked, they are picked to bring in votes.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 1, 2012)

You have to take in the whole pre-war context under the FDR administration. We did have a foreign policy during the depression even if it was a joke.  Hitler existed and America's ambassador to Berlin was relieved of duty when he made too much noise about Nazi atrocities including the beating of Americans in public for failing to perform the Hitler salute. The foreign policy regarding Japan was insane. After the US finally entered the war alongside England the Brits were shocked to find that America had no intelligence network. There was no espionage or counter espionage network existing in the US prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Hollywood went to work to create a fake image of the "FBI in War and Peace" but it was mostly a fictional account intended to justify the American negligence. When Wild Bill Donovan's amateur OSS started up it was up to Congress to decide which network would have charge of espionage and counter espionage during the War and amazingly it was Hoover's FBI that got the nod even though they had no idea of the intricacies of espionage. During the war a high ranking Nazi indicated his willingness to cooperate and the US threw the opportunity away and God knows how many other opportunities because Hoover was a cop and his motivation was arrest and trial. In the mean time the FDR administration showed it's profound ignorance and bigotry with the incarceration of American citizens based on the color of their skin and the slant of their eyes. The media supported the executive order to arrest innocent Americans and that's all it took to violate everything the US Constitution stood for.


----------



## regent (Nov 1, 2012)

So are you saying for all those years since the constititution was ratified America did without an espionage system until FDR created one? Pretty amazing.


----------



## gipper (Nov 2, 2012)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Yeah....you keep believing government investigations of the government.  The same government that continually lies to us, but you keep believin.

Is it any wonder governments from the beginning of time commit all kinds of fraud and suffering, when you have people willing to believe whatever they are told by that same government.

I suppose you believe the Warren Commission findings too.


----------



## gipper (Nov 2, 2012)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I assume you are an American.  So for you to ask such an absurd question, only proves how indoctrinated you are.

Free market capitalism was practiced in America for most of the 19th and early 20th century and it resulted in making America the richest, freest, and most innovative nation the world had ever seen.  This all changed when another scumbag POTUS took office....Woodrow Wilson.

Few nations have ever practiced free market capitalism and do you know why?  I am guessing you have no clue.  You might research how politicians and the elite operate.  They don't like free market capitalism. 

I do so enjoy educating you.  I hope some of it is sinking in, but I fear you are too far gone.


----------



## regent (Nov 2, 2012)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



The sad thing is I fail to see any education. A lot of words but nothing. 
One more time what is free market capitalism?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 2, 2012)

regent said:


> So are you saying for all those years since the constititution was ratified America did without an espionage system until FDR created one? Pretty amazing.



We had a better espionage system during the Revolution and the Civil War than we had in the 30's prior to WW2. A baseball player volunteered to go to Japan and look over their defenses but there was never an organized effort to actually spy on Japan. The FDR administration relied on out dated racial bigotry and assumed that the Japanese were near sighted little savages who had a balance problem and couldn't build a plane that would fly much less pilot one. German admiral Canaris offered information to the Allies but they refused him.


----------



## regent (Nov 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So are you saying for all those years since the constititution was ratified America did without an espionage system until FDR created one? Pretty amazing.
> ...



America also relied on Magic.


----------



## namvet (Nov 2, 2012)

gipper said:


> FDR was arguably our WORST president and we have endured many bad ones.
> 
> He did not tell the war criminal Truman about the a-bomb because he was a fool, egotist, in ill health, and considered Truman a dunce....even though he was also a dunce.
> 
> ...



Idiot


----------



## gipper (Nov 2, 2012)

namvet said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was arguably our WORST president and we have endured many bad ones.
> ...



Dumbass


----------



## whitehall (Nov 2, 2012)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Magic was a technological breakthrough but the Brits had a better code breaking system and they also had an espionage and counter-espionage operation. We had Hoover's G-men who never saw a spy in their lives and later in the war we had Wild Bill Donovan's amateurs in the fledgling OSS.


----------



## regent (Nov 2, 2012)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



We had a lot of problems, our tanks were inferior, Republican isolationists fought our preparedness, and if we prepared we were being led into war; the list is endless. We can cite Germany's mistakes, Russia's mistakes, Britain's mistakes but the bottom line is who won?

So who won?


----------

